25540 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1120 Vermont Avenue, Mail Stop 10, E. Federalism implications Washington, D.C. 20590. F. Compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Federal Railroad Administration FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: G. Effects on the Year 2000 computer Ronald Newman, Staff Director, Motive 49 CFR Parts 216, 223, 229, 231, 232, problem Power and Equipment Division, Office and 238 XI. List of Subjects of Safety Assurance and Compliance, [FRA Docket No. PCSS±1, Notice No. 5] FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, Mail Stop I. Introduction RIN 2130±AA95 25, Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone: Passenger railroads offer the traveling 202–493–6300); Daniel Alpert, Trial public one of the safest forms of Passenger Equipment Safety Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, transportation available. In the eight- Standards 1120 Vermont Avenue, Mail Stop 10, year period 1990–1997, there were 0.89 Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone: passenger fatalities for every billion AGENCY: Federal Railroad 202–493–6026); or Thomas Herrmann, miles of passenger transportation by Administration (FRA), Department of Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, rail. Nevertheless, collisions, Transportation (DOT). FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, Mail Stop derailments, and other such occurrences ACTION: Final rule. 10, Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone: continue to occur, often as a result of 202–493–6036). factors beyond the control of the SUMMARY: FRA is issuing comprehensive SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: passenger railroad. Further, the rail Federal safety standards for railroad passenger environment is rapidly passenger equipment. The purpose of Table of Contents for Supplementary changing. Worldwide, passenger these safety standards is to prevent Information equipment operating speeds are collisions, derailments, and other I. Introduction increasing. Passenger trainsets designed occurrences involving railroad II. Statutory Background to European safety standards have been passenger equipment that cause injury III. Passenger Equipment Safety Standards proposed for operation in the United or death to railroad employees, railroad Working Group States-and a few are in operation. passengers, or the general public; and to IV. Proceedings to Date Overall, these trainsets do not meet the mitigate the consequences of any such V. Discussion of Specific Comments and structural standards that are common Conclusions occurrences, to the extent they cannot for passenger equipment operating in be prevented. The final rule promotes A. Application of the final rule to rapid transit operations and ‘‘light rail’’ the United States. FRA believes that passenger train safety through adherence to such common standards requirements for railroad passenger B. Static end strength requirement: application to existing equipment by the nation’s passenger railroads has equipment design and performance; fire C. United States international treaty in large measure contributed to the high safety; emergency systems; the obligations level of safety at which rail passenger inspection, testing, and maintenance of D. Non-conventional passenger equipment service is currently provided in the passenger equipment; and other E. System safety United States. However, these standards provisions for the safe operation of F. Side exit doors on passenger cars generally do not have the force of law. G. Fuel tank standards railroad passenger equipment. The final Effective Federal safety standards for rule addresses passenger train safety in H. Train interior safety I. Fire safety freight equipment have long been in an environment where technology is place, but equivalent Federal safety advancing and equipment is being VI. Inspection and Testing of Brake Systems and Mechanical Components standards for passenger equipment have designed for operation at higher speeds. A. Background prior to 1997 NPRM not existed. Further, the Association of The final rule amends existing B. 1997 NPRM on Passenger Equipment American Railroads (AAR) currently regulations concerning special notice for Safety Standards sets industry standards for the design repairs, safety glazing, locomotive 1. Proposed brake system inspections and maintenance of freight equipment safety, safety appliances, and railroad 2. Proposed mechanical inspections that add materially to the safe operation 3. Proposed qualification of inspection and power brakes as applied to passenger of such equipment. However, over the equipment. testing personnel C. Overview of comments relating to years, the AAR has discontinued the The final rule does not apply to development and maintenance of tourist and historic railroad operations. proposed inspection and testing requirements industry standards for railroad However, after consulting with the D. General FRA conclusions passenger equipment. excursion railroad associations to 1. Brake and mechanical inspections FRA must necessarily be vigilant in determine appropriate applicability in 2. Qualified maintenance person ensuring that passenger trains continue light of financial, operational, or other 3. Long-distance intercity passenger trains to be designed, built, and operated with factors unique to such operations, FRA VII. Movement of Defective Equipment a high level of safety. In general, the A. Background may prescribe requirements for these railroad operating environment in the operations that are similar to or different B. Overview of 1997 NPRM C. Discussion of comments on the 1997 United States requires passenger from those affecting other types of equipment to operate commingled with passenger operations. NPRM and general FRA conclusions 1. Movement of equipment with defective very heavy and long freight trains, often DATES: This regulation is effective July brakes over track with frequent grade crossings 12, 1999. The incorporation by reference 2. Movement of equipment with other than used by heavy highway equipment. of certain publications listed in the rule power brake defects European passenger operations, on the is approved by the Director of the VIII. FRA’s Passenger Train Safety Initiatives other hand, are intermingled with Federal Register as of July 12, 1999. IX. Section-by-Section Analysis freight equipment of lesser weight than X. Regulatory Impact ADDRESSES: Any petition for A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT in North America. In many cases, reconsideration should reference FRA regulatory policies and procedures highway-rail grade crossings also pose Docket No. PCSS–1, Notice No. 5, and B. Regulatory Flexibility Act lesser hazards to passenger trains in be submitted in triplicate to the Docket C. Paperwork Reduction Act Europe due to lower highway vehicle Clerk, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, D. Environmental impact weight. FRA is concerned with the level

VerDate 06-MAY-99 17:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25541 of safety provided by passenger prescribe initial regulations under subsection Railway Progress Institute (RPI) equipment designed to European and (a) within 3 years after the date of enactment Safe Travel America (STA) other international standards when such of the Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Transportation Workers Union of equipment is operated in the United Act of 1994. The initial regulations may America (TWU) exempt equipment used by tourist, historic, States. United Transportation Union (UTU), scenic, and excursion railroad carriers to and A clear set of Federal safety standards transport passengers. for railroad passenger equipment is Washington State Department of (2) The Secretary shall prescribe final Transportation (WDOT) needed that is tailored to the nation’s regulations under subsection operating environment in order to (a) within 5 years after such date of The Working Group is chaired by provide for the safety of rail operations enactment. FRA, and supported by FRA program, in the United States and to facilitate (c) PERSONNEL.—The Secretary may legal, and research staff, including sound planning for these operations. In establish within the Department of technical personnel from the Volpe furtherance of this safety objective, FRA Transportation 2 additional full-time National Transportation Systems Center is pleased by the American Public equivalent positions beyond the number (Volpe Center) of the Research and permitted under existing law to assist with Transit Association’s (APTA) initiative Special Programs Administration of the drafting, prescribing, and implementation DOT. FRA has included vendor to continue the development and of regulations under this section. maintenance of voluntary industry (d) CONSULTATION.—In prescribing representatives designated by RPI as standards for the safety of railroad regulations, issuing orders, and making associate members of the Working passenger equipment. These standards amendments under this section, the Secretary Group. FRA has also included the will complement FRA’s safety standards may consult with Amtrak, public authorities AAPRCO as an associate Working Group and, thus, will work together to provide operating railroad passenger service, other member. The National Transportation an even higher level of safety for rail railroad carriers transporting passengers, Safety Board (NTSB) has designated passengers, rail employees, and the organizations of passengers, and staff members to advise the Working organizations of employees. A consultation is public as a whole. Group. not subject to the Federal Advisory In developing proposed safety II. Statutory Background Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), but minutes standards for passenger equipment of the consultation shall be placed in the operating at speeds greater than 125 In September, 1994, the Secretary of public docket of the regulatory proceeding. Transportation convened a meeting of mph but not exceeding 150 mph, FRA representatives from all sectors of the The Secretary of Transportation has formed a subgroup (the ‘‘Tier II rail industry with the goal of enhancing delegated these rulemaking Equipment Subgroup’’) of Working rail safety. As one of the initiatives responsibilities to the Federal Railroad Group members representing interests arising from this Rail Safety Summit, Administrator. 49 CFR 1.49(m). associated with the provision of rail the Secretary announced that DOT III. Passenger Equipment Safety passenger service at such high speeds. would begin developing safety Standards Working Group The full Working Group recommended standards for rail passenger equipment the formation of a smaller subgroup to Consistent with the intent of Congress over a five-year period. In November, consider Tier II passenger equipment that FRA consult with the railroad 1994, Congress adopted the Secretary’s standards, as a number of Working industry in prescribing these schedule for implementing rail Group members found the operation of regulations, FRA invited various passenger equipment regulations and high-speed passenger equipment to be organizations to participate in a working included it in the Federal Railroad outside their immediate interest and group to focus on the issues related to Safety Authorization Act of 1994 (the expertise. FRA invited representatives railroad passenger equipment safety and Act), Pub. L. No. 103–440, 108 Stat. from organizations including Amtrak, assist FRA in developing Federal safety 4619, 4623–4624 (November 2, 1994). the BLE, BRC, RPI, and UTU to standards. The Passenger Equipment Section 215 of the Act, as now codified participate in developing the Tier II Safety Standards Working Group (or the at 49 U.S.C. 20133, requires: standards. ‘‘Working Group’’) first met on June 7, In accordance with 49 U.S.C. (a) MINIMUM STANDARDS.—The 1995, and has assisted FRA throughout 20133(d), the evolving positions of the Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe the rulemaking process. Since its initial regulations establishing minimum standards Working Group members—as reflected for the safety of cars used by railroad carriers meeting, the Working Group has in the minutes of the group’s meetings to transport passengers. Before prescribing evolved so that its membership includes and associated documentation, together such regulations, the Secretary shall representatives from the following with data provided by the members consider— organizations: during their deliberations—have been (1) the crashworthiness of the cars; American Association of Private placed in the public docket of this (2) interior features (including luggage Railroad Car Owners, Inc. (AAPRCO) rulemaking. restraints, seat belts, and exposed surfaces) American Association of State Highway that may affect passenger safety; IV. Proceedings to Date (3) maintenance and inspection of the cars; and Transportation Officials (4) emergency response procedures and (AASHTO) On June 17, 1996, FRA published an equipment; and APTA Advance Notice of Proposed (5) any operating rules and conditions that AAR Rulemaking (ANPRM) concerning the directly affect safety not otherwise governed Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers establishment of comprehensive safety by regulations. (BLE) standards for railroad passenger The Secretary may make applicable some or Brotherhood Railway Carmen (BRC) equipment (61 FR 30672). The ANPRM all of the standards established under this FRA provided background information on subsection to cars existing at the time the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) of the need for such standards, offered regulations are prescribed, as well as to new DOT preliminary ideas on approaching cars, and the Secretary shall explain in the rulemaking document the basis for making National Railroad Passenger Corporation passenger safety issues, and presented such standards applicable to existing cars. (Amtrak) questions on various topics including: (b) INITIAL AND FINAL National Association of Railroad system safety programs and plans; REGULATIONS.—(1) The Secretary shall Passengers (NARP) passenger equipment crashworthiness;

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25542 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations inspection, testing, and maintenance Appliance Standards), and 232 1997. A smaller body of the Working requirements; training and qualification (Railroad Power Brakes and Drawbars). Group met again on January 6, 1998, to requirements for mechanical personnel 62 FR 49728. The proposed part 238 set discuss in particular high-speed and train crews; excursion, tourist, and forth comprehensive Federal safety passenger equipment safety issues, as private equipment; commuter standards for the safety of railroad well as brake inspection, testing and equipment and operations; train make- passenger equipment, including maintenance issues for long-distance up and operating speed; tiered safety equipment design and performance intercity passenger trains. Minutes of standards; fire safety; and operating standards for passenger and crew these meetings, including copies of the practices and procedures. survivability in the event of a passenger discussion documents circulated at the FRA’s commitment to developing train accident, as well as inspection, meetings, are available in the public proposed regulations through the testing, and maintenance standards for docket of the rulemaking. See 63 FR Working Group necessarily influenced passenger equipment. 28496; May 26, 1998. FRA received one the role and purpose of the ANPRM. The 1997 NPRM generated written set of written comments on the minutes FRA specifically asked that members of comments from 34 separate parties, and of the meetings, which FRA had the Working Group not respond all of these comments may be found in prepared, and these comments are also formally to the ANPRM. The issues and the public docket of the rulemaking. available in the same docket. ideas presented in the ANPRM had The written comments included a already been placed before the Working request by the New York Department of V. Discussion of Specific Comments and Group, and the Working Group had Transportation (NYDOT) to extend the Conclusions commented on drafts of the ANPRM. As comment period for 90 days. The A. Application of the Final Rule to a result, FRA solicited the submission of NYDOT sought this additional time to Rapid Transit Operations and ‘‘Light written comments that might be of more thoroughly review the proposed Rail’’ assistance in developing a proposed rule rule, and secure expert testimony and from interested persons not involved in empirical data on the proposed rule’s In the 1997 NPRM, FRA proposed the Working Group’s deliberations. possible impact on the high-speed applying the rule to rapid transit FRA received 12 comments in intercity rail passenger program in the operations in an urban area, unless response to the ANPRM. These State of New York. FRA did not grant those operations are not connected with comments were shared with the the request, however, particularly the general system of railroad Working Group and were taken into because FRA had planned to convene transportation. In other words, FRA consideration by the members of the the Working Group in the interim and made clear that its rule would apply to group as they advised FRA during the needed to assemble the comments on rapid transit operations over the general development of a Notice of Proposed the rule for discussion within the system. The Utah Transit Authority Rulemaking (NPRM). The Working Working Group. FRA asked the NYDOT (UTA), in commenting on the NPRM, Group worked intensively, and to submit its comments by the close of expressed concern with the inclusion of concluded with a meeting in the comment period on November 24, rapid transit operations, including light Philadelphia on September 30-October 1997, and it did so. FRA did explain to rail transit, in the proposed rule. The 2, 1996. Working Group members the NYDOT that it would consider UTA stated that the rule provided no agreed to the preparation of a NPRM comments submitted after the formal definition of what is meant by the reflecting partial consensus on a number close of the comment period to the phrase ‘‘not connected with the general of the issues in the rulemaking. extent possible without incurring railroad system of transportation.’’ As a However, the industry parties were additional expense or delay in issuing result, the UTA requested that the final unable to agree on any option with the final rule, and FRA has done so. rule provide such a definition. Further, respect to inspection requirements for FRA held a public hearing on the the UTA requested that any such power brakes or daily inspection of proposed rule in Washington, D.C. on definition take into account rail equipment. Further, one labor November 21, 1997, at which nine operations that are time-separated or organization later advised FRA that it parties submitted oral comments. These physically separated (using derails and could not participate in a consensus on parties consisted of: APTA; the BRC; the electric locks), or both, so that under less than the full range of issues in the BLE; Amtrak; Renfe Talgo of America, such circumstances rapid transit rulemaking. Inc. (Talgo); WDOT; NARP; the systems would not be considered FRA prepared in draft an NPRM and Omniglow Corporation; and The connected with the general railroad shared it with the Working Group Institute of Electrical and Electronics system of transportation and, therefore, members on March 19, 1997. The NPRM Engineers, Inc. (IEEE). A copy of the be excluded from the rule. was then enriched with discussions of transcript of this hearing is available in In response to the 1997 NPRM, New issues and options reflecting concerns of the public docket of this rulemaking. Jersey Transit (NJT) commented that by Working Group members in response to As noted earlier, FRA convened the permitting FRA to rule on whether a the draft, and some changes were Passenger Equipment Safety Standards transit agency may operate light rail incorporated into the proposed rule. Working Group following the close of service over a freight right-of-way, On September 23, 1997, FRA the comment period to consider the FRA’s jurisdiction would be expanded published the NPRM (1997 NPRM) in comments received in response to the in conflict with FTA’s mandate in 49 the Federal Register to add a new part, 1997 NPRM and help develop the final C.F.R. part 659. NJT explained that the 49 CFR part 238 (Passenger Equipment rule. This continued the consultative Intermodal Surface Transportation Safety Standards), and to amend 49 CFR process FRA has used throughout the Efficiency Act of 1991, Public Law 102– parts 216 (Special Notice and rulemaking. Notice of the Working 240, and 49 C.F.R. part 659 promulgated Emergency Order Procedures: Railroad Group meetings was available through in its pursuance, required states to Track, Locomotive and Equipment), 223 the FRA Docket Clerk, as stated in the designate an agency of the state, other (Safety Glazing Standards— NPRM, see 62 FR 49729, and the than a transit agency, to oversee and Locomotives, Passenger Cars and meetings were open to the public. implement requirements concerning all Cabooses), 229 (Railroad Locomotive The Working Group met in full in fixed-guideway systems not under Safety Standards), 231 (Railroad Safety Washington, D.C., on December 15–16, FRA’s jurisdiction.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25543

The safety jurisdictions of FRA and FRA’s jurisdiction whether or not they general system for a portion of its length FTA are mutually exclusive. FTA’s are connected to the general railroad but has significant portions of street regulatory authority to issue regulations system. For operations on or over the railway that are not part of the general creating a state safety oversight program general system, the commuter/rapid system would be subject to FRA’s rules applies only to ‘‘rail fixed guideway transit distinction has no jurisdictional only with respect to the general system mass transportation systems not subject relevance—all general system portion. The remaining portions would to regulation by the Federal Railroad operations are within FRA’s exercise of not be subject to FRA’s rules. If the non- Administration.’’ 49 U.S.C. 5330(a). jurisdiction. Because the only urban general system portions of the rapid Consistent with DOT Secretary of rapid transit operations that FRA transit line are considered a ‘‘rail fixed Transportation Rodney Slater’s concept intends to cover under this rule are guideway system’’ under 49 CFR part of One-DOT and the need to assure those on the general system, there is no 659, those rules, issued by FTA, would seamless application of intermodal need to expand on the commuter/rapid apply to them. transportation policies, FRA and FTA transit distinction here. As discussed above, it is the nature are jointly developing a proposed policy • Rapid transit operations in an urban and location of the railroad operation, statement outlining the scope of FRA’s area that are not connected to the not the nature of the equipment, that jurisdiction over ‘‘light rail’’ operations general railroad system are not within determines whether FRA has that share the use of rights-of-way with FRA’s jurisdiction. This is the sole jurisdiction under the safety statutes. conventional railroads. As discussed exception to FRA’s jurisdiction over all Light rail operations that operate on the later in this document, the two agencies railroads. There is no exception for general system are always within that will be soliciting input from rail ‘‘light rail,’’ a term not found in the statutory jurisdiction. They are not operators and other interested entities statute. Although FRA could assert within the sole statutory exception during the development of this policy jurisdiction over a rapid transit (urban rapid transit not connected to the statement. operation based on any connection it general system) so they are railroads FRA’s safety jurisdiction is very broad has to the general railroad system, FRA under the safety statutes. The greatest and extends to all types of railroads believes there are certain connections risk inherent in the shared use of the except for urban rapid transit operations that are too minimal to warrant the trackage is a collision between the light not connected to the general railroad exercise of its jurisdiction. For example, rail equipment and conventional system. The term ‘‘railroad’’ is defined a rapid transit system that has a switch equipment. The light rail vehicles are by statute as follows: for receiving shipments from the general not designed to withstand such a system railroad is not one over which collision with far heavier equipment. In this part— FRA would assert jurisdiction. This Were such a crash to occur with either (1) ‘‘railroad’’— (A) Means any form of nonhighway ground assumes that the switch is used only for or both equipment operating at high transportation that runs on rails or that purpose. In that case, any entry speeds, the consequences for passengers electromagnetic guideways, including— onto the rapid transit line by the freight in the light rail vehicle(s) would likely (i) Commuter or other short-haul railroad railroad would be for a very short be catastrophic. passenger service in a metropolitan or distance and solely for the purpose of In the past, FRA has withheld suburban area and commuter railroad service dropping off or picking up cars. In this exercise of its jurisdiction with respect that was operated by the Consolidated Rail situation, the rapid transit line is in the to light rail operations over general Corporation on January 1, 1979; and same situation as any shipper or system trackage where there was full (ii) High speed ground transportation systems that connect metropolitan areas, consignee; without this sort of time separation (freight operations without regard to whether those systems use connection, it cannot receive goods by limited to nighttime hours). The recent new technologies not associated with rail. Absent a change in policy, FRA proliferation of proposals for light rail traditional railroads; but will not attempt to apply this rule to operations on the general system and (B) does not include rapid transit rapid transit systems with these sorts of the issuance of this final rule operations in an urban area that are not connections. However, if such a system establishing the first comprehensive connected to the general railroad system of is properly considered a rail fixed Federal standards for railroad passenger transportation. guideway system, FTA’s rules (49 CFR equipment call for changing this 49 U.S.C. 20102. 659) will apply to it. approach. Moreover, recent The statutory definition of the term • Rapid transit operations in an urban developments have indicated that FRA’s ‘‘railroad’’ makes certain elements of area that are connected to the general current approach assumes a degree of FRA’s safety jurisdiction quite clear: railroad system of transportation are separation that is unlikely to be • FRA, with one exception, has within FRA’s jurisdiction. FRA will maintained over time. Proposals for jurisdiction over all railroads regardless assert jurisdiction over a rapid transit limited overlap, deadhead movement of of the type of equipment they use, their operation that is conducted on or over transit equipment, etc., have connection to the general railroad the general system. It does not matter demonstrated the complexity of using system of transportation, or their status that the rapid transit operation occupies common trackage for disparate as a common carrier engaged in the track only at times when the freight, purposes. Accordingly, FRA has asked interstate commerce. FRA will, for commuter, or intercity passenger that new transit starts that propose example, assert jurisdiction over high- railroad that shares the track is not using the general rail system trackage speed intercity rail service even if operating. While such time separation submit appropriate waiver applications completely separated from the general could, as explained in the 1997 NPRM, to FRA; such applications should be railroad system that now exists and provide the basis for waiver of certain submitted as early as possible. As magnetic levitation systems that are not of FRA’s rules, it does not mean that previously noted, FTA and FRA are urban rapid transit. FRA will not assert jurisdiction. working toward the development of a • Commuter and other short-haul However, FRA will assert jurisdiction joint policy statement on the railroad passenger operations in a over only the portions of the rapid appropriate scope of FRA’s jurisdiction metropolitan or suburban area (except transit system that are conducted on the over ‘‘light rail’’ that shares rights-of- for one type of short-haul operation, i.e., general system. For example, a rapid way with conventional railroads. The urban rapid transit) are railroads within transit line that operates over the agencies foresee an approach intended

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25544 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations to dovetail FRA’s safety regulations with concerns with the application of this regulation’s immediate application of the FTA state safety oversight program section-whether the date were January broad structural design changes. Citing where that is appropriate and FTA 1, 1998, or later-since FRA proposed to discussions within the Working Group jurisdiction is applicable. The agencies apply the static end strength and the comments of other parties, would work together to ensure requirement to existing passenger Talgo asserted that other passenger coordination of decision making. Before equipment. equipment manufacturers and operators general implementation, the policy APTA recommended, in its comments likewise assumed that modifications in statement will be discussed with the on the rule, that FRA modify the basic structural standards would be affected communities of interest and proposal so that the requirement apply applicable only to equipment purchased may be published (together with any on or after the effective date of the final after January 1, 1999, or placed in needed regulatory amendments) for rule to passenger equipment placed in service after January 1, 2001, and that formal comment in the Federal Register. service for the first time. APTA stated much existing passenger equipment At the same time this joint policy is that the AEM–7 locomotive and the RTG operating in the United States would be issued, FRA plans to issue a separate model turbo train could not meet the unable to comply with the structural proposed statement of policy that, requirement as proposed. APTA requirements scheduled for early among other things, will provide estimated that the purchase of implementation. Talgo also stated that guidance on how light rail operators replacement equipment could take up to FRA did not properly identify the may seek waivers of FRA’s rules. In the four years and would cost more than economic impact of its proposal on interim, the policy expressed in this $500 million. Talgo equipment. Talgo requested that preamble will guide FRA’s actions with Amtrak commented that the proposed FRA modify the rule so that the static respect to this rule (subject to an requirement to have buff loading apply end strength requirement and other appropriate period of consultation and to the existing rail fleet is not justified structural requirements apply only to adjustment with respect to the two time- based on the industry’s experience. passenger equipment ordered on or after separated shared use projects currently Amtrak did agree that, in order to move January 1, 1999, or placed in service for in operation). the industry forward on crash energy the first time on or after January 1, 2001. FRA does, however, recognize that management, new equipment must be The WDOT commented that FRA’s lower speed rail operations that do not built to a uniform strength standard. proposal appeared to be directly operate over highway-rail grade Amtrak stated that it currently operates targeted at the State of Washington and crossings and that totally preclude the AEM–7 locomotives that do not meet Amtrak’s purchase of Talgo trains under sharing of trackage between light rail the proposed requirement. In addition, manufacture. WDOT stated that equipment and conventional equipment Amtrak was not sure it had available the imposition of the proposal in the middle provide an operating environment that appropriate technical information on of the construction process, without does not require the structural standards whether its fleet of Heritage equipment ‘‘grandfathering,’’ appeared to reveal an needed for commingled passenger and conformed to the proposal. At the effort to make its Talgo equipment non- freight operations. Accordingly, the public hearing, though, Amtrak did compliant. WDOT recommended that final rule (in § 238.201) provides that explain that it had no evidence that its the rule be modified so that the static passenger equipment, including fleet of passenger cars did not comply end strength provision only apply to locomotives, are not subject to the with the proposal. (See transcript of passenger equipment ordered after structural requirements of the rule if public hearing, pages 173–174). January 1, 1999. The NARP, in its they are used exclusively on a rail line The Northeast Illinois Regional comments on the proposed rule, shared (A) with no public highway-rail grade Commuter Railroad Corporation (Metra), WDOT’s opposition to imposing the crossings, (B) on which no freight in its comments on the rule, static end strength requirement on operations occur at any time, (C) on recommended that the static end existing passenger equipment, and it which only passenger equipment of strength provision apply only to new recommended instead applying the compatible design is utilized, and (D) on passenger equipment orders placed on requirement under a time-table similar which trains operate at speeds no higher or after January 1, 1998. Metra to that proposed generally for structural than 79 mph. FRA will discuss with the explained that it was awaiting delivery requirements—i.e., ordered on or after Working Group in Phase II of the of cars under construction, that some of January 1, 1999, or placed in service for rulemaking what structural standards the cars may be built after January 1, the first time on or after January 1, 2001. are appropriate for such operations. 1998, and that a change order would The NARP believed that the proposal cause a series of problems. could cancel WDOT’s rail passenger B. Static End Sstrength Requirement: In commenting on the 1997 NPRM, program and thereby lead to countless, Application to Existing Equipment Talgo expressed concern that FRA unnecessary highway deaths involving In § 238.203 of the 1997 NPRM, FRA proposed applying the static end people that otherwise would have been generally proposed that on or after strength requirement to existing on a WDOT passenger train. January 1, 1998, all passenger passenger equipment in service on or In commenting on the 1997 NPRM, equipment shall be required to have a after January 1, 1998. Talgo stated that the State of Vermont Agency of minimum static end strength (or ‘‘buff’’ this proposal would render unusable its Transportation (VAOT) explained that it or ‘‘compressive’’ strength) of 800,000 two trainsets then in service on lease to was in the process of implementing new pounds. As some commenters the WDOT. Additionally, Talgo passenger rail service with used rail recognized, FRA intended the date of explained that it was well underway in diesel cars manufactured by Budd. The January 1, 1998, to represent the manufacturing five new trainsets—two cars were originally built to meet the effective date of the final rule. Yet, in for the WDOT, one for Amtrak, and two AAR buff strength requirement, light of the actual publication date of others for future sale in the U.S. according to the VAOT, but it could not the 1997 NPRM, the date of January 1, market—that would likewise be assure that the vehicles meet the 1998, appeared anachronistic, and FRA rendered unusable in their current form. standards today. The VAOT requested should have modified the NPRM to Talgo stated that neither it nor any other that the Budd cars be grandfathered make its intent more explicit. A number manufacturer of rail equipment could because they were manufactured to of commenters nonetheless raised have anticipated the proposed AAR standards, built prior to April 1,

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25545

1956, and have a proven service record. grade crossings used by heavy highway equipment can be used on another rail The VAOT believed it fair for the equipment. FRA has serious concerns line, a railroad must first file and secure rulemaking to grandfather these cars as about the operation in such an approval of a grandfathering petition for being compliant at the time ordered by environment of passenger equipment such usage. See discussion under VAOT. Similarly, the NYDOT not possessing a minimum buff strength § 238.203 for the contents of the petition recommended in its comments on the of 800,000 pounds. As a result, and in and the approval process. FRA will proposed rule that the structural response to Talgo’s and WDOT’s approve a petition for ‘‘grandfathering’’ requirements apply only to new comments on this rule, FRA cannot if it complies with the requirements of equipment, citing its intent to operate avoid directly addressing the current § 238.203 and the proposed usage of the rebuilt turboliner equipment in the operation in the United States of the equipment is in the public interest and Empire Corridor through a cooperative passenger trainsets manufactured by consistent with railroad safety. Amtrak effort with FRA and Amtrak. Further, Talgo unless FRA disregards its duty to and WDOT may file petitions for the North Carolina Department of provide for the safety of rail passenger grandfathering approval of their Talgo- Transportation (NCDOT) expressed transportation. Since FRA has raised the manufactured passenger equipment, in concern in its comments on the issue of compressive strength on accordance with the requirements of proposed rule that the rulemaking passenger equipment with all affected § 238.203. would require its fleet of rebuilt parties since well before the inception C. United States International Treaty passenger, food service and specialty of this rulemaking, it would strain Obligations cars to undergo additional renovations credulity to assert that a requirement for and retrofitting to comply with the rule. 800,000 pounds of compressive strength The United States is a party to the NCDOT commented that its trainsets could truly be a matter of surprise in a General Agreement on Tarriffs and were designed to meet the passenger rulemaking on railroad passenger Trade (GATT). One of the GATT equipment safety standards in effect at equipment safety. agreements is the Agreement on the time of their order, and that the Making the 800,000-pound Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), proposed regulation has the potential to compressive strength requirement originally concluded in 1979 and thwart its rail passenger initiative. applicable to existing passenger approved by the United States Congress In the final rule, FRA is retaining the equipment creates a bright line that will in the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, 800,000-pound static end strength help bring needed clarity to the growing Pub. L. No. 96–39 (July 26, 1979). A new requirement for most new and existing number of situations where light rail TBT Agreement was reached as a result passenger equipment. However, the equipment is likely to be used on the of the 1994 Uruguay Round of GATT final rule does provide that the static general railroad system of multinational trade negotiations, and end strength standard and other transportation. Operation on the general subsequently approved by the United structural standards do not apply to system of this equipment, which is built States Congress in the Uruguay Round equipment used exclusively on a rail to standards far lower than the 800,000- Agreements Act, Pub. L. No. 103–465 line (A) with no public highway-rail pound standard specified in this rule, (December 8, 1994). The TBT grade crossings, (B) on which no freight presents enormous safety risks to the Agreement seeks to avoid creating operations occur at any time, (C) on occupants of the equipment, absent unnecessary obstacles to trade, while which only passenger equipment of imposition of strict conditions designed recognizing the right of signatory compatible design is utilized, and (D) on to virtually eliminate the risk of a light countries to establish and maintain which trains operate at speeds no higher rail/conventional equipment collision. technical regulations for the protection than 79 mph. See § 238.201. The need to address these risks as a of human, animal, and plant life or Furthermore, the final rule creates a condition of operation will be made health. The TBT Agreement has been presumption that passenger equipment perfectly clear by imposition of the buff codified into law at 19 U.S.C. 2531 et in service in the United States as of the strength requirement across the board. seq. effective date of the final rule meets the Light rail operators will have to seek a In commenting on the NPRM, Talgo 800,000-pound static end strength waiver of the requirement and will have believed that a number of the proposed requirement, unless the railroad to plan their operations in such a way structural standards were inconsistent operating the equipment knows, or FRA as to maximize the likelihood of with the TBT Agreement in that can show, that the equipment was not obtaining such a waiver. (A petition for domestic industry would be favored by built to this 800,000-pound strength grandfathering approval of the adopting the de facto standards of North requirement. See § 238.203(b). Under equipment could also be filed in certain American passenger equipment. Talgo this formulation, for example, Amtrak’s cases, as discussed below.) stated that many requirements in the fleet of Heritage passenger cars are In regulating the use of passenger proposed rule seem to have been presumed to comply with the static end equipment not possessing a minimum developed exclusively with strength requirement on the basis of buff strength of 800,000 pounds as domestically-manufactured equipment Amtrak’s testimony at the public specified in this final rule, the rule in mind, ‘‘arbitrarily making compliance hearing on the NPRM. permits non-compliant passenger with the rules by other, non-U.S. FRA has decided that it is in the best equipment to be continued in service for manufactured equipment—such as interest of safety to apply the buff a six-month period following Talgo equipment—extremely difficult.’’ strength requirement to existing publication of the rule in order to Talgo also asserted that domestic passenger equipment and effectively permit the filing of a grandfathering industry would be favored under the regulate the use of passenger equipment petition with FRA; if a petition is filed implementation schedule of the rule by not possessing at least 800,000 pounds within this six-month period, operation noting FRA’s statements in the NPRM of buff strength as specified in this rule. may continue for up to an additional six that several of the proposed structural As noted, the operating environment in months while the petition is being requirements chosen for early the United States requires railroad processed. Grandfathering approval of implementation reflect the current passenger equipment to operate non-compliant equipment is limited to construction practice for North commingled with heavy and long freight usage of the equipment on a particular American passenger equipment. Talgo trains, often over track with frequent rail line or lines. Before grandfathered contended that the implementation

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25546 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations schedule disregards that, solely because America in distinction to passenger State of Washington. These trains are imported equipment has been designed equipment manufactured elsewhere. intended to be pulled by a conventional differently, it cannot satisfy the Talgo also commented that, to a locomotive and have unoccupied units requirements at once. significant extent, the proposed at the front and rear of the trainsets FRA believes that this final rule is requirements were design-based and which are available to absorb initial consistent with the United States’ phrased in a number of places in crash energy. Talgo contends that this obligations under the TBT Agreement, variables dependent on design rather configuration provides equivalent and that Talgo’s concerns arise, in part, than performance. In this regard, Talgo protection from loss of occupied volume from a misunderstanding of FRA’s use believed the proposed rule violates in a rear-end or head-on collision when of the term ‘‘North American passenger Article 2.8 of the TBT Agreement, compared with conventional cars which equipment.’’ Article 2.1 of the TBT which states: ‘‘Wherever appropriate, would be occupied by passengers or Agreement, cited by Talgo in its Members shall specify technical crew. FRA has provided a process for comments, states: regulations based on product WDOT and others to secure Members shall ensure that in respect of requirements in terms of performance grandfathering approval regarding the technical regulations, products imported rather than design or descriptive compressive strength requirement for from the territory of any Member shall be characteristics.’’ Talgo asserted that the passenger equipment placed in use prior accorded treatment no less favorable than rule can and should be stated in terms to November 8, 1999, as previously that accorded to like products of national of variables relating to the performance noted. However, as explained below, origin and to like products originating in any of the equipment rather than its design, other country. FRA is unable to relax the minimum and that the rule should accommodate compressive strength requirement for A ‘‘technical regulation’’ refers to different engineering designs, such as its passenger equipment simply on the mandatory product standards, and FRA articulated, lightweight trainsets. basis of train configuration, since to do agrees with Talgo that the structural The principal structural requirement so would diminish the safety provided standards in this rule fall under this of the final rule, which existing Talgo- for the rail travelling public as a whole. definition. See Annex 1 to the TBT manufactured passenger cars do not FRA believes the minimum static end Agreement, ‘‘Terms and Their meet, is in fact a performance-based strength requirement in the final rule is Definitions for the Purpose of this requirement. As further specified in not inconsistent with the TBT Agreement, 1.’’ However, the impact of § 238.203, the rule requires that new Agreement, in that it fulfills FRA’s this rule on Talgo passenger equipment, and existing passenger cars must objective of protecting human safety and specifically its passenger cars, has possess a minimum static end strength only restricts the use of equipment not nothing to do with the fact that the of 800,000 pounds. The rule does not meeting that objective because of the equipment originates in a foreign dictate how a passenger car must be performance of the equipment—not country, Spain, as opposed to the constructed to meet this requirement, as because of the origin of the equipment. United States. long as the car can resist the specified In this regard, 19 U.S.C. 2531(b) Through this rule, FRA is not favoring 800,000-pound load. This formulation is provides in part: rail passenger cars that are domestically consistent with the requirements of 19 manufactured over those of foreign U.S.C. 2532(3), which states: No standards-related activity of any * ** origin since, as far as FRA is aware, Federal agency * * * shall be deemed to there is currently no domestic Performance Criteria.—Each Federal constitute an unnecessary obstacle to the agency shall, if appropriate, develop manufacturer of rail passenger cars in foreign commerce of the United States if the standards based on performance criteria such demonstrable purpose of the standards- the United States. (The General Electric as those relating to the intended use of a Company and the General Motors related activity is to achieve a legitimate product and the level of performance that the domestic purpose including * * * the Corporation manufacture locomotives in product must achieve under defined protection of legitimate health or safety conditions, rather than on design criteria, the United States—not rail passenger ** * and if such activity does not operate such as those relating to physical form of the cars; and neither entity is being favored to exclude imported products which fully product or the types of material of which the by FRA in this rule over foreign meet the objectives of such activity. manufacturers of locomotives.) Of product is made. course, a significant portion of the (Of course, the rule does require that the Having a passenger car possess a nation’s rail passenger car fleet—the body structure of a passenger car be minimum compressive strength of oldest portion—has been manufactured designed, to the maximum extent 800,000 pounds, along with other in the United States. Yet, over the years, possible, to fail by buckling or crushing, features, has evolved as a result of a manufacturers from Japan, Canada, and or both, of structural members when long history of efforts by railroads and other countries have exported passenger overloaded in compression rather than suppliers to learn the hard lessons cars to the United States for service on by fracture of structural members or taught by a difficult operating the nation’s railroads. Overall, these failure of structural connections. See environment in the United States. imported rail passenger cars have § 238.203(c). Yet, in any regard, FRA Passenger train collisions and possessed the same minimum structural believes it unsafe to design a passenger derailments may occur in a variety of strength as their domestic forebearers; car to fail first by fracture of structural different scenarios and implicate they have been constructed to standards members or failure of structural structural features of passenger that are common to North American connections, as the ability of the car equipment in similarly numerous ways. passenger equipment, i.e., passenger structure to absorb collision energy is The rule cannot be applied in a general equipment operated in North America. negated.) way to both (1) except any consist of The five Talgo trainsets noted earlier FRA recognizes that the five Talgo passenger cars from the same have not been so constructed. FRA’s use trainsets were designed to international compressive strength requirements of the term North American passenger standards that require lesser applicable to all other passenger cars equipment (or United States passenger compressive strength. Talgo has pointed solely because the passenger car consist equipment, for that matter) was not out that these trainsets will be is buffered at each end by an intended to refer to passenger configured in the same manner as two unoccupied car and linked by equipment manufactured in North leased trainsets formerly operated in the articulated connections, and (2) provide

VerDate 06-MAY-99 17:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25547 for the safety of the occupants of compressive strength requirement travelling public. FRA has also done so passenger cars. applicable to existing passenger cars as with respect to the other structural Further, over the past few years, FRA explained in the preamble. However, requirements in the rule. has funded the most extensive and through the submission of appropriate FRA recognizes that the existing Talgo detailed research and analysis ever data and analysis, and approval by FRA trainsets presents unique challenges in conducted by a public body in the as further specified in § 238.203, terms of describing appropriate force United States concerning passenger car discussed below, certain passenger cars levels in several regards. FRA safety. That effort has included attention not possessing the minimum understands that the Talgo trainsets are to international practice, particularly for compressive strength of 800,000 pounds articulated, low-floor trainsets with high-speed equipment. However, given may operate on the general railroad independently rotating wheels. The car existing data and analysis, FRA is system of transportation, and the rule bodies are made from light-weight unable to specify an alternate does afford a reasonable time for that aluminum extrusions. In contrast, the performance standard for passenger car information to be gathered. vast majority of passenger carrying compressive strength that would meet In providing the possibility that some equipment used on the nations’s FRA’s safety objectives and be equally equipment now being used which does railroads is individually suspended, has applicable to passenger cars of any not meet the buff strength requirement automatic couplers, has a higher floor design that might some day be proffered of this rule might continue to be used height above the rail, has wheels fixed for use in the United States. Nor, so far (‘‘grandfathered’’), FRA intends to to an axle, and is constructed with a as FRA is aware, has any government or permit only very safe operations to steel underframe made up from international body achieved a similar occur. Petitioners will need to fabricated members. FRA has feat. Certainly doing so within the time demonstrate—through a quantitative conducted, and continues to conduct, available to issue standards under the risk assessment that incorporates design research which addresses the influence 1994 statutory mandate would not have information, engineering analysis of the of carbody construction, suspension been possible. equipment’s static end strength and of configuration, and coupling FRA notes that Talgo further the likely performance of the equipment arrangement on the crashworthiness, commented that the early in derailment and collision scenarios, derailment tendency, and other safety- implementation dates proposed for and risk mitigation measures to avoid related aspects of Talgo and other non- certain structural requirements are the possibility of collisions or to limit conventional equipment. inconsistent with Article 2.12 of the the speed at which a collision might TBT Agreement in that a sufficient occur, or both, that will be employed in Developing safety regulations requires amount of time would not be provided connection with the usage of the detailed technical knowledge of the foreign producers to modify their equipment on a specified rail line or system being regulated. At the time this products’ design or manufacturing lines—that use of the equipment, as rule is being written, FRA is unable to processes to comply with new or utilized in the service environment for specify alternative performance-based significantly revised regulatory which recognition is sought, is in the standards with respect to the structural requirements. Article 2.12 provides: public interest and is consistent with requirements in this rule that would railroad safety. In this regard, FRA notes meet FRA’s safety objectives for Except in those urgent circumstances passenger equipment of any design. referred to in [Article 2] paragraph 10 [of the that passenger equipment not TBT Agreement], Members shall allow a possessing the minimum static end Areas of particular technical concern reasonable interval between the publication strength specified in this rule does not with regard to the Talgo trainsets, which of technical regulations and their entry into have the same capacity to absorb safely need to be resolved by FRA through an force in order to allow time for producers in within its body structure the ongoing exchange of information, exporting Members * * * to adapt their compressive forces that develop in a include the nature of its articulated products or methods of production to the connection and its potential to allow requirements of the importing Member. collision as equipment meeting the standard. The engineering analysis override in a collision, and the welding In the final rule, the compressive submitted by the petitioner should of the aluminum extrusions which make strength requirement takes effect sooner address how these forces will be up the body shell. The Talgo tilt than any other principal structural dissipated in a manner that does not trainsets have characteristics that are requirement, and it applies to both new jeopardize occupant safety in collision unique, or nearly unique, that may and existing passenger cars and scenarios. either reduce or increase vulnerability locomotives. If any provision of the rule in a derailment or collision. For were found to be inconsistent with D. Non-Conventional Passenger instance, the articulated design of the Article 2.12 of the TBT Agreement, Equipment trainset may tend to keep the train in then, it would most likely be the As noted above, commenters have line in the case of a derailment where compressive strength requirement. requested that FRA specify design- the decelerations are reasonably However, the United States Congress neutral or performance-based uniform throughout the length of the has expressly authorized applying the requirements so that the safety of all train, preventing secondary impacts. On requirements of the final rule to existing passenger equipment may be evaluated the other hand, the absence of major passenger cars, provided only that the on the same basis. In comments in this structural members in the floor of the basis for doing so is explained in the docket, Talgo has suggested substituted passenger units could be a serious rulemaking document. See Section 215 (and reduced) force levels that it problem should the train be involved in of the Federal Railroad Safety believes are appropriate for inclusion in a collision with freight train cars or Authorization Act of 1994, above, as the final rule in lieu of those proposed lading that has fouled the track on codified at 49 U.S.C. 20133 (‘‘The for truck-to-carbody attachment and which the passenger train is travelling, Secretary may make applicable some or anti-climbing arrangements, for as a result of the freight train having all of the standards established under instance. As explained, FRA has derailed. In this regard, the absence of this subsection [, 49 U.S.C. 20133(a),] to specified the compressive strength major structural members in the floor of cars existing at the time the regulations requirement as fairly as we are able in the Talgo passenger units increases their are prescribed.’’). FRA has made the consideration of the safety of the rail vulnerability to penetration by the

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25548 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations trainset’s trucks, should the trucks requirements in this rule. FRA will be area; whether FRA should mandate the separate from the train. pleased to work with Talgo and contents of system safety plans; whether Historically, the United States members of the Working Group in Phase the areas FRA proposed to require industry requirement for a minimum II of the rulemaking to determine railroads to address were appropriate; compressive strength has reinforced a whether different performance-based whether additional areas should be pattern of passenger car construction regulations are appropriate. In the added; and to what extent FRA should resulting in use of stiff, quite substantial interim, FRA has provided a special propose to enforce portions of the underframes that have served other approval process in § 238.201 for system safety plans. FRA further asked practical purposes in derailments and considering whether the new generation whether the rule should require that collisions, including prevention of car of Talgo equipment and any other system safety plans be comprehensive body buckling, prevention of harm to passenger equipment of special and address the entire railroad system passengers from failure of the floor construction provide an equivalent level in which the equipment operates, as structure and entry of debris, and of safety with the Tier I standards (other well as whether the emergency resistance to penetration of the car from than the static end strength preparedness planning requirements the side where the primary impact was requirements) contained in the final contained in the passenger train at the floor level. Both with respect to rule. See the discussion in the section- emergency preparedness rulemaking be compressive strength and other by-section analysis of § 238.201 for an expressly integrated with the system structural requirements that the Talgo explanation of the special approval safety planning requirements contained trainset may not be able to meet, it is process. in this part. Id. at 49733–4. important to ensure that alternative In commenting on the rulemaking, means of achieving crashworthiness are E. System Safety APTA believed FRA’s approach to just as successful as the standards FRA believes that passenger railroads system safety short-sighted in that it described in this final rule. should carefully evaluate their would apply only to the equipment Creating alternative performance- operations with a view toward component of the commuter railroad based standards for a particular type of enhancing the safety of those system and therefore ignore track, signal passenger equipment requires a very operations. The importance of formal system, other infrastructure, and early dialogue and technical safety planning has been recognized in operating practices components. information exchange. In the summer of Emergency Order No. 20 (61 FR 6880; Further, APTA questioned FRA’s 1995, FRA convened the first meeting of Feb. 22, 1996) and the rule on passenger general focus in the system safety plan equipment manufacturers (including train emergency preparedness (63 FR (on fire safety; software safety; representatives of Canadian, European 24630; May 4, 1998). In furtherance of inspection, testing and maintenance; and Japanese consortia) to discuss safety planning, the 1997 NPRM training; and new equipment) prior to passenger safety standards. That contained a set of system safety having a railroad identify its major meeting led to designation of equipment requirements to be applied to all safety risks through its individual manufacturer representatives as intercity passenger and commuter rail system level analysis. APTA stated that associate members of the Passenger equipment. See 62 FR 49760. FRA it supports a true system safety Equipment Safety Standards Working intended that each individual passenger approach that allows each railroad to Group. Although notified along with a railroad be required to develop a system determine its own major safety risks and number of other manufacturers of safety plan and a system safety program addresses all the components of the passenger equipment, Talgo tailored to its specific operation, passenger rail system—not just the representatives did not participate in including train speed. FRA explained, equipment component. the process. (For its part, the WDOT did however, that the Working Group did As an alternative to Federal not formally indicate to FRA an interest not reach consensus on system safety regulation, APTA proposed a system in participating in the rulemaking until requirements for Tier I equipment; safety program based on system safety after the Working Group had tentatively whereas the Tier II Subgroup did reach plans—developed using MIL–STD–882C agreed on the structural standard full consensus on system safety program as a guide—that would be submitted by proposals—FRA received a letter from requirements for Tier II equipment. its individual member railroad the WDOT commenting on the ANPRM Strong support did exist among Working properties and audited by APTA. APTA on September 4, 1996. However, Group members to apply formal system explained it would invite FRA to AASHTO had participated from the safety planning to Tier I equipment, yet observe the audits and the follow-up beginning of the rulemaking.) Talgo did views differed as to whether system actions taken by the commuter railroads not enter the discussions directly until safety planning should be required by in response to the audits. APTA publication of the NPRM in September law. requested that FRA hold Federal of 1997, and was still in the process of In particular, the 1997 NPRM noted requirements for commuter railroad providing engineering data through that APTA objected to FRA issuing any system safety plans in abeyance for a 3- October of 1998. Given the timing of regulations governing system safety year probationary period— this latest submission of data to FRA, plans because commuter railroads have corresponding to one complete audit approximately ten-months after the voluntarily agreed to adopt such safety cycle—while FRA observes and close of the public comment period on plans. 62 FR 49734. FRA also explained evaluates the program. the NPRM, FRA has not had the its understanding that APTA’s system Amtrak commented that it supports opportunity to fully evaluate the safety approach will be more APTA’s position on system safety for information provided by Talgo for comprehensive than what FRA both Tier I and Tier II equipment. purposes of this rule. proposed and address each commuter Amtrak believed it appropriate for FRA FRA appreciates Talgo’s recent railroad’s system more as an integrated to start with a voluntary system safety undertakings to conform any future whole, not focused principally on rail approach and then, based on actual trainsets (beyond the five trainsets noted equipment. See 62 FR 49734. FRA experience, follow up with specific earlier) built for North American service therefore invited comment on APTA’s regulations in the future. Amtrak to the 800,000-pound static end strength suggestion that commuter railroads be believed FRA needs to allow the requirement and any other applicable allowed to regulate themselves in this industry the time to establish the

VerDate 06-MAY-99 17:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25549 culture and process that allows system commented that the 1997 NPRM’s FRA believes the approach taken in safety to function without creating an provisions on system safety plans is the the emergency preparedness rulemaking unwarranted bureaucratic burden. most important section of the rule. The in requiring railroads to adopt a safety In its comments on the 1997 NPRM, UTU believed FRA should continue to plan addressing specific topics is more Metra agreed with the value of a system treat it as such and not allow it to be appropriate than imposing a general safety plan, but believed that such plans weakened. requirement for railroads to adopt a should not be regulated. Metra The NTSB commented that it comprehensive system safety plan. FRA recommended the rule contain only a supports FRA mandating the contents of believes this is consistent with the view top-level system safety plan requirement system safety plans for minimal of the commenters to mandate the for railroads to identify the most serious consistency and oversight, rather than contents of safety program plans for safety risks within their specific allowing the railroads to regulate minimal consistency and oversight, so operations, and then allow each railroad themselves in this area, so that that important safety elements are to create its own programs to reduce important safety elements are included in each safety plan. At the those risks. Metra explained that a consistently included in each safety same time, focusing the safety planning railroad’s system safety plan should plan. The NTSB believed that the requirements and streamlining the rule project beyond current practice to system safety plans should be will facilitate the regulated community’s continuously improve that practice and comprehensive and address the entire understanding of the rule’s that Federal enforcement of such a plan railroad system in which the passenger requirements and thereby aid in its would continually find violations equipment operates. The NTSB compliance. As further specified, the because current practice would not observed that if the industry does not final rule will require that each railroad reflect the ideals set forth in the plan. have a comprehensive system safety adopt safety program plans addressing: Metra believed that FRA regulation plan, it may not be able to identify, • Fire safety; would make a system safety plan a track, monitor, or rectify situations that • Employee training and useless tool for improving safety, as the can lead to unsafe conditions. Further, qualifications; plan would be limited to mimicking the NTSB remarked that system safety • Equipment inspection, testing, and Federal regulation and describing should be a continuous, iterative maintenance; current practice. In addition, Metra process that has a built-in feedback • Pre-revenue service acceptance noted that a system safety plan is mechanism and should be used testing of equipment; and distinct from a document that describes throughout the program’s life cycle to • Train hardware and software safety. current practice for routine and arrive at the best plan possible. In addition, more particular safety regulated activities. Metra proposed that The NTSB noted that it has made this document, a safety policy, reference planning requirements are imposed on safety recommendations urging FRA to Tier II passenger equipment, as all current-practice safety-related include specific safety requirements in procedures and require railroads to discussed below, reflecting both the a system safety plan. It urged FRA to greater risks to safety from operating the adhere to them. incorporate the following Bombardier commented that the 1997 equipment at such high speeds and the recommendations into FRA’s general importance of advanced planning in NPRM does not provide the latitude for requirements for system safety plans: each railroad to tailor or customize its order to meet new safety challenges. system safety plan to its individual Require carriers to train employees in As FRA recognized in the 1997 operations and needs. Further, emergency procedures to be used after an NPRM, FRA’s proposed approach to accident, to establish priorities for emergency Bombardier believed that the NPRM system safety focused principally on rail action, and to conduct accident simulation to passenger equipment. This was not a confuses the requirements for the test the effectiveness of the program, inviting railroad’s system safety plan with those civic emergency personnel participation. (R– pure system safety approach, inasmuch required for equipment acquisition. If 76–29) as FRA did not focus on safety planning FRA insists that the rule contain a Develop and validate through simulated for others elements of the railroad requirement for a system safety plan, disaster exercises a model emergency infrastructure such as the track and according to Bombardier, it should be response plan for the guidance of the railroad signal system, or for a host of items limited to requiring each railroad to industry in formulating individual plans to including platform safety, security and develop its own plan based on MIL- be utilized by their train crewmembers in the trespasser prevention. event of an emergency. (R–80–6) STD–882C or APTA’s Manual for the FRA will closely monitor Tier I Development of a System Safety Plan for In this regard, FRA did issue final railroad operations in their development Commuter Railroads. Separately, the regulations governing the preparation, and adherence to voluntary, rule should require a system safety plan adoption, and implementation of comprehensive system safety plans. specifically addressing equipment emergency preparedness plans by FRA has already established a liaison procurement. railroads connected with the operation relationship with APTA and has already The BRC commented that FRA must of passenger trains, in the passenger begun participating in system safety mandate the contents of system safety train emergency preparedness plan audits on commuter railroads. FRA plans to ensure that vital topics are rulemaking. See 63 FR 24630, May 4, is using this involvement to enrich included in such plans. Further, the 1998. That rule specifically requires FRA’s Safety Assurance and BRC believed FRA must have the power emergency preparedness plans to Compliance Program (SACP) efforts on to enforce compliance with system address such subjects as these railroads—which, unlike the safety plans. Otherwise, the BRC communication, employee training and triennial audit process for system safety believed the plans themselves would qualification, joint operations, tunnel plans, is a continuous activity with amount to little more than suggested safety, liaison with emergency frequent on-property involvement by operating practices. The BRC also responders, on-board emergency FRA safety professionals. FRA will believed that FRA must review each equipment, and passenger safety reconsider its decision not to impose a railroad’s system safety plan and information. The plan adopted by each general requirement for system safety approve it only if it complies with affected railroad is also subject to formal plans on Tier I railroad operations if the Federal regulations. Similarly, the UTU review and approval by FRA. need to do so arises. FRA expects that

VerDate 06-MAY-99 17:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12MYR2 25550 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

Tier I railroad operations will be able to passengers would generally be able to in fact, the proposed requirement did integrate the specific safety planning move through a passenger car’s end not specifically require that passenger requirements contained in this final rule doors to seek refuge in adjacent cars. In cars have four side doors. For instance, into their own system safety plans, in fact, it is safer for passengers to remain the requirement would have been met if the same way the railroads will on a train unless doing so in itself risks a passenger car had two double-wide incorporate into their plans the their safety, because of hazards along doors that permit two 95th-percentile emergency planning requirements the railroad right-of-way such as males to pass through each such door at contained in 49 CFR part 239. electrified rails and other trains. the same time—the functional FRA is retaining more extensive safety However, the tragic September 22, 1993 equivalent of four side doors having planning requirements for Tier II Amtrak train derailment near Mobile, openings of the same size in the railroad operations. These requirements Alabama, and the February 16, 1996 aggregate. FRA invited comments are directed at ensuring the safety of the collision involving MARC and Amtrak concerning the extent to which existing equipment in its operating environment passenger trains near Silver Spring, designs of passenger cars could not and that the introduction of novel Maryland, show that in a life- comply with the proposed requirement, technology is thoroughly analyzed prior threatening situation passengers have no noting that modifications to the to procurement of the equipment. Tier alternative but to exit the train. All of proposal may be necessary based on the II railroad operations will be operations the 42 passenger fatalities in the Mobile, information supplied. Further, as a long- with new characteristics that require Alabama train derailment resulted from term approach, FRA explained that it is special attention and have heightened asphyxia due to drowning (NTSB investigating an emergency evacuation safety risks due to the speed of the Railroad-Marine Accident Report 94/ performance requirement similar to that equipment. In particular, each railroad 01), and the deaths of at least eight of used in commercial aviation where a must a have safety program plan for the the eleven persons killed in the Silver sufficient number of emergency exits operation of its Tier II passenger Spring, Maryland train collision must be provided to evacuate the equipment prior to placing the resulted from the fire that ensued (NTSB maximum passenger load in a specified equipment into revenue service. In Railroad Accident Report (RAR) 97/02). time for various types of emergency addition, each railroad must have a FRA is not suggesting that the cars situations. safety program plan for each involved in those accidents lacked a In its comments on the 1997 NPRM, procurement of Tier II passenger sufficient number of emergency exits; APTA stated that the proposed equipment or major upgrade or nevertheless, these are examples of requirement would eliminate certain introduction of new technology in Tier instances where passengers have died types of cars as well as certain desirable II passenger equipment. The railroad because they could not leave the train. car design safety features. Specifically, must also receive FRA approval of a pre- (However, the NTSB did note in its Amtrak would not be able to procure revenue service acceptance testing plan, investigation report of the Silver Spring, Viewliner cars and NJT would not be as well as FRA approval prior to placing Maryland train collision that ‘‘[e]xcept able to increase the number of Comet IV such new or modified equipment into for those passengers who died of blunt cab cars with extra structural protection revenue service. trauma injuries, others may have for train operators, according to APTA. In general, however, the final rule survived the accident, albeit with APTA recommended that the rule text does not require that FRA approve a thermal injuries, had proper and be modified to include passenger car railroad’s safety plans required under end doors in the calculation of the immediate egress from the car been the rule. As noted, FRA believes it best required number of door exits. APTA available.’’ Id. at page 63. The NTSB to focus its resources on Tier II believed this would encourage explained in its explicit findings on the passenger equipment operations due to structural changes that involve the collision that ‘‘the emergency egress of their special circumstances. Further, elimination of a side door to provide passengers was impeded because the FRA approval may not be necessary additional protection to train operators passenger cars lacked readily accessible when, by operation of the rule, each and allow Amtrak to continue its and identifiable quick-release railroad must independently comply Viewliner cars in service. with specific safety planning mechanisms for the exterior doors, Amtrak, in commenting on the requirements or face sanction from FRA. removable windows or kick panels in proposal, expressed particular concern Under 49 CFR § 238.11 of the final rule, the side doors, and adequate emergency that the proposed requirement would any person who violates any instruction signage.’’ Id. at 73.) prevent the future construction of its Bi- requirement of this part or causes the So that each passenger car has Level Superliner equipment in a violation of any such requirement is sufficient doorway openings to allow configuration that maximizes the subject to a civil penalty. passengers and crewmembers to exit equipment’s economic performance. quickly in a life-threatening situation, Amtrak noted that its current policy F. Side Exit Doors on Passenger Cars FRA proposed requiring that passenger calls for equipping every window in In the 1997 NPRM, FRA generally cars be equipped with side doors. such equipment with at least one proposed that new passenger cars have Exiting a passenger train through a emergency pane, and that the proposed a minimum of four exterior side doors— functioning emergency window exit is requirement would not take that into or the functional equivalent of four such slower than exiting a train through a consideration. Amtrak supported doors—each door permitting at least one functioning door, and presents a risk of APTA’s recommended modification to 95th-percentile male to pass through at non-fatal injury. FRA made clear in the the rule text. a single time. See 62 FR 49807 1997 NPRM that the proposed side door The NARP also questioned the (§ 238.237), and 62 FR 49820 requirement was not a recommendation proposed side exterior door requirement (§ 238.441). Exterior side doors are the of the Working Group, although FRA for passenger cars. The NARP noted that primary means of egress from a believed such a requirement necessary the most common way to exit a car in passenger train, yet there is no Federal at least as an interim measure. See 62 an emergency is through the car’s end requirement that a passenger car be FR 49770. FRA also recognized that doors, and it suggested that emergency equipped with such doors. FRA does existing designs of passenger cars do not window exits are probably more reliable recognize that in an emergency always provide for four side doors, and, than additional doors, believing the

VerDate 06-MAY-99 17:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25551 doors are more likely to be rendered through the door at the opposite end of 2 of Public Health Service Publication inoperable. The NARP stated that the car. Bombardier believed the use of No. 1000, Series 11, No. 8, ‘‘Weight, research should focus on the such end doors should be considered in Height, and Selected Body Dimensions relationship between a car’s seating determining the time needed to of Adults,’’ June 1965. (A copy of this capacity and layout and its emergency- evacuate a passenger car, and it noted in document has been placed in the public exit capacity. The NARP opposed this regard that intercity passenger cars docket for this rulemaking.) The stated requiring four doors on a 44-foot Talgo generally carry fewer passengers than height of 72.8 inches was recorded for car, and saw little benefit from adding commuter cars. adult males not wearing shoes, and FRA additional doors to a Superliner dining Based on the comments received, FRA has adjusted for this. FRA did not find car without a costly stairwell has decided to modify the requirement this Public Health Service Publication installation. The NARP asserted that a for exterior side doors on Tier I that useful for purposes of specifying a requirement for four side doors may be passenger cars ordered on or after horizontal dimension of the doorway as economically fatal for a single-level September 8, 2000 or placed in service the stated body dimensions were, in dining car, and advised instead that one for the first time on or after September effect, recorded without clothing (see side door may be provided in the 9, 2002, and for any Tier II passenger car page 5)—and of course did not address hallway opposite the kitchen and a placed in service. The final rule requires the size of equipment carried by second side door placed in the kitchen. that each such passenger car have a emergency response personnel. FRA In commenting on the proposal, minimum of two exterior side doors, notes that the Americans with WDOT believed it not appropriate to and each door must have a minimum Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility require four side doors on a 44-foot clear opening of 30 inches horizontally Specifications for Transportation Talgo passenger car, which is by 74 inches vertically. Since the Vehicles also contain requirements for approximately half the length of minimum number of required side doorway width clearance (See 49 CFR conventional passenger cars. WDOT doors has been reduced from that part 38). These ADA requirements apply stated that a Talgo passenger car has two proposed in the NPRM, this provision by their own force independent of the exterior doors for a maximum of 36 should not hinder railroads from requirements of this rule. people in each car, while an Amtrak removing the locomotive engineer’s Further, unlike the proposed rule, the Horizon coach has four exterior doors exterior side door in cab car and MU final rule no longer provides that a and seats 72 passengers. WDOT locomotive control compartments for passenger car may have the functional maintained that the rule should reflect purposes of adding to the structural equivalent of the specified number of these differences or provide clear, integrity of the equipment. As the BLE side doors. Each passenger car must concise performance-based standards in raised in its comments on the rule, have at least two separate, exterior side the alternative. In this regard, WDOT removing this side door allows for a doorway openings. This will increase found the term ‘‘functional equivalent’’ continuous side sill structure along the the likelihood that at least one of a as used in the rule to be vague and in control compartment, thereby passenger car’s side doorway openings need of better definition. Further, enhancing the compartment’s structural will allow passage in the event a train WDOT commented that, traditionally, integrity and reducing the risk the collision or derailment results in either, dining and bistro cars have not had compartment will be crushed in a or both, structural damage to—or exterior side doors; and requiring such corner or side impact. A dining car or blockage of—the door. In this regard, doors in these cars would significantly other food service car is subject to the railroads should consider where the decrease the amount of available dining side door requirement as a passenger car passenger car side doors are located so space, decrease revenue-generating under this rule, since FRA believes that as to facilitate passenger and crew space, and add substantial costs. WDOT all passenger cars must have exterior escape in a life-threatening situation. recommended FRA remove dining and side doorway openings to allow for FRA reemphasizes that this bistro cars from any exterior side door passenger and crew escape in a life- requirement is only an interim measure requirement as it would decrease the threatening situation, and also permit that will prevent passenger cars from amount of available dining space and emergency rescue access. being introduced into service without thereby reduce passenger convenience, Unlike the proposed rule, FRA has side exterior doors. In Phase II of the comfort and satisfaction. Talgo similarly specified the dimensions of the doorway rulemaking, FRA will focus on commented that the proposed opening in inches rather than retain the formulating a systems approach to requirement should be modified to state language referencing a 95th-percentile emergency egress that provides for a that the functional equivalent of four adult male. This modification clarifies sufficient number of emergency exits to side doors in a car of conventional the rule for the regulated community in evacuate the maximum passenger car length is two side doors in a car of half that what constituted a 95th-percentile load in a specified time for various the length, and that dining and bistro adult male was originally not defined. types of emergency situations. FRA will cars be exempted from any requirement. FRA believes that a doorway with a evaluate with the Working Group In response to the proposal in the minimum clear opening of 30 inches whether APTA’s recommended NPRM, Bombardier recommended that horizontally by 74 inches vertically will approach to emergency egress under the wording of the rule be changed to provide passage for a large, fully-clothed development in APTA’s PRESS Task require that each passenger car have a person and accommodate emergency Force should be incorporated into the minimum of two side doors. Bombardier response personnel equipped with fire Phase II rulemaking. noted that on Amtrak’s high-speed and rescue gear. For instance, see the trainsets (HST), the passenger cars that discussion below of § 238.113 G. Fuel Tank Standards will be positioned next to the power (Emergency window exits) for detail on Locomotive diesel fuel tanks are cars are equipped with only two exterior the sizes of adult backboards used by vulnerable to damage from collisions, side doors, both of which are located on emergency responders to evacuate derailments, and debris on the roadbed the end nearest to the power car. In the injured persons. FRA has specified the due to their location on the underframe event of an evacuation, Bombardier vertical dimension of 74 inches based and between the trucks of locomotives. explained that passengers could exit on the height of the 95th-percentile Damage to the tank frequently results in through those side doors as well as adult male (72.8 inches) stated in Table spilled fuel, creating the safety problem

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25552 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations of an increased risk of fire and the conditions, FRA believes that fuel tank conventional frame-suspended fuel environmental problem of cleanup and design has a direct impact on safety. tanks. The NTSB attributed the restoration of the spill site. Although 49 Minimum performance standards for maintenance of fuel tank integrity to CFR 229.71 does require a minimum locomotive fuel tanks should be higher than typical fuel tank ground clearance of 2.5 inches between the top included in Federal safety regulations. clearance, not found in conventionally of the rail and the lowest point on a part Accordingly, FRA proposed in the 1997 designed, frame-suspended fuel tanks. or appliance of a locomotive, such as a NPRM that AAR Recommended Practice Accordingly, the NTSB specifically fuel tank, FRA regulations do not No. 506 (RP–506), Performance recommended that fuel tank regulations address the safety of fuel tanks in Requirements for Diesel-Electric should require higher ground clearance particular. Locomotive Fuel Tanks, be incorporated for both Tier I and Tier II operations. In In 1992, the NTSB issued a report into the rule as the external fuel tank light of the strong potential safety identifying concerns regarding safety requirements for Tier I passenger benefits associated with higher problems caused by diesel fuel spills locomotives. FRA believes that RP–506 locomotive fuel tank ground clearance, from ruptured or punctured locomotive represents a good, interim safety FRA will carefully consider with the fuel tanks. Entitled ‘‘Locomotive Fuel standard for Tier I passenger Working Group how best to implement Tank Integrity Safety Study,’’ the NTSB locomotives. In the final rule, FRA has the NTSB’s recommendation in Phase II report cited in particular a collision restated the requirements of RP–506 as of this rulemaking. involving an Amtrak train and an MBTA Appendix D to part 238, as explained In addition, FRA invited comments commuter train on December 12, 1990, below, and has thereby incorporated it whether the proposed rule should as both trains were entering a station in into the final rule. require that locomotive fuel tanks be Boston, Massachusetts. (NTSB Safety FRA does note that further study may compartmentalized. The Working Group Study-92/04.) Fuel spilled from a tank yield additional safety improvements specifically discussed requiring whether which had separated from an Amtrak for locomotive fuel tank design, and in the interior of fuel tanks be divided into locomotive during the collision. The September of 1997 FRA convened a a minimum of four separate fuel ignited. Smoke and fumes from the Locomotive Crashworthiness Working compartments so that a penetration in burning diesel fuel filled the tunnel, Group of the Railroad Safety Advisory the exterior skin of any one increasing the hazard level in the post- Committee (RSAC) to develop standards compartment results in loss of fuel only crash phase of the accident, and regarding a broad range of from that compartment. The Working hindering emergency response activity. crashworthiness issues for both Group recommended that such a As a result of the safety study, the NTSB passenger and freight locomotives, requirement be addressed in the second made several safety recommendations to including fuel tanks. Freight locomotive phase of the rulemaking, to allow for FRA, including in particular that FRA: fuel tanks can cause a risk to passengers additional research to remedy fuel in the event of a train-to-train collision feeding disruptions that may result from Conduct, in conjunction with the involving a passenger and a freight the compartmentalization of fuel tanks. Association of American Railroads, General Electric, and the Electro-Motive Division of train. Therefore, in addition to the Commenters were therefore requested to General Motors, research to determine if the economy that can be achieved from provide the results of specific research locomotive fuel tank can be improved to standard fuel tank design requirements and operating experience showing how withstand forces encountered in the more for the entire industry, industry-wide compartmentalization can be practically severe locomotive derailment accidents or if design requirements benefit both public accomplished. Commenters were also fuel containment can be improved to reduce and employee safety. Based on currently asked to explain why the issue of the rate of fuel leakage and fuel ignition. available information through the compartmentalization should or should Consideration should be given to crash or Locomotive Crashworthiness Working not be addressed in the final rule of this simulated testing and evaluation of recent Group, it appears that locomotives built first phase of the rulemaking. and proposed design modifications to the The NTSB commented that it locomotive fuel tank, including increasing with AAR RP–506-compliant fuel tanks the structural strength of end and side wall are performing well in derailments and supported continued research for fuel plates, raising the tank higher above the rail, highway-rail crossing collisions. tank compartmentalization to remedy and using internal tank bladders and foam In its comments on the proposed rule, fuel loss during derailments. It stated inserts. (Class II, Priority Action) (R–92–10) the NTSB agreed that external fuel tanks that compartmentalization is required in Establish, if warranted, minimum on Tier I locomotives should aviation applications, where fuel tanks performance standards for locomotive fuel incorporate at a minimum, and on an within the airframe contour must be tanks based on the research called for in interim basis, RP–506. Yet, the NTSB able to resist rupture and retain fuel recommendation R–92–10. (Class III, Longer believed that more demanding safety under inertial forces prescribed for Term Action) (R–92–11) standards for passenger locomotives be emergency landing conditions (citing 14 The NTSB reiterated Safety included in the permanent Tier I fuel CFR 25.963). Therefore, research should Recommendation R–92–10 in a letter to tank regulations, specifically: higher be conducted to determine if similar FRA dated August 28, 1997, conveying ground clearance, successes can be attained in railroad the NTSB’s final safety compartmentalization, and a bottom application, according to the NTSB. The recommendations arising from the skid plate. The NTSB noted that the BLE also commented that it supports February 16, 1996, collision between a advantages of higher fuel tank ground requirements for compartmentalized MARC commuter train and an Amtrak clearance were shown in Amtrak fuel tanks on all passenger locomotives. passenger train. During the collision, the derailments in Kingman, Arizona, and Noting that diesel fires create fuel tank on the lead Amtrak locomotive Garden City, Georgia. According to the devastating results in passenger train ruptured catastrophically. The fuel NTSB, investigation of both accidents accidents, the BLE believed every effort sprayed into the exposed interior of the revealed that essentially no fuel loss should be made to avoid them, MARC cab control car and ignited, occurred in the involved locomotive including using the most advanced engulfing the car. (Letter at 12.) units (GE Models P40 and P42), despite technology possible. Further, APTA As explained in FRA’s report to a substantial accumulation of debris commented that it believes fuel tank Congress on locomotive beneath the fuel tanks that may have compartmentalization has the potential crashworthiness and working otherwise damaged current, to reduce the amount of fuel

VerDate 06-MAY-99 17:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25553 spilled in a railroad accident; In comments on the NPRM, Simula research is being conducted in three recommended that FRA consider Technologies, Inc., (Simula) stated that steps: preliminary design studies; requiring compartmentalized fuel tanks there may be a potential for a higher design development; and engineering on new locomotives if the technical level of occupant protection offered by modeling, construction, and testing. The difficulties resulting in interruptions in passive or active restraints than by first step of the research has been fuel flow are resolved; and suggested compartmentalization. Simula noted completed. Principal conclusions from that FRA make a priority to resolve that cost effectiveness considerations the research to date are that an existing these technical difficulties. In differ when considering the application inter-city passenger coach seat can be accordance with these comments, FRA of occupant protection strategies to a modified to accept lap and shoulder will carefully consider with the train crew as compared to passengers. belts. In particular, for Amtrak’s Working Group in Phase II of the For instance, it believed that the traditional seat design, appropriate rulemaking a requirement to relatively high expense of passive modification of the connections compartmentalize fuel tanks on new restraints may be justified for one or two between the seat and floor, and between locomotives, drawing upon research crewmembers in a particularly severe the seat pan and seat back, allow it to conducted and experience gained in the environment—for instance, a support the loads associated with two interim through the Locomotive locomotive cab. Simula agreed with restrained 95th-percentile adult males Crashworthiness Working Group and FRA that more research is needed to occupying the seats as well as the loads the APTA PRESS Task Force. determine the most cost effective means associated with being struck from of providing occupant safety behind by two 95th-percentile adult H. Train Interior Safety improvements. males. Such seats can be designed to Based on previous research results, APTA, in its comments on the NPRM, compartmentalize safely an the interior passenger protection believed that FRA has taken the correct unrestrained single 5th-percentile adult requirements for Tier I and II passenger approach in not mandating active seat female striking the seat from behind. equipment rely on restraints in this stage of the Existing three-position commuter seat ‘‘compartmentalization’’ as a passenger rulemaking. APTA found accurate the designs cannot be modified to accept protection strategy. Such a strategy has description of the physics of passenger lap and shoulder belts. The additional the advantages of being passive, i.e., motion during a collision which was loads associated with the third requiring no action to be taken on the contained in the preamble of the NPRM. restrained and the third unrestrained part of the occupants, of being effective APTA noted that active seat restraints occupant cause multiple structural for a range of occupant sizes, and provide the most benefit in high failures for existing three-position potentially being effective in a wide passenger deceleration situations, such commuter seat designs—these designs range of interior configurations. as in automobile collisions; whereas, in simply fold up under the load. In order Research results indicate that during a the case of the low decelerations of to meet weight requirements, advanced collision the interior environment of a passenger train collisions, other types of structural materials and fabrication passenger coach car is substantially less protection measures such as techniques are likely to be required to hostile than the interiors of automobiles compartmentalization to minimize the develop a three-position commuter seat and aircraft. Owing to this lower distance a passenger travels before design which can support the loads hostility in a collision environment, the striking an interior surface and padding associated with three restrained 95th- interior of a typical passenger coach car of interior surfaces can be as effective as percentile adult males in the seats and can provide a level of protection to active seat restraints in protecting the loads associated with being struck passengers without active restraints at passengers from secondary collisions. from behind the seats by three 95th- least as effective in preventing fatality as In its comments on the NPRM, the percentile adult males. that protection afforded to automobile BRC stated that, ideally, passenger For the intercity passenger coach seat, and transport aircraft passengers with equipment should have seat belts or FRA currently plans to complete work active restraints. See the discussion on other restraints to keep occupants from on the details of the necessary train interior safety in the NPRM for striking seats from behind or striking modifications to Amtrak’s traditional more detail. 62 FR 49745–49749. other interior surfaces and occupants. seat design, modify accordingly four to Conclusions from the research The BRC believed this to be a true cause six pairs of seats for testing, and then previously conducted on passenger of serious injury and death during rapid dynamically sled test these seats. For protection in train collisions show that decelerations in collisions and the commuter seat, a study is planned lap belts and shoulder restraints, if derailments. The BRC further to develop an engineering model design used, provide the highest level of commented that a seat must be strong of a three-position commuter car occupant protection of those protection enough to hold an occupant utilizing passenger seat which incorporates lap strategies studied—greater than the level such restraints and yet resist the force(s) and shoulder belts. Composite of protection afforded by of other unrestrained occupants striking structures and advanced manufacturing compartmentalization. However, as the seat. In addition, a member of the techniques will be considered in this noted in the NPRM, FRA believes that public commented that Amtrak should study. Principal design considerations more research is necessary to determine provide its passengers with lap belts include the need to address secondary the feasibility and effectiveness of these and shoulder harnesses, noting that they collision loads, as well as active restraints, as well as the impact can reduce injuries to all occupants manufacturing and maintenance costs, on seat design and strength necessary to when used. weight, and durability. support the loads associated with use of FRA has continued to pursue research In the second phase of the the restraints. In this regard, FRA into implementing seat belts and rulemaking, FRA and the Working requested information and comment shoulder restraints in intercity and Group will reevaluate the feasibility and from interested parties whether there is commuter passenger equipment. The effectiveness of requiring active any existing research or experience purpose of this research is to develop restraints such as lap belts and shoulder which would justify active seat the information required by FRA to harnesses in passenger equipment, restraints in this phase of the determine if occupant restraints should based on the results of the ongoing rulemaking. See 62 FR 49745. be required in future regulations. This research.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25554 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

I. Fire Safety The 1997 NPRM addressed fire safety release rate increases. As a result, even by proposing to make FRA’s fire safety if passengers do not come in direct In 1984, FRA published guidelines guidelines mandatory for the contact with a fire, they may likely be recommending test methods and construction of new passenger injured from the high temperatures, performance criteria for the equipment as well as the refurbishing of high heat fluxes, and large amounts of flammability, smoke emission, and fire existing equipment. See 62 FR 49803. toxic gases emitted by materials endurance characteristics for categories As explained below in the discussion of involved in the fire. The results of the and functions of materials to be used in this final rule, FRA has simplified and Phase I tests showed a strong correlation the construction of new or rebuilt rail revised the table of tests and between the FRA-cited test data and the passenger equipment. See 49 FR 33076, performance criteria for the Cone Calorimeter test data. Aug. 20, 1984; 49 FR 44582, Nov. 7, flammability and smoke emission Phase I test data were used in the 1984. The guidelines were originally characteristics of materials used in second phase of the NIST project to developed by the Volpe Center for the passenger cars and locomotive cabs. In perform a fire hazard analysis of Urban Mass Transit Administration addition, FRA has clarified in the final selected passenger train fire scenarios. (UMTA now FTA) of DOT in the late rule the application of the required tests Also included in this analysis were data 1970s, and were intended for and performance criteria. As proposed obtained from tests of larger interior application to rail transit vehicles. See in the NPRM, the final rule also furthers components, including seat assemblies, 47 FR 53559, Nov. 26, 1982; 49 FR fire safety through a fire protection plan using the ASTM E 1537 Furniture 32482, Aug. 14, 1984. FRA and program to be carried out by each Calorimeter. The analysis employed recommended applying the guidelines operating railroad, which will include computer modeling to assess the impact to intercity and commuter rail cars, due conducting a fire safety analysis of on passenger train fire safety for a range to the similarity of use for many of the existing passenger equipment and of construction materials and system materials in these cars. taking appropriate action to reduce the design. The interim report documenting The intent of the guidelines is to risk of personal injuries. Phase II is in final preparation by NIST. prevent fire ignition and to maximize As noted in the NPRM, the National In the final phase of the project, selected the time available for passenger Institute of Standards and Technology real-scale proof tests using an Amfleet evacuation if fire does occur. FRA later (NIST) of the United States Department coach rail car and interior assemblies reissued the guidelines in 1989 to of Commerce is conducting research will be performed to verify the small- update the recommended test methods. under the direction of FRA and the scale (bench-scale) criteria and hazard See 54 FR 1837, Jan. 17, 1989. Test Volpe Center involving the fire safety of analysis studies in actual end use methods cited in the FRA guidelines rail passenger vehicles. The NIST configurations. include those of the American Society project is investigating the use of Overall, the NIST research effort for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and alternative fire testing methods and follows upon FRA-sponsored studies by the Federal Aviation Administration computer hazard analysis models to the National Bureau of Standards in (FAA). In particular, the ASTM and identify and evaluate approaches to 1984 and NIST in 1993 which noted, FAA testing methods provide a useful passenger train fire safety. The among their findings, that the screening device to identify materials evaluation is examining the effects and performance of individual components that are especially hazardous. tradeoffs of passenger car and system of a rail passenger car in a real-world design (including materials), fire fire environment may be different from FRA sought comments in the ANPRM detection and suppression systems, and that experienced in bench-scale tests on the need for more thorough passenger egress time. A peer review due to vehicle geometry and materials guidelines or Federal regulations committee has been established to interaction.2 The results of the NIST concerning fire safety. See 61 FR 30696. provide project guidance and review research project will help in developing FRA noted that fire resistance, interim results and reports. The a broad set of performance criteria for detection, and suppression technologies committee includes representatives materials using the Cone Calorimeter have all advanced since the guidelines from FRA, the Volpe Center, the NFPA, and the Furniture Calorimeter in a were first published. In addition, FRA builders of rail passenger vehicles, context similar to that provided explained that a trend toward a systems producers of materials, Amtrak and generally in the table of FRA fire safety approach to fire safety is evident in commuter railroads, and testing requirements contained in Appendix B most countries with modern rail laboratories. to part 238. In addition, unlike data systems. In response, the National Fire In the first phase of the NIST project, derived from most test methods Protection Association (NFPA) selected materials which satisfy the referenced in Appendix B, heat release commented that perhaps more thorough testing methods referenced in FRA’s fire rate and other measurements obtained guidelines are needed, or at least should safety guidelines were evaluated using from the Cone Calorimeter and the be evaluated. Fire Cause Analysis also the ASTM E1354 Cone Calorimeter.1 Furniture Calorimeter can be used in a responded that, at a minimum, more in The Cone Calorimeter provides a fire modeling methodology to evaluate depth guidelines based on current measurement of heat release rate (the the contribution of materials to the system safety procedures and available amount of energy that a material overall fire safety of a passenger train. fire safety engineering techniques are produces while burning), specimen Although FRA has targeted for needed. The commenter noted in mass loss, smoke production, and consideration in the second phase of the particular that Federal maintenance combustion gases. For a given confined standards related to fire safety are space such as a rail car interior, the air 2 ‘‘Fire Tests of Amtrak Passenger Rail Vehicle necessary to ensure that materials temperature and risk of harm to Interiors.’’ (NBS Technical Note 1193, May 1984); ‘‘Fire Safety of Passenger Trains: A Review of U.S. carefully qualified for use in rail passengers are increased as the heat and Foreign Approaches.’’ (DOT/FRA/ORD–93/ passenger vehicles because of their fire 23—DOT–VNTSC–FRA–93–26, December, 1993). safety characteristics are not replaced 1 ‘‘Fire Safety of Passenger Trains: Phase I The 1993 report is available to the public through with either substandard materials or Material Evaluation (Cone Calorimeter).’’ (DOT/ the National Technical Information Service, FRA/ORD/–98/01–DOT–VNTSC–FRA–98–2, Springfield, VA 22161. A copy of both reports have materials whose origin and fire January, 1999). A copy of the report has also been been placed in the public docket for this performance cannot be determined. placed in the public docket of this rulemaking. rulemaking.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25555 rulemaking a broad set of performance In its comments on the NPRM, the selection criteria for new equipment (as criteria employing the Cone Calorimeter NFPA urged FRA to adopt NFPA 130 well as the proposed fire safety program and Furniture Calorimeter for materials upon completion of its revision. The for new equipment discussed below). used in passenger cars and locomotive NFPA cited the National Technology APTA also recommended that FRA cabs, FRA has introduced use of the Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, consider updating the fire safety Cone Calorimeter and Furniture Pub. L. 104–113, and one of its standards based on the work of the Calorimeter in a limited manner in this provisions which requires, in general, NFPA 130 task force and the research final rule as explained below in the that Federal agencies ‘‘use technical being conducted by the NIST. The BRC, discussion of Appendix B to part 238. standards that are developed or adopted in its comments on the NPRM, stated FRA notes that the ASTM has by voluntary consensus standards that interior materials in passenger developed a standard which describes bodies’’ (Section 12, paragraph (d)(1)). equipment must be required to meet how to evaluate fire hazard assessment In the second phase of this rulemaking, strict standards for flammability and techniques (ASTM E 1546, Guide for the FRA will consider with the Working smoke emission. The BRC believed that Development of Fire Hazard Assessment Group the incorporation of NFPA 130, compliance with the current guidelines Standards). An ASTM group, the E–5.17 as revised, into this rule. alone is insufficient for safety, and that Subcommittee on Transportation, is In response to the NPRM, FRA additional technology, preventative currently completing a document received a number of other comments measures, and fire safety standards must entitled ‘‘Standard Guide for Fire on the provisions of the rule related to be considered. Hazard Assessment of Rail Passenger fire safety. Those comments on the In the final rule, FRA has not Vehicles.’’ The proposed guide is proposed fire protection plan and significantly changed the table of test intended to provide an alternative program are noted in particular, below, methods and performance criteria for approach to ensuring an equivalent in the discussion of 49 C.F.R. § 238.103 the flammability and smoke emission level of fire safety using a performance- in the final rule. In regard to the characteristics of materials used in based approach which examines fire proposed table of tests and performance passenger cars and locomotive cabs, as scenarios, as well as design criteria for the flammability and smoke contained in Appendix B to part 238. considerations, to evaluate the potential emission characteristics of materials FRA has sought to maintain the current fire hazard of a rail transportation used in passenger cars and locomotive high levels of safety provided by the fire vehicle. One of the principal issues cabs contained in Appendix B to part safety guidelines, while developing a related to the proposed guide is that 238, Fire Cause Analysis commented on more workable framework for their use calculation methods are suggested the advisability of making such tests as a regulation. In fact, as part of the which use models that have not been and performance criteria mandatory NIST fire safety research, specific input validated for application to rail cars. In without considerable and detailed on the 1989 FRA fire safety guidelines this regard, the results of the NIST fire enabling language. Fire Cause Analysis was solicited from rail system operators, safety research will be helpful for the noted in particular that the table of tests car builders, and consultants at a ASTM subcommittee, as NIST is using and performance criteria in Appendix B workshop held at the NIST Building and the Hazard I computer model to develop contained confusing and overlapping Fire Research Lab (BFRL) in July, 1997. correlations between small-scale tests of component and function categories for (The minutes of that workshop are materials and full-scale tests of rail cars. materials; that application of the tests contained in Follow-Up Workshop In the NPRM, FRA explained that the and performance criteria to ‘‘small Notes.3 ) This input was used to help NFPA publishes a standard (NFPA 130) parts’’ requires special consideration to simplify and revise the table of tests and covering fire protection requirements for provide flexibility for car builders; and performance criteria contained in fixed guideway transit systems and for that the fire performance of electrical Appendix B. In summary, the specific life safety from fire in transit stations, wiring and cable was not expressly changes FRA has made to the table in trainways, vehicles, and outdoor addressed in the NPRM, although the final rule include: maintenance and storage areas. See 62 addressed by NFPA 130. • FR 49744–5. (A copy of the 1997 edition A member of the public commented Reorganizing table component and function categories; of this standard has been placed in the that he considered FRA’s fire safety • public docket for this rulemaking.) guidelines good in some but not all Adding a dynamic testing requirement for cushions; However, this standard has not respects. The commenter stated in • historically been applied to passenger particular that the current acceptance Adding a new test method for evaluating seat assemblies; railroad systems, including those that levels of smoke emission are inadequate • provide commuter service (NFPA 130 to protect passengers from toxic levels Providing a test exception and test alternative for small component parts; 1–1.2). FRA noted that an APTA of smoke; and that permitting glazing • representative on the Working Group and lighting lenses to have a flame Adding express requirements for who is a member of the NFPA initiated spread index of 100 with flaming wire and cable testing; • an NFPA-sponsored task force to revise running and flaming dripping is not Updating test methods for the scope of NFPA 130 to cover all rail justified based on the location of these elastomers; • passenger transportation systems, objects, ease of ignition, and Btu content Providing an alternative test including intercity and commuter rail, of polycarbonate. Nonetheless, the method for smoke generation; • and revise other provisions as commenter recommended adoption of Adding express requirements for necessary. The NFPA task force met the guidelines into law, noting that structural assemblies other than floors; several times in 1997 and 1998, and some vendors, car builders, and and • submitted recommended revisions to agencies operating rail equipment have Renumbering and adding notes to the NFPA 130 Committee in August, not taken the guidelines seriously. the table to reflect the changes. 1998. Although the NFPA 130 Otherwise, the commenter believed that Committee accepted the task force the fire safety guidelines will be 3 ‘‘Follow-Up Notes: NIST/CFR FRA Project, Meeting/Workshop of 7/23/97.’’ September 15, recommendations in principle, the discounted. 1997. Prepared by J. Zicherman. A copy of this standard revision approval process will APTA, in its comments on the NPRM, document has been placed in the public docket for not be complete until late 1999. supported the proposed materials this rulemaking.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25556 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

The discussion of Appendix B to part two homes and blocked a street north of power brake and mechanical standards 238, below, provides a detailed the Palatka station. The derailment for passenger equipment. The 1997 explanation of the changes made to the resulted in eleven passengers sustaining NPRM, upon which this final rule is table of test methods and performance serious injuries and 41 others receiving based, was developed by FRA in criteria for the flammability and smoke minor injuries. In addition, five consultation with this Working Group. emission characteristics of materials members of the operating crew and four In addition, FRA determined that a used in passenger cars and locomotive onboard service personnel received second NPRM covering freight cabs. minor injuries. By letter dated equipment power brake standards September 16, 1993, FRA told the NTSB would be developed with the assistance VI. Inspection and Testing of Brake that it was in the process of reviewing of FRA’s RSAC. See 61 FR 29164, June Systems and Mechanical Components and rewriting the power brake 7, 1996. Furthermore, in the interest of A. Background Prior to 1997 NPRM regulations and would consider the public safety and due to statutory as NTSB’s recommendation during the well as internal commitments, FRA In 1992, Congress amended the process. determined that it would separate the Federal rail safety laws by adding Based on comments and information issues related to two-way end-of-train- certain statutory mandates related to received, FRA published a Notice of telemetry devices from both the power brake safety. These amendments Proposed Rulemaking in 1994 (1994 passenger and freight issues. FRA specifically address the revision of the NPRM) regarding revision of the power convened a public regulatory conference power brake regulations and state in brake regulations. The 1994 NPRM and published a final rule on two-way pertinent part: contained specific requirements related end-of-train devices on January 2, 1997. (r) POWER BRAKE SAFETY.—(1) The to intercity passenger and commuter See 62 FR 278. Secretary shall conduct a review of the train operations, including: general Beginning in December of 1995, the Department of Transportation’s rules with design requirements; movement of Passenger Equipment Safety Standards respect to railroad power brakes, and not defective equipment; employee Working Group adopted the additional later than December 31, 1993, shall revise qualifications; inspection and testing of task of attempting to develop power such rules based on such safety data as may brake and mechanical inspection and be presented during that review. brake systems and mechanical components; single car testing maintenance standards applicable to * * * * * requirements and periodic maintenance; intercity passenger and commuter train Pub. L. No. 102–365, § 7; codified at 49 operating requirements; and operations and equipment. The Working U.S.C. 20141, superseding 45 U.S.C. requirements for the introduction of Group met on four separate occasions, 431(r). new train brake system technology. See for a total of ten days of meetings, with In response to the statutory mandate, 59 FR 47676, 47722–53, September, 16, a good portion of these meetings being various recommendations to improve 1994. Following publication of the 1994 devoted to discussion of power brake power brake safety, and due to its own NPRM, FRA held a series of public and mechanical inspection and determination that the power brake hearings in 1994 to allow interested maintenance issues. From the outset, a regulations were in need of revision, parties the opportunity to comment on majority of the members, as well as FRA published an ANPRM on December specific issues addressed in the 1994 FRA, believed that any requirements 31, 1992, concerning railroad power NPRM. Due to the strong objections developed by the group regarding the brake safety. See 57 FR 62546. The raised by a large number of commenters, inspection and testing of the brake and ANPRM provided background FRA announced by notice published on mechanical equipment should not vary information and presented questions on January 17, 1995, that it would defer significantly from the current various subjects related to intercity action on the 1994 NPRM and permit requirements and should be consistent passenger and commuter train the submission of additional comments with current industry practice. operations, including: training of testing prior to making a determination as to FRA’s accident/incident data related and inspection personnel; electronic how it would proceed in this matter. to intercity passenger and commuter braking systems; cleaning, oiling, See 60 FR 3375. train operations support the assumption testing, and stenciling (COT&S) After review of all the comments that the current practices of these requirements; performance of brake submitted, FRA determined that in operations in the area of power brake inspections; and high speed passenger order to limit the number of issues to be inspection, testing, and maintenance are train brakes. Following publication of examined and developed in any one for the most part sufficient to ensure the the ANPRM, FRA conducted a series of proceeding it would proceed with the safety of the public. Between January 1, public workshops. The ANPRM and the revision of the power brake regulations 1990 and October 31, 1996, there were public workshops were intended as fact- via three separate processes. In light of only five brake related accidents finding tools to elicit views of those the testimony and comments received involving commuter and intercity persons outside FRA charged with on the 1994 NPRM, emphasizing the passenger railroad equipment. No ensuring compliance with the power differences between passenger and casualties resulted from any of these brake regulations on a day-to-day basis. freight operations and the brake and accidents and the total damage to Furthermore, on July 26, 1993, the mechanical equipment utilized by the railroad equipment totaled NTSB made the following two, FRA decided to separate passenger approximately $650,000, or $96,000 recommendation to FRA: ‘‘Amend the equipment power brake and mechanical annually. In addition, between January power brake regulations, 49 Code of standards from freight equipment power 1, 1995 and October 31, 1996, FRA Federal Regulations 232.12, to provide brake standards. inspected approximately 13,000 appropriate guidelines for inspecting As passenger equipment power brake commuter and intercity passenger rail brake equipment on modern passenger and mechanical standards are a logical units for compliance with 49 CFR part cars.’’ (R–93–16). The recommendation subset of passenger equipment safety 232. The defect ratio for these units arose out of the NTSB’s investigation of standards (see 49 U.S.C. 20133(c)), FRA during this period was approximately the December 17, 1991, derailment of an requested the Passenger Equipment 0.8 percent. Furthermore, during this Amtrak passenger train in Palatka, Safety Standards Working Group to same period FRA inspected Florida. The derailed equipment struck assist FRA in developing appropriate approximately 6,300 locomotives for

VerDate 06-MAY-99 17:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25557 compliance with 49 CFR part 229. The that any requirements developed by the railroads to conduct the inspections at brake defect ratio for these units was group regarding the inspection, testing, locations that are more conducive to approximately 4.65 percent. and maintenance of the brake and permitting a full inspection of the Consequently, the defect ratio for brake mechanical equipment should not vary equipment than many of the outlying related defects on locomotives and other significantly from the current locations where trains are stationed passenger equipment during this period requirements and should be consistent overnight and where the ability to was approximately 2.08 percent. with current industry practice. observe all the equipment may be The existing regulations covering the However, the Working Group was hampered. It was further contended inspection and testing of the braking unable to reach consensus on any power that, if the railroads are allowed some systems on passenger trains are brake or mechanical equipment flexibility in conducting these type of contained in 49 CFR part 232. The standards, despite the positing of inspections, then the equipment can be current regulations do provide some multiple alternatives, use of a facilitator, moved to a location where a fully requirements relevant to passenger train and the foundation provided by the qualified mechanical inspector can operations, including: initial terminal 1994 NPRM. The Working Group perform detailed inspections under inspection and testing, intermediate identified and discussed options with optimum conditions. inspections, running tests, and general which the agency and labor can agree, Several parties also pointed out that, maintenance requirements. See 49 CFR and others with which FRA and the with proper maintenance, ‘‘tread brake 232.12, 232.13(a), 232.16, and 232.17. railroads can agree. However, bridging units’’ and other friction brake However, most of the existing the gap between those various options components, commonly used in regulations are written to address freight proved elusive. Consequently, as the commuter train operations, are highly train operations and do not sufficiently Working Group could not reach any reliable and that the non-functioning of address the unique operating type of consensus on the inspection and any individual unit would in no way environment of commuter and intercity testing requirements, it was determined compromise the overall safety of the passenger train operations or the that FRA would address these issues train. Furthermore, permitting the equipment currently being used in those unilaterally, based on the information inspection of brake components in the operations. Therefore, it has been and discussions provided by the middle of the day, rather than at the necessary for FRA to provide Working Group and the information beginning of the day, involves no greater interpretations of some of the current gathered from the 1994 NPRM. safety risk to passengers because friction regulations in order to address these brake systems and their components unique concerns. B. 1997 NPRM on Passenger Safety degrade in performance based largely on Currently, all non-MU (multiple unit) Equipment Standards use, and nothing short of a continuous commuter trains that do not remain During the Working Group brake inspection can guarantee 100- connected to a source of compressed air discussions, labor representatives, percent performance at all times. overnight and all MU commuter trains particularly the BRC, insisted that a Railroad representatives suggested an equipped with RT–5 or similar brake comprehensive power brake inspection inspection scheme that would permit an systems must receive an initial terminal must be performed prior to a train’s first in-depth, comprehensive brake inspection of the brake system pursuant run on a given calendar day. The BRC inspection to be performed sometime to § 232.12(c)–(j) prior to the train’s first also believed that it is necessary for the during the day in which the equipment departure on any given calendar day. first inspection of the day to determine is used with a brake inspection being All non-MU commuter trains that whether the brake shoes and the disc performed prior to the first run of the remain connected to a source of pads actually apply as intended. The day verifying the continuity of the compressed air over-night are permitted BRC further contended that in order to trainline by performing a set and release to receive an initial terminal inspection perform a comprehensive inspection on the rear car of the train. of the brake system sometime during equivalent to an initial terminal APTA and other passenger railroad each 24-hour period in which they are inspection the train must be walked or representatives strongly maintained that used. Furthermore, all intercity otherwise inspected on a car-to-car basis specific inspection criteria or limits passenger trains must receive an initial and that these principal inspections related to the mechanical components of terminal inspection of the brake system should be performed only by carmen or passenger equipment were not at the point where they are originally other qualified mechanical personnel as necessary. During the ongoing meetings made up and must receive an they are the only employees sufficiently of the Working Group, FRA repeatedly intermediate inspection in accordance trained to perform the inspections. Rail requested that railroad representatives with § 232.12(b) every 1,000 miles. labor representatives also advocated a provide a recommended list of There are currently no regulations daily inspection of all safety-related mechanical components and criteria for which specifically require the mechanical components with pass/fail their inspection. These representatives inspection of the mechanical criteria or limits written into the Federal consistently responded with very broad components on passenger equipment. safety standards much like the requirements basically limited to Although the current regulations do not requirements contained in 49 CFR part inspections for obvious and visible contain any mechanical inspection 215 addressing freight equipment. defects. Although passenger railroad requirement of passenger equipment, Representatives of intercity passenger representatives did not object to the virtually every passenger railroad and commuter railroads expressed the safety principle of a mechanical currently performs some type of daily desire to have the flexibility to conduct inspection, they did not want their mechanical inspection on its passenger comprehensive in-depth inspections of operations to be bound by a rigid list of equipment with highly qualified the brake and mechanical system components and criteria for the personnel. For several years Amtrak has sometime during the day in which the inspection. been conducting voluntary mechanical equipment is utilized. These parties Based on consideration of all of the safety inspections of passenger train argued that safety would be better information outlined above, FRA components. served by allowing the railroads the published an NPRM on Passenger As noted previously, most of the flexibility to conduct these inspections Equipment Safety Standards on members of the Working Group believed on a daily basis as it would allow the September 23, 1997. See 62 FR 49728.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25558 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

This NPRM contained specific operate for long distances, with trips which the equipment is used. FRA proposals related to the inspection, between the beginning terminal and believed that the flexibility permitted by testing, and maintenance of both the ending terminal taking a day or more the proposed requirement would allow brake and mechanical components on and traversing multiple states with railroads to move equipment to passenger equipment. The proposal relatively long distances between locations that are most conducive to the attempted to balance the concerns of rail passenger stations. Consequently, FRA inspection of the brake equipment and labor representatives and proposed the terms ‘‘commuter train,’’ would allow railroads to combine the representatives of intercity and ‘‘short-distance intercity passenger daily mechanical inspections with the commuter railroads. train,’’ and ‘‘long-distance intercity brake inspection for added efficiency. passenger train’’ in order to identify the In the NPRM, FRA recognized the 1. Proposed Brake System Inspections inspection and testing requirements differences between commuter or short- In the 1997 NPRM, FRA proposed to associated with each. See 62 FR 49737– distance intercity operations and long- abandon the terminology related to the 38, 49774–76, 49810–11. For the most distance intercity passenger train power brake inspection and testing part, commuter and short-distance operations. FRA noted that long- requirements contained in the current intercity passenger trains were treated distance intercity passenger trains do regulations, and proposed to identify similarly, whereas long-distance not operate in shorter turn around various classes of inspections based on intercity passenger trains had slightly service over the same sections of track the duties and type of inspection different proposed inspection and on a daily basis for the purpose of required. See 62 FR 49737, 49774–77, testing requirements. In addition, FRA transporting passengers from major 49810–11. FRA believed that this type proposed slightly different requirements centers of employment. Instead, these of classification system would avoid with regard to the movement of trains tend to operate for extended confusion with the power brake defective equipment in long-distance periods of time, over long distances inspection and testing requirements intercity passenger trains (see the with greater distances between applicable to freight operations and discussion below on the ‘‘Movement of passenger stations and terminals. would avoid the connotations Equipment with Defective Brakes’’). Further, these trains may operate well historically attached to the current The proposed Class I brake test over 1,000 miles in any 24 hour period. terminology. FRA also believed that this basically required an inspection similar Thus, FRA believed that the opportunity approach was better suited for providing to an initial terminal inspection as for conducting inspections on these operational flexibility to commuter currently described at § 232.12(c)-(j), but trains was somewhat diminished. operations while maintaining the safety was somewhat more extensive and Therefore, FRA determined that a provided by the current inspection and specifically aimed at the types of thorough inspection of the braking testing requirements. Although FRA equipment being used in commuter and system on these types of operations proposed a change in the terminology intercity passenger train service. See 62 must be conducted prior to the train’s used to describe the various power FR 49738–39, 49774–76, 49810. The departure from an initial starting brake inspections and tests, the proposed Class I brake test would terminal. Consequently, FRA proposed requirements of the inspections and require an inspection of the application that a Class I brake inspection be tests closely tracked the current and release of the friction brakes on performed on long-distance intercity requirements with some modifications each side of each car as well as an passenger trains prior to departure from made to address the unique operating inspection of the brake shoes, pads, an initial terminal. See 62 FR 49810. environment of, and equipment discs, rigging, angle cocks, piston travel, FRA did not believe there would be any operated in, commuter and intercity and brake indicators if the equipment is significant burden placed on these passenger train service. Members of the so equipped. The Class I brake test operations as the current regulations Working Group appeared receptive to would also require testing of the require that an initial terminal this kind of classification system and communication signal system and the inspection be performed at these discussed various options using some of emergency braking control devices. In locations. this terminology. Consequently, FRA recognition of the advanced technology FRA also recognized that these long- proposed four different types of brake and various designs used in many of distance intercity passenger trains could inspections, ‘‘Class I,’’ ‘‘Class IA,’’ these operations, which make conceivably travel significant distances ‘‘Class II,’’ and ‘‘running brake test,’’ observation of the piston travel virtually if Class I inspections were required only that were to be performed by commuter impossible, FRA proposed to permit the once every 24 hours the equipment is in and intercity passenger railroads some inspection of the piston travel to be service as proposed for commuter and time during the operation of their conducted either through direct short-distance intercity passenger trains. equipment. observation of the clearance between the Thus, FRA believed that some outside In the proposal, FRA also divided brake shoe and the wheel or by mileage limit had to be placed on these passenger train operations into two observation of a brake actuator. trains between brake inspections. Under distinct types for purposes of brake Furthermore, FRA proposed to require a the current regulations a passenger train inspections and testing. FRA recognized brake pipe leakage test only when is permitted to travel no farther than that there were major differences in the leakage will affect service performance. 1,000 miles from its initial terminal, at operations of commuter or short- As FRA proposed that Class I brake which point it must receive an distance intercity passenger trains, and tests be comprehensive inspections of intermediate inspection of brakes that long-distance intercity passenger trains. the braking system, FRA believed that includes an application of the brakes Commuter and short-distance intercity commuter and short-distance intercity and the inspection of the brake rigging passenger trains tend to operate for passenger train operations should be to ensure it is properly secured. See 49 fairly short distances between passenger permitted some flexibility in conducting CFR 232.12(b). However, in recognition stations and generally operate in these inspections. Consequently, FRA of the improved technology used in relatively short turn-around service proposed that commuter and short- passenger train brake systems combined between two terminals several times in distance intercity passenger train with the comprehensive nature of the any given day. In contrast, long-distance operations perform a Class I brake test proposed Class I brake tests and intercity passenger trains tend to sometime during the calendar day in mechanical safety inspections being

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25559 performed by highly qualified given day. FRA believed that the inspection for freight cars under the inspectors, FRA proposed to permit proposed Class IA brake was sufficiently Railroad Freight Car Safety Standards. long-distance passenger trains to travel detailed to ensure the proper See 49 CFR 229.21 and 215.13, up to 1,500 miles between Class I brake functioning of the brake system yet not respectively. FRA proposed that the tests. Under FRA’s proposal a so intensive that it would require calendar day mechanical inspection comprehensive Class I brake test would individuals to perform an inspection for apply to all passenger cars and all be performed once every calendar day which they are not qualified. Although unpowered vehicles used in passenger that the equipment is used or every FRA tended to agree with the position trains (which includes, e.g., not only 1,500 miles, which ever occurred first. advanced by many labor representatives coaches, MU locomotives, and cab cars See 62 FR 49739, 49775, 49810. that some sort of car-to-car inspection but also any other rail rolling equipment FRA also proposed that the brake must be made of the brake equipment used in a passenger train), and that all inspection and testing intervals prior to the first run of the day, FRA did exterior mechanical inspections be proposed for long-distance passenger not agree that it is necessary to perform performed by highly qualified trains apply to all Tier II equipment a full Class I brake test in order to personnel. A mechanical safety (i.e., equipment operating at speeds ensure the proper functioning of the inspection of freight cars has been a greater than 125 mph but not exceeding brake equipment in all situations. longstanding Federal safety 150 mph), regardless of whether it is However, contrary to the position requirement, and FRA believed that the used in short-or long-distance intercity espoused by APTA, FRA believed that lack of a similar requirement for trains. As FRA’s proposal permitted something more than just a passenger equipment created a serious operators of Tier II equipment to determination that the brakes on the void in the current Federal railroad develop inspection and testing criteria rear car set and release is necessary. safety standards. and procedures, these operations would In addition to the proposed Class I Rail labor representatives advocated a be required to develop a brake test that and Class IA brake tests, FRA also daily inspection of all safety-related is equivalent to a Class I brake test for proposed a Class II brake test. The mechanical components with pass/fail Tier II equipment. Due to the speeds at proposed Class II brake test would be an criteria or limits written into the Federal which this equipment will be allowed to inspection intended to verify the safety standards much like the operate, FRA believed it was a necessity continuity of the train brake system and requirements contained in 49 CFR part that an equivalent Class I brake test be would be similar to the intermediate 215, whereas APTA and other passenger performed on Tier II equipment before terminal inspection currently prescribed railroad representatives on the other it departs from its initial terminal. at § 232.13(a). A Class II brake test hand strongly maintained that specific Similarly, FRA proposed that the basically required a set and release of inspection criteria or limits are not equivalent Class I brake test be the brakes on the rear car. The proposed necessary. During the meetings of the performed every calendar day in which Class II test would be required in those Working Group, FRA repeatedly Tier II equipment is used or every 1,500 circumstances where minor changes to requested that railroad representatives miles, whichever comes first. See 62 FR a train consist occur, such as the change provide a recommended list of 49739, 49784, 49821. of a control stand, the removal of cars mechanical components and criteria for The proposed Class IA brake test was from the consist, the addition of their inspection. These representatives somewhat less comprehensive than the previously tested cars, and the consistently responded with very broad proposed Class I brake test but included situations in which an operator first requirements basically limited to a detailed inspection of the brake takes control of the train. See 62 FR inspections for obvious and visible system to verify the continuity of the 49739, 49777, 49811. defects. Although passenger railroad brake system and the proper functioning FRA also proposed that a running representatives did not object to the of the brake valves on each car. A Class brake test be conducted as soon as safety principle of a mechanical IA brake test would be similar to the conditions safely permit it to be inspection, they did not want their intermediate brake inspection currently conducted after a train receives a Class operations to be bound by a rigid list of required for freight trains prescribed at I, Class IA, or Class II brake test. FRA components and criteria for the § 232.13(d)(1). The proposed Class IA believed that this test should be inspection. brake test would generally require a conducted in accordance with each FRA agreed with labor representatives walking inspection of the set and release railroad’s operating rules. The proposed that a specific list of components to be of the brakes on each car; however, the ‘‘running brake test’’ requirement was inspected with enforceable inspection proposal allowed brake indicators to be similar to the ‘‘running test’’ or pass/fail criteria needed to be used to verify the set and release if the requirements currently contained at included as part of the proposed railroad determined that operating § 232.16. See 62 FR 49740, 49777, Passenger Equipment Safety Standards. conditions pose a safety hazard to an 49811. In the 1997 NPRM, FRA identified the inspector walking along the train. The components that were to be inspected as Class IA brake test also required a 2. Proposed Mechanical Inspections part of the exterior calendar day leakage test if leakage affects service In the 1997 NPRM, FRA proposed mechanical safety inspection and performance, as well as an inspection three types of mechanical inspections, provided measurable inspection criteria of: angle cocks; piston travel, if these included: a calendar day exterior for the components. The proposal determinable; brake indicators; and interior inspection, and a periodic required the railroad to ascertain that emergency brake control devices; and inspection. See 62 FR 49771–73, 49807– each passenger car, and each communication of brake pipe pressure 09. The proposed exterior calendar day unpowered vehicle used in a passenger changes at the rear of train to the mechanical inspection for passenger train conforms with the conditions controlling locomotive. See 62 FR cars and unpowered vehicles used in enumerated in the proposal. The 49738–39, 49776–77, 49810. passenger trains was patterned after a Working Group members generally FRA proposed that a Class IA brake combination of the current calendar day agreed that the components contained test would be performed prior to a inspection required for locomotives in the proposal represented valid safety- commuter or short-distance intercity under the Railroad Locomotive Safety related components that should be passenger train’s first departure on any Standards and the pre-departure frequently inspected by railroads.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25560 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

