Passenger Equipment Safety Standards; Standards for High-Speed Trainsets, 19730-19796 [2023-05576]
Download as PDF
19730
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Parts 216, 231, and 238
[Docket No. FRA–2021–0067, Notice No. 1]
RIN 2130–AC90
Passenger Equipment Safety
Standards; Standards for High-Speed
Trainsets
Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
FRA is proposing to amend its
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards
to modernize Tier I and Tier III safety
appliance requirements; update the prerevenue compliance documentation and
testing requirements; establish
crashworthiness requirements for
individual Tier I-compliant vehicles
equipped with crash energy
management (CEM); establish standards
for Tier III inspection, testing, and
maintenance (ITM) and movement of
defective equipment (MODE);
incorporate general safety requirements
from FRA’s Railroad Locomotive Safety
Standards for Tier III trainsets; and
provide for periodic inspection of
emergency lighting to ensure proper
functioning.
DATES: Written comments must be
received by June 2, 2023. Comments
received after that date will be
considered to the extent practicable
without incurring additional expense or
delay.
FRA anticipates it can resolve this
rulemaking without a public, oral
hearing. However, if FRA receives a
specific request for a public, oral
hearing prior to May 3, 2023, FRA will
schedule one and will publish a
supplemental notice in the Federal
Register to inform interested parties of
the date, time, and location of any such
hearing.
ADDRESSES:
Comments: Comments related to
Docket No. FRA–2021–0067, Notice No.
1, may be submitted by going to https://
www.regulations.gov and following the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name, docket name,
and docket number or Regulatory
Identification Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking (2130–AC90). Note that all
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
personal information provided. Please
see the Privacy Act heading in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document for Privacy Act
information related to any submitted
comments or materials.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov and follow the
online instructions for accessing the
docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Hunter, Executive Staff
Director, Office of Railroad Systems and
Technology, telephone: 202–579–5508
or email: michael.hunter@dot.gov; or
James Mecone, Attorney Adviser, Office
of the Chief Counsel, telephone: (202)
380–5324 or email: james.mecone@
dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Statutory Authority and Regulatory
Development
III. Technical Background and Overview
A. Passenger Electronic Hardware and
Software Safety
B. Updates to Pre-Revenue Compliance
Documentation and Testing
Requirements
C. Exterior Side Door Safety Systems—New
Passenger Cars and Locomotives
D. Alternative Crashworthiness
Requirements for Evaluating Tier I
Equipment Utilizing Crash Energy
Management (CEM) on Individual
Vehicles
E. Safety Appliances for Non-Passenger
Carrying Locomotives and Passenger
Equipment
F. Tier III Inspection, Testing, and
Maintenance, and Movement of
Defective Equipment
G. General Tier III Safety Requirements
H. Congressional Mandates Under the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
V. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive
Order 13272
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Federalism Implications
E. International Trade Impact Assessment
F. Environmental Impact
G. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental
Justice)
H. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal
Consultation)
I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
J. Energy Impact
K. Privacy Act
L. Analysis Under 1 CFR Part 51
Table of Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used
in this document’s preamble:
ATC automatic train control
CE categorical exclusion
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
CEM crash energy management
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EA environmental assessment
EIS environmental impact statement
ETF Engineering Task Force
FMECA Failure Modes, Effects, Criticality
Analysis
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
HEP head-end power
ICC Interstate Commerce Commission
IIJA Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
ITM inspection, testing, and maintenance
LED light-emitting diode
LIA Locomotive Inspection Act
MCAT minimally compliant analytical
track
MODE movement of defective equipment
mph miles per hour
MCAT minimally compliant analytical
track
MU multiple-unit
NPRM notice of proposed rulemaking
OEM original equipment manufacturer
PA public address
PSWG Passenger Safety Working Group
PTC positive train control
RMS root mean squared
RSAC Railroad Safety Advisory Committee
U.S. United States
I. Executive Summary
This NPRM is based on
recommendations from the Railroad
Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) 1
and will complete the Tier III passenger
equipment safety standards.2 This
NPRM is proposing new requirements
and revisions to two main subject areas:
(1) requirements generally applicable to
all passenger equipment, such as new
passenger service pre-revenue safety
performance demonstration, and vehicle
design and dynamic qualification; and
(2) requirements specific to Tier III
passenger equipment, such as general
safety requirements and safety
appliances, inspection, testing, and
maintenance, and movement of
defective equipment. FRA estimates the
30-year costs of this proposed rule to be
approximately $55.5 million,
undiscounted, with the majority of the
costs deriving from Tier III equipment
ITM requirements. The present value of
these costs is approximately $21.7
million, discounted at 7 percent, and
$35.5 million, discounted at 3 percent;
of note, however, the majority of the
costs are incurred only if an operator
1 RSAC was established to provide a forum for
considering railroad safety issues and developing
recommendations on rulemakings and other safety
program areas. It includes representation from all
FRA’s major stakeholder groups, including
railroads, labor organizations, suppliers,
manufacturers, and other interested parties.
2 Tier I passenger equipment is permitted to travel
up to 125 mph; Tier II passenger equipment is
permitted to travel up to 160 mph; and Tier III
passenger equipment is permitted to travel up to
125 mph in a shared right-of-way and 220 mph in
an exclusive right-of-way without highway-rail
grade crossings.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
the Act, Congress also authorized the
Secretary to consult with various
organizations involved in passenger
train operations for purposes of
prescribing and amending these
regulations and to issue orders under it.
See section 215 of the Act (codified at
49 U.S.C. 20133).
Since FRA promulgated the inaugural
set of passenger equipment safety
standards in May 1999, satisfying the
Congressional mandate, FRA has
engaged in a number of rulemakings to
amend and enhance its passenger
equipment safety requirements. Most
pertinent to this proposed rulemaking,
FRA published a final rule on November
21, 2018, adopting new and modified
requirements governing the construction
of conventional-speed and high-speed
passenger rail equipment. See 83 FR
59182. FRA added a new tier of
passenger equipment safety standards
(Tier III) to facilitate the safe
implementation of nation-wide,
interoperable passenger rail service at
speeds up to 220 miles per hour (mph).
FRA also established crashworthiness
and occupant protection requirements
in the alternative to those previously
specified for Tier I passenger trainsets.
Additionally, FRA increased from 150
mph to 160 mph the maximum speed
for passenger equipment that complies
with FRA’s Tier II requirements.
Due to the complexity of the Tier III
safety requirements, FRA separated
their establishment into two distinct
rulemaking efforts. The 2018 final rule
NET REGULATORY COSTS
primarily established the occupant
volume protection and other major
Present
Present
Impact
structural requirements, such as brake
value 7%
value 3%
and emergency systems requirements.
Costs .................
$21.67
$35.49 This NPRM is proposing requirements
Benefits .............
0.22
0.26 that would complement those
Net Costs ..........
21.45
35.23 requirements and complete the Tier III
rulemaking process.
Annualized
This proposed rule is the product of
Net Costs ...
1.73
1.80
consensus reached by FRA’s RSAC,
which accepted the task of reviewing
II. Statutory Authority and Regulatory
passenger equipment safety needs and
Development
programs and recommending specific
In September 1994, the Secretary of
actions that could be useful to advance
Transportation (Secretary) convened a
the safety of passenger service,
meeting of representatives from all
including the development of standards
sectors of the rail industry with the goal for the next generation of high-speed
of enhancing rail safety. As one
trainsets. The RSAC established the
initiative of this Rail Safety Summit, the Passenger Safety Working Group
Secretary announced that DOT would
(PSWG) 3 to handle this task and
begin developing safety standards for
develop recommendations for the full
rail passenger equipment over a fiveRSAC to consider.
year period. In November 1994,
In August 2019, the PSWG convened
Congress adopted the Secretary’s
to discuss the topics considered
schedule for implementing rail
3 The Engineering Task Force (ETF) was
passenger equipment safety regulations
discontinued when the charter for RSAC expired on
and included it in the Federal Railroad
May 17, 2018. The RSAC was re-chartered on
Safety Authorization Act of 1994 (the
September 10, 2018, and on February 1, 2019, the
Act), Public Law 103–440, 108 Stat.
RSAC established the PSWG to continue the work
4619, 4623–4624 (November 2, 1994). In of the ETF.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
chooses to take advantage of flexibilities
in the rule.
The benefits of this proposed rule are
estimated to be approximately $0.3
million, undiscounted. The majority of
the benefits are derived from emergency
communication and savings to the
Federal Government. The present value
is approximately $0.2 million,
discounted at 7 percent, and $0.3
million, discounted at 3 percent.
In 2018, FRA issued a final rule
adopting new and modified
requirements governing the construction
of conventional-speed and high-speed
passenger rail equipment. FRA notes
that it is important to consider the costs
and benefits of this proposed
rulemaking in conjunction with the
costs and benefits of the 2018
rulemaking, as the current rulemaking is
necessary to complete the regulatory
framework set out in the 2018 final rule.