However, members of the Working to operate defective equipment in defective conditions and the repair or Group had widely different opinions passenger service to end at the calendar replacement of certain components regarding the criteria to be used to day mechanical inspection. which would trigger the requirement to inspect the components. Therefore, as Initially, FRA considered requiring a perform a single car test. See 62 FR FRA was not provided any clear more extensive list of components to be 49774, 49809. In an attempt to promote guidance from the Working Group, FRA checked at each interior calendar day the prompt repair of defective selected inspection criteria based on the mechanical inspection. However, based equipment, FRA proposed some locomotive calendar day inspection and on discussions conducted with the flexibility in the performance of the test the freight car safety pre-departure Working Group, FRA determined that by permitting cars to be moved to a inspection required by 49 CFR parts 229 the daily inspection and repair of some location where the test could be and 215, respectively. FRA believed that interior items could be burdensome to performed if repairs were made at a passenger equipment should receive an the railroads without producing an location that could not perform the test. inspection which is at least equivalent offsetting safety benefit. As a result, to that received by locomotives and FRA proposed a periodic mechanical 3. Proposed Qualifications of Inspection freight cars. The components and inspection for passenger cars in order to and Testing Personnel conditions identified by FRA to be reduce the frequency with which certain In the 1997 NPRM, FRA proposed the included in the exterior calendar day components require inspection. FRA terms ‘‘qualified person’’ and ‘‘qualified mechanical inspection included: proposed that the following components mechanical inspector’’ to differentiate couplers; suspension system; trucks; be inspected for proper operation and between the type of personnel that will side bearings; wheels; jumpers; cable repaired, if necessary, as part of the be permitted to perform certain brake or connections; buffer plates; products of periodic maintenance of the equipment: mechanical inspections required in the combustion; batteries; diaphragms; and emergency lights; emergency exit proposal. A ‘‘qualified person’’ was secondary brake systems. See 62 FR windows; seats and seat attachments; defined as a person determined by the 49807–08. overhead luggage racks and railroad to have the knowledge and FRA also proposed that each railroad attachments; floor and stair surfaces; skills necessary to perform one or more perform an interior calendar day and hand-operated electrical switches. functions required under this part. mechanical inspection by individuals See 62 FR 49808–09. Whereas, a ‘‘qualified mechanical FRA determined that virtually all qualified by the railroad to do so. FRA inspector’’ was defined as a ‘‘qualified passenger railroads have defined originally contemplated requiring the person’’ who as a part of the training, periodic maintenance intervals for all of interior inspections to be performed by qualification, and designation program the equipment they operate with highly qualified personnel to track the required by the proposal had received intervals varying from 60 to 180 days, exterior calendar day mechanical instruction and training that included depending on the type of equipment inspection requirements. However, after ‘‘hands-on’’ experience (under and the service in which it is used. several discussions with members of the appropriate supervision or Working Group and several other Although FRA did not intend to limit apprenticeship) in one or more of the representatives of passenger railroads, the railroad’s flexibility to set periodic following functions: trouble-shooting, FRA determined that the training and maintenance intervals, FRA believed inspection, testing, and maintenance or experience typical of a mechanical that an outside limit had to be placed on repair of the specific train brake and inspector is not necessary and often the performance of the periodic other components and systems for does not apply to inspecting interior mechanical inspection. Thus, FRA which the inspector is assigned safety components of passenger proposed that the periodic mechanical responsibility. Further, the mechanical equipment. In addition, the most inspection be performed at least every inspector was to be a person whose economical way to accomplish the 180 days, as that appeared to be the primary responsibility includes work mechanical inspection is to combine the outside limit of currently established exterior inspection with the Class I maintenance cycles. generally consistent with those brake test and then have a crew member In addition to the daily and periodic functions. See 62 FR 49754. or train coach cleaner combine the mechanical inspections, FRA also As FRA intended for Class I brake interior mechanical inspection with proposed extensive requirements inspections and exterior calendar day coach cleaning. FRA listed the following regarding the performance of single car mechanical inspections to be in-depth components that were to be inspected as tests on passenger equipment. FRA inspections of the entire braking system part of the interior calendar day believed that the proposed single car and the safety-critical mechanical mechanical inspection: trap doors; end test has proven itself effective in components, which most likely will be and side doors; manual door releases; uncovering brake system problems that performed only one time in any given safety covers, doors and plates; are the root cause of certain wheel day in which the equipment is used, vestibule step lighting; and safety- defects or that have been caused by and because of the flexibility FRA related signs and instructions. See 62 FR repairs made to the brake system. The proposed in the performance of such 49808. current regulations require that a single inspections, FRA proposed that these Because FRA intended the daily car test be performed on passenger cars inspections had to be performed by exterior and interior mechanical whenever they are on a shop or repair individuals possessing not only the inspections to serve as the time when track. As the current requirement carries knowledge to identify and detect a the railroad repairs defects that occurred the potential of permitting a railroad to defective condition in all of the brake en route, FRA further proposed that avoid the performance of the test by equipment required to be inspected but safety components not in compliance calling a repair track something other also the knowledge to recognize the with this part would be required to be than a repair track, FRA believed it was interrelational workings of the repaired before the equipment was prudent to base the requirement to equipment and the ability to permitted to remain in or return to perform a single car test on the type of ‘‘troubleshoot’’ and repair the passenger service after the performance defect or repair involved rather than the equipment. Consequently, FRA of the mechanical inspections. In other location where the defect is repaired. proposed that only qualified mechanical words, FRA intended for the flexibility Therefore, FRA proposed a list of inspectors would be permitted to

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25561 perform Class I brake tests and exterior provide a brief overview of the thrust of train is in operation and the system is calendar day mechanical inspections. the comments received in this portion of attempted to be used. As the definition of qualified the preamble and provide general FRA APTA representatives also mechanical inspector required the conclusions while addressing the commented on the proposed person’s primary responsibility to be the specific comments of various parties in requirements for performing single car inspection, testing, or maintenance of the section-by-section analysis. For tests. APTA recommended that FRA passenger equipment, the definition purposes of discussion, the comments adopt the new single car test procedures largely ruled out the possibility of train are grouped in three categories: (1) recently developed by the PRESS brake crew members becoming qualified railroad management representatives; committee rather than the outdated mechanical inspectors because the (2) railroad labor representatives; and AAR standard. These commenters also primary responsibility of a train crew (3) other commenters. recommended that the replacement or member is generally the operation of the Railroad management representatives, repair of certain proposed components train. FRA intended the definition to APTA and its member railroads and not trigger the requirement to perform a allow the members of the trades Amtrak, generally agreed with the single car test since most of the brake associated with the testing and concept of performing the proposed system is not disturbed by the repairs maintenance of equipment such as comprehensive daily brake and and some sort of partial test could carmen, machinists, and electricians to mechanical inspections. However, these sufficiently demonstrate proper become qualified mechanical representatives raised a number of operation of the brake system. These inspectors. However, FRA made clear concerns with the proposed inspections. commenters also sought the flexibility that membership in labor organizations Commenters for APTA believed that the not to perform the test if a wheel defect or completion of apprenticeship proposed requirement to perform a is known to be caused by other than a programs associated with these crafts Class IA brake test prior to the first run brake-related problem. APTA further was not required to be designated a of the day for commuter and short- recommended that railroads be qualified mechanical inspector. The two distance intercity trains is unnecessary permitted to perform single car tests primary qualifications were the and adds no value to the proposed from the locomotive control stands. The major issue raised by railroad possession of the knowledge required to inspection scheme. APTA recommends management representatives addressed do the job and a primary work that a Class I brake test remain valid for FRA’s proposal that all Class I brake assignment inspecting, testing, or up to 12 hours after it is performed, if tests and all exterior calendar day maintaining the equipment. the train remains intact with FRA included a clear definition of mechanical inspections be performed by compressors running, and that the ‘‘qualified person’’ to allow railroads the a qualified mechanical inspector (QMI). performance of a Class II brake test prior flexibility of having train crews perform APTA representatives objected to the Class IA, Class II, and running brake to the first departure would be sufficient use of this designation for several tests and interior calendar day to ensure the proper operation of the reasons and recommended the mechanical inspections. A qualified brake system. APTA contends that the alternative term ‘‘qualified maintenance person had to be trained and designated performance of a Class II brake test prior person.’’ The main objection of these as able to perform the types of brake and to departure would detect any brake commenters relates to the requirement mechanical inspections and tests that problems caused by vandalism and that that a QMI’s primary responsibility the railroad assigned to him or her. commuter railroads have been operated must be the inspection, testing, However, a qualified person did not safely in this fashion for years. maintenance, troubleshooting, or need the extensive knowledge of brake Railroad management representatives maintenance of the brake system or systems or mechanical components or also raised issues concerning the mechanical components. These be able to trouble-shoot and repair them. performance of the proposed exterior commenters also object to FRA’s The qualified person was considered to calendar day mechanical inspection. statement that the definition of QMI be the ‘‘checker.’’ He or she was to The major concern of these commenters largely rules out the possibility of train possess the knowledge and experience was that the proposal was unclear as to crew members being designated as necessary to be able to identify brake whether trainsets had to be uncoupled QMIs. These commenters contend that system problems. or placed over a pit to perform the any person who is properly trained can inspections. These commenters perform the inspections proposed by C. Overview of Comments Relating to recommended that the rule text FRA. These commenters also object to Proposed Inspection and Testing explicitly state that the inspection is to the use of the term qualified mechanical Requirements be performed to the extent possible inspector based on the concern that Those parties filing comments, without uncoupling the cars or placing such a title might lead employees presenting testimony and participating the cars over an elevated pit. APTA designated as such to seek premium pay in the Working Group meetings with representatives also recommended that due to the title bestowed. regard to the proposed inspection and some of the items proposed in the APTA representatives contend that testing requirements have provided the exterior calendar day mechanical the proposed definition of QMI violates agency with a wealth of facts and inspection be moved to the periodic the Administrative Procedure Act informed opinions, and have been mechanical inspection as they could not (APA), exceeds FRA’s statutory extremely helpful to FRA in resolving reasonably be seen without uncoupling authority, and is counter to the Railway the issues. Most commenters provided the car or placing it over an elevated pit. Labor Act. These commenters contend testimony or written comments on more These included certain requirements that the Administrative record does not than one issue and generally were related to the inspection of the couplers, support a finding by FRA that only supported by the positions of other the truck and car body assembly, and employees whose ‘‘primary commenters. Rather than attempt to the center castings on trucks. Some responsibility’’ includes work in the paraphrase each commenter’s response commenters also recommended area of troubleshooting, testing, to each of the proposed regulatory elimination of the requirement that all inspecting, maintenance, or repair to sections, FRA believes it would be secondary braking systems be working, train brake and other components are better, and more understandable, to since that could not be known until the capable of performing Class I and

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25562 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations exterior mechanical inspections. These definition of QMI which specifically records 66 percent of the 609 cars commenters also contend that FRA’s excludes train crew members from the identified by the BRC were in trains that proposed definition is counter to FRA’s definition. terminated at Washington, DC and statutory mandate not to prescribe Labor representatives agreed with should not be considered in employee qualifications except where APTA representatives that FRA should determining brake inspection intervals. clearly necessary for safety reasons. See adopt the single car testing procedures Of the 204 cars alleged to be defective 49 U.S.C. 20110. Furthermore, it is developed through the PRESS brake and that were part of trains which run contended that the proposed definition committee. These representatives through Washington, DC, Amtrak is counter to the Railway Labor Act believed that the newly developed records show that only 7 of the cars because it impinges upon the exclusive procedures were better than the existing were shopped at Washington, DC and jurisdiction of the National Mediation AAR procedures but stressed that the that 110 additional cars were shopped Board to make final determinations over test must be conducted whenever any of within 7 days after the date of the employee classes or crafts and to the items listed in the NPRM occurred. reported defect. In almost all cases the interpret collective bargaining Labor commenters believed a single car repairs were made at a location other agreements. In essence, this argument test should be performed prior to than Washington, DC, which was contends that by limiting the employees permitting a car to be moved and that frequently the end destination for the who can perform a Class I brake test or the test should not be permitted to be train. Amtrak concludes that the defects an exterior mechanical inspection, FRA performed with a locomotive. reported by the BRC at Washington, DC is in effect making an employee class or The primary concern raised by labor constitute items from an in-bound craft designation. representatives, particularly the BRC, inspection but were not true defects that A concern raised by Metra is involves the proposed 1,500-mile required shopping a car from an en interrelated to the proposed QMI inspection interval for performing Class route train. requirement, in that Metra seeks I brake tests on long-distance intercity Amtrak provided additional flexibility or relief from the QMI passenger trains. Although the BRC information containing a summary of requirement on weekends. Metra agrees that the current 1,000-mile the set-outs which took place on the contends that train crews perform most inspection should be replaced with the railroad during the period from March of the brake tests conducted by the proposed Class I brake test, the BRC 1997 to February 1998 for safety and railroad on weekends and have been for objects to extending the distance non-safety related causes. This several years. Metra claims that there is between brake tests to 1,500 miles. The information showed that 301 cars were no data showing a decrease in safety on BRC claims that the proposed increase set-out by Amtrak during this period. Of Metra during weekend operations to is not justified by the facts. The BRC those 301 cars that were set-out, only 29 support FRA’s proposal that these brake contends that an inspection at 1,000 were set-out at intermediate (1,000 mile) inspections must be performed by a mile intervals is necessary to ensure the inspection points and only 15 of those QMI rather than a train crew member. safety of passenger train operations due 29 were for brake-related defects. Metra seeks relief from the QMI to the numerous defective conditions Therefore, Amtrak contends that 90 requirement on weekends for railroads being found during 1,000 mile percent of the cars that were set-out which have established a successful inspections. As support for this were set-out en route and were not operating history of performing the tests contention, the BRC submitted found during intermediate inspections. with qualified persons rather than information compiled by a carman During this same period Amtrak QMIs. stationed at Union Station in conducted 1,000-mile inspections on Rail labor representatives, while Washington, D.C. from January 1996 approximately 130,000 cars. generally supportive of the proposed through February of 1997 who allegedly Consequently, Amtrak contends that the inspection and testing requirements, performed 1,000-mile inspections at this annual defect rate at intermediate also raised a number of concerns related location. The BRC also cited other inspection points for this period was to the proposed requirements. Labor specific examples of defective 0.02 percent and that it was costing representatives objected to the proposed equipment being moved in passenger Amtrak approximately $175,000 per Class IA brake test and continued to trains. Based on this information and defect found to conduct 1,000-mile insist that railroads should be required extrapolating similar conditions across inspections. to conduct a full Class I brake test prior the country, the BRC contends that The BRC submitted a response to the to the first run of the day. These numerous defective conditions are information provided by Amtrak. In this commenters also advocated against uncovered at 1,000 mile brake submission the BRC contends that providing any leeway for weekend inspections and that there is no safety Amtrak’s analysis regarding the reported operations with regard to the proposed justification for extending the distance defects is faulty and self-serving. This inspections and tests, claiming that in between brake inspections. commenter contends that all the defects many instances equipment used on Amtrak responded to the information found at Union Station must be weekends is used more rigorously than provided in the BRC’s submission considered when evaluating an when used during the week and, regarding defects found during extension of the 1,000-mile inspection therefore, quality inspections are inspections at Washington, D.C. in regardless of whether Union Station is probably more important. Labor January 1996 through February 1997. a 1,000-mile inspection point and representatives also noted that FRA Amtrak contends that Washington, D.C. regardless of the distance traveled by failed to address what tests or is not a 1,000-mile inspection point and the cars involved. The BRC contends inspections are to be performed on thus, should not be used to determine that any defective conditions found are equipment added to an en route the appropriate interval for brake indicative of what will be traveling past passenger train. Furthermore, these inspections. Amtrak also contends that 1,000-mile inspection locations should commenters supported the concept of the data presented was not sufficiently the distance between brake inspections requiring that QMIs perform all Class I detailed to determine if the listed be extended to 1,500 miles. The BRC brake tests and exterior mechanical defects violated the railroad’s standards further contends that Amtrak’s analysis inspections but recommended that FRA for equipment operating en route. regarding the number of cars set-out at develop a clear and unequivocal Amtrak contends that based upon their intermediate inspections is flawed for

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25563 several reasons. The BRC claims that proposal to address circumstances when exterior calendar day and periodic intermediate inspection points cited by cars are added to an en route train. If a mechanical inspection provisions. FRA Amtrak are not 1,000-mile inspection car has received such inspection, the believes that proper and accurate locations and that the same type of railroad will be required to perform a recordkeeping is a cornerstone of any inspection is not performed. (FRA’s Class II brake test at the time the car is inspection process and is essential to review of Amtrak’s submission indicates added to the train. FRA believes that ensuring the performance and quality of that when Amtrak referred to these provisions will ensure the the required inspections. Without such intermediate inspection points it was integrity of the brakes and mechanical records the inspection requirements referring to 1,000 mile inspection components on every car added to an would be difficult to enforce. Although locations.) Further, it is contended that existing train and should not be a recordkeeping was discussed in the looking solely at the number of cars set- burden for railroads since cars are Working Group and FRA believes them out at these locations is improper generally added to passenger trains at to be an integral part of any inspection because it does not take into account the major terminals with the facilities and requirement, FRA inadvertently omitted defects that are repaired while a car personnel available for conducting such any such requirements in the NPRM remained entrained. The BRC reasserted inspections. Furthermore, these specifically related to mechanical its position that the data does not inspection requirements are very similar inspections. This omission was brought support an extension of the 1,000-mile to what is currently required when a to FRA’s attention through verbal and inspection interval and, if anything, the freight car is added to a train while en written comments provided by various data supports reducing the inspection route. See 49 CFR §§ 215.13 and 232.13. interested parties. requirement to 500 miles. FRA is also modifying the FRA is also making minor changes requirements for when a Class IA brake and clarifications to the proposed D. General FRA Conclusions test must be performed. FRA continues exterior calendar day mechanical After consideration of all the to believe that some type of car-by-car inspection. In the final rule, FRA is comments submitted, both in writing inspection must be performed prior to a explicitly stating that the exterior and through oral testimony and passenger train’s first run of the day if mechanical inspection is to be discussion within the Working Group, the train was used in passenger service performed to the extent possible FRA intends for the requirements the previous day without any brake without uncoupling the trainset and regarding the inspection and testing of inspection being performed after it without placing the equipment over a passenger equipment contained in the completed service and before it laid-up pit or on an elevated track. This explicit final rule to closely track the proposed for the evening. However, FRA agrees statement is being added in response to requirements contained in the 1997 with the comments submitted by APTA APTA’s concerns regarding what would NPRM. In this final rule, FRA will make representatives that the need for such an constitute proper performance of these slight modifications to the proposed inspection is minimized if a Class I inspections. FRA intended the requirements in an attempt to clarify the brake test is performed within a inspection to be very similar to the requirements, to cover areas that were relatively short period of time prior to freight car safety inspection currently not adequately addressed, and to the first run of the day and the train has required pursuant to Part 215. FRA also address the specific comments not been used in passenger service since recognizes that certain items contained submitted. FRA generally believes that the performance of that inspection. in the proposed exterior mechanical the approach taken in the NPRM to the From a safety standpoint, it appears to inspection could not have been easily inspection and testing of passenger be unnecessary to require the inspected without proper shop facilities. equipment incorporates the current best performance of a second comprehensive Therefore, FRA is moving some of the practices of the industry, effectively brake test when the equipment has not exterior mechanical inspection balances the positions of the various been used and has remained on a source requirements related to couplers and parties involved, and increases the of compressed air since the last trucks to the periodic mechanical overall safety of passenger train comprehensive brake test was inspection requirements as these operations. performed. In such circumstances, FRA periodic inspections will likely be 1. Brake and Mechanical Inspections believes that the performance of a Class performed at locations with facilities II brake test would be sufficient to available that are more conducive to FRA intends to modify the Class I determine if there are any problems inspecting the specific components. The brake test and the exterior calendar day with the braking system due to changes made in the final rule were mechanical inspection requirements to vandalism or other causes since the last discussed with the Working Group at ensure the proper operation of all cars comprehensive Class I brake test. the December 15–16, 1997 meeting. added to a train while en route. FRA is Furthermore, as APTA’s comments FRA is also adding various provisions adding certain provisions to require the point out, commuter railroads have been related to the performance of periodic performance of a Class I brake test and safely operated in a fashion similar to mechanical inspections. As noted an exterior mechanical inspection on this for a number of years. above, FRA is moving certain items each car added to a passenger train at Consequently, the final rule will require from the exterior calendar day the time it is added to the train unless the performance of a Class II brake test mechanical inspection to the periodic documentation is provided to the train prior to the first run of the day if a Class mechanical inspections as they cannot crew that a Class I brake test and an I brake test was performed within the be easily inspected without proper shop exterior mechanical inspection was previous twelve hours and the train has facilities. In the NPRM, FRA proposed performed on the car within the not been used in passenger service and that a periodic mechanical inspection be previous calendar day and the car has has not been disconnected from a source performed every 180 days. After a not been disconnected from a source of of compressed air for more than four review of the industry’s practices compressed air for more than four hours since the performance of the Class regarding the performance of periodic hours. FRA is adding this requirement I brake test. mechanical-type inspections, FRA in order to address the concerns raised FRA will also include certain minimal believes that the items removed from by various labor representatives that no recordkeeping requirements related to the calendar day mechanical inspection provisions were provided in the the performance of the interior and as well as some of the items previously

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25564 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations proposed in the 180 day periodic establish a default interval, FRA intends unpowered vehicles used in passenger mechanical inspection should be and to make clear that FRA will allow trains. are currently inspected on a more railroads to develop alternative intervals FRA is also modifying some of the frequent basis by the railroads. As it is for performing such inspections for circumstances under which a single car FRA’s intent in this proceeding to specific components or equipment test is required to be performed. FRA attempt to codify the current best based on a more quantitative reliability agrees with several of the commenters practices of the industry, FRA believes assessment completed as part of their that the 1997 NPRM may have been that the current intervals for inspecting system safety programs. FRA expects over-inclusive in listing the components certain components should be that railroads will utilize reliability- whose repair, replacement, or removal maintained. Therefore, FRA will require based maintenance programs as would trigger the performance of a the periodic inspection of certain appropriate, given this opportunity to single car test. Thus, in accordance with mechanical components, floors, do so. As successful reliability based the discussions conducted with the passageways, and switches on a 92-day maintenance programs are dynamic, it is Working Group in mid-December of basis. Furthermore, FRA will also expected that, in the process of defining 1997, FRA is amending the list of brake require a 92-day inspection of and documenting the reliable use of components to include only those emergency lighting systems as they are equipment or specific components, over circumstances where a relay valve, critical to the safety of passengers in the time, continued assessments may service portion, emergency portion, or event of an accident or derailment. FRA indicate a need to increase or decrease pipe bracket is removed, repaired, or is adding an inspection of the roller inspection intervals. FRA will only replaced. Whenever any other bearings to the 92-day inspection. permit lengthened inspection intervals component previously contained in the Although this component was beyond the default intervals when such 1997 NPRM is removed, repaired, or inadvertently left out of the 1997 NPRM, changes are justified by a quantitative replaced FRA will require that only that they were covered in the 1994 NPRM; reliability assessment. The previously portion that is renewed or replaced be and FRA believes that roller bearings are described inspection intervals are based tested. FRA believes that the items an integral part of the mechanical on sound but limited information removed from the previously proposed components and must be part of any provided to FRA that FRA believes list can generally be removed, replaced, mechanical inspection scheme. represents a combination of operating or repaired without affecting other Furthermore, several labor commenters experience, analytical analyses, portions of the brake system and, thus, recommended inspections criteria knowledge and intuition. FRA does the need to perform a single car test is similar to that contained in 49 CFR part expect that railroads will collect and reduced. FRA also will not mandate the 215, which specifically addresses the respond to additional data throughout performance of a single car test for condition of roller bearings. See 49 CFR the operating life of the equipment. (A wheel defects, other than a built-up § 215.115. As roller bearings are best detailed discussion of reliability-based tread, if the railroad can establish that viewed in a shop facility context, FRA maintenance programs is contained in the wheel defect is due to a cause other is adding the inspection of this the section-by-section discussion of than a defective brake system. Thus, the component to the 92-day periodic § 238.307.) burden will fall on the railroad to mechanical inspection, which is establish and maintain sufficient consistent with the current practices of FRA is also modifying the proposed documentation that a wheel defect is the industry. requirements related to the performance due to something other than a brake- FRA will also retain a semi-annual of single car tests. Based on the related cause. FRA intends to make it periodic inspection for certain recommendations of representatives clear that if the railroad cannot establish components as proposed in the 1997 from both rail labor and rail the specific non-brake related cause for NPRM. FRA proposed a 180-day management, FRA will reference the a wheel defect, it is required to perform periodic inspection, but in order to single car testing procedures which a single car test. remain consistent with the 92-day were developed by APTA PRESS rather 2. Qualified Maintenance Person inspection scheme, FRA will require a than the AAR single car testing 184-day periodic inspection of certain procedures referenced in the 1997 An issue related to the inspection and components, including: seats; luggage NPRM. The single car test procedures testing requirements on which FRA has racks; beds; and emergency windows. were issued by APTA on July 1, 1998 received extensive comment, FRA removed the inspection of the and are contained in APTA Mechanical particularly from APTA representatives, couplers from the calendar day Safety Standard SS–M–005–98. The is the proposed definition of ‘‘qualified inspection and added them to the 184- single car test procedures issued by mechanical inspector (QMI).’’ FRA day inspection requirement. FRA is APTA are more comprehensive and recognizes the concern raised by some placing the coupler inspection at this better address passenger equipment commenters that the term QMI might interval rather than the 92-day interval than the older AAR recommended result in employees designated as such in order to reduce the amount of practices. In the 1997 NPRM, FRA to seek some sort of premium pay status. coupling and uncoupling that will be proposed to require the performance of Although FRA is not overly swayed by required. FRA is also extending the single car tests on all passenger cars and this concern, FRA is changing the term inspection interval related to manual other unpowered vehicles used in in the manner suggested by these door releases. Due to the general passenger trains. However, the commenters to ‘‘qualified maintenance reliability of these devices and because definition of passenger cars includes person (QMP).’’ FRA believes that the they are partially inspected on a daily self-propelled vehicles such as MU term used to describe the individual basis, FRA believes that an annual locomotives, to which FRA did not responsible for conducting certain brake inspection of the releases will ensure intend to apply the proposed single car and mechanical inspections has little their proper operation. Thus, FRA will test requirements. Thus, FRA is bearing on the qualifications or require an inspection of the manual modifying the language of the single car knowledge of the individual and, thus, door releases every 368 days. test requirements to clarify that the is not adverse to accommodating a Although FRA has established certain testing requirements apply to nonself- change in the term. However, but for periodic inspection intervals in order to propelled passenger cars and clarifying language, FRA is not changing

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25565 the underlying definition of what is FRA’s independent knowledge of the of thumb FRA will consider a person’s required to be designated as a QMP. passenger rail industry do support a ‘‘primary responsibility’’ to be the task The major concern raised by APTA requirement that only a QMI (or QMP) that the person performs at least 50 representatives centered on the conduct Class I brake tests and exterior percent of the time. Therefore, a person requirement contained in the definition mechanical inspections. Except for who spends at least 50 percent of the of a QMI that the person’s ‘‘primary limited weekend service operated by time engaged in the duties of inspecting, responsibility’’ include work in the area Metra, virtually every passenger train testing, maintenance, troubleshooting, of troubleshooting, testing, inspecting, operation affected by this rule currently or repair of train brakes systems and maintenance, or repair to train brake conducts daily brake and mechanical other mechanical components could be systems and other components. These inspections utilizing employees who, designated as a QMP, if the person is commenters believed that anyone who except for training on the requirements properly trained to perform the tasks is properly trained can perform the of this rule, would meet the definition assigned and possesses a current required inspections regardless of the of a QMI (or QMP). That is, the understanding of what is required to amount of time actually spent engaged employees who are currently properly repair and maintain the safety- in the activity. responsible for conducting the major critical brake or mechanical components The entire concept of QMI (or QMP) daily brake and mechanical inspections for which they are assigned is premised on the idea that flexibility on virtually all passenger trains meet responsibility. However, FRA will in the inspection of passenger the ‘‘primary responsibility’’ consider the totality of the equipment, flexibility in the movement requirement contained in the definition circumstances surrounding an of defective equipment and slight of QMI (or QMP). Therefore, the employee’s duties in determining a reductions in periodic maintenance industry’s current practice person’s ‘‘primary responsibility.’’ For could be provided if the mechanical acknowledges and supports the need to example, a person may not spend 50 components and brake system were conduct daily inspections with percent of his or her day engaged in any inspected on a daily basis by highly employees whose primary responsibility one readily identifiable type of activity; qualified individuals. Thus, the is the troubleshooting, inspection, in those situations FRA will have to requirement that a highly qualified testing, maintenance, or repair of train look at the circumstances involved on a person perform certain brake and brake systems or other mechanical case-by-case basis. mechanical inspections is part of a components. Furthermore, due to the The definition of QMP largely rules package which includes flexibility in flexibility provided in this rule for out the possibility of train crew the performance of brake and conducting brake and mechanical members being designated as these mechanical inspections, permits wider inspections and moving defective highly qualified inspectors since the latitude in the movement of defective equipment as well as the extension of primary responsibility, as defined equipment, and provides reductions in certain periodic maintenance, FRA above, of virtually all current train crew the periodic maintenance that is believes that the current best practices personnel is the operation of trains and required to be performed on certain of the railroads with regard to brake and for the most part train crew personnel equipment. Therefore, FRA expects the mechanical inspections must be highly qualified person to be an maintained, especially as they relate to do not possess a current understanding individual who can not only identify a the quality of the personnel performing of what is required to properly repair particular defective condition but who the inspections and the continuity of and maintain the safety-critical brake or will have the knowledge and experience observation provided by a dedicated mechanical components that are to know how the defective condition work force (which is important to inspected during Class I brake tests or affects other mechanical components or detection of developing hazards in the exterior calendar day mechanical other parts of the brake system and will fleet). inspections. However, contrary to the have an understanding of what might FRA further believes that APTA’s contentions raised by APTA, there is have caused a particular defective contention that the definition of QMI (or nothing in the rule which prevents a condition. FRA believes that in order for QMP) violates the Railway Labor Act is railroad from utilizing employees who a person to become highly proficient in due to a misunderstanding of the are not designated as QMPs from the performance of a particular task that definition. FRA is not attempting to conducting brake and mechanical person must perform the task on a make any determinations over employee inspections provided those inspections repeated and consistent basis. As it is classes or crafts or to interpret collective are not intended to constitute the almost impossible to develop and bargaining agreements. In the 1997 required Class I brake test or the exterior impose specific experience NPRM, FRA stated that the definition calendar day mechanical inspection. requirements, FRA believes that a would allow the members of trades Furthermore, the rule provides that requirement that the person’s primary associated with testing and maintenance certain required brake and mechanical responsibility be in one or more of the of equipment such as carmen, inspections (Class IA brake tests, Class specifically identified work areas and machinists, and electricians to become II brake tests, running brake tests, and that the person have a basic QMIs (or QMPs). However, FRA further interior calendar day mechanical understanding of what is required to stated that membership in a labor inspections) may be performed by a properly repair and maintain safety- organization or completion of an properly ‘‘qualified person’’ and do critical brake or mechanical components apprenticeship program associated with mandate the use of a QMP. FRA believes is necessary to ensure the high quality a particular craft is not required. FRA that these are the types of inspections inspections envisioned by the rule. made clear that the two overriding which train crew members are currently FRA disagrees with the contentions qualifications are possession of the assigned to perform and have been raised by APTA representatives that the knowledge required to do the job and a performing effectively for years. definition of QMI (or QMP) violates the primary work assignment inspecting, Consequently, FRA believes that the APA and exceeds FRA’s statutory testing, or maintaining the equipment. inspection requirements and the authority. Contrary to the assertions FRA also intends to clarify the qualification requirements contained in made by APTA representatives, the meaning of ‘‘primary responsibility’’ as this rule are merely a codification of the administrative record together with used in the definition of QMP. As a rule current best practices of the passenger

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25566 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations train industry and are necessary to potential abuses by other railroads that every 1,500 miles or every calendar day ensure the continued safety of those are not similarly situated. thereafter, whichever comes first, by operations while providing the industry highly qualified inspectors. Thus, at 3. Long-Distance Intercity Passenger some flexibility in the performance of least every 1,500 miles or every calendar Trains certain inspections and in the day a long-distance passenger train will movement of defective equipment as FRA is also retaining the requirements be required to receive a brake inspection well as providing slight increases in proposed in the 1997 NPRM related to which is more comprehensive than the periodic maintenance cycles for some the performance of Class I brake tests on current initial terminal inspection and equipment. long-distance intercity passenger trains. which requires that the train have 100 FRA does not intend to provide any FRA will require that a Class I brake test percent operative brakes and have special provisions for weekend be performed on long-distance intercity piston travel set within established operations with regard to the passenger trains prior to the trains’ limits. Furthermore, this rule will conducting of Class I brake tests and departure from an originating terminal require the performance of an exterior calendar day mechanical inspection by and once every 1,500 miles or every and interior mechanical inspection QMPs as suggested in the comments by calendar day, whichever occurs first. every calendar day that the train is in some APTA representatives. The After reviewing the information and service. Consequently, the inspection rationale for requiring daily brake and comments submitted by labor scheme proposed in the 1997 NPRM mechanical attention by highly qualified representatives, the information and and retained in this final rule will, in inspectors, a proposition generally comments provided by Amtrak, and FRA’s view, increase the safety and accepted by Working Group members, based upon the independent better ensure the integrity of the brake appears to apply equally to weekend information developed by FRA, FRA and mechanical components of long- periods. In fact based on FRA’s believes that the enhanced inspection distance passenger trains. experience, equipment used on scheme contained in this final rule will FRA also believes that some weekends is generally used more ensure the continued safety of long- recognition must be given to the various rigorously than equipment used during distance intercity passenger trains. types of advanced braking system weekday operations. At present only Contrary to the statements made in technologies used on many long- one commuter operation (Metra) has the comments submitted by some labor distance intercity passenger trains. raised significant concerns regarding representatives, FRA is not merely Many of these advanced technologies weekend operations. Although there is increasing the distance between brake are not found with any regularity in no specific data suggesting that existing inspections. Rather, FRA is increasing freight operations. Dynamic brakes are weekend operations on Metra, which both the quality and the content of the typically employed on these types of involves having many of the brake inspections that must be performed on trains to limit thermal stresses on inspections conducted by train crew long-distance intercity passenger trains friction surfaces and to limit the wear members, have created a safety hazard, and, thus, increasing the safety of such and tear on the brake equipment. FRA has found it virtually impossible to trains. Under the current regulations Furthermore, the brake valves and brake draft and justify provisions providing these passenger trains are required to components used on today’s long- limited flexibility for Metra that do not receive an initial terminal brake distance passenger trains are far more create potential loopholes that could be inspection at the point where they are reliable than was the case several abused by other passenger train originally assembled; from that point decades ago. Other technological operations that have not had the the train must receive an intermediate advances utilized with regularity by apparent safety success of Metra. brake inspection every 1,000 miles. The these passenger trains include: Moreover, based on FRA’s independent current 1,000-mile inspection merely • The use of brake cylinder pressure investigation of Metra’s operation, it is requires the performance of a leakage indicators which provide a reliable believed that the impact of this final test, an application of the brakes and the indication of the application and release rule on Metra’s weekend operations will inspection of the brake rigging on each of the brakes. be significantly less than that indicated car to ensure it is properly secured. See • The use of disc brakes which in APTA’s written comments and 49 CFR 232.12(b). The current 1,000- provide shorter stopping distances and originally perceived by Metra. FRA mile brake inspection does not require decrease the risk of thermal damage to believes that most of the personnel 100 percent operative brakes prior to wheels. needed by Metra to conduct its weekend departure and does not require piston • The ability to cut out brakes on a operations in accordance with this final travel to be inspected. The current per-axle or per-truck basis rather than a rule are available to Metra or its regulations also do not require the per car basis, thus permitting greater use contractors and that minor adjustments performance of any type of mechanical of those brakes that are operable. could be made to its weekend inspection on passenger equipment at • Brake ratios that are 21⁄2 times operations that might avoid significant 1,000-mile inspection points or at any greater than the brake ratios of loaded new expense. other time in the train’s journey. Thus, freight cars. As the concerns regarding weekend under the current regulations a long- The reliability and performance of operations appear to involve just one distance intercity passenger train can brake systems on these passenger trains commuter operation and because the travel from New York to Los Angeles on enhance the safety of these trains and, precise impact on that operation is not one initial terminal inspection, a series when combined with other aspects of known or available at this time, FRA of 1,000-mile inspections, and no this discussion, support FRA’s believes that the waiver process would mechanical inspections. determination that these brake systems be the best method for evaluating any Whereas, this rule will require the can be safely operated with the lingering concerns that may be raised by performance of a Class I brake test, inspection intervals that were proposed that operator. This would afford FRA an which is more comprehensive than the in the 1997 NPRM. Although some of opportunity to provide any appropriate current initial terminal inspection, at the technologies noted above have relief based on the specific needs and the point where the train is originally existed for several decades, most of the the safety history of the individual assembled and will require the technologies were not in wide spread railroad without opening the door to performance of another Class I brake test use until after 1980. Furthermore, most

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25567 of the noted technological advances just by the exterior calendar day mechanical in BRC’s submission were in fact started to be integrated into one efficient inspection contained in this final rule defective as alleged, it appears that and reliable braking system within the which will be required to be performed approximately 750 cars were defective. last decade. Consequently, the every calendar day that a piece of However, the information also reveals technology incorporated into the brake equipment is in service. that approximately 1,300 trains were equipment used in today’s long-distance FRA agrees with the comments inspected, thus, using a conservative intercity passenger trains has increased submitted by the BRC that the data and estimate of 10 cars per train, the reliability of the braking system and information submitted by Amtrak approximately 13,000 cars were permits the safe operation of the regarding the allegedly defective inspected. Therefore, approximately equipment for extended distances even equipment found at Washington, D.C., only 6 percent of the cars inspected though a portion of the braking system does not fully address whether the cars were found to contain either a may be inoperative or defective. identified by carmen at that location mechanical or brake defect. FRA also disagrees with the were defective and does indicate that at Furthermore, of the approximate 750 contentions raised by certain labor least many of the cars were repaired for cars alleged to have been found representatives that the facts and data the defective condition noted within defective, only approximately 20 do not support the 500 mile extension several days after moving through percent of those cars contained a power in the brake inspection interval even Washington, D.C. However, contrary to brake-related defect. Consequently, only with the more comprehensive the conclusions reached by labor about 1–2 percent of the total cars inspection scheme. These commenters representatives, the fact that a car inspected contained a power brake- recommend that the current 1,000-mile remained in service with an alleged related defect. Moreover, from the brake inspection interval be retained defective mechanical or brake condition information provided it appears that together with the increased inspection does not necessarily mean the train none of the trains contained in the BRC regiment. These commenters contend involved was in an unsafe condition or submission were involved in any type of that due to the large number of defects that the equipment was being moved accident or incident related to the being found at 1,000-mile inspections illegally. The current regulations defective conditions alleged. that the need to retain the inspection is regarding freight mechanical equipment FRA believes that the key to any justified. As an example and support for and the existing statutory mandates inspection scheme developed for long- this position, the BRC submitted regarding the movement of equipment distance intercity passenger trains is the information containing numerous with defective safety appliances and defective conditions compiled by brakes permit the movement of a certain quality of the inspection which is carmen stationed at Union Station in amount of defective equipment to performed at a train’s point of origin. Washington D.C. from January 1996 certain locations provided it is FRA is convinced that if a train is through February of 1997 that the determined by a qualified person that properly inspected with highly qualified carmen allegedly found on trains such a movement can be made safely or inspectors and has 100 percent traveling through Union Station. After that a sufficient percentage of the brakes operative brakes at its point of origin, reviewing the documentation submitted, remain operative. See 49 U.S.C. 20303, then the train can easily travel up to FRA does not believe the information 49 CFR 215.9. As this final rule will 1,500 miles between brake inspections supports the conclusion that 1,000-mile specifically address the inspection of without significant deterioration of the brake inspections must be maintained the mechanical components on braking system. FRA independently and that it would be unsafe to extend passenger equipment and the movement monitored a few long-distance intercity the distance between brake inspections of defective mechanical components, passenger trains running from New York under the inspection scheme contained which is not covered by existing to Miami, New York to New Orleans, in this final rule. regulations, FRA believes that the and New York to Chicago and found Due to the lack of detail contained in amount of defective equipment being that when the trains departed from their the information submitted by the BRC, operated will be reduced significantly point of origin with a brake system that it is impossible to determine whether and will be handled safely in revenue was defect free they arrived at the vast majority of the alleged defective trains. Although FRA agrees that the destination without any defective conditions were defective under the information submitted by Amtrak conditions existing on the trains’ brake Federal regulations or whether the regarding the number of cars set out at system. These findings are consistent conditions were merely in excess of 1,000-mile inspection points does not with FRA’s experience in inspecting Amtrak’s voluntary maintenance reflect the true number of defects being long-distance intercity passenger trains standards or operating practices. In found during the inspections, FRA does over the last several years. It should be addition, based on the description of find it significant that a very small noted that during this independent some of the conditions, they would not percentage of cars set-out by Amtrak are monitoring, FRA did find some trains be considered defective conditions set-out at 1,000-mile inspection that after receiving initial terminal under current Federal regulations. locations and that most set-outs occur inspections still contained some Furthermore, the vast majority of the en route. (In its April 17, 1998 letter, defective conditions on the brake conditions alleged in the document Amtrak used the term intermediate system. Although FRA believes that were not power brake defects, and thus, inspections which upon FRA’s review none of the defective conditions found under the current regulations, would of the information provided was would have prevented the safe not have been required to have been intended to describe 1,000-mile operation of the trains, FRA recognizes inspected at a 1,000-mile inspection, inspection locations.) that FRA as well as the railroads must nor do the current regulations mandate FRA also feels it is necessary to make be vigilant in ensuring that quality brake any type of mechanical inspection on clear that the number of cars alleged to system inspections are performed on a passenger equipment. Moreover, as the have been found in defective condition train at its point of origin and at each vast majority of the alleged conditions at Union Station in Washington D.C. is location where a Class I brake test is were mechanical and wheel defects, not indicative of a safety problem on required to be performed. Consequently, FRA believes that these types of long-distance intercity passenger trains. due to the comprehensive nature of defective conditions will be addressed Assuming that all of the cars contained Class I brake tests and the exterior

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25568 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations calendar day mechanical inspection essence a requirement that 100 percent disruption of this service, when combined with the technological of the cars in a train have operative applying the requirements regarding the advances incorporated into the braking power brakes, unless being hauled for movement of equipment with defective systems utilized in these types of trains repairs pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 20303. brakes on a day-to-day basis. In and after a review of the data and Consequently, FRA currently requires addition, the representatives of information provided and based on that equipment with defective or commuter and intercity passenger train FRA’s experience with these types of inoperative air brakes make-up no more operations participating in the operations, FRA intends to retain the than 15 percent of the train and that, if proceeding requested that the proposed 1,500 mileage interval for the it is necessary to move the equipment regulations be brought up to date, performance of Class I brake tests in this from where the railroad first discovered recognizing that brakes will have to be final rule. it to be defective, the defective cut out en route from time to time (e.g., equipment be moved no farther than the because of damage from debris on the VII. Movement of Defective Equipment nearest place on the railroad’s line track structure or because of sticking A. Background where the necessary repairs can be brakes), and that contemporary braking The current regulations do not made or, at the option of the receiving systems and established stopping carrier, to a repair point that is no contain requirements pertaining to the distances provide a very considerable farther than the repair point on the movement of equipment with defective margin of safety. Representatives from delivering line. power brakes. The movement of APTA proposed a method of updating The requirements regarding the the existing requirements regarding the equipment with these types of defects is movement of equipment with defective currently controlled by a specific movement of commuter passenger or insecure brakes noted above can and equipment with defective brakes to statutory provision originally enacted in do create safety hazards as well as 1910, which states: bring them more in line with the operational difficulties in the area of realities of today’s operations. FRA (a) GENERAL.— A vehicle that is equipped commuter and intercity passenger believed that the restrictions proposed in compliance with this chapter whose railroad operations. As the provisions equipment becomes defective or insecure by APTA were very conservative and regarding the movement of defective effectively ensure a high level of safety nevertheless may be moved when necessary brake equipment were written almost a to make repairs, without a penalty being in light of the reliability of braking imposed under section 21302 of this title, century ago, they do not address the systems currently used in commuter from the place at which the defect or realities of these types of operations in and intercity passenger train operations. insecurity was first discovered to the nearest today’s world. Strict application of the FRA believed that affirmatively available place at which the repairs can requirements has the potential of recognizing appropriate movement be made— causing major disruptions of service and restrictions would actually enhance (1) on the railroad line on which the defect serious safety and security problems. safety, since compliance with the or insecurity was discovered; or For example, requiring repairs to be (2) at the option of a connecting railroad existing restrictions is potentially made at the nearest location where the unsafe. carrier, on the railroad line of the connecting necessary repairs can be made could carrier, if not further than the place of repair result in passengers being discharged FRA recognized that some of the described in clause (1) of this subsection. between stations where adequate restrictions proposed in the NPRM were 49 U.S.C. 20303(a) (emphasis added). facilities for their safety are not not in accord with the requirements Although there is no limit contained available or in the overcrowding of contained in 49 U.S.C. 20303(a). in 49 U.S.C. 20303 as to the number of station platforms and trailing trains due Therefore, FRA proposed the utilization cars with defective equipment that may to discharging passengers from a of the authority granted in 49 U.S.C. be hauled in a train, FRA has a defective train at a location other than 20306 to exempt passenger train longstanding interpretation which the passenger’s destination. In addition, operations covered by this part from the requires that, at a minimum, 85 percent strict application of the statutory statutory requirements contained in 49 of the cars in a train have operative requirements could result in the moving U.S.C. 20303(a) permitting the brakes. FRA bases this interpretation on of trains with defective brake equipment movement of equipment with defective another statutory requirement which against the current of traffic during busy or insecure brakes only if various permits a railroad to use a train only if commuting hours. Irregular movements requirements are met, including the Aat least 50 percent of the vehicles in of this type increase the risk of requirement that the movement for the train are equipped with power or collisions on the railroad. Furthermore, repair be only to the nearest location train brakes and the engineer is using many of today’s commuter train where the necessary repairs can be the power or train brakes on those operations often utilize six cars or less made. FRA believed that the granting of vehicles and on all other vehicles in trains and in many instances operate this exemption was justified based on equipped with them that are associated just two-car trains. Consequently, the the technological advances made in the with those vehicles in a train.’’ 49 necessity to cut out the brakes on one brake systems and equipment used in U.S.C. 20302(a)(5)(B). As originally car can easily result in noncompliance passenger operations, and was necessary enacted in 1903, section 20302 also with the 85-percent requirement for for these operations to make efficient granted the Interstate Commerce hauling the car for repairs, thus use of the technological advances and Commission (ICC) the authority to prohibiting the train’s movement and protect the safety of the riding public. increase this percentage, and in 1910 resulting in the same type of safety See 62 FR 49740–42, 49756–58. the ICC issued an order increasing the problems noted above. Although FRA recognized that it could minimum percentage to 85 percent. See be argued that the purpose of section 49 CFR 232.1, which codified the ICC B. Overview of 1997 NPRM 20306 is too narrow to comprehend the order. In the NPRM, FRA attempted to instant application, FRA believed that As virtually all freight cars are recognize the nature of commuter and the use of the provision as contemplated presently equipped with power brakes intercity passenger operations and the in this proposal was consistent with the and are operated on an associated importance of addressing the safety of authority granted the Secretary of trainline, the statutory requirement is in passengers, as well as avoiding Transportation. As noted previously, the

VerDate 06-MAY-99 17:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25569 statutory requirements regarding the decades, most of the technologies were movements past locations where the movement of equipment with defective not in wide spread use until after 1980. necessary repairs could be made. brake equipment were written nearly a Furthermore, most of the noted However, to ensure the safety of these century ago and, in FRA’s opinion, were technological advances just started to be trains with lower percentages of focused generally on the operation of integrated into one efficient and reliable operative brakes, FRA also proposed freight equipment and did not braking system within the last decade. various speed restrictions and other contemplate the types of commuter and In addition to the technological operating restrictions, based on the intercity passenger train operations advances, commuter and intercity percentage of operative brakes. FRA currently prevalent throughout the passenger train operations have believed that the proposed speed nation. Since the original enactment in experienced considerable growth in the restrictions were very conservative and 1910 of the provisions now codified at last 15 years necessitating the need to ensured a high level of safety. In fact, 49 U.S.C. 20303(a), there have been provide more reliable and efficient test data established that with the substantial changes both in the nature of service to the riding public. Since 1980, proposed speed restrictions the stopping the operations of passenger trains as the number of commuter operations distances of those trains with lower well as in the technology used in those providing rail service has almost percentages of operative brakes were operations. doubled and the number of daily shorter than if the trains were operating In the NPRM, FRA noted that passengers serviced by passenger at normal speed and had 100 percent contemporary passenger equipment operations has more than doubled over operative brakes. Consequently, FRA incorporates various types of advanced the same time period. Furthermore, believed that the proposed approach to braking systems; in some cases these commuter and intercity passenger train the movement of equipment with include electrical activation of brakes on operations conduct more frequent single defective brakes not only enhanced the each car (with pneumatic application car tests, COT&S, and maintenance of overall safety of train operations but through the train line available as a the braking systems than is generally the benefitted both the railroads, by backup). Dynamic brakes are also practice in the freight industry. providing operational flexibility, and typically employed to limit thermal Consequently, FRA concluded that the the traveling public, by permitting them stresses on friction surfaces and to limit technology incorporated into the brake to get to their destinations in a more the wear and tear on the brake equipment used in today’s commuter expedient and safe fashion. equipment. Furthermore, the brake and intercity passenger train operations FRA also proposed various valves and brake components used has increased the reliability of the requirements to ensure that equipment today are far more reliable than was the braking system and permits the safe being hauled for repairs is adequately case several decades ago. In addition to operation of the equipment for extended identified. Currently, there is no these technological advances, the brake distances even though a portion of the requirement that equipment with equipment used in commuter and braking system may be inoperative or defective power brakes be tagged or intercity passenger train operations defective. otherwise identified, although most incorporate advanced technologies not FRA also proposed an exemption for railroads voluntarily engage in such found with any regularity in freight passenger train operations from a long- activity. Furthermore, the current operations. These include: standing agency interpretation, based on regulations regarding freight cars and • The use of brake cylinder pressure a 1910 ICC order codified at 49 CFR locomotives contain tagging indicators which provide a reliable 232.1, that prohibits the movement of a requirements for the movement of indication of the application and release train for repairs under 49 U.S.C. 20303 equipment not in compliance with those of the brakes. if less than 85 percent of the train’s parts. See 49 CFR 215.9 and 229.9. • The use of disc brakes which brakes are operative. FRA found that Therefore, FRA proposed specific provide shorter stopping distances and many passenger operations utilize a requirements related to the decrease the risk of thermal damage to small number of cars in their trains and identification of equipment with wheels. the necessity to cut out the brakes on defective power brakes through either • The ability to effectuate a graduated just one car can easily result in the traditional tags which are placed in release of the brakes due to a design noncompliance. FRA believed that the established locations on the equipment feature of the brake equipment which proposed speed restrictions would or by an automated tracking system permits more flexibility and more compensate for the loss of brakes on a developed by the railroad. See 62 FR forgiving train control. minority of cars. See 62 FR 49740–42, 49796–98. FRA also proposed that • The ability to cut out brakes on a 49756–58. certain information be contained per-axle or per-truck basis rather than a Based on the preceding discussions, whichever method was used by a per car basis, thus permitting greater use FRA proposed various restrictions on railroad. FRA believed that the of those brakes that are operable. the movement of vehicles with defective proposed tagging or tracking • The use of a pressure-maintaining brake equipment which allow commuter requirements add reliability, feature on each car which continuously and intercity passenger train operations accountability, and enforceability to maintains the air pressure in the brake to take advantage of the efficiencies ensure the timely and proper repair of system, thereby compensating for any created due to the advanced braking equipment with defective power brakes. leakage in the trainline and preventing systems these operations employ as well FRA also proposed a new method for a total loss of air in the brake system. as the improvements made in brake calculating the percentage of operative • The use of a separate trainline from equipment over the years, while power brakes (operative primary brakes) the locomotive main reservoir to ensuring if not enhancing the safety of in a train. Although the statute continuously charge supply reservoirs the traveling public. See 62 FR 49756– discusses the percentage of operative independent of the brake pipe train line. 58, 49796–98. FRA proposed to permit brakes in terms of a percentage of • Brake ratios that are 21⁄2 times trains to be operated with up to 50 vehicles, the statute was written nearly greater than the brake ratios of loaded percent inoperative brakes to the next a century ago and at that time the only freight cars. forward passenger station or terminal way to cut out the brakes on a car or Although some of the technologies based on the percentage of operative locomotive was to cut out the entire noted above have existed for several brakes, which may have resulted in unit. See 49 U.S.C. 20302(a)(5)(B).

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25570 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

Today, virtually every piece of passenger equipment with defective or permitting the movement of equipment equipment used in passenger service insecure safety appliances. with defective or insecure brakes only if can have the brakes cut out on a per- Consequently, in the NPRM, FRA various requirements are met, including truck or per-axle basis. Consequently, required that passenger equipment that the requirement that the movement for FRA merely proposed a method of develops a defective or insecure safety repair be only to the nearest location calculating the percentage of operative appliance continue to be subject to all where the necessary repairs can be brakes based on the design of passenger the statutory restrictions on its made. These commenters contend that equipment used today, and thus, a movement. It should be noted that the the statutory provisions contained in 49 means to more accurately reflect the proposed requirements applicable to U.S.C. 20306 were not intended to true braking ability of the train as a Tier I equipment merely referenced the permit FRA to waive the movement for whole. FRA believed that the proposed Railroad Safety Appliance Standards (49 repair provisions contained in the method of calculation was consistent CFR part 231); however, FRA proposed Safety Appliance Acts for an entire with the intent of Congress when it separate safety appliance requirements segment of the industry. Furthermore, drafted the statutory requirement and for Tier II passenger equipment. these commenters contend that FRA is simply recognized the technological FRA proposed that passenger improperly relying on technological advancements made in braking systems equipment that is found with conditions advances that exist on passenger trains over the last century. Consequently, not in compliance with this part, other to invoke the authority under 49 U.S.C. FRA proposed that the percentage of than power brake defects, be moved 20306 because many of the operative brakes would be determined only after a QMI has determined that the technological advances cited by FRA do by dividing the number of axles in the equipment is safe to move and not currently exist or are not currently train with operative brakes by the total determined any restrictions necessary used on a large portion of the passenger number of axles in the train. for the equipment’s safe movement. fleet. Labor representatives contend that Furthermore, for equipment utilizing FRA also allowed railroads to move passenger equipment which develops tread brake units (TBU), FRA proposed equipment based on an assessment defective brake equipment should only that the percentage of operative brakes made by a QMI in communication with be permitted to move to a location be determined by dividing the number on-site personnel. FRA proposes this where the passengers can be off-loaded of operative TBUs by the total number based on the reality that mechanical with appropriate speed restrictions. of TBUs. See 62 FR 49757, 49797. personnel are not readily available at Labor representatives also objected to The NPRM also contained proposed every location on a railroad’s line of provisions regarding the movement of FRA’s statement that the term ‘‘power road. However, FRA further proposed brake defect’’ does not include a failure equipment with other than power brake that if a QMI does not actually inspect defects. See 62 FR 49758–59, 49798–99. to inspect such a component. These the equipment to determine that it is commenters claim that FRA’s exclusion There are currently no statutory or safe to move, then, at the first forward regulatory restrictions on the movement of the failure to properly inspect a brake location where a QMI is on duty, an component eliminates an important of passenger cars with defective inspector will perform a physical conditions that are not power brake or means of enforcement necessary to inspection of the equipment to confirm ensure that proper power brake safety appliance related. The proposed the initial assessment made while in provisions contained in the NPRM were inspections are performed. It is claimed communication with on-site personnel that by excluding the failure to inspect similar to the provisions for moving previously. defective locomotives and freight cars from being a power brake defect, FRA The NPRM also required the tracking has eliminated any incentive for currently contained in 49 CFR 229.9 and of defective equipment in either of two 215.9, respectively. As these provisions railroads to ensure that trains have ways. One option was to tag the operative brakes because there will be have generally worked well with regard equipment in a manner similar to what to the movement of defective little financial repercussion to is currently required under § 215.9 for continuing to use improperly inspected locomotives and freight cars and in freight cars. The second option was to order to maintain consistency, FRA equipment. These commenters also record the specified information in an objected to the proposed provision that modeled the proposed movement automated tracking system. The latter requirements on those existing requires the railroad operating long- alternative was offered to provide distance intercity passenger trains to requirements. FRA proposed to allow railroads some flexibility and was made passenger railroads the flexibility to designate those location where power in recognition of advances in electronic brake repairs will be conducted. It is continue to use equipment with non- recordkeeping. safety-critical defects until the next claimed that by allowing the carriers to scheduled calendar day exterior C. Discussion of Comments on the 1997 designate such locations the carrier is in mechanical inspection. However, FRA NPRM and General FRA Conclusions absolute control of how far defective intended for the calendar day equipment will travel and abuse of the 1. Movement of Equipment With mechanical inspections to be the tool provision may occur. Labor Defective Brakes used by railroads to repair all reported representatives also objected to allowing defects and to prevent continued use of Labor representatives raised several railroads to use automated tracking defective equipment to carry passengers. concerns, both in their written systems to record information regarding In the NPRM, FRA intended for 49 comments and at the Working Group defective equipment. These commenters CFR 229.9 to continue to govern the meetings, regarding the proposed believe that tagging the equipment must movement of locomotives used in provisions related to the movement of be required in order for inspectors to passenger service which develop passenger equipment with defective readily identify defective equipment. It defective conditions, not covered by power brakes. These commenters is further contended that an automated part 238, that are not in compliance objected to FRA’s use of the authority tracking system is susceptible to with part 229. FRA also did not intend granted in 49 U.S.C. 20306 to exempt manipulation, abuse and reduces to alter the current statutory passenger train operations covered by accountability. One commenter requirements contained in 49 U.S.C. this part from the statutory requirements recommended that FRA add further 20303 regarding the movement of contained in 49 U.S.C. 20303(a) restrictions on the use and movement of

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25571 cars with defective brakes at the front or FRA intends to retain those portions that the operators of these long-distance rear of the train. of the movement for repair requirements intercity trains are in the best position Railroad representatives and APTA that are consistent with the existing to determine which locations have the representatives did not provide many statutory provisions regarding the necessary expertise to handle the repairs comments on the proposed provisions movement of equipment with power of the somewhat advanced braking related to the movement of passenger brake defects and revise those that are systems utilized in passenger trains. equipment with defective brakes. These contrary. Therefore, passenger trains Due to the unique technologies used on commenters did note that there was not operating with 75–99 percent operative the brake systems of these operations a major benefit to the railroads with brakes will not be permitted to travel to and the unique operating environments, being able to haul certain defective the next forward terminal as proposed, the facilities and personnel necessary to equipment to the next forward terminal but will be permitted to travel only to conduct proper repairs on this as proposed. These commenters did the next forward location were the equipment are somewhat specialized recommend that FRA provide the necessary repairs to the brake and limited. Moreover, FRA is retaining railroads at least two years to develop equipment can be effectuated as the broad performance-based and implement the defect reporting and mandated in the existing statute. In requirement that railroads operating this tracking system proposed in the NPRM. FRA’s view, all of the other proposed equipment designate a sufficient After considering the written methods for moving defective power number of repair locations to ensure the comments submitted and the brake equipment are consistent with safe and timely repair of the equipment. information provided at the Working and are in accordance with the current Contrary to the beliefs of some labor Group meetings, FRA has determined statutory requirements and can be commenters, FRA believes that this that some minor changes need to be retained. For example, FRA will retain performance standard provides FRA made to the requirements proposed in the provisions which permit a passenger sufficient grounds to institute civil the NPRM regarding the movement of train with 50–75 percent operative penalty enforcement actions or take equipment with defective power brakes. brakes to be moved at reduced speeds to other enforcement actions if, based on In order to avoid the legal implications the next forward passenger station. its expertise and experience, FRA involved with employing the statutory Although the percentage of operative believes the railroad is failing to authority contained at 49 U.S.C. 20306 brakes is lower than currently permitted designate an adequate number of repair for exempting equipment from the by FRA’s longstanding agency locations. statutory requirements related to safety interpretation (which FRA believes is Rather than attempt to develop a appliances and power brakes, and fully compensated for by the speed because railroad representatives standard applicable to all situations in restrictions), FRA believes that the the context of short-distance intercity acknowledged that the flexibility movement of the defective equipment to provided through reliance on the and commuter trains, which FRA does the next passenger station is in exemption is minimal, FRA will not rely not believe can be accomplished, FRA accordance with the statutory on the statutory exemption provision intends to approach the issue of what requirement as the safety of the contained at 49 U.S.C. 20306 in this constitutes the next forward location passengers must be considered in final rule and will modify the where repairs can be effectuated based determining the nearest location where movement for repair provisions on a case-by-case analysis of each necessary repairs can be made. In accordingly. FRA will retain the situation. FRA believes that its field addition, permitting passenger trains to exemption for passenger train inspectors are in the best position to continue to the next forward location operations from a long-standing agency determine whether a railroad exercised where the necessary repairs can be interpretation that prohibits the good faith in determining when and movement of a train for repairs under 49 performed is also consistent with the where to move a piece of defective U.S.C. 20303 if less than 85 percent of statutory requirement as such equipment. In making these the train’s brakes are operative. The movement is necessary to ensure the determinations both the railroad as well interpretation is based on a 1910 ICC safety of the traveling public by as FRA’s inspectors must conduct a order codified at 49 CFR 232.1, FRA protecting them from the hazards multi-factor analysis based on the facts believes that this requirement is overly incident to performing movements of each case. In determining whether a restrictive when applied to passenger against the current of traffic. particular location is a location where train operations as many passenger Furthermore, retention of the movement necessary repairs can be made or operations utilize a small number of provisions related to long-distance whether a location is the next forward cars in their trains and the necessity to intercity passenger trains and long- repair location in a passenger train cut out the brakes on just one car can distance Tier II equipment are context, the accessibility of the location, easily result in noncompliance. FRA consistent with the current statutory the ability to safely make the repairs at believes that the retention of the speed requirements as these provisions permit that location, and the safety of the restrictions contained in the proposal the movement of defective brake passengers are the overriding factors will fully compensate for the loss of equipment on these trains only to the that must be considered in any analysis. brakes on a minority of cars. FRA rejects next passenger station or the next repair These factors have a multitude of sub- the BRC’s recommendation that location, with various speed restrictions factors which must be considered, such passenger trains with defective brakes depending on the percentage of as: the type of repair required; the safety be permitted to move no farther than the operative brakes. of employees responsible for conducting next passenger station because such a FRA will also retain the requirement the repairs; the safety of employees stringent requirement is unnecessary, that operators of long-distance responsible for getting the equipment to more restrictive that the current passenger trains designate the locations or from a particular location; the statutory mandate regarding the where repairs can be conducted on the switching operations necessary to movement of defective brake equipment. Although FRA agrees that effectuate the move; the railroad’s recent equipment, and is radically counter to this provision puts the control of what history and current practice of making the way passenger trains currently locations constitute repair locations in repairs (brake and non-brake) at a handle defective equipment. the hands of the railroad, FRA believes particular location; relevant weather

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25572 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations conditions; potential overcrowding of position to determine what the components on passenger equipment passenger platforms; and the appropriate speed restriction should be and could be used in circumstances overcrowding of trailing trains. given the circumstances involved. where passenger equipment is not FRA will also retain the requirement Consequently, FRA is modifying the inspected prior to being placed in that equipment found with conditions requirements for the use of such cars service. Consequently, the final rule will not in compliance with this part must and will add provisions requiring that not only retain all of the enforcement be appropriately tagged or recorded in appropriate speed restrictions be tools available to FRA under the current an automated tracking system. Although imposed and that equipment with regulations but will include other FRA is sensitive to the concerns raised inaccessible handbrakes or with methods for ensuring compliance by the by labor representatives regarding the handbrakes located outside the interior railroads and provide both a financial use of automated tracking systems, FRA of a car be removed or repositioned in and operational incentive for railroads believes that provisions must be the train at the first possible location. to properly inspect passenger provided to allow railroads to take FRA believes that the concern raised equipment. advantage of existing and developing by certain labor representatives Some of the members of the Working technologies regarding the electronic regarding FRA’s definition of ‘‘power Group, particularly those representing maintenance and retention of records. brake defect’’ is due to a lack of labor organizations, expressed concern Although railroad and FRA inspectors understanding of the proposed rule as that any alteration of the movement for may require additional training on the well as a misunderstanding of the repair provisions made in the context of use of electronic records, FRA believes current regulations. Under the current commuter and intercity passenger train that the use of such a medium to track power brake regulations the unit of operations may have a spillover effect defective equipment can expedite the violation for failure to inspect is the into the freight industry. FRA wishes to identification and repair of defective train not individual cars, although FRA make clear that it has no intention, at equipment and, thus, reduce the time can take a separate violation for each car this time, of providing freight operations that defective equipment is operated in containing a defective condition upon the flexibility to handle defective brake passenger service. In response to labor’s departure after the train received or equipment that it is providing passenger concerns, the final rule contains a should have received an initial terminal operations. As noted above, many of the provision which will give FRA the inspection or for each car not identified advanced brake system technologies ability to monitor and review a as defective after the performance of an currently used in passenger service are railroad’s automated tracking system intermediate inspection. Moreover, the not used in the freight context. and will provide FRA the ability to failure to inspect a piece of equipment Furthermore, even if freight operations prohibit or revoke a railroad’s ability to cannot be cured through any of the were to make similar advances in the utilize an automated tracking system in proposed provisions regarding the braking equipment they employ, this lieu of directly tagging defective movement of defective equipment. That development on the freight side may not equipment if FRA finds that the is, if a railroad fails to inspect a piece create the efficiencies created in the automated tracking system is not of equipment as required, the railroad passenger train context since the properly secure, inaccessible to FRA or cannot avoid civil penalty liability by operating environments of freight trains a railroad’s employees, or fails to moving the equipment in accordance and passenger trains differ significantly. adequately track and monitor the with the proposed provisions. More importantly, the special safety movement of defective equipment. Furthermore, the final rule contains considerations relative to passengers are Furthermore, if the automated tracking specific civil penalties for a railroad’s not present in freight operations. system developed and implemented by failure to perform inspections as 2. Movement of Equipment With Other a railroad does not accurately and required. Railroads will also continue to Than Power Brake Defects adequately record the information be subject to potential civil penalty for required by this part, the railroad will any car found in defective condition Railroad representatives expressed be in violation of the movement for after it has performed or should have some concerns regarding the provisions repair provisions and subject to civil performed a Class I or Class IA brake related to the movement of equipment penalty liability. test and any car not properly moved or with other than a power brake defect. In response to one labor commenter’s identified as defective at other times. The primary recommendation of these concerns, FRA is slightly modifying the The final rule will also retain the commenters was that FRA should revise provisions related to the operation of proposed provision providing that the proposed provisions to require the trains with defective brakes on the front passenger equipment will be considered use of a ‘‘qualified maintenance person’’ or rear car. In the NPRM, FRA proposed ‘‘in use’’ prior to departure but after it (qualified mechanical inspector (QMI) that if the power brakes on the front or has received or should have received an in the NPRM) only when a potentially rear unit become inoperative then a inspection required by this part. Thus, safety-critical running gear defect is qualified person must be stationed at FRA inspectors will no longer have to involved. These commenters believed the handbrake on the unit. See 62 FR wait until a piece of equipment departs that the requirement to have the car 49797. FRA recognizes that in some a location before issuing a civil penalty, inspected by a QMP whenever a instances the handbrake on a car located a practice continually criticized by both nonsafety-critical running gear at the front or rear of a train may not be labor and railroad representatives. component becomes defective would accessible to a member of the train crew In addition, the NPRM as well as this impose unnecessary, significant delays or may be located outside the interior of final rule provides FRA inspectors the to their operations and is counter to the car and, thus, unsafe for a crew ability to issue Special Notices for current operating practices. These member to operate while the train is in Repair, which enable an FRA inspector commenters contended that a ‘‘qualified motion. FRA also recognizes that in to remove an unsafe piece of equipment person’’ as defined in the proposal many circumstances when a car at the from service until appropriate action is would be sufficient to determine the front or rear of the train has inoperative taken by the railroad. See 62 FR 49790. safety implications in moving many of brakes certain speed restrictions should This enforcement tool is not currently the mechanical components covered by be placed on the train; however, FRA available to FRA inspectors in the area the rule if they were to become defective believes that railroads are in the best of power brakes and mechanical en route. For example, it was noted that

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25573 a highly qualified inspector was not whenever a potential running gear personnel. Although FRA recognizes the necessary to determine whether a car defect is involved. FRA rejects the concerns raised by labor representatives, that experiences a defective door, language proposed by APTA that the FRA believes that the rule must cracked window, or burnt out light defect be a potentially ‘‘safety-critical’’ recognize the reality of current bulbs could or should remain in service. running gear defect as FRA believes that operations and acknowledge the fact Railroad representatives also sought any defect to a running gear component that mechanical personnel are not additional flexibility in the movement is potentially safety-critical. In order to readily available at every location on a of equipment with a nonsafety-critical avoid confusion, FRA is providing an railroad’s line of road. Furthermore, running gear defect from a calendar day explicit definition of ‘‘running gear when such off-site determinations are mechanical inspection. defect.’’ FRA is defining the term to made the rule requires that the Labor representatives also raised a mean any defective condition which equipment only be moved to the next number of concerns with the provisions involves a truck component, the forward location where the equipment related to the movement of equipment propulsion system, the draft system, a can be inspected by a QMP to verify the with other than power brake defects. wheel or a wheel component. In the description of the defect provided by One concern raised by these final rule, FRA will permit the use of a the on-site personnel. commenters indicated that FRA should qualified person to determine the safety FRA is also adding a provision to the not allow railroads to determine which and establish appropriate movement requirements dealing with the mechanical components are ‘‘safety- restrictions on continued use of movement of equipment with other than critical’’ as such an approach would equipment which involves non-running power brake defects to address the create a massive loophole and render gear defects. inspection of roller bearings on a car some of the movement restrictions FRA will also provide very limited whose truck is involved in a derailment. unenforceable. These commenters also flexibility to the railroads to operate The added requirement prohibits a voiced concerns over FRA’s proposal defective equipment from a location railroad from continuing in service a that an off-site mechanical inspector where a calendar day mechanical piece of passenger equipment that has a could make an assessment regarding the inspection was performed in order to roller bearing whose truck was involved safety of moving a certain piece of effectuate repairs. FRA intends for the in a derailment unless the bearing is equipment based on the communication calendar mechanical inspection to be as inspected and tested in accordance with with on-site personnel. Although these comprehensive as possible and to be the the stated provisions. The added commenters appeared to recognize the time when all defective components are provision is identical to the requirement flexibility provided by such an identified and repaired. In order to currently contained in 49 CFR approach, they raised concerns that ensure that these daily inspections are § 215.115(b). Although the existing such an approach is ripe for abuse and performed by highly qualified provision is applicable to freight cars, would require a mechanical inspector to personnel, FRA has provided the virtually every passenger train operation rely on the observation of personnel railroads with considerable flexibility to follows the provisions contained in that lacking the necessary training and perform these inspections at locations section prior to returning a piece of expertise. The commenters believed that that are best suited to a quality and equipment to service after it was further restrictions need to be placed on comprehensive inspection. Therefore, involved in a derailment and, thus, these communications but they failed to FRA will permit the movement of should not result in any added burden specify any specific restrictions that defective equipment from these to the industry. FRA believes that the could be utilized. Labor representatives inspection locations with very stringent practice is critical to ensuring the again raised concerns over FRA’s restrictions. Equipment containing proper operation of the roller bearing allowance of an automated tracking running gear defects may only be moved after a derailment occurs and should be system in lieu of direct tagging of from such locations if it is not in incorporated into this final rule. defective equipment. These commenters passenger service and is in a non- FRA also intends to make clear that reiterated their concerns that such a revenue train. Equipment containing the movement of equipment with a system can be easily manipulated and non-running gear defects may be moved defective safety appliance will continue removes accountability from the system in a revenue train provide the to be governed by the statutory of repairing defective equipment. equipment is locked-out and empty. provisions contained at 49 U.S.C. 20303. After review of the comments Any equipment moved must also be As noted previously this provision submitted and provided orally at the properly identified and moved in permits the movement of defective Working Group meetings, FRA has accordance with any movement equipment to the nearest location where made some modest changes in the final restriction imposed. FRA believes these the necessary repairs can be made. The rule regarding the movement of stringent movement restrictions will determination of what constitutes the equipment with non-power brake provide railroads limited flexibility to nearest location where the necessary defects. FRA agrees with the comments move defective equipment to a location repairs can be effectuated in a safety of railroad representatives that the where it can best be repaired but will appliance context is identical to the NPRM may have been over-reaching in limit a railroad’s desire or ability to analysis required when dealing with a requiring a QMP to make a move defective equipment from these power brake defect. In making these determination regarding the safety of inspection locations and will encourage determinations both the railroad as well moving a piece of defective equipment the performance of the calendar day as FRA’s inspectors must conduct a for any of the mechanical components mechanical inspections at locations multi-factor analysis based on the facts addressed in this regulation. However, where repairs to equipment can be of each case. In determining whether a FRA also agrees with the comments conducted. particular location is a location where submitted by labor representatives that FRA has also retained the requirement necessary repairs can be made or railroads should not determine what that the QMP may make his or her whether a location is the nearest repair components are considered safety- determination regarding the continued location in a passenger train context, the critical. Therefore, FRA will require a use of equipment containing a potential accessibility of the location, the ability determination regarding the safety of running gear defect based on the to safely make the repairs at that moving a piece of equipment by a QMP description provided by on-site location, and the safety of the

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25574 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations passengers are the overriding factors the safety of operations that permit recommendations on railroad safety that must be considered in any analysis. passengers to occupy the leading car in matters. See 61 FR 9740, Mar. 11, 1996. These factors have a multitude of sub- a train. 61 FR 6876, Feb. 22, 1996. Both RSAC consists of 48 individual factors which must be considered, such the New Jersey Transit and MARC train representatives, drawn from 27 as: the type of repair required; the safety collisions involved operations where a organizations representing various rail of the passengers if a move against the cab car occupied the lead position in a industry perspectives, and two associate current of traffic is conducted; the safety passenger train. The Emergency Order nonvoting representatives from the of employees responsible for conducting explained that in collisions involving agencies with railroad safety regulatory the repairs; the safety of employees the front of a passenger train, operating responsibility in Canada and Mexico. In responsible for getting the equipment to with a cab car in the forward position September of 1997, FRA convened the or from a particular location; the or a multiple unit (MU) locomotive, i.e., Locomotive Crashworthiness Working switching operations necessary to a self-propelled locomotive with Group through RSAC to make effectuate the move; the railroad’s recent passenger seating, presents an increased recommendations as to the best way to history and current practice of making risk of severe personal injury or death address the findings of FRA’s report to repairs (brake and non-brake) at a as compared with locomotive-hauled Congress, including developing particular location; relevant weather service when the locomotive occupies standards regarding a broad range of conditions; potential overcrowding of the lead position in the train and crashworthiness issues for both passenger platforms; and the thereby acts as a buffer for the trailing passenger and freight locomotives. In overcrowding of trailing trains. passenger cars. This risk is of particular the context of improving railroad Therefore, in many circumstances trains concern where operations are conducted communications, RSAC established a will be permitted to continue to the next at relatively higher speeds, where there working group to specifically address forward location where the necessary is a mix of various types of trains, and communication facilities and repairs can be performed as such where there are numerous highway-rail procedures, with a strong emphasis on movement is necessary to ensure the crossings over which large motor passenger train emergency safety of the traveling public by vehicles are operated. Accordingly, the requirements. The final rule that protecting them from the hazards Emergency Order required in particular resulted from this effort was published incident to performing movements that ‘‘railroads operating scheduled on September 4, 1998, reflecting the against the current of traffic. intercity or commuter rail service * ** consensus recommendations of the conduct an analysis of their operations RSAC. 63 FR 47182. VIII. FRA’s Passenger Train Safety and file with FRA an interim safety plan FRA notes that, in its comments on Initiatives indicating the manner in which risk of the NPRM, Siemens Transportation This final rule is part of several a collision involving a cab car is Systems, Inc., (Siemens) stated that related and complementary efforts by addressed.’’ 61 FR 6879. much of the safety standard changes for FRA to improve the safety of rail The Emergency Order also noted that passenger rail cars could be scaled back passenger service. FRA has issued there is a need to ensure that emergency if more consideration were given to the regulations governing emergency exits are clearly marked and in operable technology that is available for crash preparedness and emergency response condition on all passenger lines, avoidance safety systems. Siemens procedures for rail passenger service in regardless of the equipment or train believed the principal safety focus a separate rulemaking proceeding, control system used. Although FRA should be on efforts to avoid collisions designated as FRA No. PTEP–1. See 63 Safety Glazing Standards, 49 CFR part in the first place, such as those at FR 24630, May 4, 1998. FRA formed a 223, require that passenger cars have a highway-rail grade crossings and with separate working group (the Passenger minimum of four emergency window other trains. Train Emergency Preparedness Working exits ‘‘designed to permit rapid and easy FRA recognizes that rail passenger Group) to assist FRA in the removal during a crisis situation,’’ the safety involves the safety of the railroad development of such regulations. This Silver Spring collision raised concerns system as a whole. FRA does have related proceeding has addressed some that at least some of the occupants of the active rulemaking and research projects of the issues FRA originally identified MARC train attempted unsuccessfully to in a variety of contexts, including signal in the ANPRM on passenger equipment exit through the windows. The and train control systems, and grade safety. Persons wishing to receive more Emergency Order requires ‘‘that any crossing safety. FRA also has existing information regarding this other emergency windows that are not already regulations governing both railroad and rulemaking should contact Mr. Edward legibly marked as such on the inside grade crossing signal system safety, for R. English, Director, Office of Safety and outside be so marked, and that a example. (See 49 C.F.R. parts 233–236.) Assurance and Compliance, FRA, 1120 representative sample of all such Nevertheless, this final rule is designed Vermont Avenue, Mail Stop 25, windows be examined to ensure to address the specific statutory Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone operability.’’ 61 FR 6880. On February mandate that minimum standards be number: 202–493–6300), or David H. 29, 1996, FRA issued Notice No. 2 to prescribed for the safety of cars used to Kasminoff, Esq., Trial Attorney, Office Emergency Order No. 20 to refine three transport railroad passengers, as noted of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont aspects of the original order, including above. Avenue, Mail Stop 10, Washington, D.C. providing more detailed guidance on IX. Section-by-Section Analysis 20590 (telephone: 202–493–6043). the emergency egress sampling Further, in response to the separate provision. 61 FR 8703, Mar. 5, 1996. This section-by-section analysis will collisions involving New Jersey Transit In addition, FRA submitted a report to explain the provisions of the final rule and MARC trains in early 1996, FRA Congress on locomotive and the changes made from the 1997 issued Emergency Order No. 20 (Notice crashworthiness and working NPRM. Of course, a number of the No. 1) on February 20, 1996, requiring conditions on September 18, 1996, and issues and provisions involving this rule prompt action to immediately enhance subsequently referred the issues raised have been discussed and addressed in passenger train operating rules and in the report to the RSAC. FRA detail in the preceding discussions. emergency egress and to develop an established RSAC in March of 1996, to Accordingly, the preceding discussions interim system safety plan addressing provide FRA with advice and should be considered in conjunction

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25575 with those below and will be referred to requirements contained in part 238 employees as required by this final rule. as appropriate. become effective to such operations. Consequently, FRA will require FRA is also making a technical compliance with the inspection, testing, Amendments to 49 CFR Part 216 amendment to part 223 so as to and maintenance provisions as well the Part 216 authorizes certain FRA and reference the additional emergency movement of defective equipment participating State inspectors to issue window exit and window safety glazing provisions after that same 26 month Special Notices for Repair, under requirements found in part 238. period. specified conditions, for freight cars FRA also recognizes that there are with defects under part 215, 49 CFR Part 238 certain aspects of the inspection, testing, locomotives with defects under parts Subpart A—General and maintenance requirements as well 229 or 230 or 49 U.S.C. chapter 207, and as the movement of defective equipment Section 238.1 Purpose and Scope track with defects under part 213. The provisions that provide operational revisions to part 216 contained in this Paragraph (a) states the purpose of the flexibility to the railroads. Due to this final rule will create a fourth category of rule to prevent collisions, derailments, flexibility, FRA believes that some Special Notices for Repair: for passenger and other occurrences involving railroads will desire the ability to begin equipment with defects under part 238. railroad passenger equipment that cause operations under the inspection, testing, Consequently, if an inspector injury or death to railroad employees, and maintenance requirements and the determines that noncomplying railroad passengers, and the general movement of defective equipment passenger equipment is ‘‘unsafe for public; and to mitigate the provisions as soon as their employees further service’’ and issues a Special consequences of such occurrences to the have been properly trained. Therefore, Notice for Repair, the railroad will be extent they cannot be prevented. FRA has included provisions which required to take the passenger Paragraph (b) states that the regulations allow a railroad to notify FRA in writing equipment out of service, to make in this part provide minimum standards that it is willing to begin compliance repairs to bring the equipment into for the subjects addressed. FRA has with the inspection, testing, and compliance with part 238, and to report nonetheless specified in places maintenance requirements and the the repairs to FRA. The final rule also throughout the regulatory text that the movement of defective equipment makes conforming changes to part 216 prescribed requirements are only provisions some time earlier than the 26 reflecting this new enforcement tool. minimum standards so as to reinforce months provided. FRA wishes to make This final rule also includes various this principle. Railroads and other clear that it does not intend for railroads technical amendments to update part persons subject to this part may adopt to take advantage of the flexibility 216 to reflect the following: (1) Internal and enforce more stringent provided under some of the provisions organizational changes within FRA; (2) requirements, so long as they are not unless the railroad is willing to comply the division of former part 230, inconsistent with this part. with all the requirements contained in Locomotive Inspection Regulations, into Paragraph (c) contains the dates upon those provisions. Thus, in order to begin parts 229 and 230 and the redesignation which railroads covered by this part operating under any of the provisions of those portions of former part 230 will be required to comply with the contained in subpart D, except the related to non-steam locomotives as part requirements contained in this final rule maintenance requirements contained in 229, Railroad Locomotive Safety related to the inspection, testing, §§ 238.309 and 238.311, or to operate Standards; and (3) the repeal, maintenance, training, and movement of defective equipment under §§ 238.15 or reenactment without substantive defective equipment. FRA recognizes 238.17, the railroad must be performing change, and recodification of the the interrelationship between the proper all of the requirements contained in Federal railroad safety laws in 1994. See training of railroad personnel and the those sections and that subpart. 45 FR 21092, Mar. 31, 1980; Pub. L. implementation of the inspection, As the maintenance requirements 103–272, July 5, 1994. testing, maintenance and movement of regarding the periodic performance of defective equipment provisions COT&S and the performance of single Amendments to 49 CFR Parts 223, 229, contained in the final rule. FRA realizes car tests, contained in §§ 238.309 and 231, and 232 that in order for railroads to comply 238.311, are separable from the FRA is making conforming changes to with the requirements related to the inspection requirements, FRA will the applicability sections of FRA’s inspection, testing, and maintenance permit railroads to request earlier Railroad Locomotive Safety Standards, requirements and the requirements application of those two sections. Railroad Safety Appliance Standards, regarding the movement of defective However, in order to begin operation and railroad power brakes and drawbars equipment, the railroads must first be under either of these two sections, the regulations that were necessitated by provided a sufficient amount of time to railroad must be willing to operate in provisions contained in this new part develop and implement a proper accordance with all of the provisions in 238. In this final rule, FRA has adjusted training program. Based on information both sections. That is, the provisions the application of provisions in parts received by FRA, it appears that many contained in §§ 238.309 and 238.311 229, 231, or 232 or has deleted certain railroads are in the initial stages of must be implemented as a package and provisions in those parts to avoid developing training programs or cannot be implemented separately, duplication of provisions in part 238. modifying existing programs to meet the except for the requirements related to FRA has not deleted the passenger train requirements of this final rule and that the performance of COT&S on brake test and maintenance this process should be completed within locomotives. This paragraph makes requirements from part 232, at this time, a year. After the development of the clear that the requirements related to the because part 238 will not cover certain training programs the railroads will performance of COT&S on MU operations subject to part 232, e.g., need several months to a year to rotate locomotives and conventional tourist, historic, scenic, and excursion their employees through the programs locomotives will become effective railroad operations on the general in order not to disrupt the operation of September 9, 1999. As discussed in system. Moreover, the requirements their railroads. Thus, FRA believes that more detail in the section-by-section contained in part 232 will continue to 26 months is a sufficient amount of time analysis of § 238.309, FRA believes that apply to passenger operations until the for railroads to develop and train their the extensions of COT&S contained in

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25576 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 238.309 are substantive sections of the rule whether Actions Affecting Tourist Railroads,’’ supported either by the tests conducted private cars are covered, according to FRA responded to the direction in the by Metro-North or are a practice that has the terms of those sections. FRA has statutory provision and also provided been approved by waiver for several applied certain requirements of the rule additional information related to tourist years. Furthermore, there is no to private cars that operate on railroads railroad safety for consideration of the corresponding single car testing subject to this part. FRA has taken into Congress. requirement applicable to MU and account the burden imposed by Section 215 of the 1994 Act conventional locomotives. requiring private car owners and specifically permits FRA to exempt As a point of clarification, FRA makes operators to conform to the equipment used by tourist, historic, clear that a railroad will be subject to requirements of this part. Further, FRA scenic, and excursion railroads to compliance under the existing recognizes that private cars are often transport passengers from the initial inspection, testing, and maintenance hauled by railroads such as Amtrak and regulations required to be prescribed by provisions contained in part 232 of this commuter railroads which often impose November 2, 1997. 49 U.S.C. chapter until the railroad is required to their own safety requirements on the 20133(b)(1). FRA is addressing the operate under the inspection and testing operation of the private cars. passenger equipment safety concerns for provisions of this part (i.e., 26 months) Accordingly, FRA has limited the these unique types of operations or until the railroad voluntarily commits application of the rule only to those through the Tourist and Historic to operate under the provisions of this requirements necessary to ensure the Railroads Working Group formed under part. safe operation of the passenger train that RSAC. Any requirements applicable to these operations will be part of a Section 238.3 Application is hauling the private car. For instance, private cars are subject to brake separate rulemaking proceeding. As a general matter, in paragraphs inspection, testing, and maintenance FRA notes that the Syracuse, (a)(1) and (a)(2), the rule applies to all requirements. Binghamton and New York Railroad railroads that operate intercity The rule is structured to apply to Corporation (SBNY) commented on the passenger train service on the general intercity, commuter and other short- application of the rule to its passenger railroad system of transportation or haul service, but not to tourist, scenic, shuttle and excursion service on provide commuter or other short-haul historic, and excursion operations. The approximately ten miles of trackage passenger train service in a metropolitan term ‘‘tourist, scenic, historic, or shared with rail freight traffic in the city or suburban area; that is, the rule excursion operations’’ is defined in of Syracuse and county of Onondaga, applies to commuter or other short-haul § 238.5 to mean ’’railroad operations New York. SBNY commented that, service described in paragraph (a)(2) that carry passengers, often using although it understands its excursion regardless of whether that service is antiquated equipment, with the service would be exempt from the rule, connected to the general railroad conveyance of the passengers to a its shuttle operations appear to fall system. A public authority that particular destination not being the directly within the proposed regulation. indirectly provides passenger train principal purpose.’’ The term refers to SBNY believed that applying the service by contracting out the actual the particular physical operation, not to proposed regulations to its shuttle operation to another railroad or the nature of the railroad company as a service would impose a significant and independent contractor would be whole that conducts the operation. As a unbearable burden with little if any regulated by FRA as a railroad under the result, part 238 exempts not only a improvement in safety. SBNY asked that provisions of this rule. In order to avoid recreational train ride by a tourist the rule expressly except from its confusion, FRA has omitted proposed railroad company that employs five application passenger train operations paragraph (a)(3) regarding the rule’s people but also a recreational train ride on track that is limited to operating applicability to rapid transit operations by the Union Pacific Railroad Company, speeds of 30 mph or less. as these types of operations, which are a Class I freight railroad. FRA has not FRA believes the SBNY is properly merely a subset of ‘‘commuter or other yet had the opportunity to fully consult characterized as a commuter or other short-haul rail passenger train service,’’ with tourist and historic railroad short-haul railroad subject to this part. are sufficiently covered under operators and their associations to FRA has not adopted SNBY’s paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) in the final determine the appropriate applicability recommendation to change the rule. Paragraph (b) makes explicit the of the provisions contained in this final application of the final rule so as to liability imposed by statute, 49 U.S.C. rule to such railroad operations. The except passenger train operations on 20303, on a railroad that owns track Federal Railroad Safety Authorization track that is limited to operating speeds over which another railroad hauls or Act of 1994 directs FRA to examine the of 30 mph or less. First of all, any such uses equipment with a power brake or unique circumstances of tourist operation must already comply with safety appliance defect. Under railroads when establishing safety existing regulations affecting railroad paragraph (b), a railroad that permits regulations. The Act, which amended 49 passenger equipment safety, such as the operations over its trackage by U.S.C. 20103, states that: locomotive safety standards (49 C.F.R. passenger equipment subject to this part part 229), and standards on railroad that does not comply with a power In prescribing regulations that pertain to power brakes and drawbars (49 C.F.R. brake provision of this part or a safety railroad safety that affect tourist, historic, part 231). Second, many provisions of scenic, or excursion railroad carriers, the appliance provision of this part is Secretary of Transportation shall take into the final rule itself cannot logically be subject to the power brake and safety consideration any financial, operational, or distinguished in any manner on the appliance provisions of this part with other factors that may be unique to such basis of operating speed. For instance, respect to such operations that it railroad carriers. The Secretary shall submit materials in locomotives and passenger permits. a report to Congress not later than September cars should be required to comply with This section contains no explicit 30, 1995, on actions taken under this the testing standards for flammability reference to private cars. Rather than subsection. and smoke emissions characteristics to addressing the scope of applicability of Pub. L. 103–440, § 217, 108 Stat. 4619, protect against sources of ignition—no part 238 to private cars in this section, 4624, November 2, 1994. In its 1996 matter the operating speed of the FRA has indicated in the particular report to Congress entitled ‘‘Regulatory equipment. Finally, FRA notes that

VerDate 06-MAY-99 17:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25577

SBNY operates conventional diesel railroads may rely on brake indicators if designated by the railroad to perform multiple-unit passenger equipment built they determine that the inspector cannot the inspection. The Class IA test allows to AAR standards. Accordingly, the safely make a direct observation of the commuter railroads the flexibility to railroad should not experience burdens brake application or release. have trains depart their first run of the related to structural standards. If there ‘‘Primary brake’’ and ‘‘secondary day from an outlying point without are unique factors present with regard to brake’’ are complementary definitions. having to station qualified maintenance SBNY’s equipment, the waiver process ‘‘Primary brake’’ refers to ‘‘those persons at all outlying points. If may provide a way of accommodating components of the train brake system railroads take advantage of the those differences. necessary to stop the train within the flexibility offered by the Class IA test, The requirements of this rule do not signal spacing distance without thermal they must follow-up with a Class I test apply to circus trains. In its comments damage to friction braking surfaces,’’ sometime during the day. on the NPRM, Feld Entertainment, Inc., while ‘‘secondary brake’’ refers to A ‘‘Class II train brake test’’ means a (Feld), parent company of Ringling Bros. ‘‘those components of the train brake test (as further specified in § 238.317) of and Barnum & Bailey circus (Ringling system which develop supplemental brake pipe integrity and continuity from Bros.), supported the rule’s brake retarding force that is not needed controlling locomotive to rear car. The consideration of the special to stop the train within signal spacing Class II brake test is a simple set-and- circumstances of certain classes of rail distances or to prevent thermal damage release test intended to replace the carriers, such as private passenger cars to wheels.’’ FRA provides these passenger train intermediate terminal and circus trains. Feld stated on behalf definitions to help draw the line air brake test. See 49 CFR 232.13(b). The of Ringling Bros. that it suspended the between safety and economics of brake Class II test is also tailored to the special use of rim-stamped straight-plate wheels systems. Railroads have long held that design of the passenger equipment. on its tread-braked passenger cars the dynamic portion of a blended brake The concept of ‘‘ordered’’ is vital to following the 1994 derailment of a is not a safety system. Under the the correct application of this final rule. circus train in Lakeland, Florida. See 62 provisions in this final rule, railroads As applied to the acquisition of FR 49743. Feld also stated that Ringling must demonstrate through testing and equipment, the term means that the Bros. takes seriously its commitment to analysis that the dynamic brake fits the acquiring entity has given a notice to the safety of its employees and animals. definition of a secondary brake. proceed to manufacture the equipment FRA anticipates deferring further Defective primary braking systems are a that represents a firm financial consideration of applying any of the serious safety problem that railroads commitment to compensate the requirements in this final rule to circus must address immediately. Defective manufacturer for the contract price of trains to the Tourist and Historic secondary braking systems, as defined the equipment or for damages if the Railroads Working Group. in § 238.5, are not a serious safety order is nullified. Equipment is not concern, because, by definition, their ordered if future exercise of a contract Section 238.5 Definitions failure does not result in unacceptable option is required to place the This section contains a set of thermal inputs into friction brake remanufacturing process in motion. definitions to introduce the regulations. components. Accordingly, FRA intends Many of the provisions of this final rule, FRA intends these definitions to clarify to allow railroads more flexibility in particularly structural requirements, the meaning of important terms as they dealing with defective secondary will apply only to newly constructed are used in the text of the rule. Several braking systems. equipment. When FRA applies certain of the definitions involve new or Three brake tests are fundamental to requirements only to passenger fundamental concepts which require this final rule. A ‘‘Class I brake test’’ equipment ordered on or after further discussion. means a complete passenger train brake September 8, 2000, or placed in service ‘‘Brake indicator’’ means a device, system test as further specified in for the first time on or after September actuated by brake cylinder pressure, § 238.313. The Class I test is the most 9, 2002, FRA intends to ‘‘grandfather’’ which indicates whether brakes are complete test. It must be performed in this regard any equipment that is applied or released on a car. The use of once each calendar day that a passenger both ordered before September 8, 2000, brake indicators in the performance of train is in service by a qualified and placed in service for the first time brake tests is a controversial subject. maintenance person. The Class I test is before September 9, 2002. FRA believes Rail labor organizations correctly intended to replace the current initial this approach will allow railroads to maintain that brake indicators are not terminal brake test. See 49 CFR minimize, or avoid altogether, any costs fully reliable indicators of brake 232.12(c)-(j). The Class I test is much associated with changes to existing application and release on each car in more tailored to the specific designs of orders and yet limit the delay in the train. Further, railroads correctly passenger equipment than the initial realizing the safety benefits of the maintain that reliance on brake terminal brake test that is required now. requirements in this rule. indicators is necessary because A ‘‘Class IA brake test’’ means a test FRA’s definition of ‘‘passenger car’’ inspectors cannot always safely observe and inspection (as further specified in goes beyond its traditional meaning. brake application and release. FRA § 238.315) of the air brake system on ‘‘Passenger car’’ means rail rolling believes that brake indicators serve an each car in a passenger train to ensure equipment intended to provide important role in the performance of the air brake system functions as transportation for members of the brake tests. FRA has specified three intended in response to the command general public and includes a self- different types of brake tests—Class I, sent through the train line. The Class IA propelled car designed to carry Class IA, and Class II (described test is a somewhat less complete test passengers, baggage, mail, or express. below)—that must be performed on than the Class I test and is intended to This term includes a cab car, an MU passenger equipment. Railroads should be very similar to the current 1,000-mile locomotive, and a passenger coach. A perform Class I brake tests so that the brake test. An important difference cab car and an MU locomotive are also inspector is able to actually observe between the Class I and Class IA tests a ‘‘locomotive’’ under this rule. In the brake application and release. However, is that the Class IA test may be context of articulated equipment, FRA believes that during the performed by qualified persons as long ‘‘passenger car’’ means that segment of performance of a Class IA brake test, as they have been properly trained and the rail rolling equipment located

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25578 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations between two trucks. This term does not FRA has also modified the definition A ‘‘qualified maintenance person’’ is include a private car. ‘‘Passenger coach’’ of ‘‘passenger equipment’’ so that the a ‘‘qualified person’’ who as a part of the means rail rolling equipment intended term does not include a freight training, qualification, and designation to provide transportation for members of locomotive when used to haul a program required under § 238.111 has the general public that is without passenger train due to failure of a received instruction and training that propelling motors and without a control passenger locomotive. At the Working includes ‘‘hands-on’’ experience (under stand; therefore, passenger coaches are a Group meeting in December, 1997, the appropriate supervision or subset of passenger cars. ‘‘Control AAR had raised the concern that the apprenticeship) in one or more of the stand’’ is defined in The Railroad proposed rule did not provide an following functions: trouble-shooting, Dictionary of Car and Locomotive Terms exclusion for a freight locomotive used inspection, testing, maintenance or (Simmons-Boardman Publishing Corp. to haul a passenger train for relief repair of the specific train brake and 1980), as ‘‘‘[t]he upright column upon purposes. FRA believes that a limited other components and systems for which the throttle control, reverser exception is warranted for a freight which the inspector is assigned handle, transition lever, and dynamic locomotive used to haul a passenger responsibility. This person shall also braking control are mounted within train due to the failure of the passenger possess a current understanding of what convenient reach of the engineer on a train’s own motive power; FRA does not is required to properly repair and locomotive. The air gauges and some wish for the passenger train to be maintain the safety-critical brake or switches are also included on the stranded. FRA has modified the mechanical components for which the control stand.’’ definition of the term ‘‘locomotive’’ person is assigned responsibility. ‘‘Passenger equipment’’ is the most accordingly in this final rule. Further, the qualified maintenance inclusive definition. It means all In the context of articulated person shall be a person whose primary powered and unpowered passenger cars, equipment, FRA has clarified that responsibility includes work generally locomotives used to haul a passenger ‘‘passenger equipment’’ means that consistent with the above-referenced car, and any other rail rolling equipment segment of rail rolling equipment functions and is designated to: (1) used in a train with one or more located between two trucks that is used conduct Class I brake tests under this passenger cars. ‘‘Passenger equipment’’ in a train with one or more passenger part; (2) conduct exterior calendar day includes a (1) passenger coach, (2) cab cars. In the NPRM, FRA had used and periodic mechanical inspections on car, (3) MU locomotive, (4) locomotive similar language in the definition of MU locomotives or other passenger cars not intended to provide transportation ‘‘unit’’ (see 62 FR 49796). Since the and unpowered vehicles under this part; for members of the general public that definition of ‘‘unit’’ itself draws upon or (3) determine whether equipment not is used to power a passenger train, and the definition of ‘‘passenger in compliance with this part may be (5) any non-self-propelled vehicle used equipment,’’ FRA has decided to insert moved as required by § 238.17. in a train with one or more passenger this clarifying language here. As noted in detail in the preceding cars. The term therefore covers a The terms ‘‘passenger station’’ and general preamble discussion, FRA is baggage car, express car, freight car, ‘‘terminal’’ are crucial to understanding slightly modifying the terminology and mail car or a private car when used in the requirements related to the definition of these highly qualified a train with one or more passenger cars. inspection of equipment and the inspectors from that proposed in the In the context of articulated equipment, movement of defective equipment 1997 NPRM in order to address the ‘‘passenger equipment’’ means that contained in this final rule. ‘‘Passenger concerns by some commenters and to segment of rail rolling equipment station’’ means a location designated in clarify the definition as much as located between two trucks that is used the railroad’s timetable where possible. In the 1997 NPRM, FRA in a train with one or more passenger passengers are regularly scheduled to proposed the term ‘‘qualified cars. However, this term does not get on or off any train. Under certain mechanical inspector’’ (QMI) to describe include a freight locomotive when used carefully controlled conditions, the rule these highly qualified inspectors. FRA to haul a passenger train due to failure permits a passenger train with defective recognizes the concern raised by some of a passenger locomotive. equipment to move to the next forward commenters, that the term QMI might It should be noted that the definition passenger station. This flexibility is result in employees designated as such of passenger equipment has been allowed to prevent railroads from to seek some sort of premium pay status. somewhat modified from that which discharging passengers in potentially Although FRA is not overly swayed by was proposed in the NPRM. See 62 FR unsafe locations and to minimize this concern, FRA is changing the term 49794. The change in the definition is schedule impacts where this can safely in the manner suggested by these based on comments from the AAPRCO be done. By contrast, ‘‘terminal’’ means commenters to ‘‘qualified maintenance and the American Short Line Railroad a train’s starting point or ending point person (QMP).’’ FRA believes that the Association (ASLRA), and clarifies of a single scheduled trip, where term used to describe the individual FRA’s intent with regard to private cars. passengers may embark or disembark a responsible for conducting certain brake Under the final rule, FRA makes clear train; normally, a ‘‘terminal’’ is a point and mechanical inspections has little that a private car is considered where the train would reverse direction bearing on the qualifications or ‘‘passenger equipment’’ for purposes of or change destinations. knowledge of the individual and, thus, this rule only when it is used in a train The concepts of ‘‘qualified person’’ is not adverse to accommodating a with one or more passenger cars. and ‘‘qualified maintenance person’’ are change in the term. However, but for Consequently, a private car will not be vital to understanding the required clarifying language, FRA is not changing considered ‘‘passenger equipment’’ inspection, testing, and maintenance the underlying definition of what is under the rule when the private car is provisions of the rule. A ‘‘qualified required to be designated as a QMP. being used alone; or used in a train person’’ is a person determined by the The definition contained in this final consisting only of private cars or freight railroad to have the knowledge and rule clarifies the intent of the NPRM by cars, or both. This approach is skills necessary to perform one or more specifically stating that a QMP must be consistent with FRA’s intent in drafting functions required under this part. With properly trained and have a primary the NPRM, and fully incorporates the the proper training, a train crewmember responsibility in the function of trouble- AAPRCO’s and ASLRA’s comments. could be a qualified person. shooting, inspection, testing,

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25579 maintenance, or repair of the specific is necessary to ensure the high quality of equipment such as carmen, train brake and other components and inspections envisioned by the rule. FRA machinists, and electricians to become systems for which the inspector is notes the frequent contention of railroad QMPs. However, membership in a labor assigned responsibility. The slightly representatives that mechanical forces organization or completion of an modified definition also clarifies that a are intimately familiar with the vehicles apprenticeship program associated with QMP also possess a current in the fleet for which they are a particular craft is not required. FRA understanding of what is required to responsible. FRA wishes to continue makes clear that the two overriding properly repair and maintain the safety- this record of careful attention to those qualifications are possession of the critical brake or mechanical components fleets, which will tend to help ensure knowledge required to do the job and a for which the person is assigned that developing problems are identified primary work assignment involving the responsibility. early and are dealt with across those troubleshooting, inspecting, testing, The major concern raised by APTA fleets. maintaining, or repairing the representatives centered on the FRA disagrees with the contentions equipment. requirement contained in the definition raised by APTA representatives that the FRA is also clarifying the meaning of of a QMI that the person’s ‘‘primary definition of QMP violates the ‘‘primary responsibility’’ as used in the responsibility’’ include work in the area Administrative Procedure Act and definition of QMP. As a rule of thumb of troubleshooting, testing, inspecting, exceeds FRA’s statutory authority. FRA will consider a person’s ‘‘primary maintenance, or repair to train brake Contrary to the assertions made by responsibility’’ to be the task that the APTA representatives, the person performs at least 50 percent of systems and other components. These administrative record together with the time. Therefore, a person who commenters believed that anyone who FRA’s independent knowledge of the spends at least 50 percent of the time is properly trained can perform the passenger rail industry do support a engaged in the duties of inspecting, required inspections regardless of the requirement that only a QMP conduct testing, maintenance, troubleshooting, amount of time actually spent engaged Class I brake tests and exterior or repair of train brakes systems and in the activity. The entire concept of mechanical inspections. Except for other mechanical components could be QMP (or QMI) is premised on the idea limited weekend service operated by designated as a QMP, provided the that flexibility in the inspection of Metra, virtually every passenger train person is properly trained to perform passenger equipment, flexibility in the operation affected by this rule currently the tasks assigned and possesses a movement of defective equipment and conducts daily brake and mechanical current understanding of what is slight reductions in periodic inspections utilizing employees who, required to properly repair and maintain maintenance could be provided if the except for training on the requirements the safety-critical brake or mechanical mechanical components and brake of this rule, would meet the definition components for which the person is system were inspected on a daily basis of a QMP. That is, the employees who assigned responsibility. However, FRA by highly qualified individuals. Thus, are currently responsible for conducting will consider the totality of the the requirement that a highly qualified the major daily brake and mechanical circumstances surrounding an person perform certain brake and inspections on virtually all passenger employee’s duties in determining a mechanical inspections is part of a trains meet the ‘‘primary responsibility’’ person’s ‘‘primary responsibility.’’ For package which includes flexibility in requirement contained in the definition example, a person may not spend 50 the performance of brake and of QMP. Therefore, the industry’s percent of his or her day engaged in any mechanical inspections, permits wider current practice acknowledges and one readily identifiable type of activity; latitude in the movement of defective supports the need to conduct daily in those situations FRA will have to equipment, and provides reductions in inspections with employees whose look at the circumstances involved on a the periodic maintenance that is primary responsibility is the case-by-case basis. required to be performed on certain troubleshooting, inspection, testing, The definition of QMP largely rules equipment. Therefore, FRA expects the maintenance, or repair of train brake out the possibility of train crew highly qualified person to be an systems or other mechanical members from being designated as these individual who can not only identify a components. Furthermore, due to the highly qualified inspectors since the particular defective condition but who flexibility provided in this rule for primary responsibility, as defined will have the knowledge and experience conducting brake and mechanical above, of virtually all current train crew to know how the defective condition inspections and moving defective personnel is the operation of trains, and affects other mechanical components or equipment as well as the extension of for the most part, train crew personnel other parts of the brake system and will certain periodic maintenance, FRA do not possess a current understanding have an understanding of what might believes that the current best practices of what is required to properly repair have caused a particular defective of the railroads with regard to brake and and maintain the safety-critical brake or condition. FRA believes that in order for mechanical inspections must be mechanical components that are a person to become highly proficient in maintained, especially as it relates to inspected during Class I brake tests or the performance of a particular task that the quality of the personnel performing exterior calendar day mechanical person must perform the task on a the inspections. inspections. However, contrary to the repeated and consistent basis. As it is FRA further believes that APTA’s contentions raised by APTA there is almost impossible to develop and contention that the definition of QMP nothing in the rule which prevents a impose specific experience violates the Railway Labor Act is due to railroad from utilizing employees who requirements, FRA believes that a a misunderstanding of the definition. are not designated as QMPs from requirement that the person’s primary FRA is not attempting to make any conducting brake and mechanical responsibility be in one or more of the determinations over employee classes or inspections provided those inspections specifically identified work areas and crafts or to interpret collective are not intended to constitute the that the person have a basic bargaining agreements. As was made required Class I brake test or the exterior understanding of what is required to clear in the 1997 NPRM, the definition calendar day mechanical inspection. properly repair and maintain safety- would allow the members of trades Furthermore, the rule provides that critical brake or mechanical components associated with testing and maintenance certain required brake and mechanical

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25580 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations inspections (Class IA brake tests, Class continued use of equipment which meaning in the broad sense as the outer II brake tests, running brake tests, and involves non-running gear defects. covering of a fuel tank and a rail vehicle interior calendar day mechanical Definitions of the various types of as a whole, not just the forward-facing inspections) may be performed by a trains covered by this final rule are end of a locomotive. Moreover, as noted properly ‘‘qualified person’’ and do not extremely important to understand how below in the discussion of § 238.209 mandate the use of a QMP. FRA believes FRA intends for the rule to be applied. (Forward-facing end structure of that these are the types of inspections The most general definition is that of a locomotives), the exclusion from the which train crew members are currently ‘‘passenger train.’’ The definition makes definition of ‘‘skin’’ originally included assigned to perform and have been two points very clear. First, the final as part of the definition itself proposed performing effectively for years. rule does not apply to tourist and in the NPRM has instead been Consequently, FRA believes that the excursion railroads; and, second, the incorporated into the appropriate rule inspection requirements and the provisions of the rule do apply to non- text for clarity at § 238.209 and qualification requirements contained in passenger carrying units included in a § 238.409 (Forward end structures of passenger train. this rule are merely a codification of the power car cabs). An important distinction highlighted The last definition that warrants current best practices of the passenger in these definitions is the difference discussion is ‘‘vestibule.’’ FRA intends train industry and are necessary to between a ‘‘long-distance intercity ‘‘vestibule’’ to mean an area of a ensure the continued safety of those passenger train’’ and a ‘‘short-distance passenger car that normally does not operations while providing the industry intercity passenger train.’’ ‘‘Long- contain seating and that is used for some flexibility in the performance of distance intercity passenger train’’ passage between the seating area and certain inspections and in the means a passenger train that provides the side exit doors. The definition of movement of defective equipment as service between large cities more than ‘‘vestibule’’ is important to determine well as providing slight increases in 125 miles apart and is not operated the requirements for side door periodic maintenance for some exclusively in the National Railroad emergency-release mechanisms. For equipment. Passenger Corporation’s (Amtrak) instance, a powered side door in a The term ‘‘running gear defect’’ has Northeast Corridor between Washington vestibule that is partitioned from the been added to the final rule’s list of D.C. and Boston, Massachusetts. ‘‘Short- passenger compartment of a Tier I definitions. A running gear defect is distance intercity passenger train’’ passenger car must have a manual defined as any defective condition means a passenger train that provides override feature as specified in which involves a truck component, a service exclusively on the Northeast § 238.235 by December 31, 1999. propulsion system component, a draft Corridor or between cities that are not Section 238.7 Waivers system component, a wheel or a wheel more than 125 miles apart. This component. This term is important for distinction attempts to recognize the This section sets forth the procedures understanding the restrictions regarding special set of operating conditions on for seeking waivers of compliance with the movement of equipment with other the Northeast Corridor in light of the the requirements of this rule. Requests for such waivers may be filed by any than power brake defects. FRA agrees need to treat long-distance trains interested party. In reviewing such with the comments of railroad differently than short-distance trains. requests, FRA conducts investigations to representatives that the 1997 NPRM Additionally, APTA advised FRA that determine if a deviation from the may have been over-reaching in there are commuter rail systems that general criteria can be made without requiring a qualified mechanical operate trains over 100 miles in distance compromising or diminishing rail inspector to make a determination on a single run, and thus recommended safety. This section has been modified regarding the safety of moving a piece the use of the 125-mile distance in these from that proposed in the 1997 NPRM of defective equipment for any of the definitions. The definition of the term ‘‘in to keep it consistent with the general mechanical components addressed in waiver provisions contained in other this regulation. However, FRA also service’’ is modeled after the definition of that term in the Railroad Freight Car Federal regulations issued by FRA. FRA agrees with the comments submitted by recognizes that circumstances may arise labor representatives that railroads Safety Standards. See 49 CFR 215.5(e). Passenger equipment that is in service when the operation of passenger should not determine what components equipment that does not meet the are considered safety-critical. Therefore, includes passenger equipment ‘‘in passenger service,’’ meaning ‘‘carrying, standards contained in this rule is FRA has modified the movement of appropriate and in the public interest. defective equipment provisions in this or available to carry, fare-paying final rule to require a determination passengers,’’ as well as all other Section 238.9 Responsibility for regarding the safety of moving a piece passenger equipment unless it falls into Compliance one of the following four categories: of equipment by a qualified General compliance requirements are maintenance person (as discussed (a) Is being handled in accordance with contained in this section. Paragraph (a). above) whenever a potential running §§ 238.15, 238.17, 238.305(c)(5), or Paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) prohibit a gear defect is involved. FRA rejects the 238.503(f), as applicable; (b) Is in a repair shop or on a repair track; railroad subject to part 238 from language proposed by APTA that the (c) Is on a storage track and is not carrying committing a series of specified acts defect be a potentially ‘‘safety-critical’’ passengers; or with respect to a train or a piece of running gear defect as FRA believes that (d) Has been delivered in interchange but passenger equipment while the train or any defect to a running gear component has not been accepted by the receiving passenger equipment is in service if it is potentially safety-critical. In order to railroad. has a condition that does not comply avoid confusion, FRA is providing an The term ‘‘in service’’ is important with part 238 or if it has not been explicit definition of running gear because if the train or passenger inspected and tested as required by part defect. In the final rule, FRA is equipment is not in service, it is not 238. In particular, consistent with 49 permitting the use of a qualified person subject to a part 238 civil penalty. U.S.C. chapter 203, paragraph (a)(1) to determine the safety and establish FRA has revised the definition of imposes a strict liability standard with appropriate movement restrictions on ‘‘skin’’ to reflect more appropriately its respect to violations of the safety

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25581 appliance and power brake provisions For example, private car owners and Section 238.13 Preemptive Effect of part 238. In addition to the acts contract shops that perform duties Section 238.13 informs the public as prohibited by paragraph (a)(2) (that is, covered by these regulations would be to FRA’s views regarding what will be the use, haul, offering in interchange, or required to perform those duties in the the preemptive effect of the final rule. accepting in interchange of defective or same manner as required of a railroad. While the presence or absence of such not properly inspected equipment), Section 238.11 Civil Penalties a section does not in itself affect the paragraph (a)(1) prohibits a railroad preemptive effect of a final rule, it from merely permitting the use or haul This section identifies the civil informs the public about the statutory on its line of such equipment if it does penalties that FRA may impose upon provision which governs the preemptive not conform with the safety appliance any person, including a railroad or an effect of the rule. Section 20106 of title and power brake provisions. See independent contractor providing goods 49 of the United States Code provides § 238.3(b). By contrast, paragraph (a)(2) or services to a railroad, that violates that all regulations prescribed by the imposes a lower standard of liability for any requirement of this part. These Secretary relating to railroad safety using, hauling, delivering in penalties are authorized by 49 U.S.C. preempt any State law, regulation, or interchange, or accepting in interchange 21301, 21302, and 21304. The penalty order covering the same subject matter, a train or passenger equipment that is provision parallels penalty provisions except a provision necessary to defective or not properly inspected, in included in numerous other safety eliminate or reduce an essentially local violation of another provision of this regulations issued by FRA. Essentially, safety hazard that is not incompatible part; a railroad subject to this part is any person who violates any liable only if it knew, had notice, or with a Federal law, regulation, or order requirement of this part or causes the and that does not unreasonably burden should have known of the existence of violation of any such requirement will either the defective condition of the interstate commerce. With the exception be subject to a civil penalty of at least of a provision directed at an essentially equipment or the failure to inspect and $500 and not more than $11,000 per test. Finally, paragraph (a)(3) establishes local safety hazard, 49 U.S.C. 20106 will violation. Civil penalties may be preempt any State regulatory agency a strict liability standard for assessed against individuals only for noncompliance with any other rule covering the same subject matter as willful violations, and where a grossly the regulations in this final rule. provision of this part. negligent violation or a pattern of Paragraph (b). In accordance with the repeated violations creates an imminent Section 238.15 Movement of Passenger ‘‘use’’ or ‘‘haul’’ language previously hazard of death or injury to persons, or Equipment With Defective Power Brakes contained in the Safety Appliance Acts causes death or injury, a penalty not to (49 U.S.C. chapter 203) and with FRA’s This section contains the exceed $22,000 per violation may be requirements for movement of passenger general rulemaking authority under the assessed. In addition, each day a Federal railroad safety laws, FRA in equipment with a power brake defect violation continues will constitute a without civil penalty liability under this paragraph (b) makes clear that passenger separate offense. Furthermore, a person equipment will be considered ‘‘in use’’ part. (Railroads remain liable, however, may be subject to criminal penalties prior to departure but after it receives or ‘‘in a proceeding to recover damages for under 49 U.S.C. 21311 for knowingly should have received the necessary tests death or injury of a railroad employee and willfully falsifying reports required and inspections required for movement. arising from the movement of’’ the by these regulations. FRA believes that FRA will no longer wait for a piece of defective equipment. See 49 U.S.C. the inclusion of penalty provisions for equipment with a power brake defect to 20303(c).) A ‘‘power brake defect,’’ as failure to comply with the regulations is be hauled before issuing a violation, a defined in paragraph (a), ‘‘is a condition important in ensuring that compliance practice frequently criticized by the of a power brake component, or other is achieved. The final rule includes a railroads. FRA believes that this primary brake component, that does not schedule of civil penalties as appendix approach will increase FRA’s ability to conform with this’’ rule. The term does prevent the movement of defective A to this part. Because the penalty not include a failure to properly inspect equipment that creates a potential safety schedule is a statement of policy, notice such a component. hazard to both the public and railroad and comment was not required prior to Labor representatives objected to employees. FRA does not feel that this its issuance. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). FRA’s determination that the term approach increases the railroads’ burden It should be noted that this section ‘‘power brake defect’’ does not include since equipment should not be operated has been modified slightly from that a failure to inspect such a component. if it is found in defective condition in proposed in the 1997 NPRM. The These commenters claim that FRA’s the pre-departure tests and inspections, modifications were made to address the exclusion of the failure to properly unless permitted by the regulations. statutory requirements contained in the inspect a brake component eliminates Paragraph (c). This paragraph clarifies Federal Civil Penalties Inflation an important means of enforcement FRA’s position that the requirements Adjustment Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101– necessary to ensure that proper power contained in this final rule are 410 Stat. 890, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, as brake inspections are performed. It is applicable not only to any ‘‘railroad’’ amended by the Debt Collection claimed that by excluding the failure to subject to this part but also to any Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104– inspect from being a power brake defect, ‘‘person,’’ as defined in § 238.5, that 134, April 26, 1996, which required FRA has eliminated any incentive for performs any function required by this agencies to adjust for inflation the railroads to ensure that trains have final rule. Although various sections of maximum civil monetary penalties operative brakes because there will be the final rule address the duties of a within the agencies’ jurisdiction. little financial repercussion to railroad, FRA intends that any person Consequently, the resulting $11,000 and continuing to use improperly inspected who performs any action on behalf of a $22,000 maximum penalties were equipment. railroad or any person who performs determined by applying the criteria set FRA believes that the concern raised any action covered by the final rule is forth in sections 4 and 5 of the statute by certain labor representatives required to perform that action in the to the maximum penalties otherwise regarding FRA’s definition of ‘‘power same manner as required of a railroad or provided for in the Federal railroad brake defect’’ under this section is due be subject to FRA enforcement action. safety laws. to a lack of understanding of the rule as

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25582 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations well as a misunderstanding of the equipment with a power brake defect provision includes situations where a existing regulations. Under the current found during a Class I or IA brake test defect renders the brakes inoperative, power brake regulations the unit of or, for Tier II equipment, the equivalent not just situations where brakes are cut- violation for failure to inspect is the of a Class I or IA brake test. This out. train not individual cars, although FRA paragraph allows railroads the Paragraph (c)(2) requires that can take a separate violation for each car flexibility to move passenger equipment equipment being hauled for repairs be containing a defective condition upon with a power brake defect found during adequately identified. Currently, there is departure after the train received or such a test if the following three no requirement that equipment with should have received an initial terminal conditions are satisfied: (1) If the train defective power brakes be tagged or inspection or for each car not identified is moved for purposes of effecting repair otherwise identified, although most as defective after the performance of an of the defect, without passengers; (2) the railroads voluntarily engage in such intermediate inspection. Moreover, the applicable operating restrictions set activity. Furthermore, the current failure to inspect a piece of equipment forth in paragraph (d) are complied regulations regarding freight cars and cannot be cured through any of the with; and (3) the information locomotives contain tagging provisions contained in this final rule concerning the defect is recorded on a requirements for the movement of regarding the movement of defective tag affixed to the equipment or in an equipment not in compliance with those equipment. Thus, if a railroad fails to automated defect tracking system as parts. See 49 CFR 215.9 and 229.9. inspect a piece of equipment as specified in paragraph (c)(2). Consequently, FRA is requiring the required, the railroad cannot avoid civil Paragraph (b)(2). This paragraph identification of equipment with penalty liability by moving the permits railroads to move, for purposes defective power brakes through either equipment in accordance with the of scrapping or sale, passenger the traditional tags which are placed in movement for repair provisions. equipment with a power brake defect established locations on the equipment Furthermore, the final rule contains found during a Class I or IA brake test or by an automated tracking system specific civil penalties for a railroad’s (or the Tier II equivalent) if each of the developed by the railroad. Certain failure to perform inspections as following conditions is satisfied: if the information must be contained required. Therefore, railroads will also movement is without passengers, if the whichever method is used by a railroad. continue to be subject to potential civil speed of the movement is 15 mph or FRA believes that the tagging or penalty for any car found in defective less, and if the railroad’s air brake or automated tracking requirements add condition after it has performed or power brake instructions are followed reliability, accountability, and should have performed a Class I or Class when making the movement. This enforceability for the timely and proper IA brake test, and for any car not provision allows railroads to move repair of equipment with defective properly moved or identified as surplus equipment without having to power brakes. defective at other times. request permission for one-time moves FRA is retaining the requirement that The final rule also retains the from FRA, as is currently required. FRA equipment found with conditions not in provision stating that passenger has not had any serious safety concerns compliance with this part must be equipment will be considered ‘‘in use’’ with the methods currently used by appropriately tagged or recorded in an prior to departure but after it has railroads to move this equipment and automated tracking system. Although received or should have received an does not believe its limited resources FRA is sensitive to the concerns raised inspection required by this part. See should be tied up in approving these by labor representatives regarding the § 232.9. Thus, FRA inspectors will no types of moves. use of automated tracking systems, FRA longer have to wait until a piece of Paragraph (c), generally. This believes that provisions must be equipment departs a location before paragraph addresses the use of provided to allow railroads to take issuing a civil penalty, a practice passenger equipment with a power advantage of existing and developing continually criticized by both labor and brake defect that develops en route from technologies regarding the electronic railroad representatives. In addition, a location where a Class I or IA brake maintenance and retention of records. this final rule provides FRA inspectors test (or the Tier II equivalent) was Although railroad and FRA inspectors the ability to issue Special Notices for performed on the equipment. The two may require additional training on the Repair, which enable an FRA inspector basic requirements are that, at the use of electronic records, FRA believes to remove an unsafe piece of equipment location where the railroad first finds that the use of such a medium to track from service until appropriate action is the defect, specified information (such defective equipment can expedite the taken by the railroad. See Amendments as the nature of the defect and the identification and repair of defective to 49 CFR part 216. This enforcement destination where the defect will be equipment and, thus, reduce the time tool is not currently available to FRA repaired) must be placed on tags that defective equipment is operated in inspectors in the area of power brakes attached to the equipment or in a passenger service. In response to labor’s and mechanical components on computer tracking system and that the concerns, a new paragraph (c)(3) has passenger equipment and could be used railroad must observe the applicable been added which contains a provision in circumstances where passenger operating restrictions in paragraph (d). giving FRA the ability to monitor and equipment is not inspected prior to A third requirement, found in paragraph review a railroad’s automated tracking being placed in service. Consequently, (c)(4), is a special conditional system and provides FRA the ability to the final rule not only retains all of the requirement, applying only if the defect prohibit or revoke a railroad’s ability to enforcement tools available to FRA causes any brakes to be cut out or utilize an automated tracking system in under the current regulations but renders the brakes inoperative. This lieu of directly tagging defective includes other methods for ensuring provision was slightly modified from equipment if FRA finds that the compliance by the railroads and what was proposed in order to prevent automated tracking system is not provides both a financial and a railroad from avoiding the properly secure, is inaccessible to FRA operational incentive for railroads to requirements contained in this or a railroad’s employees, or fails to properly inspect passenger equipment. subsection by simply not cutting-out an adequately track and monitor the Paragraph (b)(1). This paragraph inoperative brake. Consequently, the movement of defective equipment. addresses the movement for repair of language was modified so that the urthermore, if the automated tracking

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25583 system developed and implemented by technological advancements made in compensate for the loss of brakes on a a railroad does not accurately and braking systems over the last century. minority of cars. FRA rejects the BRC’s adequately record the information Consequently, FRA intends to require recommendation that passenger trains required by this part, the railroad will the percentage of operative brakes to be with defective brakes be permitted to be in violation of the movement for determined by dividing the number of move no further than the next passenger repair provisions and subject to civil axles in the train with operative brakes station because such a stringent penalty liability. by the total number of axles in the train. requirement is unnecessary, more In addition, under paragraph (c)(4), if Furthermore, for equipment utilizing restrictive than the current statutory the defect causes the brakes on the tread brake units (TBU), FRA requires mandate regarding the movement of equipment to be cut out, then the that the percentage of operative brakes defective brake equipment, and is railroad must first find out what be determined by dividing the number radically counter to the way passenger percentage of the power brakes in the of operative TBUs by the total number trains currently handle defective train are cut out or inoperative in some of TBUs. equipment. other way, using the formula in Paragraphs (d)(2)–(d)(4), generally. FRA is retaining those portions of the paragraph (d)(1). Next, the railroad must These paragraphs contain various speed proposed movement for repair notify the person responsible for the and other operating restrictions based requirements that it believes are fully movement of trains of the percentage of on the percentage of operative brakes in consistent with the existing statutory operative brakes and the movement order to permit passenger railroads the provisions regarding the movement of restrictions imposed by paragraph (d), flexibility to efficiently move passengers equipment with power brake defects inform the railroad’s mechanical without compromising safety. FRA and has revised those that are contrary department about the brake defect, and believes that the movement restrictions to the statutory provisions. Therefore, walk the train to confirm the percentage contained in these paragraphs actually passenger trains operating with 75–99 of operative brakes at the next point enhance the safety of the riding public. percent operative brakes will not be where it is safe to do so. Slight The requirements retain the basic permitted to travel to the next forward modification was made to paragraph principle that a train carrying terminal as proposed, but will be (c)(4)(ii) and (iii) replacing the term passengers shall not depart a location permitted to travel only to the next ‘‘dispatcher’’ with the phrase ‘‘person where major brake inspections or tests forward location where the necessary responsible for the movement of trains’’ are performed on a train unless the train repairs to the brake equipment can be as some railroads do not use the term has 100 percent operational brakes. dispatcher and the term mechanical As previously noted in the general effectuated as mandated in the existing ‘‘desk’’ was removed as it is discussion, FRA has determined that statute. In FRA’s view, all of the other unnecessary and covered by the term some minor changes need to be made to proposed methods for moving defective ‘‘mechanical department.’’ the requirements proposed in the 1997 power brake equipment are consistent Paragraph (d)(1). This paragraph NPRM regarding the movement of with and are in accordance with the explains the term ‘‘inoperative power equipment with defective power brakes. current statutory requirements and will brakes’’ and contains a new method for In order to avoid the legal implications be retained. For example, FRA is calculating the percentage of operative involved with employing the statutory retaining the provision which permits a power brakes (operative primary brakes) authority contained at 49 U.S.C. 20306 passenger train with 50–75 percent in a train. Regarding the term itself, a for exempting equipment from the operative brakes to be moved at reduced cut-out power brake is an inoperative statutory requirements related to safety speeds to the next forward passenger power brake, but the failure or cutting appliances and power brakes, and station. Although the percentage of out of a secondary brake system (as because railroad representatives operative brakes is lower than currently defined in § 238.5) does not result in acknowledged that the flexibility permitted by FRA’s longstanding agency inoperative power brakes. For example, provided through reliance on the interpretation (which FRA believes is failure of dynamic brakes does not exemption is minimal, FRA will not rely fully compensated for by the proposed render a power brake inoperative unless on the statutory exemption provision speed restrictions), FRA believes that the dynamic brakes are in fact primary contained at 49 U.S.C. 20306 in this the movement of the defective brakes. Although the statute discusses final rule and has modified the equipment to the next passenger station the percentage of operative brakes in movement for repair provisions is in accordance with the statutory terms of a percentage of vehicles, the accordingly. requirement as the safety of the statute was written nearly a century ago FRA will retain the exemption passengers must be considered in and at that time the only way to cut out proposed in the 1997 NPRM for determining the nearest location where the brakes on a car or locomotive was passenger train operations from a long- necessary repairs can be made. In to cut out the entire unit. See 49 U.S.C. standing agency interpretation that addition, permitting passenger trains to 20302(a)(5)(B). Today, virtually every prohibits the movement of a train for continue to the next forward location piece of equipment used in passenger repairs under 49 U.S.C. 20303 if less where the necessary repairs can be service can have the brakes cut out on than 85 percent of the train’s brakes are performed is also consistent with the a per-truck or per-axle basis. operative. This interpretation is based statutory requirement as such Consequently, FRA is merely providing on a 1910 ICC order codified at 49 CFR movement is necessary to ensure the a method of calculating the percentage 232.1. FRA believes that this safety of the traveling public by of operative brakes based on the design requirement is overly restrictive when protecting them from the hazards of passenger equipment used today, applied to passenger train operations as incident to performing movements and, thus, a means to more accurately many passenger operations utilize a against the current of traffic and reflect the true braking ability of the small number of cars in their trains and recognizes the hazards incident to train as a whole. FRA believes that the the necessity to cut out the brakes on overcrowding platforms and trailing method of calculation contained in this just one car can easily result in trains. Furthermore, retention of the final rule is consistent with the intent of noncompliance. FRA believes that the movement provisions related to long- Congress when it drafted the statutory retention in this final rule of the distance intercity passenger trains and requirement and simply recognizes the proposed speed restrictions will fully long-distance Tier II equipment is

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25584 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations consistent with the current statutory equipment to a location with the en route brake failures resulting in 99 to requirements as these provisions permit facilities to handle the discharge of 85 percent operative brakes at normal the movement of defective brake passengers. Furthermore, engineering speeds, the final rule contains a speed equipment on these trains only to the evidence and test data demonstrate that restriction of no greater than 40 mph next passenger station or the next repair the reduced speed more than when the en route brake failures result location, with various speed restrictions compensates for the reduced braking in 84 to 75 percent operative brakes. depending on the percentage of force. At the reduced speed, even with Therefore, these trains gain flexibility in operative brakes. only 50 percent effective brakes, a train being permitted to move a greater FRA recognizes that there are major is able to stop in a much shorter percentage of defective equipment than differences in the operations of distance than the same train traveling at currently allowed and are able to move commuter or short-distance intercity the maximum operating speed with 100 that equipment to the next forward passenger trains, and long-distance percent operative brakes. repair location rather than the ‘‘nearest’’ intercity passenger trains. Commuter Paragraphs (d)(3)(i) and (ii). FRA will repair location as currently required. and short-distance intercity passenger also permit commuter, short-distance See 49 U.S.C. 20303(a). As noted trains tend to operate for fairly short intercity, and short-distance Tier II previously, FRA believes that the safety distances between passenger stations passenger trains experiencing en route of the traveling public mandates the and generally operate in relatively short brake failures resulting in 99 to 75 flexibility of permitting passenger trains turn-around service between two percent operative brakes to continue in to continue to the next forward repair terminals several times in any given service only to the next forward location location or passenger station because day. On the other hand, long-distance where the necessary repairs can be requiring trains to reverse directions intercity passenger trains tend to effectuated. FRA will permit these and perform back hauls to the nearest operate for long distances, with trips passenger trains to continue in service repair location increases the risk of between the beginning terminal and past a repair location to the next collision on the railroad. ending terminal taking a day or more forward passenger station only if the In this final rule, FRA is retaining the and traversing multiple States with repair location does not have the proposed requirement that operators of relatively long distances between facilities to safely unload passengers. long-distance passenger trains designate passenger stations. Consequently, the However, FRA will require the speed of the locations where repairs can be final rule contains slightly different the train with 84 to 75 percent operative conducted on the equipment. Although requirements with regard to the brakes to be reduced to 50 percent of the FRA agrees that this provision puts the movement of defective brake equipment train’s maximum operating speed or 40 control of what locations constitute in long-distance intercity passenger mph, whichever is less. Engineering repair locations in the hands of the trains. evidence and test data demonstrate that railroad, FRA believes that the operators FRA believes that passenger railroads the reduced speed more than of these long-distance intercity trains can safely and efficiently operate trains compensates for the reduced braking are in the best position to determine with en route brake failures under the force. At the reduced speed, even with which locations have the necessary strict set of conditions in this final rule. only 75 percent effective brakes, a train expertise to handle the repairs of the FRA has long held that the industry can is able to stop in a much shorter somewhat advanced braking systems safely operate trains at normal track distance than the same train traveling at utilized in passenger trains. Due to the speeds with as low as 85 percent the maximum operating speed with 100 unique technologies used on the brake effective brakes as long as the percent operative brakes. APTA also systems of these operations and the inoperative brakes were due to failures presented engineering evidence and test unique operating environments, the which occurred en route or due to data that demonstrated that stopping facilities and personnel necessary to defective cars being picked up en route distances remained well within signal conduct proper repairs on this and being moved for repairs. The only spacing distances with a large margin of equipment are somewhat specialized change in this final rule to current safety even for trains with as low as 85 and limited. Moreover, FRA is retaining practice is the additional flexibility for percent effective brakes. Consequently, the broad performance-based certain passenger operations to move FRA will not impose speed restrictions requirement that railroads operating this their equipment with a lower percentage on trains operating with 85 to 99 equipment designate a sufficient of operative brakes, under strict speed percent operative brakes. number of repair locations to ensure the restrictions, and recognition of the Paragraph (d)(4). This paragraph safe and timely repair of the equipment. safety need to allow passenger trains to contains the operating restrictions on Contrary to the beliefs of some labor move to the nearest forward location moving equipment with defective commenters, FRA believes that this capable of performing the repairs. brakes in long-distance intercity performance standard provides FRA Paragraph (d)(2). This paragraph passenger trains. This paragraph permits sufficient grounds to institute civil contains operating requirements for the the movement of defective brake penalty enforcement actions or take movement of any passenger train that equipment in these trains only to the other enforcement actions if, based on develops en route brake failures nearest forward location designated as a its expertise and experience, FRA resulting in 74 to 50 percent operative repair location for this equipment by the believes the railroad is failing to brakes. In these circumstances, FRA will operating railroad in the list required by designate an adequate number of repair allow the train to proceed only to the § 238.19(d). FRA will also permit long- locations. next passenger station at a reduced distance intercity passenger trains to Furthermore, rather than attempt to speed, not to exceed 20 mph, to continue in service past a designated develop a standard applicable to all discharge passengers before proceeding repair location to the next forward situations in the context of short- without passengers to the nearest passenger station only if the designated distance intercity and commuter trains, location where the necessary repairs can repair location does not have the which FRA does not believe can be be made. This provision recognizes the facilities to safely unload passengers. accomplished, FRA will approach the dangers of unloading passenger at Although FRA is permitting the issue of what constitutes the next locations other than passenger stations continued operation of long-distance forward location where repairs can be by allowing railroads to move the intercity passenger trains that develop effectuated based on a case-by-case

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25585 analysis of each situation. FRA believes believes that railroads are in the best mechanical inspection. However, FRA that its field inspectors are in the best position to determine what the intends the calendar day mechanical position to determine whether a railroad appropriate speed restriction should be inspection to be the tool used by exercised good faith in determining given the circumstances involved. railroads to repair all reported defects when and where to move a piece of Therefore, FRA is modifying the and to prevent continued use of defective brake equipment. In making requirements for the use of such cars defective equipment to carry passengers. these determinations both the railroad and paragraph (e) requires that (Compare § 238.17(b) with § 238.17(c).) as well as FRA’s inspectors must appropriate speed restrictions be FRA intends for 49 CFR 229.9 to conduct a multi-factor analysis based on imposed with inoperative brakes on the continue to govern the movement of the facts of each case. In determining front or rear unit and that trains locomotives used in passenger service whether a particular location is a containing equipment with inaccessible which develop defective conditions, not location where necessary repairs can be handbrakes or with handbrakes located covered by part 238, that are not in made or whether a location is the next outside the interior of a car be operated compliance with part 229. Part 229 will forward repair location in a passenger at restricted speed (i.e. 20 mph) and that continue to cover (non-steam) train context, the accessibility of the the defective equipment be removed or locomotives that are used by the tourist location, the ability to safely make the repositioned in the train at the first railroads until such railroads are repairs at that location, and the safety of possible location. The operating covered by part 238. the passengers are the overriding factors restrictions contained in this paragraph After review of the comments that must be considered in any analysis. are consistent with current industry submitted and provided orally at the These factors have a multitude of sub- practice and should not impose any Working Group meetings, FRA is factors which must be considered, such additional burden to the industry. making some modest changes in this as: the type of repair required; the safety It should be noted that the provisions final rule regarding the movement of of employees responsible for conducting contained in 49 U.S.C. 20303(c) equipment with non-power brake the repairs; the safety of employees continue to remain applicable to a defects. FRA agrees with the comments responsible for getting the equipment to railroad when hauling equipment with of railroad representatives that the 1997 or from a particular location; the defective or insecure power brakes or NPRM may have been over-reaching in switching operations necessary to other safety appliances pursuant to the requiring a QMP to make a effectuate the move; the railroad’s recent requirements contained in this final determination regarding the safety of history and current practice of making rule. This section of the statute contains moving a piece of defective equipment repairs (brake and non-brake) at a the liability provisions attendant with for any of the mechanical components particular location; relevant weather the movement of equipment with addressed in this regulation. However, conditions; potential overcrowding of defective or insecure safety appliances, FRA also agrees with the comments passenger platforms; and the including power brakes. submitted by labor representatives that railroads should not determine what overcrowding of trailing trains. Section 238.17 Movement of Passenger components are considered safety- Equipment With Other Than Power Paragraph (e). This paragraph critical. Therefore, FRA will require a Brake Defects contains the operating restrictions on determination regarding the safety of passenger trains with inoperative power This section contains the moving a piece of equipment by a QMP brakes on the front or rear unit of the requirements for the movement of (as discussed above) whenever a train. Similar provisions were contained passenger equipment with a condition potential running gear defect is in the 1997 NPRM and included in each not in compliance with part 238, involved. FRA rejects the language of the various operating restriction excluding a power brake defect and proposed by APTA that the defect be a contained in paragraph (d). In order to including a safety appliance defect, potentially ‘‘safety-critical’’ running make the rule easier to understand, FRA without civil penalty liability under this gear defect as FRA believes that any has added this paragraph to the final part. (Railroads remain liable, however, defect to a running gear component is rule and removed the repetitious under 49 U.S.C. 20303(c), as described potentially safety-critical. In order to language from each of the provisions in the discussion of the previous avoid confusion, FRA is providing an contained in paragraph (d). As noted in section.) explicit definition of ‘‘running gear the general preamble discussion above, As previously noted, there are defect.’’ FRA is defining the term to FRA is slightly modifying the provisions currently no statutory or regulatory mean any condition not in compliance related to the operation of trains with restrictions on the movement of with this part which involves a truck defective brakes on the front or rear car. passenger cars with defective conditions component, a propulsion system In the 1997 NPRM, FRA proposed that that are not power brake or safety component, a draft system component, if the power brakes on the front or rear appliance defects. The provisions a wheel or a wheel component. In this unit become inoperative then a qualified contained in this section are similar to final rule, FRA will permit the use of a person must be stationed at the the provisions for moving defective qualified person to determine the safety handbrake on the unit. See 62 FR 49797. locomotives and freight cars currently and establish appropriate movement FRA recognizes that in some instances contained in 49 CFR 229.9 and 215.9, restrictions on continued use of the handbrake on a car located at the respectively. As these provisions have equipment which involves non-running front or rear of a train may not be generally worked well with regard to the gear defects. accessible to a member of the train crew movement of defective locomotives and In paragraph (b), FRA is providing or may be located outside the interior of freight cars and in order to maintain very limited flexibility to railroads to the car and, thus, unsafe for a crew consistency, FRA has modeled these operate defective equipment from a member to operate while the train is in movement requirements on those location where a calendar day motion. FRA also recognizes that in existing requirements. FRA is allowing mechanical inspection was performed many circumstances when a car at the passenger railroads the flexibility to in order to effectuate repairs. FRA front or rear of a train has inoperative continue to use equipment with non- intends for the calendar day mechanical brakes certain speed restrictions should safety-critical defects until the next inspection to be as comprehensive as be placed on the train; however, FRA scheduled calendar day exterior possible and to be the time when all

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25586 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations defective components are identified and requires that the equipment only be repair provisions contained in this repaired. In order to ensure that these moved to the next forward location section and subject to civil penalty daily inspections are performed by where the equipment can be inspected liability. highly qualified inspectors, FRA has by a QMP to verify the description of Paragraph (d) contains a requirement provided the railroads with the defect provided by the on-site that was inadvertently omitted from the considerable flexibility to perform these personnel. Paragraph (c)(2) also permits 1997 NPRM but which is integral to the inspections at locations that are best determinations regarding the continued movement of equipment which has been suited to a quality and comprehensive use of equipment containing non- involved in a derailment. This inspection. Therefore, FRA will permit running gear defects to be made by a paragraph addresses the inspection of the movement of defective equipment qualified person based on a description roller bearings on a car whose truck is from these inspection locations only provided by on-site personnel. In cases involved in a derailment. As the proper with very stringent restrictions. where non-running gear defects are operation and condition of a vehicle’s Equipment containing running gear involved, FRA will not require that the roller bearing is a key element in defects may only be moved from such equipment be inspected at the next ensuring the safe movement of the locations if it is not in passenger service forward location by a qualified person vehicle, FRA believes it is vital that this and is in a non-revenue train. as the safety impact of such defects provision be included in these final Equipment containing non-running gear should be readily identifiable based regulations. The added requirement defects may be moved in a revenue train upon a description by on-site personnel prohibits a railroad from continuing in provided the equipment is locked-out and can be adequately addressed via service a piece of passenger equipment and empty, except that the equipment radio communication. that has a roller bearing whose truck may be used and occupied by a member Paragraph (c)(4) contains the was involved in a derailment unless the of the train crew to the extent necessary requirements for identifying defective bearing is inspected and tested in to safely operate the train. Any defective equipment. This paragraph permits the accordance with the provisions stated. equipment moved from such locations identification and tracking of defective The added provision is identical to the must also be properly identified as equipment in either of two ways. One requirement currently contained in 49 required in paragraph (c)(4) and moved option is to tag the equipment in a CFR § 215.115(b). Although the existing in accordance with any movement manner similar to what is currently provision is applicable to freight cars, restriction imposed. FRA believes these required under § 215.9 for freight cars. virtually every passenger train operation stringent movement restrictions will The second option is to record the follows the provisions contained in that provide railroads limited flexibility to specified information in an automated section prior to returning a piece of move defective equipment to a location tracking system. Although FRA is equipment to service after it was where it can best be repaired but will sensitive to the concerns raised by labor involved in a derailment and, thus, limit a railroad’s desire or ability to representatives regarding the use of should not result in any added burden move defective equipment from these automated tracking systems, FRA to the industry. FRA believes that the inspection locations and will encourage believes that provision must be made to practice is critical to ensuring the the performance of the calendar day allow railroads to take advantage of proper operation of the roller bearing mechanical inspections at locations existing and developing technologies after a derailment occurs and should be where repairs to equipment can be regarding the electronic maintenance incorporated into this final rule. conducted. and retention of records. Although Paragraph (e) contains the special Paragraph (c) contains the railroad and FRA inspectors may statutory restrictions on the movement requirements regarding the movement of require additional training on the use of of passenger equipment with a safety passenger equipment that develops a electronic records, FRA believes that the appliance defect, other than a power condition not in compliance with this use of such a medium to track defective brake defect. FRA does not intend to part, other than a safety appliance equipment can expedite the alter the current statutory requirements defect, while en route to its destination identification and repair of defective contained in 49 U.S.C. 20303 regarding after its calendar day mechanical equipment and, thus, reduce the time the movement of passenger equipment inspection was performed. This that defective equipment is operated in with defective or insecure safety paragraph has been slightly modified passenger service. In response to labor’s appliances. See §§ 238.229, 238.429, from that proposed in the 1997 NPRM concerns, paragraph (c)(5) has been 238.431. Consequently, in paragraph (e), in order to recognize the differing added to this final rule and contains a FRA is requiring that passenger requirements for running rear defects provision which gives FRA the ability to equipment that develops a defective or and non-running gear defects as noted monitor and review a railroad’s insecure safety appliance continue to be in the discussion above. Paragraph (c)(1) automated tracking system and provides subject to all the statutory restrictions retains the requirement that the QMP FRA the ability to prohibit or revoke a on its movement. Under the current may make the determination regarding railroad’s ability to utilize an automated statutory language— the continued use of equipment tracking system in lieu of directly A vehicle that is equipped in compliance containing a potential running gear tagging defective equipment if FRA with this chapter whose equipment becomes defect based on the description finds that the automated tracking system defective or insecure nevertheless may be provided by on-site personnel. Although is not properly secure, is inaccessible to moved when necessary to make repairs FRA recognizes the concerns raised by FRA or a railroad’s employees, or fails ** * from the place at which the defect or labor representatives, FRA believes that to adequately track and monitor the insecurity was first discovered to the nearest the rule must recognize the reality of movement of defective equipment. available place at which the repairs can be current operations and acknowledge the Furthermore, if the automated tracking made— (1) on the railroad line on which the defect fact that mechanical-type personnel are system developed and implemented by or insecurity was discovered; or not readily available at every location a railroad does not accurately and (2) at the option of a connecting railroad on a railroad’s line of road. adequately record the information carrier, on the railroad line of the connecting Furthermore, when such off-site required by this part, the railroad will carrier, if not farther than the place of repair determinations are made the rule be in violation of the movement for described in clause (1) of this subsection.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25587

49 U.S.C. 20303(a). It should be noted for reporting and tracking equipment electronic automated system but could that the safety appliance requirements defects. Paragraph (a) of this section consist of a written records retention applicable to Tier I equipment merely requires that, for each equipment defect system. Thus, even if a railroad needs references the Railroad Safety discovered by the railroad on equipment two or more years to develop an Appliance Standards (49 CFR part 231); used by the railroad, the system record automated tracking system, the railroad however, FRA has mandated separate the following information: the number could utilize a written tracking system safety appliance requirements for Tier II by which the equipment is identified, while the automated system is being passenger equipment. See §§ 238.429 type of defect, when the defect developed. Virtually all railroads and 238.431. occurred, the determination made by a currently track their defective As noted previously, the statutory qualified person or a qualified equipment by some means; FRA provisions related to the movement of maintenance person on handling the believes that these current methods of equipment with defective or insecure equipment, the name of such person, compiling data could be slightly safety appliances permit the movement any operating restrictions placed on the modified to include—or already of such equipment to the nearest equipment, and finally how and when include—all of the information required location where the necessary repairs can the defect was corrected. FRA has not by this section. be made. The determination of what identified any specific method or means Paragraph (b) requires that railroads constitutes the nearest location where by which a railroad should gather and maintain the required information for a the necessary repairs can be effectuated maintain the required information. FRA period equal to one periodic in a safety appliance context is identical believes that each railroad is in the best maintenance interval for each specific to the analysis required when dealing position to determine the method of type of equipment. FRA believes that with a power brake defect. In making obtaining the required information this minimum retention period will these determinations both the railroad which is most efficient and effective ensure that the records remain available as well as FRA’s inspectors must based on its specific operation. Thus, when they are most needed, but will not conduct a multi-factor analysis based on railroads could maintain this place a burdensome record storage the facts of each case. In determining information either in some type of requirement on railroads. However, FRA whether a particular location is a written medium or electronically in strongly encourages railroads to keep location where necessary repairs can be conjunction with some type of these records for longer periods of time made or whether a location is the automated tracking system. because they form the basis for future nearest repair location in a passenger FRA believes that the reporting and reliability-driven decisions concerning train context, the accessibility of the tracking of defective equipment is an test and maintenance intervals. location, the ability to safely make the essential feature of any effective system repairs at that location, and the safety of safety program. Railroad managers are In paragraph (d), FRA retains the the passengers are the overriding factors able to utilize such systems to ensure previously proposed requirement that that must be considered in any analysis. that the railroad complies with safety railroads operating long-distance These factors have a multitude of sub- regulations, does not use unsafe passenger trains and Tier II passenger factors which must be considered, such equipment, makes needed repairs, and equipment maintain a list of the as: the type of repair required; the safety has failure data to make reliability-based locations where repairs can be made to of the passengers if a move against the decisions on maintenance intervals. the equipment’s power brake current of traffic is conducted; the safety Furthermore, most passenger railroads components. Although FRA agrees that of employees responsible for conducting currently have some sort of reporting this provision puts the control of what the repairs; the safety of employees and tracking system in place. FRA locations constitute repair locations in responsible for getting the equipment to recognizes that some railroads may have the hands of the railroad, FRA believes or from a particular location; the to incur additional initial costs to that the operators of these long-distance switching operations necessary to develop or improve defect reporting and intercity trains and Tier II passenger effectuate the move; the railroad’s recent tracking systems; however, FRA equipment are in the best position to history and current practice of making believes these costs can be recouped determine which locations have the repairs (brake and non-brake) at a through the increased operating necessary expertise to handle the repairs particular location; relevant weather efficiency that an effective recording of the somewhat advanced braking conditions; potential overcrowding of and tracking system provides. systems utilized in these passenger passenger platforms; and the Paragraph (a) makes clear that trains. Due to the unique technologies overcrowding of trailing trains. railroads have this tracking system in used in the brake systems of these Therefore, in many circumstances trains place within 26 months after operations and the unique operating will be permitted to continue to the next publication of the final rule in the environments, the facilities and forward location where the necessary Federal Register. APTA recommended personnel necessary to conduct proper repairs can be performed as such that railroads be provided a two-year repairs on this equipment are somewhat movement is necessary to ensure the phase-in period for this requirement to specialized and limited. Moreover, this safety of the traveling public by become effective. As the requirements final rule retains the broad performance- protecting them from the hazards for tracking defective equipment are based requirement that railroads incident to performing movements contingent on completion of a railroad’s operating this equipment designate a against the current of traffic. training of its employees, FRA will sufficient number of repair locations to provide the same time period for ensure the safe and timely repair of the Section 238.19 Reporting and Tracking implementation of the reporting and equipment. Contrary to the beliefs of Defective Equipment tracking system. However, FRA believes some labor commenters, FRA believes This section contains the reporting that APTA’s recommendation was based that this performance standard provides and tracking requirements that on a misunderstanding that the defect FRA sufficient grounds to institute civil passenger railroads must maintain tracking system had to be an automated penalty enforcement actions or take regarding defective passenger electronic system. As the previous other enforcement actions if, based on equipment. FRA is requiring that each discussion makes clear, the defect its expertise and experience, FRA railroad develop and maintain a system tracking system need not be an believes the railroad is failing to

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25588 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations designate an adequate number of repair Corridor operations and proposed organizations wishing to demonstrate locations. operations involving the HST at speeds equivalent safety, but the burden of up to 150 mph. The risk assessment performing a comparative risk Section 238.21 Special Approval demonstrated that proposed assessment and establishing that the Procedure countermeasures such as enhancements operation provides equivalent safety is This section contains the procedures to the train control system and the on the entity proposing to operate to be followed when seeking to obtain increased structural strength and the equipment that does not fully comply FRA approval of an alternative standard crash energy management design of the with the standards in subpart C. under §§ 238.103 (fire safety), 238.223 HST should compensate for the (fuel tanks), 238.309 (periodic brake increased operating speed. The Section 238.23 Information Collection equipment maintenance), 238.311 comparative risk assessment This provision shows which sections (single car test), 238.405 (longitudinal quantitatively showed that, with the of this part have been approved by the static compressive strength), or 238.427 safety improvements included in the Office of Management and Budget (suspension system); for approval of Amtrak plan, passengers were no more (OMB) for compliance with the alternative compliance under § 238.201 at risk travelling on the HST at 150 mph Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. See (covers structural standards other than on the Northeast Corridor than if they 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. A more detailed the static end strength requirement); and were travelling on an existing Amtrak discussion of the information collection for special approval of pre-revenue passenger train at a lesser speed on the requirements in this part is provided service acceptance testing plans as same corridor. below. required by § 238.111. Procedures for The second instance is the proposed obtaining FRA approval of inspection, Florida Overland Express (FOX) Subpart B—Safety Planning and General testing, and maintenance programs for operation of a French TGV high speed Requirements Tier II equipment under § 238.503 are rail system in Florida that was being Section 238.101 Scope found at § 238.505. FRA has revised this considered until January 1999. The section in the final rule from that which State of Florida has withdrawn its This subpart contains safety planning was proposed in the NPRM, consistent support for the project, and work on the requirements and other generally with other changes made in the final project has ceased. Nonetheless, FOX applicable requirements for all rule. had performed a comparative risk passenger equipment subject to this FRA intends to entertain petitions for assessment of three operations: the HST part. alternative compliance under § 238.201 on the Northeast Corridor, the TGV on Section 238.103 Fire Safety. to allow operation of equipment that high speed lines in France, and the complies with the static end strength proposed FOX operation in Florida. See This section contains the fire safety requirement (§ 238.203) but does not FRA Docket: RM Pet. 97–1. The analysis planning and analysis requirements for fully comply with the other final showed the TGV operation in France to passenger equipment, as well as the standards in subpart C of part 238, pose less risk to passengers than the requirements for the materials used in provided the petitioner can demonstrate HST on the Northeast Corridor, and the passenger equipment. This section is ‘‘equivalent safety’’ in that the proposed FOX operation to be even comprised of parts of proposed sections equipment will operate at a level of safer than the TGV in France. The FOX 238.105 and 238.115 in the NPRM, safety that is at least equivalent to that risk assessment suggested that collision which FRA has combined together in afforded by the provision(s) of subpart avoidance provided by a dedicated this final rule as APTA had suggested in C for which alternate compliance is right-of-way with no grade crossings its comments. sought. Equivalent safety may be more than compensated for the Paragraph (a)(1) contains the fire afforded by features or measures that increased speed and decreased safety requirements for materials used compensate for equipment that does not structural strength of the proposed in constructing passenger cars and cabs meet such standard(s) on its own. equipment. Equivalent safety is met when railroad FRA cites these two instances as of locomotive ordered on or after employees, passengers, and the general examples of what is expected to September 8, 2000, or placed in service public are no more at risk from demonstrate equivalent safety for for the first time on or after September passenger equipment that does not proposed operations when a petition for 9, 2002. Such materials shall comply specifically meet the requirement(s) for alternative compliance is submitted in with the test performance criteria for which alternative compliance is sought, accordance with § 238.201. Any such flammability and smoke emission but is protected by compensating analysis would need to be predicated on characteristics as specified in Appendix features or measures, than when the a detailed engineering analysis of the B to this part, or alternative standards equipment specifically complies with crashworthiness of the vehicles issued or recognized by an expert the requirement(s) itself. proposed to be employed, permitting consensus organization after special FRA recommends that the risk FRA to assess the gap in safety between approval of FRA’s Associate assessment portion of a railroad’s those vehicles and equipment built to Administrator for Safety under the system safety program be used to the specific requirements of subpart C. procedures specified in section 238.21. demonstrate equivalent safety. The FRA would also expect an analysis Paragraph (a)(1) is based on proposed burden would be on the petitioning showing the effectiveness of clearly § 238.115(a)(1) in the NPRM. See 62 FR railroad to perform a comparative risk compensating features or measures, 49803. assessment and to prove equivalent such as closing grade crossings, In the final rule, paragraph (a)(1) safety. FRA has experience with two providing absolute separation of lighter expressly applies to materials used in instances involving different passenger rail equipment from heavy rail constructing a passenger car or a equipment operations where a equipment, or using highly capable locomotive cab, unlike the wording of comparative risk assessment has been signal and train control systems that proposed § 238.115(a)(1) in the NPRM, used successfully. Amtrak significantly reduce the probability of see 62 FR 49803, which expressly commissioned a comparative risk accidents caused by human error. FRA applied to all materials used in assessment between current Northeast would provide advice and guidance to constructing the interior of a passenger

VerDate 06-MAY-99 17:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25589 car or a locomotive cab. As proposed in date of the final rule. APTA’s suggested characteristics, when such materials are the NPRM, of course, such materials rule text did not contain an outside found but not intended to be replaced were required to meet the test limit on the placement in service of new during the railroad’s rebuilding, performance criteria for flammability passenger equipment not meeting the refurbishment, or overhaul of that and smoke emission characteristics requirements of paragraph (a)(1), vehicle. Of course, such non-compliant contained in Appendix B to part 238, although ordered within the permitted materials may be required to be see 62 FR 49823–4, or alternative time. However, FRA believes that an removed from the vehicle pursuant to standards after FRA approval. FRA has outside limit on the placement in the fire safety analyses required under removed the word ‘‘interior’’ from this service of new passenger equipment not paragraph (d) of this section; yet, again, paragraph in the final rule because its meeting the requirements of this section the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) do use is inconsistent with the needs to be retained so as not to delay not specifically require such removal. requirements of part 238 as a whole. In unnecessarily the implementation of the FRA believes that deferring the the NPRM, proposed Appendix B itself rule. implementation of this provision for one provided test performance criteria for a Under paragraph (a)(2), on or after year, as recommended by APTA, is category of materials entitled, ‘‘Exterior November 8, 1999 materials introduced therefore not necessary for railroads in Plastic Components’’; specifically, ‘‘End into a passenger car or a locomotive cab, light of this section’s clearly defined Cap’’ and ‘‘Roof Housings’’ under the during any kind of rebuild, application. function of material column in the table. refurbishment, or overhaul of such As noted above in the discussions of Further, proposed Appendix B passenger equipment, shall meet the test paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2), railroads separately provided test methods and performance criteria for flammability can request FRA approval to utilize performance criteria for a function of and smoke emission characteristics as alternative standards issued or material termed ‘‘Exterior Boxes’’ under specified in Appendix B, or alternative recognized by an expert consensus the category entitled, ‘‘Component Box standards after FRA approval as organization in lieu of complying with Covers.’’ As expressed in the NPRM, specified in this rule. Originally, FRA the test performance criteria for FRA intended that ‘‘exterior’’ materials proposed that the test performance flammability and smoke emission used in constructing passenger cars and criteria for flammability and smoke characteristics as specified in Appendix locomotive cabs comply with test emission characteristics apply as of the B. A railroad must make such a request performance criteria for flammability effective date of the final rule to pursuant to the procedures in § 238.21. and smoke emission characteristics. materials used in refurbishing passenger Paragraph (b) requires railroads to In the final rule, materials used in car and locomotive cab interiors. FRA obtain certification that a representative constructing passenger cars and has removed the express reference to sample of combustible materials to be locomotive cabs are required to meet the passenger car and locomotive cab used in constructing passenger cars and test performance criteria for interiors for the reasons stated in the locomotive cabs (pursuant to paragraph flammability and smoke emission above discussion of paragraph (a)(1). (a)(1)) or introduced into such characteristics as specified in Appendix In response to the NPRM, APTA equipment as part of any kind of B, or alternative standards after FRA commented that it may support a rule rebuild, refurbishment, or overhaul of approval. As a result, with the exception requiring the materials selection criteria the equipment (pursuant to paragraph of any alternative standards approved to be used when the interiors of existing (a)(2)) have been tested and comply by FRA, the terms of Appendix B govern passenger equipment are refurbished, if with the fire safety requirements which testing of materials is, or is not, the term refurbish were carefully specified in this part. Paragraph (b) is required as a threshold inquiry. defined in the Working Group meetings. based on § 238.115(b) in the NPRM. Whether materials are physically In either case, APTA recommended that FRA has modified the certification located on the exterior or in the interior this provision should apply as of one requirement following a comment by of a passenger car, for example, such year following the effective date of the APTA on the NPRM that the materials are subject to testing for final rule. FRA has refined paragraph certification be based on a flammability and smoke emission (a)(2) to address APTA’s concern: representative sample of the characteristics if so required by the Simply put, if material is introduced combustible materials used. In response terms of Appendix B. Overall, FRA into passenger cars and locomotive cabs to another APTA comment, FRA has believes that the final rule more during any kind of rebuild, also clarified that the certification be appropriately specifies the flammability refurbishment, or overhaul of the based on the results at the time the and smoke emission testing equipment, the material must comply materials were tested. requirements for materials used in with the test performance criteria for Paragraph (c) requires each railroad to constructing passenger cars and flammability and smoke emission address the fire safety of new equipment locomotive cabs, without unnecessarily characteristics as specified in Appendix during the design stage so as to reduce burdening railroads. In particular FRA B, or alternative standards after FRA the risk of harm due to fire to an notes that, unlike the NPRM, Appendix approval. For example, if a seat or a acceptable level using MIL–STD–882C B in the final rule provides express section of a wall is replaced, then the as a guide or another such formal exceptions from the need to test materials used to replace those methodology. (A copy of MIL–STD– materials used in constructing passenger components (including an individual 882C has been placed in the public cars and locomotive cabs under certain seat cushion) must comply with the test docket for this rulemaking.) To this end, conditions. (See the section-by-section performance criteria for flammability the rule requires that each railroad analysis discussion of Appendix B to and smoke emission characteristics as complete a written analysis of the fire part 238, explaining the changes to specified in Appendix B, or alternative safety problem and ensure that good fire Appendix B.) standards after FRA approval. However, protection practice is used during the In its comments on the NPRM, APTA paragraph (a)(2) does not in itself design of the equipment. This paragraph recommended that the requirements of require a railroad to remove existing is based on proposed § 238.105(a) and paragraph (a)(1) apply to passenger cars materials from a vehicle that do not (b) in the NPRM. See 62 FR 49800. and cabs of locomotives ordered on or comply with test performance criteria Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. (Booz- after one year following the effective for flammability and smoke emission Allen) commented that the risk

VerDate 06-MAY-99 17:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12MYR2 25590 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations acceptance level be clarified. It stated AMTRAK Train 29 Near Silver Spring, passenger equipment to be applied to all that MIL–STD–882C does not define a Maryland on February 16, 1996.’’) The categories of existing passenger risk acceptance level itself, and it NTSB noted that some materials taken equipment. APTA commented that the believed each individual railroad from a MARC car not involved in the need for a program of this type has not should determine that level based on its fire that resulted from the collision been demonstrated, and that neither own operating experience, fleet life, ‘‘failed current flammability and smoke statistics nor other evidence has been operating conditions, and other factors. emissions testing criteria,’’ and that the presented to show that non fuel-fed FRA recognizes that MIL–STD–882C materials in the actual cab control car equipment fires are a serious cause of does not define a specific acceptance involved in the collision ‘‘also most injury or death in the passenger railroad level itself. Yet, the Standard leads a likely would have failed’’ to meet the industry. APTA added that, unlike a fire railroad through the steps necessary to testing criteria. (NTSB/RAR 97/02 at safety analysis of new equipment, where determine an acceptance level, and the 63.) The NTSB did note, however, that design flexibility exists to correct in an railroad is in the best position to make had the materials met current economical manner any deficiencies that determination. FRA notes that performance criteria, the outcome uncovered by the analysis, costs to Booz-Allen also submitted a number of would not have been any different modify existing equipment can be an other comments on the elements on the because of the presence of diesel fuel order of magnitude higher. Overall, fire safety analyses required by the rule, sprayed into the cab control car. Id. APTA believed the impact of the and FRA has incorporated several of Overall, the NTSB found that because proposal to be great due to the expense these comments in whole and in part. other commuter passenger cars may also of retrofitting equipment, although it Paragraph (d) requires that existing have interior materials that may not was unable to quantify the exact impact passenger equipment and operations be meet specified performance criteria for without performing the fire safety subjected to a fire safety analysis similar flammability and smoke emission analyses necessary to determine what to that proposed for new equipment in characteristics, the safety of passengers modifications needed to be done to paragraph (c). This paragraph is based in those cars could be at risk. equipment. Booz-Allen also commented on proposed § 238.105(d) in the NPRM. FRA agrees with the NTSB that steps that the rule will not be cost-effective See 62 FR 49801. A preliminary fire must be taken to minimize fire safety for existing passenger equipment that safety analysis would be required vulnerabilities in the existing rail has less than 5 years of service life. passenger equipment fleet. Present fire within the first year. This effort would FRA recognizes the concern that constitute an overview of the fleet and safety guidelines are advisory and were not introduced by FRA until 1984. Even retrofitting existing passenger service environments, together with equipment may impose considerable known elements of risk (e.g., tunnels). in recent years, passenger railroads have been free to utilize non-compliant cost, and FRA neither proposed nor is For any category of equipment and requiring that materials not complying service identified as possibly presenting materials (particularly during interior refurbishment funded locally without with the test performance criteria for unacceptable risk, a full analysis and flammability and smoke emission any necessary remedial action would be FTA support). It is appropriate for each commuter authority and Amtrak to characteristics be removed in every required within the following year. A instance from existing passenger full fire safety analysis, including evaluate the mix of materials, possible sources of ignition, and potential fire equipment, if such materials are found review of the extent to which materials during a fire safety analysis. in all existing cars comply with the test environments—including tunnels, cuts and elevated structures where Accordingly, each railroad is afforded performance criteria for flammability evacuation to the outside of the vehicle the flexibility of reducing an and smoke emission characteristics may be difficult or ineffectual in unacceptable safety risk uncovered contained in Appendix B to this part or reducing the risk of injury—relevant to during an analysis of its equipment by alternative standards approved by FRA the risk of injury due to fire or smoke the best means it sees fit. However, FRA under this part, would be required exposure. is reluctant to withhold application of within 4 years. This overall review FRA is concerned in particular with this provision to equipment with less would closely parallel and reinforce the the risk arising from the operation of cab than a specified service life. First, the passenger train emergency preparedness cars forward and MU locomotives. Due practical question exists whether the planning effort mandated under a to their position in the lead of a service life of a vehicle can be specified separate docket (see 63 FR 24630; May passenger train, these vehicles are more in fact, considering the ability to extend 4, 1998). greatly exposed to the risk of fire from a vehicle’s life by rebuilding and the Paragraph (d) responds to NTSB collisions with other rail vehicles as possibility of its sale to other railroads. concerns following its investigation of well as highway vehicles at grade Second, FRA believes that a preliminary the collision involving a MARC crossings. In a collision, fire may erupt fire safety analysis of all passenger commuter train with Amtrak’s Capitol from the fuel tanks of both the rail and equipment is necessary to determine Limited at Silver Spring, Maryland, on highway vehicles, and also from tanks whether any passenger equipment may February 16, 1996. Among 13 used by highway vehicles that transport present an unacceptable safety risk for recommendations addressed to FRA was loads of flammable material. The level passengers and crewmembers, the following: of risk on each railroad corresponds to regardless of the age of the vehicle. If an Require that a comprehensive inspection of the number of highway-rail grade unacceptable risk is in fact found and all commuter passenger cars be performed to crossings, density of rail traffic, and the railroad had intended on retiring the independently verify that the interior opportunities for collisions. equipment in the near future, the materials in these cars meet the expected FRA requested comments on the costs railroad can evaluate for itself whether performance requirements for flammability and benefits associated with the it is more economical to retire the and smoke emissions characteristics. approach contained in paragraph (d). equipment or correct the safety (R–97–20) (NTSB/RAR–97/02, APTA commented that there would be deficiency. Further, considering the ‘‘Collision and Derailment of Maryland little safety benefit to commuter historical record of fires on passenger Rail Commuter MARC Train 286 and railroads, and potentially great cost, in equipment, FRA does not expect National Railroad Passenger Corporation requiring the fire safety program for new railroads to find widespread fire safety

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25591 problems on the equipment it operates, Section 238.105 Train Hardware and (c) specifies that, for purposes of and thus FRA would expect that most Software Safety complying with this section, such of the time a preliminary fire safety This section applies to train hardware software shall be considered safety- analysis would be all that is necessary. and software used to control or monitor critical unless a completely redundant, In its comments on the NPRM, Booz- safety functions in passenger equipment failsafe, non-software means to provide the same function is provided. The Allen questioned whether the fire safety ordered on or after September 8, 2000, requirements of this paragraph were analysis of existing equipment would and such components implemented or principally drawn from § 238.107(a) and include consideration of nonmetallic materially modified in new or existing passenger equipment on or after (b) of the NPRM. See 62 FR 49801. FRA and noncombustible materials. FRA notes that the final rule omits proposed believes that such consideration is September 9, 2002. Inclusion of these requirements in passenger equipment § 238.107(c) in the NPRM as a separate necessary because, for example, floor provision in this rule. See id. However, tiles or other non-metallic materials may reflects the growing role of automated systems to control or monitor passenger in complying with paragraph (c) of the have coatings that may emit gas in a fire. final rule, a railroad must necessarily Booz-Allen also commented that the fire train safety functions. This section represents the merger of ensure that software safety requirements risk of equipment depends on the proposed sections 238.107 (‘‘Software are specified in its contracts for the ignitability of the materials, and, safety program’’) and 238.121 (‘‘ Train purchase of the software. The railroad accordingly, ignitability tests should be system software and hardware’’) in the must further retain documentation to included as part of the performance NPRM. Although FRA received no show that the software was criteria. FRA believes the ignitability of particular comments on these sections manufactured to the design criteria materials is sufficiently addressed by in response to the NPRM, FRA specified pursuant to this section and the test performance criteria for determined that these sections should that all required testing was performed. flammability and smoke emission be combined to make the requirements However, verification and validation of characteristics found in Appendix B to of the final rule more concise and clear. control systems by an independent this part. Paragraph (a) requires the railroad to entity is not required by this rule, nor is a fully quantitative proof of safety In the end, FRA believes the concern develop and maintain a written hardware and software safety program mandated by this rule, as neither was of the commenters as to the expense of proposed. paragraph (d) is overestimated. A to guide the design, development, testing, integration, and verification of Paragraph (d) specifies that hardware railroad is not required to replace non- and software that controls or monitors compliant materials in every instance, if computer software and hardware that controls or monitors passenger safety functions shall include design such materials are found, and that has equipment safety functions. In features that result in a safe condition in been made clear in the rule text. Neither preparing this paragraph of the final the event of a computer hardware or has FRA specified that the railroad rule, FRA essentially combined the software failure. Such design features perform a fire safety analysis equivalent requirements proposed in § 238.107(a), are used in aircraft, as well as in to that required for new equipment and § 238.121(a) of the NPRM. See 62 weapon control systems, to ensure their under paragraph (c). FR 49801, 49803. Paragraph (b) states safety. In the case of primary braking As a final point FRA notes that, that the hardware and software safety systems, electronic controls must either following its investigation of the Silver program shall be based on a formal fail safely (resulting in a full service Spring, Maryland, passenger train safety methodology that includes a brake application) or access to full collision, the NTSB also found that Failure Modes, Effects, Criticality pneumatic control must be provided. As Federal guidelines on the flammability Analysis (FMECA); full verification and clarified, this provision was proposed in and smoke emission characteristics and validation testing for all hardware and § 238.121(c) of the NPRM. See 62 FR the testing of interior materials do not software that controls or monitors 49803. provide for the integrated use of equipment safety functions, including Paragraph (e) makes clear that the passenger car interior materials and, as testing for the interfaces of such railroad shall comply with the elements of its hardware and software safety a result, are not useful in predicting the hardware and software; and program that affect the safety of the safety of the interior environment of a comprehensive hardware and software passenger equipment. Failure to carry passenger car in a fire. (NTSB/RAR–97/ integration testing to ensure that the out a provision unrelated to the safety 02, at 74) FRA believes that existing fire software functions as intended. A formal safety analysis that includes full of the equipment is not implicated by safety guidelines have continuing value verification testing is standard practice this section, so as not to unnecessarily for their specific purpose. Those for safety systems that contain software restrict the flexibility of the railroad. guidelines are being codified, as revised, components. Hardware and software FRA adapted this requirement from that in this final rule as the best currently integration testing ensures that the proposed in § 238.107(d) of the NPRM. available criteria for analysis of hardware and the software installed in See 62 FR 498901. individual materials. As noted above, the hardware function together as Overall, the requirements of this FRA is conducting research through intended. This testing is common section reflect good practices that have NIST to address the interaction of practice for safety control systems that led to reliable, safe computer hardware materials and other aspects of fire safety include both software and hardware and software control systems in other from a broader, systems approach. This components. The requirements found in industries. Computer hardware and philosophy is embodied in part in paragraph (b) arise in particular from software systems designed to these paragraph (c) with respect to new § 238.121(a) and (b) of the NPRM. See requirements may require a larger initial equipment. Based on this ongoing 62 FR 49803. investment to develop, but experience research and industry fire safety efforts, Paragraph (c) focuses on ensuring the in other industries has shown that this FRA expects to propose new fire safety safety and reliability of software that investment is quickly recovered by standards in the second phase of this controls or monitors passenger significantly reducing hardware and rulemaking. equipment safety functions. Paragraph software integration problems and

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25592 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations minimizing trouble-shooting and creation of these plans, FRA did not periodic mechanical inspection debugging of equipment. intend to enter into the area of requirements contained in § 238.307(b). addressing employee safety while Consequently, FRA has moved the § 238.107 Inspection, Testing, and conducting the inspections, tests, and general conditions maintenance interval Maintenance Plan maintenance covered by the plans. FRA provisions previously addressed in this This section contains the general is always concerned with the safety of section to the specific inspection provisions requiring railroads to employees while conducting their requirements contained in subpart D of develop detailed plans for inspecting, duties, but employee safety in this final rule. testing, and maintaining Tier I maintenance and servicing areas equipment. (The inspection, testing, and Section 238.109 Training, generally falls within the jurisdiction of Qualification, and Designation Program maintenance plan for Tier II equipment the United States Department of Labor’s is covered under § 238.503.) FRA’s goal Occupational Safety and Health This section contains the training, is for railroads to develop a set of Administration (OSHA). It is not FRA’s qualification, and designation standards to ensure that equipment intent to oust OSHA’s jurisdiction with requirements for workers (that is, both remains safe and operates properly as it regard to the safety of employees while railroad employees and contractors as wears and ages, and to provide enough performing the inspections, tests and defined in the section) who perform flexibility to allow individual railroads maintenance required by this part, inspection, testing, and maintenance to adapt the maintenance standards to except where FRA has already tasks. FRA believes that worker training, their own unique operating addressed workplace safety issues, such qualification, and designation are environment. as for blue signal protection. Therefore, central to a safe operation. Paragraph (b) requires a railroad that in order to prevent any uncertainty as to Paragraph (a) requires railroads to adopt and comply with a training, operates Tier I passenger equipment FRA’s intent, FRA has modified this qualification, and designation program subject to this part to develop and section by eliminating any language or for employees and contractors who provide to FRA, if requested, particulars provision which could have been perform safety-related inspection, about its inspection, testing, and potentially perceived as displacing the testing, or maintenance tasks under this maintenance plan for that equipment, jurisdiction of OSHA and has added a part. ‘‘Contractor,’’ in this context, including the following: specific clarification that FRA does not • means ‘‘a person under contract with Inspection procedures, intervals intend for the plan required by this the railroad or an employee of a person and criteria; section to address employee safety • under contract with the railroad to Testing procedures and intervals; issues that arise in the course of • Scheduled preventive maintenance perform any of the tasks required by this conducting the inspections and tests intervals; part.’’ FRA intends for the training, • Maintenance procedures; and described. Consequently, the specific qualification, and designation • Training of workers who perform elements that FRA proposed to be requirements to apply not only to the tasks. included in the inspection, testing, and railroad personnel but also to contract Since FRA does not dictate the exact maintenance plan have been eliminated personnel that are responsible for contents of the plan, individual for the reasons noted above and because performing brake system inspections, railroads retain much flexibility to tailor they were merely duplicative of the maintenance, or tests required by this the plan to their individual needs and general requirements contained in part. FRA believes that railroads are in experience. At the same time, FRA paragraph (b) and are unnecessary. the best position to determine the believes this requirement is important It should also be noted that the precise method of training that is and will cause railroads to re-examine general inspection, testing, and required for the personnel they elect to their inspection, testing, and maintenance requirements previously use to conduct the required brake maintenance procedures to determine proposed in the 1997 NPRM at system inspections, tests, and that they are adequate to ensure that the paragraph (b) of this section (62 FR maintenance. Although FRA provides safety-related components of their 49801–802) and the maintenance railroads with broad discretion to equipment are not deteriorating over interval requirements proposed at develop training programs specifically time. This approach represents good paragraph (c) have been removed from tailored to the type of equipment they business practice and in most cases this section in this final rule. The operate and the personnel they employ, merely formalizes what passenger conditions and components previously FRA will expect railroads to fully railroads are already doing. However, proposed in paragraph (b) of this section comply with the training and FRA believes this section will provide have been moved to the periodic qualification plans they develop. This valuable guidance to regional mechanical inspection contained in section has been amended slightly from governments or coalitions attempting to § 238.307(c). As the conditions that proposed in the 1997 NPRM in establish new commuter rail service. previously proposed in this paragraph order to stress that a critical component Paragraph (c) makes clear that the were intended to ensure that the of this training is ensuring that a inspection, testing, and maintenance railroads had an inspection scheme in railroad’s employees are aware of the plan required by this section should not place to ensure that all systems and specific Federal requirements that include procedures to address employee components of the equipment are free of govern their work. Currently, many working conditions that arise in the conditions that endanger the safety of railroad training programs fail to course of conducting the inspections, the crew, passengers or equipment, FRA distinguish Federal requirements from tests, and maintenance set forth in the believes that a specific inspection company policy. plan. FRA intends for the plan required interval would be better suited to Paragraph (b) contains a series of by this section to detail only those tasks address the general condition of the general requirements or elements which required to be performed in order to equipment and ensure the safety of must be part of any training and conduct the inspections, tests, and railroad employees, passengers and qualification plan developed and maintenance necessary to ensure that equipment. In addition, the implemented by a railroad. FRA the equipment is in safe and proper maintenance interval requirements have believes that the elements contained in condition for use. In proposing the been modified and moved to the this section are specific enough to

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25593 ensure high quality training while being perfectly suited to provide much of the inspection, testing, and maintenance of sufficiently broad to permit a railroad to ‘‘hands-on’’ training envisioned by FRA. train brake systems. This paragraph also develop a training plan that is best Consequently, FRA strongly suggests makes clear that the records maintained suited to its particular operation. This that railroads work in partnership with by a railroad contain sufficient detail paragraph requires each railroad to their employees to develop a training regarding the training provided in order identify the specific tasks related to the program which utilizes the knowledge, for FRA to ascertain the basis for the inspection, testing and maintenance of skills, and experience of the employees railroad’s determination. the brake systems operated by that to the greatest extent possible. FRA believes that many benefits can railroad, develop written procedures for This paragraph specifically requires be gained from this increased performing those tasks, identify the that employees pass either a written or investment in training. Better skills and knowledge necessary to oral examination covering the inspections will be performed, resulting perform those tasks, and specifically equipment, tasks, and Federal in the running of less defective identify and educate its employees on regulatory requirements for which they equipment, which translates to a better the Federal requirements contained in are responsible as well as require that safety record. Equipment conditions this part related to the performance of each individual deemed qualified to requiring maintenance attention are those tasks. FRA believes that these perform a task required by this final rule more likely to be found while the requirements will ensure that, at a demonstrate ‘‘hands-on’’ capability to equipment is at a maintenance or yard minimum, the railroad surveys its entire perform that task. This paragraph also site where repairs can be more easily operation and has identified the various contains requirements for conducting done. Trouble-shooting of brake and activities its employees perform. FRA periodic refresher training and mechanical problems will take less time intends for these written procedures and supervisor oversight of an employee’s and more maintenance will be done the identified skills and knowledge to performance once training is provided. right the first time, resulting in cost be used as the foundation for any FRA believes both these requirements savings due to less rework. are essential to ensure that an training program developed by the Section 238.111 Pre-Revenue Service individual continues to possess the railroad. Acceptance Testing Plan This paragraph also makes clear that knowledge and skills necessary to railroads are permitted to train continue to perform the tasks for which This section provides requirements employees only on those tasks that they the individual is assigned for pre-revenue service testing of will be responsible for performing. FRA responsibility. Furthermore, employees passenger equipment and relates to tends to agree with several railroad must be periodically retrained in order subpart G, which describes commenters that there is no reason for to keep up with technological advances requirements for the procurement of individuals who solely perform simple relating to braking systems that are Tier II passenger equipment and for a air brake or mechanical tests and constantly being made by the industry. major upgrade or introduction of new inspections to be as highly trained as This paragraph also contains the technology that could affect safety those individuals responsible for requirements related to maintaining systems of Tier II passenger equipment. conducting comprehensive brake or adequate records for establishing that Pre-revenue service acceptance tests are mechanical inspections or those individuals are capable of performing extremely important in that they are the individuals responsible for trouble- the tasks for which they are assigned culmination of all the safety analysis shooting, maintaining, and repairing the responsibility. FRA believes that the and component tests of a railroad’s equipment. This paragraph also makes record keeping requirements contained system safety program or other safety clear that a railroad may incorporate an in this paragraph are the cornerstone of planning efforts. The pre-revenue already existing training program, such the training and qualification service tests are intended to prove that as an apprenticeship program. Thus, provisions. As FRA is not proposing the equipment can be operated safely in railroads would likely not need to specific training curriculums or specific its intended environment and provide much additional training, experience thresholds, FRA believes demonstrate the effectiveness of the except training specifically addressing that these record keeping provisions are system safety program or other safety the requirements contained in this part vital to ensuring that proper training is planning undertaken by the railroad. and possibly refresher training, to its being provided to railroad personnel. FRA has revised and clarified this mechanical forces that have completed FRA believes these requirements section based on comments received in an apprentice program for their craft. provide the means by which FRA will response to the NPRM. APTA believed This paragraph also contains judge the effectiveness and that the proposed test program was requirements that any program appropriateness of a railroad’s training excessive for equipment that has developed must include ‘‘hands-on’’ and qualification program. These previous successful operating training as well as classroom provisions also provide FRA with the experience. It believed that an extensive instruction. FRA believes that classroom ability to independently assess whether pre-revenue service test program is training by itself is not sufficient to the training provided to a specific needed only when a new type of ensure that an individual has retained individual adequately addresses the equipment is placed in revenue service or grasped the concepts and duties tasks for which the individual is for the first time. Otherwise, APTA explained in a classroom setting. In deemed capable of performing, and will suggested a simple compatibility check order to adequately ensure that an most likely prevent potential abuses by with the infrastructure of a specific individual actually understands the railroads to use insufficiently trained railroad is all that is needed when the training provided in the classroom, individuals to perform the necessary railroad procures new equipment that some sort of ‘‘hands-on’’ capability must inspections, tests, and maintenance has successful operating experience on be demonstrated. FRA believes that the required by this rule. This paragraph other railroads. APTA claimed that FRA ‘‘hands-on’’ portion of the training makes clear that FRA intends to require does not have the in-house expertise to program would be an ideal place for that railroads maintain specific approve plans, and that the need for railroads to fully involve its labor forces personnel qualification records for all FRA approval will delay the in the training process. Appropriately personnel (including contract introduction of new equipment, causing trained and skilled employees would be personnel) responsible for the a needless expense. APTA

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25594 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations recommended that the rule require a full equipment identical to that purchased approve the testing plans, FRA is test program only for the first time on a previous order, there is no need for mindful of APTA’s concern that the equipment is introduced into revenue detailed testing requirements. This is need for FRA approval of the plans may service, that FRA not approve the test reflected in § 238.111(a) of the final rule, unnecessarily delay the introduction of plans, and that FRA instead be invited which governs testing requirements for new equipment. Further, not having by railroads to witness the pre-revenue passenger equipment that has endless resources, FRA has decided to service tests. previously been used in revenue service focus its resources here on Tier II Amtrak, in its comments on the in the United States. Each railroad is passenger equipment in light of the NPRM, expressly agreed with APTA. required to test such equipment only to equipment’s higher operating speed and Amtrak believed FRA does not have the ensure the compatibility of the greater potential risk. As a result, a resources to support the burden that equipment with the railroad’s operating railroad intending to place in service would be required by the proposal. system. Although the railroad must keep Tier I equipment under this paragraph Further, Amtrak believed there is no a record of such testing and make it does not need FRA approval of its test technical justification to require the available to FRA for inspection and plan for the equipment or FRA approval formal testing proposed by FRA when a copying, no formal submission to FRA to place the equipment in service. Of particular equipment order is nothing is required. (In this regard, FRA does course, paragraph (b) does provide that more than acquiring additional not believe that the plan must be for Tier I equipment the railroad must equipment identical to that purchased submitted to FRA for the purpose that notify FRA to permit the agency to on a previous order. Amtrak suggested it may be available to the public under witness the testing (paragraph (b)(2)); that formal testing be limited to new FOIA, as that justification, in itself, comply with the testing plan (paragraph and untried types of equipment would require virtually any railroad (b)(3)); document the results of the according to a long-standing AAR safety record to be submitted to FRA, testing and make it available for FRA practice. whether or not FRA deems it necessary.) inspection (paragraphs (b)(4), (6)); and Metra commented that the rule should Further, no FRA approval is required correct or otherwise compensate for require railroads to submit their own prior to testing the equipment or placing safety deficiencies uncovered during the pre-revenue service testing plans to FRA it in revenue service. FRA expects the testing prior to introducing the and invite FRA to witness the testing, requirements of paragraph (a) to apply equipment in revenue service instead of having FRA determine when in the majority of situations a railroad (paragraph (b)(5)). Each railroad is also and how railroads should conduct places passenger equipment in service under an independent duty to comply acceptance testing on their systems. for the first time, and FRA has with the other requirements of Part 238 Metra explained that railroads know consequently placed this provision at and the railroad safety laws in general. their own systems and are more capable the beginning of § 238.111 for ease of In this regard, a railroad would have to of designing testing plans compatible use by the regulated community. obtain a waiver of FRA safety with their systems. Metra believed As specified in the final rule, regulations through the formal waiting for FRA testing and approval § 238.111(a) applies not only to the procedures of 49 C.F.R. part 211 before would cause needless delay and actual equipment which has previously introducing any equipment into service expense. been used in revenue service in the that does not comply with the safety In its comments on the NPRM, the United States or to equipment which is appliance regulations or the safety BRC believed this section to be wholly manufactured identically thereto. glazing standards, for example. necessary because of the types of Paragraph (a) also applies to equipment However, by operation of § 238.111, a equipment being brought into service which is similarly manufactured to that railroad is not restricted from seeking a that generally do not comply with the equipment and has no material waiver of an FRA safety regulation safety appliance laws or the safety differences in safety-critical components under 49 C.F.R. part 211, nor is FRA glazing regulations, or both. The BRC or systems. restricted from granting such a waiver. believed that this equipment must Paragraph (b) contains the Part 211 contains procedures to ensure comply with applicable laws and requirements for a railroad placing that FRA grants a waiver of a safety regulations affecting the safety of passenger equipment in service for the regulation in the interest of employee passengers and railroad workers in first time on its system when the and public safety. order to be brought into service in the equipment has not previously been used For Tier II passenger equipment, United Service. The BRC also in revenue service in the United paragraph (b) requires the railroad to recommended that the pre-revenue States—in other words, when the follow the additional steps of obtaining service testing plan be filed with FRA so equipment is not covered by paragraph FRA approval of the testing plan under that the plan will be available under the (a). Each railroad must develop a pre- the procedures specified in § 238.21 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). revenue service acceptance testing plan (paragraph (b)(1)); reporting the results In proposing requirements for pre- and submit the plan to FRA at least 30 of the testing to FRA (paragraph (b)(4)); revenue service acceptance testing, FRA days prior to beginning testing. Previous agreeing to comply with any operational did distinguish between passenger testing of the equipment at the limitations imposed by FRA on the use equipment that has previously been Transportation Test Center, on another of the equipment (paragraph (b)(5)); and used in revenue service in the United railroad, or elsewhere should be obtaining FRA approval prior to placing States and that which has not. In lieu of included in the submission. the equipment in revenue service the requirements proposed in § 238.213 The requirements of paragraph (b) (paragraph (b)(7)). Under paragraph (a) through (e) of the NPRM, paragraph distinguish between whether the (b)(7), a railroad is not required to (f) provided for an abbreviated testing passenger equipment intended for follow the formal requirements set forth procedure for passenger equipment that service is Tier I or Tier II passenger in § 238.21. has previously been used in revenue equipment, and FRA has decided to Paragraph (c) applies only to Tier II service. See 62 FR 49763, 49802–3. require approval of testing plans only passenger equipment. If a railroad plans Accordingly, FRA agrees that when a for Tier II equipment. Although FRA a major upgrade or introduction of new particular equipment order is nothing disagrees with APTA’s claim that FRA technology in Tier II passenger more than acquiring additional does not have the in-house expertise to equipment that has been used in

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25595 revenue service in the United States and windows—to permit flexibility and the emergency window exit dimensions that affects a safety system on such innovation in future passenger car should be determined by the size equipment, the railroad shall follow the designs. Bombardier added that any dimensions needed: (1) To extricate an procedures specified in paragraph (b) such requirement would be in addition injured person from the passenger car; prior to placing the equipment in to the requirement for side doors. and (2) to allow an emergency revenue service with such a major The final rule largely carries forward responder fitted with a self-contained upgrade or new technology. This the NPRM’s proposal, and the current breathing apparatus to enter the requirement is based on proposed Federal requirement in § 223.9(c) of this passenger car. The NTSB noted that one §§ 238.603 (b) and (c) in the NPRM. See chapter for four emergency window of the typical adult backboards used by 62 FR 49823. FRA has integrated those exits in each passenger car. The emergency responders to evacuate proposed requirements into the section requirement for a minimum number of injured persons is 24 inches wide by 72 for clarity, as alluded to in the NPRM. window exits is important to ensure an inches long, and therefore may not clear See 62 FR 49785. unobstructed avenue of egress in a a window 24 inches wide. (The NTSB Overall, FRA believes the set of steps variety of accident scenarios, regardless did note that the other typical adult and the documentation required by of car capacity. Of course, as FRA has backboards measure 16 inches wide by § 238.111 are necessary to ensure that explained, the Volpe Center is working 72 inches long, and 12 inches wide by all safety risks have been reduced to a on an emergency evacuation 84 inches long. The NTSB also stated level that permits the equipment to be performance requirement for passenger that a typical steel basket stretcher used used in revenue service. cars to determine the number of total by emergency responders measures exits necessary to evacuate the Section 238.113 Emergency Window about 23 inches horizontally by 8 inches maximum passenger load in a specified Exits deep by about 81 inches vertically.) The time for various situations. Further, NTSB further noted the concern that if This section represents the partial through the APTA PRESS effort, FRA a car derails to the extent that the merger of NPRM § 238.235, emergency understands that APTA is developing a normal vertical dimension becomes the window exit requirements for Tier I systems approach to emergency egress horizontal dimension, the backboard passenger equipment, and NPRM similar to that which Bombardier has must be tilted to fit through the opening. § 238.439, as it concerned emergency suggested in its comments. FRA (During Working Group discussions, it window exit requirements for Tier II recognizes the merit such approaches was noted that for this to happen, the passenger equipment. FRA has have and will consider these alternative car must come to rest on its end.) combined these sections principally in approaches in Phase II of the Moreover, the NTSB stated that an response to the NTSB’s comment on the rulemaking. emergency responder with a self- proposed rule that these requirements Paragraph (b) requires, as specified, contained breathing apparatus may have should not be differentiated on the basis each emergency window exit in a new difficulty entering an 18-inch vertical of train speed. passenger car, including a sleeping car, opening. Paragraph (a)(1) requires that a single- to have a minimum unobstructed FRA agrees that the emergency level passenger car, other than a opening with dimensions of 26 inches window exit size requirements should sleeping car or similarly designed car, horizontally by 24 inches vertically. In be the same for both tiers of equipment. have a minimum of four emergency the NPRM, FRA invited comments as to The final rule requires that emergency window exits, either in a staggered what size requirements for emergency window exits have a minimum configuration where practical or with window exits FRA should impose in the unobstructed opening with dimensions one located in each end of each side of final rule. FRA had proposed that Tier 26 inches horizontally by 24 inches the car. A bi-level car shall have a I equipment have a minimum, vertically. This requirement only minimum of four emergency window unobstructed emergency window exit applies to new cars, however, as exits on each main level, configured as opening of 24 inches horizontally by 18 specified in paragraph (b). FRA above, so that the car has a minimum inches vertically, and that Tier II recognizes that these dimensions are total of eight emergency window exits. equipment have a minimum, greater than those proposed for Tier I FRA received several comments unobstructed emergency window exit passenger equipment (and smaller than relating to the quantity of emergency opening of 30 inches horizontally by 30 those proposed for Tier II passenger window exits that the rule should inches vertically. The Tier II Equipment equipment). require. First, the NTSB commented that Subgroup, including Amtrak, had A review of emergency window exit specifying a minimum quantity recommended the latter requirement for sizes on the nation’s rail passenger car requirement for emergency window application to Tier II equipment. shows a wide variation in window size. exits in passenger cars is not sufficient. However, the full Working Group Differences in size are not necessarily The NTSB believed that the requirement advised against imposing such a attributable to the age of the passenger should be based on the capacity of the requirement on Tier I equipment. FRA cars: On certain railroads, some older passenger car, the number of door exits, had explained in the NPRM that, passenger cars have smaller emergency and the scientifically-determined time although it would prefer that all window exits than do newer passenger needed to completely evacuate the fully- emergency window exits afford the cars; whereas, on other railroads, some loaded passenger car. Next, Talgo larger opening, the Tier I equipment newer passenger cars have smaller commented that passenger cars half the proposal provided the minimum emergency window exits than do older length of conventional cars should be opening needed for a fully-equipped passenger cars. Staff from the Boston, required to have only two emergency emergency response worker to gain Massachusetts, and Los Angeles, window exits on each main level. access to the interior of a train. California, fire departments Further, Bombardier commented that The NTSB commented that the recommended, upon DOT’s inquiry, that instead of limiting the application of horizontal and vertical openings of emergency window exits provide at this section to emergency window exits, emergency window exits should be the least a 26-inch horizontal opening to FRA should apply the requirements of same for both tiers of equipment, as the maneuver a 24-inch wide stretcher into this section broadly to emergency speed at which the equipment travels and out of the window. They also exits—whether or not those exits are should not matter. The NTSB stated that expressed concern whether an 18-inch

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25596 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations vertical opening would be large enough car nor require that emergency window These requirements are currently to allow an emergency responder exits be placed at the extreme ends of provided in the rule on passenger train wearing a self-contained breathing a car. emergency preparedness. See 63 FR apparatus to fit through the window. FRA is requiring that each sleeping 24630. In Phase II of the rulemaking, United States Department of Defense car, and any similarly designed car FRA will consider integrating into this MIL–STD–1472E (October 31, 1996), having a number of separate part (part 238) the emergency window which contains design criteria for compartments intended to be occupied exit marking and operating instruction human engineering, provides by passengers or train crewmembers, found in parts 223 and 239 of this dimensions for rectangular access have at least one emergency window chapter. Additionally, FRA will openings for male body passage as exit in each compartment. An example consider revising those requirements as differentiated by the amount of clothing of a similarly designed car subject to necessary. worn. For side access, MIL–STD–1472E, this requirement is a crew dormitory Section 238.115 Emergency Lighting section 5.7.8.3 provides that openings car. If an emergency window exit is not shall be not less than 26 inches in depth provided in individual sleeping Experience gained during emergency (vertical) and 30 inches in width compartments, occupants of those response to several passenger train (horizontal) for a male wearing light compartments may have difficulty accidents indicates that emergency clothing. Further, the standard provides reaching the car’s doors quickly in an lighting systems either did not work or that openings shall be not less than 29 emergency, especially if the car’s failed after a short time, greatly inches in depth and 34 inches in width interior passageways become blocked or hindering rescue operations. This for a male wearing bulky clothing. (This obscured by smoke. An emergency section requires that passengers cars section of the military standard has been window exit is necessary in each ordered on or after September 8, 2000, placed in the public docket for this compartment to enable occupants to or placed in service for the first time on rulemaking.) quickly exit the car in a life-threatening or after September 9, 2002, be equipped On the basis of the comments and situation, as when the car is submerged. with emergency lighting providing at information received following FRA notes that, for purposes of this least an average illumination level of 1 publication of the NPRM, FRA believes section, a restroom is not a compartment foot-candle at floor level adjacent to that an emergency window exit vertical specifically required to have an each exterior door and each interior opening of 18 inches is not sufficient for emergency window exit. door providing access to an exterior new rail cars. The emergency window Paragraph (a)(3) requires that each door (such as a door opening into a exit size requirements contained in this emergency window exit be designed to vestibule). In addition, the emergency final rule provide a more reasonable permit rapid and easy removal during lighting on such cars must provide an dimension for passage of large, fully- an emergency situation without illumination level of at least an average clothed persons, including emergency requiring the use of a tool or other of 1 foot-candle at floor level along the response personnel with fire gear. The implement. In the NPRM, FRA had center of each aisle and passageway, dimensions are practicable in light of specified that the emergency window and a minimum of 0.1 foot-candle at the design of many passenger cars in the exit must be easily operable by a 5th- floor level at any point along the center United States. percentile female without requiring the of each aisle and passageway. The cars FRA explained in the NPRM that use of a tool or other implement. In must also be equipped with a back-up safety may be advanced by staggering response to the proposal, Bombardier power feature capable of operating the the configuration of emergency window commented that the feasibility and lighting for a minimum of 90 minutes exits so that the exits are located practicability of making the emergency after loss of normal power with no more diagonally across from each other on exit operable by a 5th-percentile female than a 40% loss of the prescribed opposite sides of a car, instead of is not known at this time. Bombardier illumination levels. placing them directly across from each recommended FRA more fully examine In the NPRM, FRA proposed requiring other. FRA invited comment on this the feasibility of designing and for both passenger cars and locomotives issue, as well as on the concern that the maintaining passenger cars to meet this a minimum emergency lighting seat arrangement of passenger cars may requirement before it is made a rule. In illumination level of 5 foot-candles at block access to and the removal of the final rule, FRA believes it floor level for all potential passenger emergency window exits. The NTSB appropriate not to specify a requirement and crew evacuation routes from the commented that emergency window at this time for the ease of operability of equipment. See 62 FR 49803. FRA exits should be staggered rather than an emergency window exit by a 5th- explained that its proposal was not a opposite each other, and they must also percentile female. In Phase II of the recommendation of the Working Group, be distributed as uniformly as practical rulemaking, FRA will evaluate with the as FRA believed an illumination level to allow for passenger distribution. The Working Group whether such a concept higher than that suggested by members rule will require staggering where should be reintroduced. Instead, FRA of the Working Group was necessary for practical, but other considerations must has decided to incorporate into the final passengers to locate emergency exits, be taken into account, including the rule language from the definitions of read instructions for operation of the need to provide an unobstructed exit ‘‘emergency window’’ found in 49 CFR exits, and operate the exits. See 62 FR without diminishing normal seating parts 223 and 239—that is, each 49764. FRA did request comments capacity. Railroads should be mindful emergency window must be designed to whether the lighting intensity that if the ends of a car are crushed in permit its rapid and easy removal requirement need be 5 foot-candles at a collision, then the window exits during an emergency situation—and floor level for all potential evacuation located at the car’s ends may be specifically require that such rapid and routes if the rail vehicle has a rendered inoperable. In this regard, easy removal of the window be able to combination of lower intensity floor FRA’s use of the term ‘‘in each end’’ in be accomplished without requiring the proximity lighting, similar to that used paragraph (a)(1) refers to the forward use of a tool or other implement. on aircraft to mark the exit path, and and rear ends of a car as divided in its Paragraph (c) is reserved for higher intensity lighting at the vehicle’s center—and does not literally refer to emergency window exit marking and exits. FRA also proposed applying the the extreme forward and rear ends of a operating instruction requirements. emergency lighting requirements to

VerDate 06-MAY-99 17:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25597 rebuilt passenger equipment, and noted an emergency lighting illumination door providing access to an exterior that it was considering applying these level of 5 foot-candles would be door (such as a door opening into a requirements to existing passenger unnecessarily bright and costly. Metra vestibule), a 1 foot-candle average equipment sooner than when the recommended that the illumination measured 25 inches above the floor equipment is rebuilt. level be set at 0.5 foot-candle. Further, level along the center of each aisle and In response to FRA’s proposal, APTA Metra suggested that for new passenger passageway, and a minimum of 0.1 foot- commented that requiring a minimum equipment the requirement be modified candle measured 25 inches above the emergency lighting illumination level of to apply only to new orders placed after floor level at any point along the center 5 foot-candles is excessive. APTA January 1, 1998, so as to avoid costs of each aisle and passageway. These believed that roughly a five-fold associated with change orders and dual illumination levels are based on the increase in battery capacity would be standards on ongoing orders that will be emergency lighting illumination levels necessary to comply with the proposed delivered both before and after January specified in Section 5–9.2.1 of the illumination standard when combined 1, 1998. Finally, the Omniglow National Fire Protection Association’s with the two-hour minimum duration Corporation (Omniglow) commented in (NFPA) ‘‘Life Safety Code Handbook,’’ requirement proposed in the rule. APTA response to the NPRM that to effectively Seventh Ed. (a copy of this section has stated that a minimum emergency address an emergency situation where been placed in the public docket for this lighting illumination level of 1 foot- lives are at stake, each train exit should rulemaking) and the Illuminating candle is adequate for new equipment, be equipped with emergency lighting. Engineering Society Lighting Handbook. based on recent light level In light of these comments and after Specifying the measurement of the measurements taken on passenger further analysis, FRA has revised the emergency lighting illumination level at coaches by Volpe Center personnel. requirements of this section in several the floor for doors is intended to permit APTA noted that a survey in support of ways from those originally proposed in passengers and crewmembers to see and its APTA PRESS efforts shows the NPRM. First, under the final rule, negotiate thresholds and steps typically emergency lighting illumination levels the requirements of this section apply located near doors. Specifying the to be between approximately 0.2 foot- only to passenger cars—and not to measurement of the emergency lighting candles and 1 foot-candle on existing passenger locomotives as proposed in illumination level at 25 inches above passenger equipment. APTA observed the NPRM. As MU locomotives and cab the floor for aisles and passageways is that even an illumination level of less cars that transport passengers are intended to permit passenger and than 1 foot-candle measured at the floor considered passenger cars under this crewmembers to see and make their way can allow for an orderly evacuation of rule, however, the practical effect of this past obstacles as they exit a train in an a passenger coach with well-marked revision is not to apply the specific emergency, as demonstrated by tests exits. emergency lighting requirements in this conducted by the Volpe Center. At the In regard to applying the requirements rule to conventional passenger same time, specifying that the of this section to existing passenger locomotives. Moreover, the issue of illumination level be measured above equipment, APTA suggested imposing specifying emergency lighting the floor for aisles and passageways an emergency lighting illumination requirements for conventional recognizes that light emitted from level of less than 1 foot-candle on such locomotives as a whole, taking into lighting fixtures placed on the sides of equipment to avoid an expensive account their unique characteristics, has passenger cars may be obstructed, as by retrofit. APTA further recommended been placed before the RSAC car seats, before the light reaches the that the rule allow the emergency Locomotive Crashworthiness Working floor, and, in this regard, the rule lighting illumination level to decay over Group for its consideration. provides greater flexibility to railroads the proposed two-hour duration it Second, the requirements of the final would be required to operate, and APTA rule do not apply to rebuilt passenger in the placement of lighting fixtures. suggested allowing the illumination equipment. FRA is seeking a broader FRA notes that the permanency of this level to degrade to no less than 50% of approach to implementing emergency area lighting standard will be dependent the original illumination level after two lighting requirements in existing on successful resolution of issues hours. In addition, APTA noted that passenger cars, whether or not the cars related to emergency signage, exit path emergency lighting systems in are rebuilt. To accomplish this, FRA marking, and egress capacity that are conventional locomotive cabs are does not necessarily expect that existing being progressed toward resolution radically different from those in passenger cars will be required to meet through the APTA PRESS Task Force passenger cars, and APTA asked FRA to the area lighting standard specified for and the Volpe Center, as noted below, reconsider how it would apply new equipment. However, FRA desires as a predicate for completion of the emergency lighting requirements inside that achievable emergency lighting standards in the second phase of this locomotive cabs. enhancements to existing passenger cars rulemaking. In commenting on this proposal, the will be implemented over a reasonable FRA believes that the emergency BRC stated that the requirements for period of time. In the second phase of lighting illumination levels specified in emergency lighting must be phased into the rulemaking, FRA will evaluate the this section will enable the occupants of existing passenger equipment sooner anticipated APTA PRESS standard for rail cars to discern their immediate than when it is rebuilt. The BRC implementing emergency lighting surroundings and thereby minimize or explained that for passengers it would requirements in existing passenger cars avoid panic in an emergency. In this be far better to have cars equipped with with a view to incorporating the APTA regard, a lighting demonstration was emergency and exit lighting to eliminate standard into this Federal standard. conducted in a SEPTA rail car in March many of the hazards in getting out of the Third, as provided in paragraphs 1998, and in the judgement of the FRA cars, and that there is no justification or (b)(1)–(3) of the final rule and modified participants it showed that these analysis in the record for delaying the from the NPRM, this section prescribes illumination levels appear sufficient. implementation of the requirements in the minimum emergency illumination These emergency lighting illumination existing passenger cars. level for new passenger cars as a 1 foot- levels are achievable for rail cars. In Metra, in its comments on this candle average at floor level adjacent to fact, the NFPA 101 specifications for proposal, stated that a requirement for each exterior door and each interior emergency lighting illumination levels,

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25598 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations noted above, are recommended for use can pose significant rescue problems, common to all emergency lighting in rail transit cars through NFPA 130, especially in the case of tunnels, circuits in a particular car. Section 5–5.3. nighttime operations, and operations in FRA notes, however, that the concept In the second phase of the inclement weather. of a power source at each fixture, as a rulemaking, FRA will focus on This section also requires the regulatory requirement, is novel. FRA augmenting the emergency illumination emergency lighting back-up power findings in recent accidents support the level specified in this section by system to be able to operate in all NTSB’s implied concern that placement including requirements for lighted orientations within 45 degrees of of electrical conduits and battery packs signage and exit path marking, as vertical and after experiencing a shock below the floor of passenger coaches can touched on above. Through a research due to a longitudinal acceleration of 8g result in damage that leads to the study conducted by the Volpe Center, and vertical and lateral accelerations of unavailability of emergency lights FRA has been investigating emergency 4g. The shock requirement will ensure precisely at the time they are most lighting requirements as part of a that the back-up power system has a needed. However, from initial systems approach to effective passenger reasonable chance of operating after the investigation it is not certain whether train evacuation. This approach takes initial shock caused by a collision or current ‘‘ballast’’ technology provides into consideration the interrelationship derailment. FRA originally considered illumination of sufficient light level between features such as the number of that the back-up power system be quality with reliable maintainability. door and window exits in a passenger capable of operation within a vehicle in FRA presented the issue of placing an car, lighted signs that indicate and any orientation. However, members of independent power source at each facilitate the use of the door and the Working Group advised that some emergency lighting fixture to the window exits, and floor exit path battery technologies utilize a liquid Passenger Equipment Safety Standards marking, in addition to the general electrolyte which can leak when the Working Group at a meeting in emergency lighting level in a car. FRA battery is tilted. December, 1997. FRA will aggressively will also examine the APTA PRESS FRA invited commenters to address pursue this option for more reliable emergency illumination in the second standard on emergency lighting, when whether the back-up power system final, to determine whether the standard phase of the rulemaking, and FRA will should be made capable of operation satisfactorily addresses matters related also work with APTA PRESS on this within a vehicle in any orientation, see to emergency signage, exit path issue. 62 FR 49764; and, in response, the BRC marking, and egress capacity so that commented that the back-up power Section 238.117 Protection Against FRA does not have to revisit the issue system must be capable of operating in Personal Injury of area lighting with a view toward any orientation since railcars do not increased illumination levels. In the This section contains a general always remain upright when they derail. interim, FRA will entertain proposals to requirement to protect passengers and The BRC believed that the fact batteries utilize alternative methods of providing crewmembers from moving parts, may have a liquid electrolyte which can at least an equivalent level of emergency electrical shock and hot pipes. This illumination to that prescribed in this leak when the battery is tilted does not section extends to passenger equipment rule. excuse railroads from obtaining proper not classified as locomotives the FRA has further revised the batteries that will function in any protection against personal injury which requirements of this section from those orientation. applies to locomotives under 49 CFR proposed in the NPRM by shortening In the final rule, FRA is not requiring 229.41. The requirements represent the required operation time period of that the back-up power system be common-sense safety practice; reflect the emergency lighting, and by capable of operating in any orientation, current industry practice; and should permitting the emergency lighting and instead FRA is retaining the result in no additional cost burden to illumination level to degrade over time, proposal in the NPRM that the system the industry. Although FRA received no as well. Specifically, the final rule be capable of operating in all equipment specific comments on this section, FRA requires a passenger car to be equipped orientations within 45 degrees of has modified this section to make clear with a back-up power feature capable of vertical. FRA will further examine this that its requirements do not apply to the operating the lighting for a minimum of issue in the second phase of the interior of a private car, consistent with 90 minutes after loss of normal power rulemaking, and FRA is aware of a more FRA’s overall approach to private cars with no more than a 40% loss of the costly battery technology utilizing a gel in this rule. The protections of this prescribed illumination levels. As a that should not leak when turned in any section would apply, of course, to rail result, illumination levels shall be orientation. However, even if the back- employees and others who may inspect permitted to decline, as appropriate, up power system could operate when or perform work on the exterior of a from 1 ft-candle to 0.6 foot-candle, and turned in any direction, FRA recognizes private car. from 0.1 foot-candle to 0.06 foot-candle. that a derailment of the magnitude that The lighting decay permitted here is would cause such a situation would Section 238.119 Rim-Stamped also based on that specified in Section potentially destroy the battery box as a Straight-Plate Wheels 5–9.2.1 of the NFPA’s ‘‘Life Safety Code whole or sever the cables connecting the This section addresses the NTSB’s Handbook,’’ cited above. Operation of battery to the emergency lighting safety recommendation concerning the emergency lighting for an extended time fixtures, or both. In this regard, FRA use of rim-stamped straight-plate wheels is particularly necessary in the event of believes it more important to focus in on tread-braked rail passenger passenger train rescue operations in the second phase of the rulemaking on equipment. Following its investigation remote locations. Fully-equipped addressing the NTSB’s recommendation of a January 13, 1994 Ringling Bros. and emergency response forces can take an to require reliable emergency lighting Barnum & Bailey Circus train hour or more to arrive at a remote fixtures in passenger cars, each fitted derailment which killed two circus accident site, and additional time would with a self-contained independent employees, the NTSB determined that be required to deploy and reach people power source (R–97–17). (See NTSB/ the probable cause of the derailment trapped or injured in a train. Even RAR–97/02) Section 238.115 does was the fatigue failure of a thermally passenger train accidents in urban areas permit continued use of battery power damaged straight-plate wheel due to