Over the 30-year period of analysis for
the 2018 final rule, FRA estimated net
regulatory cost savings of $284.8 million
(low range) to $541.9 million (high
range), discounted at 7 percent.
Annualized net regulatory cost savings
totaled between $22.9 million and $43.7
million when discounted at a 7-percent
rate.
The net costs of this proposed rule are
estimated to be approximately $55.2
million, undiscounted. The annualized
net costs are approximately $1.7
million, discounted at 7 percent.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19731
previously by the ETF that were not
included in the initial, Tier III final rule
published November 21, 2018.4 During
this meeting, the PSWG reached
consensus on revising or establishing, as
appropriate, safety standards for Tier I
and Tier III safety appliances and nonpassenger carrying locomotives. The
PSWG also reached consensus on
requirements for CEM for a single car or
locomotive; Tier III inspection, testing,
and maintenance; and movement of
defective equipment. On November 26,
2019, the RSAC voted to recommend the
consensus items to FRA.
III. Technical Background and
Overview
A. Passenger Electronic Hardware and
Software Safety
With the proliferation of
microprocessor control technologies, the
integration of electronic hardware and
software on passenger rail equipment
has grown exponentially. Softwarebased electronic systems are currently
used to manage virtually all critical
subsystems on board a passenger train
ranging from primarily passenger
comfort features such as air temperature
and wireless networking systems, to
safety-critical controls and monitoring
systems, particularly for braking,
traction and diagnostics systems. These
systems are generally separate from
safety-critical train control technology,
such as positive train control (PTC) and
automatic train control (ATC), which
are governed by part 236.
In the 1999 Passenger Equipment
Safety Standards final rule,5 FRA
established § 238.105, Train electronic
hardware and software safety, to address
‘‘the growing role of automated systems
to control or monitor passenger train
safety functions.’’ These requirements
were revised in 2002 6 to provide more
clarity in the applicability of the
requirements to subsystems
traditionally considered to perform
safety-critical functions and therefore
expected to be implemented based on a
failsafe philosophy. In 2012,7 the
section was further revised to codify the
terms of waivers from the requirements
then in § 238.105(d) to provide
flexibility for systems to provide either
a service or emergency brake
application in the event of a hardware/
software failure, in lieu of a full-service
brake application alone, as originally
written.
4 83
FR 59182.
FR 25591 (May 12, 1999).
6 67 FR 19970 (Apr. 23, 2002).
7 77 FR 21356 (Apr. 9, 2012).
5 64
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
19732
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Also, in 2012, the Locomotive Safety
Standards final rule 8 established
subpart E of part 229, providing
comprehensive requirements for
locomotive electronics, and appendix F
to part 229, providing recommended
practices for design and safety analysis
for locomotive electronics. With the
publication of the first set of standards
for microprocessor-based train control
systems in 2005,9 and requirements for
statutorily mandated PTC systems in
2010, the 2012 locomotive electronics
requirements and accompanying
appendix F to part 229 correspondingly
reflected many of the concepts and
industry practices that had evolved
since § 238.105 was first established in
1999. In doing so, this created slightly
overlapping requirements because
§ 238.105 was not revised with similar
language and passenger locomotives,
especially cab cars and multiple-unit
locomotives common to passenger
operations, also qualify as locomotives
under part 229 of this chapter and are
therefore subject to part 229’s
requirements. For this reason, the PSWG
decided to address the issue by
recommending updates to § 238.105 to
reconcile the requirements with subpart
E of part 229 to help clarify the
applicability of the requirements and
remove or modify any that may
potentially overlap.
These proposed updates to the
passenger electronic hardware and
software safety requirements in this
NPRM would establish uniform safety
standards applicable to all safety-critical
electronic control systems, subsystems,
and components on passenger
equipment. At the same time, in
recognition of some of the differences
between passenger and freight
operations, this NPRM would create
separate electronic hardware and
software safety requirements
specifically for passenger operations.
However, the proposed requirements are
not intended to impact technology or
software subject to other FRA
regulations, such as 49 CFR part 236.
B. Updates to Pre-Revenue Compliance
Documentation and Testing
Requirements
FRA is updating the pre-revenue
compliance documentation and testing
requirements to address and clarify
issues that have been identified by FRA
and the industry during pre-revenue
service testing acceptance for rolling
stock, such as the types of testing and
compliance validation required, the
timing for such activities, and the
8 77
9 70
FR 21348 (Apr. 9, 2012).
FR 11052 (Mar. 7, 2005).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
documentation required. Additionally,
with the establishment of Tier III, the
additional flexibility afforded by the
regulations that allow certain safety
elements to be defined by the railroad
(e.g., the functionality of a passenger
brake alarm) necessitates establishing
the means to capture the design and
validate the performance of such
attributes. Further, experience gained
from administering the current prerevenue service acceptance testing plan
requirements under § 238.111 since
1999 has provided FRA the perspective
that the industry as a whole would
benefit from a more detailed regulation
governing the design validation and
dynamic acceptance process for
passenger rolling stock. This concept
was acknowledged by the PSWG, and
with considerable help and input from
participants, a new approach was
developed by creating proposed
§ 238.110. That section would address
design criteria, testing, documentation,
and approval, and would separate earlystage, design-related compliance
validations (e.g., carbody structure and
safety appliances) from the later-stage,
over-the-route running tests required
under § 238.111, prior to putting the
equipment into revenue service.
By separating design criteria from
dynamic testing requirements, more
clarity can be provided as to the
expectations for passenger equipment
compliance demonstration throughout
the life cycle of a procurement.
Proposed § 238.110 would also provide
a means for railroads to document
critical vehicle platform design criteria
and operational performance
requirements, systems integration
requirements, and assumptions that are
used to validate certain safety
parameters (e.g., friction coefficient
used to determine the minimum
required braking distance). The
identification of these governing
parameters would provide a means for
FRA and the railroad to effectively
validate safety requirements tied to
what would otherwise be configurable
criteria, i.e., trainset elements that may
differ between trainset manufacturers or
trainset types, based on the operating
environment, intended service, or even
customer preference. It would also
ensure that the limit of safe performance
of the vehicles is clearly established and
would require that new testing or
validation be performed if the railroad
intended to operate the passenger
equipment outside of this established
operating paradigm. For example, under
this proposal, if a railroad has
previously demonstrated a vehicle’s safe
operation at speeds up to only 100 mph,
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
then additional testing and validation
would be required to operate the same
rolling stock at speeds above 100 mph.
Similarly, if a railroad were to acquire
passenger equipment from another
railroad where it is operated with a
longer minimum safe braking distance
than it would be on the acquiring
railroad, then the acquiring railroad
would need to perform additional prerevenue acceptance testing on its
property to validate that that braking
system is still compliant with the
requirements of this part in the new
operating environment.
Much of proposed § 238.110
formalizes and memorializes what is
industry best practice. However, this
proposal contains a significant addition
above what is currently industry
practice in the requirement for railroads
to develop a ‘‘vehicle qualification
plan.’’ This proposed plan would
require the railroad to take into
consideration the entire compliance
demonstration process, from the early
stages of a project through the creation
of tools such as a compliance matrix.
This would help ensure the railroad,
rolling stock supplier, and FRA
effectively work from the same ‘‘sheet of
music,’’ by determining what regulatory
metrics must be met to achieve
compliance, and then what constitutes
an effective method to demonstrate that
compliance, either by validation testing,
physical inspection, design review,
analysis, calculation, computer
modeling, or some combination thereof.
By proposing to separate the
requirements that were intrinsically
considered part of the current language
in § 238.111 into two sections
(§§ 238.110 and 238.111), FRA would be
able to provide more clarity as to the
procedural and documentation
requirements for the entire compliance
validation process, particularly for Tier
III where the documentation of
configurable elements may be essential
to establishing the expected safety
performance which is to be
demonstrated. In this spirit, the
proposal would refine and expand upon
much of the current § 238.111 language
to reinforce expectations and process
considerations for key documentation,
including test plans, procedures, and
results. Further, more explicit
expectations and examples have been
provided for the types of validations
required to occur during the final
commissioning stages before equipment
may enter into revenue service, in
addition to how re-built or relocated
equipment must be treated.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
C. Exterior Side Door Safety Systems—
New Passenger Cars and Locomotives
As with other components of
passenger rail equipment, innovations
in the design and construction of door
safety systems have generated new
issues for potential regulation. The
proposed language in this rule for
exterior side door safety systems
incorporated in new passenger cars and
locomotives, developed from
recommendations by RSAC, would
revise § 238.131 to address newer door
designs, with a specific focus on plug
doors (i.e., doors composed of a sliding
panel that opens and slides along the
side of the car, rather than retract into
a pocket; when closed, the door
conforms to the side of the car to seal
out environmental noise and minimize
aerodynamic resistance). This proposed
language would address the additional
function of a plug door in regard to a
high-speed trainset and the system
design pursuant to American Public
Transportation Association (APTA)
standard PR–M–S–18–10, ‘‘Standard for
Powered Exterior Side Door System
Design for New Passenger Cars.’’ As
revised, § 238.131 would establish
provisions for passenger equipment
equipped with plug-style side doors that
do not provide a minimum 1.5-inch gap
at the leading edge of the door when the
emergency release mechanism is
activated and permit a speed interlock
to prevent operation of the emergency
release mechanism when the vehicle is
moving.
Although the proposed revisions to
§ 238.131 could require stakeholders to
apply or construct additional signage or
handles, the expected efficiency
enhancement in the equipment
procurement and development process
resulting from acceptance of the existing
functionality of the plug door design
could justify any such burden.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
D. Alternative Crashworthiness
Requirements for Evaluating Tier I
Equipment Utilizing Crash Energy
Management (CEM) on Individual
Vehicles
The final rule published on November
21, 2018, included crashworthiness
requirements for certain Tier I trainsets,
but not for individual passenger rail
vehicles or locomotives. And although
there is no requirement for the
development of CEM components at the
individual Tier I passenger rail vehicle
or locomotive level, some railroads and
other stakeholders have nonetheless
demonstrated an increased interest in
the construction and installation of CEM
components at the individual passenger
rail vehicle or locomotive level. To
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
augment existing regulations on CEM
and provide guidance for the
development and use of CEM at the
individual vehicle level, FRA proposes
adding new requirements providing
alternatives for evaluating
crashworthiness and occupant
protection of individual vehicles
equipped with CEM based on the RSAC
recommendations.
The proposed alternative
requirements would provide guidance
and a means for evaluating individual
locomotives or passenger rail vehicles
that are fully compliant with existing
Tier I structural requirements and have
additional CEM features incorporated
into their structure to operate within
conventional, Tier I-compliant trains.
These evaluation requirements would
not apply to Tier I trainsets designed to
alternative crashworthiness
requirements under § 238.201 and
appendix G to part 238 or single pieces
of equipment with traditionally
compliant structures outfitted with
pushback couplers as the only CEM
feature.
By establishing alternative
requirements for evaluating
crashworthiness and occupant
protection of Tier I equipment utilizing
CEM on individual vehicles, FRA would
create clarity and reduce uncertainty for
stakeholders who pursue the
development of CEM at the individual
vehicle level. Such clarification could
also reduce the burden and time
required for FRA to evaluate compliance
issues related to passenger equipment
utilizing CEM on an individual vehicle.
E. Safety Appliances for Non-Passenger
Carrying Locomotives and Passenger
Equipment
Coinciding with the development of
safety appliance requirements for Tier
III equipment, the PSWG also looked at
updating the safety appliance
requirements for modern Tier I
passenger equipment. While safety
appliance regulations have long existed
for passenger cars under 49 CFR part
231, these standards are derived, in
most cases verbatim, from the
requirements set forth by the Interstate
Commerce Commission (ICC) in 1910
and guidance of the Master Car Builders
Association around the turn of the
twentieth century.10 While these
10 While various safety appliance standards were
developed for different classes of equipment
throughout the development of railroads in
America, the publication titled, ‘‘United Sates
Safety Appliances for All Classes of Cars and
Locomotives,’’ M.C.B. Edition, published by
Gibson, Pribble & Company, represents one of the
first sets of comprehensives guidance on the matter.
This guidance was later adopted by the ICC, and
subsequently FRA, as regulation.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19733
requirements have proven to be
sufficient for the types of passenger cars
they were explicitly developed to
address (passenger train cars with wide
vestibules, passenger train cars with
open end platforms, and passenger train
cars without end platforms), they
generally have not been updated to
reflect modern advancements in
passenger train equipment or human
ergonomics in over 100 years since they
were adopted by the ICC. Likewise, they
are based on individual cars that were
common on railroads at the turn of the
twentieth century, and do not reflect
vehicle designs that utilize some form of
semi-permanent coupling, such as fixed
trainset configurations, or even marriedpair, MU locomotives. The PSWG
determined this would be a good
opportunity to update the regulations to
account for these modern vehicle types
and apply more modern requirements,
in addition to updating and reconciling
the regulatory framework with the
current APTA standard, APTA–PR–M–
S–016–06, ‘‘Standard for Safety
Appliances for Rail Passenger Cars.’’
Specifically, FRA is taking this
opportunity to update some
requirements to reflect more modern
design requirements based on
recommendations particularly relating
to strength and attachment
requirements. These new standards,
developed by the PSWG, reflect the
significant changes in material and
engineering design practice that have
occurred since the first standards were
adopted, when timber and iron were
still the predominant railcar building
materials.
As modern Tier I passenger
equipment is functionally similar to
Tier III high-speed trainsets in many
ways, FRA decided that a single
baseline set of requirements could be
adopted for certain passenger carrying
vehicles. It should also be noted,
however, that while this proposed rule
would establish and clarify
requirements that could be used for both
new and existing passenger equipment,
it is not intended to replace the
established regulations. Because
passenger railcars tend to have long
service lives in North America, there
will remain a perpetual need to
maintain the existing regulations for
cars built to those standards, in addition
to private cars and special car types
(e.g., baggage) that are based on car
types that are not addressed by
contemporary standards.
This proposed rule would also create
a new regulatory section for Tier I nonpassenger carrying locomotives. The
proposal incorporates applicable
requirements from part 231 pertaining
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19734
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
to passenger locomotives and various
other car types that have historically
been used to define the requirements for
monocoque, semi-monocoque, and cowl
unit 11 passenger road locomotives.
Currently, the safety appliance
requirements for road locomotives are
primarily based on § 231.15 (Steam
locomotives used in road service), and
§ 231.17 (Specifications common to all
steam locomotives), which are also
virtually unchanged from the original
ICC standards. The existing regulations
were not developed to specifically
address the common designs utilized by
diesel-electric or electric locomotives in
passenger service within North
America. Through the adoption of these
proposed standards, FRA would help
provide clarity and uniformity in how
the Safety Appliance Act (49 U.S.C. ch.
203) is applied to all modern passenger
road locomotives.
Current FRA regulations for safety
appliances are based on longstanding
statutory requirements for individual
railroad cars used in general service.
These requirements are primarily
intended to keep railroad employees
safe while performing their essential job
functions. Historically, these duties
have revolved around the practice of
building trains by switching individual
cars or groups of cars and are not
specifically applicable to how modern,
high-speed passenger equipment is
designed and operated. The application
of such appliances would require a
significant redesign of high-speed rail
equipment and would create
aerodynamic problems particularly with
respect to associated noise emissions.
Therefore, FRA proposes to exempt Tier
III (and certain Tier I) equipment from
the following requirements of 49 U.S.C.
ch. 203: (1) couplers that couple
automatically by impact, and are
capable of being uncoupled, without
individuals having to go between the
ends of equipment; and (2) secure sill
steps and grab irons or handholds on
the vehicle’s ends and sides.
Rather than apply legacy
requirements that are inappropriate for
the proposed equipment design and
service environment, this proposed rule
focuses on how to provide a safe
environment for employees as it
pertains to modern high-speed
equipment and operations. In this
respect, the proposed rule would define
specific safety appliance performance
requirements applicable to these
11 For the purposes of this rulemaking, ‘‘cowl
unit’’ locomotives are locomotives with a
traditional frame, but whose mechanical
components and walkways are enclosed within a
non-structural, non-load bearing element, typically
made of steel or other metal alloy.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
modern trainsets subject to the rule. By
focusing on employee job functions,
rather than mandating specific legacy
designs for dissimilar equipment, the
proposed approach would likely not
only improve safety for railroad
employees, but also provide flexibility
for superior designs based on modern
ergonomics and eliminate appliances
that might otherwise encourage their
use even though their functionality is
moot (e.g., riding on side sills despite an
inability to couple/decouple cars).
Under 49 U.S.C. 20306, FRA may
exempt a railroad or railroads from the
above-identified statutory requirements
for safety appliances based on evidence
received and findings developed at a
hearing demonstrating that the statutory
requirements ‘‘preclude the
development or implementation of more
efficient railroad transportation
equipment or other transportation
innovations under existing law.’’ FRA
notes that 49 U.S.C. 20306 does not
require a separate public hearing as
related to Tier III (and certain Tier I)
equipment for each new vehicle design.
FRA conducted hearings in 2009, 2019,
and 2020 addressing both Tier III and
Tier I trainsets.12 Based on these
hearings, FRA has determined that the
equipment design regarding the
application of safety appliances as
proposed in this NPRM is substantially
similar among the vehicle types.
Accordingly, FRA believes it is
appropriate to consider relief under the
discretionary process established under
49 U.S.C. 20306 and proposes to adopt
the requirements proposed in this
NPRM under its statutory authority as
part of this rulemaking without holding
an additional public hearing, as an
additional public hearing would not
develop any new facts.