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25599 fatigue cracking that initiated at a stress subjected to the low-cycle thermal are in fact tread-braked but only in a raiser associated with a stamped fatigue of repeated tread-brake limited manner to clean the wheel character on the wheel rim. See 62 FR applications. As freight equipment surface, the requirements of this section 49743; NTSB/RAR–95/01. Noting that operates with tread brakes, the AAR has likewise do not apply. However, FRA tread braking is a significant source of discontinued rim stamping in order to hereby makes clear that the wheel overheating and thermal damage; preclude wheel failures due to cracking requirements of this section apply to the straight-plate wheels are vulnerable to initiated at the stamp marks. use of straight-plate, rim-stamped thermal damage; and rim-stamping Disc brakes use a caliper and pad wheels when the wheels are subjected provides a stress concentration for crack arrangement (like a bicycle brake) which to tread braking in any combination initiation, the NTSB recommended that operates on (squeeze) a disc which is with disc brakes for the purpose of FRA ‘‘[p]rohibit the replacement of affixed to the axle of a rail car, or to the slowing the passenger equipment. wheels on any tread-braked passenger back face of the wheel in a ‘‘cheek’’ The second principal change in the railroad car with rim-stamped straight mounted scheme, to provide retarding final rule from the NPRM provides plate wheels.’’ (Class II, Priority Action) force. Disc brakes introduce no heat into particular consideration for the use of (R–95–1). the rim, since the heat is generated by Class A rim-stamped, straight-plate In the NPRM, FRA stated that because the friction between the caliper pads wheels mounted on inboard-bearing a wheel having a rim-stamped straight- and the disc. This condition is true only axles on commuter passenger plate character is a sufficient safety if the strategy to stop a vehicle relies equipment. In commenting on the concern in itself, FRA proposed solely on discs without tread-brake NPRM, APTA noted that a number of extending the NTSB’s safety assistance. commuter railroads are currently recommendation to apply to all such Disc-braked rail cars sometimes have operating—or are in the process of wheels used on passenger equipment tread brakes which are used as parking implementing service with— regardless whether the equipment were brakes. These tread brakes may be Bombardier-manufactured bi-level tread-braked or not. See 62 FR 49743, applied periodically while the train is coaches that are equipped with Class A 49803. Further, FRA proposed running, using low cylinder forces, in rim-stamped, reverse-plate wheels. addressing separately the use of such order to clean the wheel tread surface of APTA specified that the affected wheels on passenger equipment other oxides and debris which can interfere commuter railroads operate 182 than private passenger cars—for which with the ability of the wheel to make an passenger coaches equipped with these there would be an immediate electrical connection with the rail for wheels and consist of the Southern prohibition on the use of the wheels— the purposes of shunting the track California Regional Rail Authority in distinction to the use of such wheels circuits to activate signals. This action (Metrolink), San Diego Northern on private cars—for which there would is typically of short duration and is Railway, Tri-County Commuter Rail be a prohibition on the wheels’ use as controlled by automatic circuitry (snow Authority, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, replacement wheels. See 62 FR 49743– brakes) and should not pose a threat to and the San Joaquin Railroad 4, 49803. the integrity of the wheels. Commission. APTA explained that Based on comments received in Braking strategies sometimes involve reverse-plate wheels are considered a response to the proposed rule, and after a combination of disc and tread braking hybrid of the straight-plate design and further analysis, FRA has modified the to achieve desired deceleration rates. therefore subject to the prohibition of requirements of this section from those For example, Amtrak’s AMFLEET I and this section. APTA added that these proposed in the NPRM. In the final rule, II cars use such a combination— wheels have an average service life of the restrictions on the use of rim- approximately 40% tread and 60% disc. five years. According to APTA, stamped straight-plate wheels apply In such a case, the wheels are tread- imposing this prohibition on the only to such wheels use on tread-braked braked every time the vehicle comes to affected commuter rail operations will passenger equipment. AAPRCO, in its a stop, as opposed to the lower energy dramatically reduce or terminate comments on the NPRM, stated that the snow braking described above. commuter rail operations while proposed section was overly broad in Straight plate wheels are well-known replacement wheels are procured and prohibiting rim-stamped straight-plate to be much more susceptible to thermal installed. APTA stated that Class A wheels from being used as replacement damage than curved or S-plate wheels. reverse-plate wheels have a safe history wheels on private cars operated in a Plate curvature permits radial breathing of usage with no indication of wheel passenger train. Citing the above-noted of the rim as it is heated, resulting in cracks caused by rim stamping, and that NTSB report, AAPRCO explained that lower rim stresses. The straight-plate failures of Class B and C wheels of a the only detected problem involving the wheel is much stiffer radially and true straight-plate design led to the use of rim-stamped straight-plate wheels stresses in these wheels are therefore NTSB’s recommendation here. Based on occurred when such wheels were greater for the same thermal input. If these differences, APTA recommended subjected to tread braking. AAPRCO straight-plate wheels experience tread that FRA allow Class A, rim-stamped believed that there is no known problem braking, or if tread brakes are used in reverse-plate wheels to continue in involving the use of such wheels on the event of disc brake failure, the service. passenger equipment that is disc-braked possibility exists for wheel thermal FRA has considered APTA’s and, therefore, not subject to heating. damage. However, the use of straight- comments and notes that the rim- Accordingly, AAPRCO recommended plate, rim-stamped wheels should not stamped ‘‘reverse’’-plate wheels in issue limiting the prohibition against using pose a safety threat if the wheels are are indeed straight-plate wheels. The rim-stamped straight-plate wheels as never tread-braked. ‘‘reverse’’ connotation refers to the replacement wheels on private cars to Because the use of straight-plate, rim- orientation (angle) of the wheel plate those wheels that are tread-braked. stamped wheels should pose no safety with respect to the axle. Passenger FRA notes that the stamping of threat if the wheels are never tread- wheelsets have inboard bearings—that manufacturers’ marks on railroad wheel braked, the requirements of this section is, the bearings are located between the rims introduces stress concentrations in do not apply to such wheels used in wheels on the axle. Freight wheelsets the wheel rims. Such stress risers can such circumstances. Moreover, as are outboard-bearing in that the wheels help originate cracks as the wheel is provided in paragraph (c), if the wheels are mounted between the bearings. The

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25600 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations wheel plate is pitched one way or the may not be placed on different a provision be added to the rule to allow other in either circumstance so that the (especially heavier) rail vehicles. private car owners to install such wheel flanges end up being the same Provided the conditions for continued wheels on their cars after January 1, distance apart. In this way, either use of the wheels are met, however, a 1998,—which FRA proposed as the wheelset can transverse the same railroad may continue to use the wheels effective date for this section—provided standard gage track. until it exhausts its stock of replacement the wheels were owned by that date. In From discussions with APTA, FRA wheels held as of May 12, 1999, which this regard, FRA notes that Amtrak has understands that these Class A, rim- is the date of this final rule’s issued a letter to private car owners stamped straight-plate wheels are publication. FRA understands that the dated September 19, 1995, stating that installed on rail cars weighing manufacturer of these wheels has after June 30, 2000, Amtrak will decline approximately 115,000 pounds, already started to stamp the wheels on to move any tread-braked passenger cars utilizing blended dynamic and friction their hubs, instead of on their rims, and with rim-stamped straight-plate wheels. braking. The friction-based portion of FRA believes that the railroads’ In addition, Amtrak stated in the same the braking system in turn is composed inventory of such rim-stamped wheels letter that it would not accept any new of approximately 67% tread braking, will be exhausted within the next 18 applications for wheel change out with and 33% disc braking. FRA further months. Once a commuter railroad’s rim-stamped straight-plate wheels, understands that, when properly used, inventory of Class A, rim-stamped regardless of the brake type. Amtrak’s the extended-range dynamic brake can straight-plate wheels is exhausted, each letter referenced the NTSB’s safety slow the vehicle from 90 mph—its top such wheel must be replaced at the end recommendation noted in this section. operating speed—to less than 10 mph of the wheel’s service life with a wheel Since Amtrak is the chief carrier of with no friction (pneumatic) braking that is not rim-stamped. private rail cars, the ability of a private applied, and that this is the In commenting on the NPRM, Talgo rail car owner to use rim-stamped, recommended method of operating suggested clarifying the requirements of straight-plate wheels will be these rail cars. The service brake rate is this section to state that the stamping of significantly affected independent of the 2.0 mph/sec and the emergency rate is characters on the rim of a wheel is requirements of this rule. Further, 2.5 mph/sec. In combination with the prohibited due to dangers associated allowing such wheels to continue in use wheel slip/slide protection system with stress concentration. According to until a car owner’s inventory of the provided for these cars, FRA believes Talgo, if indeed the purpose of this wheels is depleted would prolong the that the wheels on these rail cars should section is to address rim-stamping itself, use of such wheels for potentially be subjected to limited thermal input. then the rule should be revised to decades. FRA believes that the rule Further, FRA notes that wheels are address all types of wheels and not just allows due consideration for private rail generally classified as L, A, B, or C straight-plate wheels. FRA does car owners in allowing them to continue depending on the carbon content of the recognize that the stamping of using tread-braked private rail cars wheel material. The amount of carbon manufacturers’ marks on railroad wheel equipped with rim-stamped, straight- determines the hardness and strength of rims introduces stress concentrations in plate wheels throughout the life of each the steel. A Class A wheel has a lower the rims, and, all things being equal, wheel, while recognizing that, as a carbon content, and correspondingly manufacturers should stamp wheels on whole, the wheels are subject to greater lower hardness and strength than a their hubs instead of on their rims. Yet, thermal input when in use and are more Class B or C wheel. Lower hardness FRA is concerned in particular with susceptible to cracking than the means that the wheel has increased rim-stamped straight-plate wheels commuter railroad wheels discussed ductility or improved ability to resist because, as noted above, a straight-plate above. Moreover, FRA notes that under cracking (fracture toughness). This is wheel design is more susceptible to the definition of ‘‘passenger equipment’’ why Class L and A wheels are thermal damage than a curved wheel in this rule, a private rail car not recommended for severe braking design. The plate curvature permits operated in a train with a passenger car, conditions. However, since these wheels radial breathing of the rim as it is such as in a freight train, or in a consist are ‘‘softer,’’ heavy wheel loads will heated, resulting in lower rim stresses. of private rail cars, is not subject to the result in poor wear performance, which Similar to the proposal in the NPRM, requirements of this rule. (See above is why they are recommended only for the final rule allows rim-stamped, discussion of passenger equipment in light to moderate wheel loads. Class B straight-plate wheels on tread-braked § 238.5.). In addition, the final rule does and C wheels (with more carbon and private cars to continue in service increased hardness) exhibit good wear throughout the life of each wheel. not apply to tourist railroads, and a behavior, but are more prone to However, as provided in paragraph (b), private rail car may therefore operate on cracking. Railroads choose the wheel such wheels may not be used as such railroad without complying with type for a particular class of service replacement wheels on these cars. As the requirements of this rule. See based on its operating characteristics. explained in the NPRM, FRA recognizes § 238.3. As reflected in paragraph (a)(2), FRA that private cars are generally not highly Subpart C—Specific Requirements for believes that the commuter railroads utilized in comparison to intercity or Tier I Passenger Equipment operating vehicles with Class A, rim- commuter passenger equipment, and stamped straight-plate wheels mounted Amtrak imposes its own safety Section 238.201 Scope. on inboard-bearing axles—i.e., reverse- requirements on the use of such cars in This subpart contains specific plate wheels—may continue to do so its trains. See 62 FR 49743–4. requirements for railroad passenger provided the railroads do not modify In commenting on the NPRM, a equipment operating at speeds not the operation of the vehicles in any way member of the public stated that many exceeding 125 mph. This subpart that would result in increased thermal private car owners have a substantial contains various structural standards input to the wheels during braking. As investment in rim-stamped straight- (§ 238.203Bstatic end strength; a result, vehicles equipped with these plate wheels, and precluding their § 238.205—anti-climbing mechanism; wheels may not operate at speeds installation would consequently place a § 238.207—link between coupling exceeding their current maximum financial burden on many private car mechanism and car body; § 238.209— operating speeds. Further, these wheels owners. This commenter requested that forward-facing end structure of

VerDate 06-MAY-99 17:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25601 locomotives; § 238.211—collision posts; CFR § 229.141 so that its requirements passenger cars that do not meet the § 238.213—corner posts; § 238.215— will not apply to passenger equipment minimum static end strength rollover strength; § 238.217—side subject to part 238. requirement may petition FRA for structure; § 238.219—truck-to-car-body In addition to these four structural grandfathering approval to continue to attachment; and § 238.223—fuel tanks). requirements, the rule also requires that use the equipment; see discussion under These structural standards do not apply passenger equipment comply with other § 238.203. to passenger equipment if used structural requirements specified in: FRA does, however, recognize that exclusively on a rail line (A) with no §§ 238.205(b) (anti-climbing mechanism low-speed rail operations that are public highway-rail grade crossings, (B) for locomotives); 238.209 (forward- structured to totally preclude both on which no freight operations occur at facing end structure of locomotives); operations over highway rail grade any time, (C) on which only passenger 238.211(b) (collision posts for crossings and the sharing of trackage equipment of compatible design is locomotives); 238.213 (corner posts); between light rail equipment and utilized, and (D) on which trains operate 238.215 (rollover strength); 238.217 conventional equipment do not require at speeds no higher than 79 mph. (side structure); 238.219 (truck-to-car- the structural standards required for In general, except for the static end body attachment); and 238.223 (fuel commingled operations. Accordingly, strength standards (’ 238.203) and as tanks). These requirements apply to the final rule (in § 238.201) provides otherwise provided in this subpart, the passenger equipment ordered on or after that passenger equipment is not subject requirements of this subpart apply only September 8, 2000, or placed in service to the structural requirements of the rule to passenger equipment ordered on or for the first time on or after September if it used exclusively on a rail line (A) after September 8, 2000 or placed in 9, 2002, unless otherwise provided in with no public highway-rail grade service for the first time on or after the cited sections. FRA notes that, under crossings, (B) on which no freight September 9, 2002. That is, where no special circumstances, it will allow the operations occur at any time, (C) on specific date or dates are provided in placement in service of passenger which only passenger equipment of the regulatory text for a particular equipment not meeting these structural compatible design is utilized, and (D) on section, such as § 238.225 (Electrical requirements if the equipment was in which trains operate at speeds no higher system), these dates apply to that fact ordered within September 8, 2000 than 79 mph. FRA will discuss with the section’s requirements. Of course, but not placed in service until after Working Group in Phase II of the certain existing Federal requirements, September 9, 2002. In such case, the rulemaking what structural standards such as the window safety glazing railroad must provide documentation to are appropriate for such operations. standards in part 223 of this chapter that the satisfaction of the Associate In the NPRM, FRA considered are referenced in § 238.221 (Glazing), Administrator for Safety that requiring that one or more of the other continue to apply by their own force. demonstrates the special circumstances structural requirements for new The rule does provide that passenger accounting for the delay in placing the passenger equipment, discussed above, equipment placed in service for the first equipment in service. be made applicable to existing time on or after September 8, 2000, equipment as soon as one of the unless otherwise provided in the cited Structural Standards for Existing following events occurs: the equipment sections, must meet the minimum Equipment is sold to another railroad; the structural requirements specified in: The final rule requires that all equipment is rebuilt; the equipment § 238.205(a) (anti-climbing mechanism); passenger equipment (other than reaches 40 years of age; or 10 years § 238.207 (link between coupling locomotives that comply with an elapses after the effective date of the mechanism and car body); and alternative standard as specified, private rule. FRA invited comments on: (1) § 238.211(a) (collision posts). Further, as cars, unoccupied vehicles operating at What equipment would be affected by specified in detail below, any such the rear of a passenger train, or each of these structural requirements; equipment in use on or after November equipment used in non-commingled (2) the feasibility and costs of 8, 1999 must also meet the static end service, as discussed below) in use on retrofitting such equipment, with costs strength standards specified in or after November 8, 1999 have a broken out for each of the different § 238.203. These four particular minimum static end strength of 800,000 structural requirements, in the event requirements are virtually identical to pounds as specified in § 238.203. Static such triggering events were adopted in existing Federal requirements, found in end strength is critical in protecting the final rule; (3) whether these 49 CFR § 229.141(a)(1)–(4), that apply to passenger equipment from crushing in a triggering events are reasonable, or MU locomotives built new after April 1, head-on or rear-end collision, especially whether some other fixed deadline 1956, and operated in trains having a in the North American railroad should be established for making one or total empty weight of 600,000 pounds or operating environment that includes more of these structural requirements more. These requirements reflect the frequent highway-rail grade crossings applicable to existing passenger common construction practices for and the mixed operation of freight and equipment; and (4) the safety benefits passenger equipment currently in passenger trains. FRA is confident that that could accrue by making these service in the United States, and FRA all but a limited number of existing requirements applicable to existing believes they are minimum safety passenger cars in the United States have equipment. FRA did specifically note in requirements. FRA notes that the been built to this basic compressive the NPRM that older passenger 600,000-pound consist weight threshold strength requirement. Beginning in equipment may not meet the collision for purposes of 49 CFR § 229.141 is not 1939, the AAR recommended that new post requirements in § 238.211(a) an appropriate distinction to apply to passenger cars operated in trains of over because of a change in collision post passenger equipment operated on the 600,000 pounds empty weight have a design following a collision between general system, intermingled with minimum static end strength of 800,000 two Illinois Central Gulf Railroad equipment of more substantial strength; pounds, and since 1956, Federal commuter trains in Chicago, Illinois, on and, as a result, part 238 contains no Regulations (49 CFR. 229.141) have October 30, 1972. such consist weight distinction. In this required that new MU locomotives In response, APTA commented that it regard, FRA notes that through this final operated in such trains must meet this opposed application of the rule’s rule it is amending the application of 49 standard. Railroads with existing structural standards to existing

VerDate 06-MAY-99 17:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12MYR2 25602 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations passenger equipment in light of the issuance. FRA does recognize that have a lesser static end strength to allow potential adverse economic impact on special attention is needed to the a crash energy management design passenger railroads. AAPRCO, in its specifics of this design, which is unique approach to be employed, if the car or comments on the NPRM, believed the in current service in the United States, locomotive resists a minimum static end costs associated with rebuilding private both to avoid inappropriate load of 800,000 pounds applied on the cars to meet the new passenger requirements and to ensure sound line of draft at the ends of its occupied equipment requirements would be functioning of features that may warrant volume without permanent deformation extremely high with no significant exceptions from other requirements. of the body structure. FRA makes clear benefit to the public. AAPRCO stated In the final rule, § 238.201 has been that, for purposes of paragraph (a)(2), that Amtrak requires all cars, including amended to permit approval of the ability of a car or locomotive to private cars, that operate on their system equipment of special construction. (This resist a minimum static end load of be maintained to strict standards of alternative compliance approval process 800,000 pounds applied on the line of inspection, including full 40-year truck does not apply to the minimum static draft at the ends of its occupied volume teardowns with specified periodic end strength requirements set forth in without permanent deformation of the scheduled truck roll-outs, annual § 238.203.) The basis for decision would body structure shall be determined on inspections, and full COT&S. AAPRCO be similar to that discussed in the the basis of the individual car or noted that nearly all private cars NPRM with respect to waivers (62 FR locomotive’s own strength and crash currently in operation are over 40 years 49728, 49755), but the special approval energy management design. Two or old. mechanism would be employed as a more units of passenger equipment may In the final rule, FRA has made the more appropriate means of recognizing not be included in demonstrating the compressive strength requirement the whether the equipment provides an ability of the occupied volume of an only structural requirement applicable equivalent level of safety with the individual passenger car or locomotive to existing passenger equipment. standard of safety benchmarked in the to resist a minimum static end load of However, in general, if the need arises particular provisions of the subpart. 800,000 pounds as specified in to apply one of the other structural No New Safety Appliance Requirements paragraph (a)(2). requirements specified in the rule to Paragraph (a)(2) is based on proposed existing passenger equipment, FRA will FRA is not imposing new safety § 238.203(b) in the NPRM, see 62 FR reconsider whether such requirements appliance requirements for passenger 49804. In the final rule, FRA has revised should be made applicable to existing equipment subject to this subpart. The and incorporated that paragraph into equipment. In particular, FRA will ask safety appliance requirements paragraph (a). FRA has done so in part its Working Group in Phase II of the referenced in § 238.229 continue to to make clear that a passenger car or a rulemaking to consider applying the apply to such passenger equipment and locomotive must first resist a minimum other structural requirements specified are noted in this rule for clarity. static end load of 800,000 pounds in the rule to existing passenger Similarly, the window glazing applied at the ends of the car or equipment when the equipment is requirements in 49 CFR part 223 locomotive, unless the car or locomotive ‘‘rebuilt’’ or otherwise improved such continue to apply by their own force. employs a crash energy management that the useful life of the equipment is Section 238.203 Static End Strength design in which case the load may then materially extended. Further, FRA will be resisted at the ends of the volume of not specifically limit the consideration This section contains the the car or locomotive occupied by of the Working Group in this regard to requirements for the overall passengers or crewmembers. the rule’s structural requirements, but compressive strength of all Tier I rail FRA has included paragraph (a)(3) in will include in its consideration any of passenger equipment, except for the final rule in response to the the other requirements for Tier I equipment meeting the requirements of comments on the NPRM that existing passenger equipment in this final rule. § 238.201. This section is based on the AEM–7 locomotives would not comply long-standing practice of constructing with the static end strength requirement Equipment of Special Construction passenger cars to possess a minimum proposed by FRA. As FRA understands, Comments from Talgo, discussed in static end strength of 800,000 pounds on applying the 800,000-pound load at the general above and in more specific the line of draft without permanent buff stops of an AEM–7 locomotive terms below, question the relevance or deformation of the body structure. This apparently creates too large a moment appropriateness of some of the proposed practice has proven effective in the on either the draft gear housing or on structural standards to a trainset built North American railroad operating the buffer beam to side sill connection. with articulated connections using a environment that includes frequent Having analyzed the AEM–7 monocoque or space frame design. In highway-rail grade crossings, mixed locomotive, FRA believes that the consultations associated with the operation of freight and passenger structure can support a 1,000,000-pound Working Group review, FRA sought trains, and less than fully-capable signal load applied at the center of the buffer information from the commenter and train control systems. This section beam, and provide an equivalent or regarding its trainset and has sought to should be read with the discussion greater level of safety than that proposed identify requirements that might be relating to static end strength earlier in in the NPRM. appropriate for this configuration. the preamble. The requirements of paragraph (a)(3) However, in general, the analytical basis In general, paragraph (a) requires that are based on former AAR Standard 034– for alternative engineering values on or after November 8, 1999 all 69, Section 6—Buffing, paragraph (f). In suggested by the commenter either was passenger equipment (except as the final rule, FRA has doubled the load not evident or was determined not to be otherwise provided in § 238.201) shall provided in the AAR Standard from appropriate. Talgo did submit resist a minimum static end load of 500,000 pounds to 1,000,000 pounds, to additional engineering information in 800,000 pounds applied on the line of ensure safety. Further, FRA has tailored October of 1998 but FRA could not draft without permanent deformation of paragraph (a)(3) so that the alternative appropriately analyze this data for the body structure. As specified in specified therein does not apply to any purposes of the final rule without paragraph (a)(2), unoccupied volumes of locomotive placed in service on or after substantially delaying the rule’s a passenger car or a locomotive may July 12, 1999, as FRA wishes to limit

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25603 application of this alternative to existing passenger equipment placed in service to rebuild the equipment would involve locomotives. In addition, the alternative before November 8, 1999 is presumed to substantial cost while failing to meet the specified in paragraph (a)(3) may not be comply with paragraph (a)(1) (and thus crashworthiness objectives of this rule. applied to a cab car or an MU presumed to resist a minimum static Information available to FRA indicates locomotive. Use of the alternative for end load of 800,000 pounds applied on that the only useable remaining such a locomotive will not provide as the line of draft without permanent components of these trainsets are their high a level of safety as for a deformation of the body structure), shells. Further, FRA is not aware that conventional locomotive. unless the railroad operating the any funding has been allocated to As specified in paragraph (a)(4), the equipment has knowledge, or FRA initiate the remanufacture of these requirements of paragraph (a) do not makes a showing, that such passenger trainsets, and any planned use of these apply to unoccupied passenger equipment was not built to the trainsets should be considered equipment operating at the rear of a requirements specified in paragraph speculative. passenger train. In the NPRM, FRA had (a)(1). FRA makes clear that passenger To prevent sudden, brittle-type failure proposed excepting from the equipment built in accordance with of the passenger equipment body requirements of paragraph (a) vehicles AAR specifications for the construction structure, paragraph (c) requires that the such as auto-carriers and RoadRailers of passenger equipment operating in body structure be designed, to the operated at the rear of a passenger train trains of more than 600,000 pounds total maximum extent possible, to fail by and used solely to transport freight. To empty weight is deemed to be built to buckling or crushing, or both, of the extent such equipment could be the requirements specified in paragraph structural members rather than by excepted from the requirements of this (a)(1) and, thereby, compliant in this fracture of structural members or failure paragraph, FRA determined that other regard. Originally adopted in 1939, of structural connections. unoccupied passenger equipment Section 6, paragraph (a), of AAR In the final rule, FRA has added a operating at the rear of a passenger train Standard S–034–69, ‘‘Specification for paragraph (d) to provide a process for could also be excepted. In general, the Construction of New Passenger grandfathering approval of passenger however, FRA would prefer that every Equipment Cars,’’ provides in part, ‘‘The equipment in use on a rail line or lines vehicle in a passenger train have a car structure shall resist a minimum on November 8, 1999 that does not meet minimum static end strength as static end load of 800,000 lbs. at the rear the minimum static end strength specified in this section so that in the draft stops ahead of the bolster on the requirements. If the operator of the event of a train collision the cars in the center line of draft, without developing equipment files a petition with FRA train will crush or resist crushing with any permanent deformation in any seeking grandfathering approval to a certain degree of predictability and, member of the car structure.’’ FRA also continue to use the equipment within this 180-day period after the rule is thereby, further the ability of the train makes clear that, in a case where the published, the equipment could to remain upright and in line. As most railroad does not know whether its continue in such usage while the collisions involving a passenger train passenger equipment was built to the petition is being processed, but such occur at the train’s forward end, the requirements specified in paragraph usage must stop May 8, 2000 unless the requirement for unoccupied passenger (a)(1) (or, in essence, this AAR petition is approved. The section sets equipment to possess a minimum specification), the presumption that the forth the requirements for petitions and compressive strength is more significant equipment was built to the requirements service of the petition, and the process for such equipment operated at the specified in paragraph (a)(1) still train’s forward end and in front of the FRA will follow in soliciting comments applies. The presumption is not passenger car consist, than for such on the petition and disposing of applicable only in those cases where the equipment operated at the rear. As petitions. railroad knows, or FRA can make a proposed in the NPRM, private cars are FRA plans to ‘‘grandfather’’ showing, that the equipment was not also excepted from the requirements of equipment only for use in particular built to the requirements specified in paragraph (a). Nevertheless, FRA operating environments providing a paragraph (a)(1). believes that, at a minimum, most sufficient showing is made that any private cars do comply with the In response to the NYDOT’s comment incremental safety risk incurred in those compressive strength requirements that as to the effect of applying the static end environments is not of significant are specified in this paragraph for other strength requirement to existing concern or that specific measures passenger equipment. passenger equipment, and thereby to the mitigating the risk to the traveling In the final rule, FRA has included turboliner equipment planned for use in public and to railroad employees are paragraph (b) to address the concern of New York State, FRA believes that the utilized. Petitioners will need to railroads commenting on the NPRM that RTL trainsets undergoing rebuild demonstrate—through a quantitative their existing passenger equipment may comply with the end strength risk assessment that incorporates design need to undergo potentially costly requirement specified in paragraph information, engineering analysis of the testing to determine whether the (a)(1). However, these RTL trainsets equipment’s static end strength and of equipment complies with the static end need to be contrasted with the RTG the likely performance of the equipment strength requirements specified in this trainsets which the NYDOT has also in derailment and collision scenarios, rule. Although FRA believes that only a expressed an interest in rebuilding for and risk mitigation measures to avoid limited number of existing passenger like use. FRA believes that these RTG the possibility of collisions or to limit equipment on the nation’s railroads trainsets do not meet the end strength the speed at which a collision might does not comply with the static end requirement specified in paragraph occur, or both, that will be employed in strength requirement specified in (a)(1), as FRA understands they were connection with the usage of the paragraph (a)(1), FRA has included a built in accordance with UIC equipment on a specified rail line or presumption in the final rule to alleviate (International Union of Railways) lines—that use of the equipment, as the burden on railroads to show that structural standards (which provide for utilized in the service environment for their existing equipment complies with lesser structural strength). FRA does which recognition is sought, is in the the requirements of this paragraph. note that no RTG trainsets are currently public interest and is consistent with Paragraph (b) provides that any in service in the United States and that railroad safety. In this regard, FRA notes

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25604 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations that passenger equipment not endorsement by passenger railroad trainsets need only be equipped with possessing the minimum static end representatives. FRA recognizes that anti-climbing mechanisms of 47,000 strength specified in this rule does not incorporating a separate anti-climbing pounds strength to provide the same have the same capacity to absorb safely arrangement in the leading structure of level of safety as required by the rule. within its body structure the cab cars and MU locomotives presents Talgo explained that, for purposes of compressive forces that develop in a a significant challenge. FRA will calculating a vertical force requirement, collision as equipment meeting the continue to work with the APTA PRESS one should focus on the static force standard. The engineering analysis Task Force to derive a suitable solution. needed to lift a car of specified weight submitted by the petitioner should In its comments on the proposed rule, from one end while supported by the address how these forces will be Talgo remarked that § 238.205(a), as truck on the other end. Talgo further dissipated in a manner that does not drafted, seemed to consider that only explained that this value should be jeopardize occupant safety in collision couplers may properly function as anti- multiplied by a safety factor—equal to scenarios. climbing mechanisms. Talgo 2.2., as it derived from values in the Grandfathering approval of non- recommended modifying this section to proposed rule—in order to take into compliant equipment is limited to usage avoid this implication and ensure that account the possibilities of of the equipment on a particular rail anti-climbing mechanisms of varying misalignment and similar dynamics in line or lines. Before grandfathered design can be evaluated fairly. Talgo the event of a collision. As a result, equipment can be used on another rail asserted that such a modification would Talgo believed specifying a 47,000- line, a railroad must file and secure ensure that articulated trainsets are not pound strength requirement for anti- approval of a grandfathering petition for unfairly subject to a requirement that climbing mechanisms on its equipment such usage. focuses only on conventionally coupled would provide the same level of safety units. WDOT, in its comments on the Section 238.205 Anti-Climbing as specifying a 100,000-pound strength NPRM, raised similar points, noting that Mechanism requirement for anti-climbing articulated joints of semi-permanently mechanisms on conventional cars. This section contains the vertical coupled trainsets provide anti-climbing FRA notes that during a train collision strength requirements for anti-climbing ability. As a result, FRA makes clear the relatively strong underframe of a rail mechanisms on rail passenger that the term anti-climbing mechanism vehicle may ride up above the equipment. The purpose of the anti- is intended to be read broadly to underframe of an adjacent rail vehicle, climbing mechanism is to prevent the encompass more than a conventional and extensively crush the weaker override or telescoping of one passenger coupler, and that an articulated superstructure of the overridden train unit into another in a derailment connection may serve as an anti- vehicle. The potential for override to or collision. FRA is requiring that all climbing mechanism for the purposes of occur is influenced by the dynamic passenger equipment placed in service this section provided it can withstand motions of the cars, the relative heights for the first time on or after November the vertical forces specified in this of the vehicles’ underframes, and the 8, 1999 shall have an anti-climbing section. changing geometry of the vehicles’ mechanism at each end capable of In its comments on the NPRM, Talgo structures as they crush during the resisting an upward or downward also believed that the rule should be collision. These factors allow the vertical force of 100,000 pounds without restated to accommodate trains of development of a vertical component of permanent deformation. When coupled different masses. Specifically, in the very high longitudinal forces together in any combination to join two determining the strength of the anti- occurring in a train during a collision. vehicles, AAR Type H and Type F tight- climbing feature, Talgo recommended This vertical force component, in effect, lock couplers satisfy this requirement. stating the operative variable as vertical squeezes one underframe up and over This requirement incorporates a long- acceleration, expressed in gs (units of the underframe of another vehicle in the standing industry practice into the final acceleration of gravity), rather than load, train. While all three factors play a role rule. expressed in pounds. Accordingly, in the occurrence of override, results of The rule further requires that the Talgo recommended modifying this actual collisions indicate that the forward end of a locomotive ordered on section so that the anti-climbing changing geometry of the car structures or after September 8, 2000, or placed in mechanism be capable of resisting a as they crush—which, in effect, creates service for the first time on or after certain value of acceleration, instead of a ramp during the collision—can September 9, 2002, be equipped with an a vertical force of 100,000 pounds. Talgo overwhelm the influence of the anti-climbing mechanism capable of supplemented its comments on this difference in sill heights. There are resisting an upward or downward section following FRA’s announcement numerous examples of cars with vertical force of 200,000 pounds without that the minutes of the rulemaking’s relatively low underframe heights that failure. This requirement applies to Working Group meetings had been have overridden cars with relatively locomotives or power cars of added to the rulemaking’s docket, See high underframe heights. permanently coupled trains, and 63 FR 28496; May 26, 1998. As FRA had FRA has not modified the final rule in includes cab cars and MU locomotives. permitted comments for inclusion in the response to Talgo’s comment that the Specifying a vertical load requirement record as to whether the minutes rule should require the anti-climbing for lead vehicles (locomotives) that is accurately reflected statements made at mechanism to be capable of resisting a greater than that for coupled vehicles is the Working Group meetings, Talgo certain value of acceleration instead of needed to address the greater tendency stated that the minutes do not mention a specified vertical force. First, Talgo for override in a collision between that a representative of the Volpe Center has not indicated in its comments what uncoupled vehicles. AAR Standard S– acknowledged that this section should that value of acceleration should be, and 580, which addresses the be modified to address lighter rail FRA believes that formulating a crashworthiness of locomotives, has equipment. Talgo stated that, aside from performance standard in pounds of included this requirement for all freight the ends of its articulated trainsets force, instead, is appropriate. Second, locomotives built since August 1990. which it noted are compliant with the Talgo’s subsequent comments have FRA believes this industry practice is 100,000 pound vertical force focused on specifying a 47,000-pound sound, and this requirement received requirement, intermediate joints in the vertical force as an alternative to the

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25605

100,000-pound vertical force that an horizontal position of the coupler or passenger locomotive, including a cab anti-climbing mechanism must resist coupling mechanism. car and an MU locomotive, be at a under this section. In response to this In its comments on the NPRM, Talgo minimum equivalent to a 1⁄2-inch steel latter suggestion by Talgo, FRA notes stated that this section should be plate with a 25,000 pounds-per-square- that the longitudinal force acting on a modified to apply only in the case inch yield strength. Material of a higher vehicle in a train during a collision is, where the coupler between cars itself yield strength material may be used to in large part, a function of the vehicle’s acts as the anti-climbing mechanism— decrease the required thickness of the own deceleration plus the force required not in cases where other anti-climbing material provided at least an equivalent to decelerate all the vehicles behind it. designs such as articulated unions are level of strength is maintained. The skin (The longitudinal force is also utilized. As a result, Talgo shall also be designed to inhibit the dependent on the force required to recommended that the requirements of entry of fluids into the occupied area of crush the vehicles in the train.) When a this section should apply only to the the equipment, and be affixed to the sufficient vertical component of this couplers at the far ends of an articulated collision posts or other main vertical total force develops, override occurs. trainset, and not to the interior structural members of the forward- Because the longitudinal force required articulated unions which do not employ facing end structure to add to the to decelerate the trailing vehicles can couplers. Talgo believed that this strength of the end structure. exceed the force required to decelerate approach has been proposed in the rule AAR Standard S–580 has included the subject vehicle, it is not possible to with respect to Tier II passenger these requirements for all locomotives relate the deceleration of a single equipment. Talgo further commented built since August 1990. From vehicle to the tendency to override in that the load requirement should be the observations of the improved the way that Talgo has explained in same as provided in § 238.205. performance of locomotives during arriving at its proposed 47,000-pound FRA recognizes that in an articulated collisions, FRA believes that this strength value. The Volpe Center trainset, the articulated joint connecting industry standard should be part of representative cited by Talgo sought to the cars in the train serves as both the these safety standards. Passenger make this point clear at the December coupler carrier and as the anti-climbing railroad representatives in the Working 15, 1997 Working Group meeting. This mechanism. Such cars do not have a Group endorsed this improved safety representative also tried to make clear coupler shank, per se. For practical requirement. that he did not agree that consideration reasons, including administration of the In its comments on the NPRM, APTA should be given to lighter rail rule, FRA proposed separate recommended that paragraph (c) be equipment in the way that Talgo requirements for the strength of the anti- clarified so that the skin be designed to proposed at the Working Group meeting climbing mechanism in § 238.205 and permit a train line door with a window and in its comments on the rule. for the strength of the link between the in the forward-facing end structure of Even though it may be theoretically coupling mechanism and car body in cab cars and MU locomotives. In fact, as possible to develop a formula which § 238.207 because the vast majority of proposed in the NPRM, the rule defined relates the decelerations of all the cars Tier I passenger equipment possesses a ‘‘skin’’ to mean the ‘‘outer covering on in a train to the tendency to override, conventional draft system. However, a fuel tank or the front of a locomotive, such a formula would have to take into FRA intended that for passenger including a cab car and an MU account the specific cars in the train and equipment utilizing articulated locomotive, excluding the windows and the time-phasing of the decelerations of connections that comply with the forward-facing doors.’’ See § 238.5; 62 the cars during a collision, as well as the requirements of § 238.205(a), such FR 49795 (The skin may also be covered forces required to crush each of the cars. articulated connections would also with another coating of a material such Development of such a formula is comply with the requirements of this as fiberglass). APTA’s recommendation beyond FRA’s resources in issuing section. In the final rule, FRA has made is therefore consistent with FRA’s initial passenger equipment safety this explicit by adding a sentence to the proposal. For clarity, however, FRA has standards as mandated by Congress. rule text, and FRA has therefore adopted revised the final rule by removing the However, FRA will further examine this Talgo’s comment in this regard. Talgo’s exclusion concerning windows and issue in evaluating equipment of special comment with respect to specifying an forward-facing doors from the definition construction. appropriate load requirement for this of ‘‘skin’’ in § 238.5, and placing the section is consequently addressed in the exclusion instead directly in paragraph Section 238.207 Link Between discussion of § 238.205, above. (d) of this section. Coupling Mechanism and Car Body This section contains the vertical Section 238.209 Forward-Facing End Section 238.211 Collision Posts strength requirements for the structure Structure of Locomotives This section contains the structural that links the coupling mechanism to This section contains the strength requirements for collision the car body on passenger equipment. requirements for the covering or skin of posts. Collision posts provide protection The purpose of this requirement is to the forward-facing end structure of each against the crushing of occupied avoid a premature failure of the draft passenger locomotive ordered on or volumes of passenger equipment, system so that the anti-climbing after September 8, 2000, or placed in including the telescoping of one vehicle mechanism will have an opportunity to service for the first time on or after into another, in the event of a collision engage. September 9, 2002. The purpose of these or derailment. FRA is requiring that all passenger requirements is to protect the occupied Paragraph (a) requires that all equipment placed in service for the first volume of the locomotive cab. This area passenger equipment placed in service time on or after November 8, 1999 be is especially vulnerable in a highway- for the first time on or after November provided with a coupler carrier or other rail grade crossing collision if a fuel 8, 1999 shall have either two full-height coupler-to-car-body linking structure tank that is part of or being transported collision posts, each collision post that is designed to resist a vertical by the highway vehicle ruptures, or bulk having an ultimate longitudinal strength downward thrust from the coupler hazardous materials are released. of not less than 300,000 pounds, or an shank of 100,000 pounds, without FRA is requiring that the skin equivalent end structure. The 300,000- permanent deformation for any normal covering the forward-facing end of each pound strength requirement makes

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25606 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations mandatory the long-standing of equipment which could tend to FRA accepts as persuasive—a construction practice for collision posts misalign the train consist. For occupant documented engineering analysis in passenger equipment operating in the safety, it is optimal that a train remain establishing that the articulated United States and has proven effective in line and upright in the event of a connection is capable of preventing in the Nation’s railroad operating collision or derailment, and gradually disengagement and telescoping to the environment. This requirement is come to a stop after ‘‘plowing the same extent as equipment satisfying the similar to that contained in 49 CFR ballast’’ along the railroad track. anti-climbing and collision post 229.141(a)(4), which applies to MU Nonetheless, FRA has revised the requirements contained in this subpart. locomotives operated in trains having a final rule to except unoccupied In such case, the interior ends of the total empty weight of 600,000 pounds or passenger equipment from the individual units in the consist need not more, but also requires the collision requirements of this section—whether be equipped with an end structure posts to be full-height. As noted, FRA operated at the rear or forward end of meeting the requirements of paragraphs does not believe the 600,000-pound a passenger train. However, as noted (a) and (b). FRA notes that, in consist weight threshold is an above in the discussion of § 238.203, commenting on proposed § 238.211(c), appropriate distinction to retain for unoccupied passenger equipment both Talgo and WDOT had requested passenger equipment operating on the operated at the forward end of a that FRA substitute the phrase ‘‘semi- general system intermingled with passenger train must comply with the permanently coupled’’ for ‘‘permanently equipment of more substantial strength, static end strength requirement to joined’’ in describing the consist of and, as a result, no such consist weight maintain the integrity of the train. units subject to the exception provided distinction is made in the final rule. Paragraph (b) requires that each in paragraph (c). This recommendation Full-height collision posts provide locomotive, including a cab car or MU has been adopted. additional protection because they locomotive, ordered on or after FRA has modified paragraph (c) from extend higher than posts attached only September 8, 2000, or placed in service that proposed in the NPRM, see 62 FR at the underframe. Little, if any, for the first time on or after September 49804, by not providing an automatic additional cost is imposed on builders 9, 2002, have two forward collision exception from the collision post by requiring full-height posts. Spacing posts, located at approximately the one- requirements for the interior ends of the collision posts at approximately the third points laterally across the end of individual units in a consist of semi- one-third points laterally across the the locomotive, each post capable of permanently coupled, articulated units. ends of the equipment will allow both withstanding a 500,000-pound Instead, a railroad must submit a posts to be engaged in many collision longitudinal force without exceeding documented engineering analysis scenarios. An equivalent single end the ultimate strength of the joint. In supporting the capabilities of the structure may be used in place of the addition, each post must be capable of articulated connection, as described two collision posts provided the withstanding a 200,000-pound above, and FRA must find that analysis structure can withstand the sum of the longitudinal force exerted 30 inches persuasive. Articulated assemblies have forces that each collision post is above the joint of the post to the a history of remaining in line during required to withstand. This allows for underframe, without exceeding its derailments and collisions and, if not the design of monocoque, unitized or ultimate strength. AAR Standard S–580 designed to be uncoupled, only the like structures. FRA notes, of course, has included this requirement for all outside ends of the entire assembly that such a single end structure must locomotives built since August 1990. should be exposed to the risks of also resist the loading requirements for From observation of the improved override. However, none of the relevant corner posts as specified in § 238.213, as performance of these locomotives recent experience is on the North well as any other applicable end during collisions, including collisions American continent, and the ability of structure requirements as specified in with motor vehicles at highway-rail articulated connections to remain intact this rule for Tier I passenger equipment. grade crossings, FRA believes this during a collision with North American Amtrak, in its comments on the industry practice should become part of passenger equipment, freight rolling NPRM, noted that its rail passenger this rule’s safety standards. stock, or a fixed obstruction has not operation is unique in the United States As an alternative, an equivalent end been demonstrated analytically. FRA because it includes the use of structure may be used in place of the noted the weakness in the proposed unoccupied express and mail cars. two forward collision posts described in exception (§ 238.211(c) of the NPRM) Amtrak stated that collision posts paragraph (b), to allow for the design of while preparing the final rule. An applied to unoccupied head end cars monocoque, unitized or like structures. approved, documented engineering (express cars) are unwarranted because The single end structure shall withstand analysis supporting the capabilities of the posts unnecessarily increase the tare the sum of the forces that each collision the articulated connection is necessary weight of this equipment without any post is required to withstand, in to ensure the safety of passengers and associated improvement in safety. FRA addition to the loading requirements for crewmembers. had originally proposed requiring that corner posts as specified in § 238.213 all passenger equipment comply with and any other applicable end structure Section 238.213 Corner Posts the requirements of paragraph (a), requirements as specified in this rule for This section contains the except for a vehicle of special design Tier I passenger equipment. requirements for corner posts on that operates at the rear of a passenger Paragraph (c) provides that for a passenger cars, such as passenger train and is used solely to transport consist of semi-permanently coupled, coaches, cab cars and MU locomotives, freight, such as an auto-carrier or a articulated units, the end structure ordered on or after September 8, 2000, RoadRailer. See 62 FR 49804. FRA requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) or placed in service for the first time on sought this broader application of the of this section apply only to the ends of or after September 9, 2002. FRA has collision post requirements in part the semi-permanently coupled consist clarified the requirements of this because collision posts serve to repel of articulated units, provided that the section, as explained below. adjacent passenger equipment in a train railroad submits to the FRA Associate A corner post is the vertical structural collision or derailment and, thereby, Administrator for Safety under the member normally located at the help prevent the uncontrolled crushing procedures specified in § 238.21—and intersection of the end of a rail vehicle

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25607 with a side of that vehicle. Paragraphs comments on the NPRM, the BLE does permanently coupled, articulated (a) and (b) specify the loads and not wish the cab control compartment to passenger car under certain orientation of the loads that a corner be the designated section of a passenger circumstances, the possibility of doing post in a passenger car must resist. The car to crush in a collision, and FRA so does exist. FRA, therefore, cannot values specified in paragraphs (a) and agrees with the BLE that the cab must grant an exclusion from the corner post (b) are the same as those proposed in the be protected. requirements to such equipment NPRM, see 62 FR 49804, though they Bombardier, in its comments on the operated as an intermediate unit in an have been stated in a different manner 1997 NPRM, suggested that proposed assembly of semi-permanently coupled, for clarity in the final rule. section 238.213(a) be modified so that articulated passenger cars. This section allows flexibility so that the corner posts must resist the loads In additional comments on this corner posts may be located at positions specified in this section at the point of section, the BLE stated that the other than at the extreme outside attachment to the underframe and at the proposed corner post strength corners of a passenger car, as long as the point of attachment to the roof structure, requirements for Tier I passenger corner posts are placed ahead of the as those loads are applied individually. equipment do not adequately address its occupied volume of the car. In this FRA had proposed that the corner post safety concerns. The BLE noted that past manner, corner posts may be positioned be able to resist these loads as applied cornering collisions may have resulted adjacent to the occupied volume of a simultaneously, not as applied in fewer deaths and injuries had passenger car to provide structural individually. FRA has carried forward improved corner post structures been in protection to the occupied volume. For its proposal into the final rule, and has place, and that Tier I passenger instance, for passenger coaches not adopted Bombardier’s comment. equipment may operate up to 125 mph equipped with end vestibules, the Requiring the corner post to resist the in corridors with a significant number of corner posts may be located in the side specified loads as applied highway-rail intersections. The BLE structure inboard of the vestibules’ side simultaneously at the points of recommended that FRA apply the door openings, provided that such posts attachment to the underframe and at the corner post requirements proposed for are not placed inside the occupied roof structure is a stricter requirement. Tier II power cars in § 238.409 to all volume, which includes any space for In addition, the requirement is likely new and upgraded Tier I passenger crew or passenger seating. FRA has fully more representative of the conditions equipment. defined ‘‘occupied volume’’ in § 238.5 present in an actual collision where the As FRA explained in the NPRM, the to mean the volume of a rail vehicle or corner post may be impacted at both structural parameters for corner post passenger train where passengers or points simultaneously, as in the case of strength represent the common practice crewmembers are normally located a sideswipe with a passing rail car. for passenger cars built for North during service operation, such as the In their comments on the NPRM, American service. They are being operating cab, and passenger seating Talgo and WDOT stated that the rule adopted as an interim measure to and sleeping areas. The entire width of should provide an exception for prevent the introduction of equipment a vehicle’s end compartment that articulated trainsets similar to that not meeting such minimum contains a control stand is an occupied proposed for collision posts in requirements. FRA recognizes that volume. Further, a vestibule is typically § 238.211(c) of the NPRM. Accordingly, current design practice has proven not considered occupied, except when it these commenters believed that corner inadequate to protect the occupied contains a control stand for use as a posts should be required only at the far volume in several recent side-swipe control cab. ends of an assembly of semi- collisions involving passenger trains FRA did not intend that the flexibility permanently coupled, articulated with cab cars leading. Crash modeling to place corner posts at locations other passenger equipment—not at each end suggests that it is not feasible to modify than at the extreme outside corners of of each intermediate, semi-permanently current equipment designs to protect passenger cars would permit such coupled vehicle. FRA has not adopted against collisions of the magnitude that corner posts to be placed inside the these comments in the final rule. First, occurred at Secaucus, New Jersey, and occupied volume of the cars, and FRA as discussed above, FRA has modified Silver Spring, Maryland, in February of recognizes that it should have made this § 238.211 on collision posts so that there 1996. Nevertheless, stronger corner point more explicit in the NPRM. See 62 is no automatic exception from the posts are necessary to address collisions FR 49766. (Of course, as a railroad is collision post requirements for involving lower closing speeds. FRA is free to take safety measures beyond intermediate vehicles in an assembly of assisting the APTA PRESS Task Force in those required in this rule, a railroad semi-permanently coupled, articulated preparing a standard for corner post may, therefore, operate a passenger car passenger equipment. Further, corner arrangements on cab cars and MU with corner posts inside the occupied posts, by their very definition and locomotives. Adoption of a suitable volume of the car if another set of corner location, protect against hazards in a standard will be an immediate priority posts that do comply with the way that collision posts (positioned upon publication of the final rule. requirements of this section are placed closer to the center of the end of a ahead of the occupied volume.) In light vehicle) cannot. There are many Section 238.215 Rollover Strength of the vulnerabilities of cab cars and MU different scenarios in which a passenger This section contains the structural locomotives operating as the leading car may be struck at its corner, such as requirements intended to prevent units in a passenger train, such in a corner-to-corner collision with significant deformation of the normally passenger cars must be equipped with another rail vehicle, or a raking collision occupied spaces of a passenger car in corner posts meeting the requirements with an object fouling the right-of-way. the event it rolls onto its side or roof. of this section that are placed ahead of As noted in the NPRM, eight passengers This section essentially requires the the occupied volume. Cab cars and MU were killed following incursion of a vehicle structure to be able to support locomotives will normally be occupied freight car into the side of two Amtrak twice the dead weight of the vehicle by a train crewmember in an end coaches beginning at the corner of each while the vehicle is resting on its side compartment, and thus must have car, near Lugoff, South Carolina, on July or roof. Analysis has shown that current corner posts placed near the extreme 31, 1991. Although there may be less passenger car design practice meets this ends of the vehicles. As stated in its chance of striking the corner of a semi- requirement. This requirement has

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25608 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations proven effective in preventing massive of the word ‘‘for’’ in the phrase which steel of higher strength than mild open- structural deformation of cars that have originally read in the NPRM, ‘‘the hearth steel. Accordingly, FRA has rolled during collisions or derailments. allowable stress for occupied volumes. expressly provided that the minimum For this reason, FRA believes this . . .’’ See 62 FR 49804–49805. section moduli or thickness specified in requirement should be incorporated into paragraph (a) may be adjusted in Section 238.217 Side Structure these safety standards. proportion to the ratio of the yield In the NPRM, FRA invited comment This section contains car body side strength of the material used to that of whether this requirement should also structure requirements. These mild open-hearth steel only for a car apply to locomotives. Representatives requirements are intended to prevent whose structural members are made of from RPI had advised that locomotives the side panels of a passenger car from a higher strength steel. do not roll over frequently enough to flexing excessively while in operation, Talgo, in its comments on this section justify such requirements for and help to resist penetration of the in the NPRM, believed that the conventional locomotives. passenger car’s side structure by an requirement should be rewritten to The BRC commented that this outside object. These provisions specify the units used for each of the requirement should apply to essentially codify, with minor concepts discussed. For clarity, FRA locomotives to protect the locomotive’s modifications, sections 16 and 17 of states that the dimensional units in this crew from the crush and deformation of AAR Standard S–034–69, Specification paragraph are in inches, and the units the locomotive’s occupied volume. for the Construction of New Passenger for the section moduli are ‘‘in inches3’’ While recognizing that locomotives may Equipment Cars. (inches cubed) in paragraphs (a)(1) and not roll over frequently, the BRC This section was originally entitled (2). observed that the additional strength ‘‘Side impact strength’’ in the NPRM. In its comments on the NPRM, WDOT will protect the locomotive’s crew if FRA has changed the section title stated that it appeared FRA has other equipment does land on top of the because the requirements in this section continued to refuse to provide it with locomotive. The BRC believed that the principally refer to the stiffness of a detailed information on the risks and occupied volume of the locomotive car’s side panel, rather than the panel’s true need for side impact standards. must be protected to increase the strength. That is, these provisions WDOT stated that it had previously chances of survivability for principally focus on preventing the side asked FRA for documentation to crewmembers. FRA notes that a rollover panel from flexing excessively under support FRA’s assertion that, as strength requirement for all service loads. The greatest service loads originally stated in the ANPRM, locomotives—freight and passenger—is acting on the sidewalls of a passenger ‘‘[d]esigns of some passenger equipment being examined in the RSAC car probably result from the have floor levels low to the rail, creating Locomotive Crashworthiness Working aerodynamic loads of a train entering or the tendency for a heavy highway Group. FRA believes that the exiting a tunnel, and from two trains vehicle striking the side of the train to Locomotive Crashworthiness Working passing each other at speed. Residually, climb into the occupied passenger Group is the most appropriate forum in these requirements will provide some volume rather than being driven under which to address a rollover strength protection in the event the passenger the underframe of the passenger rail requirement for locomotives overall. car’s side panel is struck by an outside car’’ (61 FR 30692). Without such In its comments on the NPRM, Talgo object. detailed evidence, WDOT recommended stated that paragraph (a) should include FRA believes that a side structural that proposed § 238.217 be deferred the clarification that local deformations strength requirement is necessary until the second phase of the are acceptable when the car rests on its because approximately 13% of the grade rulemaking. side, just as paragraph (b) specifies that crossing accidents involving a passenger The Volpe Center has analyzed a some deformation is permitted to the train result from a highway vehicle highway vehicle side impact into a roof when the car is resting thereon. In striking the side of the passenger train. single-level Amfleet car. The results of paragraph (b), FRA has specified that Further, passenger trains may be struck that analysis indicate that the Amfleet deformation to the roof sheathing and in the side by other trains, individual car will derail and push sideways before framing is allowed to the extent rail cars that roll out of sidings, or significant crushing of the car can occur. necessary for the vehicle to be freight being transported on trains It is expected that rail cars having supported directly on the top chords of sharing common rights-of-way. In similar structures—side sill, body the side frames and end frames. This addition, during a derailment or train- bolster, and center sill—at a similar type of deformation does not impinge to-train collision, trains frequently height would behave in the same way in on the volume normally occupied by buckle, exposing the sides of cars to such a collision. This includes most passengers. However, side wall potential impacts during the collision. passenger cars operating in the United deformations pose a safety risk to In its comments on this section in the States. However, other cars, such as passengers since seats and other interior NPRM, Bombardier noted that the Amtrak’s bi-level cars and WDOT’s fittings are typically attached to the side proposed requirement was based on single-level rail cars, have floor wall, and passenger limbs are at risk of AAR Standard 034, Section 20, and it structures that are structurally different entrapment or crushing. Therefore, FRA believed that to be consistent with the and positioned closer to the rail. has modified this section in response to AAR Standard and to take advantage of Preliminary analysis indicates that Talgo’s comment only to permit local the higher strength steels currently used significant crushing may occur if a yielding of the outer skin of a passenger in carbody construction, the rule should highway vehicle collides into the side of car provided the resulting deformations specify in paragraph (a) that, ‘‘Where one of these cars. in no way intrude upon the occupied minimum section moduli or thickness As a general principle in specifying a volume of the car. are specified, they shall be adjusted in side impact strength requirement for a As Bombardier suggested in its proportion to the ratio of the yield passenger car, the objective is to ensure comments on the NPRM, FRA has also strength of the material used, to that of that the side of the passenger car is made a minor clarification to this mild open-hearth steel.’’ FRA agrees strong enough so that the car derails and section by substituting the words ‘‘in that this comment is applicable to cars is pushed sideways—rather than the structural members of the’’ in place whose structural members are made of collapses—when struck in the side by

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25609 another rail vehicle or a highway Over the same 8-year period, 31 of the provision on side strength does attempt vehicle. FRA believes that current 202 occurrences in which a highway to address the identified need. This practice may not be adequate to meet vehicle struck a passenger train provision was derived from discussions this goal, and that cars with low floors involved a ‘‘heavy’’ highway vehicle. with Amtrak concerning development of are particularly vulnerable to For purposes of this analysis, FRA specifications for its high-speed penetration when struck in the side. A considered heavy highway vehicles to trainsets for the Northeast Corridor. more meaningful side structure consist of all those vehicles identified as Section 238.219 Truck-to-car-body requirement than contained in this a ‘‘Truck-Trailer’’ (3) and one-half of attachment section is necessary to address this those vehicles identified as ‘‘Truck’’ concern. Such a requirement will (55), as specified according to Form This section contains the truck-to-car- include specifying minimum shear FRA F6180–57—Rail-Highway Grade body attachment strength requirement values at the car’s floor as well as at Crossing Accident/Incident Report. In for passenger equipment. The some point above the floor to protect the this period, then, a heavy highway attachment is required to resist without car’s occupants. This will be a priority vehicle struck the side of a passenger failure a 2g vertical force on the mass of in the second phase of the rulemaking. train an average of 4 times each year— the truck and a force of 250,000 pounds The requirement in this final rule is, and of these occurrences a heavy in any horizontal direction on the truck. therefore, an interim measure. As FRA highway vehicle struck other than the The intent of the requirement for the believes that this section does not lead unit in the train an average of 1 to attachment to resist without failure a address in particular the vulnerability of 2 times each year. minimum vertical force equivalent to 2g low-floor passenger cars to a side impact In its comments on the NPRM, the acting on the mass of the truck is to by a heavy highway vehicle, FRA has, WDOT noted that FRA had not provided prevent the truck from separating from in effect, deferred consideration of a a record of any injuries or deaths the car body if it is raised or rolls over. requirement to do so. occurring from highway vehicle In effect, the attachment must resist, FRA notes that WDOT also collisions into passenger trains. FRA without failure, a force equal to twice commented as to the likelihood that a states here that in the 8-year period from the weight of the truck and all the highway vehicle will strike the side of 1990 through 1997, highway vehicle components attached to the truck. Many a passenger train. WDOT disagreed with collisions into passenger trains resulted types of keepers are used to keep trucks FRA’s analysis and conclusions on this in 7 total injuries reported to FRA—3 attached to car bodies. FRA believes that issue as stated in the NPRM. See 62 FR injuries to railroad employees, and 4 the majority of them are capable of 49730–1. WDOT stated that FRA had injuries to passengers—and no reported meeting this requirement. The intent of omitted mentioning that two-thirds of fatalities. FRA notes that reliance on the requirement for the attachment to all the highway vehicle side impact this passenger injury data in the abstract resist without failure a minimum force collisions into a passenger train is not appropriate when considering the of 250,000 pounds acting in any involved the highway vehicle striking risks associated with operating a horizontal direction on the truck is to the side of the locomotive. From this, particular rail passenger vehicle. For address the forces that act upon the WDOT estimated that one-half of one example, it is possible that a highway truck during a derailment that would percent (0.5%) of all grade crossing vehicle collision into the side of an tend to shear the truck from the car accidents over the 10-year period shown Amfleet rail car that does not injure any body. The parameter selected represents in the NPRM may have involved a passengers would instead cause injuries the current design practice that has ‘‘heavy’’ highway vehicle striking the under the same circumstances in a proven effective in preventing side of a passenger car. collision involving a rail car with a horizontal shear of trucks from car FRA has gathered more recent data different floor structure positioned bodies. since publication of the NPRM on closer to the rail. As noted above, most If the truck separates from the car highway vehicle side impact collisions of the passenger cars in the United body in a collision or derailment it may into passenger trains. Between January States possess floor structures similar to become a hazardous projectile that will 1, 1990, and December 31, 1997, 1,572 the Amfleet rail car, positioned at a intrude upon the occupied volumes of collisions occurring at public highway- similar height above the rail. FRA the equipment involved in the collision rail public grade crossings between maintains that the potential for a or derailment. Further, if the truck passenger trains and highway vehicles highway vehicle to strike the side of a separates from the car body it will not were reported to FRA. In 202 of these passenger train is real, as shown by the be able to serve, in effect, as an anti- instances (12.8%) highway vehicles record of the frequency of highway climbing device in a collision or struck the side of a passenger train. In vehicles striking the sides of passenger derailment. With the truck attached to other words, a highway vehicle struck trains. FRA therefore advises railroads the car body, the truck of an overriding the side of a passenger train an average to consider the risks and consequences rail vehicle is likely to be caught by the of approximately 25 times each year in of such a collision, with particular underframe of the overridden rail this period. Further, in this period 137 attention to the different units of vehicle, thus arresting the override. collisions involved the highway vehicle passenger equipment in their In its comments on the NPRM, Talgo striking the first unit of the passenger operations. recommended that the regulation be train, and 65 collisions involved the As noted above, the side strength of modified so that the strength of the highway vehicle striking a unit behind a passenger car is also highly pertinent attachment against horizontal force is the first unit in the train. As a result, to its crashworthiness in a side or raking also measured in gs. Specifically, Talgo WDOT is correct insofar as collision with other railroad rolling suggested that the vertical force approximately two-thirds of such stock. Examples could include a freight resistance limit of 2g could be employed collisions involved the highway vehicle car rolling out of a siding or industrial rather than a fixed load measure that, striking the first unit in the passenger spur into the side of a passenger train, according to Talgo, did not take into train, which ostensibly was a or a locomotive moving in a terminal account individual truck mass. Talgo locomotive but could also have been a area passing through a switch and into believed that this modification would passenger car (cab control car or MU the side of a passenger train. not undermine the intent of the rule, locomotive). Recognizing these concerns, the Tier II which it noted as allowing the truck to

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25610 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations act as an anti-climbing device during a to-car-body attachment must resist: In the car body. Paragraph (b)(1) requires collision, citing the NPRM at 62 FR this case, the mass of the truck each exterior window on a locomotive 49767. necessarily determines how strong the cab or a passenger car to remain in place In addressing Talgo’s comments, FRA truck-to-car-body attachment must be to when subjected to the forces the glazing would like to make clear that the prevent the truck from separating from itself is required to resist in part 223 of fundamental reason for requiring the the vehicle, as the weight of the truck this chapter. In this way, the window truck-to-car-body attachment to resist essentially acts to ‘‘pull’’ the truck away glazing must be secured in place so that without failure a minimum force of from the rail vehicle. it can both resist spalling when struck 250,000 pounds acting in any horizontal Talgo, in further commenting on the by a projectile, for example, and also direction on the truck is to prevent the requirements of this section, resist being knocked out of the window truck from shearing off (separating from) recommended that the rule should frame. Paragraph (b)(2) requires each the car body. (FRA believed this except articulated equipment utilizing a exterior window on a locomotive cab or implicit in the preamble discussion of single-axle truck positioned between a passenger car to remain in place when the NPRM, and is making it clear here two car bodies. Talgo stated that in the subjected to the forces due to air to remove any doubt.) Whether the truck event a compressive force is generated pressure differences caused when two separates from the car body if the car by a collision, the truck attached to trains pass at the minimum separation rolls over, or whether the truck articulated equipment would become for two adjacent tracks, while traveling separates from the car body from being embedded between the two car bodies. in opposite directions, each train sheared off, the truck may become a In this case, it believed the truck is not traveling at the maximum authorized hazardous projectile in either case. FRA intended to serve as an anti-climbing speed. This requirement is also did state in the NPRM, ‘‘If the truck device, and that the train’s articulated intended to prevent the window from remains attached to the car body, the joints would instead provide protection being forced from the window frame, truck is less likely to be struck by [or against climbing. WDOT also raised this potentially injuring passengers and strike] other units of the train.’’ 62 FR point in its comments on the NPRM, crewmembers. FRA believes that most 49767. Having the truck remain attached and recommended that FRA work with existing passenger equipment subject to to the car body also allows the truck to Talgo to develop an appropriate part 223 meets these requirements. serve, in effect, as an anti-climbing alternative to the proposed rule for non- FRA did not receive any specific device to prevent one vehicle from conventional equipment. comments on this section. However, for overriding another in a collision. In this As noted, having the truck remain clarity, FRA has restated the regard, FRA stated in the NPRM, ‘‘With attached to the car body in a collision requirements proposed in § 238.221(b) the truck attached to the car body, the or derailment helps to prevent one and (c) in the NPRM, see 62 FR 49085, truck of an overriding vehicle is likely vehicle from overriding another vehicle as § 238.221(b) in this final rule. The to be caught by the underframe of the as the truck of the vehicle attempting focus in paragraph (b) in the final rule overridden vehicle, thus arresting the the override is caught on the is clearly on the ability of each exterior override.’’ Id. (Emphasis added.) underframe of the other vehicle. window to remain in place, however the However, insofar as FRA’s statement in Further, the opportunity of having the window may be secured, and not have the NPRM that the ‘‘Arequirement for truck of one vehicle caught on the the window become a potential the [truck-to-car-body] attachment to underframe of another vehicle in such a projectile itself. resist a horizontal force is intended to scenario should be less likely to occur Section 238.223 Fuel tanks allow the truck to act as an anti- in a collision involving single-axle climbing device during a collision’’ has articulated passenger rail cars than in This section contains the structural been understood to represent the only the case of non-articulated, requirements for external and internal intent of the horizontal loading conventional rail equipment. Yet, as fuel tanks on passenger locomotives resistance requirement, FRA makes FRA has made clear, the requirements of ordered on or after September 8, 2000, clear here that such an understanding of this section are principally intended to or placed in service for the first time on the requirement’s intent is too narrow. prevent a truck from separating from a or after September 9, 2002.External fuel FRA believes it appropriate to specify rail passenger vehicle. Trucks can and tanks must comply with the that a passenger rail vehicle’s truck-to- have separated from articulated rail performance requirements for car-body attachment must resist without equipment in a collision; and truck locomotive fuel tanks contained in failure a minimum force of 250,000 separation poses a direct threat to the Appendix D to this part, or an industry pounds acting in any horizontal safety of a passenger train’s occupants, standard providing at least an direction on the truck. This force may especially when the cars in which those equivalent level of safety if approved by be possessed by one rail vehicle passengers ride are structurally FRA’s Associate Administrator for (Vehicle A) as it collides with the truck vulnerable to penetration. As a result, Safety under § 238.21. The requirements of another rail vehicle (Vehicle B) in a the requirements of this section must in Appendix D are based on AAR collision. Vehicle A is able to possess apply to all passenger rail equipment- Recommended Practice-506, this force independent of the mass of whether articulated or not. Performance Requirements for Diesel Vehicle B’s truck—or, for that matter, Electric Locomotive Fuel tanks, as the mass of Vehicle B itself. Section 238.221 Glazing adopted on July 1, 1995. In the NPRM, Nonetheless, Vehicle B’s truck-to-car- This section contains additional FRA proposed incorporating the body-attachment must resist this force requirements concerning the safety requirements of AAR RP–506 directly so that its truck does not separate from glazing of passenger equipment subject into the rule. See 62 FR 49805. In its body. In this regard, FRA believes it to the requirements of 49 CFR part 223. preparing the final rule, however, FRA inappropriate to restate the horizontal Existing safety glazing requirements for determined that restating the force requirement in this section so that windows have largely proven effective requirements of RP–506 in Appendix D it is dependent on the mass of an in passenger service at speeds up to 125 would facilitate FRA’s administration of individual rail vehicle’s truck. FRA does mph. However, part 223 does not the external fuel tank performance note that it has related the mass of the address the performance of the frame requirement. RP–506 itself is not truck to the vertical force that the truck- which attaches the window glazing to specifically written as a regulatory

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25611 document, and one of its provisions on operational and performance passenger equipment, and the NPRM fueling does not appear to be a safety information is gained. reflected this advice. requirement. However, FRA does not Overall, FRA is requiring that all Section 238.225 Electrical System intend to make any substantive change passenger equipment shall exhibit from the requirements of RP–506, FRA did not receive any specific freedom from hunting oscillations at all except as noted in detail in the comments on this section, and it is speeds. Further, FRA is requiring discussion of Appendix D. adopted as proposed. This section particular suspension system safety FRA has included a definition of contains the requirements for the design requirements for passenger equipment external fuel tank in the final rule to of electrical systems on passenger operating at speeds above 110 mph but mean a fuel containment volume that equipment. In developing the proposed not exceeding 125 mph, near the extends outside the car body structure rule, the Working Group advised that no transition speed range from Tier I to of the locomotive. An external fuel tank single, well-recognized electrical code Tier II requirements. Although FRA is distinguished from an internal fuel or set of standards applied directly to believes that for speeds not exceeding tank, which is defined in the rule as a the design of railroad passenger 110 mph existing equipment has not fuel containment volume that does not equipment. As a result, the Working demonstrated serious suspension extend outside the car body structure of Group recommended broad performance system stability problems, most of this the locomotive. As a result, a fuel tank requirements which reflect common same equipment is only operated at that is built into the car body structure electrical safety practice and are widely speeds that do not exceed 110 mph. but is exposed in any way to the outside recognized as good electrical design Accordingly, when new or existing is considered an external fuel tank practice. FRA had offered for comment passenger equipment is intended for under the rule. more detailed electrical system design operation above 110 mph, this FRA has changed the title of requirements in the ANPRM, but as equipment must demonstrate stable paragraph (b) in the NPRM from Integral advocated by the Working Group the operation during pre-revenue service fuel tanks to Internal fuel tanks, NPRM’s approach was more qualification tests at all speeds up to 5 reflecting the clarification in the performance-oriented and provided mph in excess of its maximum intended definitions. This change is consistent wide latitude in equipment design. FRA operating speed under worst-case with FRA’s intent that, for purposes of believes that this approach helps to conditions—including component the rule, locomotive fuel tanks must ensure good electrical design practice wear—as determined by the operating railroad. The Working Group advised comply with one of two standards, without imposing unnecessary costs on FRA that a single definition of worst- depending upon the exposure of the fuel the industry. case conditions could not be applied tank outside the car body structure. FRA The electrical system requirements generally to all railroads; and, as a has dispensed with the term ‘‘integral’’ include provisions for: result, the definition of worst-case fuel tank—i.e., a fuel tank that is • Electrical conductor sizes and conditions shall be determined by each essentially integrated with a structural properties to provide a margin of safety railroad based upon its particular member of the locomotive not designed for the intended application; • Battery system design to prevent the operating environment. as a fuel container—because, depending FRA has revised paragraph (a) based risk of overcharging or accumulation of on its placement, an integral fuel tank on a comment from Talgo by defining dangerous gases that can cause an either may or may not be exposed hunting oscillations in the rule text outside the locomotive car body explosion; • directly, and removing the definition of structure. Design of resistor grids that hunting oscillations from § 238.5. In commenting on the NPRM, dissipate energy produced by dynamic Further, FRA has clarified the intent of Bombardier noted that the requirements braking with sufficient electrical paragraph (a) that passenger equipment proposed in this section have not been isolation and ventilation to minimize shall exhibit freedom from hunting applied by the industry to diesel the risk of fires; and • oscillations at all ‘‘operating’’ speeds, by multiple-unit locomotives (DMUs). Electromagnetic compatibility inserting the word ‘‘operating’’ as Bombardier believed that the need and within the intended operating recommended by Bombardier in its feasibility of applying these standards to environment to prevent electromagnetic comments on the rule. FRA has made a DMUs must be evaluated specially interference with safety-critical similar clarification in paragraph (b). because DMUs have much smaller equipment systems and to prevent AAPRCO, in its comments on the enclosed and protected fuel tanks than interference of the rolling stock with NPRM, stated that ‘‘hunting’’ is a those found on conventional North other systems along the rail right-of- dynamic resonance phenomenon in American locomotives. Accordingly, way. which factors as diverse as car body Bombardier recommended that FRA Electrical standards currently under characteristics, truck characteristics, defer applying the requirements of this development by an APTA PRESS Task suspension conditions, wheel tread section to DMUs, until specific Force will help give effect to these contours and multiple rail alignment, requirements for DMUs are developed. requirements and supplement them as profile, and lubrication conditions all Having considered Bombardier’s appropriate. interact to produce a condition in which comment, FRA does not recommend the truck oscillates back and forth separately addressing requirements for Section 238.227 Suspension System rapidly as the train moves down the DMU locomotives at this time. FRA has This section contains the track. AAPRCO recognizes that hunting not been provided the operational or requirements for suspension system may be dangerous because high forces performance information necessary for performance of all Tier I passenger can be generated between the wheels an in-depth evaluation of DMU fuel equipment. In the ANPRM, FRA and the rails. However, according to tanks, and only a limited number of presented for comment a large set of AAPRCO, because complex interactions DMUs presently operate within the U.S. detailed suspension system performance of many factors lead to hunting, there is FRA will further consider formulating requirements. The Working Group no straightforward way for a car owner separate requirements for DMU fuel advised that such an extensive set of or railroad carrier to determine ahead of tanks in Phase II of the rulemaking, as requirements was not needed for Tier I time whether hunting will occur

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:00 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12MYR2 25612 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations without extensive, dynamic testing at for any train brake system. This section effective brake system performance, and operating speed and often on the merely codifies a requirement which is a codification of current industry particular track in question. AAPRCO current industry practice and is the practice. FRA intends the requirement believed that all cars which exhibit basis for safe train operation in the to apply to all types of brake control hunting when in service should be fixed United States. signals, including pneumatic, electric, at the first opportunity. Yet, AAPRCO Paragraph (b) requires that passenger and radio signals. recommended deleting from the rule the equipment ordered on or after Paragraph (e) prohibits the requirement that passenger equipment September 8, 2000, or placed in service introduction of alcohol or other exhibit freedom from hunting for the first time on or after September chemicals into the brake line. During oscillations at all speeds for lack of a 9, 2002 be designed not to require an periods of extreme cold weather, practical, predictive method to inspector to place himself or herself on, railroad employees at times resort to determine whether an individual car under, or between components of the adding alcohol or other freezing point meets this requirement. equipment to observe brake actuation or depressants to the brake line in an FRA agrees with AAPRCO’s release. The requirement allows attempt to prevent accumulated comments to the extent that the onset of railroads the flexibility of using a moisture in the line from freezing. truck hunting cannot always be reliable indicator in place of requiring Virtually every railroad has a policy predicted. However, railroads should direct observation of the brake against this practice because alcohol not use equipment that they know has application or piston travel, because the and other chemicals attack the o-rings a hunting problem; and FRA is retaining current designs of many passenger car and gaskets that seal the brake system, the proposed requirement in the final brake systems make direct observation causing them to age or fail prematurely. rule. FRA has added AAPRCO’s extremely difficult without the This practice can lead to dangerous air suggestion that if hunting oscillations inspector placing himself or herself leaks and it increases maintenance do occur, a railroad shall take underneath the equipment. Brake costs. immediate action (such as a reduction system piston travel or piston cylinder Paragraph (f) requires that the brake in speed and subsequent attention to pressure indicators have been used with system be designed and operated to wheel contours) to prevent derailment. satisfactory results for many years. FRA prevent dangerous cracks in wheels. FRA does note that private rail cars are recognizes the concerns raised by Passenger equipment wheels are typically heavy rail cars and, therefore, certain labor representatives regarding normally heat treated so that the wheel less likely to hunt than lighter rail cars. the use of piston travel indicators, and rim is in compression. This condition FRA has added paragraph (c) to this although such indicators do not provide forces small cracks that form in the rim section to make clear that the 100 percent certainty that the brakes are to be closed. Heavy tread braking can requirements of 49 C.F.R. part 213 effective, FRA believes that they have heat wheels to the point that a stress concerning vehicle/track interaction proven themselves effective enough to reversal occurs and the wheel rim is in apply by their own force to passenger be preferable to requiring an inspector tension to a certain depth. Rim tension equipment, notwithstanding any to assume a dangerous position. is a dangerous condition because it provision of this section. The Paragraph (c) requires that an promotes surface crack growth. In the requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 213.345 are emergency brake application feature be 1994 NPRM on power brakes, FRA more detailed than those that are available at any time and that it produce proposed a wheel surface temperature contained in this section, and apply as an irretrievable stop. This section limit to prevent this condition. See 59 specified in that section to the merely codifies current industry FR 47729. Several brake manufacturers qualification of the vehicle/track system practice and ensures that passenger and railroads objected to this approach, for track Classes 6 through 9 for equipment will continue to be designed claiming that the temperature limit was passenger equipment operating above 90 with an emergency brake application too conservative and did not allow for mph (and freight equipment operating feature. This provision recognizes the the development of new materials that above 80 mph). reality that most passenger brake can withstand higher temperatures. equipment currently provides a Based on these comments and concerns, Section 239.229 Safety appliances deceleration rate with a full service FRA proposed in the 1997 NPRM and is This section references current safety application that is close to the retaining a more flexible performance appliance requirements contained in 49 emergency brake rate. The current requirement rather than a wheel tread U.S.C. chapter 203 and 49 CFR part 231. design requirement contained in 49 CFR surface temperature limit. This is an These existing requirements continue to Part 232, Appendix B, requiring the extremely important safety requirement apply independently to all Tier I emergency application feature increase because a cracked wheel that fails at passenger equipment, and FRA is a train’s deceleration rate by 15 percent, high speed can have catastrophic referencing them here for clarity. would require the lowering of full consequences. In addition to the safety service brake rates on passenger concerns, FRA believes that this Section 238.231 Brake system equipment, thereby compromising requirement will lead to longer wheel This section contains general brake safety and lowering train speeds. life, and thus should provide system performance requirements that Consequently, FRA will not require a maintenance savings to the railroads. apply on or after September 9, 1999 to specific deceleration rate that must be Paragraph (g) requires that brake discs Tier I passenger equipment except as obtained through an emergency brake be designed and operated so that the otherwise provided. Paragraph (a) application. disc surface temperature does not contains a requirement that the primary Paragraph (d) requires that the train exceed manufacturer recommendations. braking system be capable of stopping brake system respond as intended to In the 1994 NPRM, FRA proposed a disc the train with a service application of brake control signals and that the brake surface temperature limit. See 59 FR the brakes from its maximum authorized control system be designed so that a loss 47729. As noted above, several brake operating speed within the signal of control signal causes a redundant manufacturers and railroads objected to spacing existing on the track. FRA control to take over or cause the brakes this approach, claiming that the believes that this requirement is the to apply. These provisions are temperature limit was too conservative most fundamental performance standard fundamental requirements necessary for and did not allow for the development

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25613 of new materials that can withstand locomotives generally transport operation, there is not an independent higher temperatures. Based on these members of the general public, similar dynamic brake: The dynamic brake and comments and concerns, FRA proposed to passenger coaches, the necessity to the pneumatic brake systems are in the 1997 NPRM and is retaining a apply the hand brake while the car is in automatically blended without separate more flexible requirement rather than a motion becomes critical for passenger action being taken by the locomotive single disc surface temperature limit. safety. Therefore, FRA believes that MU engineer. Thus, the undue reliance on FRA believes this requirement will lead locomotives should be equipped with a the dynamic brake is not a major to longer disc life, and thus will hand brake which meets the design concern when blended braking systems produce maintenance savings to requirements contained in part 231 are utilized. In addition, the provisions railroads. regarding passenger cars. contained in this paragraph ensure that Paragraph (h) contains the This paragraph contains the blended brake systems are designed so requirements related to hand brakes and requirement that the hand brake or that failure of the dynamic portion of parking brakes on passenger equipment. parking brake hold the loaded unit on the blended braking system does not A hand or parking brake is an important the maximum grade anticipated by the impact the safe operation and stopping safety feature that prevents the rolling or operating railroad. FRA makes clear that of the train. Furthermore, as part of the runaway of parked equipment. In the the term ‘‘loaded unit’’ refers to the exterior calendar day mechanical 1997 NPRM, FRA proposed an all maximum weight and capacity that the inspection railroads are required to encompassing requirement that all unit will carry during its operation. verify that all secondary braking locomotives, except those ordered and Thus, such things as maximum fuel systems are in operating mode and do placed in service before certain dates, capacity, maximum passenger capacity, not have any known defects. See and all other passenger equipment be maximum train crew capacity, and the § 238.303(e)(15). Consequently, the provided with a hand or parking brake maximum weight of any lading that the railroad must verify that the dynamic that could be set and released manually locomotive or other unit will carry brakes are in operating mode and do not and could hold the equipment on the should be considered in determining the contain any known defects and take maximum grade anticipated by the holding ability of any hand or parking prescribed action whenever the operating railroad. Based on the brake utilized. dynamic brakes are found to be concerns of labor representatives, FRA Paragraph (i) contains the requirement inoperative prior to releasing a recognizes that this proposed provision that passenger cars be equipped with a locomotive from an exterior calendar is somewhat at odds with the hand means for the emergency brake to be day mechanical inspection. brake provisions currently contained in applied that is clearly identified and Paragraph (k) requires that either 49 CFR part 231, particularly the accessible to passengers. This is a computer modeling or dynamometer requirements that the hand brake be longstanding industry practice and an tests be performed to confirm that new able to be operated while the equipment important safety feature because crucial brake designs not result in thermal is in motion and that the hand brake time may be lost requiring passengers damage to wheels or discs. Further, if operate in harmony with the brake sensing danger to find a member of the the operating parameters of the new system. As it is FRA’s intent to remain train crew to stop the train. braking system change significantly, a consistent with the existing safety Paragraph (j) contains provisions to new simulation must be performed. appliance requirements for Tier I ensure that the dynamic brake does not This requirement provides a means to passenger equipment, FRA has slightly become a safety-critical device. ensure that the requirements in modified the provisions requiring hand Railroads have consistently held that paragraphs (f) and (g) are being or parking brakes on passenger dynamic brakes are not safety devices complied with by new brake designs. equipment. because the friction brake alone is Paragraph (l) requires that all FRA is retaining the requirement for capable of safely stopping a train if the locomotives ordered on or after equipping locomotives, except for MU dynamic brake is not available. The September 8, 2000, or placed in service locomotives, with either a hand brake or provisions in this paragraph include for the first time on or after September a parking brake that can be set and requiring that the blending of the 9, 2002, be equipped with effective air released manually and can hold the friction and dynamic brakes be coolers or air dryers if equipped with air equipment on the maximum grade automatic, that the friction brakes alone compressors. The coolers or dryers must anticipated by the operating railroad. As be able to stop the train in the allowable be capable of providing air to the main there are currently no requirements for stopping distance, and that a failure of reservoir with a dew point suppression equipping locomotives with hand the dynamic brake does not cause at least 10 degrees F. below ambient brakes, FRA will permit the use of a thermal damage to wheels or discs due temperature. FRA and most members in parking brake or hand brake which to the greater friction braking load. FRA the industry agree that moisture is a meets the above specifications on these believes that without these requirements major cause of brake line contamination. vehicles. However, for all other the dynamic brake would most likely Consequently, reducing moisture leads passenger equipment and for MU become a safety-critical item and to longer component life and better locomotives, FRA is requiring that they railroads would not be permitted to brake system performance. Currently, be equipped with a hand brake or dispatch trains unless the dynamic virtually all passenger railroads parking brake which meets the brake were fully operational. purchase only locomotives equipped requirements contained in 49 CFR part Although FRA recognizes the with air dryers or coolers. Therefore, 231 regarding hand brakes on passenger concerns of labor representatives that FRA is merely requiring the cars. Although part 231 does not dynamic brakes are safety critical and continuation of what it believes is good currently require hand brakes on MU should be required to work at all times, industry practice. Although labor locomotives, FRA is requiring that the FRA believes that in the context of representatives contend that a dew hand brake required to be installed on blended braking labor’s concerns are point suppression of 10 degrees below these locomotives under this paragraph somewhat misplaced and are adequately ambient temperature is insufficient to comply with the requirements addressed by various provisions prevent condensation in the train line, contained in part 231 for other contained in this final rule. In the these commenters provided no support passenger equipment. As these blended brake context, unlike freight for that contention other than the

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25614 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations assertion that prior specifications called Due to the injuries caused by broken rule by relating it more directly to how for a 35 degree dew point suppression. seats and other loose fixtures, FRA the rule is applied and allow for Based on available information, FRA believes that the current design practice different seat pitches. Seat pitches are believes that a 10 degree dew point is inadequate. expected to reflect actual use of the suppression is adequate. Without Paragraph (a)(1) requires that each seats and be less than that assumed by further study into the issue, FRA is seat in a passenger car remain firmly FRA. Consequently, secondary impact reluctant to impose a more burdensome attached to the car body when subjected speeds of occupants striking the standard than that which was proposed. to individually applied accelerations of seatbacks ahead of them are expected to This issue may be further considered in 4g in the lateral direction and 4g in the be 25 mph or less—a marginally less the second phase of this passenger upward vertical direction acting on the severe test condition than that provided equipment rulemaking process. deadweight of the seat or seats, if held for in the NPRM. Paragraph (m) requires that when a in tandem. Based on a comment from The revision to this paragraph is train is operated in either direct or Simula in response to the NPRM, FRA based in part on comments from Simula graduated release, the railroad shall has clarified this requirement from that that the rule require the seat to resist a ensure that all cars in the train consist proposed in the NPRM by specifying dynamic crash pulse, which it believed are set-up in the same operating mode. that the vertical loading is in the to be triangular with a 250 millisecond This provision was added based upon ‘‘upward’’ direction. Paragraph (a)(2) duration and an 8g peak, plus the the concerns of several labor specifies that a seat attachment shall impact of representative unrestrained commenters regarding trains operated have an ultimate strength capable of occupants seated in a second row by Amtrak which contain a mixture of resisting the longitudinal inertial force directly behind the test article. Simula traditional passenger equipment and of 8g acting on the mass of the seat plus noted that including a dynamic crash freight-like equipment. Most passenger the load associated with the impact into pulse in the longitudinal direction trains are operated in what is known as the seat back of an unrestrained 95th- (parallel to the normal direction of train a graduated release mode, whereby percentile adult male initially seated travel) provides a simulation of a typical brake cylinder pressure may be reduced behind the seat back, when the floor train-to-train collision in which the seat in steps proportional to increments of decelerates with a triangular crash pulse would be involved. According to brake pipe pressure build-up; however, having a peak of 8g and a duration of Simula, a dynamic crash pulse is more when passenger trains operated by 250 milliseconds (msec). By resisting representative of the crash environment Amtrak contain certain freight-like the force of an occupant striking the seat than the shock pulse defined by a peak equipment the train is operated in a from behind, a potential domino effect acceleration only. Simula explained that direct release mode, whereby brake of seats breaking away from their the crash pulse is typically specified for cylinder pressure is completely attachments is avoided. As used in this seat testing in the aircraft and exhausted as a result of an increase in section, a 95th-percentile adult male has automotive industries. Specifying a brake pipe pressure. As these two been defined in § 238.5 of the final rule crash pulse in essence specifies the different types of operating modes are based on the same characteristics for operation of the test equipment. FRA now being utilized on passenger trains, such a vehicle occupant specified by the notes that the seat testing proposed in FRA agrees it is necessary to require a National Highway Traffic Safety the NPRM (and required in the final railroad to ensure that all the cars in the Administration (NHTSA) in its motor rule) is similar to such testing train are set-up in the same operating vehicle safety standards at 49 CFR performed in the aircraft and mode in order to prevent potential train § 571.208, S7.1.4. At the January 1998 automotive industries, and FRA expects handling problems. Working Group meeting, the NTSB had that the actual testing of rail equipment recommended use of the NHTSA will utilize the same test equipment as Section 238.233 Interior Fittings and specifications for purposes of the rule’s used in these other industries. FRA has, Surfaces occupant protection requirements. therefore, specified a crash pulse in this This section contains the The requirement contained in paragraph. requirements concerning interior fittings paragraph (a)(2) represents a FRA notes that at the Working Group and surfaces that apply, as specified in modification from FRA’s original meeting in December 1997, APTA this section, to passenger cars and proposal that the seat attachment resist explained that it could not agree then to locomotives ordered on or after a longitudinal inertial force of 8g acting change any of the proposed seat testing September 8, 2000, or placed in service on the mass of the seat plus the impact requirements, and that it was for the first time on or after September force of the mass of a 95th-percentile conducting research in these matters. 9, 2002. male occupant(s) being decelerated from However, FRA does not believe the FRA and NTSB investigations of a relative speed of 25 mph and striking inclusion of a crash pulse in this passenger train accidents have revealed the seat from behind. See 62 FR 49806. paragraph and elimination of the 25 that luggage, seats, and other interior The impact speed at which the occupant mph impact speed to significantly alter objects breaking or coming loose is a strikes the seatback ahead of him during the required strength of the seats from frequent cause of injury to passengers a collision depends on the distance from that proposed in the NPRM. In fact, the and crewmembers. During a collision, the occupant to the seatback and the original proposal was potentially more the greatest decelerations and thus the deceleration of the car (the crash pulse) rigorous than that required under this greatest forces to cause potential failure during the collision. In drafting the rule, final rule. of interior fitting attachment points are FRA has assumed a seat pitch, or Simula additionally commented that experienced in the longitudinal distance from the occupant to the each crash test dummy used to impact direction, i.e., in the direction parallel to seatback ahead of him, consistent with the seat back in testing the strength of the normal direction of train travel. the longest seat pitch currently used in the seat must be instrumented, and that Current practice is to design seats and intercity passenger train service. As a the injury data gathered from each other interior fittings to withstand the result, the final rule specifies the crash dummy then meet specified injury forces due to accelerations of 6g in the pulse and its duration, and need not criteria. Simula explained that, like longitudinal direction, 3g in the vertical specify the secondary impact velocity. automotive and transport aircraft direction, and 3g in the lateral direction. This change is intended to clarify the testing, rail seat design requirements

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25615 should include the use of crash test not believe that a railroad should be instead suggested substituting the words dummies to measure specified loads allowed to specify the mass of the ‘‘car-mounted seat.’’ Simula expressed and accelerations for meeting specified luggage stowed for purposes of this concern that railroads may use wall- injury criteria. FRA believes that requirement. However, each railroad is mounted seats for crewmembers that do Simula’s comment is significant and in the best position to determine the not comply with these requirements. wholly appropriate for consideration in mass of the luggage that can be stowed Yet, as noted below in the discussion of the second phase of rulemaking on in the stowage area. § 238.445(g) (this provision’s Tier II passenger equipment safety standards. Paragraph (c) requires that all other counterpart), Bombardier observed that In this regard, FRA notes that Simula interior fittings in a passenger car be an additional seat—commonly a flip-up references in its comments on proposed attached to the car body with sufficient or a shelf-type seat—is in many cases § 238.435 (the Tier II counterpart to this strength to withstand individually provided in the cab for a train section) the use of a future APTA applied accelerations of 8g crewmember who is not normally in the standard to specify occupant injury longitudinally, 4g vertically, and 4g cab. Bombardier believed these seats criteria and other parameters. laterally acting on the mass of the should not be subjected to the same Accordingly, resolution of this issue in fitting. FRA believes the attachment requirements as for the train operators’ the second phase of the rulemaking strength requirements for seats, seats. should benefit from APTA’s efforts in overhead storage racks, and other FRA has revised paragraph (f) so that this area. interior fittings will help reduce the the requirements of this provision apply In its comments on the NPRM, Simula number of injuries to occupants in to floor-mounted seats and each seat also suggested modifying the rule so passenger cars. provided for a crewmember regularly that the requirements of paragraph (a) Passenger car occupants may also be assigned to the locomotive cab. FRA apply to each seat assembly and specify injured by protruding objects, especially recognizes that flip-down and other that each seat assembly not separate if the occupants fall or are thrown auxiliary seats are provided in from its mountings or have any of its against such objects during a train locomotive cabs for the temporary use of parts detach. FRA believes that Simula’s collision or derailment. As a result, FRA employees not regularly assigned to the suggested modification restates the is requiring in paragraph (d) that, to the cab, such as a supervisor of locomotive requirements of this section, in effect, extent possible, all interior fittings in a engineers conducting an operational and FRA does not find it necessary to passenger car, except seats, shall be monitoring test of the engineer. These change the explicit wording of the rule recessed or flush-mounted. Fittings that seats do not need to meet the text. Simula further recommended are recessed or flush-mounted do not requirements of this section. specifying in the rule that in sled testing protrude above interior surfaces and In further commenting on this the strength of the seat attachment to the thereby would help to minimize paragraph, Simula recommended car, the attachment that is tested must occupant injuries. specifying that the seat resist a be representative of the actual structure Paragraph (e) is a general, common triangular crash pulse of a 250 msec and attachment. FRA agrees with sense prohibition against sharp edges duration having an 8g peak. However, Simula that testing a seat and its and corners in a locomotive cab and a FRA believes that the static 8g load attachment of a design or structure not passenger car. Just as FRA is concerned requirement proposed in the NPRM is a representative of that actually used in a about protruding objects, these surfaces rational option, and has retained it in passenger car would necessarily fail to could also injure passenger train the final rule. As train operators’ seats demonstrate that the actual seat and its occupants. If sharp edges and corners are not likely to be hit from behind, they attachment comply with the cannot be avoided in the equipment are not likely to experience the impact requirements of the rule. FRA has made design, they should be padded to forces that passenger seats experience. this explicit in paragraph (g). Of course, mitigate the consequences of occupant Adopting Simula’s comment would any tests of passenger equipment or impacts. result in a more expensive test without components of a design or structure not The requirements of paragraph (f) a corresponding increase in safety. representative of an actual rail vehicle apply to each floor-mounted seat in a Simula additionally commented that, or actual components subject to the locomotive cab as well as to any seat in conducting a test of the seat, the requirements of this part would provided for an employee regularly attachment of the seat to the sled fixture necessarily fail to demonstrate that such assigned to occupy the cab. FRA is must be representative of the actual actual vehicle or components comply requiring the seat attachment to have an structure and attachment. FRA has with the requirements of this part— ultimate strength capable of resisting the adopted this comment, as noted above, whether or not FRA has made this loads due to individually applied in paragraph (g). Testing a seat and its explicit in the rule text. accelerations of 8g longitudinally, 4g attachment of a design or structure not Paragraph (b) requires that overhead vertically, and 4g laterally acting on the representative of that actually used in a storage racks provide longitudinal and combined mass of the seat and its locomotive cab would necessarily fail to lateral restraint for stowed articles to occupant. When turned backwards demonstrate that the actual seat and its minimize the potential for these objects during a collision, seats with head rests attachment comply with the to come loose and injure train that are designed to this requirement requirements of the rule. occupants. Further, to prevent overhead can effectively restrain crewmembers storage racks from breaking away from and minimize or prevent injuries. Section 238.235 Doors their attachment points to the car body, In the NPRM, FRA had proposed that This section contains the these racks shall have an ultimate the requirements of this section apply to requirements for exterior doors on strength capable of resisting each floor-mounted seat provided passenger cars. These doors are the individually applied accelerations of 8g exclusively for a crewmember assigned primary means of egress from a longitudinally, 4g vertically, and 4g to occupy the cab of a locomotive. See passenger train. laterally acting on the mass of the 62 FR 49806. Simula, in its comments Paragraph (a) requires that by luggage stowed. This mass shall be on the NPRM, recommended that the December 31, 1999, each powered, specified by each railroad. In requirements of this section not be exterior side door in a vestibule that is commenting on the NPRM, the BRC did limited to floor-mounted seats and partitioned from the passenger

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25616 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations compartment of a passenger car shall cars with the manual override feature is use of a deadman control alone on these have a manual override device that is: too long. new locomotives would be prohibited. capable of releasing the door to permit Having considered the comments An alerter will initiate a penalty brake it to be opened without power from submitted, FRA has decided to require application if it does not receive the inside the car; located adjacent to the that compliance with this section be proper response from the engineer. door which it controls; and designed effected by December 31, 1999. FRA Likewise, a deadman control will and maintained so that a person may understands that a majority of the initiate a penalty brake application if readily access and operate the override passenger cars are already in the engineer fails to maintain proper device from inside the car without compliance with the rule as proposed. contact with the device. The Working requiring the use of a tool or other FRA recognizes that some entities may Group discussed establishing specific implement. Passenger cars subject to not be able to accomplish the total setting requirements for alerters or this requirement that are not already retrofit within the required time, to the deadman controls based on maximum equipped with such manual override extent their budget and acquisition train speed and the capabilities of the devices must be retrofitted accordingly. process can only commence once the signal system. This discussion led to the FRA notes that a vestibule is not rule becomes final. However, these are conclusion that settings should be left to partitioned from the passenger self-imposed constraints that should not the discretion of individual railroads as compartment of a passenger car solely arrest progress in the industry as a long as they document the basis for the by the presence of any windscreen whole. Any entity faced with such settings that they select. If the device which extends no more than one-quarter constraints should seek a waiver. fails en route, the rule requires a second of the width across the car from the wall Paragraph (b) also provides that each person qualified on the signal system to which it is attached. powered, exterior side door have a and brake application procedures to be The requirements in paragraph (a) manual override feature the same as that stationed in the cab or the engineer originally arose from the NTSB’s required in paragraph (a) for existing must be in constant radio emergency safety recommendations (R– equipment, except that the manual communication with a second 96–7) as part of its investigation of the override must also be capable of crewmember until the train reaches the passenger train collision in Silver opening the door from outside the car. next terminal. This is intended to allow Spring, Maryland, on February 16, 1996. This requirement is intended to provide the train to complete its trip with the In the NPRM, FRA fully set out these quick access to a passenger car by device’s function of keeping the emergency safety recommendations and emergency response personnel, and operator alert taken over by another FRA’s response. See 62 FR 49734–5. As represents the consensus member of the crew. announced following its full recommendation of the Working Group. Alerters are safety devices intended to investigation of the Silver Spring, Paragraph (b) applies to each such door verify that the engineer remains capable Maryland passenger train collision, and on a passenger car ordered on or after and vigilant to accomplish the tasks that stated here in particular among its final September 8, 2000, or placed in service he or she must perform. Equipping recommendations, the NTSB for the first time on or after September passenger locomotives with an alerter is recommended that FRA: 9, 2002. Paragraph (b)’s requirements for current industry practice. These devices Require all passenger cars to have easily a minimum number and dimension of have proven themselves in service, and accessible interior emergency quick-release side doors on a passenger car is the requirement will not impose an mechanisms adjacent to exterior passageway discussed earlier in the preamble. additional cost on the industry. doors and take appropriate emergency action Paragraph (c) permits a railroad to In the final rule, FRA has clarified the to ensure corrective action until these protect a manul override device with a procedures a railroad must follow if the measures are incorporated into minimum cover or screen to safeguard such alerter or deadman control fails en passenger car safety standards. devices from casual or inadvertent use. route. In addition to the requirements of (R–97–14) (See NTSB/RAR–97/02) The rule requires that such cover and paragraph (d)(1), under paragraph FRA received a number of comments screens be capable of being removed by (d)(2)(i) a tag shall be prominently as to the date by which passenger cars passengers, however. displayed in the locomotive cab to must be equipped with manual Paragraph (d) is reserved for door indicate that the alerter or deadman overrides to open exterior, side doors as marking and operating instruction control is defective, until such device is specified in this section. In its requirements. These requirements are repaired. Further, under paragraph comments on the NPRM, Septa asked addressed in the final rule on passenger (d)(2)(ii), when the train reaches its next that the date be set three years after the train emergency preparedness (49 CFR terminal or the locomotive undergoes its effective date of the final rule, citing part 239), specifically § 239.107. See 63 next calender day inspection, whichever funding reasons. Metra commented that FR 24630; May 4, 1998. occurs first, the alerter or deadman the date be set four to six years from the control shall be repaired or the Section 238.237 Automated effective date of the final rule. FRA locomotive shall be removed as the Monitoring notes that this comment may have been controlling locomotive in the train. based on the assumption that the rule This section requires on or after Subpart D—Inspection, Testing, and requires manual override devices to be November 8, 1999 an operational alerter Maintenance Requirements of Tier I installed on the exterior of existing or a deadman control in the controlling Passenger Equipment passenger cars, which this section does locomotive of each passenger train not. The UTU commented that the operating in other than cab signal, Section 238.301 Scope proposal in the NPRM afforded railroads automatic train control, or automatic This subpart contains the more than enough time to comply with train stop territory. This section further requirements regarding the inspection, the requirement, considering their requires that such locomotives ordered testing, and maintenance of all types of advance notice of this issue. Finally, in on or after September 8, 2000, or placed passenger equipment operating at its comments on the NPRM, the NTSB in service for the first time on or after speeds of 125 mph or less. This subpart stated that a two-year period to September 9, 2002, must be equipped is intended to address both MU accomplish the equipping of passenger with a working alerter. As a result, the locomotives and push-pull equipment.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25617

This subpart includes the requirements moved some of the exterior mechanical braking systems such as dynamic for the inspection, testing, and inspection requirements related to brakes. Thus, in order to effectuate maintenance of Tier I passenger couplers and trucks to the periodic FRA’s intent that these secondary equipment brake systems as well as the mechanical inspection requirements as braking systems be inspected, paragraph other mechanical and electrical safety these periodic inspections will likely be (e)(15) has been modified to clarify that components of Tier I passenger performed at locations with facilities it is applicable to all passenger equipment. available that are more conducive to equipment, which includes all locomotives. Consequently, FRA Section 238.303 Exterior Calendar Day inspecting the specific components. The intends for the secondary braking Mechanical Inspection of Passenger specific items which have been moved systems on all locomotives to be Equipment to the periodic mechanical inspection requirements include: all trucks are inspected and that it be known that This section contains the equipped with a device or securing those systems are in operating mode and requirements for performing exterior arrangement to prevent the truck and do not contain any known defects. calendar day mechanical inspections on car body from separating in case of Paragraph (b) is also a new provision passenger equipment and is patterned derailment; all center castings on trucks being added to this final rule in order after a combination of the current are not cracked or broken; the distance to address the inspections of vehicles calendar day inspection required for between the guard arm and the knuckle that are added to a passenger train while locomotives under the Railroad nose is not more than 51⁄8 inches on en route. FRA is modifying the Class I Locomotive Safety Standards and the standard type couplers (MCB contour brake test and exterior calendar day pre-departure inspection for freight cars 1904) or more than 55⁄16 inches on D&E mechanical inspection requirements to under the Railroad Freight Car Safety couplers; the free slack in the coupler or ensure the proper operation of all cars Standards. See 49 CFR 229.21 and drawbar not absorbed by friction added to a train while en route. In 215.13, respectively. FRA intends for devices or draft gears is not more than paragraph (b) FRA is requiring the the exterior calendar day mechanical 1⁄2 inch; and the draft gear is not broken. performance of an exterior mechanical inspection to generally apply to all The changes made in this final rule inspection on each car added to a passenger cars and all unpowered were discussed with the Working Group passenger train at the time it is added vehicles used in passenger trains (which at the December 15–16, 1997 meeting. to the train unless documentation is includes, e.g., not only coaches, MU provided to the train crew that an locomotives, and cab cars but also any Paragraph (a) requires that each exterior mechanical inspection was other rail rolling equipment used in a passenger car and each unpowered performed on the car within the passenger train). However, paragraph (a) vehicle used in a passenger train receive previous calendar day. FRA is adding has been slightly modified to clarify that an exterior mechanical safety inspection this requirement in order to address the an inspection of secondary braking at least once each calendar day that the concerns raised by various labor systems must be conducted on all equipment is placed in service except representatives that no provisions were passenger equipment, which includes under the circumstances described in provided in the 1997 NPRM to address all locomotives. A mechanical safety paragraph (f). As noted above, this circumstances when cars are added to inspection of freight cars has been a paragraph also recognizes that the an en route train. FRA believes that the longstanding Federal safety requirement contained in paragraph added provision will ensure the requirement, and FRA believes that the (e)(15) that all secondary braking integrity of the mechanical components lack of a similar requirement for systems on all passenger equipment are on every car added to an existing train passenger equipment creates a serious in operating mode and do not have any and should not be a burden for railroads void in the current Federal railroad known defects. FRA has amended this since cars are generally added to safety standards. requirement from that proposed in the passenger trains at major terminals with As noted in the general preamble 1997 NPRM, which proposed to require the facilities and personnel available for discussion, FRA has made minor that all secondary braking systems be conducting such inspections. changes and clarifications to the exterior working (62 FR 49808), in order to Furthermore, the inspection calendar day mechanical inspection that acknowledge that it is impossible to requirements contained in this was proposed in the 1997 NPRM. In ascertain whether some secondary paragraph are very similar to what is paragraph (d) of this final rule, FRA is braking systems, such as dynamic currently required when a freight car is explicitly stating that the exterior brakes, are working unless the added to a train while en route. See 49 mechanical inspection is to be equipment is in use. Thus, FRA has CFR § 215.13. performed to the extent possible modified the language of the Paragraph (c) requires that exterior without uncoupling the trainset and requirement to ensure that all secondary calendar day mechanical inspections be without placing the equipment over a braking systems are capable of working performed by a qualified maintenance pit or on an elevated track. This explicit when released from the exterior person. FRA believes the combination of statement has been added in response to mechanical inspection. Paragraph (a) a daily Class I brake test and a APTA’s concerns regarding what would and paragraph (e)(15) have also been mechanical safety inspection performed constitute proper performance of these modified to accurately reflect FRA’s by highly qualified personnel is a key to inspections. It was never FRA’s intent to intent to ensure that all secondary safer passenger railroad operations. require this inspection to be conducted braking systems are inspected. The Such a practice will most likely detect in such a manner. FRA intended the requirements for an exterior calendar and correct equipment problems before inspection to be very similar to the day mechanical inspection are generally they become the source of an accident freight car safety inspection currently applicable only to passenger cars and or incident resulting in personal injuries required pursuant to part 215. other unpowered vehicles used in a or damage to property. As noted in FRA also recognizes that certain items passenger trains. Thus, except for MU previous discussions, FRA does not contained in the proposed exterior locomotives and cab cars, other intend to provide any special provisions mechanical inspection could not have locomotives would not fall within the for weekend operations with regard to been easily inspected without proper requirements of this section. However, conducting calendar day mechanical shop facilities. Therefore, FRA has many locomotives contain secondary inspections by QMPs as suggested in the

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25618 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations comments submitted by some APTA makes the passenger car or unpowered without dynamic brakes and representatives. The rationale for vehicle defective if it is in service. The compensating train control practices are requiring daily mechanical attention by Working Group members generally not used. In developing the highly qualified inspectors, a agreed that the components contained requirements for handling defective proposition generally accepted by in this section represent valid safety- dynamic brakes, FRA has generally Working Group members, appears to related components that should be incorporated the current best practices apply equally to weekend periods. In frequently inspected by railroads. of the industry. fact, based on FRA’s experience, However, members of the Working This paragraph draws a distinction equipment used on weekends is Group had widely differing opinions between dynamic brakes on MU generally used more rigorously than regarding the criteria to be used to locomotives and dynamic brakes on equipment used during weekday inspect these components. FRA selected conventional locomotives, treating each operations. and has retained inspection criteria slightly differently due to the safety At present, only one commuter based on the locomotive calendar day implications involved in each type of operation (Metra) has raised significant inspection and the freight car safety pre- operation. FRA intends to require that concerns regarding weekend operations. departure inspection required by 49 MU locomotives equipped with Although there is no specific data CFR parts 229 and 215, respectively. dynamic brakes found not to be in suggesting that existing weekend FRA believes that, at a minimum, operating mode or containing a operations on Metra have created a passenger cars should receive an defective condition which prevents the safety hazard, FRA has found it virtually inspection which is at least equivalent proper operation of the dynamic brakes impossible to draft and justify to that received by locomotives and be handled in the same manner as a provisions providing limited flexibility freight cars. running gear defect pursuant to for Metra that do not create potential As discussed in the 1997 NPRM, FRA § 238.17. Thus, MU locomotives found loopholes that could be abused by other intends for the daily mechanical with defective dynamic brakes at the passenger train operations that have not inspection to serve as the time when the exterior calendar day mechanical had the apparent safety success of railroad repairs defects that occur en inspection must have the dynamic Metra. Moreover, based on FRA’s route. Thus, this section generally brakes repaired prior to continuing in independent investigation of Metra’s requires that safety components not in passenger service. FRA further intends operation, it is believed that the impact compliance with this part be repaired that MU locomotives which experience of this final rule on Metra’s weekend before the equipment is permitted to a dynamic brake defect while en route operations will be significantly less than remain in or return to passenger service. be handled the same as a running gear that indicated in APTA’s written (See § 238.9 for a discussion of the defect pursuant to § 238.17. Thus, the comments and originally perceived by prohibitions against using passenger locomotive would have to be inspected Metra. FRA believes that most of the equipment containing defects; and by a QMP and be properly tagged at the personnel needed by Metra to conduct §§ 238.15 and 238.17 for a discussion of location it is found to be defective. its weekend operations in accordance movement of defective equipment for The requirements related to with this final rule are available to purposes of repair or sale). The purpose conventional locomotives found with Metra or its contractors and that minor of the defect reporting and tracking dynamic brakes not to be in operating adjustments could be made to its system required in § 238.19 is to have mode or containing a defective weekend operations that might avoid the mechanical forces make all condition which prevents the proper significant new expense. As the necessary safety repairs to the operation of the dynamic brakes are concerns regarding weekend operations equipment before it is cleared for somewhat less stringent than the appear to involve just one commuter another day of operation. In other movement requirements placed on MU operation and because the precise words, FRA generally intends for the locomotives. In these cases, the impact on that operation is not known flexibility to operate defective locomotive may remain in passenger or available at this time, FRA believes equipment in passenger service to end service provided that the unit is that the waiver process would be the at the calendar day mechanical properly tagged, each locomotive best method for handling the concerns inspection. engineer taking charge of the train is raised by that operator. This would In paragraph (e)(15), FRA has informed as to the status of the afford FRA an opportunity to provide modified the requirements regarding locomotive, and the locomotive’s any relief that may be warranted based secondary braking systems to clarify dynamic brakes are repaired within on the specific needs and the safety that secondary braking systems must be three calendar days of being found history of the individual railroad in operating mode and contain no defective. without opening the door to potential known defective conditions. FRA has FRA has treated MU and conventional abuses by other railroads that are not also included provisions to address the locomotives slightly differently for similarly situated. handling of defective dynamic brakes in several reasons. Past history has shown Paragraph (e) identifies the order to specifically establish that failure to have operative dynamic components that are required to be restrictions on the movement of brakes in MU operations increases the inspected as part of the exterior daily equipment containing this type of potential of causing thermal stress to the mechanical safety inspection and defective secondary brake and to wheels of the vehicles to a much greater provides measurable inspection criteria recognize the concerns raised by several extent than inoperative dynamic brakes for the components. The railroad is commenters regarding the importance in conventional locomotive operations. required to ascertain that each passenger that these secondary brakes have in the MU locomotive operations generally car, and each unpowered vehicle used operation of passenger equipment. FRA tend to have a greater number of station in a passenger train conforms with the agrees that in many circumstances it is stops, requiring the use of the brakes, conditions enumerated in paragraph (e) desirable to have operative dynamic than operations where conventional and that all passenger equipment brakes in order to prevent thermal stress locomotives are utilized and, thus, the conforms with the requirement to the wheels, which has the potential potential for thermal stress to the contained in paragraph (e)(15). of occurring if certain passenger trains wheels is increased. Furthermore, Deviation from any listed condition are operated for extended periods operations utilizing conventional