F. Tier III Inspection, Testing, and
Maintenance, and Movement of
Defective Equipment
In developing new standards for
modern high-speed trainsets, the PSWG
deliberately separated later-stage design
elements and operational-related
requirements from those early-stage
design issues that influence the vehicle
platform (e.g., vehicle carbody design
requirements). In this manner, the 2018
final rule provided a level of regulatory
certainty for Tier III procurements to
move forward, while providing
additional time for the PSWG to help
mature the remaining standards
governing elements that are more
critical to the later-stage equipment
production and operational testing
12 See Docket numbers FRA–2006–25040, FRA–
2019–0066, and FRA 2019–0068.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
phases of such procurements. Following
this concept, the development of the
inspection, testing, and maintenance
(ITM) requirements for Tier III trainsets
was identified as an essential part of
this second rulemaking to help
complete the Tier III regulatory
framework. While many of the elements
in the 2018 rulemaking established a
certain level of safety from a design
perspective, the ITM requirements are
intended to ensure that railroads can
maintain the expected level of safety
throughout the life of the equipment.
To facilitate the development of
appropriate ITM requirements, along
with clarifying the applicability of
general safety requirements (see Section
III.G, General Tier III Safety
Requirements, below) for modern highspeed trainsets, the PSWG considered
the inspection and maintenance needs
of modern trainsets based on current
global practice, in comparison to
longstanding North American practice
established for locomotives, passenger
equipment, and passenger brake systems
codified in parts 229 and 238,
respectively.
A guiding light for this effort has been
the experience implementing, and
relative success of, the ITM
requirements established for Tier II
equipment under subpart F of part 238.
Unlike many of the explicit
requirements and intervals used for
conventional Tier I passenger
equipment in subpart D of part 238, the
Tier II requirements provide a broader
approach to ITM, setting out various
parameters the railroad must follow in
determining the appropriate procedures
and periodicity for inspections, tests,
and maintenance specific to the
equipment it operates, as approved by
FRA. This approach utilizes the
development of a comprehensive ITM
program, appropriate for the equipment
design and technology, that can then be
enforced and managed through an FRA
approval process that includes an
annual review of the railroad’s program
to monitor its effectiveness. When this
approach was established in the 1999
final rule, it marked a significant
departure from conventional practice,
but this departure was viewed as
appropriate given the nature of highspeed trainset technology, and the fact
that the equipment’s operational limits
would be more closely defined and
overseen than for conventional
equipment. Since this parallels the need
and operational considerations for Tier
III trainsets, the approach was viewed as
a logical starting point for the PSWG.
This rule, as proposed, reflects the
desire of the PSWG to continue the
success of the Tier II ITM approach,
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
while incorporating lessons learned by
FRA through applying subpart F of part
238 to the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation’s (Amtrak) Acela fleet.
In particular, the proposed rule
maintains the approach of subpart F of
part 238 and the concept that an ITM
program for Tier III trainsets should
have the flexibility to be modified and
updated based on verifiable data and the
evolution of technology integrated into
these high-performance trainsets. The
requirements, as proposed, effectively
perform two regulatory functions. First,
they would require the railroad to
establish the safety-critical maintenance
needs for the trainset and its
components, the appropriate periods for
inspections, and the means by which
inspections or maintenance must be
performed (i.e., tools and methods).
Second, they would establish the
qualification requirements of the
personnel designated to perform such
activities.
Additionally, this proposed rule
would establish requirements for the
movement of defective Tier III
equipment, should a non-compliant
condition arise where efficient repairs
cannot be performed (e.g., such as an
en-route failure of a safety-critical
component). The requirements are
intended to complement the ITM
program, which would effectively
establish the safe operating conditions
required for the intended service of the
trainsets and therefore be integrated into
the same proposed subpart I. Together,
these would require the railroad to
establish the conditions under which
defective equipment can be moved, the
conditions movements may occur when
defects are discovered during revenue
service (e.g., en-route failures), the
associated procedures that must be
followed, including identifying who
may determine that the movement is
safe to make, and documentation
requirements.
G. General Tier III Safety Requirements
This proposed rule includes a number
of provisions that would adopt certain
relevant general safety requirements of
part 229 and apply them to Tier III
trainsets. As with most of the proposals
in this NPRM, these provisions were
developed from consensus
recommendations by the RSAC.
Overall, the proposals cross-reference
relevant sections of part 229 for Tier III
trainsets aiming to distinguish legacy
locomotive requirements of part 229
from those requirements more
appropriate for modern high-speed
passenger equipment. Additionally, the
proposal would provide consistency
between the general safety standards for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
Tier III trainsets and those standards
applicable to trainsets qualified at other
tiers, and to ensure that Tier III trainsets
remain free of any condition that
endangers the safety of the crew,
passengers, or equipment.
FRA notes that the proposed rule text
to implement this initiative would make
various sections and specific
requirements of part 229 directly
applicable to Tier III trainsets by crossreference, rather than simply repeat
numerous similar or identical
requirements in part 238. This approach
hopefully fulfills the intent by resolving
ambiguity about applicability of these
part 229 requirements to Tier III
trainsets and avoiding drafting errors in
the future if a requirement under part
229 changes without otherwise similarly
changing a companion provision under
part 238. FRA recognizes that this part
uses some traditional terms, such as
locomotive, when describing certain
requirements. However, the use of the
term locomotive, or other similar terms,
should not be an impediment to
compliance with the requirements of
this proposed rule. Where appropriate,
additional clarifying language has been
included in the section-by-section
analysis or rule text, or both, to help
make the requirement and its
application clear. FRA invites
comments on these sections, below.
In addition, FRA invites comment on
whether it is more appropriate for part
229 not to apply to Tier III equipment,
in toto. There may be some benefit in
wholly separating Tier III from the
requirements of part 229 for clarity and
ease of use of the regulation. FRA notes,
however, that even should part 229 be
made not applicable to Tier III
equipment, the requirements of the
Locomotive Inspection Act codified at
49 U.S.C. ch. 207, would still apply
independently. In inviting comment on
this approach and its validity, FRA also
seeks comment on whether it is more
appropriate to make only certain
sections under part 229 inapplicable to
Tier III equipment, and if so, which
sections specifically.
H. Congressional Mandates Under the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
On November 15, 2021, President
Biden signed into law the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), Public
Law 117–58, 135 Stat. 429. As part of
the IIJA, Congress directed FRA, as the
Secretary’s delegate, to promulgate
regulations concerning periodic
inspection plans for emergency lighting
and pre-revenue service safety
validation plans. Secs. 22406 and
22416. Congress also directed FRA, as
the Secretary’s delegate, to promulgate
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19735
regulations ‘‘as may be necessary for
high-speed rail services[.]’’ Sec. 22419
(codified at 49 U.S.C. 26103). Through
this rulemaking, FRA is addressing both
these substantive mandates while
promulgating regulations that are
necessary for the implementation of
high-speed rail services in the United
States.
Under Sec. 22406 of the IIJA, FRA
must initiate a rulemaking to require
that all rail carriers providing intercity
passenger rail transportation or
commuter rail passenger transportation
develop and implement periodic
inspection plans to ensure that
passenger equipment offered for
revenue service complies with the
requirements of this part. This includes
ensuring that, in the event of a loss of
power, there is adequate emergency
lighting available to allow passengers,
crewmembers, and first responders to
orient themselves to identify obstacles
and to safely move through and
evacuate from a rail car. This proposed
rule would satisfy this requirement.
Under Sec. 22416 of the IIJA, any
railroad providing new, regularly
scheduled, intercity or commuter rail
passenger transportation, an extension
of existing service, or renewal of service
discontinued for more than 180 days to
develop and submit for review a
comprehensive pre-revenue safety
validation plan to FRA no less than 60
days prior to the start of revenue
service. Once submitted, the railroad
must adopt and comply with the plan.
This section of the IIJA also requires
FRA to develop conforming regulations
to implement this section, which are
proposed under § 238.108.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
Part 216—Special Notice and
Emergency Order Procedures: Railroad
Track, Locomotive and Equipment
Section 216.14 Special Notice for
Repairs—Passenger Equipment
FRA proposes to revise § 216.14(c) to
add a cross-reference to § 238.1003,
which would contain the requirements
for movement of defective equipment
for Tier III trainsets. This change would
harmonize part 216 with the proposed
changes to part 238 contained in this
rulemaking applicable to Tier III
equipment.
Part 231—Railroad Safety Appliance
Standards
Section 231.0
Penalties
Applicability and
FRA is proposing to add paragraph
(b)(6) to this section to harmonize part
231 with the changes proposed to part
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
19736
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
238 in this NPRM. As FRA is proposing
standalone and comprehensive safety
appliance requirements for Tier III
trainsets under proposed § 238.791, this
rule would make part 231 not applicable
to Tier III trainsets.
Part 238—Passenger Equipment Safety
Standards
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Subpart A—General
Section 238.5 Definitions
FRA is proposing to revise existing
definitions and add new definitions to
this part to clarify the meaning of
important terms and minimize potential
for misinterpretation of the rule. FRA
requests public comment regarding the
proposed terms to be defined in this
section and whether definition of other
terms is necessary.