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25619 locomotives tend to operate for Paragraph (h) specifies an additional As noted in the 1997 NPRM, FRA’s extended distances across the country contingent component of the calendar original position was to require the and, thus, are further from locations day exterior mechanical inspection. If a interior inspections to be performed by where repairs to the dynamic brakes can car requiring a single car test is moved qualified maintenance persons. be properly repaired. Therefore, these in a train carrying passengers or However, after several discussions with operations may need extra time to get a available to carry such passengers to a members of the Working Group and defective locomotive to a particular place where the test can be performed, several other representatives of location for repair. Furthermore, FRA then the single car test must be passenger railroads, FRA determined believes that the tagging and notification performed before or during the exterior that the training and experience typical requirements imposed on conventional calendar day mechanical inspection. of qualified maintenance persons is not locomotives reduce the potential of an This provision has been retained from necessary and often does not apply to engineer’s undue reliance on a the 1997 NPRM. The comments inspecting interior safety components of secondary brake system which is not submitted by APTA suggested that the passenger equipment. In addition, the available. Finally, the handling word ‘‘next’’ be inserted prior to flexibility created by permitting requirements contained in this ‘‘calendar day mechanical inspection.’’ someone less qualified than a qualified paragraph are consistent with the FRA did not make this change as it maintenance person can reduce the cost current practices within the industry would provide greater latitude than FRA of performing the mechanical safety and should have a minimal impact on intended. Paragraph (h) applies to inspection since the most economical passenger operations. equipment that is already in transit from way to accomplish the mechanical Paragraph (f) contains a narrow the location where repairs were inspection is to combine the exterior exception which allows long-distance conducted that required the inspection with the Class I brake test intercity passenger trains that miss a performance of a single car test. Thus, and then have a crewmember inspect on scheduled exterior calendar day in order to remain consistent with the arrival at the final terminal or have a mechanical inspection due to a delay en provisions contained in § 238.311(f) train coach cleaner combine the interior route to continue in passenger service to such cars must receive the single car test coach inspection with coach cleaning. the location where the inspection was prior to, or as part of, the car’s exterior Paragraph (c) lists various scheduled to be performed. At that calendar day mechanical inspection. components that are required to be point, a calendar day mechanical Although FRA recognizes the concerns inspected as part of the interior calendar day mechanical safety inspection. As a inspection must be performed prior to of labor representatives with regard to minimum, FRA requires that the returning the equipment to service of this provision, FRA believes that it is following components be inspected: any kind. This flexibility applies only to necessary to provide the railroads the trap doors; end and side doors; manual the mechanical safety inspections of flexibility to make the necessary repairs door releases; safety covers, doors and coaches. FRA does not intend to relieve to a piece of equipment and then move plates; vestibule step lighting; and the railroad of the responsibility to it to a location which is most conducive safety-related signs and instructions. perform a locomotive calendar day to performing the required single car test. FRA currently permits such Consistent with the discussions inspection as required by 49 CFR part flexibility and is not aware of any regarding the movement of defective 229. significant safety problems that have equipment with non-running gear Paragraph (g) contains certain arisen as a result of such a practice. defects, all en route defects and all minimal recordkeeping requirements However, in order to ensure the safe noncomplying conditions under this related to the performance of the movement of such equipment, FRA has section must be repaired at the time of exterior calendar day mechanical added various inspection and tagging the daily interior inspection or the inspection provisions. FRA believes that requirements in § 238.311(f) that must equipment would be required to be proper and accurate recordkeeping is be performed prior to hauling such locked-out and empty in order to be the cornerstone of any inspection equipment to another location for the placed or remain in passenger service process and is essential to ensuring the performance of a single car test. (See with the exception of a defect under performance and quality of the required section-by-section discussion of § 238.305(c)(5). (See § 238.9 for a inspections. Without such records the § 238.311.) discussion of the prohibitions against inspection requirements would be using passenger equipment containing difficult to enforce. Although Section 238.305 Interior Calendar Day defects, and § 238.17 for a discussion of recordkeeping was discussed in the Mechanical Inspection of Passenger Cars the movement of defective equipment Working Group and FRA believes it to This section contains the for purposes of repair.) be an integral part of any inspection requirements for the performance of It should be noted that two of the requirement, FRA inadvertently omitted interior mechanical inspections on items contained in paragraph (c) have any such requirements in the NPRM passenger cars (which includes, e.g., been slightly modified in order to clarify specifically related to mechanical passenger coaches, MU locomotives, FRA’s intent and to ensure the safety of inspections. This omission was brought and cab cars) each calendar day that the the traveling public. Paragraph (c)(5), to FRA’s attention through verbal and equipment is used in service except regarding the continuing use of a car written comments provided by various under the circumstances described in with a defective door, has been interested parties and has now been paragraph (d). Unlike the exterior modified by the addition of corrected. This paragraph specifically calendar day mechanical inspection, subparagraph (c)(5)(iii), which requires permits a railroad to maintain the FRA in paragraph (b) of this section that at least one operative and accessible required records either in writing or permits the interior inspections of door be available on each side of the electronically, and the record may be passenger cars to be performed by vehicle in order for the car to continue part of a single master report covering ‘‘qualified persons,’’ individuals to be used in passenger service. FRA an entire group of cars. Whatever format qualified by the railroad to do so. Thus, believes the addition of this requirement the railroad elects to use to record the these individuals need not meet the is necessary to ensure that passengers information, it must contain the specific definition of a ‘‘qualified maintenance have adequate egress from the information listed in this paragraph. person.’’ equipment should an emergency occur.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25620 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

Paragraph (c)(8) has also been modified Section 238.307 Periodic Mechanical on trucks are not cracked or broken. to clarify that the inspection of the Inspection of Passenger Cars and FRA will also require a 92-day manual door releases, as proposed in Unpowered Vehicles Used in Passenger inspection of emergency lighting the 1997 NPRM, need only be made to Trains systems as they are critical to the safety the extent necessary to verify that all D This section contains the of passengers in the event of an accident rings, pull handles, or other means to requirements for performing periodic or derailment. FRA is adding an access manual door releases are in place mechanical inspections on all passenger inspection of the roller bearings to the based on a visual inspection. FRA cars and all unpowered vehicles used in 92-day inspection. Although this recognizes that inspection of the actual passenger trains. Paragraph (b) makes component was inadvertently left out of manual door release would be overly clear that the periodic mechanical the NPRM, FRA believes that roller burdensome, costly, and unnecessary inspections required under this section bearings are an integral part of the due to the relative reliability of such are to be performed by a qualified mechanical components and must be devices. It should also be noted that the maintenance person as defined in part of any mechanical inspection final rule contains a new paragraph § 238.5. In the 1997 NPRM, FRA scheme. Furthermore, several labor (c)(9) which requires that the interior proposed that the following components commenters recommended inspections mechanical inspection ensure that all be inspected for proper operation and criteria similar to that contained in 49 required emergency equipment, repaired, if necessary, as part of the CFR Part 215, which specifically including fire extinguishers, pry bars, periodic maintenance of the equipment: addresses the condition of roller auxiliary portable lighting, and first aid emergency lights; emergency exit bearings. See 49 CFR § 215.115. As kits be in place. These items are windows; seats and seat attachments; roller bearings are best viewed in a shop required pursuant to the regulations on overhead luggage racks and facility context, FRA is adding the passenger train emergency preparedness attachments; floor and stair surfaces; inspection of this component to the 92- contained at 49 CFR part 239, and FRA and hand-operated electrical switches. day periodic mechanical inspection which is consistent with the current believes that the inspection to ensure See 62 FR 49808–09. FRA further practices of the industry. FRA is also the presence of such equipment is proposed that such periodic inspections adding the general conditions and appropriate under this section. be performed every 180 days. As noted above, FRA, with the intent of requiring components previously proposed in Paragraphs (d) and (e) contain their inspection on a periodic basis, § 238.109(b) (62 FR 49801–802) to the provisions which are identical to certain removed certain items previously 92-day periodic mechanical inspection requirements pertaining to exterior proposed in the exterior calendar day contained in this paragraph. As the calendar day mechanical inspections. mechanical inspection as they could not conditions previously proposed in Paragraph (d) allows long-distance be easily inspected without proper shop § 238.109(b) were intended to ensure intercity passenger trains that miss a facilities. that the railroads had an inspection scheduled calendar day mechanical After a review of the industry’s scheme in place to ensure that all inspection due to a delay en route to practices regarding the performance of systems and components of the continue in passenger service to the periodic mechanical-type inspections, equipment are free of conditions that location where the inspection was FRA believes that some of the items endanger the safety of the crew, FRA scheduled. Paragraph (e) contains the removed from the exterior calendar day believes that a specific inspection recordkeeping requirements related to mechanical inspection as well as some interval is better suited to address the the performance of interior calendar day of the items previously proposed in the general condition of the equipment and mechanical inspections. FRA believes 180 day periodic mechanical inspection ensure the safety of the riding public that proper and accurate recordkeeping should be and are currently inspected and railroad employees. This paragraph is the cornerstone of any inspection on a more frequent basis by the also requires that all of the components process and is essential to ensuring the railroads. As it is FRA’s intent in this inspected as part of the exterior and performance and quality of the required proceeding to attempt to codify the interior calendar day inspection be inspections. Without such records the current best practices of the industry, inspected at the 92-day periodic inspection requirements would be FRA believes that the current intervals inspection. difficult to enforce. Although for inspecting certain components Paragraph (d) of this section retains a recordkeeping was discussed in the should be maintained. Consequently, semi-annual periodic inspection for Working Group and FRA believes it to FRA is modifying the time interval for certain components as proposed in the be an integral part of any inspection conducting periodic mechanical 1997 NPRM. In the NPRM, FRA requirement, FRA inadvertently omitted inspections to include a 92-day and a proposed a 180-day periodic inspection, any such requirements in the 1997 368-day periodic inspection. but in order to remain consistent with NPRM specifically related to In paragraph (c), FRA requires the the 92-day inspection scheme this mechanical inspections. This omission periodic inspection on a 92-day basis of paragraph requires a 184-day periodic was brought to FRA’s attention through certain mechanical components inspection of certain mechanical verbal and written comments provided previously proposed as part of the components. These include: seats; by various interested parties and has exterior calendar day mechanical luggage racks; beds; and emergency been corrected. This paragraph inspection, as well as an inspection of windows. This paragraph also contains specifically permits a railroad to floors, passageways, and switches. The an added requirement related to the maintain the required records either in mechanical components to be inspected inspection of the couplers; couplers writing or electronically, and the record that were previously included as part of were removed from the calendar day may be part of a single master report the calendar day mechanical inspection inspection and have been inserted in the covering an entire group of cars. include verification that all trucks are 184-day inspection scheme. FRA is Whatever format the railroad elects to equipped with a device or securing placing the coupler inspection at this use to record the information, it must arrangement to prevent the truck and interval rather than at the 92-day contain the specific information listed car body from separating in case of interval in order to reduce the amount in this paragraph. derailment and that all center castings of coupling and uncoupling of

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25621 equipment that will be required. In of passenger equipment. Therefore, FRA particular situation. However, as paragraph (e) FRA has extended the encourages equipment owners to adequately structured databases are inspection interval related to manual perform additional sensitivity analyses developed and implemented for door releases over that which was to determine which components or reliability center maintenance programs, proposed in the 1997 NPRM. Due to the equipment has the greatest potential for FRA believes more reliance can be general reliability of these devices and introducing risk, thus requiring the most placed on objective data and reliability because they are partially inspected on careful monitoring to increase reliability assessments will be based on a a daily basis, FRA believes that an while reducing the consequences of combination of data and judgment. FRA annual inspection of the releases will failure. FRA believes that, in addition to believes that, in the very near term, sole ensure their proper operation. Thus, the component design reliability, quality reliance cannot be placed on objective final rule requires an inspection of the assurance, as well as maintenance and data sources to provide quantitative manual door releases every 368 days. inspection proficiency may be reliability assessments; instead, In paragraph (b) FRA has attempted to considered and evaluated by the adequately qualified and unbiased make clear that, although FRA has equipment owners as a part of this judgment will continue to be required in established certain periodic inspection process. When considering the reliable conjunction with verifiable operating intervals in order to establish a default use of passenger equipment, elements data for analysis purposes. interval, FRA will allow railroads to such as couplers as well as suspension When planning the maintenance of a develop alternative intervals for systems; trucks; side bearings; wheels; component or system to protect the performing such inspections for specific jumpers; cable connections; buffer safety and operating capability of the components or equipment based on a plates; diaphragms; and secondary brake equipment, FRA expects that a number more quantitative reliability assessment systems, and human factors as it relates of items will be considered in the completed as part of their system safety to inspecting and maintaining these reliability assessment process, which programs. FRA expects that railroads elements may be considered. include: will utilize reliability-based Component level structural fatigue, 1. The consequences of each type of maintenance programs as appropriate, corrosion, and wear are variables that functional failure; given this opportunity to do so. As may be considered to bound or 2. The visibility of a functional failure successful reliability based maintenance introduce uncertainty in passenger to the operating crew (evidence that a programs are dynamic, it is expected equipment performance, effectively failure has occurred); that, in the process of defining and reducing reliability as well. 3. The visibility of reduced resistance documenting the reliable use of Given the limited quantitative to failure (evidence that a failure is equipment or specific components, over information that is presently available imminent); time, continued assessments may regarding factors that influence the 4. The life or age-reliability indicate a need to increase or decrease reliability of passenger equipment, the characteristics of each item; inspection intervals. FRA will only primary sources of information available 5. The economic tradeoff between the permit lengthened inspection intervals for initial reliability assessments cost of scheduled maintenance and the beyond the default intervals when such include: judgement; simulations; field, benefits to be derived from it; changes are justified by a quantitative laboratory, and office experiments; 6. A multiple failure, resulting from a reliability assessment. The previously operating environment and maintenance sequence of independent failures, may described inspection intervals are based process reviews; and accident and near- have consequences that would not be on sound but limited information miss investigations. FRA believes that in caused by any one of the individual provided to FRA that FRA believes the operation of passenger equipment, failures alone. These consequences are represents a combination of operating where failure costs are high and taken into account in the definition of experience, analytical analyses, casualties infrequent, accident data for the failure consequences for the first knowledge and intuition. FRA expects informed decision making may be failure; and that railroads will collect and respond scarce or not fully applicable. Further, 7. A default strategy will continue to to additional data throughout the legal and punitive threats may provide govern decision making in the absence operating life of the equipment. significant impediments to identifying of full information or agreement. This FRA believes that the approach taken the contributing, initiating, and strategy provides for conservative initial to identify the stated default inspection compounding causes of failures. Data decisions, to be revised on the basis of intervals contained in this section from near-miss, or near-catastrophic information derived from operating combined both qualitative, or incidents may be found to be experience. subjective, judgement with available instructive, but often not all of the FRA believes that a variety of quantitative information. FRA believes parameters entering a quantitative qualitative approaches, such as a Failure this approach is appropriate for the analysis are recorded or communicated Modes, Effects, Criticality Analysis conservative default strategy defined. in these cases. (FMECA) may be useful in evaluating However, FRA recognizes that this FRA believes that for the initial the potential consequences of a mixed approach does not yield a reliability assessments of passenger functional failure. FRA believes a quantified level of equipment reliability. equipment and components qualified qualitative approach may be used in The reliability of a system or component judgment will be an important source of complement and combined with a is defined as the probability that, when quantitative information. Qualified quantitative approach such as operating under stated environmental judgment is based upon both the Probabilistic Risk Analyses (PRA) or conditions, the system or component accumulation of experience and a Quantified Risk Analyses (QRA) which will perform its intended function mental synthesis of factors allowing the may include structured probabilistic adequately for a specified interval of evaluator to assess the situation and Event Tree, Fault Tree, or Influence time, number of cycles of operation, or produce results. Such judgment has a Diagram analyses to provide additional number of miles. Reliability is a rightful place in making initial insight to railroads regarding the quantitative measure. FRA believes that quantitative reliability assessments reliable use of their equipment. quantified, high levels of reliability are because current available data is often Quantitative approaches are useful to desired for the continued safe operation deficient for the evaluation of a characterize the details of a system

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25622 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations whereas qualitative approaches can Quality) S2 (1995) Introduction to Attribute commenters with regard to the testing provide characterization of the general Sampling; and data submitted to FRA regarding • performance quality of the system ANSI/ASQC Z1.4 (1993) Sampling modest extensions of the COT&S analyzed.4 Component level reliability Procedures and Tables for Inspection by intervals for equipment utilizing certain analysis centered around a quantitative, Attributes; types of brake valves. All of the COT&S • ANSI/ASQC Z1.9 (1993) Sampling deterministic design approach such as Procedures and Tables for Inspection by intervals contained in this section are Damage Tolerance Analysis (DTA) may Variables for Percent Nonconforming; based, at least in part, on current be appropriate when information about • Handbook of Reliability Engineering and operations under existing waivers and the ability of a structural component to Management, W. G. Ireson, McGraw Hill, on data and information which FRA sustain anticipated loads in the 1996; believes provide substantial support presence of fatigue, corrosion, or • MIL–STD–414 (1957) Sampling that the valves can be safely operated for accidental damage is required.5 Procedures and Tables for Inspection by the periods of time provided in this FRA expects that analyses of Variables for Percent Nonconforming; • section. Furthermore, FRA believes that individual components investigated as a MIL–STD–1234A (1974) Single and the stringent inspection and testing part of the reliability assessment process Multi-Level Continuous Sampling regiment and the single car test Procedures and Tables for Inspection by may require equipment owners to Attributes; requirements contained in this final rule collect and consider information • Reliability-Centered Maintenance, F. S. also provide sufficient additional regarding: a component’s physical Nowlan and H. F. Heap, Final Report for safeguards to permit modest increases in features and conditions; a component’s Contract MDA 903–75–C–0349, Office of the COT&S intervals for equipment actual operating use; the existence of Assistant Secretary of Defense, Washington, outfitted with certain brake valves and manufacturing defects and tolerances; D.C., 1978; other equipment having generally the effects of repairs or modifications • Reliability-Centered Maintenance, A. M. shown the ability to operate for longer made to the component; and capabilities Smith, McGraw Hill, 1992; • periods without failure. of available nondestructive evaluation Reliability-Centered Maintenance, J. Paragraph (b) extends the periodic methods used for inspection. Moubray, McGraw Hill, 1997; and maintenance interval for MU locomotive • Reliability in Engineering Design, K.C. Management of effective reliability- Kapur and L. R. Lamberson, John Wiley & fleets that are 100 percent equipped based maintenance programs requires Sons, 1977. with air dryers and modern brake an organized information system for systems from 736 days to 1,104 days. surveillance and analysis of the Paragraph (e) contains the The requirement remains 736 days for performance of each component under recordkeeping requirements related to fleets that are not 100 percent equipped the known operating conditions. FRA the performance of periodic mechanical with air dryers or that are equipped believes that the information derived inspections. FRA believes that proper with older brake systems. FRA bases from such operating experience can and accurate recordkeeping is the this extension on tests conducted by provide information of failures that cornerstone of any inspection process Metro-North and monitored by FRA could affect operating safety; failures and is essential for ensuring the field inspectors. These tests revealed that have operational consequences; the performance and quality of the required that after three years brake valves on failure modes of units removed as a inspections. Without such records, the MU locomotives equipped with air result of failures; as well as the general inspection requirements would be dryers were very clean and showed little condition of unfailed parts in units that difficult to enforce. Although or no signs of deterioration. Based on have failed and serviceable units recordkeeping was discussed in the the results of these tests, FRA is inspected as samples. Working Group and FRA believes it to confident that these valves can safely As stated above, at the time of the be an integral part of any inspection operate for three years between periodic development of default maintenance requirement, FRA inadvertently omitted maintenance. FRA believes this intervals, FRA used the available any such requirements in the NPRM extension of the periodic maintenance information to determine the inspection specifically related to mechanical interval will result in a cost savings to intervals necessary to protect safety. inspections. This omission was brought those railroads that operate MU However, FRA believes that the to FRA’s attention through verbal and locomotives equipped with air dryers. optimum inspection tasks, methods, and written comments provided by various Paragraph (c) extends the periodic intervals as well as the applicability of interested parties and has been maintenance interval on conventional age or life limits will be best obtained corrected. This paragraph specifically locomotives equipped with 26–L or from reliability analyses based on permits a railroad to maintain the equivalent types of brakes from the additional service-based data collection, required records either in writing or current standard of 736 days to 1,104 in some cases coupled with appropriate electronically. Whatever format the days. The required periodic deterministic analyses to both ensure railroad elects to use to record the maintenance interval remains at 736 safety and maximize reliability. For information, it must contain the specific days for locomotives equipped with further information regarding sources of information listed in this paragraph. other types of brake systems. This reliability theory and analysis, FRA requirement merely makes universal a Section 238.309 Periodic Brake recommends that the following practice that has been approved by Equipment Maintenance materials be considered: waiver for several years. See H–80–7. This section contains the • ANSI (American National Standards FRA believes that locomotives equipped Institute)/ASQC (American Society for requirements related to the performance with 26–L brakes have demonstrated an of periodic brake maintenance for ability to operate safely for three years 4 Evaluation Approaches & Quantification various types of passenger equipment, between periodic maintenance. (Chapter 8), ‘‘The Role of Human Error in Design, referred to in the industry as clean, oil, Paragraph (d) extends the periodic Construction, and Reliability of Marine Structures.’’ test, and stencil (COT&S). Although maintenance interval on passenger Robert G. Bea, Report No. SSC–378, U.S. Coast FRA has considered the concerns raised coaches and other unpowered vehicles Guard, Washington, D.C. 1994, pp. 127–149. 5 ‘‘Reliability and Risk Analysis for Design and by certain labor representatives during equipped with 26–C or equivalent brake Operations Planning of Offshore Structures.’’ T. this rulemaking, FRA does not agree systems from 1,104 days to 1,476 days. Moan, Sixth ICOSSAR, Innsbruck, August 1993. with the conclusions drawn by these This extension is based on tests

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25623 performed by Amtrak. Based on these response to concerns raised by a labor paragraphs (c) through (e). FRA agrees tests, FRA granted Amtrak a waiver for commenter, it should be noted that FRA with several of the commenters that the this extension on July 26, 1995. See FRA would likely not completely eliminate 1997 NPRM may have been over- Docket No. PB 94–3. Amtrak has the need to perform COT&S on a inclusive in listing the components operated under the terms of this waiver periodic basis but might consider whose repair, replacement, or removal for several years with no problems. extending the interval between such would trigger the performance of a Consequently, based on Amtrak’s attention depending on the frequency of single car test. Paragraph (c) lists the experience, FRA believes all passenger the single car test intervals proposed by wheel defects that would trigger the cars with 26–C equipment can safely be a railroad. requirement to perform a single car test. operated for four years between periodic Section 238.311 Single Car Test FRA believes that the wheel defects maintenance. contained in this paragraph generally Paragraph (e) recognizes that the same This section contains the tend to indicate some type of braking extensions applicable to locomotives requirements for performing single car equipment problem. FRA believes that and passenger coaches should be tests on all nonself-propelled passenger merely changing a wheel to correct a applied to control cab cars that use cars and all unpowered vehicles used in wheel defect that is actually caused by brake valves that are identical to the 26– passenger trains. As previously a brake system problem will only lead C valves used in passenger cars or the discussed in the general preamble, FRA to a continuation of the problem on the 26–L valves used on locomotives. is modifying the requirements related to new wheel and will increase repair Consequently, based on the information the performance of single car tests from costs to the railroad. A test that checks and tests conducted on those valves as those that were proposed in the 1997 for the root cause of the defect is not well as waivers currently existing, FRA NPRM. In paragraph (a), based on the only a good safety practice, but is a good is extending the periodic maintenance recommendations of representatives business practice that will lead to interval for cab cars to 1,476 days or from both rail labor and rail reduced operating costs. However, in 1,104 days for those cab cars that use management, FRA is referencing the accordance with the discussions brake systems identical to the 26–C and single car testing procedures which conducted with the Working Group in 26–L, respectively. This extension is were developed by APTA PRESS rather mid-December of 1997, paragraph (d) consistent with recent requests for than the AAR single car testing makes clear that FRA will not mandate waivers received by FRA. procedures referenced in the 1997 the performance of a single car test for In paragraph (a)(2) FRA provides that NPRM. The single car test procedures wheel defects, other than a built-up were issued by APTA on July 1, 1998, a railroad may petition FRA, under tread, if the railroad can establish that and are contained in APTA Mechanical § 238.21, to approve alternative the wheel defect is due to a cause other Safety Standard SS–M–005–98. The maintenance procedures providing than a defective brake system. Thus, the equivalent safety. Under this provision, single car test procedures issued by burden will fall on the railroad to railroads could propose using APTA are more comprehensive and establish and maintain sufficient periodically scheduled single car tests better address passenger equipment documentation that a wheel defect is to extend the time between required than the older AAR recommended due to something other than a brake- periodic maintenance on passenger practices. In paragraph (a), FRA is also related cause. FRA makes clear that if coaches. FRA believes that the single car slightly modifying the applicability of the railroad cannot establish the specific test provides a good alternative to more this section for clarity. In the 1997 non-brake related cause for a wheel frequent periodic maintenance. In fact, NPRM, FRA proposed to require the defect, it is required to perform a single in the 1994 NPRM on power brakes, performance of single car tests on all car test. FRA proposed the elimination of time- passenger cars and other unpowered based COT&S and in its stead proposed vehicles used in passenger trains. Paragraph (e) requires a railroad to time intervals for conducting single car However, the definition of passenger conduct a single car test if one or more tests, ranging from three to six months, cars includes self-propelled vehicles of the identified brake system depending on the utilization rate of the such as MU locomotives, to which FRA components is removed, repaired, or passenger equipment. See 59 FR 47690– did not intend the single car test replaced. This paragraph also requires 91, 47710–11, and 47740–41. However, requirements to apply. Consequently, that a single car test be performed if a comments received and discussions FRA has modified the language of passenger car or vehicle is placed in with members of the Working Group paragraph (a) to clarify that the testing service after having been out of service revealed that many passenger railroads requirements apply to nonself-propelled for 30 or more days. FRA believes that would rather perform periodic passenger cars and unpowered vehicles these requirements will ensure that maintenance than more frequent single used in passenger trains. brake system repairs have been car tests. One reason for this is that Paragraph (b) requires that all single performed correctly and that the car’s some operators would rather take car tests be performed by a qualified brake system will operate as intended equipment out of service every few maintenance person. A single car test is after repairs are made or after the car years and perform the overhaul of the a comprehensive brake test that requires has been in storage for extended brake system than have equipment out the skills and knowledge of a highly periods. As noted above, FRA has of service for shorter periods every few trained and skilled person with amended the list of brake components to months. Therefore, FRA has retained mechanical expertise. Railroads include only those circumstances where periodic maintenance intervals but currently use personnel which would a relay valve, service portion, provided the alternative to railroads to generally meet the definition of emergency portion, or pipe bracket is propose single car testing intervals in ‘‘qualified maintenance person’’ as removed, repaired, or replaced. order to reduce the frequency with defined by this part to perform single Whenever any other component which the periodic maintenance is car tests, and FRA believes that this previously contained in the 1997 NPRM performed. Consequently, railroads are practice should continue. is removed, repaired, or replaced, afforded some flexibility to determine FRA is also modifying some of the paragraph (g) requires that only that the type of maintenance approach that circumstances under which a single car portion that is renewed or replaced be best suits their operations. However, in test is required to be performed in tested. FRA believes that the items

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25624 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations contained in paragraph (g) can generally Class I brake tests from those that were terminal. Consequently, paragraph (b) be removed, replaced, or repaired previously proposed in the 1997 NPRM. retains the proposed requirement that a without affecting other portions of the Paragraph (a) of this section requires Class I brake inspection be performed brake system, thus reducing the need to that a Class I brake test be performed at on long-distance intercity passenger perform a single car test. FRA believes least once each calendar day that a piece trains prior to departure from an initial that the requirements contained in of equipment is placed in service. As terminal. FRA does not believe there paragraphs (e) and (g) are more noted previously in the 1997 NPRM, the would be any significant burden placed consistent with the current practices of Working Group discussed and debated on these operations as the current most passenger railroads than the when and how a Class I brake test regulations require that an initial requirement proposed in the 1997 should be performed. Labor terminal inspection be performed at NPRM. representatives stressed the need for a these locations. Furthermore, virtually Paragraph (f) provides that if a single thorough brake test performed by all of the initial terminal inspections car test cannot be made at the point qualified mechanical inspectors on currently conducted on these types of where repairs are made, the car may be every passenger train. These trains are performed by individuals who moved in service to the next forward representatives strongly contended that would be considered qualified location where the test can be made. this brake test must be performed prior maintenance persons pursuant to This paragraph requires that at a to the first daily departure of each § 238.5. minimum the single car test be passenger train. On the other hand, Paragraph (b) also retains the completed prior to, or as a part of, the representatives of passenger railroads requirements proposed in the 1997 car’s next calendar day mechanical expressed the desire to have flexibility NPRM related to the performance of inspection. As noted previously, labor in conducting a comprehensive brake Class I brake tests on long-distance representatives object to permitting cars inspection, arguing that safety would be intercity passenger trains every 1,500 to be used in passenger service after a better served if railroads were permitted miles or every calendar day, whichever to conduct these inspections on a daily comes first. After reviewing the repair is made without the required basis. Although FRA agrees with the information and comments submitted single car test being performed. These position advanced by many labor by labor representatives, the information commenters contend that the representatives that some sort of car-to- and comments provided by Amtrak, and performance of a single car test is car inspection must be made of the based upon the independent necessary prior to using the vehicle in brake equipment prior to the first run of information developed by FRA, FRA order to determine whether any other the day in most circumstances, FRA believes that the enhanced inspection unknown defects to the brake system does not agree that it is necessary to scheme contained in this final rule will exist. Although FRA recognizes the perform a full Class I brake test in order ensure the continued safety of long- concerns of labor representatives with to ensure the proper functioning of the distance intercity passenger trains. (See regard to this provision, FRA believes brake equipment. As FRA views a Class previous discussion of comments in that it is necessary to provide railroads I brake test as a comprehensive general preamble portion of this the flexibility to make the necessary inspection of the braking system, FRA document.) repairs to a piece of equipment and then believes that commuter and short- Contrary to the statements made in move it to a location which is most distance intercity passenger train the comments submitted by some labor conducive to performing the required operations must be permitted some representatives, FRA is not merely single car test. However, in order to flexibility in conducting these increasing the distance between brake address labor’s concerns and to ensure inspections. Consequently, paragraph inspections for these types of trains. the safe movement of such equipment, (a) requires that commuter and short- Rather, FRA is increasing both the FRA has added a visual inspection distance intercity passenger train quality and the content of the requirement and a tagging requirement operations perform a Class I brake test inspections that must be performed on that must be met prior to the railroad sometime during the calendar day in long-distance intercity passenger trains being allowed to haul a car in the which the equipment is used. and, thus, increasing the safety of such fashion provided in this paragraph. FRA also recognizes the differences trains. Under the current regulations Consequently, this paragraph requires between commuter or short-distance these passenger trains are required to that prior to moving a car in passenger intercity operations and long-distance receive an initial terminal brake service for the purposes of conducting a intercity passenger train operations. inspection at the point where they are single car test, a visual inspection Long-distance intercity passenger trains originally assembled, and from that verifying the application and release of do not operate in shorter turnaround point the train must receive an the brakes on both sides of the repaired service over the same sections of track intermediate brake inspection every car must be conducted and the car must on a daily basis for the purpose of 1,000 miles. The current 1,000-mile be appropriately tagged to indicate the transporting passengers from major inspection merely requires the need to perform a single car test. centers of employment. Instead, these performance of a leakage test, an Section 238.313 Class I Brake Test trains tend to operate for extended application of the brakes and the periods of time, over long distances inspection of the brake rigging on each This section contains the with greater distances between car to ensure it is properly secured. See requirements related to the performance passenger stations and terminals. 49 CFR 232.12(b). The current 1,000- of Class I brake tests. The requirements Further, these trains may operate well mile brake inspection does not require in this section apply to all passenger over 1,000 miles in any 24-hour period, 100 percent operative brakes prior to coaches, control cab cars, MU somewhat diminishing the opportunity departure and does not require piston locomotives, and all nonself-propelled for conducting inspections on these travel to be inspected. The current vehicles that are part of a passenger trains. Therefore, FRA believes that a regulations also do not require the train. After consideration of the thorough inspection of the braking performance of any type of mechanical comments and information submitted, system on these types of operations inspection on passenger equipment at FRA intends to make very minor must be conducted prior to the trains’ 1,000-mile inspection points or at any changes to the requirements regarding departure from an initial starting other time in the train’s journey. Thus,

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25625 under the current regulations a long- decrease the risk of thermal damage to Amtrak’s voluntary maintenance distance intercity passenger train can wheels. standards or operating practices. In travel from New York to Los Angeles on • The ability to effectuate a graduated addition, based on the description of one initial terminal inspection, a series release of the brakes due to a design some of the conditions, they would not of 1,000-mile inspections, and no feature of the brake equipment which be considered defective conditions mechanical inspections. permits more flexibility and more under current Federal regulations. Whereas, this rule will require the forgiving train control. Furthermore, the vast majority of the • performance of a Class I brake test, The ability to cut out brakes on a conditions alleged in the document which is more comprehensive than the per-axle or per-truck basis rather than a were not power brake defects, and thus, current initial terminal inspection, at per car basis, thus permitting greater use under the current regulations, would the point where the train is originally of those brakes that are operable. not have been required to have been • 1 assembled and will require the Brake ratios that are 2 ⁄2 times inspected at a 1,000-mile inspection. performance of another Class I brake test greater than the brake ratios of loaded Nor do the current regulations mandate every 1,500 miles or every calendar day freight cars. any type of mechanical inspection on Although some of the technologies thereafter, whichever comes first, by passenger equipment (other than on noted above have existed for several highly qualified inspectors. Thus, at locomotives under 49 CFR part 229, of decades, most of the technologies were least every 1,500 miles or every calendar course). Moreover, as the vast majority not in wide spread use until after 1980. day a long-distance passenger train will of the alleged conditions were Furthermore, most of the noted be required to receive a brake inspection mechanical and wheel defects, FRA technological advances just started to be which is more comprehensive than the believes that these types of defective integrated into one efficient and reliable current initial terminal inspection and conditions will be addressed by the braking system within the last decade. which requires that the train have 100 exterior calendar day mechanical Consequently, the technology inspection contained in this final rule percent operative brakes and have incorporated into the brake equipment which will be required to be performed piston travel set within established used in today’s long-distance intercity every calendar day that a piece of limits. Furthermore, this rule will passenger trains has increased the equipment is in service. require the performance of an exterior reliability of the braking system and and interior mechanical inspection permits the safe operation of the FRA agrees with the comments every calendar day that the train is in equipment for extended distances even submitted by the BRC that the data and service. Consequently, the inspection though a portion of the braking system information submitted by Amtrak scheme proposed in the 1997 NPRM may be inoperative or defective. regarding the allegedly defective and retained in this final rule will, in FRA also disagrees with the equipment found at Washington, D.C., FRA’s view, increase the safety and contentions raised by certain labor does not fully address whether the cars better ensure the integrity of the brake representatives that the facts and data identified by carmen at that location and mechanical components of long- do not support the 500 mile extension were defective and does indicate that at distance passenger trains. in the brake inspection interval even least many of the cars were repaired for FRA also believes that some with the more comprehensive the defective condition noted within recognition must be given to the various inspection scheme. These commenters several days after moving through types of advanced braking system recommend that the current 1,000-mile Washington, D.C. However, contrary to technologies used on many long- brake inspection interval be retained the conclusions reached by labor distance intercity passenger trains. together with the increased inspection representatives, the fact that a car Many of these advanced technologies regiment. These commenters contend remained in service with an alleged are not found with any regularity in that due to the large number of defects defective mechanical or brake condition freight operations and thus the being found at 1,000-mile inspections does not necessarily mean the train reliability and performance of brake the need to retain the inspection is involved was in an unsafe condition or systems on these passenger trains justified. As an example and support for that the equipment was being moved enhance the safety of these trains and, this position, the BRC submitted illegally. The current regulations when combined with other aspects of information containing numerous regarding freight mechanical equipment this discussion, support FRA’s belief defective conditions compiled by and the existing statutory mandates that these brake systems can safely be carmen stationed at Union Station in regarding the movement of equipment operated with the inspection intervals Washington D.C. from January 1996 with defective safety appliances and that were proposed in the 1997 NPRM. through February of 1997 that the brakes permit the movement of a certain Dynamic brakes are typically employed carmen allegedly found on trains amount of defective equipment to on these types of trains to limit thermal traveling through Union Station. After certain locations provided it is stresses on friction surfaces and to limit reviewing the documentation submitted, determined by a qualified person that the wear and tear on the brake FRA does not believe the information such a movement can be made safely or equipment. Furthermore, the brake supports the conclusion that 1,000-mile that a sufficient percentage of the brakes valves and brake components used on brake inspections must be maintained remain operative. See 49 U.S.C. 20303, today’s long-distance passenger trains and that it would be unsafe to extend 49 CFR 215.9. As this final rule will are far more reliable than was the case the distance between brake inspections specifically address the inspection of several decades ago. Other technological under the inspection scheme contained the mechanical components on advances utilized with regularity by in this final rule. passenger equipment and the movement these passenger trains include: Due to the lack of detail contained in of defective mechanical components, • The use of brake cylinder pressure the information submitted by the BRC, which is not covered by existing indicators which provide a reliable it is impossible to determine whether regulations, FRA believes that the indication of the application and release the vast majority of the alleged defective amount of defective equipment being of the brakes. conditions were defective under the operated will be reduced significantly • The use of disc brakes which Federal regulations or whether the and/or handled safely in revenue trains. provide shorter stopping distances and conditions were merely in excess of Although FRA agrees that the

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25626 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations information submitted by Amtrak monitoring, FRA did find some trains added to a train while en route. See 49 regarding the number of cars set out at that after receiving initial terminal CFR § 232.13. 1,000-mile inspection points does not inspections still contained some Paragraph (d) requires that the Class reflect the true number of defects being defective conditions in the brake I brake tests be performed by qualified found during the inspections, FRA does system. Although FRA believes that maintenance persons. As FRA intends find it significant that a very small none of the defective conditions found for Class I brake tests to be in-depth percentage of cars set-out by Amtrak are would have prevented the safe inspections of the entire braking system, set-out at 1,000-mile inspection operation of the trains, FRA recognizes which most likely will be performed locations and that most set-outs occur that FRA as well as the railroads must only one time in any given day in which en route. be vigilant in ensuring that quality brake the equipment is used, FRA believes FRA also finds it necessary to make system inspections are performed on a that these inspections must be clear that the number of cars alleged to train at its point of origin and at each performed by individuals possessing the have been found in defective condition location where a Class I brake test is knowledge to not only identify and at Union Station in Washington, D.C. is detect a defective condition in all of the required to be performed. Consequently, not indicative of a safety problem on brake equipment required to be due to the comprehensive nature of long-distance intercity passenger trains. inspected but also the knowledge to Class I brake tests and the exterior Assuming that all of the cars contained recognize the interrelational workings of in BRC’s submission were in fact calendar day mechanical inspection the equipment and have a general defective as alleged, it appears that combined with the technological understanding of what is necessary to approximately 750 cars were defective. advances incorporated into the braking repair the equipment. Furthermore, However, the information also reveals systems utilized in these types of trains most passenger railroads currently have that approximately 1,300 trains were and after a review of the data and a daily brake test performed by highly inspected; thus, using a conservative information provided and based on qualified mechanically trained estimate of 10 cars per train, FRA’s experience with these types of employees so this requirement is not approximately 13,000 cars were operations, FRA is retaining the really a departure from current industry inspected. As a result, approximately proposed 1,500 mile interval for the practice. (For a detailed discussion of only 6 percent of the cars inspected performance of Class I brake tests in this ‘‘qualified maintenance person’’ see the were found to contain either a final rule. section-by-section analysis for § 238.5 mechanical or brake defect. Paragraph (c) contains a provision and the general preamble discussion Furthermore, of the approximate 750 that was not proposed in the 1997 related to qualified maintenance cars alleged to have been found NPRM to address the inspection of cars persons.) defective, only approximately 20 added to an en route train. FRA has Paragraph (e) provides railroads with percent of those contained a power modified the Class I brake test the option to perform the Class I brake brake-related defect. Consequently, only requirements to ensure the proper test either separately or in conjunction about 1–2 percent of the total cars operation of all cars added to a train with the calendar day mechanical inspected contained a power brake- while en route. This paragraph requires inspections. FRA has retained this related defect. Moreover, from the the performance of a Class I brake test provision simply to clarify that the two information provided it appears that on each car added to a passenger train inspections need not be done at the none of the trains contained in the BRC at the time it is added to the train unless same time or location as long as they are both performed sometime during the submission were involved in any type of documentation is provided to the train calendar day that a piece of equipment accident or incident related to the crew that a Class I brake test was is in use. defective conditions alleged. performed on the car within the FRA believes that the key to any Paragraph (f) prohibits a railroad from previous calendar day and the car has inspection scheme developed for long- using or hauling a passenger train in not been disconnected from a source of distance intercity passenger trains is the passenger service from a location where quality of the inspection which is compressed air for more than four hours a Class I brake test has been performed, performed at a train’s point of origin. prior to being added to the train. This or was required to have been performed, FRA is convinced that if a train is requirement has been included in order with less than 100 percent operating properly inspected with highly qualified to address the concerns raised by brakes. (See section-by-section analysis inspectors and has 100 percent various labor representatives that no of § 238.15 for a detailed discussion of operative brakes at its point of origin, provisions were provided in the 1997 movement of defective equipment for then the train can easily travel up to NPRM to address circumstances when purposes of repair or sale.) 1,500 miles between brake inspections cars are added to an en route train. Paragraph (g) contains a list of the without significant deterioration of the Section 238.317 makes clear that if a car safety-related items that must be braking system. FRA independently has received such inspection, the inspected, tested, or demonstrated as monitored a few long-distance intercity railroad will be required to perform a part of a Class I brake test. This list was passenger trains running from New York Class II brake test at the time the car is developed based on the experience and to Miami, New York to New Orleans, added to the train. FRA believes that knowledge of FRA’s motive power and and New York to Chicago and found these provisions are necessary to ensure equipment field inspectors familiar with that when the trains departed from their the integrity of the brake system on the operations and inspection practices points of origin with a brake system that every car added to an existing train and of passenger operations. The Working was defect free they arrived at should not be a burden for railroads Group extensively discussed the items destination without any defective since cars are generally added to contained in this paragraph. Very few conditions existing in their brake passenger trains at major terminals with comments were submitted which systems. These findings are consistent the facilities and personnel available for addressed the specific items contained with FRA’s experience in inspecting conducting such inspections. in this paragraph. One commenter did long-distance intercity passenger trains Furthermore, these inspection recommend that a few of the provisions over the last several years. It should be requirements are very similar to what is be clarified to specifically address tread noted that during this independent currently required when a freight car is brakes. Therefore, paragraph (g)

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:15 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25627 generally retains all of the requirements Amtrak or other operators of long relatively short period of time prior to proposed in the 1997 NPRM except to distance trains from having to dispatch the first run of the day and the train has the extent that a few requirements have qualified maintenance persons to the not been used in passenger service since been slightly modified for clarity. location of a delayed train merely to the performance of that inspection. Paragraph (g)(1) requires that an meet the calendar day Class I brake test From a safety standpoint, it appears to inspection be conducted on each side of requirement. This is a common sense be overkill to require the performance of each car to verify the application and exception that will not compromise a second comprehensive brake test release of each brake. This requirement safety. when the equipment has not been used is consistent with FRA’s longstanding Section 28.315 Class IA Brake Test in passenger service and has remained interpretation of what the current on a source of compressed air since the regulations require when conducting This section contains the last comprehensive brake test was initial terminal and 1,000 mile brake requirements regarding the performance performed. In such circumstances, FRA inspections pursuant to § 232.12. For of Class IA brake tests. As mentioned believes that the performance of a Class clarity and consistency, FRA has previously, although FRA agrees with II brake test would be sufficient to explicitly incorporated the requirement the position advanced by many labor determine if there are any problems into this final rule. Minor modifications representatives that some sort of car-to- with the braking system due to have been made to paragraphs (g)(3), car inspection must be made of the vandalism or other causes since the last (g)(5), and (g)(11) in order to clarify the brake equipment prior to the first run of comprehensive Class I brake test. intent of the requirements to brake the day, FRA does not agree that it is Furthermore, as APTA’s comments systems utilizing tread brakes. It should necessary to perform a full Class I brake point out, commuter railroads have been be noted that the requirement contained test in order to ensure the proper safely operated in a fashion similar to in paragraph (g)(14) would bar the use functioning of the brake equipment in this for a number of years. of a train that current regulations allow all situations. However, contrary to the Consequently, paragraph (a)(1) of this to be placed in service. This paragraph position espoused by several railroad section makes clear that a Class IA brake requires that brake indicators must representatives, FRA believes that test is to be performed prior to the first function as intended. Although this something more than just a morning departure of each commuter or provision may require railroads to make determination that the brakes on the short-distance intercity passenger train more frequent repairs than are currently rear car set and release is necessary in unless a Class I brake test was required, FRA believes these added many situations. performed within the previous twelve Currently, the quality of initial costs are necessitated by—and offset hours and the train has not been used terminal tests performed by train crews by—the ability to use brake indicators in passenger service and has not been during the performance of certain brake is likely adequate to determine that brakes apply on each car. However, disconnected from a source of tests in lieu of direct observation of the compressed air for more than four hours brakes. most commuter equipment utilizes ‘‘tread brake units’’ in lieu of cylinders since the performance of the Class I Paragraph (h) requires the qualified brake test. FRA believes that this maintenance person that performs a and brake rigging of the kind prevalent on freight and some intercity passenger exception is consistent with the concept Class I brake test to record the date, time of performing comprehensive brake and and location of the test as well as the cars. It is undoubtedly the case that train crewmembers do not verify mechanical inspections at centralized number of the controlling locomotive of locations as this provision affords the train. It should be noted that a application of the brakes by tapping railroads the ability to conduct a Class requirement to record the total number brake shoes while the brakes are I brake test at the end of a train’s daily of cars inspected during the Class I applied—the only effective means of operating cycle at a central location and brake test has been added at paragraph determining that adequate force is being then have the ability to move the train (h)(4). FRA believes this information is applied. This is one reason why the in non-passenger service to an outlying necessary to ensure that the required subject railroads typically conduct location without being required to inspection has been performed on all redundant initial terminal tests at other perform a Class IA brake test prior to the cars in a train and provides a times during the day. Further, train departure from the outlying terminal. method for the tracking of cars added to crews are not asked to inspect for wheel en route trains. This minimal defects and other unsafe conditions, nor Paragraph (a)(2) requires that a Class information is required to be available should they be asked to do so, given the IA brake test be performed prior to in the cab of the controlling locomotive conditions under which they are asked placing a train in service if that train has to demonstrate to the train crew and to inspect and the training they receive. been off a source of compressed air for future inspectors that the train is As noted previously, FRA is more than four hours. This requirement operating under a current Class I brake modifying the requirements for when a formalizes a long-standing agency test. Furthermore, the use of such Class IA brake test must be performed interpretation of the existing power records or ‘‘brake slips’’ as they are from that which was proposed in the brake regulations but increases the time known in the industry is the current 1997 NPRM. FRA continues to believe limit from two to four hours. Labor practice of virtually all passenger that some type of car-by-car inspection representatives maintain that any railroads. FRA believes that this must be performed prior to a passenger number of brake system problems can recordkeeping requirement adds train’s first run of the day if the train develop with equipment off air for only necessary reliability, accountability, and was used in passenger service the a short time, while management enforceability to the inspection previous day without any brake representatives contend that equipment requirements contained in this section. inspection being performed after it has can be left off air for extended periods Paragraph (i) allows long distance, completed service and before it lays-up of time with no problems. FRA believes intercity passenger trains that miss a for the evening. However, FRA tends to the requirement contained in this scheduled Class I brake test due to a agree with the comments submitted by paragraph is a fair compromise that delay en route to proceed to the point APTA representatives that the need for allows railroads some operating where the scheduled brake test was to such an inspection is minimized if a flexibility, but does not allow be performed. This flexibility prevents Class I brake test is performed within a equipment to be off air without a new

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:15 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12MYR2 25628 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations brake test for extended periods of time. Class IA brake test. This paragraph performance of a Class II brake test. This FRA agrees that its longstanding makes clear that a Class IA brake test paragraph has been modified from that administrative interpretation of include: a check that each brake sets which was proposed in the 1997 NPRM allowing cars to be ‘‘off air’’ for only two and releases; a test of the emergency in order to clarify the requirements, to hours was established prior to the brake application feature; a check of the remain consistent with other provisions development of new equipment that has deadman or other emergency control of this rule, and to address recent issues greatly reduced leakage problems. device; an observation that angle cocks that have been raised with FRA However, contrary to the contentions of and cutout cocks are properly set; an regarding certain passenger train some commenters, FRA does not believe observation that brake pipe pressure operations. Although paragraph (a)(1) that cars should be allowed to be ‘‘off changes are communicated to the rear of retains the proposed requirement that a air’’ for extended periods without being the train; and a test that the Class II brake test be performed retested. The longer cars sit without a communicating signal system is known whenever the control stand is changed, supply of compressed air attached, the to be operative. this paragraph has been modified in greater the chances are that the integrity Paragraph (g) requires that the order to clarify that a Class II brake test of the system will be compromised, inspection of the set and release of the need not be performed in circumstances either by weather conditions or brakes be performed by walking the where a train is being moved in non- vandalism. train so the inspector actually observes passenger service from one track to Paragraph (b) allows a commuter or the set and release of each brake. Labor another inside a terminal complex even short-distance intercity passenger train representatives strongly contended that though the changing of the control stand that provides continuing late night this is the only way to do a proper brake occurs during such movements. In order service that began prior to midnight to test. They believe that observation of to effectuate such movements the complete its daily operating cycle after brake indicators does not give a reliable control stand may be required to be midnight without performing another indication of effective brakes because changed several times. As these train Class I or Class IA brake test on the train the indicators sense brake cylinder movements are akin to switching prior to its first departure after pressure rather than the force of the movements in that they are performed midnight. This provision is included to brake shoe against the wheel or the pad over relatively short distances at very make clear that a train is not required against the disc. However, this low speeds and pose minor safety to be stopped during its operating cycle paragraph allows an exception when hazards, FRA will not require the in order to receive a Class I or Class IA railroads determine that direct performance of multiple Class II brake brake test prior to it first departure of a observation of the set and release can tests in order to conduct such calendar day. FRA also makes clear that place the inspector in danger. FRA movements. It should be noted that this provision does not relieve a railroad acknowledges the contention of rail § 238.319 requires the performance of a from its responsibility under § 238.313 management representatives that running brake test whenever the control to perform a Class I brake test on each conditions at certain locations where stand is changed during these types of calendar day that the train is in use. Class IA tests may be performed could movements in order to ensure the Thus, a train operating past midnight place the inspector in danger if he or operation of the brake system during must receive a Class I brake test she is required to place himself or these movements. This paragraph also sometime on each of the two days it is herself in a position to actually observe requires the performance of a Class II in use. the set and release of each brake. Where brake test prior to the train’s departure Paragraph (c) allows a Class IA brake railroads determine this to be the case, from the terminal complex with test to be performed at a shop or yard FRA will permit the use of brake passengers. site without needing the test repeated at indicators for the set and release step of Paragraph (a)(2) requires the the first passenger terminal if the train the Class IA brake test as long as the performance of a Class II brake test prior remains on air and in the custody of the inspector takes a position where an to the first morning departure of a crew. This provision is an incentive for accurate observation of the indicators commuter or short-distance intercity railroads to conduct the tests at can be made. passenger train where a Class I brake locations where they can be performed test remains valid as provided in Section 238.317 Class II Brake Test more safely and easily. FRA believes § 238.315(a)(1). As discussed in the that a shop or yard location is more This section contains the preceding section, FRA believes that in conducive for conducting a proper brake requirements regarding how a Class II these limited circumstances the test. Raised platforms and other brake test is to be performed and performance of a Class II brake test will conditions frequently found at terminals contains the conditions for when a adequately ensure the integrity of the can make the performance of a brake railroad is required to perform the brake brake system on the train since the test difficult, if not hazardous. test. The Class II brake test provides performance of the last Class I brake Paragraph (d) permits the Class IA test passenger railroads the flexibility to test. Paragraph (a)(4) has been added in to be performed by either a qualified continue to use train crew personnel to order to clarify that a Class II brake test person or a qualified maintenance perform the limited brake tests required is to be performed whenever cars or person. Paragraph (e) prohibits a when minor changes to the train occur. equipment are removed from a train. railroad from using or hauling a Both labor and management This provision is consistent with the passenger train from a location where a representatives to the Working Group concept that the proper operation of the Class IA brake test has been performed, recognized that train crews are capable brake system must be verified whenever or was required to have been performed, of performing the relatively simple an event occurs which may impact the with less than 100 percent operative checks required by a Class II brake test integrity of the brake system and is brakes. (See section-by-section analysis and that the operations of most consistent with current practice on of §§ 238.15–238.17 for a discussion of commuter and passenger railroads virtually every railroad. movement of defective equipment for require the flexibility of having Paragraph (c) requires that passenger purposes of repair or sale.) Paragraph (f) operating personnel perform these tests. trains not depart from Class II brake contains the specific tasks that must be Paragraph (a) contains the tests which are performed at a terminal performed when conducting a proper circumstances which require the or a yard with any brakes cut-out,

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25629 inoperative, or defective unless the intermediate terminals or turning for the procurement of high-speed equipment is moved in accordance with points. This requirement basically trainsets which would address FRA’s § 238.15. The language of this codifies current industry practice. safety concerns. As a result, Amtrak’s requirement has been slightly modified high-speed trainsets, scheduled to begin Section 238.319 Running Brake Tests from the language proposed in the 1997 regular passenger service in 1999, will NPRM, in order to make the provision This section contains the very likely comply with all of the safety consistent with the movement for repair requirements for conducting running standards in this subpart. provisions contained in this final rule. brake tests on the brakes of passenger Amtrak’s discussions with FRA led it See § 238.15. Many terminals and most trains. A running brake test is merely a to sponsor a risk assessment of high yards are locations where brake repairs brake application at the first safe speed rail passenger systems on the can be effectuated. Thus, passenger opportunity to confirm that the brake north end of the NEC—from New York equipment containing defective brake system works as expected by the to Boston. The discussions also equipment would not be permitted to engineer. Paragraphs (a) and (c) require prompted FRA to sponsor computer depart those locations capable of that a running brake test be performed modeling to predict the performance of making the necessary repairs until in accordance with the railroad’s various equipment structural designs repaired. If the necessary repairs cannot established operating rules after the and configurations in collisions. A copy be effectuated at such locations the train has received a Class I, Class IA, or of the risk assessment performed by equipment must be properly tagged and Class II brake test as safety permits. FRA Arthur D. Little, Inc., for Amtrak is moved pursuant to the requirements believes that railroads are in the best included in the docket of this contained in § 238.15. position to determine when and where rulemaking. The risk assessment was Paragraph (d) requires that a Class II running tests can be safely performed. based on existing and predicted future brake test consist of: a check that the As most passenger railroads routinely right-of-way configurations and traffic brakes on the rear unit of the train apply conduct running brake tests, FRA density patterns. The risk assessment and release in response to brake control believes that the requirements contained concluded that a significant risk of signals or a check that brake pipe in this section capture an important collisions at speeds below 20 mph and pressure changes are properly safety check without changing current a risk of collisions at speeds exceeding communicated at the rear of the train by operating practice to any great extent. It 100 mph exist over the 20-year observation of a gauge at the end of the should be noted that paragraph (b) has projected operational life of the HSTs— train or in the cab of the rear unit; a test been added to this section to require the due to heavy and increasing of the emergency brake application and performance of a running brake test conventional commuter rail traffic, a test of the deadman pedal or other whenever the control stand used to freight rail traffic on the NEC, highway- emergency control device on MU control the train is changed to facilitate rail grade crossings, moveable bridges, equipment; and a test of the the movement of a passenger train from and a history of low speed collisions in communicating signal system to ensure one track to another within a terminal or near stations and rail yards. it is operating as intended. The complex while not in passenger service. Based on the risk assessment and the proposed requirements for observing a As previously discussed, due to the results of the computer modeling, set and release of the brakes on the rear special nature of these moves FRA Amtrak and FRA determined that full car and for ensuring that brake pipe believes that a running brake test reliance on collision avoidance pressure changes are properly adequately ensures the proper operation measures rather than crashworthiness, communicated at the rear of the train of the braking system during these though the hallmark of safe high-speed have been combined and stated in the movements and obviates the need to rail operations in several parts of the alternative in this final rule, as FRA perform a Class II inspection each time world, could not be implemented in believes that the performance of either the control stand is changed in these corridors like the north end of the NEC. task indicates proper trainline circumstances. Existing traffic and right-of-way continuity and to perform both would Subpart E—Specific Requirements for configurations do not permit be redundant and unnecessary. It Tier II Passenger Equipment implementation of the same collision should also be noted that the avoidance measures that have proven requirement regarding the testing of the Section 238.401 Scope successful in Europe and Japan. To emergency application and deadman This subpart contains the design and compensate for the increased risk of a pedal or other emergency control performance requirements for Tier II collision in the North American rail devices is only applicable to MU passenger equipment—that is, passenger operating environment, a more equipment due to the ease of performing equipment operating at speeds crashworthy trainset design is needed. such an inspection on that equipment. exceeding 125 mph but not exceeding (FRA does note that on June 3, 1998, The requirement that the 150 mph. For the most part, compliance near Eschede in northern Germany, an communicating signal system be tested with the requirements of this section ICE (Inter City Express) passenger train is part of both a Class I and a Class IA will be demonstrated by one-time derailed at a speed of approximately 125 brake test and has been added to this analysis or initial acceptance tests. mph into the support structure of a brake inspection as FRA believes the The requirements contained in this highway bridge carrying traffic over the proper operation of the communicating subpart have their basis in discussions railroad right-of-way, collapsing the signal system is necessary for the safe between Amtrak and FRA involving bridge. A number of the cars in the train operation of a train and can be easily safety requirements for the operation of were crushed, and 101 fatalities resulted tested in a very short amount of time. passenger trainsets at speeds up to 150 from the derailment.) Accordingly, the FRA believes that if the equipment mph on the Northeast Corridor (NEC). set of structural requirements for Tier II receives a full Class I brake test and a Aware that FRA was considering the passenger equipment in this final rule is calendar day mechanical inspection at development of safety standards for more stringent than the current design some time during each operating day, high-speed passenger rail equipment, practice for North American passenger then these simple checks are adequate Amtrak asked FRA for assistance in equipment or for high-speed rail to confirm brake system performance at developing a set of safety specifications equipment in other parts of the world.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25630 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

Section 238.403 Crash Energy section may be unattainable using absorb collision energy before it poses a Management Requirements current technology. However, Amtrak’s risk to the train’s occupants. This section requires that each power high-speed trainsets have been shown to Paragraph (d) requires that for a 30- mph collision of a train on tangent, level car and trailer car be designed with a meet the requirements of this section. track with an identical stationary train, crash energy management system to Specifically, testing has shown the crash the deceleration of the occupied dissipate kinetic energy during a energy absorbing components of the compartments of each trailer car shall collision. power car and in the end of the first During discussions with Amtrak for trailer car adjacent to the power car to not exceed 8g; and when seated anywhere in a trailer car, the velocity at the safety provisions of its high-speed absorb the energy as provided in which a 50th-percentile adult male trainsets, FRA proposed very paragraph (c). Talgo further commented that because contacts the seat back ahead of him challenging crash energy management the kinetic energy of a running train is shall not exceed 25 mph. A 50th- requirements based on predictions using a function of its mass and speed, percentile adult male has been defined computer modeling. Amtrak believed paragraph (c) should not state a fixed in § 238.5, based on the same that meeting these requirements would value of energy. Rather, it believed characteristics for such a vehicle be well beyond the current state of the paragraph (c) should state a value with occupant’s weight and dimensions art for passenger equipment design, and respect to a specified speed to allow specified in a NHTSA standard at 49 that an extensive and costly research some flexibility for trains of varying CFR § 571.208, S7.1.4. FRA does note and testing program would be required. mass and yet preserve the same level of that, for purposes of this requirement, As an alternative, Amtrak proposed a safety. FRA recognizes that the kinetic the weight of the occupant is not crash energy management design based energy of a running train is a function particularly relevant, as weight on the demonstrated, commercially of its mass and speed, and if Tier II generally should not affect how fast the viable design developed in France and trains were at no risk of colliding with occupant strikes the seat back ahead of incorporated in the most recent design other trains of greater weight, then him. In this regard, an occupant of of the TGV trainset. FRA believes that adopting Talgo’s comment may be heavier of lighter weight should be Federal safety standards must be possible. However, the Tier II safety neither more nor less protected by the capable of implementation in the design standards are intended to apply to high- requirements of this paragraph. of passenger equipment without driving speed passenger trains that, as In its comments on the NPRM, Simula the cost of implementation to the point necessitated by the United States rail did not recommend defining an that high-speed rail systems are no operating environment, will operate occupant velocity in paragraph (d), longer financially viable. commingled with heavier trains, noting that it is a function of the crash Paragraph (c) requires a Tier II train especially heavy and long freight trains pulse, the distance between two rows of to have a crash energy management that may themselves operate at speeds seats, as well as occupant position and system capable of absorbing a minimum up to 80 mph. In the event of a collision size. FRA has specified that occupant of 13 megajoules (MJ) of energy at each with a heavier train, a Tier II passenger velocity not exceed 25 mph in a end of the train. The ability to absorb train must confront the energy secondary collision because an this energy must be partitioned as possessed by that train. FRA believes occupant travelling beyond that speed is follows: a minimum of 5 MJ by the front that a Tier II passenger train must have at considerable risk of harm from a end of the power car ahead of the a crash energy management system secondary impact. In fact, use of an operator’s control compartment; a capable of absorbing the minimum occupant restraint system would likely minimum of 3 MJ by the power car energy levels specified in paragraph (c) have to be required to protect the train structure behind the operator’s control to protect the train’s occupants in light occupants in such a case. FRA believes compartment; and a minimum of 5 MJ of the risks of colliding with heavier that compliance with paragraph (d)(1) by the unoccupied end of the first trailer trains and other objects along the can be demonstrated, and that Amtrak’s car adjacent to the power car. This railroad right of way. As a result, FRA HTS complies with the rule based on requirement can be met using existing believes it is inappropriate to adopt information presented to FRA. technology. However, it will effectively Talgo’s comment. Simula additionally commented that prevent a conventional cab car from Additionally, in its comments on the if trailer cars are built to withstand 30 operating as the lead vehicle in a Tier NPRM, Talgo believed paragraphs mph collisions and 10g decelerations, II passenger train because such (c)(1)–(3) should be rewritten so that the then the seats in these cars should also equipment cannot absorb 5 MJ of total energy that is required to be be designed to withstand these same collision energy ahead of the train absorbed is dissipated through all inter- forces. Specifically, Simula did not operator’s position. Recent accidents car connections, not just through the recommend requiring that the involving trains operating with a cab car first few cars. FRA notes that one of the decelerations in trailer cars be limited in forward have demonstrated the reasons the energy absorbing structures a 30 mph collision to 10g while vulnerability of this type of equipment of the leading car in a Tier II passenger requiring seats to withstand the impact in collisions. FRA believes such train (power car) and the adjacent trailer of an occupant travelling at 25 mph and equipment should not be used in the car must themselves absorb the energy a longitudinal force of 8g, noting that forward position of a train that travels specified in this section is to reduce the the seats will not be able to withstand at speeds greater than 125 mph. FRA risk and effects of secondary collisions the 10g decelerations and consequently has also encouraged Amtrak to use an throughout the train’s subsequent detach from the car. alternative lead vehicle where speeds vehicles. Secondary collisions (i.e., FRA notes that Simula’s comment exceed 110 mph and highway-rail grade impacts with interior objects) can relates to the seat strength requirements crossings are prevalent. Further, FRA is seriously harm or, in extreme cases, kill found in § 238.435. In the final rule, specifically requiring in paragraph (f) train occupants. This risk of harm to a § 238.435(a) requires that the seat back that passenger seating be prohibited in Tier II passenger train’s occupants is, and seat attachment in a passenger car the leading unit of a Tier II train. therefore, minimized overall by be designed to withstand, with In its comments on the NPRM, Talgo requiring the energy absorbing deflection but without total failure, the observed that the standards in this structures in the first two train cars to load associated with the impact into the

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25631 seat back of an unrestrained 95th- impractical and potentially dangerous. collision between the two different percentile adult male initially seated According to Bombardier, the specified types of equipment occur. The crash behind the seat back, when the floor to test load should be based on the yield energy management design causes a Tier which the seat is attached decelerates strength of the structure rather than the II passenger train to appear as a softer with a triangular crash pulse having a ultimate strength, as this would also be collision surface to a conventionally peak of 8g and a duration of 250 consistent with the Amtrak high-speed designed train, owing to the collision milliseconds. FRA agrees with Simula trainset specifications. FRA has revised energy absorbed by the Tier II train as that it is possible that a seat in a trailer this section pursuant to Bombardier’s its unoccupied volumes intentionally car may detach from the car when comment. FRA notes that the effect of crush. subjected to a force that is greater than this revision is to require a stronger Section 238.407 Anti-Climbing that required to be withstood under power car cab than originally proposed Mechanism proposed § 238.435(a) in the NPRM, and in the rule. expressly permitted by proposed Bombardier additionally commented This section contains the § 238.403(d). FRA has, therefore, that clarifying text should be added to requirements for anti-climbing decided to modify § 238.403(d) so as to define the structural loading conditions mechanisms on power and trailer cars. limit the permissible decelerations in a so that the 2,100,000-pound load shall Paragraph (a) requires a power car to trailer car to 8g under the conditions be resisted at the height of the have a forward anti-climbing specified in that paragraph. FRA underframe at the rear of the cab as mechanism capable of resisting an believes that meeting this requirement is follows: 300,000 pounds at each rear cab upward or downward static vertical feasible with current technology, and corner post location; and 750,000 force of 200,000 pounds, without that Amtrak’s HTS complies with pounds at each rear cab collision post exceeding the ultimate strength of the § 238.403(d)(2) on the basis of location. FRA does not believe it material. This requirement is virtually information presented to FRA. necessary to incorporate Bombardier’s identical to that required of locomotives In its comments on the NPRM, Talgo comment into the rule, and doing so by AAR S–580. However, designs are believed that paragraph (d) should make may result in confusion. As discussed in permitted that require the crash energy allowances for the short-lived elevations § 238.411, FRA believes that each corner management controlled crushing to in peak that may occur during a post structure on the rear end of a power occur prior to the anti-climber fully collision so that peaks exceeding 10g (as car cab must resist a 300,000-pound engaging. FRA has revised this proposed) for a duration no longer than load at the structure’s joint with the paragraph based on a comment from 10 milliseconds are acceptable. FRA underframe, and each collision post Bombardier that the rule text, as believes that for purposes of structure must resist a 750,000-pound proposed, did not indicate that the demonstrating compliance with this load in the same manner. These loads 200,000-pound value is an ultimate paragraph through testing, deceleration may not be resisted solely at the load. Inasmuch as this requirement as measurements may be processed underframe as a test of the strength of stated in AAR S–580 is in fact based on through a low-pass filter having a the corner and collision post structures; an ultimate load acceptance criterion, bandwidth of 50 Hz. otherwise, the actual ability of the FRA has modified the rule text Paragraph (e) contains the analysis collision and corner post structures to accordingly. process to demonstrate that equipment resist shearing would not be implicated. Paragraph (b) requires that interior meets these crash energy management Further, the load testing criteria for train coupling points between units, performance requirements. The process corner and collision post structures in including between units of articulated allows simplifying assumptions to be the rule is based on ultimate strength; cars or other permanently joined units made so that computer modeling whereas the longitudinal compressive of cars, have an anti-climbing device techniques can be used to confirm strength requirement in this paragraph, capable of resisting an upward or compliance. as revised, is based on yield strength. In downward vertical force of 100,000 light of the separate requirements for pounds without yielding. This is Section 238.405 Longitudinal Static testing corner and collision post consistent with current design practice. Compressive Strength structures, FRA believes it best not to FRA has revised this section based on This section contains the expressly integrate those requirements a comment from Bombardier that the requirements for longitudinal with this section. requirements in paragraph (b) are based compressive strength of power cars and Paragraph (b) contains the on 49 CFR § 229.141(a)(2), and should trailer cars. Paragraph (a) requires the requirements for the static compressive thus include a yield strength acceptance compressive strength of the underframe strength of the occupied volumes of criterion. FRA has modified the rule of the power car cab to be a minimum trailer cars. This adopts the traditional consistent with the requirements of 49 of 2,100,000 pounds without yielding. North American design practice of a CFR § 229.141(a)(2). To form an effective crash refuge, this static strength of 800,000 pounds, Paragraph (c) requires the forward strength is needed to take advantage of without deformation of the underframe. coupler of a power car to resist a vertical the strength of the power car’s two end Paragraph (c) makes clear that downward force of 100,000 pounds for frames. Alternate design approaches unoccupied volumes of power cars or any horizontal position of the coupler that provide equivalent protection are trailer cars may have a static end without yielding, and is virtually allowed, but the equivalent protection strength of less than 800,000 pounds to identical to that provided in 49 CFR must be demonstrated through analysis accommodate crash energy management § 229.141(a) for MU locomotives built and testing and be approved by FRA designs. new after April 1, 1956, and operated in under the provisions of § 238.21. The crash energy management design trains having a total empty weight of In its comments on paragraph (a), requirement ensures that the stronger 600,000 pounds or more. Bombardier believed that a design end structures and the stronger static Talgo commented on both this section requirement based on the ultimate compressive strength of the cab of a and its Tier I counterpart in § 238.205. strength of the structure, as proposed in power car will not make Tier II Talgo explained that it desired to avoid the NPRM, makes the analysis more passenger equipment incompatible with the implication that only couplers may difficult and testing the structure existing passenger equipment should a properly function as anti-climbing

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25632 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations mechanisms. Talgo also believed that in at a point 30 inches up from the and two full-height collision posts measuring the strength of the anti- underframe. Bombardier stated that the (paragraph (b)). In addition, this section climbing device, the operative variable cab on the Amtrak high-speed trainset specifies loading requirements that each should be vertical acceleration, was designed to resist the 100,000- of these structural members must expressed in gs, rather than load, pound load at a point 18 inches up from withstand. Of course, the rule does expressed in pounds, to accommodate the underframe, and believed this permit flexibility for using other trains of different masses. FRA has consistent with all current design equipment designs that provide discussed these comments earlier in the practices for car end structural equivalent structural protection. preamble. members. FRA has not modified the rule The required rear end structural on this point. FRA has found no conflict protection will provide considerably Section 238.409 Forward End between the proposal and the Amtrak greater protection to the train operator Structures of Power Car Cabs. high-speed trainset specification. than that provided by existing passenger This section contains the Both Bombardier and Talgo equipment designs. Together, the front requirements for forward end structures commented that FRA appeared to have and rear end structural protection of power car cabs. The forward end specified the wrong value in paragraph required in this rule for a power car cab structure of a power car cab is vital in (c)(3) of the proposed rule, as compared make the cab a highly survivable crash a collision with another object. This with the values contained in Figure 1. refuge. structure must resist override, prevent See 62 FR 49812–3. The commenters are In commenting on the NPRM, the entry of fluids into occupied spaces correct that, as proposed, the paragraph Bombardier recommended that in of the cab, and allow the crash energy wrongly required each forward corner paragraph (b) the 750,000-pound force management system to function. The post to resist a horizontal, longitudinal at the rear end cab structure collision requirements in paragraphs (a)–(c) are or lateral shear load of 150,000 pounds. posts be applied at the height of the based on a specific end structure design As Figure 1 demonstrates, FRA intended centerline of the underframe, and not at that consists of a full-height center each corner post to resist a horizontal, the collision posts’ joint with the collision post, two side collision posts longitudinal or lateral shear load of underframe. FRA disagrees, and located at approximately the one-third 80,000 pounds. FRA has revised believes it necessary to test the strength points laterally, and two full-height paragraph (c)(3) accordingly in the final of the collision post structure at its joint corner posts. This section also includes rule. with the underframe to demonstrate the loading requirements that each of these Talgo additionally commented that in actual ability of the collision post structural members must withstand. paragraph (d)(1), although the rule structure to resist shearing. Otherwise, if However, the rule does permit makes clear that its reference to a the strength of the collision post flexibility for using other equipment particular thickness of material does not structure were tested at the height of the designs that provide equivalent preclude the use of thinner materials centerline of the underframe, the structural protection. having a higher yield strength, it would collision post connection would not be End structures meeting these be preferable to avoid specifying a loaded and the ability of the collision requirements will provide considerably thickness altogether. Instead, Talgo post structure to resist shearing would greater protection to the train operator suggested that the skin strength not be tested. than that provided by existing passenger requirement could be stated in terms of Bombardier also suggested that the equipment designs. For example, much a specified impact resistance, as FRA horizontal, shear load value of 750,000 stronger corner posts are required here proposed in § 238.421 on safety glazing. pounds specified in paragraph (b)(1) than for Tier I passenger equipment. FRA recognizes that it may be possible that the collision post is required to FRA believes these end structures help to specify an impact resistance resist be changed to 500,000 pounds. provide a degree of crashworthiness to requirement, yet FRA has chosen a yield Bombardier believed this modification compensate for the increased risk strength requirement based on AAR necessary to be consistent with the associated with operating at higher Standard No. 580 and the collective shear strength requirements for the front speeds. judgment of the railroad industry collision posts specified both in the rule The front end structure design also behind that standard. Accordingly, as well as in the Amtrak high-speed includes in paragraph (d) a skin although FRA would not preclude an trainset specifications. FRA disagrees requirement equivalent to that required equipment design based on impact with this comment, and has not revised by AAR S–580 and contained in resistance that provides equivalent the rule on this point. The 750,000 § 238.209 for Tier I locomotives. FRA safety, FRA will defer consideration of pounds that each of the two collision has revised paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(2) specifying such an impact resistance posts at the rear of a power car cab must based on a comment from Bombardier. until Phase II of the rulemaking. FRA individually resist—1,500,000 pounds Bombardier noted that the acceptance does note that the strength of the in the aggregate—is consistent with the criterion proposed by FRA in these material, in terms of its resistance to 500,000 pounds that each of the three paragraphs is based on the yield or shear, is also important to ensure collision posts at the forward end of the critical buckling stress; whereas the occupant protection. power car cab must individually resist— design of the forward end structures of again 1,500,000 pounds in the Section 238.411 Rear end Structures of the Amtrak high-speed power car cab is aggregate—under § 238.409(a) and (b) of Power Car Cabs. based on an ultimate load. FRA agrees this rule. Further, FRA believes these that basing the acceptance criterion on The rear end structure of a power car values to be consistent with the Amtrak ultimate strength is consistent with the cab provides protection to crewmembers high-speed trainset design specification. Amtrak high-speed trainset design from intrusion of locomotive machinery specification, and FRA has modified the or trailing cars into the cab’s occupied Section 238.413 End Structures of rule in this regard. volume as a result of a collision or Trailer Cars Bombardier also commented that in derailment. The requirements in this The requirements in paragraph (a) are paragraph (c)(2) FRA proposed requiring section are based on a specific end based on a specific end structure design the corner post to resist a horizontal, structure design that consists of two that consists of two full-height corner lateral force of 100,000 pounds applied full-height corner posts (paragraph (a)) posts and two full-height collision

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25633 posts. The requirements include loading in a way that collision posts cannot.) Section 238.417 Side Loads requirements that each of these However, none of the relevant recent This section contains the structural members must withstand. The experience is on the North American requirements intended to resist rule allows flexibility for other designs continent, and the ability of articulated penetration of the side structure of a that provide protection structurally connections to remain intact during a passenger car by a highway or rail equivalent to the specified design. high-speed collision with North vehicle. The objective is to make the Paragraph (b) in the final rule American passenger equipment, freight side of the passenger car strong enough contains an additional requirement for rolling stock, or a fixed obstruction has so that the car derails rather than trailer cars designed with an end not been demonstrated analytically. collapses when struck in the side by a vestibule. Such designs provide an FRA noted the weakness in the highway or rail vehicle. If the passenger opportunity for additional corner post proposed exception (§ 238.413(b) of the car can move sideways (derail), less structures inboard of the vestibule side NPRM) while preparing the final rule. structural damage and potential to doors. These corner posts can be FRA has deleted proposed paragraph (b) supported by the side sill and therefore injure train occupants will result. in its entirety, and has not provided an In its comments on the NPRM, be structurally more substantial than the exception due to the high operating Bombardier stated that for practical corner posts ahead of the side doors. speeds of Tier II passenger equipment. This paragraph includes loading reasons and to be consistent with the requirements that these additional full- Section 238.415 Rollover Strength Amtrak high-speed trainset design height corner posts must withstand. specifications, local yielding of the side Overall, the double corner post design This section contains the sill should be allowed in calculating the provides significantly increased requirements for the rollover strength of allowable stress in paragraph (c). FRA protection to passengers in trailer cars passenger cars and power cars. If the agrees that local yielding of the side with end vestibules. occupied volumes of these vehicles skin adjacent to the side sill and belt In its comments on the rule, remain intact when they roll onto their rail, and local yielding of the side sill Bombardier stated that, to be consistent side or roof structures, occupant injury bend radii at the crossbearer and floor- with the design requirements for from vehicle collapse will be avoided. beam connections is permissible. FRA Amtrak’s high speed trainsets, the This section essentially requires the has modified paragraph (c) accordingly, corner post loads in paragraphs vehicle structure to support twice the and notes that such local yielding is (a)(1)(ii), (b)(2), and (b)(3) (as numbered deadweight of the vehicle as it rests on permissible provided the resulting in the final rule) should be applied at 18 its side or roof. Passenger equipment deformations do not intrude upon the inches up from the underframe, rather constructed to North American design occupied volume of the passenger car. than at 30 inches. FRA agrees that these practice performs well in rollover Section 238.419 Truck-to-Car-Body values are consistent with Amtrak’s situations. FRA believes this and Truck Component Attachment previous undertakings for the high- requirement captures this industry speed trainsets, and has modified the practice. Paragraph (a) requires the truck-to- final rule accordingly. car-body attachment on Tier II FRA has revised paragraph (a) to passenger equipment to resist without In the 1997 NPRM, FRA proposed an make clear that its requirements apply exception from the requirements of failure a minimum vertical force to passenger cars. This revision is paragraph (a) for a trailer car (or, more equivalent to 2g acting on the mass of consistent with the section-by-section appropriately, a consist of trailer cars) the truck and a minimum force of analysis of proposed § 238.415 in the made up of multiple articulated units 250,000 pounds acting in any horizontal NPRM, see 62 FR 49779, which not designed for uncoupling other than direction on the truck. The intent of the explained that this section included in a maintenance shop. See 62 FR requirement to resist without failure the rollover strength requirements for both 49814, proposed § 238.413(b). FRA minimum vertical force equivalent to 2g power cars and trailer cars. (The term proposed that the end structure acting on the mass of the truck is to trailer car is in fact a more inclusive requirements in paragraph (a) apply prevent the truck from separating from definition under the rule than the term only to the two ends of the entire the car body during a rollover. The articulated assembly (or consist) of passenger car.) FRA has also made clear intent of the requirement to resist units, and that the interior ends of the in paragraph (a) that minor localized without failure the minimum force of individual units of the articulated deformations to the outer side skin of 250,000 pounds acting in any horizontal assembly need not be equipped with an the passenger car or power car are direction on the truck is to resist the end structure meeting the requirements allowed provided such deformations in forces that act upon the truck during a in paragraph (a). Articulated assemblies no way intrude upon the occupied collision or derailment that would tend have a history of remaining in line volume of each car. As in the NPRM, to shear the truck from the car body. If during derailments and collisions and, paragraph (b) states that deformation to the truck separates from the car body it if not designed to be uncoupled, only the roof sheathing and framing is may become a hazardous projectile that the outside ends of the entire assembly allowed to the extent necessary for the will intrude upon the occupied volume should be exposed to the risks of vehicle to be supported directly on the of a passenger car or locomotive. override. (In this regard, FRA should top chords of the side frames and end Further, the truck will not be able to have only proposed an exception for frames. serve, in effect, as an anti-climbing such equipment from the collision post As Bombardier suggested in its device if it separates from the car body requirements in paragraph (a) and not comments on the NPRM, FRA has also in a collision or derailment. from the corner post requirements as made a minor clarification to this Paragraph (b) requires that each well since collision posts—not corner section by substituting the words ‘‘in component of the truck must remain posts—principally protect against the structural members of the’’ in place attached to the truck when a force override and telescoping of passenger of the word ‘‘for’’ in the phrase which equivalent to 2g acting on the mass of equipment. Corner posts, by their very originally read in the NPRM, ‘‘the the component is exerted in any definition and location, protect against allowable stress for occupied volumes direction on that component. Whereas hazards along the railroad right-of-way .* * *.’’ See 62 FR 49816. paragraph (a) is intended to keep the

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25634 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations truck attached to the car body, end-facing and side-facing window the 12-pound steel sphere at an angle 90 paragraph (b) is intended to keep truck glazing, and employs different testing degrees to the window surface. This components attached to the truck. methods than specified in this section. should result in a requirement as strict Bombardier, in its comments on the As recommended by Bombardier in its or stricter than that proposed in the NPRM, requested that FRA modify comments on the NPRM, instead of NPRM. paragraph (a) so that the truck-to-car- applying the glazing requirements in Under paragraph (b)(1), end-facing body attachment must resist the this section generally to power cars as exterior window glazing shall specified vertical and horizontal forces proposed in the NPRM, FRA has demonstrate anti-spalling performance only as individual loads applied decided to limit the application of the by the use of a 0.001 aluminum witness separately. However, FRA has retained glazing requirements in this section to plate, placed 12 inches from the glazing the requirement that the truck-to-car- power car cabs. This modification is surface during all impact tests. The body attachment resist the specified consistent with the glazing requirements witness plate must not contain any vertical and horizontal forces as applied in part 223, see, e.g., 49 CFR § 223.9(a). marks from spalled window glazing at the same time. Requiring the truck-to- Bombardier had noted that one of the particles after any impact test. This car-body attachment to resist the side windows on the Amtrak high-speed requirement was originally proposed as vertical and horizontal forces applied at power cars will lead to an equipment § 238.421(a)(3)(ii) in the NPRM. When the same time reflects actual conditions room, which FRA understands will not impacted on the exterior surface, experienced during a collision or be occupied while the power car is in window glazing currently used in derailment. For this reason, FRA service. railroad equipment tends to spall from believes it inappropriate to adopt Paragraph (a) relates to paragraph (b) the inside surface. Several eye injuries Bombardier’s comment. in that paragraph (b) contains additional to crewmembers have resulted. FRA requirements for end-facing exterior believes that the witness plates used in Section 238.421 Glazing window glazing on power car cabs and conducting the spalling tests to qualify This section contains the glazing passenger cars. First, under paragraph current glazing are too thick and have requirements for Tier II passenger (b)(1), end-facing exterior window allowed glazing that actually spalled to equipment. FRA believes that the higher glazing shall resist the impact of a 12- pass the test. The witness plate speed of Tier II passenger equipment pound solid steel sphere traveling at the specified in this paragraph is much necessitates more stringent glazing maximum speed of the vehicle in which thinner and, therefore, more sensitive to standards than currently required by 49 the glazing will be installed. The test detecting spall. CFR part 223. As a result, FRA proposed must be conducted so that the sphere In commenting on the NPRM, specific standards for end-facing strikes the window glazing at an angle Automotive Glass stated that the exterior glazing, side-facing exterior of 90 degrees (perpendicular) to the performance of a witness plate is glazing, and interior glazing (which is window surface. To successfully pass critically dependent on the amount of not addressed in part 223) on windows the test, the window must neither spall tension in which it is held, and that a installed in Tier II passenger equipment. nor be penetrated by the sphere. This uniform tension procedure would See 62 FR 49817. In response to the test is similar to the requirements enhance consistency. Automotive Glass NPRM, however, FRA received a imposed under European glazing therefore recommended that the test number of comments questioning the standards for high-speed trains, and protocol specify the minimum tension appropriateness of FRA’s proposals, as should be much more repeatable than of the foil in terms of some unit of well as the existing glazing standards in the cinder block test specified in 49 CFR measure, other than ‘‘taut,’’ which it part 223. Having considered these part 223. considered an aspiration not a comments, FRA has decided to focus In the NPRM, FRA had proposed that specification. FRA notes that in testing the final rule principally on more end-facing exterior windows resist an required under 49 CFR part 223, the stringent glazing requirements for end- impact with a 12-pound steel sphere at witness plate must have a ‘‘taut’’surface. facing exterior windows installed in an angle equal to the angle between the See 49 CFR part 223, Appendix A, b.(6). Tier II passenger equipment. In the window glazing surface as installed and In the NPRM, proposed second phase of this rulemaking, FRA the direction of travel of the train. See § 238.421(a)(3)(ii) is silent as to the will reexamine the glazing requirements 62 FR 49817. In commenting on the tension of the witness plate. As ‘‘taut’’ for all windows installed in Tier II NPRM, Automotive Glass Engineering has been the witness plate tension passenger equipment. FRA notes that (Automotive Glass) explained that specification used in all safety glazing this final rule does not amend the impact angle depends upon variables testing required by FRA, use of a ‘‘taut’’ requirements of 49 CFR part 223, such as the vector of the projectile, the witness plate is not inconsistent with although FRA had proposed to amend vector of the train, and the angle at the requirements of this section. FRA the application section of that part in which the subject glazing is installed. believes that this issue may be the NPRM. See 62 FR 49791. Such an Automotive Glass then observed that it reexamined in the second phase of the amendment is no longer appropriate in would have no advance knowledge of rulemaking. light of the requirements of this section the angle at which an object would Automotive Glass also commented (§ 238.421) in the final rule. The strike the window glazing when that total elimination of spalling will requirements of this section and the installed in the train. Automotive Glass result in additional weight, additional modifications from the proposed rule recommended that the rule require that cost, loss of durability, or some are discussed below in detail. tests be conducted at an angle combination of these three. According The requirements of paragraph (a) perpendicular to the surface—noting to Automotive Glass, unessential weight apply to all exterior windows on power this would constitute the most severe above the center of gravity is car cabs and passenger cars. Windows impact—unless the rule specifies the detrimental because high-speed trains on such equipment are required to meet method for determining the angle of should have less inertia and a lower the glazing standards contained in 49 incidence. FRA has adopted the center of gravity. Automotive Glass CFR part 223, except as provided in comment of Automotive Glass by believed FRA could sacrifice too much paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. revising the rule text to require that the by averting the slight hazard created by Part 223 contains requirements for both window glazing resist the impact with the possibility of minor spalling in an

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:15 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25635 extremely unlikely event. Under the glazing meets the requirements of this with the alternative standards specified final rule, of course, only end-facing section or part 223, or both, unless that in paragraph (c), as appropriate. exterior glazing on Tier II passenger window segment is composed of the However, FRA has included the equipment is subject to the particular same material and manufactured in the following comments received on the requirements of this paragraph. Side- same manner as the window segment proposed side-facing exterior window facing exterior glazing is subject to the that underwent the testing required by glazing standards for purposes of requirements contained in 49 CFR part this section or part 223, or both. advancing the discussion of these 223. As a result, only a relatively small Paragraph (c) contains an alternative standards in the second phase of the number of the windows on a Tier II to the glazing standards specified in rulemaking. passenger train will be required to paragraphs (a) and (b). The alternative FRA had generally proposed requiring comply with the more stringent standards specified in paragraph (c) that side-facing exterior window glazing requirements specified in this represent proposed ’’ §§ 238.421(a) and in Tier II passenger equipment resist the paragraph. In this regard, FRA believes (b) in the NPRM. FRA has included this impact of a 12-pound solid steel sphere that the changes made to the final rule paragraph in the final rule in traveling at 15 mph and impacting at an render these comments less significant. recognition that the safety glazing angle of 90 degrees to the surface of the Automotive Glass further commented standards proposed in § 238.421 were glazing, with no penetration or spall. that under the proposed rule no spalling developed in consultation with Amtrak See proposed § 238.421(a)(2)(i), 62 FR of glass is allowed, and noted that under for use on Amtrak’s HTS, and FRA 49817. FRA intended this test to be 49 CFR part 223 spalling is permitted believed these standards would provide more stringent than the large object unless it is severe enough to penetrate sufficient protection for the safety of the impact test required for side-facing the prescribed foil witness plate. train occupants. However, the option to exterior glazing under 49 CFR part 223, Additionally, Automotive Glass stated use the alternative standards in and to demonstrate whether the side- that constructing foil witness plates paragraph (c) only applies to exterior facing glazing can protect occupants requires great care to avoid creating window glazing in passenger equipment from a relatively heavy object thrown indentations in the foil, and that ordered prior to May 12, 1999. Further, against the side of the train. In response microscopic examination of the surface the option to comply with paragraph (c) to this proposal, GE Plastics (of the could be required to locate indentations is no longer available once the window General Electrical Company) to determine whether they were needs to be replaced and the railroad commented that, although the energy preexisting or produced by spall. To the has exhausted its inventory of glazed resulting from the proposed test would extent no spalling is allowed, windows conforming to the be greater than that required under part Automotive Glass suggested replacing requirements of paragraph (c) as held 223, the momentum produced would the witness plate with a capture box that prior to May 12, 1999. In this manner, not be greater. Noting that tests have would capture glass fragments in the exterior window glazing complying shown momentum to be as significant a box. Automotive Glass believed that use with the requirements in this paragraph factor as energy in the consequences of of a capture box would result in a will be phased out over time. an impact, GE Plastics did not believe simpler and more reliable determination Paragraph (d) is similar to the proposed test could be considered whether spalling occurred. In addition, § 238.221(b) in this final rule. FRA did more stringent than the current if the rule would permit minor spalling, not receive any specific comments on requirement in 49 CFR part 223. Instead Automotive Glass recommended use of this section and, for clarity, FRA has a thinner witness plate positioned closer restated the requirements proposed in of FRA’s proposed test, GE Plastics to the glazing material to reduce the §§ 238.421(c) and (d) in the NPRM, see recommended a test involving a steel severity of allowable spalling and 62 FR 49817, as § 238.421(d) in this sphere weighing 24 to 25 pounds permit determination based on final rule. The focus of paragraph (d) in travelling at 15 mph, so that energy and penetration instead of indentation. the final rule is clearly on the ability of momentum would be greater than the FRA desires that no spalling occur, each exterior window to remain in current requirement. however, and recognizes that the place, however the window may be FRA had also proposed generally specified requirement is stricter than secured, and not have the window requiring that side-facing exterior that provided in part 223. Further, FRA become a potential projectile itself. FRA window glazing in all Tier II passenger believes that use of a capture box is not notes that it is separately evaluating equipment resist the impact of a granite necessarily a superior method of testing whether securement of window glazing ballast stone weighing a minimum of 0.5 for spalling, as the integrity of the test in existing passenger equipment is pounds, traveling at 75 mph, at a 90- results depend in large part on the sufficient to withstand pressure degree angle to the glazing surface, with attentiveness of the operator examining differences associated with passing no penetration or spall. See proposed the capture box for spalled glass. FRA high-speed trains. § 238.421(a)(2)(ii). FRA intended this notes that Automotive Glass also Paragraph (e) is a stenciling test to demonstrate whether the glazing provided several other comments requirement which FRA has revised in could protect occupants against impact regarding the testing protocols specified this final rule as proposed originally in from a common stone found along the in this section and 49 CFR part 223. To § 238.421(f). railroad thrown at a speed slightly faster the extent that these comments address As noted, FRA has decided not to than a human could throw such an testing protocols in part 223, they impose on all Tier II passenger object. In response, Automotive Glass concern issues affecting glazing tests for equipment in this final rule the commented that, because ballast stones both freight and passenger equipment. particular requirements for side-facing are irregular geometrically and Such issues need to be addressed in a exterior window glazing on Tier II structurally, reproducible tests would broader regulatory forum than this final passenger equipment which FRA had not be possible unless the granite rule on passenger equipment safety. proposed in the NPRM. Instead, Tier II spheres used in the tests were machined FRA does make clear, nevertheless, in power car cabs and passenger cars must and polished. Second, Automotive Glass response to a comment from comply with the existing side-facing stated that the proposed test would not Automotive Glass, that it is not proper exterior window glazing requirements impose a significantly higher kinetic to certify that a segment of window specified in 49 CFR part 223, or comply energy load than that imposed by the

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:15 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12MYR2 25636 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations test involving a 12-pound steel sphere Automotive Glass observed that any standard incorporated in FRA’s interior impacting the glazing surface at 15 mph, level of ballistic resistance required of glazing proposal is an external glazing and also it would not have greater spall glazing which exceeds that provided by standard that contains requirements generation potential than the proposed the body panel construction below the which may not be needed for internal test involving a 9 mm bullet. glazing would contribute only to a false glazing, such as light stability, luminous Automotive Glass added that, if a higher sense of security. In the end, transmittance, and abrasion resistance. kinetic energy test is desired, it would Automotive Glass suggested that Likewise, AtoHaas commented that be more reasonable to increase the individual railroads be given the specifying a requirement for laminated impact velocity of the proposed test discretion whether to utilize glazing glass would exclude other materials able involving the 12-pound steel sphere to with greater ballistic resistance based on to meet the safety needs here for at least 16 mph. the threat and severity of vandalism or internal glazing. AtoHaas noted that FRA has also decided to defer terrorism each faces. Again, FRA has there are many types of glazing that imposing a new requirement for ballistic decided to defer until the second phase would shatter or break in a safe manner, testing of exterior window glazing on all of the rulemaking consideration of and urged FRA to examine the power car cabs and passenger cars. In imposing a new requirement for ballistic American National Standard for Safety the NPRM, FRA proposed requiring that testing on all exterior window glazing Glazing Used in Buildings for products all exterior glazing resist the single used on power car cabs and passenger meeting FRA’s safety needs. FRA will impact of a 9-mm, 147-grain bullet cars. Of course, a railroad may avail consider these recommendations with traveling at an impact velocity of 900 itself of the alternative requirements the Working Group in the second phase feet per second, with no bullet specified in paragraph (c) at its option, of the rulemaking, and presents them penetration or spall. See proposed to the extent paragraph (c) is applicable. here to advance discussion on potential § 238.421(a)(3)(i). FRA noted that this The final rule does not contain a requirements for interior window bullet is a much more common handgun standard covering interior window glazing in Tier II passenger equipment. round than the 22-caliber bullet glazing, as FRA has decided to defer specified in 49 CFR part 223. In consideration of imposing such a Section 238.423 Fuel Tanks response to the proposal, GE Plastics standard until the second phase of this This section contains the commented that it had seen no data rulemaking. In the NPRM, FRA had requirements for fuel tanks for fossil- indicating that people shoot at trains proposed requiring that interior glazing fueled Tier II passenger equipment. This more frequently with 9 mm bullets, meet the minimum requirements of AS1 section should be read with the although it agreed that a 9 mm bullet is type laminated glass as defined in discussion of locomotive fuel tanks in a more common handgun round than a American National Standard ‘‘Safety the preamble. This section contains .22 caliber bullet. Further, GE Plastics Code for Glazing Materials for Glazing separate requirements for external fuel questioned why a 147 grain bullet was Motor Vehicles Operating on Land tanks, which extend outside the car specified, noted that a bullet’s shape Highways,’’ ASA Standard Z26.1–1966. body structure, and for internal tanks, and composition affect its penetrating See 62 FR 49817. (Bombardier which do not extend outside the car ability, and believed that more detail is commented that it believed the latest body. needed to determine which bullet is revision to this standard occurred in In commenting on the proposed rule, appropriate. Moreover, GE Plastics 1990 rather than 1966.) FRA intended Bombardier recommended that the same expressed concern about the wording of that the proposed requirement would requirements proposed for Tier I fuel the proposed test in that it believed a alleviate the need for interior window tanks apply to Tier II equipment as well. bullet will rarely be travelling exactly at glazing to meet the stringent impact Bombardier stated that early consensus 900 feet per second during testing. GE resistance requirements placed on was reached to do so in the Tier II Plastics recommended specifying a exterior glazing, while ensuring that the working group during development of minimum and a maximum velocity, glazing will shatter in a safe manner like the NPRM. Bombardier maintained that instead, as well as examining the automotive glazing. In response to this this consensus was based on the fact wording of existing ballistic test proposal, GE Plastics commented that that there are no fuel tanks on the standards. requiring the glass to meet the AS1 electric trainsets being built for the NEC; In commenting on the proposal, requirements would exclude recognized the maximum speed for a fossil-fueled Automotive Glass noted its belief that safety glazing materials for reasons version of the trainsets would be 125 the .22 caliber projectile specified in 49 unrelated to the glazing’s ability to mph; and no data exists to support the CFR part 223 represents the threat of break safely, such as light transmission, need for different fuel tank requirements accidental injury from young people light distortion, and abrasion resistance. for Tier I and Tier II equipment. Further, hunting or ‘‘plinking’’ along a railroad GE plastics further commented that Bombardier stated that the requirements right-of-way, while the proposed 9 mm specifying a requirement for laminated for Tier I fuel tanks incorporate the most projectile represents the threat of injury glass would exclude many established current industry practices for diesel intentionally inflicted by vandals or safety glazing materials. GE Plastics electric locomotive fuel tanks. terrorists. Automotive Glass believed recommended that, if safety glazing is In response to Bombardier’s comment, that if FRA were to adopt a policy of desired, FRA incorporate instead the FRA believes that different fuel tank requiring any level of protection against 1984 version of the ANSI Z97.1 safety requirements for Tier I and Tier II intentionally inflicted injury, it would glazing standard for use in buildings, equipment may be appropriate based on seem to constitute a departure from which defines safety glazing as ‘‘Glazing the different maximum speeds at which previous policy. If FRA were to adopt materials so constructed, treated, or the equipment can travel. However, this approach, then Automotive Glass combined with other materials that, if FRA recognizes that the specific recommended that the proposed test broken by human contact, the likelihood differences between the proposed Tier I protocol require each subject glazing of cutting and piercing injuries that and Tier II fuel tank requirements have specimen to withstand three 9 mm might result from such contact is not been tightly justified. Accordingly, bullets within a circle eight inches in minimized.’’ the final rule requires compliance with diameter, as vandals or terrorists are AtoHaas Americas, Inc., (AtoHaas) Tier I requirements for internal fuel more likely to fire short bursts. Further, similarly commented that the AS1 tanks, and includes a requirement for

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25637

FRA review and approval of any Tier II the development of high-speed track which is evidenced by lateral external fuel tank for safety equivalence standards to ensure that the two sets of accelerations in excess of 0.4g root mean with Tier I performance. standards not conflict at the wheel-rail square (mean-removed) for 2 seconds. In As Bombardier pointed out in its interface, where they overlap. FRA did its comments on the rule, Talgo had comments, the NPRM did contain a receive a comment on the passenger recommended that the permissible technical mistake in proposed equipment NPRM that the two sets of limits of hunting oscillations be § 238.223(b)(2), which had as its Tier II standards do in fact conflict, and this specified in the rule text and not in the counterpart proposed § 238.423(b)(3). comment is addressed in particular in definitions section, § 238.5, as proposed Accordingly, these paragraphs have the discussion of Appendix C to this in the NPRM. See definition of hunting been corrected in the final rule to reflect part (Suspension System Safety oscillations in proposed § 238.5, 62 FR that the 25,000-lb yield strength Performance Standards). 49793. FRA has adopted Talgo’s described in the proposals is in fact a To ensure safe, stable performance suggestion for clarity. However, FRA 25,000-lb per-square-inch yield strength. and ride quality, paragraph (a) requires has not adopted Talgo’s alternative suspension systems to be designed to specification. Talgo commented that, Section 238.425 Electrical System. reasonably prevent wheel climb, wheel using the formulation in the NPRM in FRA did not receive any specific unloading, rail rollover, rail shift, and a defining hunting oscillations for Tier II comments on this section, and it is vehicle from overturning. These passenger equipment, lateral adopted as proposed. This section requirements must be met in all oscillations should apply on a peak contains the requirements for the operating environments, and under all basis, rather than on a peak-to-peak electrical system design of Tier II track and loading conditions as basis. Talgo explained that oscillations passenger equipment. These determined by the operating railroad. In would be considered dangerous if the requirements reflect common electrical addition, these requirements must be amplitude of six consecutive peaks safety practice and are widely met under all track speeds and track exceeded 0.8g. Talgo added that this recognized as good electrical design conditions consistent with the Track approach is followed in Europe, citing practice. They include provisions for: Safety Standards (49 CFR part 213), up UIC–515, and believed it more • Circuit protection against surges, to the maximum operating speed and reasonable than the proposed overload and ground faults; maximum cant deficiency of the formulation. FRA has revised the • Electrical conductor sizes and equipment. These broad suspension definition of hunting oscillations to properties to provide a margin of safety system performance requirements make it consistent with the definition of for the intended application; address the operation of equipment at truck hunting in 49 CFR § 213.333, Note • Battery system design to prevent the both high speed over well maintained 4 to the table of Vehicle/Track risk of overcharging or accumulation of track and at low speed over lower Interaction Safety Limits. FRA dangerous gases that can cause an classes of track. Suspension system determined that the approach using the explosion; performance requirements are needed at root mean square (mean-removed) was • Design of resistor grids that both high and low speeds as the preferred indicator of the forces dissipate energy produced by dynamic exemplified by incidents where stiff, associated with truck hunting, and takes braking with sufficient electrical high-speed suspension systems caused into consideration the oscillatory nature isolation and ventilation to minimize passenger equipment to derail while of truck hunting. FRA believes this the risk of fires; and negotiating curves in yards at low definition of truck hunting removes the • Electromagnetic compatibility speeds. uncertainty in counting the number of within the intended operating Compliance with paragraph (a) must sustained oscillations. environment to prevent electromagnetic be demonstrated during pre-revenue FRA has further revised the rule to interference with safety-critical service acceptance testing of the specify that the accelerometer equipment systems and to prevent equipment and by complying with the measurements shall be processed interference of the rolling stock with safety performance standards for through a filter having a band pass of other systems along the right-of-way. suspension systems contained in 0.5 to 10 Hz. Talgo also commented the Appendix C to this part. Because better rule should state that in measuring the Section 238.427 Suspension System ways to demonstrate suspension system amplitude of lateral oscillations, the In response to comments on the 1997 safety performance may be developed in signal should be filtered with a band NPRM and for purposes of clarification, the future, the rule allows the use of pass of 4 to 8 Hz so that irrelevant FRA has revised the requirements of alternative standards to those contained signals are excluded. FRA has adopted this section. Changes from the NPRM in Appendix C if they provide at least Talgo’s recommendation in general, yet are noted below in the general equivalent safety and are approved by has specified a pass band consistent discussion of this section. the FRA Associate Administrator for with the track safety standards. See 49 As explained in the NPRM, safety Safety under the provisions of § 238.21. CFR § 213.333, Note 3 to table of requirements concerning the wheel-rail Paragraph (b) requires the steady-state Vehicle/Track Interaction Safety Limits. interface have traditionally been lateral acceleration of passenger cars to Paragraph (d) provides ride vibration addressed as part of the track safety be less than 0.1g, as measured parallel (quality) limits for vertical accelerations, standards. In parallel with the Tier II to the car floor inside the passenger lateral accelerations, and the Equipment Subgroup’s effort to develop compartment, under all operating combination of lateral and vertical high-speed equipment safety standards, conditions. accelerations. These limits must be met the RSAC Track Working Group Paragraph (c) requires each truck to be while the equipment is traveling at the developed a final rule on track safety equipped with a permanently installed maximum operating speed over its standards which includes high-speed lateral accelerometer mounted on the intended route. In commenting on the track standards. See 63 FR 33992, June truck frame. If hunting oscillations are NPRM, Bombardier noted that the 22, 1998. In October 1996, FRA detected, the train must be slowed. FRA values proposed in this paragraph were sponsored a joint meeting of the Tier II has revised this section to specify that not fully consistent with the values Equipment Subgroup and members of hunting oscillations are considered a found in the then-proposed track safety the Track Working Group focusing on sustained cyclic oscillation of the truck standards, and requested that they be

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25638 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations made consistent. FRA has revised the for application to this new and identical to the requirements proposed requirements of this paragraph somewhat unconventional equipment. in the 1997 NPRM. Except for one accordingly. For clarity, as used in They represent the consensus commenter’s recommendation that paragraph (d)(1)(iii), the formula recommendation of the Tier II leeway be provided on the number of 2 2 (aL +aV ) can be restated as the sum of Equipment Subgroup. locations in a vehicle that must be the square of both accelerations. This final rule has retained all of the equipped with a means to effectuate an FRA has combined paragraph (e) of requirements proposed in the 1997 emergency brake application on shorter proposed § 238.427 into paragraph (d) of NPRM. The only modification to the equipment, no substantive adverse the final rule as paragraph (d)(2). This safety appliance requirements is in comments were received on the provision requires that compliance with response to one commenter’s provisions contained in this section the requirements of this paragraph be recommendation that the requirements and, thus, they have been retained demonstrated during the equipment’s related to sill steps be made more without change. pre-revenue service qualification tests consistent with existing regulations. As As noted in the 1997 NPRM, the main required under § 238.111 and § 213.345 a result, the requirement contained in issue of concern among Subgroup of the federal track safety standards. paragraph (e)(7), regarding the members involved the capability of One of the most important objectives of maximum height of the lowest sill step sensor technology used to monitor the pre-revenue service qualification testing tread, has been changed to be consistent application and release of brakes. Labor is to demonstrate that suspension with existing regulations and practice. representatives maintained that a system performance requirements have This same commenter also technology that actually measures the been met. FRA makes clear that the recommended that a specific grade of force of brake shoes and pads against requirements of paragraph (d)(2) need steel be designated in the requirements wheels and brake discs is required for only be shown during pre-revenue for the steel or other materials used for a reliable indication of brake application service qualification testing of the handrails, handholds, and sill steps, and and release. Railroad operators equipment. that the grade of SAE (Society of contended that this technology is not FRA has added paragraph (d)(3) to Automotive Engineers) bolt to be used commercially available and that make clear that, for purposes of as mechanical fasteners be specified as monitoring pressure in brake cylinders paragraph (d), acceleration well. FRA believes that steel or other does provide a reliable indication of measurements shall be processed materials used for handrails, handholds, brake application and release, through a filter having a band pass of and sill steps should at least be particularly when those cylinders are 0.5 to 10 Hz. In its comments on the equivalent to specification ASTM A– directly adjacent to the point where NPRM, Talgo observed that the signal 576, Grade 1015–1020 steel. However, brake friction surfaces are forced filter to use in performing the limit to the extent this need be specified as together. FRA agrees that the technology calculations had not been specified in a requirement, FRA believes it would be suggested by certain labor commenters this paragraph, and suggested using a more appropriate to consider doing so is not currently available and that brake band pass filter of 0.4 to 10 Hz. FRA has for safety appliances on all passenger system piston travel or piston cylinder effectively adopted Talgo’s comment. equipment—not just Tier II passenger pressure indicators have been used with Paragraph (e) requires wheelset equipment. FRA had not made such a satisfactory results for many years. journal bearing overheat sensors to be proposal in the NPRM; and this issue Although FRA agrees that these provided either on board the equipment may be reexamined in Phase II of the indicators do not provide 100 percent or at reasonable intervals along the rulemaking. As for the strength of certainty that the brakes are effective, railroad’s right-of-way. FRA prefers mechanical fasteners, the final rule they have proven effective enough to be sensors to be on board the equipment to states that mechanical fasteners must preferable to requiring an inspector to eliminate the risk of a hotbox that have a mechanical strength at least assume a dangerous position while develops between wayside locations. equivalent to that of a 1⁄2 inch diameter inspecting a train’s brake system. However, FRA does recognize that SAE grade steel bolt, as FRA had Aside from this issue, the rest of the onboard sensors have a history of falsely proposed in the NPRM. FRA believes brake system design and performance detecting overheat conditions, causing that any SAE grade of steel bolt will requirements contained in this section significant operating difficulties for satisfy this requirement, and, as a result, received widespread support. In fact, some passenger railroads. FRA has not modified the final rule in several of the requirements were FRA has clarified paragraph (e) based this regard. contained in written positions provided on a comment from Bombardier that this Paragraph (b) deserves special by both rail labor and management provision should apply to each wheelset mention; it requires that Tier II members of the Subgroup, and virtually journal bearing, and not to each passenger trains be provided with a all of the requirements were discussed equipment bearing as stated in parking or hand brake that can be set in the high-speed passenger equipment § 238.427(f), see 62 FR 49818. This is in and released manually and can hold the section of the 1994 NPRM on power accord with FRA’s original intent. equipment on a 3-percent grade. A hand brakes. See 59 FR 47693–94, 47699– brake is an important safety feature that 47700, and 47730. Many of the Section 238.429 Safety Appliances prevents the rolling or runaway of requirements in this section are similar This section contains the parked equipment. to the requirements for Tier I passenger requirements for safety appliances for equipment contained in § 238.231, thus Section 238.431 Brake System Tier II passenger equipment. FRA has the discussion related to that section attempted to simplify and clarify how This section contains the brake should be read in conjunction with the the Safety Appliance Standards system design and performance following discussion. contained in 49 CFR part 231 and 49 requirements for Tier II passenger Paragraph (a) of this section is U.S.C. 20302(a) will be applied to Tier equipment, and, except for one virtually identical to the requirement II passenger equipment. The provision, represents the consensus related to the braking systems of Tier I requirements contained in this section recommendation of the Tier II passenger equipment in § 238.231(a). are basically a restatement of existing Equipment Subgroup. The provisions Paragraph (b) contains a requirement requirements but tailored specifically contained in this section are virtually similar to that in § 238.231(b) and is