FRA proposes to revise paragraph
(2)(i), the definition of ‘‘in service,’’ to
include a reference to the movement of
defective equipment provisions of
§ 238.1003 for Tier III equipment.
FRA proposes to add a definition of
‘‘clear length,’’ as applied to handholds
and handrails, to mean the distance
about which a minimum 2-inch hand
clearance exists in all directions around
the handhold or handrail, with
intermediate supports on handrails
considered part of the clear length. FRA
proposes to add this definition to clarify
the appropriate measurement for
determining compliance with part 238’s
requirements.
FRA proposes to add a definition of
‘‘crew access side steps’’ to mean a step
or stirrup, or a series of steps or stirrups,
located on the carbody side to assist an
employee boarding the equipment or
exiting from the equipment to ground
level through an exterior side door
dedicated for train crew use. FRA
proposes to add this definition to clarify
the safety measures necessary for
crewmembers operating passenger
equipment with no provisions for
platform-level boarding.
FRA proposes to add a definition of
‘‘representative segment of the route’’ to
mean either a continuous track section
or a compilation of track no less than
fifty miles in length that consists of a
curvature distribution that is within two
percent of the curvature distribution of
the complete line segment (as evaluated
using the root mean squared (RMS) of
the differences between the two
distributions), a segment or segments of
tangent track over which the intended
maximum operating speed can be
sustained, and any bridges and special
trackwork that are within the track
section(s). Depending on the size of the
railroad, a ‘‘representative segment of
the route’’ could include the entire
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
system in order for the ‘‘representative
segment of the route’’ to consist of a
segment of tangent track over which the
intended maximum operating speed can
be sustained, any bridges and special
trackwork, and have a curvature
distribution that is within two percent
of the curvature distribution of the
complete line segment (as evaluated
using the RMS of the differences
between the two distributions). FRA
proposes to add this definition to clarify
the appropriate methods of qualification
testing for passenger equipment to
determine compliance with
requirements addressing vehicle/track
interaction.
FRA proposes to define ‘‘Tier IV
system’’ to mean any railroad that
provides or is available to provide
passenger service using noninteroperable technology that operates
on an exclusive right-of-way without
grade crossings, not comingled with
Tier I, II, or III passenger equipment or
freight equipment, and not physically
connected to the general railroad
system. FRA proposes to add this
definition to establish a classification
and foundation applicable to passenger
equipment that is subject to FRA
regulation but falls outside the scope of
the existing tier classifications. Unlike
what was recommended by the RSAC to
FRA, FRA is not proposing to include
language in the definition that
references a particular type of regulatory
framework. FRA notes that the type of
regulatory mechanism FRA employs to
ensure effective safety oversight would
not be consequential to whether a
particular technology is considered a
‘‘Tier IV system.’’ FRA welcomes
comment on the use of the term ‘‘Tier
IV,’’ or an alternative categorization, to
identify the type of system described in
this paragraph.
Section 238.19 Reporting and Tracking
of Repairs to Defective Passenger
Equipment
FRA is proposing to amend this
section to harmonize the existing
requirements with proposed new
requirements applicable to Tier III
passenger equipment. As part of the
RSAC consensus recommendations,
RSAC recommended that FRA issue
regulations specific to Tier III
equipment with respect to reporting and
tracking of repairs made to defective
Tier III equipment, so that these
requirements would be included as part
of the Tier III ITM requirements under
proposed § 238.903. The recommended
approach was based on the existing
requirements codified under this section
(§ 238.19). Yet, after further
consideration, FRA is proposing to
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
simply amend this section rather than
add these requirements to subpart I, for
clarity.
Specifically, FRA is proposing to
amend paragraphs (a), (b), and (d). In
proposed paragraphs (a)(4) and (5), FRA
would add the term qualified individual
to account for the nomenclature’s use
under subpart H and proposed subpart
I for Tier III equipment.
In the proposed revision to paragraph
(b), FRA would redesignate paragraph
(b) as paragraph (b)(1) and add new
paragraph (b)(2). In proposed paragraph
(b)(2), FRA would add record retention
requirements for reporting and tracking
system records for Tier III equipment
regarding the information in paragraph
(a). FRA is also proposing that for Tier
III equipment, the records be retained
for at least one year.
In FRA’s proposed revision to
paragraph (d), FRA would revise the
paragraph heading, redesignate
paragraph (d) as paragraph (d)(1), and
add new paragraph (d)(2). Under
proposed paragraph (d)(2), FRA would
add the requirement that operators of
Tier III equipment designate locations
where repairs to safety-critical systems
on Tier III equipment can be made,
including repairs to Tier III brake
systems. This requirement would follow
the requirements in existing paragraph
(d)(4) that such designations be made in
writing, that the written designations be
provided to FRA and made available for
inspection and copying, and that the list
of repair points could not be changed
without at least 30 days’ advance notice
provided to FRA.13 Further, FRA would
require that Tier III trainsets not leave
designated brake repair points with
anything less than the required
operational braking capability. This
means that a trainset could leave the
designated brake repair point with less
than its maximum designed braking
capability, still retaining its required
operational braking capability, but
could not do so for a period exceeding
5 consecutive calendar days under
proposed § 238.1003(d)(1). This
proposal is based on international,
service-proven practice and FRA’s
approach to inspection, testing, and
maintenance.
FRA notes that it has introduced two
new terms under proposed paragraph
(d)(2), exclusive to Tier III equipment:
required operational braking capability
and maximum designed braking
capability. As further discussed below
under proposed §§ 238.903(a)(8) and
238.1003(d), the required operational
braking capability with respect to Tier
III equipment would be the capability of
13 64
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
FR 25540, 25587–25588.
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
the trainset to stop from its maximum
operating speed within the signal
spacing existing on the track over which
the trainset is operating under the
worst-case adhesion conditions defined
by the railroad. This would also be
consistent with § 238.731(b). Maximum
designed braking capability would be
the maximum braking capability of the
Tier III trainset as designed—a
performance element of a Tier III
trainset that must be specified by the
railroad under proposed
§ 238.110(d)(2)(ii).
Subpart B—Safety Planning and General
Requirements
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Section 238.105 Passenger Electronic
Hardware and Software Safety
FRA is proposing to revise this
section to clarify the requirements of
this section and to reconcile
overlapping requirements with subpart
E of part 229 of this chapter. It has been
FRA’s experience over the last decade
that much ambiguity exists with the
correct application of part 238
requirements and similar requirements
under part 229. In FRA’s view, the
requirements that are being proposed
have been applicable to the passenger
industry, consistent with the
applicability dates listed in the
introductory text of this section. FRA is
also making clear that it is not
expanding the applicability dates.
Under paragraph (a), FRA is
proposing to make editorial changes and
is also proposing to permit railroads to
maintain the hardware and software
safety program in either a written or an
electronic format.
Additionally, FRA is proposing to
swap current paragraphs (b) and (c) with
each other, redesignating current
paragraph (b) as paragraph (c) and
current paragraph (c) as paragraph (b)
for clarity and organizational purposes.
Further, FRA is proposing to add a new
requirement under proposed paragraph
(b)(8). Proposed paragraph (b)(8) would
make explicit that the safety analysis
outlined in proposed paragraph (c) is a
required part of the hardware and
software safety program required under
paragraph (a) of this section.
Under proposed paragraph (c), FRA is
providing additional detail on how to
perform the safety analysis that is being
proposed under paragraph (b)(8). FRA is
proposing to use the term ‘‘safety
analysis’’ rather than the legacy term
‘‘safety program,’’ to make clear that this
is an analysis to be conducted as part of
the broader safety program rather than
a standalone program. Additionally,
FRA is proposing that the safety
analysis establish and document the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
minimum requirements governing the
development and implementation of all
products subject to this section. Further,
the safety analysis, as proposed, would
be based on good engineering practice
and should be consistent with the
guidance contained in appendix F to
part 229 of this chapter in order to
establish that a product’s safety-critical
functions operate with a high degree of
confidence in a fail-safe manner. As
proposed, the safety analysis would be
based on a formal safety methodology,
to include a Failure Modes, Effects,
Criticality Analysis (FMECA),
verification and validation testing for all
hardware and software components and
their interfaces, and comprehensive
hardware and software integration
testing to ensure that the hardware and
software system functions as intended.
FRA is proposing to revise paragraphs
(d) and (e) simply by adding paragraph
headings.
FRA is also proposing to add
paragraph (f) to this section to make
explicit which specific requirements
from subpart E of part 229 are being
made applicable to passenger
equipment. Consistent with the
discussion above regarding the
applicability of this section, FRA is
proposing to reference the applicability
dates set forth in § 229.303(a)(1) and (2),
to make clear that FRA is not intending
to expand the applicability of these
requirements. In proposed paragraphs
(f)(1) through (6), FRA has listed each
provision of subpart E of part 229 being
made applicable to passenger
equipment. Accordingly, if a provision
in subpart E of part 229 is not listed in
this paragraph (f), then that requirement
would not be applicable to passenger
equipment under this part.
Additionally, FRA is proposing to add
paragraph (g) to this section. Proposed
paragraph (g) would add a requirement
that railroads prepare a Vehicle
Communication and Control System
Vulnerability Assessment identifying
potential system vulnerabilities,
associated risk (including exploit
likelihood and consequences),
countermeasures applied, and resulting
risk mitigation.
Further, FRA is proposing to add
paragraph (h) to this section, which
would add a requirement that suppliers
of safety-critical railroad products notify
FRA of any safety-critical product
failures. By requiring this notice to FRA,
FRA may in turn help ensure that notice
of the faulty product is provided to
other possible users of the equipment.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19737
Section 238.108 New Passenger
Service Pre-Revenue Safety Performance
Demonstration
Pursuant to Section 22416 of the IIJA,
FRA is proposing to add requirements
for new passenger service pre-revenue
safety performance demonstration. This
proposal incorporates the requirements
of the IIJA and provides additional
direction for railroads to assist them
with the development and execution of
pre-revenue safety and operational
readiness demonstration. These
proposed requirements would apply to
any new passenger rail service subject to
FRA safety jurisdiction, including line
extensions and the resumption of
service if passenger rail service has not
been present on a line for more than 180
days. This proposed section would not
apply to the temporary re-routing of
existing passenger service due to
weather events, emergency scenarios, or
planned PTC maintenance under
§ 236.1005(g).
Through this proposed section, FRA
would require railroads and project
stakeholders to use safety and
operational readiness as the deciding
factors as to when revenue passenger
service should begin over a line, rather
than an earlier date influenced by other
factors. As an example, FRA is aware of
an instance where the use of emergency
phones located in a railroad’s stations
knocked out the signal system of the
railroad as the two systems were using
the same support infrastructure (a
router). However, this problem was only
discovered through happenstance, and
not part of an overall system safety and
operational readiness evaluation before
the rail service began. This example is
provided to illustrate the scope of the
intended safety performance
demonstration and the critical
evaluation necessary to accomplish the
goals of this proposed section.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1) establishes
who must submit a pre-revenue safety
validation plan. The requirements
would apply to any railroad subject to
the requirements of part 238 regardless
of tier of service, or any other
responsible entity providing new,
regularly scheduled, intercity or
commuter passenger service, an
extension of existing service, or the restart of service that has been suspended
or otherwise discontinued for more than
180 days. These requirements would
apply regardless of whether the railroad
is already operating similar service. For
example, an existing commuter railroad
that is already providing commuter
service would still need to comply with
the proposed requirements of this
section for any new commuter rail line
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19738
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
or physical extension of its existing
network. A plan would not be required
for changes in service frequency or other
modifications to existing services, such
as changes to contract operators (or
other contracted activities), or the
addition of in-fill stations. However, a
railroad proposing to operate new
passenger service over a line that
already provides passenger service
would still be required to develop a
plan under this section.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) outlines the
content requirements for the proposed
pre-revenue safety validation plan and
would require that it be submitted to
FRA for review no less than 60 days
prior to the start of the service’s safety
demonstration period, the requirements
of which are outlined further in this
section. Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i)
would require that the railroad provide
the status of all appliable safety plans or
regulatory programs, and any associated
certifications, qualifications, and
employee training required for the start
of revenue service, that are enumerated
in proposed paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(A)
through (K). The railroad must be able
to demonstrate that these programs,
plans, certifications, qualifications, and
employee training would be not only
substantially complete and/or in place
to support the service, but that it would
also adequately execute the programs or
plans as intended. FRA may look to
validate this with field inspections
during the service demonstration
period. For example, if an employee (or
contractor) is required to comply with
the railroad’s on-track safety program
for the duties being performed, FRA
would expect that field inspections
would validate that the employee has
received training and is knowledgeable
on the requirements of the railroad’s ontrack safety program. In providing its
pre-revenue safety validation plan, the
railroad should pay particular attention
to the completion of required activities,
testing and certification (especially
engineer and conductor certification),
the adequacy of its training programs,
and appropriate close-out or mitigation
of any identified hazards as part of its
system safety planning efforts.
Additionally, the railroad would be
required to provide data indicating
which safety-related employees are
required to receive training,
qualifications or other certifications,
and the status of those programs (the
number who have completed each step)
as identified in proposed paragraphs
(a)(2)(i)(H) and (I). Completion of FRA’s
‘‘new starts’’ process may satisfy this
requirement.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(ii) would
require the railroad to provide a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
description of how it would measure
‘‘substantial completion’’ of the system.
This must include items such as any
tests or validations to be performed by
contractors for facilities, structures,
systems, or other major construction
activities that must be performed before
they can be accepted by the railroad, or
before testing or revenue service can
begin. Because system level testing and
integration testing often require the
availability of substantially complete
infrastructure and supporting systems to
conduct testing, the railroad must be
able to demonstrate that it would have
adequate access to these facilities to
properly perform required testing under
FRA’s regulations. The availability of
core infrastructure and systems is also
necessary for the service demonstration
period and FRA would require that the
safety and acceptance of these core
elements be addressed on their own
merit, and that such activities would not
conflict with required tests or other
activities identified in this section due
to schedule compression.
Further, should there be a host-tenant
relationship, and the railroad submitting
the pre-revenue safety validation plan is
not the host railroad, then the host
railroad and the railroad submitting the
pre-revenue safety validation plan must
coordinate. Specifically, FRA is
concerned about host railroads
scheduling construction activities
unbeknownst to the railroad submitting
the pre-revenue safety validation plan
that could potentially interfere with the
safety performance demonstration
period (simulated service). To help
resolve this concern, FRA is proposing
to require that host railroads share
pertinent information with the railroad
submitting the pre-revenue safety
validation plan (when not the host
railroad).
Proposed paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and
(iv) would require the railroad to
provide details on its proposed
operations over the line, and its
expectations and plans for its safety
performance demonstration and
simulated service required under this
section. In each of these paragraphs,
FRA has listed specific information
requirements. These lists are not
intended to be exhaustive. Specifically,
under proposed paragraph (a)(2)(iv), the
railroad would be required to provide
its plans for simulated service (e.g., the
minimum number or days or successful
runs), and its criteria for determining if
the simulated service has been
successful.
Proposed paragraph (b) outlines the
requirements for the railroad’s safety
performance demonstration period
(simulated service) to be performed to
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
demonstrate operational readiness. The
safety performance demonstration
period would provide the railroad an
opportunity to demonstrate operational
readiness in a dynamic real-world
environment, with all major elements
and systems in place. The period may
also be used by FRA to conduct
inspections to validate that the railroad
has effectively trained employees and
executed its critical plans and programs.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1) specifies
that a minimum period of simulated
service must be successfully performed
prior to the start of revenue service (to
be expressed in days or number of runs
as required under proposed paragraph
(a)(2)(iv)). Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(i)
provides requirements for new
operations or physical extensions to
existing services. These services require
the most activities to ensure operational
readiness and should be conducted
using the full proposed schedule to
ensure that the service schedule can be
practically implemented to support safe
operations. For example, the railroad
must be able to demonstrate that the
scheduled running times and turns can
be performed reliably, even when
factoring in common scenarios that
might affect service, such as speed
restrictions or mandatory directives.
This would ensure that crews are not
subjected to undue stress and potential
safety concerns when revenue service
begins, due to delays that could
otherwise be avoided if the schedule
and operational readiness had been
validated. In FRA’s experience, most
new operations that voluntarily
conducted a period of simulated service
prior to commencing revenue service
have required a minimum of two to six
weeks of simulated service to address
issues and ensure operational readiness.
FRA notes, however, that the process is
not necessarily intended to be linear,
and certain activities may also be
completed in parallel with the
simulated service, when appropriate.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(ii) provides
considerations for the re-start or rerouting of existing operations. For these
situations, the amount of simulated
service can vary greatly depending on
the scope of the re-started or re-routed
service. For example, the re-start of a
discontinued service may necessitate
running full, scheduled operations for a
certain number of days, whereas rerouting of a service may only require a
certain number of ‘‘successful’’ test
runs. The railroad may reach out to and
work with FRA in determining the
appropriate period based on the
individual circumstances.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would
require the railroad to provide a daily
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
summary of the activities and results
from the safety performance
demonstration period, including
discussion on any delays, system
failures, unexpected events, close calls,
or other safety concerns uncovered
during simulated service.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would
require the railroad to correct any safety
deficiencies identified during the safety
performance demonstration period prior
to commencing revenue service.
Additionally, this proposed paragraph
would require that, if a safety deficiency
cannot be corrected, then it must be
addressed through mitigations or
operational restrictions that would
ensure the safety of the operation.
Finally, this proposed paragraph would
require a final report to be submitted to
FRA addressing the complete safety
performance demonstration period,
specifically detailing the deficiencies
uncovered and the associated
corrections, mitigations, or operational
restrictions imposed. FRA notes that it
would reserve the right to require
additional corrections, mitigations, or
operational restrictions should it
determine that those imposed by the
railroad would not be sufficient to
ensure the safety of the operation.