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25639 intended to protect railroad employees. speed equipment may use different train assist in the rescue of disabled Tier II FRA believes that inspectors of handling procedures when the electric passenger equipment. In addition, equipment must be able to ascertain if portion of blended brake is not couplers must include an automatic brakes are applied or released without available. Therefore, a dangerous coupling feature as well as an placing themselves in a vulnerable situation could arise when an operator uncoupling device that complies with position. This final rule allows railroads of these high-speed trainsets expects the 49 U.S.C. chapter 203, 49 CFR part 231, the flexibility of using a reliable electric portion of the blended brake to and 49 CFR § 232.2. FRA believes that indicator in place of requiring direct be available and it is not. FRA believes automatic uncoupling devices are observation of the brake application or that when operations exceed 125 mph necessary in order to comply with the piston travel because the designs of either the train must not be used if the intent of the statute so that employees many of the brake systems used on electric portion of the blended brake is will not have to place themselves passenger equipment make direct not available, or the train operator must between equipment in order to perform observation of the brakes extremely know that the electric portion of the coupling or uncoupling operations. difficult. Brake system piston travel or blended brake is not available so he or Section 238.435 Interior Fittings and piston cylinder pressure indicators have she can be prepared to use Surfaces been used with satisfactory results for compensating train handling many years. Although indicators do not procedures. Further, FRA believes that This section contains the provide 100 percent certainty that the if the additional heat input to wheels or requirements for interior fittings and brakes are effective, they have proven discs caused by lack of the electric surfaces. Once survivable space is effective enough to be preferable to portion of the blended brake causes ensured by basic vehicle structural requiring an inspector to assume a thermal damage to these braking strength and crash energy management dangerous position. surfaces, then the electric portion of the requirements, the design of interior Paragraph (c) is virtually identical to blended brake should be considered a features becomes an important factor in the requirement contained in required safety feature and, unless it is preventing or mitigating injuries § 238.231(c), and is a fundamental brake available, the equipment should not be resulting from collisions or derailments. system performance requirement that an used. Loose seats, equipment, and luggage are emergency brake application feature be Paragraph (f) requires the brake a significant cause of injuries in available at any time and produce an system to allow a disabled train’s passenger train collisions and irretrievable stop. This paragraph pneumatic brakes to be controlled by a derailments. contains an additional requirement that conventional locomotive during rescue Paragraphs (a) through (c) contain a means to actuate the emergency brake operations. requirements for the design of passenger be provided at two locations in each Paragraph (g) requires that Tier II car seats and the strength of their unit of the train. This additional passenger trains be equipped with an attachment to the car body. These requirement ensures the availability of independent brake failure detection requirements are based on sled tests of the emergency brake feature and is in system that compares brake commands passenger coach seats, seat tests accordance with the current available to brake system outputs to determine if conducted for other modes of design of high-speed passenger a failure has occurred. This paragraph transportation, and computer modeling equipment. FRA received comments also requires that the brake failure to predict the results of passenger train from Renfe Talgo recommending that detection system report failures to the collisions. These provisions include a FRA change this requirement to permit automated monitoring system, which is requirement for shock absorbent shorter equipment to provide only one contained in § 238.445, thus alerting the material on the backs of seats to cushion location in each unit of a train with a train operator to potential brake system the impacts of passengers with the seats means to actuate the emergency brake. degradation so that the operator can take ahead of them. This commenter recommends such corrective action such as slowing the FRA has modified paragraph (a) based leeway due to the fewer number of train. on comments received in response to passengers in these units and due to the Paragraph (h) requires that all Tier II the NPRM. In the NPRM, FRA proposed distance any one passenger would be to passenger equipment be provided with requiring a seat back in a passenger car the actuation device when compared to an adhesion control system designed to to be designed to withstand, with the distance in standard length automatically adjust the braking force deflection but without total failure, the passenger train units. FRA has modified on each wheel to prevent sliding during load of a seat occupant who is a 95th- this paragraph to provide that braking. This paragraph also requires percentile male accelerated at 8g who equipment that is 45 feet or less in that the train operator be alerted in the impacts the seat back. See 62 FR 49819. length (approximately one-half the event of a failure of this system with a Simula, in commenting on the NPRM, length of standard passenger equipment) wheel slide alarm that is visual or suggested that the seat back in a need provide a means to actuate the audible, or both. This feature ties the passenger car should be designed to emergency brake at only one location in adhesion control system to the withstand, with deflection but without each such unit of the train. automated monitoring system and total failure, the impact of unrestrained Paragraph (d) requires the brake prevents dangerous wheel slide flat occupant(s) seated behind the test system to be designed to prevent conditions that can be caused when article (seat back) and subjected to the thermal damage to wheels and brake wheels lock during braking. same crash pulse. Further, in its discs. comments on the NPRM, Bombardier Paragraph (e) contains requirements Section 238.433 Draft System noted that the design of the seats in related to blended braking systems. FRA is requiring that leading and Amtrak’s HTS is based on a 185-pound These requirements are similar to those trailing automatic couplers of Tier II occupant according to Amtrak’s contained in § 238.231(j). The only trains be compatible with standard AAR specification, while paragraph (a) additional requirement is that the couplers with no special adapters used. specified the occupant size as a 95th- operational status of the electric portion FRA believes that compatibility with percentile male. of the blended brake be displayed in the standard couplers is necessary in order In the final rule, paragraph (a) operator’s cab. Operators of this high- that a conventional locomotive could requires that the design of the seat back

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25640 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations and seat attachment withstand, with the g loading that the seat attachment is of interior fittings and is similar to that deflection but without total failure, the required to withstand or specify a crash required in § 238.233(c). Similar to its load associated with the impact into the pulse as long as 275 milliseconds, comment noted above, Bombardier seat back of an unrestrained 95th- triangular. Simula’s recommendation remarked that proposed paragraph (d) percentile adult male initially seated appears to be based on the assumption specified a 95th-percentile male for use behind the seat, when the floor to which that higher speed train collisions will in determining the required strength of the seat is attached decelerates with a result in greater decelerations of longer certain interior fittings. See 62 FR triangular crash pulse having a peak of duration in a trailer car. Yet, FRA 49819–20. Bombardier explained that 8g and a duration of 250 milliseconds. believes that the resulting decelerations the design of tables for Amtrak’s HTS (As used in this section, a 95th- will have only a longer duration. As the does not follow this approach, and that, percentile adult male has been defined duration for which an occupant impacts based on research conducted within the in § 238.5.) This modification clarifies an interior surface has a negligible rail industry, it relates to impact the intent of the proposal, and specifies influence on potential injury, the 8g velocities of a 185-pound occupant. a crash pulse. As noted by Simula, force and 250 msec crash pulse Bombardier was unsure how the specifying a crash pulse recognizes the specified in this paragraph is proposed rule compared to the way importance of testing seats dynamically appropriate for Tier II passenger tables were being designed and to represent actual conditions in a train equipment. constructed for Amtrak’s HTS, and collision. Paragraph (a) has also been The lateral and vertical loading requested that the practicality of the modified to incorporate paragraph (c)(1) requirements in paragraph (c) remain proposed approach be first considered. of the proposed rule by stating that the unchanged from the NPRM other than As FRA responded above to seat attachment must also resist the being renumbered. Bombardier’s similar comment, FRA specified load as well, and this is FRA has not incorporated two other believes that specifying a larger discussed below. comments from Simula on this section occupant size will not in itself increase In response to Bombardier’s comment for the reasons noted below. First, the strength that the fitting is required on the size of the occupant seated Simula suggested adding a requirement to withstand since the Amtrak behind the seat being tested for that two rows of seats should be specification provides that the 185- purposes of determining the required included in the seat testing and pound occupant must resist a more strength of the seat, FRA notes that the positioned to represent the row-to-row severe crash pulse than that provided in specification for Amtrak’s HTS does pitch for installation. FRA has not the rule. FRA believes the requirement provide for use of a smaller occupant modified the rule in this regard, because in paragraph (d) is not greater than that than is specified in the rule. However, FRA believes it evident that in testing required under the Amtrak specification the Amtrak specification also provides seats to show compliance with the for HTS. that the occupant be subjected to a more requirements of this section the Paragraph (e) contains a special severe crash pulse than that specified in positioning of the seats must represent requirement for the ultimate strength of the rule. As a result, FRA believes that the actual positioning of the seats in the seats and other fittings in the cab of a under paragraph (a) the energy required passenger car subject to the power car. Due to the extra strength of to be absorbed by the seat being tested requirements of this section. In the cab, its structure is capable of is not greater than that provided for in addition, Simula recommended that resisting forces caused by accelerations the Amtrak specification, and FRA has instrumented Hybrid III dummies be that exceed 10g. As a result, benefit can not modified the rule on this point. seated in the row behind the test article be gained from a greater longitudinal As noted above, FRA has modified to determine occupant injury potential strength requirement for seat and other paragraph (c) in the final rule by during a dynamic test, and that the data interior fitting attachments. FRA is incorporating proposed paragraph (c)(1) measured by the dummies meet therefore requiring that seats and into paragraph (a) of the final rule and specified injury criteria available in a equipment in the cab be attached to the retaining, as renumbered in paragraph pending APTA standard. Simula further car body with sufficient strength to (c) of the final rule, proposed recommended that the number and size resist longitudinal forces caused by an paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) in the of unrestrained occupants (crash test acceleration of 12g. The lateral and NPRM. See 62 FR 49819. FRA has dummies) to be used in testing be vertical requirements remain 4g. These incorporated proposed paragraph (c)(1) defined in the APTA standard. Simula requirements do not apply to equipment into paragraph (a) of the final rule based noted that the results of ongoing located outside the cab. in part on a comment from Simula that research will be used to complete the In its comments on the NPRM, Simula the ultimate strength of a seat standard, and that to meet injury also recommended that the 12g attachment to a passenger car body shall performance criteria the railroad may longitudinal requirement be be sufficient to withstand a crash pulse have to use some form of occupant supplemented by a 250-millisecond representing a typical train accident restraint system. As evidenced by dynamic crash pulse. However, FRA (275 msec triangular pulse, peak Simula’s comments, specifying believes that this will result in a more acceleration 10 G) and the impact of an occupant injury criteria is an ongoing expensive test without a corresponding unrestrained occupant(s) behind the test issue and, as such, is best deferred to increase in safety. Simula further article. Incorporating the longitudinal the second phase of this rulemaking. suggested that the 4g lateral and vertical strength requirement proposed for the FRA does recognize that pursuing the loading requirements apply to the seat attachment in paragraph (c)(1) of specification of occupant injury criteria combined mass of the seat and the seat the NPRM into paragraph (a) of the final is both sound and technically occupant. FRA notes that such a rule rationalizes the rule and recognizes appropriate, and encourages research in requirement is provided in that the seat attachment requirement this regard for use in the second phase § 238.447(f)(2). and the seat back requirement both take of the rulemaking, in addition to Paragraphs (f) and (g) contain into account the force of a train examining the use of NHTSA occupant requirements representing good safety occupant impacting the seat from injury criteria. design practice for any type of vehicle. behind. However, FRA has not adopted Paragraph (d) contains the FRA believes the luggage restraint Simula’s recommendation to increase requirements for strength of attachment requirement in paragraph (h) will

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25641 prevent many of the injuries caused by back-up power for a minimum period of ability of a freight train crew to notify flying luggage that are typical of 90 minutes. a railroad control center of an passenger train collisions and In commenting on the rule, the NTSB emergency involving its train may derailments. noted that FRA had not proposed prevent a collision with an oncoming FRA has included paragraph (i) in the emergency communication passenger train. The railroad final rule, consistent with its parallel requirements for Tier I operations. The communications rulemaking was requirement in § 238.233(g) for Tier I NTSB believed that emergency supported by a working group, passenger equipment. communication requirements are established through RSAC, which necessary for Tier I operations because Section 238.437 Emergency specifically addressed communication the majority of passenger train accidents Communication facilities and procedures, with a strong have occurred in those operations. The emphasis on passenger train emergency This section requires an emergency NTSB also stated that emergency requirements. In general, section communication system with back-up communication requirements should 220.209 of the Railroad power within a Tier II train. This safety not be limited to intra-train operations, Communications final rule provides feature will allow the train crew to but include as well the ability to that, for each railroad having no fewer provide evacuation and other communicate from the train to outside than 400,000 employee work hours, instructions to passengers, and help sources. In a similar comment on the each occupied controlling locomotive in prevent panic that can occur during NPRM, the UTU stated that passenger a train shall have a working radio that emergency situations. trains should not be dispatched without can communicate with the control FRA’s principal revision to this working head end radios and a reliable center of the railroad, and each train section allows passenger cars 45 feet or backup system. The UTU also shall also have communications less in length to have only one commented that all conductors and redundancy, i.e., a working radio on emergency communication transmission crewmembers should be issued portable another locomotive in the consist or location. FRA had proposed that radios capable of communicating with other means of working wireless transmission locations be placed at both each other, the head end, and the communication. See 49 CFR § 220.9; 63 ends of each passenger car. In response dispatcher or control center. FR 47195–6. Moreover, in addition to to the proposal, Talgo commented that FRA is not applying the Tier II the requirements of the Railroad in considering the placement of requirements for intra-train emergency Communications rule, FRA notes that transmission locations, the operative communication to Tier I operations at intercity passenger and commuter factor should be the distance from any this time. FRA agrees with the NTSB’s railroads already make extensive point on the train to the nearest comment that emergency provision for ensuring communication transmission unit—rather than communication requirements should capabilities during emergencies. FRA specifying that they be placed at the not be a function of speed, but rather a believes that other communications ends of each passenger car. Talgo function of the design and configuration issues have been resolved either in the believed this necessary to accommodate of the train and the terrain in which the railroad communications rulemaking, cars which are half the length in size of train operates. Yet, FRA’s decision here the passenger train emergency conventional cars. is not based on speed. FRA initially preparedness rulemaking, or this final As the length of a conventional proposed to limit this proposal to Tier rule. However, any final issues can be railroad passenger car is typically II passenger trains because such trains addressed in the second phase of this between 85 and 90 feet, FRA believes it are intended to operate as a fixed unit, rulemaking. appropriate to require a car not more unlike most Tier I passenger trains. than half that length to have only one Whereas an emergency system to Section 238.439 Doors emergency communication transmission communicate throughout the train may This section contains the unit. However, FRA is not prepared to be more easily provided for in a train requirements for doors on Tier II specify a requirement to place such which remains as a fixed unit, the passenger cars. This section should be transmission units solely on the interchangeability of passenger cars and read with the discussion of passenger distance from any point on the train to locomotives raises practical car doors earlier in the preamble. As the nearest transmission unit. By taking considerations about the compatibility stated, FRA has modified the into account the location of of communications equipment in a Tier requirement for the number of exterior transmission units on a train level, the I passenger train. FRA believes it best to side doors per passenger car (contained nearest transmission unit to a passenger address these considerations and further in paragraph (a)) by specifying that each seated in one car may in fact be a examine requirements concerning car shall have a minimum of two such transmission unit located in an emergency communication within a doors. adjoining car. However, having to pass Tier I train in the second phase of the The requirements in paragraph (b) are into an adjoining car to access the rulemaking, following consideration of similar to those contained in transmission unit, although nearer these issues by the APTA PRESS Task § 238.235(b) for Tier I passenger linearly, may at a minimum be Force. equipment. However, the requirements impracticable in certain situations. FRA As to requirements for emergency of paragraph (c) have no counterpart in believes that each Tier II passenger car, communication from a train to an § 238.235. This paragraph requires the no matter its size, must have its own outside source, FRA has addressed such status of powered, exterior side doors to emergency communication transmission requirements in the Railroad be displayed to the crew in the unit. Communications final rule, designated operating cab and, if door interlocks are This section also requires that as Docket No. RSOR–12. See 63 FR used, the sensors to detect train motion emergency communication transmission 47182; Sept. 4, 1998. FRA recognizes must nominally be set to operate at not locations be marked with luminescent that the ability to communicate in an more than 3 mph. Such equipment is material, that clear instructions be emergency is important for all trains— well within current technology. provided for the use of the emergency freight and passenger. In particular, Paragraph (d) requires that powered, communication system, and that the because passenger trains operate exterior side doors be connected to an emergency communication system have commingled with freight trains, the emergency back-up power system.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:15 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12MYR2 25642 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

Paragraph (e) is identical to that currently provided in the rule on which injuries may occur, rendering provided for Tier I passenger equipment passenger train emergency preparedness occupants incapable of exiting the train in § 238.235(c). at 49 CFR § 239.107. See 63 FR 24630, under their own power. Paragraph (f) requires passenger 24680. In phase II of the rulemaking, Paragraph (b) is reserved for marking compartment end doors to be equipped FRA will consider integrating the door and instruction requirements to be with a kick-out panel, pop-out window, marking and operating instruction specified as necessary in the second or other means of egress in the event the requirements found in part 239 with phase of this rulemaking. doors will not open, or be so designed this part. Additionally, FRA will as to pose a negligible probability of consider revising those requirements as Section 238.443 Headlights becoming inoperable in the event of necessary. FRA received no comments on this carbody distortion following a collision Section 238.441 Emergency Roof provision, and it is adopted as or derailment. This paragraph does not Entrance Location proposed. Because of the high speeds at apply to such doors providing access to which Tier II passenger equipment the exterior of a trainset, however, as in This section requires that Tier II operates, FRA is requiring that a the case of an end door in the last car passenger equipment either have a roof headlight be directed farther in front of of a train. In the NPRM, FRA discussed hatch or a clearly marked structural the train to illuminate a person than is that the requirements in this paragraph weak point in the roof to provide quick currently required for existing originally arose out of the NTSB’s access for properly equipped emergency equipment under 49 CFR § 229.125(a). A emergency safety recommendations personnel. Such features will aid in Tier II passenger train will travel following its investigation of the removing passengers and crewmembers distances more quickly than a Tier I February 16, 1996, collision between a from a vehicle that is either on its side passenger train, and the train operator MARC commuter train and an Amtrak or upright. will have less time to react, thereby In the NPRM, FRA proposed that each passenger train in Silver Spring, necessitating earlier awareness of Tier II passenger car be equipped with Maryland. See 62 FR 49734–5. objects on the track. Specifically, as stated in its final a minimum of two such emergency roof entrance locations. See 62 FR 49820. FRA notes that, as further specified in railroad accident report, the NTSB 49 CFR § 229.125(d)–(h), locomotives recommended that FRA: Talgo, in its comments on this proposal, remarked that a passenger car half the operated at speeds greater than 20 miles Require all passenger cars to have either length of a conventional passenger car per hour over one or more public removable windows, kick panels, or other should require only one roof hatch or highway-rail crossings are required to be suitable means for emergency exiting through equipped with operative auxiliary the interior and exterior passageway doors structural weak point. Further, Bombardier commented that the high- lights. The requirements contained in where the door could impede passengers § 229.125(d)–(h) do apply, according to exiting in an emergency and take appropriate speed trainsets it is constructing for emergency measures to ensure corrective Amtrak will have only one structural their terms, to Tier II passenger action until these measures are incorporated weak point located in the center of the equipment. Any proposal to the into minimum passenger car safety passenger cars due to the location of contrary in the NPRM was made in standards. (NTSB/RAR–97/02) (R–97–15) roof-mounted air conditioning units at error. As explained in the NPRM, FRA each end of the cars. Section 238.445 Automated proposed that the first practical In the final rule, each Tier II Monitoring application of the NTSB’s passenger car and each cab of a power recommendation be made with respect car is required to have at least one This section contains the to Tier II passenger car end doors. See emergency roof entrance location to requirements related to the automated 62 FR 49735. FRA has been assisting permit the evacuation of the vehicle’s monitoring of the status or performance APTA through its PRESS task force occupants through the roof. Beyond the of various safety-related systems on Tier examine the full range of options for issue of the sufficiency of the number of II passenger trains. A number of implementing the NTSB emergency roof entrance locations for passenger train accidents have been recommendation in Tier I passenger Tier II passenger equipment is the larger either fully or partly caused by human equipment, in addition to the Volpe issue of applying requirements for error. The faster operating speeds of Tier Center’s work on emergency egress on a emergency roof entrance locations to II passenger equipment will afford the systems level. These complementary Tier I passenger equipment. The final train operator less time to evaluate and efforts will be brought together in the rule does not contain such requirements react to potentially dangerous second phase of the rulemaking. for Tier I passenger equipment, and situations, thereby increasing the FRA notes that it has modified there was no consensus within the potential for accidents. Automated paragraph (f) from the proposal in the Working Group to do so. See 62 FR monitoring systems can decrease the NPRM, see 62 FR 49820 (proposed 49750–1. However, FRA believes that risk of accidents by alerting the train § 238.441(d)), to permit Tier II passenger work within the APTA PRESS Task operator to abnormal conditions and car doors to be designed without a kick- Force will lead to reconciliation of Tier advising the operator as to necessary out panel, pop-out window, or like I and Tier II requirements on this issue. corrective action. Such systems can feature, provided that the doors pose a FRA intends to reexamine the even be designed to take corrective negligible probability of becoming requirements of this section in the action automatically in certain inoperable in the event of carbody second phase of the rulemaking with a situations. distortion following a collision or view to applying emergency roof FRA received no comments on this derailment. FRA believes this entrance locations requirements to Tier section as proposed, and paragraphs (a) modification is consistent with the I passenger equipment. In the meantime, and (c) have been adopted without NTSB’s safety recommendation the public is entitled to the protection substantive change. However, FRA has (R–97–15). afforded by the Tier II standard. High- modified paragraph (b) to make clear Paragraph (g) is reserved for door speed derailments may be more severe when immediate corrective action must marking and operating instruction because of the total energy involved and be taken in the event a system or requirements. These requirements are a potentially longer ‘‘ride down’’ during component required to be monitored is

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:38 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25643 operating outside of its predetermined (b) in the NPRM, see 62 FR 49820–1, an impending accident or act of safety limits. into paragraph (a) of this section in the vandalism. In such instances, the Paragraph (a) requires a Tier II final rule for economies of space. primary defense of the engineer is to passenger train to be equipped to Subsequent paragraphs have been move quickly from harms way, monitor the performance of a minimum renumbered accordingly. according to the BLE, and operating at set of safety-related systems and In its comments on the NPRM, speeds of 150 mph will decrease the components. The monitoring system can Bombardier explained that an additional time a locomotive engineer has to react also be used to provide information for seat—commonly a flip-up or a shelf- to such incidents. The BLE noted that it trouble-shooting and maintenance and type seat—is in many cases provided in would change its position on this issue to accumulate reliability data to form the cab for a train crewmember who is if there is overwhelming evidence that the basis for setting required periodic not normally in the cab. Bombardier the force of deceleration on Tier II maintenance intervals. believed these seats should not be equipment would be so severe as to Paragraph (b) requires the train subjected to the same requirements as cause injury to engineers or interfere operator to be alerted when any of the for the train operators’ seats, as that was with their operation. systems or components required to be not the intent of discussions within the In its comments on the rule, Simula monitored is operating outside of Working Group. Accordingly, remarked that formal research is needed predetermined safety parameters. When Bombardier recommended making clear to determine both the feasibility of any such system or component is that the requirements in paragraph (f) incorporating active restraints in a cab operating outside of its predetermined apply only to each seat provided for the and the potential for the crew to safety parameters, immediate corrective train operators. actually use them. Simula also noted the action must be taken if the system or FRA agrees with Bombardier’s option of exploring passive restraints component defect impairs the train comment that the requirements such as air bags or operator’s ability to safely operate the proposed in § 238.447(g) of the compartmentalization, as opposed to train. Accordingly, a report of a system NPRMBnow § 238.447(f) of the final active restraints such as lap belts and or component defect may not require rule—need not apply to each seat shoulder harnesses. Simula explained immediate corrective action. The need provided for a crewmember in a power that cost effectiveness considerations for to take such action would be car cab. FRA recognizes that flip-down implementing both determined by the railroad based on and other auxiliary seats are provided in compartmentalization and active and whether the defective system or locomotive cabs for the temporary use of passive restraints are markedly different component impairs the train operator’s employees not regularly assigned to the for the crew in the cab compared to ability to safely operate the train. cab. These employees may include a passengers. Simula asserted that the Further, in the event immediate supervisor of locomotive engineers relatively high cost of passive restraints corrective action must be taken, the rule conducting an operational monitoring may be justified for one or two does not require that intervention be test of the engineer(s). Such seats are crewmembers in a extremely severe automatic. Of course, the railroad typically attached to an interior wall environment. should have a valid basis for either and placed behind those seats used by In light of the comments received, leaving response in the hands of the the train operators. FRA believes it FRA has decided to defer until Phase II train operator or making the corrective appropriate to clarify the application of of the rulemaking the issue of requiring action automatic. paragraph (f) in the final rule so that its seats in a power car cab to be equipped Paragraph (c) requires the monitoring requirements apply only to each seat with seat belts and shoulder harnesses. system to be designed with an automatic provided for an employee regularly FRA will continue to explore strategies self-test feature that notifies the train assigned to occupy the power car cab, for train occupant protection—both for operator that the monitoring capability and to any floor-mounted seat in the passengers and employees—and FRA is functioning correctly and alerts the cab. Accordingly, paragraph (f) does not will be able to focus on these strategies operator that a system failure has apply to a wall-mounted, flip-down seat with the members of the Working Group occurred. Because train operators can occupied by an employee such as a in Phase II. become dependent on automated supervisor of locomotive engineers who In other statements on the NPRM, monitoring systems, they need to know occasionally rides in the cab. commenters recommended applying the when their vigilance must be FRA has also modified paragraph (f) requirements in this section to Tier I heightened to compensate for a by not requiring that seats subject to that passenger equipment. The NTSB stated malfunction in such an automated provision be equipped with a single- that the minimum elements proposed in safety tool. acting, quick-release lap belt and this section for operator’s controls and shoulder harness as defined in 49 CFR cab layout design are sufficient and Section 238.447 Train Operator’s § 571.209. FRA had proposed such a should also be included in Tier I Controls and Power Car Cab Layout requirement in the NPRM because the operations for ergonomic design and to This section contains a set of crew may experience high decelerations minimize the chance of human error in requirements for interior features in Tier in a collision from the cab’s high both types of operations. The NTSB II power car cabs. FRA has clarified and strength and forward location near the cited safety recommendations arising revised this section, based on comments expected point of impact in many out of an accident in Kelso, California, received in response to the proposal, in different collision scenarios. See concerning the dangers posed by two principal ways: The seat § 238.447(g)(1), 62 FR 49821. In its improperly located safety-significant requirements in paragraph (f) apply to comments on the NPRM, the BLE stated controls and switches in locomotives any floor-mounted seat and each seat that its experience did not support the and the need to relocate and/or protect provided for an employee regularly need to require a lap belt and shoulder such controls and switches so they assigned to occupy the power car cab, harness, and that its member engineers cannot be inadvertently activated or instead of to each crewmember in the were overwhelmingly against such a deactivated. FRA has not fully explored cab; and such seats will not require requirement. The BLE explained that extension of these concepts with the seatbelts. FRA has also combined engineers need to rapidly exit from the working group and will take the issue proposed paragraphs § 238.447(a) and seat to a place of safety in the event of under advisement for incorporation into

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25644 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

Tier I standards during Phase II of the 5th-percentile adult female to a 95th- railroad is thereby granted some latitude rulemaking. percentile adult male. Instead, these to develop the operational details of the The BLE commented that the characteristics may be drawn from any program, using the system safety proposed requirements for seating in recognized survey after 1958 of weight, process to justify the safety decisions this section also be applied to Tier I height, and other body dimensions of that are made. However, FRA intends to equipment. The BLE stated that existing U.S. adults, corrected for clothing as exercise final approval of the seating on some Tier I equipment is appropriate. Data from such a survey is inspection, testing, and maintenance woefully inadequate. In particular, the presented in Public Health Service program proposed by the operating BLE noted that some cab car seats are Publication No. 1000, Series 11, No. 8, railroad; rail labor organizations will be not adjustable; have no suspension; are ‘‘Weight, Height, and Selected Body given an opportunity to discuss their severely limited in their cushioning; Dimensions of Adults,’’ June 1965. (A concerns with FRA during the approval have no lumbar support; and are copy of this document has been placed process set forth in § 238.505. Tier II injuring their occupants. The BLE also in the public docket for this equipment may not be used prior to recommended that both Tier I and Tier rulemaking.) The definition of 95th- FRA approval of an inspection, testing, II equipment be provided with a cab percentile adult male used elsewhere in and maintenance program. Further, this temperature control system which the rule is too narrow to apply in this final rule makes clear that FRA intends maintains a minimum temperature of 65 context. to enforce the safety-critical inspection, degrees and a maximum of 85 degrees testing, and maintenance procedures, F. Subpart F—Inspection, Testing, and criteria, and maintenance intervals that FRA in not requiring that the detailed Maintenance Requirements for Tier II result from the approval process. provisions in this section be imposed in Passenger Equipment Labor commenters recommended that full on Tier I passenger equipment. FRA Section 238.501 Scope if FRA is to permit the railroads to believes these provisions are more develop inspection and testing criteria necessary for Tier II passenger This subpart contains the inspection, and procedures for Tier II passenger equipment because the higher operating testing, and maintenance requirements equipment, then rail labor must be speeds will press human reaction time, for passenger equipment that operates at involved in the process as a full partner. and such requirements will contribute speeds exceeding 125 mph but not These commenters also believed that to the ability of the crew to operate the exceeding 150 mph. As discussed in the any procedures developed must provide train as safely as possible. In addition, 1997 NPRM, there is currently no an equivalent level of safety to the several members of the Working Group operating history with regard to Tier II inspection and testing procedures opposed applying such requirements to equipment, and thus there are no provided for conventional passenger Tier I passenger equipment, asserting regulations or industry standards equipment. Furthermore, these that a number of the requirements establishing detailed testing, inspection, commenters believed that any testing involved ergonomic issues which do not or maintenance procedures, criteria, and and inspection procedures developed directly affect safety. FRA notes that intervals for the equipment. The must be fully enforceable to the same certain requirements concerning railroads and the rail labor organizations extent as federal regulations. locomotive cab interior safety are differ on the approach that should be Although FRA recognizes and provided in § 238.233 of the final rule. taken in establishing inspection, testing, appreciates labor’s desire to be a full Through RSAC’s working group on and maintenance requirements. partner in the development of any Locomotive Cab Working Conditions, Railroads have long appealed to FRA to inspection and testing procedures, and FRA and members of the regulated move away from detailed ‘‘command FRA fully endorses and recommends community have been evaluating issues and control’’ regulations and instead to collaboration with appropriate labor concerning locomotive cab working provide broad safety performance forces, FRA does not believe it conditions. As a number of issues requirements that afford railroads wide appropriate to mandate labor’s concern both passenger and freight latitude to develop the operational participation in the initial stages of the operations, FRA believes that such details. Rail labor organizations, on the development of such procedures. As the issues may best be addressed in this other hand, believe that specific equipment for which the inspection and RSAC working group. Of course, FRA inspection, testing, and maintenance testing programs are being developed does recognize that the concern criteria that cannot be unilaterally will be new, with little operating involving crew seats in cab cars is more changed by railroads are the only way history, FRA believes that the operating unique to passenger operations, and that safe railroad operation can be railroad and the system developer have FRA is therefore pleased by APTA’s assured. the best information, expertise, and voluntary effort to improve crew seats FRA believes that the introduction of resources necessary to develop the on cab cars. a new type of passenger equipment details of an effective inspection, FRA notes that, for purposes of offers the opportunity for a fresh start, testing, and maintenance program. paragraph (f)(1) in this section, it has where perhaps both of these seemingly Moreover, FRA believes this final rule specified the crewmember occupying conflicting concerns can be resolved. provides the industry’s labor forces with the seat as a 95th-percentile adult male, This final rule retains the approach an adequate avenue for raising any consistent with the use of a 95th- taken in the 1997 NPRM and contains issues and providing input on any percentile adult male elsewhere in this general guidelines on the process to be criteria or procedure developed by a rule. In the NPRM, the characteristics of used by the operating railroad, together railroad. Section 238.505 ensures that the crewmember occupying the seat had with the system developer, to develop designated representatives of a not been specified, per se. See proposed an inspection, testing, and maintenance railroad’s employees are provided a § 238.447(g)(2); 62 FR 49821. program. The operating railroad and the copy of any inspection, testing, and FRA further notes that, for purposes system developer together have the best maintenance criteria or procedures of paragraph (f)(2), it has not specified information, expertise, and resources submitted by the railroad for FRA particular measurements or a particular necessary to develop the details of an approval and provides an opportunity survey on which to base the necessary effective inspection, testing, and for these parties to present their views characteristics of persons ranging from a maintenance program. The operating on the submitted plans and procedures

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:15 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25645 prior to FRA’s approval or rejection of Paragraph (c) requires that the equipment, proper inspections can only any program. Furthermore, this section operating railroad develop an be conducted at a limited number of addresses all of the major inspections inspection, testing, and maintenance locations. FRA also recognizes that and test provisions related to program to ensure that all systems and trains become delayed en route due to conventional passenger equipment and components of Tier II passenger problems which are not readily ensures that any program developed by equipment are free of general conditions foreseeable. Thus, FRA will permit the a railroad regarding the inspection, that endanger the safety of the crew, continued use of such equipment to the testing, and maintenance of Tier II passengers, or equipment. FRA has location where the required inspection passenger equipment incorporate these identified the various conditions was scheduled to be performed. major requirements. Finally, paragraph enumerated in paragraph (c) that would Paragraph (e) restates § 238.15 and (b) of this section, as discussed in detail need to be addressed in the railroad’s provides a cross-reference to that below, makes clear that the provisions program. Consequently, FRA has section. The paragraph provides that of any program approved by FRA defined what the inspection, testing, trains developing en route defective, related to the inspection and testing of and maintenance program must inoperative, or insecure primary brake power brakes or other inspection, test, accomplish, but not how to accomplish equipment be moved in accordance or maintenance procedure, criteria, and it. with the requirements of that section. interval that is deemed to be safety- Paragraph (d) contains the more Paragraph (f) restates § 238.17 and critical will be enforceable to the same specific requirements that any adds a narrow exception to that section. extent as any other requirement inspection, testing, and maintenance The paragraph requires that Tier II program must incorporate. In paragraph contained in this part. equipment that develops a defective (d)(1), FRA requires that Tier II condition not related to the primary Section 238.503 Inspection, Testing, equipment receive the equivalent of a brake be moved and handled in and Maintenance Requirements Class I brake test, as described in accordance with the requirements This section requires the § 238.313, before its departure from an contained in § 238.17, with one establishment by the railroad of an FRA- originating terminal and every 1,500 exception. The exception to these approved inspection, testing, and miles after that or once each calendar requirements applies to a failure of the maintenance program based on a daily day the equipment remains in service. secondary portion of the brake that complete brake system test and The test must be performed by a occurs en route. In those circumstances, mechanical safety inspection of the qualified maintenance person. For equipment performed by qualified example, a Tier II train must receive the the train may proceed to the next maintenance persons, coupled with a equivalent of a Class I brake test at its scheduled equivalent Class I brake test periodic maintenance program based on originating terminal and must receive a at a speed no greater than the maximum a system safety analysis. Although second Class I equivalent brake test after safe operating speed demonstrated paragraph (a) contains some basic traveling 1,500 miles from the time of through analysis and testing for braking requirements to be included in a the original Class I brake test, whether with the friction brake alone. At that program, FRA does not intend to or not it is the same calendar day. location the brake system shall be prescribe every detail of what a program Furthermore, a Tier II train must receive restored to 100 percent operation before must contain. FRA requires the the equivalent of a Class I brake test the train continues in service. This final operating railroad to develop and justify each calendar day it is used in service rule allows extensive flexibility for the the details of any program it adopts even if it has not traveled 1,500 miles movement of equipment with defective based on the specific safety needs and since the last Class I equivalent brake brakes, but also contains a hard operating environment of the high- test. Due to the speeds at which this requirement that all brake components speed rail system being developed. equipment is permitted to operate, FRA be repaired and the brake system, Paragraph (b) intends to make believes that a comprehensive brake test including secondary brakes, be restored enforceable, subject to civil penalties must be performed prior to the at the location of the train’s next major and other enforcement action, the equipment being placed in service. brake test. FRA believes that this inspection and testing of power brakes Paragraph (d)(2) requires that a approach recognizes the secondary role and the other safety-critical inspection, complete exterior and interior played by the electric portion of testing, and maintenance requirements mechanical inspection be conducted by blended brakes. If the railroad has that are identified in the railroad’s a qualified maintenance person at least demonstrated that the friction brake program and approved by FRA. ‘‘Safety- once each calendar day that the alone can stop the train within signal critical’’ requirements are those that, if equipment is used. In order to perform spacing without thermal damage to not fulfilled, increase ‘‘the risk of a quality mechanical inspection, braking surfaces, then the train may be damage to equipment or personal injury railroads must be provided some used at normal maximum speed in the to a passenger, crewmember, or other flexibility in determining the locations event of an electric brake failure. This person.’’ See § 238.5. Under paragraph where these inspections can best be final rule essentially limits the use of (l), the railroad must identify which performed. FRA believes that permitting trains without available secondary items in its inspection, testing, and railroads to conduct these mechanical braking systems to no more than 48 maintenance program are safety-critical. inspections at any time during the hours. FRA believes that § 238.17 strikes The railroad must submit the program to calendar day provides adequate the correct balance between the need of FRA under the procedures contained in flexibility to move equipment to railroads to transport passengers to their § 238.505. Once these programs are appropriate locations. Trains that miss a destination and the need to have approved by FRA, this section makes scheduled Class I brake test or equipment with defects that could lead clear those items identified as safety- mechanical inspection due to a delay en to more serious safety problems quickly critical are enforceable by FRA. FRA route may proceed to the location where repaired. This requirement places a agrees with labor representatives to the the Class I brake test or mechanical heavy responsibility on qualified Working Group that safety standards are inspection was scheduled to be maintenance persons to exercise their stronger when they contain specific performed. FRA recognizes that, due to judgment on when and how equipment provisions that can be enforced. the specialized nature of this is safe to move.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25646 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

Paragraph (g) requires that scheduled while conducting the inspections, tests, Subpart G—Specific Safety Planning maintenance intervals be based on the and maintenance covered by the Requirements for Tier II Passenger analysis conducted pursuant to the programs. FRA is always concerned Equipment railroad’s safety plan, and be approved with the safety of employees while Section 238.601 Scope by FRA under the procedures of conducting their duties, but employee This subpart contains specific § 238.505. The rule allows the safety in maintenance and servicing requirements for Tier II passenger maintenance intervals for safety-critical areas generally falls within the equipment safety planning. These safety components to be changed only when jurisdiction of OSHA. It is not FRA’s justified by accumulated acceptable planning requirements include intent to oust OSHA’s jurisdiction with requirements for the operation of Tier II operating data. Changes in maintenance regard to the safety of employees while cycles of safety-critical components passenger equipment, procurement of performing the inspections, tests and Tier II passenger equipment, and the must be based on verifiable data made maintenance required by this part, available to all interested parties and introduction or major upgrade of new except where FRA has already technology in existing Tier II passenger shall be reviewed by FRA. This addressed workplace safety issues, such paragraph is another attempt to balance equipment that affects a safety system as blue signal protection. Therefore, in the needs of the operating railroad to on such equipment. order to prevent any uncertainty as to run efficiently and the concern of rail The discussion of this subpart should FRAs intent, FRA has modified this labor organizations that railroads not be read in conjunction with the general have the ability to unilaterally make paragraph by eliminating any language discussion of safety planning earlier in safety decisions. For a new system, with or provision which could have been the preamble. FRA is retaining more no operating history, a formal system potentially perceived as displacing the extensive safety planning requirements safety analysis is the only justifiable jurisdiction of OSHA and has added a for Tier II railroad operations, as these way to set initial maintenance intervals. specific clarification that FRA does not will be operations with new The paragraph recognizes that as time intend for the program required by this characteristics that require special passes and an operating history is section to address employee safety attention and have heightened safety developed, a basis for changing while conducting the inspections and risks due to the speed of the equipment. tests described. Consequently, the maintenance intervals can be Section 238.603 Safety Planning specific elements that FRA proposed to established. However, the decision to Requirements make these changes must have the be included in the inspection, testing, participation of all the affected parties. and maintenance plan have been Paragraph (a) requires that, prior to Paragraph (h) requires that the eliminated for the reasons noted above commencing revenue service operation operating railroad establish a training, and because they were merely of Tier II passenger equipment, each qualification, and designation program duplicative of the general requirements railroad shall prepare and execute a as defined in the training program plan contained in paragraph (a) of this written plan for the safe operation of under § 238.109 to qualify individuals section and are unnecessary. such equipment. The plan may be to perform safety inspections, tests, and combined with a pre-revenue service Paragraph (k) requires that the maintenance on the equipment. If the acceptance testing plan required under operating railroad establish an railroad deems it safety-critical, then § 238.111, and any other plan required inspection, testing, and maintenance only qualified individuals may perform under this part provided that the the safety inspection, test, or quality control program enforced by individual planning elements required maintenance of the equipment. This railroad or contractor supervisors. In under this part are addressed. The plan paragraph does not prescribe a detailed essence, this creates the need for the shall be updated at least every 365 days. training program or qualification and operating railroad to perform spot Paragraph (b) requires that for each designation process. Those details are checks of the work performed by its procurement of Tier II passenger left to the operating railroad, but FRA employee and contract equipment equipment, and for each major upgrade must approve the program proposed by maintainers to ensure that the work is or introduction of new technology in the operating railroad under procedures performed in accordance with existing Tier II passenger equipment contained in § 238.505. established procedures and Federal that affects a safety system on such Paragraph (i) requires the operating requirements. FRA believes this is an equipment, each railroad shall prepare railroad to establish standard important management function that and execute a written safety plan. The procedures for performing all safety- has a history of being neglected in the plan may also be combined with a pre- critical inspections, tests, maintenance, railroad industry. revenue service acceptance testing plan or repair. This paragraph also makes Paragraph (l) requires the operating required under § 238.111, and any other clear that the inspection, testing, and railroad to identify each inspection and plan required under this part provided maintenance program required by this testing procedure and criterion and each that the individual planning elements section should not include procedures maintenance interval that the railroad required under this part are addressed. As noted earlier in the preamble, to address employee working conditions considers safety-critical. that arise in the course of conducting Bombardier, in its comments on the the inspections, tests, and maintenance Section 238.505 Program Approval NPRM, believed that the proposed rule set forth in the program. FRA intends Procedure confused the requirements for a for the program required by this section railroad’s system safety plan with those to detail only those tasks required to be This section contains the procedures required for equipment acquisition. performed in order to conduct the a railroad shall follow in securing FRA Bombardier recommended that they be inspections, tests, and maintenance approval of its inspection, testing, and separately addressed. This section in the necessary to ensure that the equipment maintenance program for Tier II final rule reflects these comments in is in safe and proper condition for use. passenger equipment. As no substantive that paragraph (a) addresses In proposing the creation of these plans, adverse comments were received on this requirements for an overall safety plan FRA did not intend to enter into the section, FRA has retained this section as for Tier II passenger equipment, while area of addressing employee safety proposed in the 1997 NPRM. paragraph (b) addresses planning

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25647 requirements for equipment acquisition and smoke generation test for small Committee was reviewed.9,10 Sixth, the and upgrade. miscellaneous, discontinuous parts; and results of the ongoing FRA-sponsored Paragraph (c) requires that each addition of a category for wire and cable NIST fire safety research project were railroad maintain sufficient insulation requirements. Three reviewed; as well as the results of tests documentation to demonstrate how the definitions which relate to heat release jointly funded by Amtrak and FRA operation and design of its Tier II rate were added to those previously using alternative seat assemblies passenger equipment complies with listed in Appendix B of the NPRM. A considered for use in Amtrak’s high- safety requirements or, as appropriate, new category of structural components speed trainsets. Seventh, the results of addresses safety requirements under other than structural flooring which the NTSB-sponsored fire tests paragraphs (a)(4) and (b)(7) of this may be exposed to fire hazards and conducted for MARC commuter rail cars section. Each railroad shall also associated notes was also added. The were reviewed.11 All of these inputs and maintain sufficient documentation to complete list of notes has also been further analysis were used as the basis track how safety issues are raised and renumbered from that contained in the to simplify the table in Appendix B of resolved. NPRM to reflect these revisions. the NPRM and reduce confusion and Paragraph (d) requires that each The revisions were selected based on duplication in revising the list of tests railroad make available to FRA for the results of analysis of input from and performance criteria and related inspection and copying upon request several resources. (A detailed rationale notes. each safety plan required by this section for all revisions is also contained in a Most of the items listed under and any documentation required supporting document prepared under ‘‘Function of Material’’ in the table in pursuant to such plan. This section does contract to the Volpe Center and placed Appendix B of the NPRM have identical not in itself require FRA approval of a in the public docket for this (or nearly identical) flammability pass/ plan. However, FRA approval would be rulemaking.6) First, the comments of the fail performance criteria. For example, required for those sections of a plan parties who responded to the NPRM although they were listed separately in intended to comply with the were reviewed. As raised in particular the NPRM under function of material in requirements of § 238.111, for example. by Fire Cause Analysis in its comments the table, ‘‘Seat and/or Mattress Frame’’; Appendix A—Schedule of Civil on the NPRM, the current classification ‘‘Seat and Toilet Shroud’’; ‘‘Wall’’; Penalties of items listed in the categories and ‘‘Ceiling’’; ‘‘Windscreen’’; ‘‘Partition, functions in the table contained in Tables and Shelves’’; ‘‘HVAC Ducting’’; This appendix contains a schedule of Appendix B in the NPRM (based on ‘‘Window’’; ‘‘Light Diffuser’’; ‘‘End Cap civil penalties to be used in connection FRA’s 1989 guidelines) has caused [and] Roof Housings’’; and ‘‘Interior with this part. Because such penalty confusion and conflict as to what [and] Exterior Boxes’’ all were subject to schedules are statements of policy, materials should be tested according to the same ASTM E 162 test procedure notice and comment are not required what test methods. Second, a document and performance criteria for flame prior to their issuance. See 5 U.S.C. containing the rationale for the spread. Accordingly, in the final rule, 553(b)(3)(A). Commenters were invited development of the original all of these items have been combined to submit suggestions to FRA describing flammability and smoke emission tests under the single category of ‘‘Vehicle the types of actions or omissions under and performance criteria was reviewed.7 Components’’ in the table in Appendix each regulatory section that would Third, the previous Federal Register B. Overall, the items listed under subject a person to the assessment of a notices pertaining to tests and ‘‘Category’’ and ‘‘Function of Material’’ civil penalty. Commenters were also performance criteria published as the have been decreased from seven to six invited to recommend what penalties 1989 FRA guidelines (54 FR 1837; Jan and from twenty-eight to ten, may be appropriate, based upon the 17, 1989) and published as respectively, from the same table in the relative seriousness of each type of recommended practices by FTA (then- NPRM. The majority of entries have also violation. FRA received no specific UMTA) for rail transit vehicles (47 FR been re-titled. The new ‘‘Category’’ and comments in response. 53559, Nov. 26, 1982; 49 FR 32482, Aug. ‘‘Function of Material’’ titles streamline Appendix B—Test Methods and 14, 1984) and for transit buses and vans the table presentation while retaining all Performance Criteria for the (55 FR 27402, July 2, 1990; 57 FR 1360, the actual material functions used in an Flammability and Smoke Emission Jan 13, 1992; 58 FR 54250, Oct. 20, intercity or commuter rail passenger car Characteristics of Materials Used in 1993) were reviewed. Fourth, the input Passenger Cars and Locomotive Cabs from railroad operators, carbuilders, and 9 ‘‘Proposed Revision of NFPA 130, Table 4–2.4, consultants who participated in a Recommendations for Testing the Flammability and The table of test methods and Smoke Emission Characteristics of Rail Transit Workshop held at the NIST Building performance criteria contained in Vehicle Materials; Review Paper—Status Update.’’ and Fire Research Laboratory in July Appendix B has been revised to address NFPA 130 Press Working Group Meeting of 8/15/ 1997 was considered.8 Fifth, 97. Prepared by J. Zicherman. A copy of this concerns related to their adoption as a documentation prepared by the NFPA document has been placed in the public docket for regulation. These revisions include this rulemaking. Railroad Task Force for the NFPA 130 reorganization of categories and 10 ‘‘Proposed Revision of NFPA 130 Table 4–2.4, function of materials listed in the table Recommendations for Testing the Flammability and 6 ‘‘Recommendations for Revising the Fire Safety Smoke Emission Characteristics of Rail Transit in Appendix B; inclusion of a note to Performance Requirements in Federal Railroad Vehicle Materials; Review Paper—Status Update.’’ permit the substitution of seat and Administration Notice of Proposed Rulemaking NFPA 130 Press Working Group Meeting of 10/15/ mattress assembly tests for individual (NPRM) For Passenger Equipment, September 23, 97. Prepared by J. Zicherman. A copy of this material tests; inclusion of a note to 1997,’’ Prepared by J. Zicherman and S. Markos. document has been placed in the public docket for Draft Project Memorandum. December, 1998. this rulemaking. require dynamic tests to be performed 7 ‘‘Rationale for Recommended Fire Safety 11 ‘‘Interpretive Report: Flammability and Smoke for seat cushions prior to fire tests; Practices for Rail Transit Materials Section.’’ Compliance and Fire Analysis (MARC/Amtrak revision of performance criteria for Transportation Systems Center. Report nos: MA– Collision, February 16, 1996).’’ Prepared for certain materials; inclusion of a note to 06–0098–82–1, and DOT–TSC–UMTA 81–74, National Transportation Safety Board. Prepared by January, 1983. A copy of this document has been J. G. Quintiere, University of Maryland. Final permit a testing exception for small placed in the public docket for this rulemaking. Report. December 19, 1996. A copy of this parts; inclusion of a note to permit the 8 ‘‘Follow-UP Notes: NIST/CFR FRA Project, document has been placed in the public for this use of an alternative heat release rate Meeting/Workshop of 7/23/97,’’above. rulemaking.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25648 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations or locomotive cab. Some revisions have can significantly prevent fire ignition, (as used to meet FAA fire seat also been made to acknowledge that and limit flame spread, fire growth, and regulations), as well as to cutting and certain existing performance criteria are smoke generation. puncture, may be required. If used, so close as to be indistinguishable based Note 3 permits the testing of seat and these blocking layers must be applied in on the precision of the test methods mattress assemblies incorporating heat a manner which seals the seams (e.g., used (e.g., flame spread values of 25 vs. release rate methods developed by using bonding or ceramic thread with 35 using test procedure ASTM E 162). consensus. Testing the performance of a binding tape) and ensures that the foam Of course, some material categories or seat or mattress assembly as an does not leak or drip out and become subcategories could not be combined integrated unit, which is more exposed to ignition. The U.S. Coast since they require different test representative of an actual condition, Guard has issued a Navigation and methods, e.g., fabrics versus cushions. will be an alternative to individually Vessel Inspection Circular (NAVIC) for In addition, other considerations (such testing the components that comprise structural fire protection which permits as ballistic test requirements for plastic the seat or mattress assembly. Seat the use of fire blockers if tested window glazing) have precluded the assemblies and mattresses to be tested according to Cal TB 133; the NAVIC combination of (and thus identical in this alternative manner shall use states that these materials have proven performance criteria for) some ASTM E 1537, ‘‘Standard Test Method effective in protecting combustible categories and material functions. for Fire Testing of Upholstered Seating foams from being involved in a fire. 13 Specific revisions to the table in Furniture,’’ and shall use pass/fail FRA notes that the ASTM E 1537 test Appendix B of the NPRM are criteria specified in California Technical procedure was not expressly referenced summarized in the following text. In Bulletin (CAL TB) 133, ‘‘Flammability in the NPRM to allow testing of seat and addition, the notes to the table have Test Procedure for Seating Furniture for mattress assemblies in this alternative been revised and renumbered to reflect Use in Public Occupancies.’’ CAL TB manner. However, FRA did intend to the table’s reorganization, and the text 133 has a successful history of use at permit use of alternative test procedures for several new notes has been added. state and municipal levels for high- to demonstrate flammability and smoke The notes to the table will be discussed hazard occupied places, such as nursing emission characteristics of materials where appropriate in the discussion of homes. Results of the March, 1997 tests (upon special approval by FRA). See 62 the table below, and a discussion of the using the ASTM E 1537 test procedure FR 49803. FRA has, in effect, granted complete list of notes is also provided. on seat assemblies being considered for approval to any party to use the ASTM ‘‘Cushions, Mattresses’’ is a new Amtrak’s high-speed trainsets showed E 1537 test procedure to demonstrate category in the table which was that certain assemblies met the Cal TB the flammability and smoke emission formerly listed under the function of 133 test criteria and exhibited a total characteristics of seat and mattress material column and included under the lack of flame spread as well as low heat assemblies in accordance with the previously used category ‘‘Passenger and smoke release. Id. In addition, data requirements of Note 3, in lieu of seats, Sleeping and dining car from Amtrak-funded tests showed that utilizing the testing methods otherwise components.’’ See 62 FR 49823. Note 1 seat assemblies selected for use on required by the table in Appendix B. to the table which concerns flaming Amtrak’s high-speed trainsets passed Note 4 applies to seat cushion testing dripping or running is virtually both the ASTM D 3675 and FAA ‘‘oil without upholstery and is identical to identical to Note 1 as proposed in the burner’’ tests. Note 9 as proposed in the NPRM. The NPRM. Note 2 is virtually identical to Acceptance of results using the note renumbering provides consecutive Note 5 as proposed in the NPRM, and alternative test approach in Note 3 for numbering logic within the revised pertains to ASTM E 662 smoke emission seat and mattress assemblies requires an categories and function of materials. limits. The note renumbering provides accompanying fire hazard analysis for Note 5 requires the dynamic testing of consecutive numbering logic within the the specific application. This analysis seat cushions to address the retention of revised categories and function of may take the form of a specific system fire retardant characteristics of foams materials. safety or fire protection analysis. The after the materials have been in service As explained, FRA has been analysis must provide for necessary for a period of time. The precedent for investigating the testing of assemblies of quality control of components used in the addition of Note 5 requiring the materials for performance in a fire, these assemblies in actual day-to-day performance of an endurance test rather than individually testing the use. Quality control must be part of the (ASTM D 3574, Test I2 (Dynamic materials which comprise such daily operating plans for a system to Fatigue Test by the Roller Shear at assemblies, to more accurately reflect ensure that individual substandard Constant Force) or Test I3 (Dynamic the interaction of materials in a fire. As materials or components are not Fatigue Test by Constant Force part of the FRA-sponsored fire safety substituted within a given component Pounding) both using Procedure B) for research program managed by the Volpe assembly for parts having an identical seat cushions is noted in the FTA Center, six full-scale alternative seat function which are of acceptable notices relating to transit bus and van assemblies being considered for the quality. In conducting the fire hazard materials (58 FR 54250, 57 FR 1360). Amtrak high-speed train sets were analysis, the operating environment The concern that fire and smoke tested in March, 1997, using a furniture within which seat and mattress emission characteristics of materials calorimeter (ASTM E 1537). 12 The tests, assemblies qualified by assembly tests may change over time will be more fully jointly funded by FRA and Amtrak, will be used must also be considered in examined in the second phase of this used current Amtrak upholstery and relation to the risk of vandalism, rulemaking. different cushion foams; fire blocking puncture, cutting, or other acts or A new category title ‘‘Fabrics’’ layers were used in some trials. The test external forces which may expose the includes seat upholstery, mattress results showed that fire blocking layers individual components of the ticking and covers, and curtains, as assemblies. Seats and mattresses using formerly included under the category 12 ‘‘Passenger Rail Car Seat Fire Tests; ASTME E certain types of foams must resist 1357/CAL TB 133.’’ J. Zicherman and S. Markos. vandalism, puncture, cutting, and other Draft Project Memorandum. December 1998. A copy 13 ‘‘Navigation and Inspection Circular No. 9–97. of the report has been placed in the public docket acts and external forces. Robust Guide to Structural Fire Protection.’’ US Coast for this rulemaking. blocking layer(s), resistant to both fire Guard. COMDTPUB P16700.4, October 31, 1997.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25649

‘‘Passenger seats, Sleeping and dining specifies, as a minimum, which importance for certain small parts used car components’’ in the table in combustible component materials must in rail passenger cars. In addition, such Appendix B of the NPRM. The term be tested, and is based on the parts, because of their small size and ‘‘All’’ under function of material components listed in the table in end uses, may be important from an eliminates confusion as to what must be Appendix B of the NPRM. ignition perspective, but not from a tested; if composed of fabric, window Note 10 provides that testing of flame spread perspective. The pass/fail shades, draperies and wall coverings are vehicle component miscellaneous, criterion: // required to be tested. The test procedure discontinuous small parts may not be tig/ q˙ max ≤ 1.5 for purposes of the burn test is an FAA necessary if such parts do not contribute test found at 14 CFR part 25, Appendix materially to fire growth and the surface is defined by the ratio of a given F, Part I (vertical test). FRA has area of any individual small part is not sample’s sustained time in seconds (s) referenced this test procedure directly greater than or equal to 16 square inches to ignition (tig) to its peak (maximum) 2 in the table and, thereby, removed the (100 cm ) in end use configuration. A // heat release rate (q˙ max), as measured in intermediate reference to 14 CFR fire hazard analysis is required that the Cone Calorimeter under the § 25.853(a), as stated in the NPRM. considers both the quantity of the parts stipulated exposure conditions. This Formerly, smoke emission requirements (e.g., limited) and the location of the quantity has been demonstrated to be a were limited to ≤250 for ‘‘coated’’ and parts (e.g., at discontinuous, or isolated ≤ direct measure of a material’s sensitivity 100 for ‘‘uncoated’’ fabrics at four locations, or both), as well as the to ignition, which is important since the minutes. The latter is typically PVC vulnerability of the parts to ignition and class of parts referred to here will not, vinyl-based upholstery fabric. It was contribution to flame spread. As an due to their small size, contribute determined that a uniform criteria of example, grommets used on seats or ≤ markedly to fire growth and heat 200 at four minutes for the smoke window shades present an insignificant release. However, these parts may, if emission rate would be appropriate for fire threat and could logically and safely capable of showing sustained ignition, both classes of fabrics, based in part on be exempted from testing. Such small cause secondary ignition of surrounding the known performance of the range of parts have been selectively exempted materials subsequent to their own fabrics available, and the definition of through the use of similar language in ignition. The required heat flux coated and uncoated used by the ASTM, rail car specification documents for exposure of 50 kW/m2 is sufficiently rather than the terms used in the above- many years. On the other hand, other high to ignite materials which have a cited report, ‘‘Rationale for materials, such as those used to produce reasonable degree of intrinsic ignition Recommended Fire Safety Practices for wire ties (of which hundreds or resistance. The pass/fail criterion is Rail Transit Materials Selection,’’ thousands may be included in a single based on relatively current research, prepared by the Volpe Center in the car to mount power and low voltage including that conducted by NIST for early 1980s. Moreover, allowing a cable bundles) shall not be exempted passenger railroad materials cited higher smoke emission performance from testing, as specified in Note 11. earlier. FRA notes that the ASTM E criteria for coated fabrics—more than Note 11 relates to Note 10. If the 1354 test method was not expressly twice that allowed for uncoated surface area of any individual small part referenced in the NPRM. However, as fabrics—provides an inconsistent level is less than 16 square inches (100 cm2) of safety. In addition, the NFPA 130 identified by the Volpe Center during its in end use configuration, such small fire safety research, this test procedure Committee has accepted a part must be tested using the ASTM E recommendation for the identical is an appropriate way to address the 1354–97 test procedure, ‘‘Standard Test flammability and smoke emission change in its revised table requirements. Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Notes 6 and 7, which pertain to characteristics of small parts and its use Release Rates for Materials and Products in this final rule complements the washing and dry cleaning of materials, Using an Oxygen Consumption are almost identical to Notes 2 and 3 as exemption from testing otherwise Calorimeter’’ (e.g., Cone Calorimeter), provided for small parts as specified in proposed in the NPRM. These notes unless such small part has been shown were renumbered to reflect consecutive Note 10. Note 12 relates to Note 11. If, not to contribute materially to fire in accordance with Note 11, small numbering logic within the revised growth following an appropriate fire categories and function of materials. In miscellaneous, discontinuous parts are hazard analysis as specified in Note 10. tested using ASTM E 1354 and an addition, some upholstery materials ASTM E 1354 measures heat release rate must be dry cleaned. Accordingly, Note appropriate fire hazard analysis (HRR) at a prescribed heat flux using accompanies the test results, such small 7 applies to upholstery materials. oxygen depletion techniques and Note 8 was formerly the second parts do not have to be tested for smoke produces information including data for generation using the ASTM E 662 test sentence in Note 3 as proposed in the time of ignition and peak HRR. The NPRM. However, since that sentence procedure. quotient of these two parameters has Flexible cellular foam products not also included the words ‘‘washed,’’ as been evaluated as part of the current well as ‘‘dry cleaned,’’ this text was used for seat and mattress applications FRA-funded NIST research program, as are now included in the separate separated into a new Note 8 to ensure well as in other research, and has been that the labeling requirement would be ‘‘Vehicle Components’’ category to shown to reliably predict ignitability clearly understood to apply whatever address the unique fire-related (see Hirschler, 1992, 1995 14 15). cleaning method is used. properties represented when used for The new category ‘‘Vehicle Ignitability is also a parameter of arm rests, seatback ‘‘crash’’ padding, Components’’ includes the majority of and thermal and acoustical insulation. 14 ‘‘Tools Available to Predict Full Scale Fire those materials formerly listed in the Performance of Furniture,’’ Fire and Polymers II. The different armrest test requirements NPRM under the categories of ‘‘Panels,’’ Hirschler, M.M. Ed. G. L. Nelson, ACS Symp. Series in Note 8 in the NPRM have been ‘‘Flooring’’ (except structural), thermal 599. Ch. 36, pp. 593–608. deleted. The differentiation is no longer and acoustical ‘‘Insulation’’ (see 15 ‘‘Effect of a Single Furnishing Product on Fire necessary since the new Function of Hazard in Actual Occupancies Based on Heat discussion below), ‘‘Elastomers,’’ Release Rate.’’ Hirschler, M.M. Proceedings, NFPRF Material ‘‘Flexible Cellular Foams’’ ‘‘Exterior Plastic Components,’’ and Symposium and FIre Risk & Hazard, San Francisco, requires that armrest foam material be ‘‘Component Box Covers.’’ Note 9 June 25–27, 1997. tested according to ASTM D 3675. If

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:15 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12MYR2 25650 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations hard plastic, the armrest test with smaller surface areas need not be continued short term operation of power requirement is ASTM E 162. Tests tested using ASTM C 1166. when exposed to ignition. conducted by NIST in 1983 of Amtrak Accordingly, diaphragms, window FRA notes that, in its comments on interior materials showed that foam gaskets, door nosing, and roof mats the NPRM, the IEEE (like the NFPA) armrests assist flame spread from seat would continue to be tested; in referred to the National Technology cushions to wall liners. addition, due to their size, flexible flat Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Thermal and acoustical insulation seat ‘‘springs’’ or suspension above, and the provision which materials were previously included as a membranes are also required to be requires, in general, that Federal separate table category in the NPRM, tested using ASTM C 1166. Testing agencies ‘‘use technical standards that with values identical to cushions and requirements for miscellaneous small are developed or adopted by voluntary mattresses for flame spread (less than or parts comprised of elastomeric consensus standards bodies.’’ The IEEE equal to 25) and smoke emission (less composition having a surface area less cited its own development of voluntary than or equal to 100 for 1.5 minutes). than 16 square inches are discussed in consensus standards and their potential (Thermal and acoustical insulation did Notes 10, 11, and 12. for integration in this rulemaking. In the not expressly contain a smoke emission The test requirement differentiation in second phase of the rulemaking, FRA criterion for 4 minutes in the NPRM, Notes 10, 11,12, and 16 according to will consider with the Working Group though intended to be less than or equal part size is based on several factors. the appropriate use of other IEEE to 200.) Flexible cellular foam is Many small miscellaneous parts used in standards in this and other subject sometimes used as thermal and car construction may be composed of areas, in addition to the IEEE standard acoustical insulation; if so used, the elastomeric materials. These parts contained in this rule for fire safety. requirements remain unchanged (25, include cleats, blocks, abrasion and The new category ‘‘Structural Components’’ addresses the structural 100, and 200, respectively). Otherwise, vibration damping pads. As such, these integrity of floor assemblies and other the performance criteria for insulation parts are frequently molded and are not structural elements. In Appendix B of materials are now 35, 100, and 200, readily available for testing in sizes the NPRM, only the performance of respectively, to be consistent with other required for either the ASTM E 162 or structural flooring was expressly vehicle components. ASTM C 1166 test methods without Note 13 relates to the use of carpet on addressed in the table itself and in the undergoing special fabrication. walls and ceilings and is virtually text of former Note 6. The first sentence Moreover, as noted in the discussion identical to Note 10 as proposed in the of text relating to penetrations as concerning Note 11, ASTM E 1354 is NPRM. Note 14 concerns floor coverings proposed in Note 6 in the NPRM has sensitive to ignition properties rather and is virtually identical to Note 7 as been separated and inserted as Note 19 than flame spread. The later parameter proposed in the NPRM. in the final rule. Note 19 requires that Two items having identical test would be a critical variable if such parts penetrations be tested as part of floor performance criteria relating to use of were used in applications with larger assemblies and other structural plastics in light transmitting assemblies exposed surface areas. elements. The text in the second under the function of material column The subject of ‘‘Wire and Cable’’ has sentence of Note 6 as proposed in the in the table in Appendix B in the NPRM been addressed by the addition of a new NPRM specifically pertained to have been combined into a new ‘‘Light category in the table which requires structural flooring assemblies, and it has transmitting plastics’’ function of smoke and flammability emission been separated and inserted into Note material column in the final rule. This screening for wire and cable insulation. 20 in the final rule. terminology is consistent with use of the This is especially important due to the Note 21 addresses the structural term for identical plastics in the greater quantities of wire and cable used integrity of less well defined and design construction industry and building in electrically-powered intercity and dependent rail car structural elements, codes. The test performance criteria commuter rail passenger cars. Fire- other than floors. These structural remain unchanged from the NPRM. In related tests and performance criteria for elements may carry significant weight addition, this category also provides for wire and cable insulation were not loads or have important fire barrier uniform acceptance criteria for expressly included in the table functions in protecting train occupants, transparent plastics used in proposed in Appendix B of the NPRM. or both. Examples include extensive windscreens, which formerly were not The test methods of the IEEE, Insulated HVAC or power-conditioning clearly addressed. Note 15 pertains to Cable Engineers Association (ICEA), equipment installed on roofs or window glazing and is virtually National Electrical Manufacturers electrical equipment lockers, which may identical to that in Note 4 as proposed Association (NEMA), and Underwriters become involved in fires. Such fires in the NPRM. Renumbering of the note Laboratories Inc. (UL) specified in the may result from mechanical failures, reflects consecutive numbering logic. final rule have long and successful electrical insulation breakdown, or from The separate category of ‘‘Elastomers’’ histories of use, and have also been other hazards. Accordingly, Note 21 in the table in the NPRM has been specified in the existing NFPA 130 requires that portions of the vehicle included under the function of material requirements. In Note 17, one set of test body (other than floors but including column in the ‘‘Vehicle Components’’ methods is comprised of NEMA WC 3/ the roof) which separate major ignition category in the table in the final rule. As ICEA S–19–1981, paragraph 6.19.6, and sources, or sources of fuel load from the indicated in Note 16, the flammability the second set is comprised of UL 44 vehicle interior, demonstrate fire test method for elastomers has been and UL 83. The ICEA and NEMA jointly endurance by a fire hazard analysis revised to reference ASTM C 1166, issued NEMA WC 3/ICEA S–19–1981, acceptable to the railroad. which has superseded ASTM C 542 as and it includes testing for both The following summary lists the proposed in the NPRM. As specified in thermosetting wire insulation and for changes to the content of the notes and Note 16, only elastomeric parts with thermoplastic wire insulation. In Note their numbering from the NPRM, surface areas equal to or more than 16 18, in addition to passing ANSI/IEEE reflecting both the table reorganization square inches (100 cm2) in end use Standard 383, section 2.5, the power in the final rule as well as additional configuration are required to be tested cable must also demonstrate continued requirements: Note 1 is virtually using ASTM C 1166; elastomeric parts circuit integrity for 5 minutes to allow identical to that in the NPRM. Note 2 is

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25651 virtually identical to Note 5 in the First, Bombardier commented that as FRA has not adopted Talgo’s NPRM. Note 3 permits the testing of seat proposed by FRA some differences recommendation with respect to points and mattress assemblies according to existed between Appendix C and the 4 and 5, to the extent that an exemption ASTM E 1537 using Cal TB 133 requirements of the then-proposed for rail cars with single-axle trucks was performance criteria. Note 4 is identical Track Safety Standards, § 213.333. sought. However, FRA provides the to Note 9 in the NPRM. Note 5 requires Consequently, Bombardier following clarification of points 4 and 5. dynamic testing of seat cushions. Notes recommended that FRA change Point 4 provides that the sum of the 6 and 7 are virtually identical to Notes Appendix C to resolve the vertical wheel loads on one side of any 2 and 3 in the NPRM. The text of Note discrepancies; or eliminate Appendix C truck shall not be less than or equal to 8 is virtually identical to the second and reference the track safety standards’ 20 percent of the static vertical axle sentence of Note 3 in the NPRM. Note table of vehicle/track interaction load, and that this shall include the 9 lists vehicle component materials performance limits in § 213.333 and effect of a crosswind allowance as which must be tested, at a minimum. incorporate Bombardier’s proposed specified by the railroad for the Note 10 allows a testing exception for changes submitted as part of its intended service of the equipment. materials used to fabricate small, September 15, 1997 hearing testimony Whether the rolling assembly is a single- discontinuous parts that will not on the track safety standards. axle or a double-axle truck, or whether contribute materially to fire growth in At the Working Group meeting in solid or stub axles are used to configure end use configuration, provided an January 1998, a Volpe Center the truck, the risk of wheel unloading is appropriate fire hazard analysis is representative explained that the still present. If the vehicle is subjected conducted. Note 11 requires that if the discrepancy between proposed to forces that reduce the static vertical surface area of any individual small part Appendix C and the proposed track load per truck side to 20% or less of the is less than 16 square inches (100 cm2) safety standards may be justifiable static axle load, an unsafe condition in end use configuration, such small because Appendix C would apply only may exist. Point 4, therefore, requires part must be tested using the ASTM E to new passenger equipment; whereas that the sum of vertical wheel loads on 1354 test procedure, unless such small the then-proposed standards in the track any side of any truck (or any other part has been shown not to contribute safety rule would apply to both new and suspension configuration per car end or materially to fire growth following an existing equipment. Appendix C’s between two car ends) be always greater appropriate fire hazard analysis as standards could therefore be necessarily than 20% of the static vertical axle load. specified in Note 10. Note 12 relates to stricter. In this regard, FRA has retained For stub (non-solid) axles, an equivalent Note 11. If, in accordance with Note 11, Appendix C and not simply referenced static vertical axle load may be small parts are tested using ASTM E the track safety standards’ table of computed by adding the static vertical 1354 and an appropriate fire hazard vehicle/track interaction performance wheel loads on opposite sides. If the analysis accompanies the test results, limits in 49 CFR § 213.333. Points 4 and rolling assembly has only one axle per such small parts do not have to be tested 6 in Appendix C are not found in the suspension unit, as in the case of Talgo for smoke generation using the ASTM E track safety standards’ table of vehicle/ equipment, then any single wheel load 662 test procedure. Note 13 is virtually track interaction safety limits, and thus is required to be always greater than identical to Note 10 in the NPRM. Note need to be retained in this passenger 20% of its static value. As a result, point 14 is virtually identical to Note 7 in the equipment rule to ensure the safety of 4 of this appendix will constitute a more new passenger equipment. However, NPRM. Note 15 is virtually identical to stringent requirement than provided in FRA has otherwise reconciled Appendix Note 4 in the NPRM. Note 16 provides point 3. Point 5 of the appendix requires C with the track safety standards’ table test requirements for elastomeric that the maximum truck side L/V ratio in § 213.333. not exceed 0.6. If the rolling assembly materials greater than 16 square inches Talgo, in its comments on proposed (100 cm2) in end use configuration and has only one axle per suspension unit, Appendix C, suggested that FRA reword as in the case of Talgo equipment, then requires that, at a minimum, window the second paragraph in the Appendix gaskets, door nosings, diaphragms, and the corresponding L/V ratio computed to clarify that the performance standards for each consecutive pair of axles shall roof mats be tested. Notes 17 and 18 are meant to apply to the average values be similarly limited to 0.6. apply to wire and cable insulation. Note for the parameters recorded during the 19 is based on the last sentence of text time the train travels six feet. FRA has Appendix D to Part 238—Requirements formerly in Note 6 in the NPRM. Note not adopted Talgo’s suggestion, for External Fuel Tanks on Tier I 20 contains the first part of text of Note however. FRA intended that the Locomotives 6 in the NPRM. Note 21 addresses new performance standards apply to the This appendix contains the test requirements for other structural maximum values for the parameters performance requirements for external components, such as car roofs and recorded to ensure that the passenger fuel tanks on Tier I locomotives, as electrical cabinets, in addition to the equipment operates within outer safety adapted from AAR Recommended floor assembly. limits. Use of average values would Practice (RP) 506, ‘‘Performance The list of standards contained in mask real safety concerns. Requirements for Diesel Electric Appendix B, paragraph (c), in the NPRM Talgo also recommended that FRA Locomotive Fuel Tanks,’’ effective July has been revised and updated. define the method for signal filtering. 1, 1995. In incorporating this industry Appendix C—Suspension System Safety FRA has adopted Talgo’s practice into Federal regulation, FRA Performance Standards recommendation and specified that, for has rephrased the text of RP–506 in part. purposes of this appendix, wheel/rail Yet, no substantive change is intended, The purpose of Appendix C is to force measurements shall be processed except as noted below. RP–506, a copy prevent the occurrence of a variety of through a low pass filter having a cut- of which is available in the public derailments due to forces on wheels. off frequency of 25 Hz. docket of this rulemaking, is comprised FRA has revised and clarified the Finally, Talgo recommended that of sections entitled ‘‘Scope,’’ requirements of this appendix based on points 4 and 5 in the appendix be ‘‘Background,’’ ‘‘Limitations,’’ and comments received in response to the revised to acknowledge that they should ‘‘Structural Strength Requirements.’’ NPRM. not be applied to single-axle trucks. Appendix D represents the section

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:15 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12MYR2 25652 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations entitled ‘‘Structural Strength normal business hours by visiting the best of FRA’s ability, FRA has Requirements,’’ or Section 4 in RP–506. FRA Docket Clerk at the Office of Chief apportioned the total costs and savings FRA has not included Section 4.4 of Counsel, FRA, Seventh Floor, 1120 in the following tables between Amtrak, RP–506 in Appendix D. Section 4.4 Vermont Avenue, in Washington, D.C. commuter railroads, and the State of (‘‘Fueling’’) states, ‘‘Internal structures Photocopies may also be obtained by Washington to more precisely show the of [the] tank must not impede the flow submitting a written request by mail to effects of this final rule on these of fuel through the tank while fueling at the FRA Docket Clerk at the Office of different entities. In commenting on the a rate of 300 gpm [gallons per minute].’’ Chief Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont Ave, NPRM, APTA had recommended that The rate at which a fuel tank may be Mail Stop 10, Washington, D.C. 20590. FRA segregate the costs and benefits to fueled is only a safety concern in the Certain requirements in the rule commuter railroads from those broad sense that the fuel not spill from reflect current industry practices or involving Amtrak—and not represent the tank while fueling. Of course, FRA restate existing regulations, or both. As both Amtrak and commuter railroads recognizes that railroad fuel dispensers a result, in calculating the costs of this together. FRA has separately identified utilize automatic shut-off devices that rule, FRA has neither included the cost the State of Washington in the tables will stop the flow of fuel before the fuel of those actions that would have been below because of the unique concerns spills out of the tank if the fuel is performed voluntarily in the absence of involving its operation of Talgo dispensed too readily for the tank to this rule, nor the costs of those actions passenger equipment, discussed above process. The ability of the tank to accept that would have been required by the in the preamble. existing regulations that have been fuel at a certain rate per minute Ideally, FRA would separately show therefore appears to be more of an restated in this rule. Further, in calculating the benefits arising from this the costs and savings for commuter operational concern than a safety railroads from those involving Amtrak concern for a railroad in that the process rule, FRA has not included as a benefit any good resulting from such actions. for each requirement in the rule. of fueling locomotives not be However, FRA cannot separate some of unnecessarily delayed.. As a result, FRA FRA expects that overall this rule will save the passenger rail industry the twenty-year costs and savings of this will not make Section 4.4. of RP–506 a rule with any degree of accuracy safety requirement of this rule, even approximately $20 million Net Present Value (NPV) over the next twenty years. between Amtrak and commuter though a railroad is free to make it its railroads, especially for passenger own requirement in acquiring Rail passengers are expected to benefit from reduced delays totaling equipment that is not yet in service. For locomotives. approximately $11 million (twenty-year instance, FRA does not know how often X. Regulatory Impact NPV). FRA expects the NPV of the total Amtrak will order new equipment or twenty-year costs incurred associated what specific type of equipment that A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT with the rule to be $68.5 million. The may be. To a certain extent, railroads Regulatory Policies and Procedures NPV of the total twenty-year savings will be able to control their level of This rule has been evaluated in expected to accrue to the industry from expenditures in response to this rule by accordance with existing policies and the rule is approximately $87 million. choosing to overhaul or rebuild procedures and is considered to be For some passenger rail operators, the equipment they own or by purchasing significant under both Executive Order total costs incurred will exceed the total existing equipment from other railroads 12866 and DOT policies and procedures cost savings. For others, the cost savings instead of ordering new equipment. Of (44 FR 11034; Feb. 26, 1979). FRA has will outweigh the costs. Expected safety course, FRA can more precisely prepared and placed in the docket a full benefits coupled with reduced apportion the costs and savings between regulatory evaluation of the rule (only a passenger train delays outweigh the Amtrak and commuter railroads for the summary is provided below). This estimated costs of compliance with this inspection, testing, and maintenance evaluation estimates the costs and rule. requirements in this rule; those consequences of the rule as well as its The following tables present the requirements will most significantly anticipated economic and safety estimated twenty-year costs and savings impact the existing fleet of passenger benefits. The evaluation may be (NPV) associated with the specific equipment, which is readily inspected and photocopied during requirements in this final rule. To the identifiable.

NPV 20-YEAR COSTS INCURRED

Washington Requirement category Amtrak Commuter rail State Total

Fire SafetyÐMaterials ...... $0 $0 $0 $0 Certification ...... (*) ...... 84,752 New Equipment ...... 253,625 Existing Equipment ...... 675,004 Inspect/Test/Maint...... 142,056 Train Hardware & Software ...... 0 0 0 0 Inspect/Test/Maint. Program: Existing Equipment ...... 277,816 New Equipment ...... 167,958 Training Program: Course Development ...... 1,720,629 Exterior Mech. Inspect...... 5,081,250 Interior Mech. Inspect...... 3,408,940 Pre-Revenue Service Testing: Equip w/Prev. Op. Exp...... 16,950 Equip w/Out Prev. Op. Exp...... 233,373 Rim-Stamped Straight-Plate Wheels ...... 0 0 0 0

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25653

NPV 20-YEAR COSTS INCURREDÐContinued

Washington Requirement category Amtrak Commuter rail State Total

Emergency Lighting ...... 0 0 0 0 TalgoÐRisk Assessment ...... 0 0 280,634 280,634 Anticlimber & Link to Car Body ...... 0 129,296 0 129,296 Forward End Structures ...... 0 8,190,145 0 8,190,145 Corner Posts ...... 0 1,532,517 0 1,532,517 Rollover Strength ...... 29,305 Side Structure ...... 0 0 0 0 Truck to Car Body Attachment ...... 0 0 0 0 Glazing ...... 1,303,894 Fuel Tanks ...... 0 0 0 0 Electrical System ...... 0 0 0 0 Suspension System ...... 0 0 0 0 Brake SystemÐEase of Inspection ...... 32,179 Interior fittings and Surfaces ...... 2,608,856 Emergency Window Exits ...... 0 0 0 0 DoorsÐManual Door Release ...... 0 3,968,598 0 3,968,598 Automated Monitoring ...... 30,503 Mvmt Defective EquipÐNon Brakes ...... 25,934 Mvmt Defective EquipÐBrakes ...... 735,249 Reporting and Tracking System ...... 0 5,371,054 0 5,371,054 Daily Exterior Mech. Inspections ...... 3,009,223 16,712,854 0 19,722,077 Qualified Maintenance Person ...... 0 1,447,370 ...... 1,447,370 Daily Interior Mech. Inspections ...... 10,861,361 Periodic Mechanical Inspection ...... 201,639 Single Car Test ...... 0 0 0 0

Total Costs ...... 68,532,966

NPV 20-YEAR SAVINGS

Washington Requirement category Amtrak Commuter rail State Total

COT&S Interval Extensions: Coaches ...... $0 $9,227,510 $0 $9,227,510 MU locomotives ...... 0 33,368,421 0 33,368,421 Cab cars ...... 0 7,191,358 0 7,191,358 1,500-mile brake inspection ...... 31,852,373 0 0 31,852,373 Class IA brake tests ...... 0 4,360,701 0 4,360,701 Mvmt Defect BrakesÐRR ...... 632,592 Mvmt Defect BrakesÐPassengers ...... 11,368,651

Total Savings ...... 98,019,605 Total Twenty-Year Net Impact: $29,486,639 (Savings). (* In the above tables, a ``Ð'' indicates that total costs or savings, as appropriate, could not be apportioned between Amtrak, commuter rail- roads, and the State of Washington.)

FRA notes that as a result of the final suppression systems are incurred for history of passenger train accidents rule’s requirement to conduct fire safety new equipment, total twenty-year costs shows that the potential for injury and analyses of existing passenger (NPV) could increase by up to $3.9 loss of life is significant. Between equipment, the analyses may indicate million. These costs are not included in January 1, 1990, and December 31, 1997, that modifications to existing equipment the calculations presented above there were a total of 93 passenger are necessary to reduce the level of risk because FRA cannot predict with any fatalities on intercity passenger and of fire or smoke to an acceptable level. degree of precision the results of the fire commuter railroads, representing a total Although costs associated with safety analyses. Should equipment economic loss of $251 million. Sixty- performing the analyses are included in modifications, and fire and smoke eight passenger fatalities occurred when the calculations above, costs associated detection and suppression systems be the trains carrying the passengers were with performing any equipment required, the total net impact of the rule involved in derailments or collisions. modifications are not. If costs associated could be reduced from a savings of FRA believes that it is reasonable to with equipment modifications are $29.5 million to a savings of $11.6 expect that the measures called for in million (NPV). Rail operators would incurred, they will be incurred over the this rule will prevent or mitigate the experience a minimal savings. first four years of the rule and could severity of casualties greater in value total between $8.75 million and $14 Intercity passenger and commuter than the costs to rail carriers of million for existing equipment. If costs railroads generally offer the travelling implementing the requirements of this associated with installation of public one of the safest forms of rule. additional fire and smoke detection and transportation available. However, the

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25654 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

The unique circumstances the general system of transportation, maintenance requirements; and a surrounding each future passenger train and certain private car owners. FRA prohibition concerning rim-stamped accident will determine the ultimate notes that the standards contained in straight-plate wheels on tread-braked effectiveness of this rule and FRA’s this rule were developed in consultation passenger equipment. other strategies to improve passenger with a Working Group that included FRA recognizes that private cars rail safety. Similar accidents have Amtrak, individual commuter railroads, affected by this final rule are principally unique characteristics which ultimately APTA, and the AAPRCO. APTA hauled by Amtrak, which imposes its determine an accident’s severity in represents the interests of commuter own safety requirements on the terms of casualties. As a result, we railroads and rapid transit systems in operation of private cars. As a result, the cannot at this time forecast future regulatory matters. The AAPRCO daily exterior mechanical inspection accident scenarios with a level of represents the interests of private car requirements in this final rule, though precision that would allow us to predict owners in regulatory matters. new Federal requirements, are only the actual need for the particular Except for private car owners, the minimally more stringent than the measures in this rule. However, this rule entities impacted by the final rule are mechanical inspections currently protects railroad employees and governmental jurisdictions, known as performed by Amtrak on its own. The passengers against known hazards that transit authorities, none of which are final rule does offer the flexibility to can be mitigated in a cost-effective small for purposes of the prevailing law. move equipment with power brake manner. For each cost associated with a The statutory definition of ‘‘small defects, as well as the flexibility to requirement in this rule, FRA has governmental jurisdictions’’ is a perform daily brake tests and examined the potential safety benefits governmental entity that serves a mechanical inspections at locations best accruing from the requirement. Certain population center of 50,000 or less. See suited for performing such tests and elements of the rule, such as the 5 U.S.C. 601(5). The transit authorities inspections. To the extent that all structural requirements, will directly subject to the requirements of this rule passenger equipment is subject to daily improve safety by decreasing threats to do not fall within the class established exterior mechanical inspections, private life and property. Other elements of the by statute. Nevertheless, FRA cars will not be affected rule will provide savings to the rail considered the impacts of this final rule disproportionately. industry while maintaining or on the smaller entities subject to the Generally, the final rule requires that improving the industry’s excellent rule. Commuter railroads and rapid rim-stamped straight-plate wheels not safety record overall. transit systems are part of larger transit be used as replacement wheels on tread- In its comments on the proposed rule, organizations that receive Federal funds. braked private cars. Amtrak has the NCDOT stated that the summary The level of costs incurred by each established a private car policy which economic analysis contained in the organization should generally vary in does not allow the use of rim-stamped NPRM did not include an analysis of the proportion to either the size of the straight-plate wheels as replacement impact on individual States. The organization or the extent to which the wheels on private cars. Further, Amtrak NCDOT believed the cost summary to be organization purchases newly will decline to move any tread-braked understated and not include an operator manufactured passenger equipment. For private car with a rim-stamped straight- by operator analysis. The above instance, railroads with fewer plate wheel after June 30, 2000. Because summary does specify this rule’s impact employees and passenger equipment Amtrak holds private cars to standards on Washington State. Further, as noted, will have lower costs associated with as high or higher than those contained a copy of the full regulatory evaluation employee training and the inspection, in this rule, there will be no additional of this rule is available through the FRA testing, and maintenance of passenger economic impact imposed on private Docket Clerk. That evaluation does equipment. FRA notes that this rule cars operated in Amtrak trains from this include, where appropriate, discussions offers railroads the opportunity to rule’s rim-stamped straight-plate wheel of the rule’s impact on particular experience savings in the areas of provision. Private cars are also subject railroads or groups of railroads. The inspection, testing, and maintenance of to provisions in this final rule evaluation also takes into consideration passenger equipment. The extent of concerning protection against personal that individual States will contract with these savings will generally vary injury, suspension system safety, safety Amtrak for the provision of rail service proportionally with the size of the fleet appliances, and brake system safety. on their behalf. In this regard, for of each railroad. These requirements represent either example, a State may utilize Amtrak’s FRA is making only certain current industry practice or current inspection forces trained under the rule, requirements in this rule applicable to Federal safety requirements (which are and thus not have to train inspection private cars that are operated in being restated in this final rule). forces on its own. passenger trains subject to this rule. Smaller passenger rail operations FRA considered the potential burdens such as tourist, scenic, excursion, and B. Regulatory Flexibility Act associated with applying the various historic railroads are exempt from this The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requirements in this rule to private car final rule. A joint FRA/industry (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an owners and operators. FRA is limiting Working Group will be developing assessment of the impacts of proposed the application of this rule only to those recommendations regarding the rules on small entities. FRA has requirements necessary to ensure the applicability of FRA regulations, conducted a regulatory flexibility safe operation of the passenger train in including this one, to tourist, scenic, assessment of this final rule’s impact on which the private cars operate, as well historic, and excursion railroads. Based small entities, and the assessment has as the safety of railroad personnel on that Working Group’s been placed in the public docket for this handling or inspecting the cars. The recommendations, portions of the final rulemaking. FRA certifies that the final economic impacts to private cars rule may apply to some or all of these rule will not have a significant impact owners are expected to be minimal, railroads. on a substantial number of small however. Among the provisions entities. This final rule affects intercity applicable to private cars are daily C. Paperwork Reduction Act passenger and commuter railroads, mechanical inspection requirements; This rule contains information rapid transit operations that operate on brake inspection, testing, and collection requirements. FRA has

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25655 submitted these information collection the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 both, and the estimated time to fulfill requirements to the Office of (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The sections each requirement are as follows: Management and Budget (OMB) for that contain the new or revised review and approval in accordance with information collection requirements, or

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

216.14ÐSpecial notice for re- 19 railroads ...... 12 forms ...... 5 minutes ...... 1 hour ...... $39 pairsÐpassenger equipment. 238.1ÐEarlier applicationÐ 19 railroads ...... 15 notifications ...... 45 minutes ...... 11 hours ...... 429 rule requirementsÐsections 238.15, 238.17, 238.19, 238.107, 238.109. 238.7ÐWaivers ...... 19 railroads ...... 12 waivers ...... 2 hrs/25 hrs ...... 70 hours ...... 2,730 238.11ÐPenalties ...... 19 railroads ...... 1 falsified rept ...... 15 minutes ...... 25 hr...... 9 238.15ÐMovement of pas- 19 railroads ...... 1,000 cards/tags ...... 3 minutes ...... 50 hours ...... 2,500 senger equipment with power brake defects, and ÐMovement of passenger 19 railroads ...... 288 cards/tags ...... 3 minutes ...... 14 hours ...... 700 equipment with power brake defects develop en route. ÐConditional requirement 19 railroads ...... 144 notifications ...... 3 minutes ...... 7 hours ...... 350 238.17ÐMovement of pas- 19 railroads ...... 200 tags/cards ...... 3 minutes ...... 10 hours ...... 340 senger equipment with other than power brake defects. ÐMovement of passenger 19 railroads ...... 76 tags ...... 3 minutes ...... 4 hours ...... 136 equipment with safety appliance defects. 19 railroads ...... 38 notifications ...... 30 seconds ...... 19 min...... 11 238.19ÐReporting and track- 19 railroads ...... N/A ...... Usual and customary N/A ...... N/A ing defective passenger procedure. equipment. ÐList of power brake re- 1 railroad ...... 1 list ...... 2 hours ...... 2 hours ...... 78 pair points. ÐAmendments to list ...... 1 railroad ...... 1 update ...... 1 hour ...... 1 hour ...... 39 238.21/238.103/238.223(a)/ 238.309(2)/238.311(a)/ 238.405(a)/238.427(a): ÐPetitions for special ap- 19 railroads ...... 1 petition ...... 16 hours ...... 16 hours ...... 624 proval of alternative standard. ÐPetitions for special ap- 19 railroads ...... 1 petition ...... 120 hours ...... 120 hours ...... 4,680 proval of alternative compliance. ÐPetitions for special ap- 19 railroads ...... 1 petition ...... 24 hours ...... 24 hours ...... 936 proval of pre-revenue service acceptance test- ing plan. ÐComments on the peti- Unknown ...... 2 comments ...... 1 hour ...... 2 hours ...... 140 tions. 238.103ÐFire Safety: ÐPlan ...... 6 equipment manu- 2.4 eq. design (5 yr. 200 hours ...... 480 hours ...... 33,360 facturers. average). ÐSubsequent equipment 6 equipment manu- 2.4 eq. design (5 yr. 60 years ...... 144 hours ...... 14,400 orders. facturers. average). ÐPreliminary fire safety 19 railroads ...... 19 documents ...... 119 hours ...... 2,264 hours ...... 501,241 analysis. ÐFinal fire safety analysis 18 railroads ...... 6 documents (3 yr. 135 hours ...... 811 hours ...... 81,067 average). ÐFire safety analysis on 19 railroads ...... 1 document ...... 8 hours ...... 8 hours ...... 800 equipment transfer. ÐWritten proceduresÐfire 19 railroads ...... 19 written procedures 80 hours ...... 1,520 hours ...... 106,400 safety system and fire safety equipment. 238.105ÐTrain hardware and 197 railroads ...... N/A ...... Usual and customary N/A ...... N/A software safety. procedure. 238.107ÐInspection, testing, and maintenance plan: ÐPlan ...... 19 railroads ...... N/A ...... Usual and Customary N/A ...... N/A procedure. ÐAnnual plan review by 19 railroads ...... 19 reviews ...... 60 hours ...... 1,140 hours ...... 44,460 railroads. 238.109 Training, qualification, and designation program:

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25656 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

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

ÐTraining employees to 17 railroads ...... N/A ...... Usual and customary N/A ...... N/A perform brake-related procedure. inspections, tests, or maintenance. ÐTraining employees to 19 railroads ...... 6,020 trained employ- 2 hours ...... 12,522 hours ...... 421,410 perform daily mechan- ees/241 instructors. ical inspections. ÐDevelopment of training 19 railroads ...... 19 programs ...... 520 hours ...... 9,880 hours ...... 360,620 program. ÐRecordkeeping ...... 19 railroads ...... 6,020 records ...... 3 minutes ...... 301 hours ...... 11,739 238.111ÐPre-revenue service 6 equipment manu- 2.4 plans (5 yr. aver- 16 hours ...... 38 hours ...... 2,641 acceptance testing planÐ facturers. age). equip. prev. in revenue serv- ice. ÐPass equip. that has not 6 equipment manu- 2.4 plans (5 yr. aver- 200 hours ...... 480 hours ...... 42,144 been in revenue service facturers. age). in U.S. ÐSubsequent equipment 6 equipment manu- 2.4 plans (5 yr. aver- 60 hours ...... 144 hours ...... 11,472 orders. facturers. age). ÐMajor upgrades/intro. 1 equipment manuf ... None likely ...... N/A ...... N/A ...... N/A new tech.ÐTier II. 238.201ÐAlternative compli- 19 railroads ...... Incl. in 238.21 ...... Inc. 238.21 ...... Incl. 238.21 ...... Incl. 238.21 ance. 238.203ÐStatic end strength: ÐGrandfathering non- 19 railroads ...... 1 petition ...... 300 hours ...... 300 hours ...... 21,000 compliant equip. ÐComment ...... Unkown ...... 6 comments ...... 20 hours ...... 120 hours ...... 8,400 238.211ÐCollision posts ...... 19 railroads ...... Incl. in 238.21 ...... Incl. 238.21 ...... Incl. 238.21 ...... Inc. 238.21 238.223ÐLocomotive fuel 19 railroads ...... Incl. in 238.21 ...... Incl. 238.21 ...... Incl. 238.21 ...... Inc 238.21 tanksÐalt. std. 238.231ÐBrake systemÐiden- 2 brake manu- N/A ...... N/A ...... Usual and cust...... N/A tified & marked. facturers. 238.237ÐAutomated moni- toring: ÐAlerter/Deadman con- 19 railroads ...... 19 documents ...... 2 hours ...... 38 hours ...... 1,482 trolÐdocumentation. ÐDefective alerter/ 19 railroads ...... 100 tags ...... 3 minutes ...... 5 hours ...... 250 Deadman control. 238.301ÐScopeÐrequire- 19 railroads ...... Incl. in 238.1 ...... Incl. in 238.1 ...... Incl. in 238.1 ...... Incl. 238.1 mentsÐearlier application. 238.303ÐExterior calendar N/A ...... N/A ...... Usual and customary N/A ...... N/A day mechanical inspection procedure. of passenger equipmentÐ door and cover plates guarding high voltage equip. ÐMU locomotives w/ in- 19 railroads ...... 50 tags/cards ...... 3 minutes ...... 3 hours ...... 150 operative dyn. brakes. ÐConventional locos. w/ 19 railroads ...... 50 tags/cards ...... 3 minutes ...... 3 hours ...... 150 inoper. dyn. brakes. ÐWritten noticeÐinoper- 19 railroads ...... 25 written not ...... 3 minutes ...... 1 hour ...... 34 ative dyn. brakes. ÐRecordsÐext. calendar 19 railroads ...... 2,022,436 recd ...... 1 minute ...... 33,707 hours ...... 1,146,038 day mech. insp. 238.305ÐInterior calendar day mechanical inspection of passenger cars: ÐStenciling or marking N/A ...... N/A ...... Usual and customary N/A ...... N/A emergency brake valve. procedure. ÐStenciling or marking N/A ...... N/A ...... Usual and customary N/A ...... N/A high voltage equipment. procedure. ÐTagging of defective 10 railroads ...... 600 tags ...... 1 minute ...... 10 hours ...... 340 doors. ÐSafety related signage .. N/A ...... N/A ...... Usual and customery N/A ...... N/A customery proce- dure. ÐRecords ...... 19 railroads ...... 1,866,904 recds ...... 1 minute ...... 31,115 hours ...... 1,057,910 238.307ÐPeriodic mechanical inspection of passenger cars: ÐWritten notificationÐalt. 5 railroads ...... 5 notifications ...... 5 hours ...... 25 hours ...... 975 periodic insp. int. ÐSwitchesÐmarkings ..... N/A ...... N/A ...... Usual and customary N/A ...... N/A procedure.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:38 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25657

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

ÐRecords ...... 6 railroads ...... 15 records ...... 3 minutes ...... 75 hours ...... 29 ÐDetailed documenta- 5 railroads ...... 5 documents ...... 100 hours ...... 500 hours ...... 19,500 tionÐalt. insp. interval. 238.309ÐAlternative mainte- 19 railroads ...... Incl. in 238.21 ...... Incl. in 238.21 ...... Incl. in 238.21 ...... Inc. 238.21 nance proc. ÐRecords of periodic N/A ...... N/A ...... Usual and customary N/A ...... N/A maintenance. procedure. 238.311ÐSingle car testÐalt. 19 railroads ...... Incl. in 238.21 ...... Incl. in 238.21 ...... Incl. in 238.21 ...... Inc.Ð238.21 procedure. ÐTagging to indicate 19 railroads ...... 25 tags ...... 3 minutes ...... 1 hour ...... 34 needÐsingle car test. 238.313ÐClass I brake test .... N/A ...... N/A ...... Usual and customary N/A ...... N/A procedure. ÐDocumentationÐtest al- ...... ready performed. ÐQualif. maint. Person.Ð ...... statement in cab. 238.315ÐClass IA brake test: ÐBrake pipe pressureÐ 19 railroads ...... 365,000 comm ...... 3 seconds ...... 304 hours ...... 10,336 communications. ÐCommunicating signal 19 tests ...... 365,000 tests ...... 15 seconds ...... 1,521 hours ...... 51,714 systemÐtests. 238.317ÐClass II Brake Test: ÐBrake pipe pressureÐ 19 railroads ...... 365,000 comm ...... 3 seconds ...... 304 hours ...... 10,336 communications. ÐCommunicating signal 19 railroads ...... 365,000 tests ...... 15 seconds ...... 1,521 hours ...... 51,714 systemÐtests. 238.403ÐCrash energy man- 1 railroad ...... 1 design ...... 120 hours ...... 120 hours ...... 12,000 agement requirements. 238.405ÐLongitudinal static 1 railroad ...... Incl. in 238.21 ...... Incl.Ð238.21 ...... Incl.Ð238.21 ...... Inc.Ð238.21 compressive. 238.421ÐGazing: ÐMarking of glazing ma- N/A ...... N/A ...... Usual and customary N/A ...... N/A terial. procedure. ÐStenciling requirement .. N/A ...... N/A ...... Usual and customary N/A ...... N/A procedure. 238.423ÐFuel tanksÐequiv. N/A ...... Incl. in 238.21 ...... Incl. in 238.21 ...... Incl. in 238.21 ...... Inc.Ð238.21 level of safety. 238.427ÐSuspension sys- N/A ...... Incl. in 238.21 ...... Incl. in 238.21 ...... Incl. in 238.21 ...... Incl.Ð temÐalt. stds. 238.445 ÐHunting oscillationsÐ 1 railroad ...... Incl. in 238.445 ...... Inc.Ð238.445 ...... Inc.Ð238.445 ...... In.Ð238.445 alarms to train oper. 238.431ÐBrake system ...... 1 railroad ...... 1 analysis ...... 40 hours ...... 40 hours ...... 1,560 ÐBrake system failures ... 1 railroad ...... Incl. 238.445 ...... Incl. 238.445 ...... Incl. 238.445 ...... In 238.445 ÐWheel slide alarms ...... 1 railroad ...... Incl. 238.445 ...... Incl. 238.445 ...... Incl. 238.445 ...... In 238.445 238.437ÐEmergency commu- 3 car manufacturers .. 3 instructions ...... 1 hour ...... 3 hours ...... 102 nication. 238.441ÐEmergency roof en- 3 car manufacturers .. 16 cars marked ...... 15 minutes ...... 4 hours ...... 136 trance location. ÐMarkings ...... 238.445ÐAutomated moni- 1 railroad ...... 200 alerts ...... 1 second ...... 3 minutes ...... 2 toring. ÐSelf test featureÐnotifi- 1 railroad ...... 6,300 notifications ..... 1 second ...... 2 hours ...... 68 cations to train operator. 238.447ÐTrain operator's con- N/A ...... N/A ...... Usual and customary N/A ...... N/A trols and power car cab lay- procedure. out. 238.503ÐInspection, testing, and maintenance require- ments: 238.505ÐProgram approval procedures: ÐSubmission of program 1 railroad ...... 1 program ...... 80 hours ...... 80 hours ...... 3,120 ÐAmendments to pro- 1 railroad ...... 1 amendment ...... 8 hours ...... 8 hours ...... 312 gram. ÐComments ...... 4 unions/individuals ... 4 comments ...... 1 hour ...... 4 hours ...... 276 ÐApproval ...... N/A ...... N/A ...... No disapprovals ex- N/A ...... N/A pected at this time. 238.603ÐSafety planing re- 1 railroad ...... 1 safety plan ...... 100 hours ...... 100 hours ...... 3,900 quirementsÐProcess to in- troduce new technology. Appendix B to Part 238Ðlabel- 5±6 seat manufactur- N/A ...... Usual customary pro- N/A ...... N/A ing requirement. ers. cedure.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25658 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

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

ÐSeat/Mattress assem- 5±6 manuf ...... Incl. 238.103 ...... Incl. 238.103 ...... Incl. 238.103 ...... In 238.103 bliesÐfire haz. analysis. ÐDisc. small partsÐfire 5±6 manuf ...... Incl. in 238.103 ...... Incl. 238.103 ...... Incl. 238.103 ...... In238.103 hazard analysis. ÐSurface any small 5±6 manuf ...... Incl. in 238.103 ...... Incl. 238.103 ...... Incl. 238.103 ...... In238.103 partÐfire haz. analysis. ÐSmall elastomers/misc. 5±6 manuf ...... Incl. in 238.103 ...... Incl. 238.103 ...... Incl. 238.103 ...... In238.103 partsÐfire haz. anal. ÐPortions vehicle bodyÐ 5±6 manuf ...... Incl. in 238.103 ...... Incl. 238.103 ...... Incl. 238.103 ...... In238.103 fire hazard analysis.