Proposed paragraph (c) would require
a railroad to comply with its plan before
revenue service may begin. It would
also prohibit a railroad from amending
its plan without first notifying FRA, to
prevent a railroad from effectively
‘‘moving the goal posts’’ to commence
revenue service by a pre-determined
date if the requirements of the plan have
not otherwise been met. In addition, this
proposed paragraph would impose a
general prohibition against commencing
revenue service until the plan has been
successfully completed by the railroad,
to include the imposition of corrections,
mitigation, or operational limitations as
required by proposed paragraph (b)(3).
Section 238.110 Design Criteria,
Testing, Documentation, and Approvals
To help clarify the compliance
demonstration and approval process for
passenger equipment, FRA is proposing
new § 238.110. This proposed section is
intended to complement § 238.111, as
proposed to be revised in this NPRM.
This section would require the railroad
to establish the design criteria and
provide the system description for the
intended service against which the
railroad is demonstrating safety
compliance. This proposed section
would also provide the ability for the
railroad to define certain elements
required for Tier III operations, as well
as require the railroad to develop a
vehicle qualification plan to establish
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
how compliance would be
demonstrated. Further, this proposal
includes specific language for the
demonstration of early-stage, vehicle
design matters, such as carbody
construction with respect to
crashworthiness and safety appliances.
In developing this language, FRA
worked closely with industry subject
matter experts through the RSAC to
provide more detail about passenger
vehicle compliance demonstration to
help clarify the process. FRA welcomes
any comments or considerations that
might further improve the clarity of this
section.
Proposed paragraph (a) outlines the
scope of this section and its relationship
with § 238.111. Proposed paragraph
(a)(1) would make the requirements of
this section applicable to new passenger
equipment designs (i.e., an equipment
design that has not been previously
used in revenue service in the U.S.), and
rebuilt or modified equipment where
the carbody structure or any safetycritical elements have been modified or
replaced by a new design not identical
to the original component.
While FRA has attempted to provide
clear language with respect to when a
vehicle design has been altered to a
point where an updated demonstration
of compliance with the safety standards
would be required, FRA recognizes that
this can be a matter of nuance, and
additional feedback from FRA may be
necessary as to when a modification to
an existing vehicle platform may have
crossed such a threshold. For instance,
changes to the traction control or
braking systems, modifications to trucks
or suspensions systems, changes to the
carbody structure or its material, or
alterations that change the mass or
center-of-gravity of the vehicle (and thus
its dynamic performance), are all
common examples of when a new safety
assessment and compliance
demonstration would likely be
appropriate.
Under proposed paragraph (a)(2),
previously accepted passenger vehicle
designs would not be subject to the
requirements of this section, except for
the development and maintenance of a
system description under proposed
paragraph (d). Even though
development of a vehicle qualification
plan would not be required, FRA still
would require railroads to develop a
system description to capture the
critical information of the operating
environment of the equipment in case
changes are made that would necessitate
a new safety assessment and compliance
demonstration.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would
make the railroad responsible for
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19739
maintaining any documents or evidence
related to the design and performance of
the vehicle that may be necessary to
establish or demonstrate compliance
with the safety regulations. Even if
material is provided to FRA for review
or approval, this would not relieve the
railroad from the proper maintenance of
its records in this regard. FRA would
require that the railroad be able to
produce relevant documentation,
including any changes or modifications
to one or more of the vehicles in its fleet
should the need arise, as proposed
under paragraph (b)(2). Proposed
paragraph (b)(2) would also require that
the documentation be maintained for
the life of the equipment. If the
equipment is leased or sold, this
paragraph would require a copy of the
documentation to be provided to the
lessee or purchasing entity, respectively.
Under paragraph (c), FRA is
proposing to require railroads develop a
vehicle qualification plan. This plan
would assist railroads in demonstrating
compliance with the requirements of
this proposed section. As proposed, the
vehicle qualification plan would be
comprised of a system description
(which includes certain vehicle design
assumptions) and a compliance matrix.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(i) contains
the requirement for a railroad to develop
a system description (a description of
the intended operational environment
for the equipment), which would cover
topics listed under proposed paragraph
(d)(1), as well as a listing of assumptions
used when designing the equipment.
This initial portion of the proposed
system description would be for all
passenger equipment. Additionally,
railroads seeking to qualify Tier III
equipment under this section would
need to address the required elements
for Tier III operations, as listed in
proposed paragraph (d)(2).
Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(ii)
introduces the concept of a
comprehensive compliance matrix
(matrix) that must be developed by the
railroad to outline the means by which
compliance with various safety
requirements under FRA’s regulations
would be demonstrated. This matrix, as
proposed, is an extrapolation of what
FRA has historically expected under the
current language of § 238.111, in that
the railroad should be able to identify
all tests required to demonstrate
compliance under FRA’s regulations—
whether a carbody structural test to
validate compliance with the occupied
volume protection requirements, or a
braking test performed during the final
commissioning stages of a project. Both
of these exemplar tests provide critical
safety validation of the design and must
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19740
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
occur prior to the use of the equipment
in revenue service. But as these two
tests can occur years apart, it is not
unusual for some to focus on the
requirements of current § 238.111 as
relating to only those activities that
occur when full-scale dynamic testing
has begun. By proposing to move this
planning requirement into § 238.110
and expand language to require the
development of a comprehensive test
matrix at the early stages of a project,
FRA would ensure the railroad and
rolling stock supplier clearly articulate
the intended means by which all critical
compliance elements of FRA’s
regulations would be demonstrated. In
doing so, the parties would also gain
FRA’s perspective and feedback on
whether the means identified are
adequate.
In practice, as proposed under
paragraph (c)(1)(ii), FRA is envisioning
the compliance matrix as being a table
to help identify the requirements for
which compliance must be
demonstrated (keeping in mind that
certain projects, such as equipment
modifications, may only require a
limited number of items to be assessed),
and the means by which compliance
would be demonstrated (e.g., testing,
analysis, calculations, computer
modeling, etc.). This matrix would also
allow all stakeholders to identify critical
milestones in which an FRA
observation, inspection, or approval
may be necessary, particularly when
testing is required. By doing this early
in the process, FRA can work with the
parties to set expectations and can
coordinate participation or reviews
where appropriate, to avoid delays due
to inadequate documentation or failure
to notify the agency of critical
compliance-related activities. Moreover,
FRA is contemplating including
guidance in an appendix to this part to
help guide railroads in properly
developing compliance matrices and
plans. FRA seeks comment as to
whether such an appendix should be
included or whether such guidance
should be provided in a standalone
document.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) further
outlines the process and timing by
which a railroad’s vehicle qualification
plan would be approved. FRA is seeking
comment on whether there is utility in
explicit FRA approval of this item, the
process described, and the timeframe
proposed. Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iii)
would simply enforce the execution of
the plan by the railroad.
In paragraph (d), FRA proposes that a
railroad provide a description of the
environment and service in which the
passenger equipment is intended to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
operate (system description), key design
criteria and physical characteristics of
the equipment, and any assumptions
used for key calculations or analysis.
This information would help provide a
baseline for the configuration and
intended operating environment of the
equipment against which the safety of
the vehicle is being assessed. Such
information would be useful when
changes or modifications to a vehicle or
its operating environment occur, or if
the same equipment type is acquired by
the railroad, or leased to another
railroad, as it would provide a means for
the railroad and FRA to determine if any
new or different conditions,
configurations, or operating parameters
might require additional compliance
testing or analysis.
For example, proposed § 238.791(j)
would require an efficient handbrake or
parking brake that is capable of holding
a locomotive on the maximum grade
condition identified by the operating
railroad, or a minimum 3% grade,
whichever is greater. If a railroad
initially were to procure a passenger
locomotive that operates over a network
with a maximum grade of 1.3%, that
railroad would be required to validate
the sufficiency of the design and
performance of the handbrake or
parking brake when subjected to the
minimum forces resulting from a 3%
grade. If the same locomotive is leased
to another railroad that operates over
territory where the maximum grade is
3.5%, the original documentation must
indicate to the acquiring railroad that
additional validation may be necessary
to ensure that the parking brake design
is adequate for the characteristics of its
new operating environment.
As another example, if a railroad is
electing to follow the interior fixture
attachment strength requirements under
§ 238.733(a)(2), which permit an
attachment strength sufficient to resist
applied loads of 5g longitudinal, 3g
lateral, and 3g vertical when applied to
the mass of the fixture, then appropriate
discussion and documentation must be
provided demonstrating the trainset
does not experience a crash pulse in
excess of 5g.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would
require the railroad to provide a
description of the operational
environment to which the railroad’s
passenger equipment is subject. This
would include the defining physical
characteristics of the environment that
all passenger equipment would operate
within, regardless of whether the
equipment is intended for conventional
or high-speed operations. Paragraphs
(d)(1)(i) through (iii), as proposed,
would help the railroad categorize and
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
describe the operating environment and
conditions, and provides examples for
each.