All estimates include the time for statute quoted above (49 U.S.C. 20133). as well as recordkeeping and tracking of reviewing instructions; searching Further, FRA has consulted with defective equipment requirements, existing data sources; gathering or commuter railroad authorities in would require use of the same resources maintaining the needed data; and developing this rule. railroads will apply toward resolving reviewing the information. For F. Compliance With the Unfunded Year 2000 computer problems. information or a copy of the paperwork Mandates Reform Act of 1995 However, FRA will not require that such package submitted to OMB contact Mr. implementation occur before July, 2000. Robert Brogan, Office of Safety, Pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates FRA will apply requirements for Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS– Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) each inspection, testing, and maintenance of 21, Federal Railroad Administration, Federal agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise equipment, and recordkeeping and 1120 Vermont Ave., N.W., Mail Stop 17, prohibited by law, assess the effects of tracking, at an earlier date only to those Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone: Federal Regulatory actions on State, railroads that indicate a desire for this (202) 493–6292) or Ms. Dian Deal, Office local, and tribal governments, and the to occur. Because certain of the of Information Technology and private sector (other than to the extent requirements for inspection, testing, and Productivity Improvement, RAD–20, that such regulations incorporate maintenance offer railroads an Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 requirements specifically set forth in opportunity to achieve efficiencies and Vermont Ave., N.W., Mail Stop 35, law).’’ Sec. 201. Section 202 of the Act savings, some railroads may voluntarily Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone: further requires that ‘‘before choose to have these requirements (202) 493–6133). promulgating any general notice of applied to them earlier. FRA notes that FRA cannot impose a penalty on proposed rulemaking that is likely to its implementation schedule for persons for violating information result in promulgation of any rule that inspection, testing, and maintenance collection requirements which do not includes any Federal mandate that may requirements, as well as recordkeeping display a current OMB control number, result in the expenditure by State, local, and tracking requirements, was also if required. The information collection and tribal governments, in the aggregate, developed taking into consideration the requirements contained in this rule have or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 time generally needed for railroads to been approved under OMB control or more (adjusted annually for inflation) develop maintenance programs and number 2130–0544. in any 1 year, and before promulgating implement training requirements as any final rule for which a general notice required by this rule. D. Environmental Impact of proposed rulemaking was published, FRA has evaluated these regulations the agency shall prepare a written XI. List of Subjects in accordance with its procedures for statement . . .’’ detailing the effect on 49 CFR Part 216 ensuring full consideration of the State, local and tribal governments and environmental impact of FRA actions, the private sector. The final rules issued Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting as required by the National today will not result in the expenditure, and recordkeeping requirements, Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or Special notice for repairs. 4321 et seq.), other environmental more in any one year, and thus statutes, Executive Orders, and DOT preparation of a statement was not 49 CFR Part 223 Order 5610.1c. This final rule meets the required. Glass and glass products, Glazing, criteria that establish this as a non-major Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and action for environmental purposes. G. Effects on the Year 2000 Computer Problem recordkeeping requirements. E. Federalism Implications This rule does not mandate business 49 CFR Part 229 This rule has been analyzed in process changes nor require accordance with the principles and modifications to computer systems that Locomotives, Penalties, Railroad criteria contained in Executive Order will detract from resources railroads safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 12612, and it has been determined that will apply toward addressing any requirements. the rule does not have sufficient possible Year 2000 computer problems. 49 CFR Part 231 federalism implications to warrant the Although business process changes and preparation of a Federalism Assessment. modifications to computer systems may Penalties, Railroad safety, Safety The fundamental policy decision occur as this rule is implemented, appliances. providing that Federal regulations railroads would only voluntarily make 49 CFR Part 232 should govern aspects of service such changes and modifications before provided by municipal and public the year 2000. Penalties, Power brakes, Railroad benefit corporations (or agencies) of Implementation of certain inspection, safety, Reporting and recordkeeping State governments is embodied in the testing, and maintenance requirements, requirements.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25659

49 CFR Part 238 6. Section 216.14 is added to read as Subpart BÐ[Amended] follows: Fire prevention, Incorporation by 8. In subpart B of part 216, the reference, Passenger equipment, § 216.14 Special notice for repairsÐ phrases ‘‘the FRA Regional Director for Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and passenger equipment. Railroad Safety’’, ‘‘the FRA Regional recordkeeping requirements. Director of Railroad Safety’’, ‘‘a Regional (a) When an FRA Motive Power and Director’’ and ‘‘the Regional Director’’ The Rule Equipment Inspector or a State are removed, and the phrase ‘‘the FRA Equipment Inspector determines that In consideration of the foregoing, Regional Administrator’’ is added in railroad passenger equipment is not in chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of their place. Federal Regulations is amended as conformity with one or more of the follows: requirements of the FRA Passenger PART 223Ð[AMENDED] Equipment Safety Standards set forth in PART 216Ð[AMENDED] part 238 of this chapter and that it is 9. The authority citation for part 223 unsafe for further service, he or she will is revised to read as follows: 1. The authority citation for part 216 issue a written Special Notice to the is revised to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–03, 20133, railroad that the equipment is not in 20701–20702, 21301–02, 21304; 49 CFR Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–04, 20111, serviceable condition. The Special 1.49(c), (m). 20133, 20137–38, 20141, 20143, 20301–02, Notice describes the defect or defects 10. Section 223.8 is added to subpart 20701–02, 21301–02, 21304; 49 CFR 1.49(c), that cause the equipment to be in (m). B to read as follows: unserviceable condition. After receipt of 2. Section 216.1(a) is revised to read the Special Notice, the railroad shall § 223.8 Additional requirements for as follows: remove the equipment from service passenger equipment. until it is restored to serviceable In addition to the requirements § 216.1 Application. condition. The equipment may not be contained in this part, requirements for (a) This part applies, according to its deemed in serviceable condition until it emergency window exits and window terms, to each railroad that uses or complies with all applicable safety glazing on passenger equipment, operates— requirements of part 238 of this chapter. as defined in § 238.5 of this chapter, are (1) A railroad freight car subject to also found in part 238 of this chapter. part 215 of this chapter; (b) The railroad shall notify in writing (2) A locomotive subject to 49 U.S.C. the FRA Regional Administrator for the PART 229Ð[AMENDED] chapter 207 (49 U.S.C. 20701–03); or FRA region in which the Special Notice (3) Railroad passenger equipment was issued when the equipment is 11. The authority citation for part 229 subject to part 238 of this chapter. returned to service, specifying the is revised to read as follows: repairs completed. * * * * * Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–03, 20133, (c) Railroad passenger equipment 20137–38, 20143, 20701–03, 21301–02, § 216.3 [Amended] subject to a Special Notice may be 21304; 49 CFR 1.49(c), (m). 3. Section 216.3(b) is amended by moved from the place where it was 12. Section 229.3 is amended by removing the phrase ‘‘section 206 of the found to be unsafe for further service to revising paragraph (a) and adding new Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (45 the nearest available point where the paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) to read as U.S.C. 435)’’ and adding in its place the equipment can be repaired, if such follows: phrase ‘‘49 U.S.C. 20105’’. movement is necessary to make the repairs. However, the movement is § 229.3 Applicability. § 216.5 [Amended] subject to the further restrictions of (a) Except as provided in paragraphs 4. Section 216.5(c) is amended by §§ 238.15 and 238.17 of this chapter. (b) through (e) of this section, this part adding after ‘‘216.13,’’: ‘‘216.14,’’. applies to all standard gage railroads. § 216.17 [Amended] (b) * * * § 216.13 [Amended] (c) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of § 229.125 5. The first sentence of § 216.13(a) is 7. Section 216.17(a) is amended as do not apply to Tier II passenger removed and a new sentence is added follows: equipment as defined in § 238.5 of this in its place to read as follows: ‘‘When a. By adding, after ‘‘216.13’’, chapter (i.e., passenger equipment an FRA Motive Power and Equipment ‘‘216.14,’’; operating at speeds exceeding 125 mph Inspector or State Equipment Inspector b. By adding, after the word but not exceeding 150 mph). determines a locomotive is not safe to ‘‘locomotive,’’ in the third sentence, the (d) On or after November 8, 1999, operate in the service to which it is put, phrase ‘‘railroad passenger equipment,’’; paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(1) of § 229.141 whether by reason of nonconformity and do not apply to ‘‘passenger equipment’’ with the FRA Railroad Locomotive as defined in § 238.5 of this chapter, Safety Standards set forth in part 229 of c. By revising the fifth sentence to unless such equipment is excluded from this chapter or the FRA Railroad read as follows: the requirements of §§ 238.203 through Locomotive Inspection Regulations set ‘‘If upon reinspection, the railroad 238.219, and § 238.223 of this chapter forth in part 230 of this chapter or by freight car, locomotive, or passenger by operation of § 238.201(a)(2) of this reason of any other condition rendering equipment is found to be in serviceable chapter. the locomotive unsafe, he or she will condition, or the track is found to (e) Paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(4), notify the railroad in writing that the comply with the requirements for the and (b)(2) through (b)(4) of § 229.141 do locomotive is not in serviceable class at which it was previously not apply to ‘‘passenger equipment’’ as condition.’’ operated by the railroad, the FRA defined in § 238.5 of this chapter that is 5a. The third sentence of § 216.13(a) Regional Administrator or his or her placed in service for the first time on or is amended by removing the phrase agent will immediately notify the after September 8, 2000, unless such ‘‘part 230’’ and adding in its place the railroad, whereupon the restrictions of equipment is excluded from the phrase ‘‘parts 229 and 230’’. the Special Notice cease to be effective.’’ requirements of §§ 238.203 through

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:15 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12MYR2 25660 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

238.219, and § 238.223 of this chapter 238.5 Definitions. Subpart EÐSpecific Requirements for by operation of § 238.201(a)(2) of this 238.7 Waivers. Tier II Passenger Equipment chapter. 238.9 Responsibility for compliance. 238.11 Civil penalties. 238.401 Scope. PART 231Ð[AMENDED] 238.13 Preemptive effect. 238.403 Crash energy management. 238.15 Movement of passenger equipment 238.405 Longitudinal static compressive 13. The authority citation for part 231 with power brake defects. strength. is revised to read as follows: 238.17 Movement of passenger equipment 238.407 Anti-climbing mechanism. with other than power brake defects. 238.409 Forward end structures of power Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–03, 20131, 238.19 Reporting and tracking defective car cabs. 20301–03, 21301–02, 21304; 49 CFR 1.49(c), passenger equipment. 238.411 Rear end structures of power car (m). 238.21 Special approval procedure. cabs. 14. Section 231.0 is amended by 238.23 Information collection. 238.413 End structures of trailer cars. redesignating paragraphs (c) through (e) 238.415 Rollover strength. as paragraphs (d) through (f), Subpart BÐSafety Planning and 238.417 Side loads. General Requirements 238.419 Truck-to-car-body and truck respectively; by revising paragraph (a); component attachment. and by adding a new paragraph (c) to 238.101 Scope. 238.421 Glazing. read as follows: 238.103 Fire safety. 238.423 Fuel tanks. 238.105 Train hardware and software 238.425 Electrical system. § 231.0 Applicability and penalties. safety. 238.427 Suspension system. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs 238.107 Inspection, testing, and 238.429 Safety appliances. (b) and (c) of this section, this part maintenance plan. 238.431 Brake system. applies to all standard gage railroads. 238.109 Training, qualification, and 238.433 Draft system. (b) * * * designation program. 238.435 Interior fittings and surfaces. (c) Except for the provisions 238.111 Pre-revenue service acceptance 238.437 Emergency communication. testing plan. 238.439 Doors. governing uncoupling devices, this part 238.113 Emergency window exits. 238.441 Emergency roof entrance location. does not apply to Tier II passenger 238.115 Emergency lighting. 238.443 Headlights. equipment as defined in § 238.5 of this 238.117 Protection against personal injury. 238.445 Automated monitoring. chapter (i.e., passenger equipment 238.119 Rim-stamped straight-plate wheels. 238.447 Train operator’s controls and operating at speeds exceeding 125 mph power car cab layout. Subpart CÐSpecific Requirements for but not exceeding 150 mph). Subpart FÐInspection, Testing, and * * * * * Tier I Passenger Equipment Maintenance Requirements for Tier II Passenger Equipment PART 232Ð[AMENDED] 238.201 Scope/alternative compliance. 238.203 Static end strength. 238.501 Scope. 15. The authority citation for part 232 238.205 Anti-climbing mechanism. 238.503 Inspection, testing, and is revised to read as follows: 238.207 Link between coupling mechanism maintenance requirements. and car body. 238.505 Program approval procedure. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–03, 20133, 238.209 Forward-facing end structure of Subpart GÐSpecific Safety Planning 20141, 20301–03, 20306, 21301–02, 21304; locomotives. Requirements for Tier II Passenger 49 CFR 1.49 (c), (m). 238.211 Collision posts. Equipment 16. Section 232.0 is amended by 238.213 Corner posts. 238.215 Rollover strength. 238.601 Scope. redesignating paragraphs (c) through (e) 238.217 Side structure. 238.603 Safety planning requirements. as paragraphs (d) through (f), 238.219 Truck-to-car-body attachment. respectively; by revising paragraph (a); Appendix A to Part 238—Schedule of Civil 238.221 Glazing. Penalties and by adding a new paragraph (c) to 238.223 Locomotive fuel tanks. read as follows: 238.225 Electrical system. Appendix B—Test Methods and 238.227 Suspension system. Performance Criteria for the Flammability § 232.0 Applicability and penalties. 238.229 Safety appliances. and Smoke Emission Characteristics of (a) Except as provided in paragraphs 238.231 Brake system. Materials Used in Passenger Cars and (b) and (c) of this section, this part 238.233 Interior fittings and surfaces. Locomotive Cabs 238.235 Doors. applies to all standard gage railroads. Appendix C to Part 238—Suspension System 238.237 Automated monitoring. (b) * * * Safety Performance Standards (c) Except for §§ 232.2 and 232.21 Subpart DÐInspection, Testing, and Appendix D to Part 238—Requirements for through 232.25, this part does not apply Maintenance Requirements for Tier I External Fuel Tanks on Tier I Locomotives to a ‘‘passenger train’’ or ‘‘passenger Passenger Equipment equipment’’ as defined in § 238.5 of this Appendix E to Part 238—General Principles chapter that is subject to the inspection 238.301 Scope. of Reliability-Based Maintenance Programs and testing requirements contained in 238.303 Exterior calendar day mechanical Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20133, part 238 of this chapter. inspection of passenger equipment. 20141, 20302–03, 20306, and 20701–02; 49 238.305 Interior calendar day mechanical CFR 1.49. * * * * * inspection of passenger cars. 17. Part 238 is added to read as 238.307 Periodic mechanical inspection of Subpart AÐGeneral follows: passenger cars and unpowered vehicles used in passenger trains. § 238.1 Purpose and scope. PART 238ÐPASSENGER EQUIPMENT 238.309 Periodic brake equipment (a) The purpose of this part is to SAFETY STANDARDS maintenance. 238.311 Single car test. prevent collisions, derailments, and Subpart AÐGeneral 238.313 Class I brake test. other occurrences involving railroad Sec. 238.315 Class IA brake test. passenger equipment that cause injury 238.1 Purpose and scope. 238.317 Class II brake test. or death to railroad employees, railroad 238.3 Applicability. 238.319 Running brake test. passengers, or the general public; and to

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:28 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25661 mitigate the consequences of such general railroad system of moving train is used to generate electric occurrences to the extent they cannot be transportation; current at the locomotive traction prevented. (2) A railroad that operates only on motors, which is then dissipated (b) This part prescribes minimum track inside an installation that is not through banks of resistor grids or back Federal safety standards for railroad part of the general railroad system of into the catenary or third rail system. passenger equipment. This part does not transportation; Brake, effective means a brake that is restrict a railroad from adopting and (3) Tourist, scenic, historic, or capable of producing its required design enforcing additional or more stringent excursion operations, whether on or off retarding force on the train. A rail car’s requirements not inconsistent with this the general railroad system of air brake is not considered effective if its part. transportation; or piston travel is in excess of the (c) Railroads to which this part (4) Circus trains. maximum prescribed limits. applies shall be responsible for § 238.5 Definitions. Brake indicator means a device, compliance with all of the requirements As used in this part— actuated by brake cylinder pressure, contained in §§ 238.15, 238.17, 238.19, AAR means the Association of which indicates whether brakes are 238.107, 238.109, and subpart D of this American Railroads. applied or released. part effective July 12, 2001. APTA means the American Public Brake, inoperative means a primary (1) A railroad may request earlier Transit Association. brake that, for any reason, no longer application of the requirements Administrator means the applies or releases as intended or is contained in §§ 238.15, 238.17, 238.19, Administrator of the Federal Railroad otherwise ineffective. 238.107, 238.109, and subpart D upon Administration or the Administrator’s Brake, on-tread friction means a written notification to FRA’s Associate delegate. braking system that uses a brake shoe Administrator for Safety. Such a request Alerter means a device or system that acts on the tread of the wheel to shall indicate the railroad’s readiness installed in the locomotive cab to retard the vehicle. and ability to comply with all of the promote continuous, active locomotive Brake, parking or hand brake means a provisions referenced in paragraph (c) engineer attentiveness by monitoring brake that can be applied and released introductory text of this section. select locomotive engineer-induced by hand to prevent movement of a (2) Except for paragraphs (b) and (c) control activities. If fluctuation of a stationary rail car or locomotive. of § 238.309, a railroad may specifically monitored locomotive engineer-induced Brake pipe means the system of request earlier application of the control activity is not detected within a piping (including branch pipes, angle maintenance and testing provisions predetermined time, a sequence of cocks, cutout cocks, dirt collectors, contained in §§ 238.309 and 238.311 audible and visual alarms is activated so hoses, and hose couplings) used for simultaneously. In order to request as to progressively prompt a response by connecting locomotives and all rail cars earlier application of these two sections, the locomotive engineer. Failure by the for the passage of air to control the the railroad shall indicate its readiness locomotive engineer to institute a locomotive and car brakes. and ability to comply with all of the change of state in a monitored control, Brake, power means ‘‘air brake’’ as provisions contained in both of those or acknowledge the alerter alarm that term is defined in this section. sections. activity through a manual reset Brake, primary means those (3) Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 238.309 provision, results in a penalty brake components of the train brake system shall apply beginning September 9, application that brings the locomotive necessary to stop the train within the 1999. or train to a stop. signal spacing distance without thermal Anti-climbing mechanism means the damage to friction braking surfaces. § 238.3 Applicability. parts at the ends of adjoining vehicles Brake, secondary means those (a) Except as provided in paragraph in a train that are designed to engage components of the train brake system (c) of this section, this part applies to when subjected to large buff loads to which develop supplemental brake all: prevent the override of one vehicle by retarding force that is not needed to stop (1) Railroads that operate intercity or another. the train within signal spacing distances Bind means restrict the intended commuter passenger train service on or to prevent thermal damage to friction movement of one or more brake system standard gage track which is part of the braking surfaces. components by obstruction, increased general railroad system of friction, or reduced clearance. Brake shoes or pads aligned with transportation; and Block of cars means one car or tread or disc means that the surface of (2) Railroads that provide commuter multiple cars in a solid unit coupled the brake shoe or pad, respectively, or other short-haul rail passenger train together for the purpose of being added engages the surface of the wheel tread service in a metropolitan or suburban to, or removed from, a train as a solid or disc, respectively, to prevent area as described by 49 U.S.C. 20102(1), unit. localized thermal stress. including public authorities operating Brake, air or power brake means a Braking system, blended means a passenger train service. combination of devices operated by braking system where the primary brake (b) Railroads that permit to be used or compressed air, arranged in a system, and one or more secondary brakes are hauled on their lines passenger and controlled manually, electrically, or automatically combined to stop the equipment subject to this part, in pneumatically, by means of which the train. If the secondary brakes are violation of a power brake provision of motion of a rail car or locomotive is unavailable, the blended brake uses the this part or a safety appliance provision retarded or arrested. primary brake alone to stop the train. of this part, are subject to the power Brake, disc means a retardation Calendar day means a time period brake and safety appliance provisions of system used on some rail vehicles, running from one midnight to the next this part with respect to such primarily passenger equipment, that midnight on a given date. operations. utilizes flat metal discs as the braking Class I brake test means a complete (c) This part does not apply to: surface instead of the wheel tread. passenger train brake system test and (1) Rapid transit operations in an Brake, dynamic means a train braking inspection (as further specified in urban area that are not connected to the system whereby the kinetic energy of a § 238.313) performed by a qualified

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25662 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations maintenance person to ensure that the crewmembers stationed in the frame and supported by the roof rails (or air brake system is 100 percent effective. locomotive cab during a collision. anti-telescoping plate), or to both. Class IA brake test means a test and Crewmember means a railroad Full service application means a brake inspection (as further specified in employee called to perform service application which results in a brake § 238.315) performed by a qualified covered by the Federal hours of service cylinder pressure at the service limiting person of the air brake system on each laws at 49 U.S.C. 21103 and subject to valve setting or equivalent. car in a passenger train to ensure that the railroad’s operating rules and Glazing, end-facing means a glazing the brakes apply and release on each car program of operational tests and panel located where a line in the train in response to train line inspections required in § 217.9 and perpendicular to the exterior surface of commands. § 217.11 of this chapter. the panel makes an angle of 50 degrees Class II brake test means a test and Critical buckling stress means the or less with the longitudinal center line inspection (as further specified in minimum stress necessary to initiate of the rail vehicle in which the panel is § 238.317) performed by a qualified buckling of a structural member. installed. A glazing panel that curves so person of brake pipe integrity and Emergency brake application means as to meet the definition for both side- continuity from the controlling an irretrievable brake application facing and end-facing glazing is locomotive to the rear unit of a resulting in the maximum retarding considered end-facing glazing. passenger train. force available from the train brake Glazing, exterior means a glazing Collision posts means structural system. panel that is an integral part of the members of the end structures of a Emergency window means that exterior skin of a rail vehicle and has a vehicle that extend vertically from the segment of a side-facing glazing panel surface exposed to the outside underframe to which they are securely which has been designed to permit environment. attached and that provide protection to rapid and easy removal in an emergency Glazing, side-facing means a glazing occupied compartments from an object situation. panel located where a line penetrating the vehicle during a End structure means the main support perpendicular to the exterior surface of collision. structure projecting upward from the the panel makes an angle of more than Control valves means that part of the underframe of a locomotive, passenger 50 degrees with the longitudinal center air brake equipment on each rail car or car, or other rail vehicle. The end line of the rail vehicle in which the locomotive that controls the charging, structure is securely attached to the panel is installed. application, and release of the air underframe at each end of a rail vehicle. Handrails means safety appliances brakes, in response to train line 50th -percentile adult male means a installed on either side of a rail vehicle’s commands. person weighing 164 pounds (plus or exterior doors to assist passengers and Corner posts means structural minus 3 pounds) and possessing the crewmembers to safely board and depart members located at the intersection of following dimensions: erect sitting the vehicle. the front or rear surface with the side height: 35.7 inches (plus or minus 0.1 Head end power means power surface of a rail vehicle and which inch); hip breadth (sitting): 14.7 inches generated on board the locomotive of a extend vertically from the underframe to (plus or minus 0.7 inch); hip passenger train used for purposes other the roof. Corner posts may be combined circumference (sitting): 42 inches; waist than propelling the train, such as with collision posts to become part of circumference (sitting): 32 inches (plus cooking, heating, illumination, the end structure. or minus 0.6 inch); chest depth: 9.3 ventilation and air conditioning. Crack means a fracture without inches (plus or minus 0.2 inch); and In passenger service/in revenue complete separation into parts, except chest circumference: 37.4 inches (plus service means a train or passenger that, in a casting, a shrinkage crack or or minus 0.6 inch). equipment that is carrying, or available hot tear that does not significantly Foul means restrict the intended to carry, passengers. Passengers need diminish the strength of the member is movement of one or more brake system not have paid a fare in order for the not a crack. components because the component is equipment to be considered in Crash energy management means an snagged, entangled, or twisted. passenger or in revenue service. approach to the design of rail passenger FRA means the Federal Railroad In service, when used in connection equipment which controls the Administration. with passenger equipment, means: dissipation of energy during a collision Fuel tank, external means a fuel (1) Passenger equipment subject to to protect the occupied volumes from containment volume that extends this part that is in passenger or revenue crushing and to limit the decelerations outside the car body structure of a service; and on passengers and crewmembers in locomotive. (2) All other passenger equipment those volumes. This may be Fuel tank, internal means a fuel subject to this part, unless the passenger accomplished by designing energy- containment volume that does not equipment: absorbing structures of low strength in extend outside the car body structure of (i) Is being handled in accordance the unoccupied volumes of a rail a locomotive. with §§ 238.15, 238.17, 238.305(c)(5), or vehicle or passenger train to collapse in Full-height collision post, corner post, 238.503(f), as applicable; a controlled manner, while providing or side frame post means any vertical (ii) Is in a repair shop or on a repair higher structural strength in the framing member in the rail car body track; occupied volumes. Energy deflection structure that spans the distance (iii) Is on a storage track and is not can also be part of a crash energy between the underframe and the roof at carrying passengers; or management approach. Crash energy the car body section where the post is (iv) Has been delivered in interchange management can be used to help located. For collision posts located at but has not been accepted by the provide anti-climbing resistance and to the approximate third points laterally of receiving railroad. reduce the risk of train buckling during an end frame, the term ‘‘full-height’’ Interior fitting means any component a collision. applies to posts that extend and connect in the passenger compartment which is Crash refuge means a volume with to supporting structural members in the mounted to the floor, ceiling, sidewalls, structural strength designed to roof at the location of the posts, or to a or end walls and projects into the maximize the survivability of beam connected to the top of the end- passenger compartment more than 25

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:28 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25663 mm (1 in.) from the surface or surfaces eliminate the hazards of a system or a passenger car, and any other rail to which it is mounted. Interior fittings reduce the associated risk to an rolling equipment used in a train with do not include side and end walls, acceptable level. one or more passenger cars. Passenger floors, door pockets, or ceiling lining Monocoque means a type of rail equipment includes— materials, for example. vehicle construction where the shell or (i) A passenger coach, Lateral means the horizontal direction skin acts as a single unit with the (ii) A cab car, perpendicular to the direction of travel. supporting frame to resist and transmit (iii) A MU locomotive, Locomotive means a piece of on-track the loads acting on the rail vehicle. (iv) A locomotive not intended to rail equipment, other than hi-rail, Mph means miles per hour. provide transportation for a member of specialized maintenance, or other 95th -percentile adult male means, the general public that is used to power similar equipment, which may consist except as used in § 238.447(f)(2), a a passenger train, and of one or more units operated from a person weighing 215 pounds and (v) Any non-self-propelled vehicle single control stand with one or more possessing the following dimensions: used in a passenger train, including an propelling motors designed for moving erect sitting height: 38 inches; hip express car, baggage car, mail car, other passenger equipment; with one or breadth (sitting): 16.5 inches; hip freight car, or a private car. more propelling motors designed to circumference (sitting): 47.2 inches; (2) In the context of articulated transport freight or passenger traffic, or waist circumference (sitting): 42.5 equipment, ‘‘passenger equipment’’ both; or without propelling motors but inches; chest depth: 10.5 inches; and means a segment of rail rolling with one or more control stands. This chest circumference 44.5 inches. equipment located between two trucks term does not include a locomotive Occupied volume means the volume that is used in a train with one or more propelled by steam power unless it is of a rail vehicle or passenger train where passenger cars. This term does not used to haul an intercity or commuter passengers or crewmembers are include a freight locomotive when used passenger train. Nor does this term normally located during service to haul a passenger train due to failure include a freight locomotive when used operation, such as the operating cab and of a passenger locomotive. to haul a passenger train due to failure passenger seating and sleeping areas. Passenger station means a location of a passenger locomotive. The entire width of a vehicle’s end designated in a railroad’s timetable Locomotive cab means the compartment that contains a control where passengers are regularly compartment or space on board a stand is an occupied volume. A scheduled to get on or off any train. locomotive where the control stand is vestibule is typically not considered Permanent deformation means the located and which is normally occupied occupied, except when it contains a undergoing of a permanent change in by the engineer when the locomotive is control stand for use as a control cab. shape of a structural member of a rail operated. Ordered, as applied to acquisition of vehicle. Locomotive, cab car means rail rolling equipment, means that the acquiring Person means an entity of any type equipment intended to provide entity has given a notice to proceed to covered under 1 U.S.C. 1, including but transportation for members of the manufacture the equipment that not limited to the following: a railroad; general public that is without propelling represents a firm financial commitment a manager, supervisor, official, or other motors but equipped with one or more to compensate the manufacturer for the employee or agent of a railroad; any control stands. contract price of the equipment or for owner, manufacturer, lessor, or lessee of Locomotive, controlling means the damages if the order is nullified. railroad equipment, track, or facilities; locomotive from which the locomotive Equipment is not ordered if future any independent contractor providing engineer exercises control over the train. exercise of a contract option is required goods or services to a railroad; and any Locomotive, MU means rail rolling to place the remanufacturing process in employee of such owner, manufacturer, equipment self-propelled by any power motion. lessor, lessee, or independent source and intended to provide Override means to climb over the contractor. transportation for members of the normal coupling or side buffers and Piston travel means the amount of general public; however, this term does linking mechanism and impact the end linear movement of the air brake hollow not include an MU locomotive of the adjoining rail vehicle or unit rod (or equivalent) or piston rod when propelled by steam power unless it is above the underframe. forced outward by movement of the used to haul an intercity or commuter Passenger car means rail rolling piston in the brake cylinder or actuator passenger train. equipment intended to provide and limited by the brake shoes being Longitudinal means in a direction transportation for members of the forced against the wheel or disc. parallel to the normal direction of general public and includes a self- Power car means a rail vehicle that travel. propelled car designed to carry propels a Tier II passenger train or is the Luminescent material means material passengers, baggage, mail, or express. lead vehicle in a Tier II passenger train, that absorbs light energy when ambient This term includes a passenger coach, or both. levels of light are high and emits this cab car, and an MU locomotive. In the Pre-revenue service acceptance testing stored energy when ambient levels of context of articulated equipment, plan means a document, as further light are low, making the material ‘‘passenger car’’ means that segment of specified in § 238.111, prepared by a appear to glow in the dark. the rail rolling equipment located railroad that explains in detail how pre- L/V ratio means the ratio of the lateral between two trucks. This term does not revenue service tests of passenger force that any wheel exerts on an include a private car. equipment demonstrate that the individual rail to the vertical force Passenger coach means rail rolling equipment meets Federal safety exerted by the same wheel on the rail. equipment intended to provide standards and the railroad’s own safety MIL–STD–882C means a military transportation for members of the requirements. standard issued by the United States general public that is without propelling Primary responsibility means the task Department of Defense to provide motors and without a control stand. that a person performs at least 50 uniform requirements for developing Passenger equipment—means percent of the time. The totality of the and implementing a system safety plan (1) All powered and unpowered circumstances will be considered on a and program to identify and then passenger cars, locomotives used to haul case-by-case basis in circumstances

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25664 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations where an individual does not spend 50 without regard to whether those systems Coupling and uncoupling of each semi- percent of his or her day engaged in any use new technologies not associated permanently coupled unit in a train can one readily identifiable type of activity. with traditional railroads; but does not be performed safely only while at a Private car means rail rolling include rapid transit operations in an maintenance or shop location where equipment that is used only for urban area that are not connected to the personnel can safely get under a unit or excursion, recreational, or private general railroad system of between units. transportation purposes. A private car is transportation. Shear strength means the ability of a not a passenger car. Refresher training means periodic structural member to resist forces or Public highway-rail grade crossing retraining required by a railroad for components of forces acting means a location where a public employees or contractors to remain perpendicular to compression or tension highway, road or street, including qualified to perform specific equipment forces, or both, in the member. associated sidewalks or pathways, inspection, testing, or maintenance Shock absorbent material means crosses one or more active railroad functions. material designed to prevent or mitigate tracks at grade. Repair point means a location injuries due to impact by yielding and Qualified maintenance person means designated by a railroad where repairs absorbing much of the energy of impact. a qualified person who has received, as of the type necessary occur on a regular Side posts means main vertical a part of the training, qualification, and basis. A repair point has, or should structural elements in the sides of a rail designation program required under have, the facilities, tools, and personnel vehicle. § 238.109, instruction and training that qualified to make the necessary repairs. includes ‘‘hands-on’’ experience (under A repair point need not be staffed Side sill means that portion of the appropriate supervision or continuously. underframe or side at the bottom of the apprenticeship) in one or more of the Respond as intended means to rail vehicle side wall. following functions: troubleshooting, produce the result that a device or Single car test means a inspection, testing, maintenance, or system is designed to produce. comprehensive test (as further specified repair of the specific train brake and Rollover strength means the strength in § 238.311) of the functioning of all other components and systems for provided to protect the structural critical brake system components which the person is assigned integrity of a rail vehicle in the event installed on an individual passenger car responsibility. This person shall also the vehicle leaves the track and impacts or unpowered vehicle, other than a self- possess a current understanding of what the ground on its side or roof. propelled passenger car, used or is required to properly repair and Roof rail means the longitudinal allowed to be used in a passenger train. maintain the safety-critical brake or structural member at the intersection of Single car test device means a device mechanical components for which the the side wall and the roof sheathing. capable of controlling the application person is assigned responsibility. Running brake test means a test (as and release of the brakes on an Further, the qualified maintenance further specified in § 238.319) individual passenger car or an person shall be a person whose primary performed by a qualified person of a unpowered vehicle, other than a self- responsibility includes work generally train system or component while the propelled passenger car, through consistent with the above-referenced train is in motion to verify that the pneumatic or electrical means. functions and is designated to: system or component functions as Skin means the outer covering of a (1) Conduct Class I brake tests under intended. fuel tank and a rail vehicle. The skin this part; Running gear defect means any may be covered with another coating of (2) Conduct exterior calendar day condition not in compliance with this material such as fiberglass. mechanical inspections on MU part which involves a truck component, Spall, glazing means small pieces of locomotives or other passenger cars and a propulsion system component, a draft glazing that fly off the back surface of unpowered vehicles under this part; or system component, a wheel, or a wheel the glazing when an object strikes the (3) Determine whether equipment not component. front surface. Safety appliance means an appliance in compliance with this part may be Switching service means the required under 49 U.S.C. chapter 203, moved as required by § 238.17. classification of freight cars according to Qualified person means a person excluding power brakes. The term commodity or destination; assembling determined by a railroad to have the includes automatic couplers, hand of cars for train movements; changing knowledge and skills necessary to brakes, sill steps, handholds, handrails, the position of cars for purposes of perform one or more functions required or ladder treads made of steel or a loading, unloading, or weighing; placing under this part. The railroad determines material of equal or greater mechanical of locomotives and cars for repair or the qualifications and competencies for strength used by the traveling public or storage; or moving of rail equipment in employees designated to perform railroad employees that provide a means connection with work service that does various functions in the manner set for safely coupling, uncoupling, or not constitute a train movement. forth in this part. ascending or descending passenger Railroad means any form of equipment. Telescope means override an nonhighway ground transportation that Safety-critical means a component, adjoining rail vehicle or unit and runs on rails or electromagnetic system, or task that, if not available, penetrate into the interior of that guideways and any entity providing defective, not functioning, not adjoining vehicle or unit because of such transportation, including— functioning correctly, not performed, or compressive forces. (i) Commuter or other short-haul not performed correctly, increases the Terminal means a starting point or railroad passenger service in a risk of damage to passenger equipment ending point of a single scheduled trip metropolitan or suburban area and or injury to a passenger, crewmember, for a train, where passengers may get on commuter railroad service that was or other person. or off a train. Normally, this location is operated by the Consolidated Rail Semi-permanently coupled means a point where the train would reverse Corporation on January 1, 1979; and coupled by means of a drawbar or other direction or change destinations. (ii) High speed ground transportation coupling mechanism that requires tools Tier I means operating at speeds not systems that connect metropolitan areas, to perform the uncoupling operation. exceeding 125 mph.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25665

Tier II means operating at speeds Ultimate strength means the load at § 238.9 Responsibility for compliance. exceeding 125 mph but not exceeding which a structural member fractures or (a) A railroad subject to this part shall 150 mph. ceases to resist any load. not— Tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion Uncoupling mechanism means the (1) Use, haul, permit to be used or operations means railroad operations arrangement for operating the coupler hauled on its line, offer in interchange, that carry passengers, often using by any means. or accept in interchange any train or antiquated equipment, with the Underframe means the lower passenger equipment, while in service, conveyance of the passengers to a horizontal support structure of a rail (i) That has one or more conditions particular destination not being the vehicle. not in compliance with a safety principal purpose. Unit means passenger equipment of appliance or power brake provision of Trailer car means a rail vehicle that any type, except a freight locomotive this part; or (ii) That has not been inspected and neither propels a Tier II passenger train when used to haul a passenger train due tested as required by a safety appliance nor is the leading unit in a Tier II to failure of a passenger locomotive. passenger train. A trailer car is normally or power brake provision of this part; or Unoccupied volume means the (2) Use, haul, offer in interchange, or without a control stand and is normally volume of a rail vehicle or passenger accept in interchange any train or occupied by passengers. train which does not contain seating passenger equipment, while in service, Train means a locomotive unit or and is not normally occupied by (i) That has one or more conditions locomotive units coupled, with or passengers or crewmembers. not in compliance with a provision of without cars. For the purposes of the Vehicle, rail means passenger this part, other than the safety appliance provisions of this part related to power equipment of any type and includes a and power brake provisions of this part, brakes, the term ‘‘train’’ does not car, trailer car, locomotive, power car, if the railroad has actual knowledge of include such equipment when being tender, or similar vehicle. This term the facts giving rise to the violation, or used in switching service. does not include a freight locomotive a reasonable person acting in the Train brake communication line when used to haul a passenger train due circumstances and exercising reasonable means the communication link between to failure of a passenger locomotive. care would have that knowledge; or the locomotive and passenger Vestibule means an area of a (ii) That has not been inspected and equipment in a train by which the brake passenger car that normally does not tested as required by a provision of this commands are transmitted. This may be contain seating and is used in passing part, other than the safety appliance and a pneumatic pipe, electrical line, or from the seating area to the side exit power brake provisions of this part, if radio signal. doors. the railroad has actual knowledge of the Train, commuter means a passenger Witness plate means a thin foil placed facts giving rise to the violation, or a train providing commuter service behind a piece of glazing undergoing an reasonable person acting in the within an urban, suburban, or impact test. Any material spalled or circumstances and exercising reasonable metropolitan area. The term includes a broken from the back side of the glazing care would have that knowledge; or passenger train provided by an will dent or mark the witness plate. (3) Violate any other provision of this instrumentality of a State or a political Yard means a system of tracks within part. subdivision of a State. defined limits provided for the making (b) For purposes of this part, Train, long-distance intercity up of trains, storing of cars, or other passenger equipment will be considered passenger means a passenger train that purposes. in use prior to departure but after it has received, or should have received, the provides service between large cities Yard air test means a train brake inspection required under this part for more than 125 miles apart and is not system test conducted using a source of movement and is deemed ready for operated exclusively in the National compressed air other than a locomotive. passenger service. Railroad Passenger Corporation’s Yield strength means the ability of a Northeast Corridor. (c) Although the duties imposed by structural member to resist a change in this part are generally stated in terms of Train, passenger means a train that length caused by a heavy load. transports or is available to transport the duty of a railroad, any person as Exceeding the yield strength may cause defined in § 238.5, including a members of the general public. If a train permanent deformation of the member. is composed of a mixture of passenger contractor for a railroad, who performs and freight equipment, that train is a § 238.7 Waivers. any function covered by this part must perform that function in accordance passenger train for purposes of this part. (a) A person subject to a requirement with this part. Train, short-distance intercity of this part may petition the passenger means a passenger train that Administrator for a waiver of § 238.11 Penalties. provides service exclusively on the compliance with such requirement. The (a) Any person, as defined in § 238.5, National Railroad Passenger filing of such a petition does not affect who violates any requirement of this Corporation’s Northeast Corridor or the person’s responsibility for part or causes the violation of any such between cities that are not more than compliance with that requirement while requirement is subject to a civil penalty 125 miles apart. the petition is being considered. of at least $500 and not more than Train, Tier II passenger means a short- (b) Each petition for waiver under this $11,000 per violation, except that: distance or long-distance intercity section shall be filed in the manner and Penalties may be assessed against passenger train providing service at contain the information required by part individuals only for willful violations, speeds that include those exceeding 125 211 of this chapter. and, where a grossly negligent violation mph but not exceeding 150 mph. (c) If the Administrator finds that a or a pattern of repeated violations has Trainset, passenger means a waiver of compliance is in the public created an imminent hazard of death or passenger train. interest and is consistent with railroad injury to persons, or has caused death Transverse means in a direction safety, the Administrator may grant the or injury, a penalty not to exceed perpendicular to the normal direction of waiver subject to any conditions the $22,000 per violation may be assessed. travel. Administrator deems necessary. Each day a violation continues shall

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25666 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations constitute a separate offense. See (1) If all of the following conditions in paragraph (c)(2) of this section may Appendix A to this part for a statement are met: be reviewed and monitored by FRA at of agency civil penalty policy. (i) The train is moved for purposes of any time to ensure the integrity of the (b) Any person who knowingly and repair, without passengers; system. FRA’s Associate Administrator willfully falsifies a record or report (ii) The applicable operating for Safety may prohibit or revoke a required by this part may be subject to restrictions in paragraphs (d) and (e) of railroad’s ability to utilize an automated criminal penalties under 49 U.S.C. this section are observed; and tracking system in lieu of tagging if FRA 21311. (iii) The passenger equipment is finds that the automated tracking system tagged, or information is recorded, as is not properly secure, is inaccessible to § 238.13 Preemptive effect. prescribed in paragraph (c)(2) of this FRA or a railroad’s employees, or fails Under 49 U.S.C. 20106, issuance of section; or to adequately track or monitor the the regulations in this part preempts any (2) If the train is moved for purposes movement of defective equipment. Such State law, regulation, or order covering of scrapping or sale of the passenger a determination will be made in writing the same subject matter, except an equipment that has the power brake and will state the basis for such action. additional or more stringent law, defect and all of the following (4) Conditional requirement. In regulation, or order that is necessary to conditions are met: addition, if an en route failure causes eliminate or reduce an essentially local (i) The train is moved without power brakes to be cut out or renders safety hazard; that is not incompatible passengers; the brake inoperative on passenger with a law, regulation, or order of the (ii) The movement is at a speed of 15 equipment, the railroad shall: United States Government; and that mph or less; and (i) Determine the percentage of does not unreasonably burden interstate (iii) The movement conforms with the operative power brakes in the train commerce. railroad’s air brake or power brake based on the number of brakes known instructions. to be cut out or otherwise inoperative, § 238.15 Movement of passenger (c) Limitations on movement of equipment with power brake defects. using the formula specified in paragraph passenger equipment in passenger (d)(1) of this section; Beginning July 12, 2001 the following service that becomes defective en route (ii) Notify the person responsible for provisions of this section apply to after a Class I or IA brake test. Passenger the movement of trains of the percent of railroads operating Tier I passenger equipment hauled or used in service in operative brakes and movement equipment covered by this part. A a commuter or passenger train that restrictions on the train imposed by railroad may request earlier application develops a power brake defect while en paragraph (d) of this section; of these requirements upon written route to another location after receiving (iii) Notify the mechanical department notification to FRA’s Associate a Class I or IA brake test (or, for Tier II of the failure; and Administrator for Safety as provided in trains, the equivalent) may be hauled or (iv) Confirm the percentage of § 238.1(c) of this part. used by a railroad for repair, without operative brakes by a walking (a) General. This section contains the civil penalty liability under this part, if inspection at the next location where requirements for moving passenger the applicable operating restrictions set the railroad reasonably judges that it is equipment with a power brake defect forth in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this safe to do so. without liability for a civil penalty section are complied with and all of the (d) Operating restrictions based on under this part. Railroads remain liable following requisites are satisfied: for the movement of passenger (1) En route defect. At the time of the percent operative power brakes in train. equipment under 49 U.S.C. 20303(c). train’s Class I or IA brake test, the (1) Computation of percent operative For purposes of this section, § 238.17, passenger equipment in the train was power brakes. and § 238.503, a ‘‘power brake defect’’ is properly equipped with power brakes (i) Except as specified in paragraphs a condition of a power brake that comply with this part. The power (d)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this section, the component, or other primary brake brakes on the passenger equipment percentage of operative power brakes in component, that does not conform with become defective while it is en route to a train shall be determined by dividing this part. (Passenger cars and other another location. the number of axles in the train with passenger equipment classified as (2) Record. At the place where the operative power brakes by the total locomotives under part 229 of this railroad first discovers the defect, a tag number of axles in the train. chapter are also covered by the or card is placed on both sides of the (ii) For equipment with tread brake movement restrictions contained in defective passenger equipment, or an units (TBUs), the percentage of § 229.9 of this chapter for those automated tracking system is provided, operative power brakes shall be defective conditions covered by part 229 with the following information about determined by dividing the number of of this chapter.) the defective passenger equipment: operative TBUs by the total number of (b) Limitations on movement of (i) The reporting mark and car or TBUs. passenger equipment containing a locomotive number; (iii) Each cut-out axle on a locomotive power brake defect found during a Class (ii) The name of the inspecting that weighs more than 200,000 pounds I or IA brake test. Except as provided in railroad; shall be counted as two cut-out axles for paragraph (c) of this section (which (iii) The name of the inspector; the purposes of calculating the addresses brakes that become defective (iv) The inspection location and date; percentage of operative brakes. Unless en route after a Class I or IA brake test (v) The nature of each defect; otherwise specified by the railroad, the was performed), a commuter or (vi) The destination of the equipment friction braking effort over all other passenger train that has in its consist where it will be repaired; and axles shall be considered uniform. passenger equipment containing a (vii) The signature, if possible, and job (iv) The following brake conditions power brake defect found during a Class title of the person reporting the not in compliance with this part are not I or IA brake test (or, for Tier II trains, defective condition. considered inoperative power brakes for the equivalent) may only be moved, (3) Automated tracking system. purposes of this section: without civil penalty liability under this Automated tracking systems used to (A) Failure or cutting out of secondary part— meet the tagging requirements contained brake systems;

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25667

(B) Inoperative or otherwise defective repairs can be made; however, if the location in service only to the next handbrakes or parking brakes; next forward location where the forward passenger station in order to (C) Excessive piston travel that does necessary repairs can be made does not facilitate the unloading of passengers; not render the power brakes ineffective; have the facilities to handle the safe and and unloading of passengers, the train may (B) After all passengers are (D) Power brakes overdue for be moved past the repair location in discharged, the defective equipment inspection, testing, maintenance, or service only to the next forward shall be moved to the nearest location stenciling under this part. passenger station in order to facilitate where the necessary repairs can be (2) All passenger trains developing the unloading of passengers; and made. 50–74 percent operative power brakes. (B) After all passengers are (e) Operating restrictions on A passenger train that develops discharged, the defective equipment passenger trains with inoperative power inoperative power brake equipment shall be moved to the nearest location brakes on the front or rear unit. If the resulting in at least 50 percent but less where the necessary repairs can be power brakes on the front or rear unit than 75 percent operative power brakes made. in any passenger train are completely may be used only as follows: (4) Long-distance intercity and long- inoperative the following shall apply: (i) The train may be moved in distance Tier II passenger trains (1) If the handbrake is located inside passenger service only to the next developing 75–99 operative power the interior of the car: forward passenger station; brakes. (i) A qualified person shall be (ii) The speed of the train shall be (i) 75–84 percent operative brakes. stationed at the handbrake on the unit; restricted to 20 mph or less; and Long-distance intercity and long- (ii) The car shall be locked-out and (iii) After all passengers are distance Tier II passenger trains which empty except for the railroad employee discharged, the defective equipment develop inoperative power brake manning the handbrake; and shall be moved to the nearest location equipment resulting in at least 75 (iii) Appropriate speed restrictions where the necessary repairs can be percent but less than 85 percent shall be placed on the train by a made. operative brakes may be used only if all qualified person; (3) Commuter, short-distance of the following restrictions are (2) If the handbrake is located outside intercity, and short-distance Tier II observed: the interior of the car or is inaccessible passenger trains developing 75–99 (A) The train may be moved in to a qualified person: percent operative power brakes. passenger service only to the next (i) The car shall be locked-out and (i) 75–84 percent operative brakes. forward repair location identified for empty; Commuter, short-distance intercity, and repair of that equipment by the railroad (ii) The train shall be operated at short-distance Tier II passenger trains operating the equipment in the list restricted speed not to exceed 20 mph; which develop inoperative power brake required by § 238.19(d); however, if the and equipment resulting in at least 75 next forward repair location does not (iii) The car shall be removed from the percent but less than 85 percent have the facilities to handle the safe train or repositioned in the train at the operative brakes may be used only as unloading of passengers, the train may first location where it is possible to do follows: be moved past the designated repair so. (A) The train may be moved in location in service only to the next (f) Special Notice for Repair. Nothing passenger service only to the next forward passenger station in order to in this section authorizes the movement forward location where the necessary facilitate the unloading of passengers; of passenger equipment subject to a repairs can be made; however, if the and Special Notice for Repair under part 216 next forward location where the (B) The speed of the train shall be of this chapter unless the movement is necessary repairs can be made does not restricted to 50 percent of the train’s made in accordance with the have the facilities to handle the safe maximum allowable speed or 40 mph, restrictions contained in the Special unloading of passengers, the train may whichever is less; and Notice. be moved past the repair location in (C) After all passengers are service only to the next forward discharged, the defective equipment § 238.17 Movement of passenger passenger station in order to facilitate shall be moved to the nearest location equipment with other than power brake the unloading of passengers; and where the necessary repairs can be defects. (B) The speed of the train shall be made. Beginning July 12, 2001 the following restricted to 50 percent of the train’s (ii) 85–99 percent operative brakes. provisions of this section apply to maximum allowable speed or 40 mph, Long-distance intercity and long- railroads operating Tier I passenger whichever is less; and distance Tier II passenger trains which equipment covered by this part. A (C) After all passengers are develop inoperative power brake railroad may request earlier application discharged, the defective equipment equipment resulting in at least 85 of these requirements upon written shall be moved to the nearest location percent but less than 100 percent notification to FRA’s Associate where the necessary repairs can be operative brakes may be used only if all Administrator for Safety as provided in made. of the following restrictions are § 238.1(c) of this part. (ii) 85–99 percent operative brakes. observed: (a) General. This section contains the Commuter, short-distance intercity, and (A) The train may be moved in requirements for moving passenger short-distance Tier II passenger trains passenger service only to the next equipment with other than a power which develop inoperative power brake forward repair location identified for brake defect. (Passenger cars and other equipment resulting in at least 85 repair of that equipment by the railroad passenger equipment classified as percent but less than 100 percent operating the equipment in the list locomotives under part 229 of this operative brakes may only be used as required by § 238.19(d); however, if the chapter are also covered by the follows: next forward repair location does not movement restrictions contained in (A) The train may be moved in have the facilities to handle the safe § 229.9 of this chapter for those passenger service only to the next unloading of passengers, the train may defective conditions covered by part 229 forward location where the necessary be moved past the designated repair of this chapter.)

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25668 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

(b) Limitations on movement of defect provided by the on-site (6) After a qualified maintenance passenger equipment containing defects personnel. person or a qualified person verifies that found at time of calendar day (2) Prior to movement of equipment the defective equipment is safe to inspection. Except as provided in with a non-running gear defect, a remain in service as required in §§ 238.303(e)(15) and 238.305(c)(5), qualified person or a qualified paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this passenger equipment containing a maintenance person shall determine if it section, the defective equipment that condition not in conformity with this is safe to move the equipment in develops a condition not in compliance part at the time of its calendar day passenger service and, if so, the with this part while en route may mechanical inspection may be moved maximum speed and other restrictions continue in passenger service not later from that location for repair if all of the necessary for safely conducting the than the next calendar day mechanical following conditions are satisfied: movement. If appropriate, these inspection, if the requirements of this (1) If the condition involves a running determinations may be made based paragraph are otherwise fully met. gear defect, the defective equipment is upon a description of the defective (d) Inspection of roller bearings on not used in passenger service and is condition provided by the on-site equipment involved in a derailment. moved in a non-revenue train; personnel. (1) A railroad shall not continue (2) If the condition involves a non- (3) Prior to movement of any defective passenger equipment in service that has running gear defect, the defective equipment, the qualified person or a roller bearing whose truck was equipment may be used in passenger qualified maintenance person shall involved in a derailment unless the service in a revenue train provided that notify the crewmember in charge of the bearing has been inspected and tested a qualified maintenance person movement of the defective equipment, by: determines that it is safe to do so, and who in turn shall inform all other (i) Visual examination to determine if so, the car is locked out and empty, crewmembers of the presence of the whether it shows any sign of damage; and all movement restrictions are defective condition(s) and the maximum and observed except that the car may be speed and other restrictions determined (ii) Spinning freely its wheel set or occupied by a member of the train crew under paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this manually rotating the bearing to or a railroad employee to the extent section. The movement shall be made in determine whether the bearing makes necessary to safely operate the train; conformance with such restrictions. any unusual noise. (3) The requirements of paragraphs (4) The railroad shall maintain a (2) The roller bearing shall be (c)(3) and (c)(4) of this section are met; record of all defects reported and their disassembled from the axle and and subsequent repair in the defect tracking inspected internally if: (4) The special requirements of system required in § 238.19. In addition, (i) It shows any external sign of paragraph (e) of this section, if prior to movement of the defective damage; applicable, are met. equipment, a tag or card placed on both (ii) It makes any unusual noise when (c) Usual limitations on movement of sides of the defective equipment, or an its wheel set is spun freely or the passenger equipment that develops automated tracking system, shall record bearing is manually rotated; defects en route. Except as provided in the following information about the (iii) Its truck was involved in a §§ 238.303(e)(15) and 238.503(f), defective equipment: derailment at a speed of more than 10 (i) The reporting mark and car or passenger equipment that develops en miles per hour; or locomotive number; (iv) Its truck was dragged on the route to its destination, after its calendar (ii) The name of the inspecting ground for more than 200 feet. day inspection was performed and railroad; before its next calendar day mechanical (iii) The name of the inspector, (e) Special requisites for movement of inspection is performed, any defect not inspection location, and date; passenger equipment with safety in compliance with this part, other than (iv) The nature of each defect; appliance defects. Consistent with 49 a power brake defect, may be moved (v) Movement restrictions and safety U.S.C. 20303, passenger equipment with only if the railroad complies with all of restrictions, if any; a safety appliance not in compliance the following requirements and, if (vi) The destination of the equipment with this part or with part 231 of this applicable, the special requirements in where it will be repaired; and chapter, if applicable, may be moved— paragraph (e) of this section: (vii) The signature, if possible, as well (1) If necessary to effect repair of the (1) Prior to movement of equipment as the job title and location of the safety appliance; with a potential running gear defect, a person making the determinations (2) From the point where the safety qualified maintenance person shall required by this section. appliance defect was first discovered by determine if it is safe to move the (5) Automated tracking system. the railroad to the nearest available equipment in passenger service and, if Automated tracking systems used to location on the railroad where the so, the maximum speed and other meet the tagging requirements contained necessary repairs required to bring the restrictions necessary for safely in paragraph (c)(4) of this section may passenger equipment into compliance conducting the movement. If be reviewed and monitored by FRA at can be made or, at the option of the appropriate, these determinations may any time to ensure the integrity of the receiving railroad, the equipment may be made based upon a description of the system. FRA’s Associate Administrator be received and hauled for repair to a defective condition provided by a for Safety may prohibit or revoke a point on the receiving railroad’s line crewmember. If the determinations railroad’s ability to utilize an automated that is no farther than the point on the required by this paragraph are made by tracking system in lieu of tagging if FRA delivering railroad’s line where the an off-site qualified maintenance person finds that the automated tracking system repair of the defect could have been based on a description of the defective is not properly secure, is inaccessible to made; condition by on-site personnel, then a FRA or a railroad’s employees, or fails (3) If a tag placed on both sides of the qualified maintenance person shall to adequately track or monitor the passenger equipment or an automated perform a physical inspection of the movement of defective equipment. Such tracking system contains the defective equipment, at the first location a determination will be made in writing information required under paragraph possible, to verify the description of the and will state the basis for such action. (c)(4) of this section; and

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25669

(4) After notification of the Administrator for Safety and make it (i) The name, title, address, and crewmember in charge of the movement available to FRA for inspection and telephone number of the primary person of the defective equipment, who in turn copying upon request. Railroads to be contacted with regard to review of shall inform all other crewmembers of operating these trains shall designate a the petition; and the presence of the defective sufficient number of repair locations to (ii) The elements prescribed in condition(s). ensure the safe and timely repair of § 238.111. (f) Special Notice for Repair. Nothing passenger equipment. These (2) Three copies of each petition for in this section authorizes the movement designations shall not be changed special approval of the pre-revenue of equipment subject to a Special Notice without at least 30 days’ advance service acceptance testing plan shall be for Repair under part 216 of this chapter written notice to FRA’s Associate submitted to the Associate unless the movement is made in Administrator for Safety. Administrator for Safety, Federal accordance with the restrictions Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont § 238.21 Special approval procedure. contained in the Special Notice. Ave., N.W., Mail Stop 25, Washington, (a) General. The following procedures D.C. 20590. § 238.19 Reporting and tracking defective govern consideration and action upon passenger equipment. (e) Federal Register notice. FRA will requests for special approval of publish a notice in the Federal Register (a) General. Beginning July 12, 2001 alternative standards under §§ 238.103, concerning each petition under each railroad shall have in place a 238.223, 238.309, 238.311, 238.405, or paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. reporting and tracking system for 238.427; for approval of alternative (f) Comment. Not later than 30 days passenger equipment with a defect not compliance under § 238.201; and for from the date of publication of the in conformance with this part. A special approval of pre-revenue service notice in the Federal Register railroad may request earlier application acceptance testing plans as required by concerning a petition under paragraphs of these requirements upon written § 238.111. (Requests for approval of (b) or (c) of this section, any person may notification to FRA’s Associate programs for the inspection, testing, and comment on the petition. Administrator for Safety as provided in maintenance of Tier II passenger (1) Each comment shall set forth § 238.1(c) of this part. The reporting and equipment are governed by § 238.505.) specifically the basis upon which it is tracking system shall record the (b) Petitions for special approval of made, and contain a concise statement following information: alternative standard. Each petition for of the interest of the commenter in the (1) The identification number of the special approval of an alternative proceeding. defective equipment; standard shall contain— (2) Three copies of each comment (2) The date the defect occurred; (1) The name, title, address, and shall be submitted to the Associate (3) The nature of the defect; telephone number of the primary person Administrator for Safety, Federal (4) The determination made by a to be contacted with regard to review of Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont qualified person or qualified the petition; Ave., Mail Stop 25, Washington, D. C. maintenance person on whether the (2) The alternative proposed, in detail, 20590. equipment is safe to run; to be substituted for the particular (3) The commenter shall certify that a (5) The name of the qualified person requirements of this part; or qualified maintenance person making (3) Appropriate data or analysis, or copy of the comment was served on such a determination; both, establishing that the alternative each petitioner. (6) Any operating restrictions placed will provide at least an equivalent level (g) Disposition of petitions. on the equipment; and of safety; and (1) FRA will conduct a hearing on a (7) Repairs made and the date that (4) A statement affirming that the petition in accordance with the they were made. railroad has served a copy of the procedures provided in § 211.25 of this (b) Retention of records. At a petition on designated representatives of chapter. minimum, each railroad shall keep the its employees, together with a list of the (2) If FRA finds that the petition records described in paragraph (a) of names and addresses of the persons complies with the requirements of this this section for one periodic served. section or that the proposed plan is maintenance interval for each specific (c) Petitions for special approval of acceptable or changes are justified, or type of equipment as described in the alternative compliance. Each petition both, the petition will be granted, railroad’s inspection, testing, and for special approval of alternative normally within 90 days of its receipt. maintenance plan required by § 238.107. compliance shall contain— If the petition is neither granted nor FRA strongly encourages railroads to (1) The name, title, address, and denied within 90 days, the petition keep these records for longer periods of telephone number of the primary person remains pending for decision. FRA may time because they form the basis for to be contacted with regard to the attach special conditions to the approval future reliability-based decisions petition; of the petition. Following the approval concerning test and maintenance (2) The elements prescribed in of a petition, FRA may reopen intervals that may be developed § 238.201(b); and consideration of the petition for cause pursuant to § 238.307(b). (3) A statement affirming that the stated. (c) Availability of records. Railroads railroad has served a copy of the (3) If FRA finds that the petition does shall make defect reporting and tracking petition on designated representatives of not comply with the requirements of records available to FRA upon request. its employees, together with a list of the this section, or that the proposed plan (d) List of power brake repair points. names and addresses of the persons is not acceptable or that the proposed Railroads operating long-distance served. changes are not justified, or both, the intercity and long-distance Tier II (d) Petitions for special approval of petition will be denied, normally within passenger equipment shall designate pre-revenue service acceptance testing 90 days of its receipt. locations, in writing, where repairs to plan. (4) When FRA grants or denies a passenger equipment with a power (1) Each petition for special approval petition, or reopens consideration of the brake defect will be made and shall of a pre-revenue service acceptance petition, written notice is sent to the provide the list to FRA’s Associate testing plan shall contain— petitioner and other interested parties.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:28 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12MYR2 25670 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

§ 238.23 Information collection. requirements of paragraph (a) of this (7) On a case-by-case basis, the (a) The information collection section at the time it was tested. railroad shall analyze the benefit requirements of this part were reviewed (c) Fire safety analysis for procuring provided by including a fixed, by the Office of Management and new passenger equipment. In procuring automatic fire-suppression system in Budget pursuant to the Paperwork new passenger equipment, each railroad any unoccupied train compartment that Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 shall ensure that fire safety contains equipment or material that et. seq.) and are assigned OMB control considerations and features in the poses a fire hazard, and determine the number 2130–0544. design of the equipment reduce the risk proper type and size of the automatic (b) The information collection of personal injury and equipment fire-suppression system for each requirements are found in the following damage caused by fire to an acceptable location. A fixed, automatic fire sections: §§ 238.1, 238.7, 238.11, 238.15, level using MIL–STD–882C as a guide or suppression system shall be installed in 238.17, 238.19, 238.21, 238.103, an alternative, formal safety any unoccupied compartment when the 238.105, 238.107, 238.109, 238.111, methodology. To this end, each railroad analysis determines that such 238.201, 238.203, 238.211, 238.223, shall complete a written fire safety equipment is practical and necessary to 238.231, 238.237, 238.301, 238.303, analysis for the passenger equipment ensure sufficient time for the safe 238.305, 238.307, 238.309, 238.311, being procured. In conducting the evacuation of passengers and 238.313, 238.315, 238.317, 238.403, analysis, the railroad shall— crewmembers from the train. 238.405, 238.421, 238.423, 238.427, (1) Take effective steps to design the (8) Describe the analysis and testing 238.431, 238.437, 238.441, 238.445, equipment to be sufficiently fire necessary to— (i) Demonstrate that the fire protection 238.447, 238.503, 238.505, and 238.603. resistant so that fire detection devices permit evacuation of all passengers and approach taken in the design of the Subpart BÐSafety Planning and crewmembers before fire, smoke, or equipment will meet the fire protection General Requirements toxic fumes cause injury to any requirements of this part, and passenger or crewmember. (ii) Select materials which help § 238.101 Scope. (2) Identify, analyze, and prioritize provide sufficient fire resistance to This subpart contains safety planning the fire hazards inherent in the design reasonably ensure adequate time to and general safety requirements for all of the equipment. detect a fire and safely evacuate the railroad passenger equipment subject to (3) Reasonably ensure that a passengers and crewmembers. (9) Explain how safety issues are this part. ventilation system in the equipment resolved in relation to cost and does not contribute to the lethality of a § 238.103 Fire safety. performance issues in the design of the fire. equipment to reduce the risk of each fire (a) Materials. (1) Materials used in (4) Identify in writing any train constructing a passenger car or a cab of hazard. component that is a risk of initiating fire (d) Fire safety analysis for existing a locomotive ordered on or after and which requires overheat protection. September 8, 2000, or placed in service passenger equipment. (1) Not later than An overheat detector shall be installed July 10, 2000, each passenger railroad for the first time on or after September in any component when the analysis 9, 2002, shall meet the test performance shall complete a preliminary fire safety determines that an overheat detector is analysis for each category of existing rail criteria for flammability and smoke necessary. emission characteristics as specified in equipment and current rail service. (5) Identify in writing any unoccupied (2) Not later than July 10, 2001, each Appendix B to this part, or alternative train compartment that contains standards issued or recognized by an such railroad shall— equipment or material that poses a fire (i) Complete a final fire safety analysis expert consensus organization after hazard, and analyze the benefit for any category of existing passenger special approval of FRA under § 238.21. provided by including a fire or smoke equipment and service evaluated during (2) On or after November 8, 1999, detection system in each compartment the preliminary fire safety analysis as materials introduced in a passenger car so identified. A fire or smoke detector likely presenting an unacceptable risk of or a locomotive cab, as part of any kind shall be installed in any unoccupied personal injury. In conducting the of rebuild, refurbishment, or overhaul of compartment when the analysis analysis, the railroad shall consider the the car or cab, shall meet the test determines that such equipment is extent to which materials comply with performance criteria for flammability necessary to ensure sufficient time for the test performance criteria for and smoke emission characteristics as the safe evacuation of passengers and flammability and smoke emission specified in Appendix B to this part, or crewmembers from the train. For characteristics as specified in Appendix alternative standards issued or purposes of this section, an unoccupied B to this part or alternative standards recognized by an expert consensus train compartment means any part of approved by FRA under this part. organization after special approval of the equipment structure that is not (ii) Take remedial action to reduce the FRA under § 238.21. normally occupied during operation of risk of personal injuries to an acceptable (b) Certification. A railroad shall the train, including a closet, baggage level in any such category, if the require certification that a compartment, food pantry, etc. railroad finds the risk to be representative sample of combustible (6) Determine whether any occupied unacceptable. In considering remedial materials to be— or unoccupied space requires a portable action, a railroad is not required to (1) Used in constructing a passenger fire extinguisher and, if so, the proper replace material found not to comply car or a locomotive cab, or type and size of the fire extinguisher for with the test performance criteria for (2) Introduced in a passenger car or a each location. As required by § 239.101 flammability and smoke emission locomotive cab, as part of any kind of of this chapter, each passenger car is characteristics required by this part, if: rebuild, refurbishment, or overhaul of required to have a minimum of one (A) The risk of personal injuries from the car or cab, has been tested by a portable fire extinguisher. If the analysis the material is negligible based on the recognized independent testing performed indicates that one or more railroad’s operating environment and laboratory and that the results show the additional portable fire extinguishers the material’s size, or location, or both; representative sample complies with the are needed, such shall be installed. or

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25671

(B) The railroad takes alternative § 238.105 Train hardware and software passenger equipment covered by this action which reduces the risk of safety. part. A railroad may request earlier personal injuries to an acceptable level. These requirements of this section application of these requirements upon (3) Not later than July 10, 2003, each apply to hardware and software used to written notification to FRA’s Associate such railroad shall— control or monitor safety functions in Administrator for Safety as provided in (i) Complete a fire safety analysis for passenger equipment ordered on or after § 238.1(c). all categories of equipment and service. September 8, 2000, and such (b) Each railroad shall develop, and In completing this analysis, the railroad components implemented or materially provide to FRA upon request, a detailed shall, as far as practicable, determine modified in new or existing passenger inspection, testing, and maintenance the extent to which remaining materials equipment on or after September 9, plan consistent with the requirements of comply with the test performance 2002. this part. This plan shall include a criteria for flammability and smoke (a) The railroad shall develop and detailed description of the following: emission characteristics as specified in maintain a written hardware and (1) Inspection procedures, intervals, Appendix B to this part or alternative software safety program to guide the and criteria; standards approved by FRA under this design, development, testing, (2) Test procedures and intervals; part. integration, and verification of computer (3) Scheduled preventive (ii) Take remedial action to reduce the software and hardware that controls or maintenance intervals; risk of personal injuries to an acceptable monitors equipment safety functions. (4) Maintenance procedures; and (5) Special testing equipment or level in any such category, if the (b) The hardware and software safety measuring devices required to perform railroad finds the risk to be program shall be based on a formal unacceptable. In considering remedial inspections and tests. safety methodology that includes a (c) The inspection, testing, and action, a railroad is not required to Failure Modes, Effects, Criticality replace material found not to comply maintenance plan required by this Analysis (FMECA); verification and section is not intended to address and with the test performance criteria for validation testing for all hardware and flammability and smoke emission should not include procedures to software components and their address employee working conditions characteristics required by this part, if: interfaces; and comprehensive hardware (A) The risk of personal injuries from that arise in the course of conducting and software integration testing to the inspections, tests, and maintenance the material is negligible based on the ensure that the software functions as railroad’s operating environment and set forth in the plan. When requesting intended. a copy of the railroad’s plan, FRA does the material’s size, or location, or both; (c) Under the hardware and software or not intend to review any portion of the safety program, software that controls or plan that relates to employee working (B) The railroad takes alternative monitors safety functions shall be action which reduces the risk of conditions. considered safety-critical unless a (d) The inspection, testing, and personal injuries to an acceptable level. completely redundant, failsafe, non- (4) Where possible prior to maintenance plan required by this software means ensuring the same transferring existing equipment to a new section shall be reviewed by the railroad function is provided. The hardware and category of service, but in no case more annually. software safety program shall include a than 90 days following such a transfer, description of how the following will be § 238.109 Training, qualification, and the passenger railroad shall complete a accomplished, achieved, carried out, or designation program. new fire safety analysis taking into implemented to ensure software safety (a) Beginning July 12, 2001 each consideration the change in railroad and reliability: railroad shall have adopted a training, operations and shall effect prompt (1) The software design process; qualification, and designation program action to reduce any identified risk to an (2) The software design for employees and contractors that acceptable level. documentation; perform safety-related inspections, tests, (5) As used in this paragraph, (3) The software hazard analysis; or maintenance of passenger equipment, ‘‘category of rail equipment and current (4) Software safety reviews; and trained such employees and rail service’’ shall be determined by the (5) Software hazard monitoring and contractors in accordance with the railroad based on relevant fire safety tracking; program. A railroad may request earlier risks, including available ignition (6) Hardware and software integration application of these requirements upon sources, presence or absence of heat/ safety tests; and written notification to FRA’s Associate smoke detection systems, known (7) Demonstration of overall software Administrator for Safety as provided in variations from the required material safety as part of the pre-revenue service § 238.1(c). For purposes of this section, test performance criteria or alternative tests of equipment. a ‘‘contractor’’ is defined as a person standards approved by FRA, and (d) Hardware and software that under contract with the railroad or an availability of rapid and safe egress to controls or monitors passenger employee of a person under contract the exterior of the vehicle under equipment safety functions shall with the railroad to perform any of the conditions secure from fire, smoke, and include design feature(s) that result in a tasks required by this part. other hazards. safe condition in the event of a (b) As part of this program, the (e) Inspection, testing, and computer hardware or software failure. railroad shall, at a minimum: maintenance. Each railroad shall (e) The railroad shall comply with the (1) Identify the tasks related to the develop and adopt written procedures elements of its hardware and software inspection, testing, and maintenance for the inspection, testing, and safety program that affect the safety of that must be performed on each type of maintenance of all fire safety systems the passenger equipment. equipment that the railroad operates; and fire safety equipment on the (2) Develop written procedures for the passenger equipment it operates. The § 238.107 Inspection, testing, and performance of the tasks identified; railroad shall comply with those maintenance plan. (3) Identify the skills and knowledge procedures that it designates as (a) General. Beginning July 12, 2001 necessary to perform each task; mandatory for the safety of the the following provisions of this section (4) Develop or incorporate a training equipment and its occupants. apply to railroads operating Tier I curriculum that includes classroom and

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25672 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

‘‘hands-on’’ lessons designed to impart equipment that has previously been (xi) A description of the criteria to be the skills and knowledge identified as used in revenue service in the United used to measure or determine the necessary to perform each task. The States, each railroad shall test the success or failure of the tests. If developed or incorporated training equipment on its system prior to placing acceptance is to be based on curriculum shall specifically address such equipment in revenue service for extrapolation of less than full-level the Federal regulatory requirements the first time on its railroad to ensure testing results, the analysis to be done contained in this part that are related to the compatibility of the equipment with to justify the validity of the the performance of the tasks identified; the railroad’s operating system extrapolation shall be described; (5) Require all employees and (including the track, and signal system). (xii) Quality control procedures to contractors to successfully complete the A description of such testing shall be ensure that the inspection, testing, and training course that covers the retained by the railroad and made maintenance procedures are followed; equipment and tasks for which they are available to FRA for inspection and (xiii) Criteria to be used for the responsible as well as the specific copying upon request. For purposes of revenue service operation of the Federal regulatory requirements this paragraph, passenger equipment equipment; and contained in this part related to that has previously been used in (xiv) A description of any testing of equipment and tasks for which they are revenue service in the United States the equipment that has previously been responsible; means: performed. (6) Require all employees and (1) The actual equipment used in such (2) Submit a copy of the plan to FRA contractors to pass a written service; at least 30 days prior to testing the examination covering the equipment (2) Equipment manufactured equipment and include with that and tasks for which they are responsible identically to that actual equipment; submission notification of the times and as well as the specific Federal regulatory and places of the pre-revenue service tests to requirements contained in this part (3) Equipment manufactured similarly permit FRA observation of such tests. related to equipment and tasks for to that actual equipment with no For Tier II passenger equipment, the which they are responsible; material differences in safety-critical railroad shall obtain FRA approval of (7) Require all employees and components or systems. the plan under the procedures specified contractors to individually demonstrate (b) Passenger equipment that has not in § 238.21. ‘‘hands-on’’ capability to successfully been used in revenue service in the (3) Comply with the plan, including perform the tasks required to be United States. Before using passenger fully executing the tests required by the performed as part of their duties on the equipment for the first time on its plan. type equipment to which they are system that has not been used in (4) Document in writing the results of assigned; revenue service in the United States, the tests. For Tier II passenger (8) Require supervisors to complete each railroad shall: equipment, the railroad shall report the the program that covers the employees (1) Prepare a pre-revenue service results of the tests to the FRA Associate whom they supervise, including acceptance testing plan for the Administrator for Safety at least 90 days refresher training; equipment which contains the following prior to its intended operation of the (9) Require supervisors to exercise elements: equipment in revenue service. oversight to ensure that all the (i) An identification of any waivers of (5) Correct any safety deficiencies identified tasks are performed in FRA or other Federal safety regulations identified in the design of the accordance with the railroad’s written required for the testing or for revenue equipment or in the inspection, testing, procedures; service operation of the equipment; and maintenance procedures, uncovered (10) Designate in writing that each (ii) A clear statement of the test during the testing. If safety deficiencies employee and contractor has the objectives. One of the principal test cannot be corrected by design changes, knowledge and skills necessary to objectives shall be to demonstrate that the railroad shall impose operational perform the safety-related tasks that are the equipment meets the safety limitations on the revenue service part of his or her job; requirements specified in this part when operation of the equipment that are (11) Require periodic refresher operated in the environment in which it designed to ensure that the equipment training at an interval not to exceed is to be used; can operate safely. For Tier II passenger three years that includes classroom and (iii) A planned schedule for equipment, the railroad shall comply ‘‘hands-on’’ training, as well as testing; conducting the testing; with any operational limitations (12) Add new equipment to the (iv) A description of the railroad imposed by the FRA Associate qualification and designation program property or facilities to be used to Administrator for Safety on the revenue prior to its introduction to revenue conduct the testing; service operation of the equipment for service; and (v) A detailed description of how the cause stated following FRA review of (13) Maintain records adequate to testing is to be conducted, including a the results of the test program. This demonstrate that each employee and description of the criteria to be used to section does not restrict a railroad from contractor performing safety-related evaluate the equipment’s performance; petitioning FRA for a waiver of a safety tasks on passenger equipment is (vi) A description of how the test regulation under the procedures currently qualified to do so. These results are to be recorded; specified in part 211 of this chapter. records shall be adequate to distinguish (vii) A description of any special (6) Make the plan and documentation the qualifications of the employee or instrumentation to be used during the kept pursuant to that plan available for contractor as a qualified person or as a tests; inspection and copying by FRA upon qualified maintenance person. (viii) A description of the information request. or data to be obtained; (7) For Tier II passenger equipment, § 238.111 Pre-revenue service acceptance (ix) A description of how the obtain approval from the FRA Associate testing plan. information or data obtained is to be Administrator for Safety prior to placing (a) Passenger equipment that has analyzed or used; the equipment in revenue service. The previously been used in revenue service (x) A description of any criteria to be Associate Administrator grants such in the United States. For passenger used as safety limits during the testing; approval upon a showing of the

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25673 railroad’s compliance with the inches above floor level along the center sole purpose of cleaning the wheel tread applicable requirements of this part. of each aisle and passageway; surface. (c) If a railroad plans a major upgrade (3) A minimum illumination level of or introduction of new technology on 0.1 foot-candle measured 25 inches Subpart CÐSpecific Requirements for Tier II passenger equipment that has above floor level at any point along the Tier I Passenger Equipment been used in revenue service in the center of each aisle and passageway; § 238.201 Scope/alternative compliance. United States and that affects a safety and system on such equipment, the railroad (4) A back-up power system capable (a) Scope. (1) This subpart contains shall follow the procedures specified in of: requirements for railroad passenger paragraph (b) of this section prior to (i) Operating in all equipment equipment operating at speeds not placing the equipment in revenue orientations within 45 degrees of exceeding 125 miles per hour. As stated service with such a major upgrade or vertical; in § 238.229, all such passenger introduction of new technology. (ii) Operating after the initial shock of equipment remains subject to the safety a collision or derailment resulting in the appliance requirements contained in § 238.113 Emergency window exits. following individually applied Federal statute at 49 U.S.C. chapter 203 (a) The following requirements apply accelerations: and in FRA regulations at part 231 and on or after Novermber 8, 1999— (A) Longitudinal: 8g; § 232.2 of this chapter. Unless otherwise (1) Each passenger car shall have a (B) Lateral: 4g; and specified, these requirements only apply minimum of four emergency window (C) Vertical: 4g; and to passenger equipment ordered on or exits, either in a staggered configuration (iii) Operating all emergency lighting after September 8, 2000 or placed in where practical or with one exit located for a period of at least 90 minutes service for the first time on or after in each end of each side of the without a loss of more than 40% of the September 9, 2002. passenger car. If the passenger car has minimum illumination levels specified (2) The structural standards of this multiple levels, each main level shall in this paragraph (b). subpart (§ 238.203B-static end strength; have a minimum of four emergency § 238.205—anti-climbing mechanism; window exits, either in a staggered § 238.117 Protection against personal § 238.207—link between coupling configuration where practical or with injury. mechanism and car body; § 238.209— one exit located in each end of each side On or after November 8, 1999, all forward-facing end structure of on each level. moving parts, high voltage equipment, locomotives; § 238.211—collision posts; (2) Each sleeping car, and any electrical conductors and switches, and § 238.213—corner posts; § 238.215— similarly designed car having a number pipes carrying hot fluids or gases on all rollover strength; § 238.217—side of separate compartments intended to be passenger equipment shall be structure; § 238.219—truck-to-car-body occupied by passengers or train appropriately equipped with interlocks attachment; and § 238.223—locomotive crewmembers, shall have at least one or guards to minimize the risk of fuel tanks) do not apply to passenger emergency window exit in each personal injury. This section does not equipment if used exclusively on a rail compartment. apply to the interior of a private car. line: (3) Each emergency window exit shall (i) With no public highway-rail grade be designed to permit rapid and easy § 238.119 Rim-stamped straight-plate crossings; removal during an emergency situation wheels. (ii) On which no freight operations without requiring the use of a tool or (a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph occur at any time; other implement. (a)(2) of this section, on or after (iii) On which only passenger (b) Each emergency window exit in a November 8, 1999, no railroad shall equipment of compatible design is passenger car, including a sleeper car, place or continue in service any vehicle, utilized; and ordered on or after September 8, 2000, other than a private car, that is equipped (iv) On which trains operate at speeds or placed in service for the first time on with a rim-stamped straight-plate wheel not exceeding 79 mph. or after September 9, 2002, shall have a if a brake shoe acts on the tread of the (b) Alternative compliance. Passenger minimum unobstructed opening with wheel for the purpose of slowing the equipment of special design shall be dimensions of 26 inches horizontally by vehicle. deemed to comply with this subpart, 24 inches vertically. (2) A commuter railroad may continue other than § 238.203, for the service (c) Marking and instructions. in service a vehicle equipped with a environment in which the petitioner [Reserved] Class A, rim-stamped straight-plate proposes to operate the equipment if the § 238.115 Emergency lighting. wheel mounted on an inboard-bearing FRA Associate Administrator for Safety (a) This section applies to each axle until the railroad exhausts its determines under paragraph (c) of this passenger car ordered on or after replacement stock of wheels held as of section that the equipment provides at September 8, 2000, or placed in service May 12, 1999, provided the railroad least an equivalent level of safety in for the first time on or after September does not modify the operation of the such environment with respect to the 9, 2002. This section applies to each vehicle in any way that would result in protection of its occupants from serious level of a multi-level passenger car. increased thermal input to the wheel injury in the case of a derailment or (b) Emergency lighting shall be during braking. collision. In making a determination provided in each passenger car and (b) A rim-stamped straight-plate under paragraph (c) the Associate shall include the following: wheel shall not be used as a Administrator shall consider, as a (1) A minimum, average illumination replacement wheel on a private car that whole, all of those elements of casualty level of 1 foot-candle measured at floor operates in a passenger train if a brake prevention or mitigation relevant to the level adjacent to each exterior door and shoe acts on the tread of the wheel for integrity of the equipment that are each interior door providing access to the purpose of slowing the car. addressed by the requirements of this an exterior door (such as a door opening (c) The requirements of this section subpart. into a vestibule); do not apply to a wheel that is (c)(1) The Associate Administrator (2) A minimum, average illumination periodically tread-braked for a short may only make a finding of equivalent level of 1 foot-candle measured 25 duration by automatic circuitry for the safety and compliance with this subpart,

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25674 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations other than § 238.203, based upon a deformation of the body structure. The sufficient to describe the actual submission of data and analysis application of this load shall not be construction of the equipment; sufficient to support that determination. distributed over an area greater than 6 (iii) Engineering analysis sufficient to The petition shall include: inches by 24 inches. The alternative describe the likely performance of the (i) The information required by specified in this paragraph is not static end strength of the equipment and § 238.21(c); applicable to a cab car or an MU the likely performance of the equipment (ii) Information, including detailed locomotive. in derailment and collision scenarios drawings and materials specifications, (4) The requirements of this paragraph pertinent to the equipment’s static end sufficient to describe the actual do not apply to: strength; construction of the equipment of special (i) A private car; or (iv) A description of risk mitigation design; (ii) Unoccupied passenger equipment measures that will be employed in (iii) Engineering analysis sufficient to operating at the rear of a passenger train. connection with the usage of the describe the likely performance of the (b) Passenger equipment placed in equipment on a specified rail line or equipment in derailment and collision service before November 8, 1999 is lines to decrease the likelihood of scenarios pertinent to the safety presumed to comply with the accidents involving the use of the requirements for which compliance is requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this equipment; and required and for which the equipment section, unless the railroad operating (v) A quantitative risk assessment, does not conform to the specific the equipment has knowledge, or FRA incorporating the design information, requirements of this subpart; and makes a showing, that such passenger engineering analysis, and risk mitigation (iv) A quantitative risk assessment, equipment was not built to the measures described in this paragraph, incorporating the design information requirements specified in paragraph demonstrating that the use of the and engineering analysis described in (a)(1). equipment, as utilized in the service this paragraph, demonstrating that the (c) When overloaded in compression, environment for which recognition is equipment, as utilized in the service the body structure of passenger sought, is in the public interest and is environment for which recognition is equipment shall be designed, to the consistent with railroad safety. sought, presents no greater hazard of maximum extent possible, to fail by (e) Service. Three copies of each serious personal injury than equipment buckling or crushing, or both, of petition shall be submitted to the that conforms to the specific structural members rather than by Associate Administrator for Safety, requirements of this subpart. fracture of structural members or failure Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 (2) Any petition made under this of structural connections. Vermont Ave., Mail Stop 25, paragraph is subject to the procedures (d) Grandfathering of non-compliant Washington, D.C. 20590. (f) Federal Register notice. FRA will set forth in § 238.21, and will be equipment for use on a specified rail publish a notice in the Federal Register disposed of in accordance with line or lines. concerning each petition under § 238.21(g). (1) Grandfathering approval is paragraph (d) of this section. § 238.203 Static end strength. equipment and line specific. (g) Comment. Not later than 30 days (a)(1) Except as further specified in Grandfathering approval of non- from the date of publication of the this paragraph or in paragraph (d), on or compliant equipment under this notice in the Federal Register after November 8, 1999 all passenger paragraph is limited to usage of the concerning a petition under paragraph equipment shall resist a minimum static equipment on a particular rail line or (d) of this section, any person may end load of 800,000 pounds applied on lines. Before grandfathered equipment comment on the petition. the line of draft without permanent can be used on another rail line, a (1) Each comment shall set forth deformation of the body structure. railroad must file and secure approval of specifically the basis upon which it is (2) For a passenger car or a a grandfathering petition under made, and contain a concise statement locomotive, the static end strength of paragraph (d)(3) of this section. of the interest of the commenter in the unoccupied volumes may be less than (2) Temporary usage of non- proceeding. 800,000 pounds if: compliant equipment. Any passenger (2) Three copies of each comment (i) Energy absorbing structures are equipment placed in service on a rail shall be submitted to the Associate used as part of a crash energy line or lines before November 8, 1999 Administrator for Safety, Federal management design of the passenger car that does not comply with the Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont or locomotive, and requirements of paragraph (a)(1) may Ave., Mail Stop 25, Washington, D. C. (ii) The passenger car or locomotive continue to be operated on that 20590. resists a minimum static end load of particular line or (those particular lines) (3) The commenter shall certify that a 800,000 pounds applied on the line of if the operator of the equipment files a copy of the comment was served on draft at the ends of its occupied volume petition seeking grandfathering approval each petitioner. without permanent deformation of the under paragraph (d)(3) before November (h) Disposition of petitions. body structure. 8, 1999. Such usage may continue while (1) FRA will conduct a hearing on a (3) For a locomotive placed in service the petition is being processed, but in petition in accordance with the prior to November 8, 1999, as an no event later than May 8, 2000, unless procedures provided in § 211.25 of this alternative to resisting a minimum static the petition is approved. chapter. end load of 800,000 pounds applied on (3) Petitions for grandfathering. (2) If FRA finds that the petition the line of draft without permanent Petitions for grandfathering shall complies with the requirements of this deformation of the body structure, the include: section and that the proposed usage is locomotive shall resist a horizontal load (i) The name, title, address, and in the public interest and consistent of 1,000,000 pounds applied along the telephone number of the primary person with railroad safety, the petition will be longitudinal center line of the to be contacted with respect to the granted, normally within 90 days of its locomotive at a point on the buffer beam petition; receipt. If the petition is neither granted construction 12 inches above the center (ii) Information, including detailed nor denied within 90 days, the petition line of draft without permanent drawings and material specifications, remains pending for decision. FRA may

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25675 attach special conditions to the approval (b) Designed to inhibit the entry of apply only to the ends of a semi- of the petition. Following the approval fluids into the occupied cab area of the permanently coupled consist of of a petition, FRA may reopen equipment; and articulated units, provided that: consideration of the petition for cause (c) Affixed to the collision posts or (1) The railroad submits to the FRA stated. other main vertical structural members Associate Administrator for Safety (3) If FRA finds that the petition does of the forward end structure so as to add under the procedures specified in not comply with the requirements of to the strength of the end structure. § 238.21 a documented engineering this section or that the proposed usage (d) As used in this section, the term analysis establishing that the articulated is not in the public interest and ‘‘skin’’ does not include forward-facing connection is capable of preventing consistent with railroad safety, the windows and doors. disengagement and telescoping to the petition will be denied, normally within § 238.211 Collision posts. same extent as equipment satisfying the 90 days of its receipt. anti-climbing and collision post (4) When FRA grants or denies a (a) Except as further specified in this paragraph and paragraphs (b) and (c) of requirements contained in this subpart; petition, or reopens consideration of the and petition, written notice is sent to the this section— petitioner and other interested parties. (1) All passenger equipment placed in (2) FRA finds the analysis persuasive. service for the first time on or after § 238.205 Anti-climbing mechanism. September 8, 2000 shall have either: § 238.213 Corner posts. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (i) Two full-height collision posts, (a) Each passenger car shall have at (b) of this section, all passenger located at approximately the one-third each end of the car, placed ahead of the equipment placed in service for the first points laterally. Each collision post occupied volume, two full-height corner time on or after September 8, 2000 shall shall have an ultimate longitudinal posts capable of resisting: have at both the forward and rear ends shear strength of not less than 300,000 (1) A horizontal load of 150,000 an anti-climbing mechanism capable of pounds at a point even with the top of pounds at the point of attachment to the resisting an upward or downward the underframe member to which it is underframe without failure; attached. If reinforcement is used to vertical force of 100,000 pounds without (2) A horizontal load of 20,000 provide the shear value, the failure. When coupled together in any pounds at the point of attachment to the reinforcement shall have full value for combination to join two vehicles, AAR roof structure without failure; and Type H and Type F tight-lock couplers a distance of 18 inches up from the satisfy this requirement. underframe connection and then taper (3) A horizontal load of 30,000 (b) Each locomotive ordered on or to a point approximately 30 inches pounds applied 18 inches above the top after September 8, 2000, or placed in above the underframe connection; or of the floor without permanent service for the first time on or after (ii) An equivalent end structure that deformation. September 9, 2002, shall have an anti- can withstand the sum of forces that (b) For purposes of this section, the climbing mechanism at its forward end each collision post in paragraph (a)(1)(i) orientation of the applied horizontal capable of resisting an upward or of this section is required to withstand. loads shall range from longitudinal downward vertical force of 200,000 For analysis purposes, the required inward to transverse inward. pounds without failure, in lieu of the forces may be assumed to be evenly § 238.215 Rollover strength. forward end anti-climbing mechanism distributed at the end structure at the requirements described in paragraph (a) underframe joint. (a) Each passenger car shall be of this section. (2) The requirements of this paragraph designed to rest on its side and be do not apply to unoccupied passenger uniformly supported at the top (‘‘roof § 238.207 Link between coupling equipment operating in a passenger rail’’), the bottom cords (‘‘side sill’’) of mechanism and car body. train. the side frame, and, if bi-level, the All passenger equipment placed in (b) Each locomotive, including a cab intermediate floor rail. The allowable service for the first time on or after car and an MU locomotive, ordered on stress in the structural members of the September 8, 2000 shall have a coupler or after September 8, 2000, or placed in occupied volumes for this condition carrier at each end designed to resist a service for the first time on or after shall be one-half yield or one-half the vertical downward thrust from the September 9, 2002, shall have at its critical buckling stress, whichever is coupler shank of 100,000 pounds for forward end, in lieu of the structural less. Local yielding to the outer skin of any normal horizontal position of the protection described in paragraph (a) of the passenger car is allowed provided coupler, without permanent this section, either: that the resulting deformations in no deformation. For passenger equipment (1) Two forward collision posts, way intrude upon the occupied volume that is connected by articulated joints located at approximately the one-third of the car. that comply with the requirements of points laterally, each capable of (b) Each passenger car shall also be § 238.205(a), such passenger equipment withstanding: designed to rest on its roof so that any also complies with the requirements of (i) A 500,000-pound longitudinal damage in occupied areas is limited to this section. force at the point even with the top of the underframe, without exceeding the roof sheathing and framing. Other than § 238.209 Forward-facing end structure of ultimate strength of the joint; and roof sheathing and framing, the locomotives. (ii) A 200,000-pound longitudinal allowable stress in the structural The skin covering the forward-facing force exerted 30 inches above the joint members of the occupied volumes for end of each locomotive shall be: of the post to the underframe, without this condition shall be one-half yield or (a) Equivalent to a 1⁄2 inch steel plate exceeding the ultimate strength; or one-half the critical buckling stress, with a 25,000 pounds-per-square-inch (2) An equivalent end structure that whichever is less. Deformation to the yield strength—material of a higher can withstand the sum of the forces that roof sheathing and framing is allowed to yield strength may be used to decrease each collision post in paragraph (b)(1)(i) the extent necessary to permit the the required thickness of the material of this section is required to withstand. vehicle to be supported directly on the provided at least an equivalent level of (c) The end structure requirements in top chords of the side frames and end strength is maintained; paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section frames.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00137 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25676 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

§ 238.217 Side structure. direction on the truck. For purposes of passenger seating areas by a non- Each passenger car shall comply with this section, the mass of the truck combustible barrier. the following: includes axles, wheels, bearings, the (2) Battery chargers shall be designed (a) Side posts and corner braces. truck-mounted brake system, to protect against overcharging. (1) For modified girder, semi- suspension system components, and (3) If batteries are of the type to monocoque, or truss construction, the any other components attached to the potentially vent explosive gases, the sum of the section moduli in inches 3— truck by design. battery compartment shall be adequately about a longitudinal axis, taken at the ventilated to prevent the accumulation weakest horizontal section between the § 238.221 Glazing. of explosive concentrations of these side sill and side plate—of all posts and (a) Passenger equipment shall comply gases. braces on each side of the car located with the applicable Safety Glazing (c) Power dissipation resistors. between the body corner posts shall be Standards contained in part 223 of this (1) Power dissipating resistors shall be not less than 0.30 multiplied by the chapter, if required by that part. adequately ventilated to prevent distance in feet between the centers of (b) Each exterior window on a overheating under worst-case operating end panels. locomotive cab and a passenger car shall conditions as determined by the (2) For modified girder or semi- remain in place when subjected to: railroad. monocoque construction only, the sum (1) The forces described in part 223 of (2) Power dissipation grids shall be of the section moduli in inches 3—about this chapter; and designed and installed with sufficient a transverse axis, taken at the weakest (2) The forces due to air pressure isolation to prevent combustion. horizontal section between the side sill differences caused when two trains pass (3) Resistor elements shall be and side plate—of all posts, braces and at the minimum separation for two electrically insulated from resistor pier panels, to the extent available, on adjacent tracks, while traveling in frames, and the frames shall be each side of the car located between opposite directions, each train traveling electrically insulated from the supports body corner posts shall be not less than at the maximum authorized speed. that hold them. 0.20 multiplied by the distance in feet (d) Electromagnetic interference and § 238.223 Locomotive fuel tanks. between the centers of end panels. compatibility. (3) The center of an end panel is the (a) External fuel tanks. External (1) The operating railroad shall ensure point midway between the center of the locomotive fuel tanks shall comply with electromagnetic compatibility of the body corner post and the center of the the requirements contained in safety-critical equipment systems with adjacent side post. Appendix D to this part, or an industry their environment. Electromagnetic (4) The minimum section moduli or standard providing at least an compatibility may be achieved through thicknesses specified in paragraph (a) of equivalent level of safety if approved by equipment design or changes to the this section may be adjusted in FRA under § 238.21. operating environment. proportion to the ratio of the yield (b) Internal fuel tanks. (2) The electronic equipment shall not strength of the material used to that of (1) Internal locomotive fuel tanks produce electrical noise that affects the mild open-hearth steel for a car whose shall be positioned in a manner to safe performance of train line control structural members are made of a higher reduce the likelihood of accidental and communications or wayside strength steel. penetration from roadway debris or signaling systems. (b) Sheathing. collision. (3) To contain electromagnetic (1) Outside sheathing of mild, open- (2) Internal fuel tank vent systems interference emissions, suppression of hearth steel when used flat, without shall be designed so they do not become transients shall be at the source reinforcement (other than side posts) in a path of fuel loss in any tank wherever possible. a side frame of modified girder or semi- orientation due to a locomotive (4) All electronic equipment shall be monocoque construction shall not be overturning. self-protected from damage or improper less than 1/8 inch nominal thickness. (3) Internal fuel tank bulkheads and operation, or both, due to high voltage Other metals may be used of a thickness skin shall at a minimum be equivalent transients and long-term over-voltage or in inverse proportion to their yield to a 3⁄8-inch thick steel plate with a under-voltage conditions. This includes strengths. 25,000 pounds-per-square-inch yield protection from both power frequency (2) Outside metal sheathing of less strength. Material of a higher yield and harmonic effects as well as than 1⁄8 inch thickness may be used only strength may be used to decrease the protection from radio frequency signals if it is reinforced so as to produce at required thickness of the material into the microwave frequency range. least an equivalent sectional area at a provided at least an equivalent level of right angle to reinforcements as that of strength is maintained. Skid plates are § 238.227 Suspension system. the flat sheathing specified in paragraph not required. On or after November 8, 1999— (b)(1) of this section. (a) All passenger equipment shall (3) When the sheathing used for truss § 238.225 Electrical system. exhibit freedom from hunting construction serves no load-carrying All passenger equipment shall comply oscillations at all operating speeds. If function, the minimum thickness of that with the following: hunting oscillations do occur, a railroad sheathing shall be not less than 40 (a) Conductors. Conductor sizes shall shall immediately take appropriate percent of that specified in paragraph be selected on the basis of current- action to prevent derailment. For (b)(1) of this section. carrying capacity, mechanical strength, purposes of this paragraph, hunting temperature, flexibility requirements, oscillations shall be considered lateral § 238.219 Truck-to-car-body attachment. and maximum allowable voltage drop. oscillations of trucks that could lead to Passenger equipment shall have a Current-carrying capacity shall be a dangerous instability. truck-to-car-body attachment with an derated for grouping and for operating (b) All passenger equipment intended ultimate strength sufficient to resist temperature. for service above 110 mph shall without failure a force of 2g vertical on (b) Main battery system. demonstrate stable operation during the mass of the truck and a force of (1) The main battery compartment pre-revenue service qualification tests at 250,000 pounds in any horizontal shall be isolated from the cab and all operating speeds up to 5 mph in

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25677 excess of the maximum intended the disc manufacturer and verified by least 10 degrees F. below ambient operating speed under worst-case testing or previous service. temperature. conditions—including component (h) Hand brakes and parking brakes. (m) When a passenger train is wear—as determined by the operating (1) Except for a locomotive that is operated in either direct or graduated railroad. ordered before September 8, 2000 or release, the railroad shall ensure that all (c) Nothing in this section shall affect placed in service for the first time before the cars in the train consist are set up the requirements of part 213 of this Sepbember 9, 2002, and except for MU in the same operating mode. locomotives, all locomotives shall be chapter as they apply to passenger § 238.233 Interior fittings and surfaces. equipment as provided in that part. equipped with a hand or parking brake that can: (a) Each seat in a passenger car shall— § 238.229 Safety appliances. (i) Be applied or activated by hand; (1) Be securely fastened to the car Except as provided in this part, all (ii) Be released by hand; and body so as to withstand an individually applied acceleration of 4g acting in the passenger equipment continues to be (iii) Hold the loaded unit on the lateral direction and 4g acting in the subject to the safety appliance maximum grade anticipated by the upward vertical direction on the requirements contained in Federal operating railroad. deadweight of the seat or seats, if held statute at 49 U.S.C. chapter 203 and in (2) Except for a private car and locomotives addressed in paragraph in tandem; and Federal regulations at part 231 and (2) Have an attachment to the car § 232.2 of this chapter. (h)(1) of this section, all other passenger equipment, including MU locomotives, body of an ultimate strength capable of § 238.231 Brake system. shall be equipped with a hand brake resisting simultaneously: (i) The longitudinal inertial force of 8g Except as otherwise provided in this that meets the requirements for hand acting on the mass of the seat; and brakes contained in part 231 of this section, on or after September 9, 1999 (ii) The load associated with the chapter and that can: the following requirements apply to all impact into the seatback of an (i) Be applied or activated by hand; passenger equipment and passenger unrestrained 95th-percentile adult male trains. (ii) Be released by hand; and (iii) Hold the loaded unit on the initially seated behind the seat, when (a) A passenger train’s primary brake the floor to which the seat is attached system shall be capable of stopping the maximum grade anticipated by the operating railroad. decelerates with a triangular crash pulse train with a service application from its having a peak of 8g and a duration of maximum authorized operating speed (i) Passenger cars shall be equipped with a means to apply the emergency 250 milliseconds. within the signal spacing existing on the (b) Overhead storage racks in a brake that is accessible to passengers track over which the train is operating. passenger car shall provide longitudinal and located in the vestibule or (b) The brake system design of and lateral restraint for stowed articles. passenger compartment. The emergency passenger equipment ordered on or after Overhead storage racks shall be attached brake shall be clearly identified and September 8, 2000 or placed in service to the car body with sufficient strength marked. for the first time on or after September to resist loads due to the following (j) Locomotives equipped with 9, 2002, shall not require an inspector individually applied accelerations blended brakes shall be designed so to place himself or herself on, under, or acting on the mass of the luggage stowed between components of the equipment that: (1) The blending of friction and as determined by the railroad: to observe brake actuation or release. (1) Longitudinal: 8g; dynamic brake to obtain the correct (2) Vertical: 4g; and (c) Passenger equipment shall be retarding force is automatic; provided with an emergency brake (3) Lateral: 4g. (2) Loss of power or failure of the (c) Other interior fittings within a application feature that produces an dynamic brake does not result in irretrievable stop, using a brake rate passenger car shall be attached to the exceeding the allowable stopping car body with sufficient strength to consistent with prevailing adhesion, distance; passenger safety, and brake system withstand the following individually (3) The friction brake alone is applied accelerations acting on the mass thermal capacity. An emergency brake adequate to safely stop the train under application shall be available at any of the fitting: all operating conditions; and (1) Longitudinal: 8g; time, and shall be initiated by an (4) Operation of the friction brake unintentional parting of the train. (2) Vertical: 4g; and alone does not result in thermal damage (3) Lateral: 4g. (d) A passenger train brake system to wheels or disc rotor surface (d) To the extent possible, all interior shall respond as intended to signals temperatures exceeding the fittings in a passenger car, except seats, from a train brake control line or lines. manufacturer’s recommendation. shall be recessed or flush-mounted. Control lines shall be designed so that (k) For new designs of braking (e) Sharp edges and corners in a failure or breakage of a control line will systems, the design process shall locomotive cab and a passenger car shall cause the brakes to apply or will result include computer modeling or be either avoided or padded to mitigate in a default to control lines that meet dynamometer simulation of train the consequences of an impact with this requirement. braking that shows compliance with such surfaces. (e) Introduction of alcohol or other paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section (f) Each seat provided for a chemicals into the air brake system of over the range of equipment operating crewmember regularly assigned to passenger equipment is prohibited. speeds. A new simulation is required occupy the cab of a locomotive and each (f) The operating railroad shall require prior to implementing a change in floor-mounted seat in the cab shall be that the design and operation of the operating parameters. secured to the car body with an brake system results in wheels that are (l) Locomotives ordered on or after attachment having an ultimate strength free of condemnable cracks. September 8, 2000 or placed in service capable of withstanding the loads due to (g) Disc brakes shall be designed and for the first time on or after September the following individually applied operated to produce a surface 9, 2002, shall be equipped with effective accelerations acting on the combined temperature no greater than the safe air coolers or dryers that provide air to mass of the seat and a 95th-percentile operating temperature recommended by the main reservoir with a dew point at adult male occupying it:

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25678 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

(1) Longitudinal: 8g; (d) Marking and instructions. (b) Beginning July 12, 2001 the (2) Lateral: 4g; and [Reserved] requirements contained in this subpart (3) Vertical: 4g. shall apply to railroads operating Tier I (g) If, for purposes of showing § 238.237 Automated monitoring. passenger equipment covered by this compliance with the requirements of (a) Except as further specified in this part. A railroad may request earlier this section, the strength of a seat paragraph, on or after November 8, 1999 application of the requirements attachment is to be demonstrated a working alerter or deadman control contained in this subpart upon written through sled testing, the seat structure shall be provided in the controlling notification to FRA’s Associate and seat attachment to the sled that is locomotive of each passenger train Administrator for Safety as provided in used in such testing must be operating in other than cab signal, § 238.1(c). automatic train control, or automatic representative of the actual seat (c) Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 238.309 structure in, and seat attachment to, the train stop territory. If the controlling locomotive is ordered on or after shall apply beginning September 9, rail vehicle subject to the requirements 1999. of this section. If the attachment September 8, 2000, or placed into strength of any other interior fitting is to service for the first time on or after § 238.303 Exterior calendar day be demonstrated through sled testing, September 9, 2002, a working alerter mechanical inspection of passenger for purposes of showing compliance shall be provided. equipment. (b) Alerter or deadman control timing with the requirements of this section, (a) General. shall be set by the operating railroad such testing shall be conducted in a (1) Except as provided in paragraph (f) similar manner. taking into consideration maximum train speed and capabilities of the signal of this section, each passenger car and § 238.235 Doors. system. The railroad shall document the each unpowered vehicle used in a (a) By December 31, 1999, each basis for setting alerter or deadman passenger train shall receive an exterior powered, exterior side door in a control timing and make this mechanical inspection at least once vestibule that is partitioned from the documentation available to FRA upon each calendar day that the equipment is passenger compartment of a passenger request. placed in service. car shall have a manual override device (c) If the train operator does not (2) Except as provided in paragraph (f) that is: respond to the alerter or maintain of this section, all passenger equipment (1) Capable of releasing the door to proper contact with the deadman shall be inspected as required in this permit it to be opened without power control, it shall initiate a penalty brake section at least once each calendar day from inside the car; application. that the equipment is placed in service (2) Located adjacent to the door which (d) The following procedures apply if to ensure that the equipment conforms it controls; and the alerter or deadman control fails en with the requirement contained in (3) Designed and maintained so that a route: paragraph (e)(15) of this section. person may readily access and operate (1)(i) A second person qualified on (3) If a passenger care is also classified the override device from inside the car the signal system and brake application as a locomotive under part 229 of this without requiring the use of a tool or procedures shall be stationed in the chapter, the passenger car shall also other implement. locomotive cab; or receive a daily inspection pursuant to (ii) The engineer shall be in constant (b) Each passenger car ordered on or the requirements of § 229.21 of this communication with a second after September 8, 2000, or placed in chapter. crewmember until the train reaches the service for the first time on or after (b) Each passenger car and each September 9, 2002 shall have a next terminal. (2)(i) A tag shall be prominently unpowered vehicle added to a passenger minimum of two exterior side doors, train shall receive an exterior calendar each door providing a minimum clear displayed in the locomotive cab to indicate that the alerter or deadman day mechanical inspection at the time it opening with dimensions of 30 inches is added to the train unless horizontally by 74 inches vertically. control is defective, until such device is repaired; and documentation is provided to the train Note: The Americans with Disabilities Act (ii) When the train reaches its next crew that an exterior mechanical (ADA) Accessibility Specifications for terminal or the locomotive undergoes its inspection was performed on the car the Transportation Vehicles also contain next calender day inspection, whichever previous calendar day. requirements for doorway clearance (See 49 CFR part 38). occurs first, the alerter or deadman (c) The exterior calendar day control shall be repaired or the mechanical inspection shall be Each powered, exterior side door on locomotive shall be removed as the performed by a qualified maintenance each such passenger car shall have a controlling locomotive in the train. person. manual override device that is: (1) Capable of releasing the door to Subpart DÐInspection, Testing, and (d) The exterior calendar day permit it to be opened without power Maintenance Requirements for Tier I mechanical inspection required by this from both inside and outside the car; Passenger Equipment section shall be conducted to the extent (2) Located adjacent to the door which possible without uncoupling the trainset it controls; and § 238.301 Scope. and without placing the equipment over (3) Designed and maintained so that a (a) This subpart contains a pit or on an elevated track. person may access the override device requirements pertaining to the (e) As part of the exterior calendar day from both inside and outside the car inspection, testing, and maintenance of mechanical inspection, the railroad without requiring the use of a tool or passenger equipment operating at shall verify conformity with the other implement. speeds not exceeding 125 miles per following conditions, and (c) A railroad may protect a manual hour. The requirements in this subpart nonconformity with any such condition override device used to open a powered, address the inspection, testing, and renders the passenger car or unpowered exterior door with a cover or a screen maintenance of the brake system as well vehicle used in a passenger train capable of removal without requiring as other mechanical and electrical defective whenever discovered in the use of a tool or other implement. components covered by this part. service:

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25679

(1) Products of combustion are (8) Each wheel does not have any of known to have a defective condition released entirely outside the cab and the following conditions: which prevents their proper operation at other compartments. (i) A single flat spot that is 21⁄2 inches the time that the exterior mechanical (2) Each battery container is vented or more in length, or two adjoining inspection is performed or at any other and each battery is kept from gassing spots that are each two or more inches time while the locomotive is in service, excessively. in length; the following requirements shall be met (3) Each coupler is in the following (ii) A gouge or chip in the flange that in order to continue the locomotive in condition: is more than 11⁄2 inches in length and service: (i) Sidewall or pin bearing bosses and 1⁄2 inch in width; (i) MU locomotives equipped with the pulling face of the knuckles are not (iii) A broken rim, if the tread, dynamic brakes found not to be in broken or cracked; measured from the flange at a point 5⁄8 operating mode or containing a (ii) The coupler assembly is equipped of an inch above the tread, is less than defective condition which prevents the with anti-creep protection; 33⁄4 inches in width; proper operation of the dynamic brakes (iii) The coupler carrier is not broken (iv) A shelled-out spot 21⁄2 inches or shall be handled in the same manner as or cracked; and more in length, or two adjoining spots a running gear defect pursuant to (iv) The yoke is not broken or cracked. that are each two or more inches in § 238.17. (4) A device is provided under the length; (ii) Conventional locomotives lower end of all drawbar pins and (v) A seam running lengthwise that is equipped with dynamic brakes found articulated connection pins to prevent within 33⁄4 inches of the flange; not to be in operating mode or the pin from falling out of place in case (vi) A flange worn to a 7⁄8 inch containing a defective condition which of breakage. thickness or less, gauged at a point 3⁄8 prevents the proper operation of the (5) The suspension system, including of an inch above the tread; dynamic brakes shall be handled in the spring rigging, is in the following (vii) A tread worn hollow 5⁄16 of an accordance with the following: condition: inch or more; (A) A tag bearing the words (i) Protective construction or safety (viii) A flange height of 11⁄2 inches or ‘‘inoperative dynamic brakes’’ shall be hangers are provided to prevent spring more measured from the tread to the top securely displayed in a conspicuous planks, spring seats, or bolsters from of the flange; location in the cab of the locomotive dropping to the track structure in event (ix) A rim less than 1 inch thick; and contain the locomotive number, the of a hanger or spring failure; (x) A crack or break in the flange, date and location where the condition (ii) The top (long) leaf or any of the tread, rim, plate, or hub; was discovered, and the signature of the other three leaves of the elliptical spring (xi) A loose wheel; or person discovering the condition; is not broken, except when a spring is (xii) A weld. (B) The locomotive engineer shall be part of a nest of three or more springs (9) No part or appliance of a passenger informed in writing that the dynamic and none of the other springs in the nest coach, except the wheels, is less than brakes on the locomotive are inoperative has its top leaf or any of the other three 21⁄2 inches above the top of the rail. at the location where the locomotive leaves broken; (10) Each unguarded, noncurrent- engineer first takes charge of the train; (iii) The outer coil spring or saddle is carrying metal part subject to becoming and not broken; charged is grounded or thoroughly (C) The inoperative or defective (iv) The equalizers, hangers, bolts, insulated. dynamic brakes shall be repaired within gibs, or pins are not cracked or broken; (11) Each jumper and cable 3 calendar days of being found in (v) The coil spring is not fully connection is in the following defective condition or at the compressed when the car is at rest; condition: locomotive’s next periodic inspection (vi) The shock absorber is not broken (i) Each jumpers and cable connection pursuant to § 229.23 of this chapter, or leaking oil or other fluid; and between coaches, between locomotives, whichever occurs first. (vii) Each air bag or other pneumatic or between a locomotive and a coach is (f) Exception. A long-distance suspension system component inflates located and guarded in a manner that intercity passenger train that misses a or deflates, as applicable, correctly and provides sufficient vertical clearance. scheduled exterior calendar day otherwise operates as intended. Jumpers and cable connections may not mechanical inspection due to a delay en (6) Each truck is in the following hang with one end free; route may continue in service to the condition: (ii) The insulation is not broken or location where the inspection was (i) Each tie bar is not loose; badly chafed; scheduled to be performed. At that (ii) Each motor suspension lug, (iii) No plug, receptacle, or terminal is point, an exterior calendar day equalizer, hanger, gib, or pin is not broken; and mechanical inspection shall be cracked or broken; and (iv) No strand of wire is broken or performed prior to returning the (iii) The truck frame is not broken and protruding. equipment to service. This flexibility is not cracked in a stress area that may (12) Each door and cover plate applies only to the exterior mechanical affect its structural integrity. guarding high voltage equipment is safety inspections required by this (7) Each side bearing is in the marked ‘‘Danger—High Voltage’’ or with section, and does not relieve the following condition: the word ‘‘Danger’’ and the normal railroad of the responsibility to perform (i) Each friction side bearing with voltage carried by the parts so protected. a calendar day inspection on a unit springs designed to carry weight does (13) Each buffer plate is in place. classified as a ‘‘locomotive’’ under part not have more than 25 percent of the (14) Each diaphragm, if any, is in 229 of this chapter as required by springs in any one nest broken; place and properly aligned. § 229.21 of this chapter. (ii) Each friction side bearing does not (15) Each secondary braking system is (g) Records. A record shall be run in contact unless designed to carry in operating mode and does not have maintained of each exterior calendar weight; and any known defective condition which day mechanical inspection performed. (iii) The maximum clearance of each prevents its proper operation. If the (1) This record may be maintained in side bearing does not exceed the dynamic brakes on a locomotive are writing or electronically provided FRA manufacturer’s recommendation. found not to be in operating mode or are has access to the record upon request.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25680 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

(2) The written or electronic record next interior calendar day mechanical cars and all unpowered vehicles used in must contain the following information: inspection is due at which time the a passenger train as required by this (i) The identification number of the appropriate repairs shall be made: section or as warranted and justified by unit; (i) A qualified person or a qualified data developed pursuant to paragraph (ii) The place, date, and time of the maintenance person determines that the (a)(2) of this section. A periodic inspection; repairs necessary to bring a door into inspection conducted under part 229 of (iii) Any non-complying conditions compliance cannot be performed at the this chapter satisfies the requirement of found; and time the interior mechanical inspection this section with respect to the features (iv) The signature of the inspector. is conducted; inspected. (3) This record may be part of a single (ii) A qualified person or a qualified (2) A railroad may, upon written master report covering an entire group maintenance person determines that it notification to FRA’s Associate of cars and equipment. is safe to move the equipment in Administrator for Safety, adopt and (4) This record shall be maintained at passenger service; comply with alternative periodic the place where the inspection is (iii) At least one operative and mechanical inspection intervals for conducted or at one central location and accessible door is available on each side specific components or equipment in shall be retained for at least 92 days. of the car; and lieu of the requirements of this section. (h) Cars requiring a single car test in (iv) A notice is prominently displayed Any alternative interval must be based accordance with § 238.311 that are being directly on the defective door indicating upon a documented reliability moved in service to a location where the that the door is defective. assessment conducted under a system single car test can be performed shall (6) All safety-related signage is in safety plan subject to periodic peer have the single car test completed prior place and legible. audit. (See Appendix E to this part for to, or as a part of, the exterior calendar (7) All vestibule steps are illuminated. a discussion of the general principles of day mechanical inspection. (8) All D rings, pull handles, or other reliability-based maintenance means to access manual door releases programs.) The periodic inspection § 238.305 Interior calendar day mechanical intervals provided in this section may inspection of passenger cars. are in place based on a visual inspection. be changed only when justified by (a) Except as provided in paragraph (9) All emergency equipment, accumulated, verifiable data that (d) of this section, each passenger car including a fire extinguisher, pry bar, provides a high level of confidence that shall receive an interior mechanical auxiliary portable lighting, and first aid the component(s) will not fail in a inspection at least once each calendar kits, as applicable, are in place. manner resulting in harm to persons. day that it is placed in service. (d) A long-distance intercity FRA may monitor and review a (b) The interior calendar day passenger train that misses a scheduled railroad’s implementation and mechanical inspection shall be calendar day interior mechanical compliance with any alternative interval performed by a qualified person or a inspection due to a delay en route may adopted. FRA’s Associate Administrator qualified maintenance person. continue in service to the location for Safety may prohibit or revoke a (c) As part of the interior calendar day where the inspection was scheduled to railroad’s ability to utilize an alternative mechanical inspection, the railroad be performed. At that point, an interior inspection interval if FRA determines shall verify conformity with the calendar day mechanical inspection that the adopted interval is not following conditions, and shall be performed prior to returning the supported by credible data or does not nonconformity with any such condition equipment to service. provide adequate safety assurances. renders the car defective whenever (e) Records. A record shall be Such a determination will be made in discovered in service, except as maintained of each interior calendar day writing and will state the basis for such provided in paragraph (c)(5) of this mechanical inspection performed. action. section: (1) This record may be maintained in (b) Each periodic mechanical (1) All fan openings, exposed gears writing or electronically provided FRA inspection required by this section shall and pinions, exposed moving parts of has access to the record upon request. be performed by a qualified mechanisms, pipes carrying hot gases (2) The written or electronic record maintenance person. and high-voltage equipment, switches, must contain the following information: (c) As part of the periodic mechanical circuit breakers, contactors, relays, grid (i) The identification number of the inspection the railroad shall verify the resistors, and fuses are installed in non- unit; condition of the following interior and hazardous locations or equipped with (ii) The place, date, and time of the exterior mechanical components, which guards to prevent personal injury. inspection; shall be inspected not less frequently (2) The words ‘‘Emergency Brake (iii) Any non-complying conditions than every 92 days. At a minimum, this Valve’’ are legibly stenciled or marked found; and inspection shall determine that: near each brake pipe valve or shown on (iv) The signature of the inspector. (1) Floors of passageways and an adjacent badge plate. (3) This record may be part of a single compartments are free from oil, water, (3) All doors and cover plates master report covering an entire group waste, or any obstruction that creates a guarding high voltage equipment are of cars and equipment. slipping, tripping, or fire hazard, and marked ‘‘Danger—High Voltage’’ or with (4) This record shall be maintained at floors are properly treated to provide the word ‘‘Danger’’ and the normal the place where the inspection is secure footing. voltage carried by the parts so protected. conducted or at one central location and (2) Emergency lighting systems are (4) All trap doors safely operate and shall be retained for at least 92 days. operational. securely latch in place in both the up (3) With regard to switches: and down position. § 238.307 Periodic mechanical inspection (i) All hand-operated switches (5) All end doors and side doors of passenger cars and unpowered vehicles carrying currents with a potential of operate safely and as intended. If a door used in passenger trains. more than 150 volts that may be is defective and all of the following (a) General. operated while under load are covered conditions are satisfied, the car may (1) Railroads shall conduct periodic and are operative from the outside of the remain in passenger service until the mechanical inspections of all passenger cover;

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25681

(ii) A means is provided to display latches and straps are in place and periodically cleaned, repaired, and whether the switches are open or function as intended. tested. This maintenance procedure closed; and (4) A representative sample of requires that all of the equipment’s (iii) Switches not designed to be emergency window exits on the brake system pneumatic components operated safely while under load are railroad’s passenger cars properly that contain moving parts and are sealed legibly marked with the voltage carried operate, in accordance with the against air leaks be removed from the and the words ‘‘must not be operated requirements of § 239.107 of this equipment, disassembled, cleaned, and under load’’. chapter. lubricated and that the parts that can (4) All trucks are equipped with a (5) Each coupler is in the following deteriorate with age be replaced. device or securing arrangement to condition: (2) A railroad may petition FRA’s prevent the truck and car body from (i) The distance between the guard Associate Administrator for Safety to separating in case of derailment. arm and the knuckle nose is not more approve alternative maintenance (5) All center castings on trucks are than 51⁄2 inches on standard type procedures providing equivalent safety, not cracked or broken. couplers (MCB contour 1904), or not in lieu of the requirements of this (6) All roller bearings do not have any more than 55⁄16 inches on D&E couplers; section. The petition shall be filed as of the following conditions: (ii) The free slack in the coupler or provided in § 238.21. (i) A sign of having been overheated drawbar not absorbed by friction (b) MU locomotives. The brake as evidenced by discoloration or other devices or draft gears is not more than equipment of each MU locomotive shall telltale sign of overheating such as 1⁄2 inch; and be cleaned, repaired, and tested at damage to the seal or distortion of any (iii) The draft gear is not broken. intervals in accordance with the bearing component; (e) The periodic mechanical following schedule: (ii) A loose or missing cap screw; inspection shall specifically include the (1) Every 736 days if the MU (iii) A broken, missing, or improperly manual door releases, which shall be locomotive is part of a fleet that is not applied cap screw lock; or inspected not less frequently than every 100 percent equipped with air dryers; (iv) A seal that is loose or damaged or 368 days. At a minimum, this (2) Every 1,104 days if the MU permits leakage of lubricant in clearly inspection shall determine that all locomotive is part of a fleet that is 100 formed droplets. manual door releases operate as percent equipped with air dryers and is (7) All mechanical systems and intended. equipped with PS–68, 26–C, 26–L, PS– components of the equipment are free of (f) Records. (1) A record shall be 90, CS–1, RT–2, RT–5A, GRB–1, CS–2, all the following general conditions that maintained of each periodic mechanical or 26–R brake systems. (This listing of endanger the safety of the crew, inspection required to be performed by brake system types is intended to passengers, or equipment: this section. This record may be subsume all brake systems using 26 (i) A continuous accumulation of oil maintained in writing or electronically type, ABD, or ABDW control valves and or grease; provided FRA has access to the record PS68, PS–90, 26B–1, 26C, 26CE, 26–B1, (ii) Improper functioning of a upon request. The date and place of the 30CDW, or 30ECDW engineer’s brake component; periodic inspection shall be recorded valves.); and (iii) A crack, break, excessive wear, and the person performing the structural defect, or weakness of a (3) Every 736 days for all other MU inspection and that person’s supervisor locomotives. component; shall sign the form, if possible. This (c) Conventional locomotives. The (iv) A leak; record shall be kept in the railroad’s brake equipment of each conventional (v) Use of a component or system files, the cab of the locomotive, or a locomotive shall be cleaned, repaired, under a condition that exceeds that for designated location in the passenger car and tested at intervals in accordance which the component or system is until the next periodic mechanical with the following schedule: designed to operate; and inspection of the same type is (1) Every 1,104 days for a locomotive (vi) Insecure attachment of a performed. equipped with a 26–L or equivalent component. (2) Detailed documentation of any brake system; and (8) All of the items identified in the reliability assessments depended upon (2) Every 736 days for a locomotive exterior calendar day mechanical for implementing an alternative equipped with other than a 26–L or inspection contained at § 238.303 are in inspection interval under paragraph equivalent brake system. conformity with the conditions (a)(2) of this section, including (d) Passenger coaches and other prescribed in that section. underlying data, shall be retained unpowered vehicles. The brake (9) All of the items identified in the during the period that the alternative equipment on each passenger coach and interior calendar day mechanical inspection interval is in effect. Data each unpowered vehicle used in a inspection contained at § 238.305 are in documenting inspections, tests, passenger train shall be cleaned, conformity with the conditions component replacement and renewals, repaired, and tested at intervals in prescribed in that section. and failures shall be retained for not less accordance with following schedule: (d) The periodic mechanical than three (3) inspection intervals. inspection shall specifically include the (g) Nonconformity with any of the (1) Every 1,476 days for a coach or following interior and exterior conditions set forth in this section vehicle equipped with a 26–C or mechanical components, which shall be renders the car or vehicle defective equivalent brake system; and inspected not less frequently than every whenever discovered in service. (2) Every 1,104 days for a coach or 184 days. At a minimum, this vehicle equipped with other than a 26– inspection shall determine that: § 238.309 Periodic brake equipment C or equivalent brake system. (1) Seats and seat attachments are not maintenance. (e) Cab cars. The brake equipment of broken or loose. (a) General. each cab car shall be cleaned, repaired, (2) Luggage racks are not broken or (1) This section contains the and tested at intervals in accordance loose. minimum intervals at which the brake with the following schedule: (3) All beds and bunks are not broken equipment on various types of (1) Every 1,476 days for that portion or loose, and all restraints or safety passenger equipment shall be of the cab car brake system using brake

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25682 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations valves that are identical to the passenger (3) Thermal crack; occurs first, that the train remains in coach 26–C brake system; (4) Overheated wheel; or continuous passenger service. (2) Every 1,104 days for that portion (5) Shelling. (c) Each car added to a passenger train of the cab car brake system using brake (d) A railroad need not perform the shall receive a Class I brake test at the valves that are identical to the single car test required in paragraph (c) time it is added to the train unless locomotive 26–L brake system; and of this section, if the railroad can documentation is provided to the train (3) Every 736 days for all other types establish that the wheel defect is other crew that a Class I brake test was of cab car brake valves. than built-up tread and is due to a cause performed on the car within the (f) Records of periodic maintenance. other than a defective brake system on previous calendar day and the car has (1) The date and place of the cleaning, the car. not been disconnected from a source of repairing, and testing required by this (e) Except as provided in paragraph (f) compressed air for more than four hours section shall be recorded on Form FRA of this section, a railroad shall perform prior to being added to the train. 6180–49A or a similar form developed a single car test of the brake system of (d) Each Class I brake test shall be by the railroad containing the same a car or vehicle described in paragraph performed by a qualified maintenance information, and the person performing (a) of this section when: person. the work and that person’s supervisor (1) The car or vehicle is placed in (e) Each Class I brake test may be shall sign the form, if possible. service after having been out of service performed either separately or in Alternatively, the railroad may stencil for 30 days or more; or conjunction with the exterior calendar the vehicle with the date and place of (2) One or more of the following day mechanical inspection required the cleaning, repairing, and testing and conventional air brake equipment items under § 238.303. maintain an electronic record of the is removed, repaired, or replaced: (f) Except as provided in § 238.15(b), person performing the work and that (i) Relay valve; a railroad shall not use or haul a person’s supervisor. (ii) Service portion; passenger train in passenger service (2) A record of the parts of the air (iii) Emergency portion; or from a location where a Class I brake (iv) Pipe bracket. brake system that are cleaned, repaired, test has been performed, or was required (f) Exception. If the single car test and tested shall be kept in the railroad’s by this part to have been performed, cannot be made at the point where files, the cab of the locomotive, or a with less than 100 percent operative repairs are made, the car may be moved designated location in the passenger car brakes. in passenger service to the next forward until the next such periodic test is (g) A Class I brake test shall determine location where the test can be made. A performed. and ensure that: railroad may move a car in this fashion (1) The friction brakes apply and § 238.311 Single car test. only after visually verifying an remain applied on each car in the train (a) Except for self-propelled passenger application and release of the brakes on until a release of the brakes has been cars, single car tests of all passenger cars both sides of the car that was repaired, initiated on each car in response to train and all unpowered vehicles used in and provided that the car is line electric, pneumatic, or other passenger trains shall be performed in appropriately tagged to indicate the signals. This test shall include a accordance with either APTA Standard need to perform a single car test. The verification that each side of each car’s SS–M–005–98, ‘‘Code of Tests for single car test shall be completed prior brake system responds properly to Passenger Car Equipment Using Single to, or as a part of, the car’s next calendar application and release signals; Car Testing Device,’’ published March, day mechanical inspection. (2) The brake shoes or pads are firmly 1998; or an alternative procedure (g) If one or more of the following seated against the wheel or disc with the approved by FRA pursuant to § 238.21. conventional air brake equipment items brakes applied; The incorporation by reference of this is removed, repaired, or replaced only (3) Piston travel is within prescribed APTA standard was approved by the that portion which is renewed or limits, either by direct observation, Director of the Federal Register in replaced must be tested to satisfy the observation of an actuator, or by accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 provisions of this section: observation of the clearance between the CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy of (1) Brake reservoir; brake shoe and the wheel or between the incorporated document from the (2) Brake cylinder; (3) Piston assembly; the brake pad and the brake disc with American Public Transit Association, (4) Vent valve; the brakes released; 1201 New York Avenue, N.W., (5) Quick service valve; (4) The communicating signal system Washington, D.C. 20005. You may (6) Brake cylinder release valve; is tested and known to be operating as inspect a copy of the document at the (7) Modulating valve or slack adjuster; intended; Federal Railroad Administration, Docket or (5) Each brake shoe or pad is securely Clerk, 1120 Vermont Avenue, N.W., (8) Angle cock or cutout cock. fastened and correctly aligned in Suite 7000, Washington, D.C. or at the relation to the wheel or to the disc; Office of the Federal Register, 800 North § 238.313 Class I brake test. (6) The engineer’s brake valve or Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 700, (a) Each commuter and short-distance controller will cause the proper train Washington, D.C. intercity passenger train shall receive a line commands for each position or (b) Each single car test required by Class I brake test once each calendar day brake level setting; this section shall be performed by a that the train is placed or continues in (7) Brake pipe leakage does not qualified maintenance person. passenger service. exceed 5 pounds per square inch per (c) A railroad shall perform a single (b) Except as provided in paragraph (i) minute if leakage will affect service car test of the brake system of a car or of this section, each long-distance performance; vehicle described in paragraph (a) of intercity passenger train shall receive a (8) The emergency brake application this section if the car or vehicle is found Class I brake test: and deadman pedal or other emergency with one or more of the following wheel (1) Prior to the train’s departure from control devices function as intended; defects: an originating terminal; and (9) Each brake shoe or pad is not (1) Built-up tread; (2) Every 1,500 miles or once each below the minimum thickness (2) Slid flat wheel; additional calendar day, whichever established by the railroad. This

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:28 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25683 thickness shall not be less than the (iii) The train has not been verify the set and release on cars so minimum thickness necessary to safely disconnected from a source of equipped. However, the observation of travel the maximum distance allowed compressed air for more than four hours the brake indicators shall not be made between Class I brake tests; since the performance of the Class I from the cab of the locomotive. The (10) Each angle cock and cutout cock brake test; and inspector shall walk the train in order is properly positioned; (2) Prior to placing a train in service to position himself or herself to (11) The brake rigging or the system that has been off a source of compressed accurately observe each indicator. mounted on the car for the transmission air for more than four hours. of the braking force does not bind or (b) A commuter or short-distance § 238.317 Class II brake test. foul so as to impede the force delivered intercity passenger train that provides (a) A Class II brake test shall be to a brake shoe, impede the release of continuing late night service that began performed on a passenger train when a brake shoe, or otherwise adversely prior to midnight may complete its daily any of the following events occurs: affect the operation of the brake system; operating cycle after midnight without (1) Whenever the control stand used (12) If the train is equipped with performing another Class I or Class IA to control the train is changed; except if electropneumatic brakes, an brake test. A Class I or Class IA brake the control stand is changed to facilitate electropneumatic application of the test shall be performed on such a train the movement of a passenger train from brakes is made and the train is walked before it starts a new daily operating one track to another within a terminal to determine that the brakes on each car cycle. complex while not in passenger service. in the train properly apply; (c) A Class I or Class IA brake test may In these circumstances, a Class II brake (13) Each brake disc is free of any be performed at a shop or yard site and test shall be performed prior to the crack in accordance with the need not be repeated at the first train’s departure from the terminal manufacturer’s specifications or, if no passenger terminal if the train remains complex with passengers; specifications exist, free of any crack to on a source of compressed air and in the (2) Prior to the first morning departure the extent that the design permits; custody of the train crew. of each commuter or short-distance (14) If the equipment is provided with (d) The Class IA brake test shall be intercity passenger train where a Class a brake indicator, the brake indicator performed by either a qualified person I brake test remains valid as provided in operates as intended; and or a qualified maintenance person. § 238.315(a)(1); (15) The communication of brake pipe (e) Except as provided in § 238.15(b), (3) When previously tested units (i.e., pressure changes at the rear of the train a railroad shall not use or haul a cars that received a Class I brake test is verified. passenger train in passenger service within the previous calendar day and (h) A qualified maintenance person from a location where a Class IA brake have not been disconnected from a that performs a Class I brake test on a test has been performed, or was required source of compressed air for more than train shall place in the cab of the by this part to have been performed, four hours) are added to the train; controlling locomotive of the train a with less than 100 percent operative (4) When cars or equipment are written statement, which shall be brakes. removed from the train; and retained in the cab until the next Class (f) In performing a Class IA brake test, (5) When an operator first takes I brake test is performed and which it shall be determined that: charge of the train, except for face-to- shall contain the following information: (1) Brake pipe leakage does not face relief. exceed 5 pounds per square inch per (1) The date and time the Class I brake (b) A Class II brake test shall be minute if brake pipe leakage will affect test was performed; performed by a qualified person or a service performance; (2) The location where the test was qualified maintenance person. (2) Each brake sets and releases by performed; (c) Except as provided in § 238.15, a (3) The identification number of the inspecting in the manner described in railroad shall not use or haul a controlling locomotive of the train; and paragraph (g) of this section; passenger train in passenger service (4) The total number of cars inspected (3) On MU equipment, the emergency from a terminal or yard where a Class during the Class I brake test. brake application and the deadman (i) A long-distance, intercity pedal or other emergency control II brake test has been performed, or was passenger train that misses a scheduled devices function as intended; required by this part to have been calendar day Class I brake test due to a (4) Each angle cock and cutout cock performed, with any of the brakes cut- delay en route may proceed to the point is properly set; out, inoperative, or defective. where the Class I brake test was (5) Brake pipe pressure changes at the (d) In performing a Class II brake test scheduled to be performed. A Class I rear of the train are properly on a train, a railroad shall determine brake test shall be completed at that communicated to the controlling that: point prior to placing the train back in locomotive; and (1) The brakes on the rear unit of the service. (6) The communicating signal system train apply and release in response to a is tested and known to be operating as signal from the engineer’s brake valve or § 238.315 Class IA brake test. intended; controller of the leading or controlling (a) Except as provided in paragraph (g) In determining whether each brake unit, or a gauge located at the rear of the (b) of this section, either a Class I or a sets and releases— train or in the cab of the rear unit Class IA brake test shall be performed: (1) The inspection of the set and indicates that brake pipe pressure (1) Prior to the first morning departure release of the brakes shall be completed changes are properly communicated at of each commuter or short-distance by walking the train to directly observe the rear of the train; intercity passenger train, unless all of the set and release of each brake, if the (2) On MU equipment, the emergency the following conditions are satisfied: railroad determines that such a brake application and deadman pedal or (i) A Class I brake test was performed procedure is safe. other emergency control devices within the previous twelve (12) hours; (2) If the railroad determines that function as intended; and (ii) The train has not been used in operating conditions pose a safety (3) The communicating signal system passenger service since the performance hazard to an inspector walking the is tested and known to be operating as of the Class I brake test; and brakes, brake indicators may be used to intended.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25684 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

§ 238.319 Running brake test. before any structural damage occurs to minimum longitudinal static (a) As soon as conditions safely the occupied volume. compressive force of 800,000 pounds permit, a running brake test shall be (c) At a minimum, each Tier II without permanent deformation to the performed on each passenger train after passenger train shall be designed to car. To demonstrate compliance with the train has received, or was required meet the following requirements: this requirement, the 800,000-pound under this part to have received, either (1) Thirteen megajoules (MJ) shall be load shall be applied to the underframe a Class I, Class IA, or Class II brake test. absorbed at each end of the train of the occupied volume as it would be through the controlled crushing of (b) A running brake test shall be transmitted to the underframe by the unoccupied volumes, and of this performed whenever the control stand full structure of the vehicle. amount a minimum of 5 MJ shall be (c) Unoccupied volumes of a power used to control the train is changed to absorbed ahead of the operator’s cab in car or a trailer car designed to crush as facilitate the movement of a passenger each power car; part of the crash energy management train from one track to another within (2) A minimum of an additional 3 MJ design are not subject to the a terminal complex while not in shall be absorbed by the power car requirements of this section. passenger service. structure between the operator’s cab and (c) The running brake test shall be the first trailer car; and § 238.407 Anti-climbing mechanism. conducted in accordance with the (3) The end of the first trailer car (a) Each power car shall have an anti- railroad’s established operating rules, adjacent to each power car shall absorb climbing mechanism at its forward end and shall be made by applying brakes in a minimum of 5 MJ through controlled capable of resisting an ultimate upward a manner that allows the engineer to crushing. or downward static vertical force of ascertain whether the brakes are (d) For a 30-mph collision of a Tier II 200,000 pounds. A power car operating properly. passenger train on tangent, level track constructed with a crash energy (d) If the engineer determines that the with an identical stationary train: management design is permitted to brakes are not operating properly, the (1) When seated anywhere in a trailer crush in a controlled manner before the engineer shall stop the train and follow car, the velocity at which a 50th- anti-climbing mechanism fully engages. the procedures provided in § 238.15. percentile adult male contacts the seat (b) Interior train coupling points back ahead of him shall not exceed 25 between units, including between units Subpart EÐSpecific Requirements for mph; and of articulated cars or other permanently Tier II Passenger Equipment (2) The deceleration of the occupied joined units of cars, shall have an anti- volumes of each trailer car shall not climbing mechanism capable of § 238.401 Scope. exceed 8g. For the purpose of resisting an upward or downward This subpart contains specific demonstrating compliance with this vertical force of 100,000 pounds without requirements for railroad passenger paragraph, deceleration measurements yielding. equipment operating at speeds may be processed through a low-pass (c) The forward coupler of a power car exceeding 125 mph but not exceeding filter having a bandwidth of 50 Hz. shall be attached to the car body to 150 mph. The requirements of this (e) Compliance with paragraphs (a) resist a vertical downward force of subpart apply beginning on September through (d) of this section shall be 100,000 pounds for any horizontal 9, 1999. As stated in § 238.433(b), all demonstrated by analysis using a position of the coupler without yielding. such passenger equipment remains dynamic collision computer model. For the purpose of demonstrating § 238.409 Forward end structures of power subject to the requirements concerning car cabs. couplers and uncoupling devices compliance, the following assumptions This section contains requirements for contained in Federal statute at 49 U.S.C. shall be made: the forward end structure of the cab of chapter 203 and in FRA regulations at (1) The train remains upright, in line, a power car. (A conceptual part 231 and § 232.2 of this chapter. and with all wheels on the track throughout the collision; and implementation of this end structure is § 238.403 Crash energy management. (2) Resistance to structural crushing provided in Figure 1 to this subpart.) (a) Center collision post. The forward (a) Each power car and trailer car follows the force-versus-displacement end structure shall have a full-height shall be designed with a crash energy relationship determined during the center collision post, or its structural management system to dissipate kinetic structural analysis required as part of equivalent, capable of withstanding the energy during a collision. The crash the design of the train. (f) Passenger seating shall not be following: energy management system shall (1) A shear load of 500,000 pounds at provide a controlled deformation and permitted in the leading unit of a Tier II passenger train. its joint with the underframe without collapse of designated sections within exceeding the ultimate strength of the the unoccupied volumes to absorb § 238.405 Longitudinal static compressive joint; collision energy and to reduce the strength. (2) A shear load of 150,000 pounds at decelerations on passengers and (a) To form an effective crash refuge its joint with the roof without exceeding crewmembers resulting from dynamic for crewmembers occupying the cab of the ultimate strength of the joint; and forces transmitted to occupied volumes. a power car, the underframe of the cab (3) A horizontal, longitudinal force of (b) The design of each unit shall of a power car shall resist a minimum 300,000 pounds, applied at a point on consist of an occupied volume located longitudinal static compressive force of level with the bottom of the windshield, between two normally unoccupied 2,100,000 pounds without permanent without exceeding its ultimate strength. volumes. Where practical, sections deformation to the cab, unless (b) Side collision posts. The forward within the unoccupied volumes shall be equivalent protection to crewmembers end structure shall have two side designed to be structurally weaker than is provided under an alternate design collision posts, or their structural the occupied volume. During a approach, validated through analysis equivalent, located at approximately the collision, the designated sections within and testing, and approved by FRA under one-third points laterally, each capable the unoccupied volumes shall start to the provisions of § 238.21. of withstanding the following: deform and eventually collapse in a (b) The underframe of the occupied (1) A shear load of 500,000 pounds at controlled fashion to dissipate energy volume of each trailer car shall resist a its joint with the underframe without

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25685 exceeding the ultimate strength of the (1) A horizontal, longitudinal shear joint with the roof without exceeding joint; and load of 750,000 pounds at its joint with the ultimate strength of the joint. (2) A horizontal, longitudinal force of the underframe without exceeding the 300,000 pounds, applied at a point on ultimate strength of the joint; and § 238.415 Rollover strength. level with the bottom of the windshield, (2) A horizontal, longitudinal shear (a) Each passenger car and power car without exceeding its ultimate strength. load of 75,000 pounds at its joint with shall be designed to rest on its side and (c) Corner posts. The forward end the roof without exceeding the ultimate be uniformly supported at the top (‘‘roof structure shall have two full-height strength of the joint. rail’’) and the bottom chords (‘‘side corner posts, or their structural sill’’) of the side frame. The allowable equivalent, each capable of § 238.413 End structures of trailer cars. stress in the structural members of the withstanding the following: (a) Except as provided in paragraph occupied volumes for this condition (1) A horizontal, longitudinal or (b) of this section, the end structure of shall be one-half yield or one-half the lateral shear load of 300,000 pounds at a trailer car shall be designed to include critical buckling stress, whichever is its joint with the underframe, without the following elements, or their less. Minor localized deformations to exceeding the ultimate strength of the structural equivalent. (A conceptual the outer side skin of the passenger car joint; implementation of this end structure is or power car is allowed provided such (2) A horizontal, lateral force of provided in Figure 3 to this subpart.) deformations in no way intrude upon 100,000 pounds applied at a point 30 (1) Corner posts. Two full-height the occupied volume of each car. inches up from the underframe corner posts, each capable of (b) Each passenger car and power car attachment, without exceeding the yield withstanding the following: shall also be designed to rest on its roof or the critical buckling stress; and (i) A horizontal, longitudinal shear so that any damage in occupied areas is (3) A horizontal, longitudinal or load of 150,000 pounds at its joint with limited to roof sheathing and framing. the underframe without exceeding the lateral shear load of 80,000 pounds at its The allowable stress in the structural ultimate strength of the joint; joint with the roof, without exceeding members of the occupied volumes for the ultimate strength of the joint. (ii) A horizontal, longitudinal or lateral force of 30,000 pounds applied at this condition shall be one-half yield or (d) Skin. The skin covering the one-half the critical buckling stress, forward-facing end of each power car a point 18 inches up from the underframe attachment without whichever is less. Deformation to the shall be: roof sheathing and framing is allowed to (1) Equivalent to a 1⁄2-inch steel plate exceeding the yield or the critical the extent necessary to permit the with a 25,000 pounds-per-square-inch buckling stress; and vehicle to be supported directly on the yield strength—material of a higher (iii) A horizontal, longitudinal or yield strength may be used to decrease lateral shear load of 20,000 pounds at its top chords of the side frames and end the required thickness of the material joint with the roof without exceeding frames. provided at least an equivalent level of the ultimate strength of the joint. § 238.417 Side loads. (2) Collision posts. Two full-height strength is maintained; (a) Each passenger car body structure (2) Securely attached to the end collision posts each capable of shall be designed to resist an inward structure; and withstanding the following: transverse load of 80,000 pounds of (3) Sealed to prevent the entry of (i) A horizontal, longitudinal shear fluids into the occupied cab area of the load of 300,000 pounds at its joint with force applied to the side sill and 10,000 equipment. As used in paragraph (d), the underframe without exceeding the pounds of force applied to the belt rail the term ‘‘skin’’ does not include ultimate strength of the joint; and (horizontal members at the bottom of forward-facing windows and doors. (ii) A horizontal, longitudinal shear the window opening in the side frame). load of 60,000 pounds at its joint with (b) These loads shall be considered to § 238.411 Rear end structures of power car the roof without exceeding the ultimate be applied separately over the full cabs. strength of the joint. vertical dimension of the specified The rear end structure of the cab of a (b) If the trailer car is designed with member for any distance of 8 feet in the power car shall be designed to include an end vestibule, the end structure direction of the length of the car. the following elements, or their inboard of the vestibule shall have two (c) The allowable stress shall be the structural equivalent. (A conceptual full-height corner posts, or their lesser of the yield stress, except as implementation of this end structure is structural equivalent, each capable of otherwise allowed by this paragraph, or provided in Figure 2 to this subpart.) withstanding the following (A the critical buckling stress. In (a) Corner posts. The rear end conceptual implementation of this end calculating the stress to show structure shall have two full-height structure is provided in Figure 4 to this compliance with this requirement, local corner posts, or their structural subpart): yielding of the side skin adjacent to the equivalent, each capable of (1) A horizontal, longitudinal shear side sill and belt rail, and local yielding withstanding the following: load of 200,000 pounds at its joint with of the side sill bend radii at the (1) A horizontal, longitudinal or the underframe without exceeding the crossbearer and floor-beam connections lateral shear load of 300,000 pounds at ultimate strength of the joint; is allowed. For purposes of this its joint with the underframe without (2) A horizontal, lateral force of paragraph, local yielding is allowed exceeding the ultimate strength of the 30,000 pounds applied at a point 18 provided the resulting deformations in joint; and inches up from the underframe no way intrude upon the occupied (2) A horizontal, longitudinal or attachment without exceeding the yield volume of the car. lateral shear load of 80,000 pounds at its or the critical buckling stress; (d) The connections of the side frame joint with the roof without exceeding (3) A horizontal, longitudinal force of to the roof and underframe shall support the ultimate strength of the joint. 50,000 pounds applied at a point 18 the loads specified in this section. (b) Collision posts. The rear end inches up from the underframe structure shall have two full-height attachment without exceeding the yield § 238.419 Truck-to-car-body and truck collision posts, or their structural or the critical buckling stress; and component attachment. equivalent, each capable of (4) A horizontal, longitudinal or (a) The ultimate strength of the truck- withstanding the following: lateral shear load of 20,000 pounds at its to-car-body attachment for each unit in

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25686 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations a train shall be sufficient to resist (1) Each end-facing exterior window § 238.423 Fuel tanks. without failure a vertical force shall resist the impact of a 12-pound (a) External fuel tanks. Each type of equivalent to 2g acting on the mass of solid steel sphere at the maximum external fuel tank must be approved by the truck and a force of 250,000 pounds speed at which the vehicle will operate, FRA’s Associate Administrator for acting in any horizontal direction on the at an angle equal to the angle between Safety upon a showing that the fuel tank truck. the window’s surface as installed and provides a level of safety at least (b) Each component of a truck (which the direction of travel, with no equivalent to a fuel tank that complies include axles, wheels, bearings, the penetration or spall. with the external fuel tank requirements truck-mounted brake system, (2) Each side-facing exterior window in § 238.223(a). suspension system components, and shall resist the impact of a: (b) Internal fuel tanks. Internal fuel any other components attached to the (i) 12-pound solid steel sphere at 15 tanks shall comply with the truck by design) shall remain attached mph, at an angle of 90 degrees to the requirements specified in § 238.223(b). to the truck when a force equivalent to window’s surface, with no penetration § 238.425 Electrical system. 2g acting on the mass of the component or spall; and (a) Circuit protection. is exerted in any direction on that (ii) A granite ballast stone weighing a (1) The main propulsion power line component. minimum of 0.5 pounds, traveling at 75 shall be protected with a lightning § 238.421 Glazing. mph and impacting at a 90-degree angle arrestor, automatic circuit breaker, and to the window’s surface, with no (a) General. Except as provided in overload relay. The lightning arrestor penetration or spall. shall be run by the most direct path paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, (3) All exterior windows shall: possible to ground with a connection to each exterior window on a passenger car ground of not less than No. 6 AWG. and a power car cab shall comply with (i) Resist a single impact of a 9-mm, These overload protection devices shall the requirements contained in part 223 147-grain bullet traveling at an impact be housed in an enclosure designed of this chapter. velocity of 900 feet per second, with no bullet penetration or spall; and specifically for that purpose with the arc (b) Particular end-facing exterior chute vented directly to outside air. glazing requirements. Each end-facing (ii) Demonstrate anti-spalling performance by the use of a 0.001 (2) Head end power, including exterior window on a passenger car and trainline power distribution, shall be a power car cab shall also: aluminum witness plate, placed 12 inches from the window’s surface provided with both overload and (1) Resist the impact of a 12-pound ground fault protection. solid steel sphere at the maximum during all impact tests. The witness plate shall contain no marks from (3) Circuits used for purposes other speed at which the vehicle will operate, than propelling the equipment shall be at an angle of 90 degrees to the spalled glazing particles after any impact test. connected to their power source through window’s surface, with no penetration circuit breakers or equivalent current- (iii) Be permanently marked, prior to or spall; and limiting devices. (2) Demonstrate anti-spalling installation, in such a manner that the (4) Each auxiliary circuit shall be performance by the use of a 0.001 marking is clearly visible after the provided with a circuit breaker located aluminum witness plate, placed 12 material has been installed. The as near as practical to the point of inches from the window’s surface marking shall include: connection to the source of power for during all impact tests. The witness (A) The words ‘‘FRA TYPE IH’’ for that circuit; however, such protection plate shall contain no marks from end-facing glazing or ‘‘FRA TYPE IIH’’ may be omitted from circuits controlling spalled glazing particles after any for side-facing glazing, to indicate that safety-critical devices. impact test. the material has successfully passed the (b) Main battery system. (3) Be permanently marked, prior to testing requirements of this section; (1) The main batteries shall be installation, in such a manner that the (B) The name of the manufacturer; isolated from the cab and passenger marking is clearly visible after the and seating areas by a non-combustible material has been installed. The (C) The type or brand identification of barrier. marking shall include: the material. (2) Battery chargers shall be designed (i) The words ‘‘FRA TYPE IHP’’ to (d) Glazing securement. Each exterior to protect against overcharging. indicate that the material has window on a passenger car and a power (3) Battery circuits shall include an emergency battery cut-off switch to successfully passed the testing car cab shall remain in place when completely disconnect the energy stored requirements specified in this subjected to: (1) The forces due to air pressure in the batteries from the load. paragraph; (4) If batteries are of the type to differences caused when two trains pass (ii) The name of the manufacturer; potentially vent explosive gases, the at the minimum separation for two and batteries shall be adequately ventilated adjacent tracks, while traveling in (iii) The type or brand identification to prevent accumulation of explosive opposite directions, each train traveling of the material. concentrations of these gases. (c) Passenger equipment ordered prior at the maximum authorized speed; and (c) Power dissipation resistors. to May 12, 1999. Each exterior window (2) The impact forces that the glazed (1) Power dissipating resistors shall be in passenger equipment ordered prior to window is required to resist as specified adequately ventilated to prevent May 12, 1999 may comply with the in this section. overheating under worst-case operating following glazing requirements in the (e) Stenciling. Each car that is fully conditions. alternative of the requirements specified equipped with glazing materials that (2) Power dissipation grids shall be in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, meet the requirements of this section designed and installed with sufficient until the window is replaced and the shall be stenciled on an interior wall as isolation to prevent combustion railroad has exhausted its inventory of follows: ‘‘Fully Equipped with FRA Part between resistor elements and replacement windows conforming to the 238 Glazing’’ or similar words combustible material. requirements of this paragraph that it conveying that meaning, in letters at (3) Power dissipation resistor circuits held as of May 12, 1999. least 3⁄8 of an inch high. shall incorporate warning or protective

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25687 devices for low ventilation air flow, installed lateral accelerometer mounted (2) The automatic coupler and over-temperature, and short circuit on the truck frame. The accelerometer uncoupling device on the leading and failures. output signals shall be processed trailing ends of a semi-permanently (4) Resistor elements shall be through a filter having a band pass of coupled trainset may be stored within a electrically insulated from resistor 0.5 to 10 Hz to determine if hunting removable shrouded housing. frames, and the frames shall be oscillations of the truck are occurring. If (3) If the units in a train are not semi- electrically insulated from the supports hunting oscillations are detected, the permanently coupled, both ends of each that hold them. train monitoring system shall provide unit shall be equipped with an (d) Electromagnetic interference and an alarm to the operator, and the train automatic coupler that couples on compatibility. shall be slowed to a speed at least 5 impact and uncouples by either (1) The operating railroad shall ensure mph less than the speed at which the activation of a traditional uncoupling electromagnetic compatibility of the hunting oscillations stopped. For lever or some other type of uncoupling safety-critical equipment systems with purposes of this paragraph, hunting mechanism that does not require a their environment. Electromagnetic oscillations are considered a sustained person to go between the equipment compatibility can be achieved through cyclic oscillation of the truck which is units. equipment design or changes to the evidenced by lateral accelerations in (b) Hand brakes. Except as provided operating environment. excess of 0.4g root mean square (mean- in paragraph (f) of this section, Tier II (2) The electronic equipment shall not removed) for 2 seconds. trains shall be equipped with a parking produce electrical noise that interferes (d) Ride vibration (quality). (1) While or hand brake that can be applied and with trainline control and traveling at the maximum operating released manually and that is capable of communications or with wayside speed over the intended route, the train holding the train on a 3-percent grade. signaling systems. (3) To contain electromagnetic suspension system shall be designed to: (c) Safety appliance mechanical interference emissions, suppression of (i) Limit the vertical acceleration, as strength and fasteners. transients shall be at the source measured by a vertical accelerometer (1) All handrails, handholds, and sill wherever possible. mounted on the car floor, to no greater steps shall be made of 1-inch diameter (4) Electrical and electronic systems than 0.55g single event, peak-to-peak steel pipe, 5⁄8-inch thickness steel, or a of equipment shall be capable of over a one second period; material of equal or greater mechanical operation in the presence of external (ii) Limit lateral acceleration, as strength. electromagnetic noise sources. measured by a lateral accelerometer (2) All safety appliances shall be (5) All electronic equipment shall be mounted on the car floor, to no greater securely fastened to the car body self-protected from damage or improper than 0.3g single event, peak-to-peak structure with mechanical fasteners that operation, or both, due to high voltage over a one second period; and have mechanical strength greater than or transients and long-term over-voltage or (iii) Limit the combination of lateral equal to that of a 1⁄2-inch diameter SAE under-voltage conditions. acceleration (aL) and vertical grade steel bolt mechanical fastener. acceleration (av) occurring over a 1 (i) Safety appliance mechanical § 238.427 Suspension system second period as expressed by the fasteners shall have mechanical strength (a) General requirements. 2 2 square root of (aL +aV ) to no greater and fatigue resistance equal to or greater (1) Suspension systems shall be 1 than 0.6g, where aL may not exceed 0.3g than a ⁄2-inch diameter SAE steel bolt. designed to reasonably prevent wheel and (aV) may not exceed 0.55g. (ii) Mechanical fasteners shall be climb, wheel unloading, rail rollover, (2) Compliance. Compliance with the installed with a positive means to rail shift, and a vehicle from overturning requirements contained in this prevent unauthorized removal. Self- to ensure safe, stable performance and paragraph shall be demonstrated during locking threaded fasteners do not meet ride quality. These requirements shall the equipment pre-revenue service this requirement. be met: (iii) Mechanical fasteners shall be (i) In all operating environments, and acceptance tests required under installed to facilitate inspection. under all track conditions and loading § 238.111, and § 213.345 of this chapter. (d) Handrails and handholds. Except conditions as determined by the (3) For purposes of this paragraph, as provided in paragraph (f) of this operating railroad; and acceleration measurements shall be (ii) At all track speeds and over all processed through a filter having a band section: track qualities consistent with the Track pass of 0.5 to 10 Hz. (1) Handrails shall be provided for Safety Standards in part 213 of this (e) Overheat sensors. Overheat sensors passengers on both sides of all steps chapter, up to the maximum operating for each wheelset journal bearing shall used to board or depart the train. speed and maximum cant deficiency of be provided. The sensors may be placed (2) Exits on a power vehicle shall be the equipment. either on-board the equipment or at equipped with handrails and handholds (2) Passenger equipment shall meet reasonable intervals along the railroad’s so that crewmembers can get on and off the safety performance standards for right-of-way. the vehicle safely. suspension systems contained in (3) Throughout their entire length, § 238.429 Safety appliances. Appendix C to this part, or alternative handrails and handholds shall be a standards providing at least equivalent (a) Couplers. color that contrasts with the color of the safety if approved by FRA under the (1) The leading and the trailing ends vehicle body to which they are fastened. provisions of § 238.21. of a semi-permanently coupled trainset (4) The maximum distance above the (b) Lateral accelerations. Passenger shall each be equipped with an top of the rail to the bottom of vertical cars shall not operate under conditions automatic coupler that couples on handrails and handholds shall be 51 that result in a steady-state lateral impact and uncouples by either inches, and the minimum distance shall acceleration of 0.1g (measured parallel activation of a traditional uncoupling be 21 inches. to the car floor inside the passenger lever or some other type of uncoupling (5) Vertical handrails and handholds compartment) or greater. mechanism that does not require a shall be installed to continue to a point (c) Hunting oscillations. Each truck person to go between the equipment at least equal to the height of the top shall be equipped with a permanently units. edge of the control cab door.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:28 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12MYR2 25688 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

(6) The minimum hand clearance permanently coupled (i.e., that is be displayed for the train operator in the distance between a vertical handrail or coupled by an automatic coupler), the control cab; and handhold and the vehicle body shall be automatically coupled ends shall be (4) The operating railroad shall 21⁄2 inches for the entire length. equipped with hand brakes, sill steps, demonstrate through analysis and (7) All vertical handrails and end handholds, and side handholds that testing the maximum operating speed handholds shall be securely fastened to meet the requirements contained in for safe operation of the train using only the vehicle body. § 231.14 of this chapter. If the trainsets the friction brake portion of the blended (8) If the length of the handrail are semi-permanently coupled, these brake with no thermal damage to wheels exceeds 60 inches, it shall be securely safety appliances are not required. or discs. fastened to the power vehicle body with (g) Optional safety appliances. Safety (f) The brake system design shall two fasteners at each end. appliances installed at the option of the allow a disabled train’s pneumatic (e) Sill steps. Except as provided in railroad shall be firmly attached with brakes to be controlled by a paragraph (f) of this section, each power mechanical fasteners and shall meet the conventional locomotive, during a vehicle shall be equipped with a sill design and installation requirements rescue operation, through brake pipe step below each exterior door as provided in this section. control alone. follows: (g) An independent failure-detection (1) The sill step shall have a § 238.431 Brake system. system shall compare brake commands minimum cross-sectional area of 1⁄2 by (a) A passenger train’s brake system with brake system output to determine 3 inches; shall be capable of stopping the train if a failure has occurred. The failure (2) The sill step shall be made of steel from its maximum operating speed detection system shall report brake or a material of equal or greater strength within the signal spacing existing on the system failures to the automated train and fatigue resistance; track over which the train is operating monitoring system. (3) The minimum tread length of the under worst-case adhesion conditions. (h) Passenger equipment shall be sill step shall be 10 inches; (b) The brake system shall be equipped with an adhesion control (4) The minimum clear depth of the designed to allow an inspector to system designed to automatically adjust sill step shall be 8 inches; determine that the brake system is the braking force on each wheel to (5) The outside edge of the tread of functioning properly without having to prevent sliding during braking. In the the sill step shall be flush with the side place himself or herself in a dangerous event of a failure of this system to of the car body structure; position on, under, or between the prevent wheel slide within preset (6) Sill steps shall not have a vertical equipment. parameters, a wheel slide alarm that is rise between treads exceeding 18 inches; (c) Passenger equipment shall be visual or audible, or both, shall alert the (7) The lowest sill step tread shall be provided with an emergency brake train operator in the cab of the not more than 24, preferably not more application feature that produces an controlling power car to wheel-slide than 22, inches above the top of the irretrievable stop, using a brake rate conditions on any axle of the train. track rail; consistent with prevailing adhesion, (8) Sill steps shall be a color that § 238.433 Draft system. passenger safety, and brake system contrasts with the color of the power thermal capacity. An emergency brake (a) Leading and trailing automatic vehicle body to which they are fastened; application shall be available at any couplers of trains shall be compatible (9) Sill steps shall be securely with standard AAR couplers with no fastened; time, and shall be initiated by an unintentional parting of the train. A special adapters used. (10) At least 50 percent of the tread (b) All passenger equipment means to initiate an emergency brake surface area of each sill step shall be continues to be subject to the application shall be provided at two open space; and requirements concerning couplers and locations in each unit of the train; (11) The portion of the tread surface uncoupling devices contained in however, where a unit of the train is 45 area of each sill step which is not open Federal Statute at 49 U.S.C. chapter 203 feet or less in length a means to initiate space and is normally contacted by the and in FRA regulations at part 231 and an emergency brake application need foot shall be treated with an anti-skid § 232.2 of this chapter. material. only be provided at one location in the (f) Exceptions. unit. § 238.435 Interior fittings and surfaces. (1) If the units of the equipment are (d) The brake system shall be (a) Each seat back and seat attachment semi-permanently coupled, with designed to prevent thermal damage to in a passenger car shall be designed to uncoupling done only at maintenance wheels and brake discs. The operating withstand, with deflection but without facilities, the equipment units that are railroad shall demonstrate through total failure, the load associated with not required by paragraph (a) of this analysis and testing that no thermal the impact into the seat back of an section to be equipped with automatic damage results to the wheels or brake unrestrained 95th-percentile adult male couplers need not be equipped with sill discs under conditions resulting in initially seated behind the seat back, steps or end or side handholds that maximum braking effort being exerted when the floor to which the seat is would normally be used to safely on the wheels or discs. attached decelerates with a triangular perform coupling and uncoupling (e) The following requirements apply crash pulse having a peak of 8g and a operations. to blended braking systems: duration of 250 milliseconds. (2) If the units of the equipment are (1) Loss of power or failure of the (b) Each seat back in a passenger car not semi-permanently coupled, the dynamic brake does not result in shall include shock-absorbent material units shall be equipped with hand exceeding the allowable stopping to cushion the impact of occupants with brakes, sill steps, end handholds, and distance; the seat ahead of them. side handholds that meet the (2) The friction brake alone is (c) The ultimate strength of each seat requirements contained in § 231.14 of adequate to safely stop the train under attachment to a passenger car body shall this chapter. all operating conditions; be sufficient to withstand the following (3) If two trainsets are coupled to form (3) The operational status of the individually applied accelerations a single train that is not semi- electric portion of the brake system shall acting on the mass of the seat plus the

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00150 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25689 mass of a seat occupant who is a 95th- § 238.437 Emergency communication. egress in the event the door will not percentile adult male: A means of emergency open, or shall be so designed as to pose (1) Lateral: 4g; and communication throughout a train shall a negligible probability of becoming (2) Vertical: 4g. be provided and shall include the inoperable in the event of car body (d)(1) Other interior fittings shall be following: distortion following a collision or attached to the passenger car body with (a) Except as further specified, derailment. sufficient strength to withstand the transmission locations at each end of (g) Marking and instructions. following individually applied each passenger car, adjacent to the car’s [Reserved] accelerations acting on the mass of the end doors, and accessible to both § 238.441 Emergency roof entrance fitting: passengers and crewmembers without (i) Longitudinal: 8g; location. (ii) Lateral: 4g; and requiring the use of a tool or other implement. If the passenger car does not (a) Each passenger car and power car (iii) Vertical: 4g. cab shall have a minimum of one roof (2) Fittings that can be expected to be exceed 45 feet in length, only one transmission location is required; hatch emergency entrance location with impacted by a person during a collision, a minimum opening of 18 inches by 24 such as tables between facing seats, (b) Transmission locations that are clearly marked with luminescent inches, or at least one clearly marked shall be designed for the mass of the structural weak point in the roof having fitting plus the mass of the number of material; (c) Clear and understandable a minimum opening of the same occupants who are 95th-percentile adult dimensions to provide quick access for males that could be expected to strike operating instructions at or near each transmission location; and properly equipped emergency response the fitting, when the floor of the personnel. passenger car decelerates with a (d) Back-up power for a minimum period of 90 minutes. (b) Marking and instructions. triangular crash pulse having a peak of [Reserved] 8g and a duration of 250 milliseconds. § 238.439 Doors. (e) The ultimate strength of the § 238.443 Headlights. (a) Each passenger car shall have a interior fittings and equipment in power Each power car shall be equipped car control cabs shall be sufficient to minimum of two exterior side doors, each door providing a minimum clear with at least two headlights. Each resist without failure loads due to the headlight shall produce no less than following individually applied opening with dimensions of 30 inches horizontally by 74 inches vertically. 200,000 candela. One headlight shall be accelerations acting on the mass of the focused to illuminate a person standing fitting or equipment: Note: The Americans with Disabilities Act between the rails 800 feet ahead of the (1) Longitudinal: 12g; (ADA) Accessibility Specifications for power car under clear weather (2) Lateral: 4g; and Transportation Vehicles also contain conditions. The other headlight shall be (3) Vertical: 4g. requirements for doorway clearance (See 49 (f) To the extent possible, interior CFR part 38). focused to illuminate a person standing between the rails 1500 feet ahead of the fittings, except seats, shall be recessed (b) Each passenger car shall be or flush-mounted. Corners and sharp power car under clear weather equipped with a manual override conditions. edges shall be avoided or otherwise feature for each powered, exterior side padded. door. Each manual override must be: § 238.445 Automated monitoring. (g) Energy-absorbent material shall be (1) Capable of releasing the door to used to pad surfaces likely to be (a) Each passenger train shall be permit it to be opened, without power, impacted by occupants during collisions equipped to monitor the performance of from both inside and outside the car; or derailments. the following systems or components: (h) Luggage stowage compartments (2) Located adjacent to the door which (1) Reception of cab signals and train shall be enclosed, and have an ultimate it controls; and control signals; strength sufficient to resist loads due to (3) Designed and maintained so that a (2) Truck hunting; the following individually applied person may readily access and operate (3) Dynamic brake status; accelerations acting on the mass of the the override device from both inside (4) Friction brake status; luggage that the compartments are and outside the car without the use of (5) Fire detection systems; designed to accommodate: any tool or other implement. (6) Head end power status; (1) Longitudinal: 8g; (c) The status of each powered, (7) Alerter or deadman control; (2) Lateral: 4g; and exterior side door in a passenger car (8) Horn and bell; (3) Vertical: 4g. shall be displayed to the crew in the (9) Wheel slide; (i) If, for purposes of showing operating cab. If door interlocks are (10) Tilt system, if so equipped; and compliance with the requirements of used, the sensors used to detect train (11) On-board bearing-temperature this section, the strength of a seat motion shall be nominally set to operate sensors, if so equipped. attachment is to be demonstrated at 3 mph. (b) When any such system or through sled testing, the seat structure (d) Each powered, exterior side door component is operating outside of its and seat attachment to the sled that is in a passenger car shall be connected to predetermined safety parameters: used in such testing must be an emergency back-up power system. (1) The train operator shall be alerted; representative of the actual seat (e) A railroad may protect a manual and structure in, and seat attachment to, the override device used to open a powered, (2) Immediate corrective action shall rail vehicle subject to the requirements exterior door with a cover or a screen be taken, if the system or component of this section. If the attachment capable of removal without requiring defect impairs the train operator’s strength of any other interior fitting is to the use of a tool or other implement. ability to safely operate the train. be demonstrated through sled testing, (f) A passenger compartment end door Immediate corrective action includes for purposes of showing compliance (other than a door providing access to limiting the speed of the train. with the requirements of this section, the exterior of the trainset) shall be (c) The monitoring system shall be such testing shall be conducted in a equipped with a kick-out panel, pop-out designed with an automatic self-test similar manner. window, or other similar means of feature that notifies the train operator

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00151 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25690 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations that the monitoring capability is (3) Operator selection shall be (2) Designed so that all adjustments functioning correctly and alerts the train required to display other than default have the range necessary to operator when a system failure occurs. information; accommodate a person ranging from a (4) Cab or train control signals shall 5th-percentile adult female to a 95th- § 238.447 Train operator's controls and be displayed for the operator; and percentile adult male, as persons power car cab layout. (5) Displays shall be readable from the possessing such characteristics are (a) Train operator controls in the operators’s normal position under all specified, correcting for clothing as power car cab shall be arranged so as to lighting conditions. appropriate, in any recognized survey minimize the chance of human error, (e) The power car cab shall be after 1958 of weight, height, and other and be comfortably within view and designed so at to permit the crew to body dimensions of U.S. adults; within easy reach when the operator is have an effective field of view in the (3) Equipped with lumbar support seated in the normal train control forward direction, as well as to the right that is adjustable from the seated position. and left of the direction of travel to position; (b) The train operator’s control panel observe objects approaching the train (4) Equipped with force-assisted, buttons, switches, levers, knobs, and the from either side. Field-of-view vertical-height adjustment, operated like shall be distinguishable by sight obstructions due to required structural from the seated position; and by touch. members shall be minimized. (5) Equipped with a manually (c) An alerter shall be provided in the (f) Each seat provided for an employee reclining seat back, adjustable from the power car cab. If not acknowledged, the regularly assigned to occupy a power seated position; alerter shall cause a brake application to car cab and any floor-mounted seat in (6) Equipped with an adjustable stop the train. the cab shall be: headrest; and (1) Secured to the car body with an (d) Power car cab information (7) Equipped with folding, padded attachment having an ultimate strength displays shall be designed with the armrests. capable of withstanding the loads due to following characteristics: (g) Sharp edges and corners shall be the following individually applied eliminated from the interior of the (1) Simplicity and standardization accelerations acting on the combined power car cab, and interior surfaces of shall be the driving criteria for design of mass of the seat and the mass of a seat the cab likely to be impacted by an formats for the display of information in occupant who is a 95th-percentile adult employee during a collision or the cab; male: derailment shall be padded with shock- (2) Essential, safety-critical (i) Longitudinal: 12g; information shall be displayed as a (ii) Lateral: 4g; and absorbent material. default condition; (iii) Vertical: 4g; BILLING CODE 4910±06±P

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25691

Figure 1—to Subpart E

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00153 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25692 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

Figure 2—to Subpart E

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25693

Figure 3—to Subpart E

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25694 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

Figure 4—to Subpart E

BILLING CODE 4910±06±C

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25695

Subpart FÐInspection, Testing, and (2) Improper functioning of a analysis and testing for braking with the Maintenance Requirements for Tier II component; friction brake alone. The brake system Passenger Equipment. (3) A crack, break, excessive wear, shall be restored to 100 percent structural defect, or weakness of a operation before the train departs that § 238.501 Scope. component; inspection location. This subpart contains inspection, (4) A leak; (g) Maintenance intervals. The testing, and maintenance requirements (5) Use of a component or system program under paragraph (a) of this for railroad passenger equipment that under a condition that exceeds that for section shall include the railroad’s operates at speeds exceeding 125 mph which the component or system is initial scheduled maintenance intervals but not exceeding 150 mph. designed to operate; and for Tier II equipment based on an (6) Insecure attachment of a analysis completed pursuant to the § 238.503 Inspection, testing, and component. railroad’s safety plan. The maintenance maintenance requirements. (d) Specific inspections. The program interval of a safety-critical component (a) General. Under the procedures under paragraph (a) of this section shall shall be changed only when justified by provided in § 238.505, each railroad specify that all Tier II passenger accumulated, verifiable operating data shall obtain FRA approval of a written equipment shall receive thorough and approved by FRA under § 238.505 inspection, testing, and maintenance inspections in accordance with the before the change takes effect. program for Tier II passenger equipment following standards: (h) Training, qualification, and prior to implementation of that program (1) Except as provided in paragraph designation program. The program and prior to commencing passenger (d)(3) of this section, the equivalent of under paragraph (a) of this section shall operations using that equipment. As a Class I brake test contained in describe the training, qualification, and further specified in this section, the § 238.313 shall be conducted prior to a designation program, as defined in the program shall describe in detail the train’s departure from an originating training program plan under § 238.109, procedures, equipment, and other terminal and every 1,500 miles or once established by the railroad to qualify means necessary for the safe operation each calendar day, whichever comes individuals to inspect, test, and of the passenger equipment, including: first, that the train remains in maintain the equipment. (1) Inspection procedures, intervals, continuous service. (1) If the railroad deems it safety- and criteria; (i) Class I equivalent brake tests shall critical, then only qualified individuals (2) Testing procedures and intervals; be performed by a qualified shall inspect, test, and maintain the (3) Scheduled preventive- maintenance person. equipment. maintenance intervals; (ii) Except as provided in § 238.15(b), (2) Knowledge of the procedures (4) Maintenance procedures; a railroad shall not use or haul a Tier described in paragraph (a) of this (5) Special testing equipment or II passenger train in passenger service section shall be required to qualify an measuring devices required to perform from a location where a Class I employee or contractor to perform an inspections, tests, and maintenance; and equivalent brake test has been inspection, testing, or maintenance task (6) The training, qualification, and performed, or was required by this part under this part. designation of employees and to have been performed, with less than (i) Standard procedures. The program contractors to perform inspections, tests, 100 percent operative brakes. under paragraph (a) of this section shall and maintenance. (2) Except as provided in paragraph include the railroad’s written standard (b) Compliance. After the railroad’s (d)(3) of this section, a complete exterior procedures for performing all safety- inspection, testing, and maintenance and interior mechanical inspection, in critical equipment inspection, testing, program is approved by FRA under accordance with the railroad’s maintenance, and repair tasks necessary § 238.505, the railroad shall adopt the inspection program, shall be conducted to ensure the safe and proper operation program and shall perform— by a qualified maintenance person at of the equipment. The inspection, (1) The inspections and tests of power least once during each calendar day the testing, and maintenance program brakes and other primary brakes as equipment is used in service. required by this section is not intended described in the program; (3) Trains that miss a scheduled Class to address and should not include (2) The other inspections and tests I brake test or mechanical inspection procedures to address employee described in the program in accordance due to a delay en route may proceed to working conditions that arise in the with the procedures and criteria that the the point where the Class I brake test or course of conducting the inspections, railroad identified as safety-critical; and mechanical inspection was scheduled to tests, and maintenance set forth in the (3) The maintenance tasks described be performed. program. When reviewing the railroad’s in the program in accordance with the (e) Movement of trains with power program, FRA does not intend to review procedures and intervals that the brake defects. Movement of trains with any portion of the program that relates railroad identified as safety-critical. a power brake defect as defined in to employee working conditions. (c) General safety inspection, testing, § 238.15 (any primary brake defect) shall (j) Annual review. The inspection, and maintenance procedures. The be governed by § 238.15. testing, and maintenance program inspection, testing, and maintenance (f) Movement of trains with other required by this section shall be program under paragraph (a) of this defects. Movement of a train with a reviewed by the railroad annually. section shall contain the railroad’s defect other than a power brake defect (k) Quality control program. Each written procedures to ensure that all shall be conducted in accordance with railroad shall establish an inspection, systems and components of in service § 238.17, with the following exception: testing, and maintenance quality control passenger equipment are free of any When a failure of the secondary brake program enforced by railroad or general condition that endangers the on a Tier II passenger train occurs en contractor supervisors to reasonably safety of the crew, passengers, or route, that train may remain in service ensure that inspections, tests, and equipment. These procedures shall until its next scheduled calendar day maintenance are performed in protect against: Class I brake test equivalent at a speed accordance with Federal safety (1) A continuous accumulation of oil no greater than the maximum safe standards and the procedures or grease; operating speed demonstrated through established by the railroad.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00157 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25696 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

(l) Identification of safety-critical (3) The commenter shall certify that a (1) Identify all requirements necessary items. In the program under paragraph copy of the comment was served on the for the safe operation of the equipment (a) of this section, the railroad shall railroad. in its operating environment; identify all inspection and testing (c) Approval. (2) Identify all known or potential procedures and criteria as well as all hazards to the safe operation of the (1) Within 60 days of receipt of each maintenance intervals that the railroad equipment; initial inspection, testing, and deems to be safety-critical. (3) Eliminate or reduce the risk posed maintenance program, FRA will by each hazard identified to an § 238.505 Program approval procedure. conduct a formal review of the program. acceptable level using MIL–STD–882C FRA will then notify the primary (a) Submission. Not less than 90 days as a guide or an alternative formal, railroad contact person and the prior to commencing passenger safety methodology; and designated employee representatives in operations using Tier II passenger (4) Impose operational limitations, as writing whether the inspection, testing, equipment, each railroad to which this necessary, on the operation of the and maintenance program is approved subpart applies shall submit for equipment if the equipment cannot and, if not approved, the specific points approval an inspection, testing, and meet safety requirements. in which the program is deficient. If a maintenance program for that (b) For the procurement of Tier II program is not approved by FRA, the equipment meeting the requirements of passenger equipment, and for each railroad shall amend its program to this subpart with the Associate major upgrade or introduction of new correct all deficiencies and resubmit its Administrator for Safety, Federal technology in existing Tier II passenger program with the required revisions not Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont equipment that affects a safety system later than 45 days prior to commencing Ave, Mail Stop 25, Washington, D.C. on such equipment, each railroad shall passenger operations. 20590. If a railroad seeks to amend an prepare and execute a written safety approved program, the railroad shall file (2) FRA will review each proposed plan. The plan may be combined with with FRA’s Associate Administrator for amendment to the program within 45 any other plan required under this part. Safety a petition for approval of such days of receipt. FRA will then notify the The plan shall describe the approaches amendment not less than 60 days prior primary railroad contact person and the and processes to: to the proposed effective date of the designated employee representatives in (1) Identify all safety requirements amendment. A program responsive to writing whether the proposed governing the design of the passenger the requirements of this subpart or any amendment has been approved by FRA equipment and its supporting systems; amendment to the program shall not be and, if not approved, the specific points (2) Evaluate the total system, implemented prior to FRA approval. in which the proposed amendment is including hardware, software, testing, (1) Each program or amendment deficient. The railroad shall correct any and support activities, to identify under § 238.503 shall contain: deficiencies and file the corrected known or potential safety hazards over (i) The information prescribed in amendment prior to implementing the the life cycle of the equipment; § 238.503 for such program or amendment. (3) Identify safety issues during amendment; (ii) The name, title, address, and (3) Following initial approval of a design reviews; telephone number of the primary person program or amendment, FRA may (4) Eliminate or reduce the risk posed to be contacted with regard to review of reopen consideration of the program or by each hazard identified to an the program or amendment; and amendment for cause stated. acceptable level using MIL–STD–882C (iii) A statement affirming that the as a guide or an alternative, formal Subpart GÐSpecific Safety Planning railroad has served a copy of the safety methodology; Requirements for Tier II Passenger program or amendment on designated (5) Monitor the progress in resolving Equipment representatives of railroad employees, safety issues, reducing hazards, and together with a list of the names and § 238.601 Scope. meeting safety requirements; addresses of persons served. (6) Develop a program of testing or (2) Each railroad shall serve a copy of This subpart contains specific safety analysis, or both, to demonstrate that each submission to FRA on designated planning requirements for the operation safety requirements have been met; and representatives of railroad employees of Tier II passenger equipment, (7) Impose operational limitations, as responsible for the equipment’s procurement of Tier II passenger necessary, on the operation of the operation, inspection, testing, and equipment, and the introduction or equipment if the equipment cannot maintenance under this subpart. major upgrade of new technology in meet safety requirements. (b) Comment. Not later than 45 days existing Tier II passenger equipment (c) Each railroad shall maintain from the date of filing the program or that affects a safety system on such sufficient documentation to demonstrate amendment, any person may comment equipment. how the operation and design of its Tier II passenger equipment complies with on the program or amendment. § 238.603 Safety planning requirements (1) Each comment shall set forth safety requirements or, as appropriate, specifically the basis upon which it is (a) Prior to commencing revenue addresses safety requirements under made, and contain a concise statement service operation of Tier II passenger paragraphs (a)(4) and (b)(7) of this of the interest of the commenter in the equipment, each railroad shall prepare section. Each railroad shall maintain proceeding. and execute a written plan for the safe sufficient documentation to track how (2) Three copies of each comment operation of such equipment. The plan safety issues are raised and resolved. shall be submitted to the Associate may be combined with any other plan (d) Each railroad shall make available Administrator for Safety, Federal required under this part. The plan shall to FRA for inspection and copying upon Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont be updated at least every 365 days. At request each safety plan required by this Ave., Mail Stop 25, Washington, D.C. a minimum, the plan shall describe the section and any documentation required 20590. approaches and processes to: pursuant to such plan.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00158 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25697

APPENDIX A TO PART 238—SCHEDULE OF CIVIL PENALTIES1

Willful Section Violation violation

SUBPART AÐGENERAL 238.15 Movement of power brake defects: (b) Improper movement from Class I or IA brake test ...... 5,000 7,500 (c) Improper movement of en route defect ...... 2,500 5,000 (2), (3) Insufficient tag or record ...... 1,000 2,000 (4) Failure to determine percent operative brake ...... 2,500 5,000 (d) Failure to follow operating restrictions ...... 5,000 7,500 (e) Failure to follow restrictions for inoperative front or rear unit ...... 2,500 5,000 238.17 Movement of other than power brake defects: 1 (c)(4), (5) Insufficient tag or record ...... 1,000 2,000 (d) Failure to inspect or improper use of roller bearings ...... 2,500 5,000 (e) Improper movement of defective safety appliances ...... (1) 238.19 Reporting and tracking defective equipment: (a) Failure to have reporting or tracking system ...... 7,500 11,000 (b) Failure to retain records ...... 2,000 4,000 (c) Failure to make records available ...... 1,000 2,000 (d) Failure to list power brake repair points ...... 2,000 4,000 SUBPART BÐSAFETY PLANNING AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 238.103 Fire protection plan/fire safety: (a) Failure to use proper materials ...... 5,000 7,500 (b) Improper certification ...... 1,000 2,000 (c) Failure to consider fire safety on new equipment ...... 5,000 7,500 (d) Failure to perform fire safety analysis ...... 5,000 7,500 (e) Failure to develop, adopt or comply with procedures ...... 5,000 7,500 238.105 Train hardware and software safety: (a), (b), (c) Failure to develop and maintain hardware and software safety program ...... 7,500 11,000 (d) Failure to include required design features in hardware and software ...... 5,000 7,500 (e) Failure to comply with hardware and software safety program ...... 5,000 7,500 238.107 Inspection, testing, and maintenance plan: (b) Failure to develop plan ...... 7,500 11,000 (b)(1)±(5) Failure of plan to address specific item ...... 3,000 6,000 (d) Failure to conduct annual review ...... 5,000 7,500 238.109 Training, qualification, and designation program: (a) Failure to develop or adopt program ...... 7,500 11,000 (b)(1)±(4) Failure of plan to address specific item ...... 3,000 6,000 (b)(5)±(12) Failure to comply with specific required provision of the program ...... 5,000 7,500 (b)(13) Failure to maintain adequate records ...... 2,500 5,000 238.111 Pre-revenue service acceptance testing plan: (a) Failure to properly test previously used equipment ...... 7,500 11,000 (b)(1) Failure to develop plan ...... 7,500 11,000 (b)(2) Failure to submit plan to FRA ...... 5,000 7,500 (b)(3) Failure to comply with plan ...... 5,000 7,500 (b)(4) Failure to document results of testing ...... 5,000 7,500 (b)(5) Failure to correct safety deficiencies or impose operating limits ...... 5,000 7,500 (b)(6) Failure to maintain records ...... 3,000 6,000 (b)(7) Failure to obtain FRA approval ...... 5,000 7,500 238.113 Emergency window exits ...... 2,500 5,000 238.115 Emergency lighting ...... 2,500 5,000 238.117 Protection against personal injury ...... 2,500 5,000 238.119 Rim-stamped straight plate wheels ...... 2,500 5,000 SUBPART CÐSPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR TIER I EQUIPMENT 238.203 Static end strength ...... 2,500 5,000 238.205 Anti-climbing mechanism ...... 2,500 5,000 238.207 Link between coupling mechanism and car body ...... 2,500 5,000 238.209 Forward-facing end structure of locomotives ...... 2,500 5,000 238.211 Collision posts ...... 2,500 5,000 238.213 Corner posts ...... 2,500 5,000 238.215 Rollover strength ...... 2,500 5,000 238.217 Side structure ...... 2,500 5,000 238.219 Truck-to-car-body attachment ...... 2,500 5,000 238.221 Glazing ...... 2,500 5,000 238.223 Fuel tanks ...... 2,500 5,000 238.225 Electrical System ...... 2,500 5,000 238.227 Suspension system ...... 2,500 5,000 238.231 Brake system: (a)±(g), (i)±(m) ...... 2,500 5,000 (h) Hand or parking brake missing or inoperative ...... 5,000 5,000 238.233 Interior fittings and surfaces ...... 2,500 7,500 238.235 Doors ...... 2,500 5,000 238.237 Automated monitoring ...... 2,500 5,000

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00159 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25698 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

APPENDIX A TO PART 238—SCHEDULE OF CIVIL PENALTIES1ÐContinued

Willful Section Violation violation

SUBPART DÐINSPECTION, TESTING, AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR TIER I EQUIPMENT 238.303 Exterior mechanical inspection of passenger equipment: (a)(1) Failure to perform mechanical inspection ...... 1 2,000 4,000 (a)(2) Failure to inspect secondary brake system ...... 2,500 5,000 (b) Failure to perform inspection on car added to train ...... 1 2,000 4,000 (c) Failure to utilize properly qualified personnel ...... 2,000 4,000 (e)(1) Products of combustion not released outside cab ...... 2,500 5,000 (e)(2) Battery not vented or gassing excessively ...... 2,500 5,000 (e)(3) Coupler not in proper condition ...... 2,500 5,000 (e)(4) No device under drawbar pins or connection pins ...... 2,500 5,000 (e)(5) Suspension system and spring rigging not in proper condition ...... 2,500 5,000 (e)(6) Truck not in proper condition ...... 2,500 5,000 (e)(7) Side bearing not in proper condition ...... 2,500 5,000 (e)(8) Wheel not in proper condition: (i), (iv) Flat spot(s) and shelled spot(s): (A) One spot 21¤2′′ or more but less than 3′′ in length ...... 2,500 5,000 (B) One spot 3′′ or more in length ...... 5,000 7,500 (C) Two adjoining spots each of which is 2′′ or more in length but less than 21¤2′′ in length ...... 2,500 5,000 (D) Two adjoining spots each of which are at least 2′′ in length, if either spot is 21¤2′′ or more in length .. 5,000 7,500 (ii) Gouge or chip in flange: (A) More than 11¤2′′ but less than 15¤8′′ in length; and more than 1¤2′′ but less than 5¤8′′ in width ...... 2,500 5,000 (B) 15¤8′′ or more in length and 5¤8′′ or more in width ...... 5,000 7,500 (iii) Broken rim ...... 5,000 7,500 (v) Seam in tread ...... 2,500 5,000 (vi) Flange thickness of: 2,500 5,000 (A) 7¤8′′ or less but more than 13¤16′′. (B) 13¤16′′ or less ...... 5,000 7,500 (vii) Tread worn hollow ...... 2,500 5,000 (viii) Flange height of: (A) 11¤2′′ or greater but less than 15¤8′′ ...... 2,500 5,000 (B) 15¤8′′ or more ...... 5,000 7,500 (ix) Rim thickness: (A) Less than 1′′ ...... 2,500 5,000 (B) 15¤16′′ or less ...... 5,000 7,500 (x) Crack or break in flange, tread, rim, plate, or hub: (A) Crack of less than 1′′ ...... 2,500 5,000 (B) Crack of 1′′ or more ...... 5,000 7,500 (C) Break ...... 5,000 7,500 (xi) Loose wheel ...... 5,000 7,500 (xii) Welded wheel ...... 5,000 7,500 (e)(10) Improper grounding or insulation ...... 5,000 7,500 (e)(11) Jumpers or cable connections not in proper condition ...... 2,500 5,000 (e)(12) Door or cover plate not properly marked ...... 2,500 5,000 (e)(13) Buffer plate not properly placed ...... 2,500 5,000 (e)(14) Diaphragm not properly placed or aligned ...... 2,500 5,000 (e)(15) Secondary braking system not in operating mode or contains known defect ...... 2,500 5,000 (g) Record of inspection: (1), (4) Failure to maintain record of inspection ...... 5,000 4,000 (2) Record contains insufficient information ...... 1,000 2,000 238.305 Interior mechanical inspection of passenger cars: (a) Failure to perform inspection ...... 1 1,000 2,000 (b) Failure to utilize properly qualified personnel ...... 1,000 2,000 (c)(1) Failure to protect against personal injury ...... 2,500 5,000 (c)(2) Emergency brake valve not stenciled or marked ...... 2,500 5,000 (c)(3) Door or cover plates not properly marked ...... 2,500 5,000 (c)(4) Trap door unsafe or improperly secured ...... 2,500 5,000 (c)(5) Doors not safely operate as intended ...... 2,500 5,000 (i)±(iv) Condition for operating defective door not satisfied ...... 2,000 4,000 (c)(6) Safety signage not in place or legible ...... 1,000 2,000 (c)(7) Vestibule steps not illuminated ...... 2,000 4,000 (c)(8) Access to manual door release not in place ...... 2,000 4,000 (c)(9) Emergency equipment not in place ...... 1,000 2,000 (e) Record of inspection: (1), (4) Failure to maintain record of inspection ...... 2,000 4,000 (2) Record contains insufficient information ...... 1,000 1,000 238.307 Periodic mechanical inspection of passenger cars and unpowered vehicles: (a) Failure to perform periodic mechanical inspection ...... 1 2,500 5,000 (b) Failure to utilize properly qualified personnel ...... 2,500 5,000 (c)(1) Floors not free of condition that creates hazard ...... 2,500 5,000 (c)(2) Emergency lighting not operational ...... 2,500 5,000 (c)(3) Switches not in proper condition ...... 2,500 5,000

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00160 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25699

APPENDIX A TO PART 238—SCHEDULE OF CIVIL PENALTIES1ÐContinued

Willful Section Violation violation

(c)(4) Truck not equipped with securing arrangement ...... 2,500 5,000 (c)(5) Truck center casting cracked or broken ...... 5,000 7,500 (c)(6) Roller bearings: (i) Overheated ...... 5,000 7,500 (ii) Cap screw loose or missing ...... 2,500 5,000 (iii) Cap screw lock broken or missing ...... 1,000 2,000 (iv) Seal loose, damaged, or leaks lubricant ...... 2,500 5,000 (c)(7) General conditions endangering crew, passengers ...... 2,500 5,000 (d)(1) Seat or seat attachment broken or loose ...... 2,500 5,000 (d)(2) Luggage rack broken or loose ...... 2,500 5,000 (d)(3) Bed, bunks, or restraints broken or loose ...... 2,500 5,000 (d)(4) Emergency window exit not properly operate ...... 2,500 5,000 (d)(5) Coupler not in proper condition ...... 2,500 5,000 (f)(1) Record of inspection: (i) Failure to maintain record of inspection ...... 2,000 4,000 (ii) Record contains insufficient information ...... 1,000 2,000 238.309 Periodic brake equipment maintenance: (b) Failure to perform on MU locomotive ...... 2,500 5,000 (c) Failure to perform on conventional locomotive ...... 2,500 5,000 (d) Failure to perform on passenger coaches or other unpowered vehicle ...... 2,500 5,000 (e) Failure to perform on cab car ...... 2,500 5,000 (f) Record of periodic maintenance: (1), (2) Failure to maintain record or stencil ...... 2,000 4,000 238.311 Single car tests: (a) Failure to test in accord with required procedure ...... 2,500 5,000 (b) Failure to utilize properly qualified personnel ...... 2,500 5,000 (c), (e) Failure to perform single car test ...... 2,500 5,000 (f) Improper movement of car for testing ...... 2,000 4,000 (g) Failure to test after repair or replacement of component ...... 2,000 4,000 238.313 Class I brake test: (a) Failure to perform on commuter or short distance intercity passenger train ...... 1 10,000 15,000 (b) Failure to perform on long-distance intercity passenger train ...... 1 10,000 15,000 (c) Failure to perform on cars added to passenger train ...... 1 5,000 7,500 (d) Failure to utilized properly qualified personnel ...... 5,000 7,500 (f) Passenger train used from Class I brake test with less than 100% operative brakes ...... 5,000 7,500 (g) Partial failure to perform inspection on a passenger train ...... 5,000 7,500 (h) Failure to maintain record ...... 2,000 4,000 238.315 Class IA brake test: (a) Failure to perform inspection ...... 1 5,000 7,500 (d) Failure to utilize properly qualified personnel ...... 2,500 5,000 (e) Passenger train used from Class IA brake test with improper percentage of operative brakes ...... 5,000 7,500 (f) Partial failure to perform inspection on passenger train ...... 2,500 5,000 238.317 Class II brake test: (a) Failure to perform inspection ...... 1 2,500 5,000 (b) Failure to utilize properly qualified personnel ...... 2,500 5,000 (c) Improper use of defective equipment from Class II brake test ...... 2,500 5,000 238.319 Running brake tests: (a), (b) Failure to perform test ...... 2,000 4,000 SUBPART EÐSPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR TIER II PASSENGER EQUIPMENT 238.403 Crash energy management ...... 2,500 5,000 238.405 Longitudinal static compressive strength ...... 2,500 5,000 238.407 Anti-climbing mechanism ...... 2,500 5,000 238.409 Forward end structures of power car cabs: (a) Center collision post ...... 2,500 5,000 (b) Side collision posts ...... 2,500 5,000 (c) Corner posts ...... 2,500 5,000 (d) Skin ...... 2,500 5,000 238.411 Rear end structures of power car cabs: (a) Corner posts ...... 2,500 5,000 (b) Collision posts ...... 2,500 5,000 238.413 End structures of trailer cars ...... 2,500 5,000 238.415 Rollover strength ...... 2,500 5,000 238.417 Side loads ...... 2,500 5,000 238.419 Truck-to-car-body and truck component attachment ...... 2,500 5,000 238.421 Glazing: (b) End-facing exterior glazing ...... 2,500 5,000 (c) Alternate glazing requirements ...... 2,500 5,000 (d) Glazing securement ...... 1,000 2,000 (e) Stenciling ...... 2,500 5,000 238.423 Fuel tanks:

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00161 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25700 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

APPENDIX A TO PART 238—SCHEDULE OF CIVIL PENALTIES1ÐContinued

Willful Section Violation violation

(a) External fuel tanks ...... 2,500 5,000 (b) Internal fuel tanks ...... 2,500 5,000 238.425 Electrical system: (a) Circuit protection ...... 2,500 5,000 (b) Main battery system ...... 2,500 5,000 (c) Power dissipation resistors ...... 2,500 5,000 (d) Electromagnetic interference and compatibility ...... 2,500 5,000 238.427 Suspension system: (a) General design ...... 2,500 5,000 (b) Lateral accelerations ...... 2,500 5,000 (c) Hunting Oscillations ...... 2,500 5,000 (d) Ride vibrations ...... 2,500 5,000 (e) Overheat sensors ...... 2,500 5,000 238.429 Safety Appliances: (a) Couplers ...... 5,000 7,500 (b) Hand/parking brakes ...... 5,000 7,500 (d) Handrail and handhold missing ...... 2,500 5,000 (d)(1)±(8) Handrail or handhold improper design ...... 2,500 5,000 (e) Sill step missing ...... 5,000 7,500 (e)(1)±(11) Sill step improper design ...... 2,500 5,000 (g) Optional safety appliances ...... 2,500 5,000 238.431 Brake system ...... 2,500 5,000 238.433 Draft System ...... 2,500 5,000 238.435 Interior fittings and surfaces ...... 2,500 5,000 238.437 Emergency communication ...... 2,500 5,000 238.439 Doors: (a) Exterior side doors ...... 2,500 5,000 (b) Manual override feature ...... 2,500 5,000 (c) Notification to crew of door status ...... 2,500 5,000 (d) Emergency back-up power ...... 2,500 5,000 (f) End door kick-out panel or pop-out window ...... 2,500 5,000 (g) Marking and instructions ...... [Reserved] 238.441 Emergency roof hatch entrance location ...... 2,500 5,000 238.443 Headlights ...... 2,500 5,000 238.445 Automated monitoring ...... 2,500 5,000 238.447 Train operator's controls and power car cab layout ...... 2,500 5,000 SUBPART FÐINSPECTION, TESTING, AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR TIER II PASSENGER EQUIPMENT 238.503 Inspection, testing, and maintenance requirements: (a) Failure to develop inspection, testing, and maintenance program or obtain FRA approval ...... 10,000 15,000 (b) Failure to comply with provisions of the program ...... 5,000 7,500 (c) Failure to ensure equipment free of conditions which endanger safety of crew, passengers, or equipment ... 2,500 5,000 (d) Specific safety inspections: (1)(i) Failure to perform Class I brake test or equivalent ...... 10,000 15,000 (1)(ii) Partial failure to perform Class I brake test or equivalent ...... 5,000 7,500 (2)(i) Failure to perform exterior mechanical inspection ...... 1 2,000 4,000 (2)(ii) Failure to perform interior mechanical inspection ...... 1 1,000 2,000 (g) Failure to perform scheduled maintenance as required in program ...... 2,500 5,000 (h) Failure to comply with training, qualification and designation program ...... 5,000 7,500 (i) Failure to develop or comply with standard procedures for performing inspection, tests, and maintenance .... 2,500 5,000 (j) Failure to conduct annual review ...... 5,000 7,500 (k) Failure to establish or utilize quality control program ...... 5,000 7,500 SUBPART GÐSPECIFIC SAFETY PLANNING REQUIREMENTS FOR TIER II PASSENGER EQUIPMENT 238.603 Safety plan: (a) Failure to develop safety operating plan ...... 7,500 11,000 (b) Failure to develop procurement plan ...... 7,500 11,000 (1)±(7) Failure to develop portion of plan ...... 2,500 5,000

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00162 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25701

APPENDIX A TO PART 238—SCHEDULE OF CIVIL PENALTIES1ÐContinued

Willful Section Violation violation

(c) Failure to maintain documentation ...... 2,500 5,000 1 A penalty may be assessed against an individual only for a willful violation Generally when two or more violations of these regulations are discovered with respect to a single unit of passenger equipment that is placed or continued in service by a railroad, the appropriate penalties set forth above are aggregated up to a maximum of $10,000 per day. However, failure to perform, with respect to a particular unit of passenger equipment, any of the inspections and tests required under subparts D and F of this part will be treated as a violation separate and distinct from, and in addition to, any substantive violative conditions found on that unit of passenger equipment. Moreover, the Administrator reserves the right to assess a penalty of up to $22,000 for any violation where circumstances warrant. See 49 CFR part 209, appendix A. Failure to observe any condition for movement of defective equipment set forth in § 238.17 will deprive the railroad of the benefit of the movement-for-repair provision and make the railroad and any responsible individuals liable for penalty under the particular regulatory section(s) concerning the substantive de- fect(s) present on the unit of passenger equipment at the time of movement Failure to observe any condition for the movement of passenger equipment containing defective safety appliances, other than power brakes, set forth in § 238.17(e) will deprive the railroad of the movement-for- repair provision and make the railroad and any responsible individuals liable for penalty under the particular regulatory section(s) contained in part 231 of this chapter or § 238.429 concerning the substantive defective condition. The penalties listed for failure to perform the exterior and in- terior mechanical inspections and tests required under § 238.303 and § 238.305 may be assessed for each unit of passenger equipment con- tained in a train that is not properly inspected Whereas, the penalties listed for failure to perform the brake inspections and tests under § 238.313 through § 238.319 may be assessed for each train that is not properly inspected.

Appendix B to Part 238—Test Methods (viii) ASTM E 662–97, Standard Test ignition source in a graded radiant heat and Performance Criteria for the Method for Specific Optical Density of energy environment in a test chamber. Smoke Generated by Solid Materials. Flammability and Smoke Emission Flame spread Index (Is) means, as defined Characteristics of Materials Used in (ix) ASTM E 1354–97, Standard Test in ASTM E 162, a factor derived from the rate Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release of progress of the flame front (Fs) and the rate Passenger Cars and Locomotive Cabs Rates for Materials and Products Using an of heat liberation by the material under test This appendix provides the test methods Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter. (Q), such that Is=Fs×Q. and performance criteria for the flammability (x) ASTM E 1537–98, Standard Test Flaming dripping means periodic dripping and smoke emission characteristics of Method for Fire Testing of Upholstered materials used in passenger cars and Seating Furniture. of flaming material from the site of material locomotive cabs, in accordance with the (2) General Services Administration, burning or material installation. requirements of § 238.103. Federal Supply Service, Specification Flaming running means continuous (a) Incorporation by reference. Certain Section, 470 E. L’Enfant Plaza, S.W., Suite flaming material leaving the site of material documents are incorporated by reference into 8100, Washington, D.C., 20407. FED–STD– burning or material installation. 191A—Textile Test Method 5830, Leaching this appendix with the approval of the ˙ // Director of the Federal Register in accordance Resistance of Cloth; Standard Method (July Peak heat release rate (q max) means, with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You 20, 1978). as defined in ASTM E 1354, the may inspect a copy of each document during (3) National Electrical Manufacturers maximum heat release rate per unit normal business hours at the Federal Association (NEMA), 1300 North 17th St, (kW/m2). Railroad Administration, Docket Clerk, 1120 Suite 1847, Rosslyn, VA 22209. NEMA WC Specific optical density (Ds) means, as Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 7000 or at the 3/ICEA S–19–1981, Rubber Insulated Wire Office of the Federal Register, 800 North and Cable for the Transmission and defined in ASTM E 662, the optical Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, Distribution of Electrical Energy (part 6, density measured over unit path length D.C. The documents incorporated by section 19, paragraph 6), Revision 1, Sixth within a chamber of unit volume, reference into this appendix and the sources Edition (February, 1994). produced from a specimen of unit from which you may obtain these documents (4) State of California, Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Home surface area, that is irradiated by a heat are listed below: 2 (1) American Society for Testing and Furnishings and Thermal Insulation, 3485 flux of 2.5 watts/cm for a specified Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Orange Grove Avenue, North Highlands, CA period of time. Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959. 95660. California Technical Bulletin 133, Surface flammability means the rate (i) ASTM C 1166–91, Standard Test Flammability Test Procedure for Seating at which flames will travel along Furniture for Use in Public Occupancies Method for Flame Propagation of Dense and surfaces. Cellular Elastomeric Gaskets and (January, 1991). Accessories. (5) The Institute of Electrical and Time to ignition (tig) means, as (ii) ASTM D 2724–87, Standard Test Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), 345 East defined in ASTM E 1354, the time in Methods for Bonded, Fused, and Laminated 47th Street, New York, New York 10017. seconds (s) to sustained flaming. Apparel Fabrics. ANSI/IEEE Std. 383–1974, IEEE Standard for (iii) ASTM D 3574–95, Standard Test Type Test of Class 1E Electric Cables, Field Time to ignition/Peak heat release // Methods for Flexible Cellular Materials— Splices, and Connections for Nuclear Power rate (tig/q˙ max) means the ratio of a given Slab, Bonded, and Molded Urethane Foams. Generating Stations (1974). material’s time to ignition to its peak (iv) ASTM D 3675–95, Standard Test (6) Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL), (maximum) heat release rate as 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062– Method for Surface Flammability of Flexible measured in the Cone Calorimeter Cellular Materials Using a Radiant Heat 2096. Energy Source. (i) UL 44, Standard for Safety for (ASTM E 1354) under the stipulated (v) ASTM E 119–98, Standard Test Thermoset-Insulated Wires and Cables, 14th exposure conditions. Methods for Fire Tests of Building edition (January 27, 1997). (c) Required test methods and (ii) UL 83, Standard for Safety for Construction and Materials. performance criteria. The materials used (vi) ASTM E 162–98, Standard Test Thermoplastic-Insulated Wires and Cables, Method for Surface Flammability of Materials 12th edition (September 29, 1998). in locomotive cabs and passenger cars Using a Radiant Heat Energy Source. (b) Definitions. As used in this appendix— shall be tested according to the methods (vii) ASTM E 648–97, Standard Test Critical radiant flux (C.R.F.) means, as and meet the performance criteria set Method for Critical Radiant Flux of Floor- defined in ASTM E 648, a measure of the forth in the following table and notes: Covering Systems Using a Radiant Heat behavior of horizontally-mounted floor Energy Source. covering systems exposed to a flaming BILLING CODE 4910±06±P

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00163 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25702 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 4910±06±C

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00164 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25703

1 Materials tested for surface flammability to fabricate such small part shall be tested in 21 Portions of the vehicle body (including shall not exhibit any flaming running or accordance with ASTM E 1354–97, unless equipment carrying portions of a vehicle’s dripping. such small part has been shown not to roof but not including floors) which separate 2 The ASTM E 662–97 maximum test limits contribute materially to fire growth following major ignition sources, energy sources, or for smoke emission (specific optical density) an appropriate fire hazard analysis as sources of fuel-load from vehicle interiors, shall be measured in either the flaming or specified in Note 10. Materials tested in shall have sufficient fire endurance as non-flaming mode, utilizing the mode which accordance with ASTM E 1354–97 shall meet determined by a fire hazard analysis generates the most smoke. the performance criteria of tig/qmax ≤1.5. acceptable to the railroad which addresses 3 Testing of a complete seat or mattress Testing shall be at 50 kW/m2 applied heat the location and quantity of the materials assembly (including cushions, fabric layers, flux. used, as well as vulnerability of the materials upholstery) according to ASTM E 1537–98 12 Assessment of smoke generation by to ignition, flame spread, and smoke with application of pass/fail criteria of small miscellaneous, discontinuous parts generation. California Technical Bulletin 133 shall be may be made by utilizing the results from the permitted in lieu of the test methods ASTM E1354–97 test procedure conducted in Appendix C to Part 238—Suspension prescribed herein, provided the assembly accordance with Note 11, rather than the System Safety Performance Standards component units remain unchanged or new ASTM E 662–97 test procedure, if an This appendix contains the minimum (replacement) assembly components possess appropriate fire hazard analysis is provided suspension system safety performance equivalent fire performance properties to the which addresses the location and quantity of standards for Tier II passenger equipment as original components tested. A fire hazard the materials used, and the vulnerability of required by § 238.427. These requirements analysis must also be conducted that the materials to ignition and contribution of shall be the basis for evaluating suspension considers the operating environment within smoke spread. system safety performance until an industry which the seat or mattress assemblies will be 13 Carpeting used as a wall or ceiling standard acceptable to FRA is developed and used in relation to the risk of vandalism, covering shall be tested as a vehicle approved under the procedures provided in puncture, cutting, or other acts which may component. § 238.21. expose the individual components of the 14 Floor covering shall be tested with (a) Passenger equipment suspension assemblies. padding in accordance with ASTM E 648–97, systems shall be designed to limit the lateral 4 Testing is performed without upholstery. if the padding is used in the actual and vertical forces and lateral to vertical (L/ 5 The surface flammability and smoke installation. V) ratios, for the time duration required to emission characteristics shall be 15 For double window glazing, only the travel five feet at any operating speed or over demonstrated to be permanent after dynamic interior glazing is required to meet the any class of track, under all operating testing according to ASTM D 3574–95, Test materials requirements specified herein. (The conditions as determined by the railroad, as I2 (Dynamic Fatigue Test by the Roller Shear exterior glazing need not meet these follows: at Constant Force) or Test I3 (Dynamic requirements.) (1) The maximum single wheel lateral to Fatigue Test by Constant Force Pounding) 16 Elastomeric materials used for parts vertical force (L/V) ratio shall not exceed both using Procedure B. having a surface area ≥16 square inches (100 Nadal’s limit as follows: 6 The surface flammability and smoke cm2) shall be tested in accordance with emission characteristics shall be ASTM C 1166–91. As a minimum, parts tan()δ− µ Wheel L/ V ≤ demonstrated to be permanent by washing, if required to be tested include window 1+ µtan() δ appropriate, according to FED–STD–191A gaskets, door nosing, diaphragms, and roof where: δ=flange angle (deg). Textile Test Method 5830. mats. µ=coefficient of friction of 0.5. 7 The surface flammability and smoke 17 Testing shall be conducted in emission characteristics shall be accordance with NEMA WC 3/ICEA S–19– (2) The net axle lateral force shall not demonstrated to be permanent by dry- 1981, paragraph 6.19.6; or UL 44 for exceed 0.5 times the static vertical axle load. cleaning, if appropriate, according to ASTM thermosetting wire insulation and UL 83 for (3) The vertical wheel/rail force shall not D 2724–87. thermoplastic wire insulation. be less than or equal to 10 percent of the 8 Materials that cannot be washed or dry- 18 Testing shall be conducted in static vertical wheel load. cleaned shall be so labeled and shall meet the accordance with ANSI/IEEE Standard 383– (4) The sum of the vertical wheel loads on applicable performance criteria after being 1974, section 2.5, with the additional one side of any truck shall not be less than cleaned as recommended by the requirement that circuit integrity shall or equal to 20 percent of the static vertical manufacturer. continue for 5 minutes after the start of the axle load. This shall include the effect of a 9 As a minimum, combustible component test. crosswind allowance as specified by the materials required to be tested include seat 19 Penetrations (ducts, etc.) shall be railroad for the intended service. and mattress frames, wall and ceiling panels, designed to prevent fire and smoke from (5) The maximum truck side L/V ratio shall seat and toilet shrouds, tray and other tables, entering a vehicle, and representative not exceed 0.6. partitions, shelves, windscreens, HVAC penetrations shall be included as part of test (6) When stopped on track with a uniform ducting, thermal and acoustic insulation, assemblies. 6-inch superelevation, vertical wheel loads, exterior plastic components, and interior and 20 Structural flooring assemblies shall meet at all wheels, shall not be less than or equal exterior box covers. the performance criteria during a nominal to 60 percent of the nominal vertical wheel 10 Materials used to fabricate test period as determined by the railroad. The load on level track. miscellaneous, discontinuous small parts nominal test period must be twice the (b) For purposes of this appendix, wheel/ (such as knobs, rollers, fasteners, clips, maximum expected time period under rail force measurements shall be processed grommets, and small electrical parts) that normal circumstances for a vehicle to stop through a low pass filter having a cut-off will not contribute materially to fire growth completely and safely from its maximum frequency of 25 Hz. in end use configuration may be exempted operating speed, plus the time necessary to Appendix D to Part 238—Requirements from fire and smoke emission performance evacuate all the vehicle’s occupants to a safe for External Fuel Tanks on Tier I requirements, provided that the surface area area. The nominal test period must not be of any individual small part is not ≥16 square less than 15 minutes. Only one specimen Locomotives inches (100 cm2) in end use configuration need be tested. A proportional reduction may The requirements contained in this and an appropriate fire hazard analysis is be made in the dimensions of the specimen, appendix are intended to address the conducted which addresses the location and provided the specimen represents a true test structural and puncture resistance properties quantity of the materials used, and the of the ability of the structural flooring of the locomotive fuel tank to reduce the risk vulnerability of the materials to ignition and assembly to perform as a barrier against of fuel spillage to acceptable levels under contribution of flame spread. under-vehicle fires. The fire resistance period derailment and minor collision conditions. 11 If the surface area of any individual required shall be consistent with the safe (a) Structural strength. small part is less than 16 square inches (100 evacuation of a full load of passengers from (1) Load case 1—minor derailment. The cm2) in end use configuration, materials used the vehicle under worst-case conditions. end plate of the fuel tank shall support a

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00165 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 25704 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations sudden loading of one-half the weight of the (b) Reliability-based maintenance programs preventing functional failures or preventing a car body at a vertical acceleration of 2g, are based on the following general principles. failure event consisting of the sequential without exceeding the ultimate strength of A failure is an unsatisfactory condition. occurrence of two or more independent the material. The load is assumed to be There are two types of failures: functional failures which may have consequences that supported on one rail, within an eight inch and potential. Functional failures are usually would not be produced by any of the failures band (plus or minus) at a point nominally reported by operating crews. Conversely, occurring separately. The task types include: above the head of the rail, on tangent track. maintenance crews usually discover (1) Inspections of an item to find and Consideration should be given in the design potential failures. A potential failure is an correct any potential failures; of the fuel tank to maximize the vertical identifiable physical condition, which (2) Rework/remanufacture/overhaul of an clearance between the top of the rail and the indicates that a functional failure is item at or before some specified time or age bottom of the fuel tank. imminent. The consequences of a functional limit; (2) Load case 2—jackknifed locomotive. failure determine the priority of a (3) Discard of an item (or parts of it) at or The fuel tank shall support transversely at maintenance effort. These consequences fall before some specified life limit; and the center a sudden loading equivalent to one into the following general categories: (4) Failure finding inspections of a hidden- half the weight of the locomotive at a vertical (1) Safety consequences, involving possible function item to find and correct functional acceleration of 2g, without exceeding the loss of the equipment and its occupants; failures that have already occurred but were ultimate strength of the material. The load is (2) Operational consequences, which not evident to the operating crew. assumed to be supported on one rail, involve an indirect economic loss as well as (b) Components or systems in a reliability- distributed between the longitudinal center the direct cost of repair; based maintenance program may be defined line and the edge of the tank bottom, with a (3) Non-operational consequences, which as simple or complex. A simple component rail head surface of two inches. involve only the direct cost of repair; or or system is one that is subject to only one (3) Load case 3—side impact. In a side (4) Hidden failure consequences, which or a very few failure modes. This type of impact collision by an 80,000 pound involve exposure to a possible multiple component or system frequently shows Gross Vehicle Weight tractor/trailer at failure as a result of the undetected failure of decreasing reliability with increasing the longitudinal center of the fuel tank, a hidden function. operating age. An age/time limit may be used the fuel tank shall withstand, without (c) In a reliability-based maintenance to reduce the overall failure rate of simple exceeding the ultimate strength, a program, scheduled maintenance is required components or systems. Here, safe-life limits, for any item whose loss of function or mode fail-safe designs, or damage tolerance-based 200,000 pound load (2.5g) distributed of failure could have safety consequences. If residual life calculations may be imposed on over an area of six inches by forty-eight preventative tasks cannot reduce the risk of a single component or system to play a inches (half the bumper area) at a height such failures to an acceptable level, the item crucial role in controlling critical failures. of thirty inches above the rail (standard requires redesign to alter its failure Complex components or systems are ones DOT bumper height). consequences. Scheduled maintenance is whose functional failure may result from (4) Load case 4—penetration resistance. also required for any item whose functional many different failure modes and show little The minimum thickness of the sides, bottom failure will not be evident to the operating or no decrease in overall reliability with sheet and end plates of the fuel tank shall be crew, and therefore reported for corrective increasing age unless there is a dominant equivalent to a 5⁄16-inch steel plate with a action. In all other cases the consequences of failure mode. Therefore, age limits imposed 25,000 pounds-per-square-inch yield strength failure are economic, and maintenance tasks on complex components or systems have (where the thickness varies inversely with directed at preventing such failures must be little or no effect on their overall failure rates. the square root of yield strength). The lower justified on economic grounds. All failure (g) When planning the maintenance of a one third of the end plates shall have the consequences, including economic component or system to protect the safety equivalent penetration resistance by the consequences, are established by the design and operating capability of the equipment, a above method of a 3⁄4-inch steel plate with a characteristics of the equipment and can be number of items must be considered in the 25,000 pounds-per-square-inch yield altered only by basic changes in the design. reliability assessment process: strength. This may be accomplished by any Safety consequences can, in nearly all cases, (1) The consequences of each type of combination of materials or other mechanical be reduced to economic consequences by the functional failure; protection. use of redundancy. Hidden functions can (2) The visibility of a functional failure to (b) Sideswipe. To minimize fuel tank usually be made evident by instrumentation the operating crew (evidence that a failure damage during sideswipes (railroad vehicles or other design features. The feasibility and has occurred); and grade crossings), all drain plugs, clean- cost effectiveness of scheduled maintenance (3) The visibility of reduced resistance to out ports, inspection covers, sight glasses, depend on the inspectablility of the failure (evidence that a failure is imminent); gauge openings, etc., must be flush with the component, and the cost of corrective (4) The age-reliability characteristics of tank surface or adequately protected to avoid maintenance depends on its failure modes each item; catching foreign objects or breakage. All and design reliability. (5) The economic tradeoff between the cost seams must be protected or flush to avoid (d) The design reliability of equipment or of scheduled maintenance and the benefits to catching foreign objects. components will only be achieved with an be derived from it; (c) Spill controls. Vents and fills shall be effective maintenance program. This level of (6) A multiple failure, resulting from a designed to avert spillage of fuel in the event reliability is established by the design of each sequence of independent failures, may have of a roll over. component and the manufacturing processes consequences that would not be caused by Appendix E to Part 238—General that produced it. Scheduled maintenance can any one of the individual failures alone. Principles of Reliability-Based ensure that design reliability of each These consequences are taken into account in component is achieved, but maintenance the definition of the failure consequences for Maintenance Programs alone cannot yield a level of reliability the first failure; and (a) Any maintenance program has the beyond the design reliability. (7) A default strategy governs decision following four basic objectives: (e) When a maintenance program is making in the absence of full information or (1) To ensure realization of the design level developed, it includes tasks that satisfy the agreement. This strategy provides for of safety and reliability of the equipment; criteria for both applicability and conservative initial decisions, to be revised (2) To restore safety and reliability to their effectiveness. The applicability of a task is on the basis of information derived from design levels when deterioration has determined by the characteristics of the operating experience. occurred; component or equipment to be maintained. (h) A successful reliability-based (3) To obtain the information necessary for The effectiveness is stated in terms of the maintenance program must be dynamic. Any design improvements of those items whose consequences that the task is designed to prior-to-service program is based on limited design reliability proves inadequate; and prevent. The basics types of tasks that are information. As such, the operating (4) To accomplish these goals at a performed by maintenance personnel are organization must be prepared to collect and minimum total cost, including maintenance each applicable under a unique set of respond to real data throughout the operating costs and the costs of residual failures. conditions. Tasks may be directed at life of the equipment. Management of the

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00166 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 25705 ongoing maintenance program requires an (4) The general condition of unfailed parts (1) An inspection task is developed to organized information system for in units that have failed; and prevent recurrences while the item is being surveillance and analysis of the performance (5) The general condition of serviceable redesigned; of each item under actual operating units inspected as samples. (2) The operating fleet is modified to conditions. This information is needed to (i) At the time an initial maintenance incorporate the redesigned part; and determine the refinements and modifications program is developed, information is usually (3) After the modification has proved to be made in the initial maintenance available to determine the tasks necessary to successful, the special inspection task is eliminated from the maintenance program. program (including the adjustment of task protect safety and operating capability. intervals) and to determine the need for (j) Component improvements based on However, the information required to product improvement. The information identification of the actual reliability determine optimum task intervals and the derived from operating experience may be characteristics of each item through age or applicability of age or life limits can be considered to have the following hierarchy of life exploration, is part of the normal importance in the reliability-based obtained only from age or life exploration development cycle of all complex equipment. after the equipment enters service. With any maintenance program: Issued in Washington, D.C., on April 30, new equipment there is always the (1) Failures that could affect operating 1999. possibility of unanticipated failure modes. safety; Jolene M. Molitoris, (2) Failures that have operational The first occurrence of any serious consequences; unanticipated failure should immediately set Federal Railroad Administrator. (3) The failure modes of units removed as into motion the following improvement [FR Doc. 99–11333 Filed 5–10–99; 8:45 am] a result of failures; cycle: BILLING CODE 4910±06±P

VerDate 06-MAY-99 12:51 May 11, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 12MYR2