Of these, physical infrastructure as
proposed under paragraph (d)(1)(i),
would require the most extensive
description, encapsulating a number of
physical characteristics of the
environment that may directly affect the
safe operation of the equipment. In this
portion of the system description, the
railroad should be able to articulate the
limiting track geometry (including
turnout geometry), maximum grade, the
minimum required stopping distance,
and any other safety-critical limits or
thresholds within which the equipment
would be expected to operate safely. It
is critical to note that the characteristics
or limits listed are intended to help
establish the operating limits of the
equipment itself and are not intended
simply to catalog the characteristics of
the railroad.
For example, when identifying
limiting track geometry conditions, if
the equipment is not designed to
navigate anything less than a turnout
having a certain curvature, then that is
a limiting track geometry condition for
the equipment that must be identified.
The railroad may own or have access to
track with even more limiting geometry
conditions, such as turnouts having
even tighter curvatures within a yard.
Yet, by identifying the known
limitations of the equipment to navigate
such trackwork, and making known the
safe operating limits of the equipment,
the railroad can craft operating rules or
instructions to ensure that the
equipment is either not operated on
portions of the railroad where such
geometry exists, or operated under
appropriate limitations so that the
equipment can safely navigate such
geometry.
Similarly, proposed paragraph
(d)(1)(ii) would require the railroad to
identify the universe of systems that the
equipment is expected to operate over
or interface with. This would primarily
include track circuits, control systems,
electric traction systems, and wayside
detectors and devices. Of particular
importance would be those elements
essential to signaling, train control, and
active grade crossing warning systems.
Here, the railroad must also be able to
identify the core technologies (e.g., DC,
AC, audio frequency overlay) and
systems utilized by any host railroads
on the routes it is expected to operate
over, and whether or not those systems
themselves are operating and
maintained within their original
equipment manufacturer (OEM)
specifications. This information can
then be used to help the railroad
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
determine what systems integration and
validation testing would be necessary as
part of its pre-revenue service
acceptance test plan, developed
pursuant to § 238.111.
Systems integration has become a
critical element in the safe introduction
of new passenger equipment in recent
years, particularly as it relates to
effective track circuit shunting to ensure
the safe operation of signal and grade
crossing systems. Taking the time to
identify and validate performance
characteristics of the equipment over
these systems within the context of
§§ 238.110 and 238.111 would help the
railroad ensure that both the passenger
vehicle and wayside technologies are
operating as designed, and assist in
establishing special operating rules,
maintenance procedures, or design
changes, as necessary, to ensure safe
interactions between the two.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(iii) would
require the railroad to identify any
special operating parameters or rules
that might apply to the design and
operation of the passenger equipment.
At a minimum, this must include
information on the design time and
setup of the alerter, as this design time
may need to account for other operating
parameters, such as the required
minimum stopping distance identified
in proposed paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this
section.
Proposed paragraph (d)(2) is intended
to catalog design and operational
variables specific to Tier III equipment.
As many of the requirements pertaining
to Tier III equipment are more
performance-based and technology
neutral, it is essential that the railroad
identify specific design and operational
parameters where such flexibility is
provided, so that necessary safety
thresholds can be identified and
maintained with proper oversight.
Braking systems received particular
attention in this regard, during the
RSAC process, as there are many
different, proven approaches to braking
technology and operational rules used
on high-speed trainsets throughout the
world. To this effect, proposed
paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (xiv) catalog
the railroad’s approach as it relates to
Tier III braking technology.
Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(ii), as
discussed above under § 238.19, would
require the railroad to define the
maximum designed braking capacity of
the Tier III trainset.
Proposed paragraphs (d)(2)(iii)
through (v) are of particular note, as
these sections would define the use of
emergency braking and its accessibility
to crewmembers and the general public.
Unlike most conventional operations,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
the application of an irretrievable
emergency brake application may pose
a safety risk to the occupants at very
high speeds, or within certain locations
(e.g., tunnels or bridges), particularly if
an immediate stop is unnecessary. As
such, many systems throughout the
world restrict access to only qualified
crewmembers to initiate an irretrievable
emergency brake application and utilize
emergency brake ‘‘alarms’’ for
passengers. These alarms notify the
engineer that an emergency stop has
been requested by a passenger and
require the engineer to take some
immediate action, while still allowing
the engineer to continue train
movement if an immediate stop is
unnecessary, or if a different location
may offer a more appropriate
environment to address an emergency
(e.g., enabling a train to exit a tunnel if
an alarm is activated due to the
presence of smoke in a passenger cabin).
Proposed paragraphs (d)(2)(iii) and
(iv) would require the railroad to
identify both irretrievable emergency
brake locations accessible only to
crewmembers and passenger brake
‘‘alarm’’ locations (if used), respectively,
within the Tier III trainset. A picture or
diagram may be used to demonstrate
compliance.
If passenger brake alarm technology is
employed by the railroad, proposed
paragraphs (d)(2)(v) through (vii) would
require the railroad to specify certain
operational aspects of the technology.
For example, proposed paragraph
(d)(2)(v) would require defining the time
period in which the trainset remains
under full control of the engineer after
an alarm is pulled. Like an alerter, this
is intended to ensure that the engineer
acknowledges the alarm and takes
appropriate action promptly. As
proposed, if no action is taken by the
engineer in response to the passenger
brake alarm, then the trainset’s brake
system would be required to
automatically initiate an irretrievable
emergency brake to ensure the safety of
the occupants, crew, and trainset.
Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(vi) would
require the railroad to detail how the
passenger brake alarm would function
within station locations, as delayed
application of the brakes would be
unacceptable if the alarm is activated
when a train is departing a station due
to a passenger emergency, such as a
passenger trapped in a door. Only once
a train has safely cleared the station
platform would the retrievable aspect of
the passenger emergency brake alarm be
allowed to engage. To this end, the
railroad would have to identify how to
achieve this, to ensure that both
passengers and crew can immediately
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19741
stop a train if a dangerous situation is
encountered while leaving a station.
Nonetheless, as discussed above, there
is concern about situations when an
engineer may decide against
immediately stopping the train
following activation of a passenger
brake alarm at a station location, such
as when in a tunnel if smoke is present.
FRA believes that the above discussion
provides the necessary clarity on this
issue but invites comment.
Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(vii) would
allow the railroad to further define the
operation of a passenger brake alarm by
detailing what steps must be taken by an
engineer to retrieve control from a fullservice brake application in the event an
alarm is activated, within the timeframe
proposed by paragraph (d)(2)(v).
Additional core braking parameters
are defined in proposed paragraphs
(d)(2)(viii) through (xiii). Proposed
paragraph (d)(2)(viii) would require the
railroad to identify and maintain a copy
of the FRA-approved industry standard
utilized to comply with § 238.731(f),
which requires that main reservoirs be
designed and tested according to a
recognized industry standard. The
railroad would be required to document
the actual standard used to qualify main
reservoirs for Tier III trainsets in its
vehicle qualification plan. Any
inspections or tests required by the
standard must be incorporated into the
railroad’s ITM plan as well.
Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(ix) would
require the railroad to identify the
preset parameters by which it would
determine if a Tier III trainset’s wheelslide protection has failed, as required
by § 238.731(m)(3). The railroad would
be required to document the
corresponding operational restrictions
within its ITM plan. Similarly, proposed
paragraph (d)(2)(x) would require the
railroad to provide information on brake
system functionality, monitoring, and
diagnostics, and any corresponding
safety analysis. For example, if a
railroad were to utilize an electronic
brake system, it must ensure compliance
with § 238.105 if deemed-safety critical.
Proposed paragraph (xi) would
require the railroad to identify the
worst-case grade condition for which
the Tier III trainset must be secured.
In relation to § 238.751, proposed
paragraphs (xii) and (xiii) would require
the railroad to outline the functionality
of the cab alerter system, and its
integration with the braking system.
Specifically, paragraph (xii) proposes to
require the railroad to establish the
parameters and scenarios in which the
engineer must acknowledge the alerter,
including which actions reset the
timing, and which actions would be
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19742
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ignored so that the engineer would be
required to take some other action or
directly acknowledge the alerter.14
Proposed paragraph (xiii) would require
the railroad to outline what steps must
be followed by the engineer to recover
control should a full-service brake
application occur.
The remaining items proposed under
paragraphs (d)(2)(xiv) through (xvi) are
for optional features that a railroad may
elect to include on Tier III rolling stock
based on service-proven experience. If
the railroad elects to use a technology
other than a standard alerter pursuant to
§ 238.751(e), plans to utilize a feature to
dim headlights for extended periods of
time on Tier III dedicated rights-of-way
pursuant to proposed § 238.767(c), or
utilizes a flashing rate other than what
is described in proposed
§ 238.769(b)(2)(i), then it would be
required to comply with the
requirements specific to each alternate
technology as described in proposed
paragraphs (d)(2)(xiv), (xv), and (xvi),
respectively.
Proposed paragraph (e) outlines the
means by which a railroad would be
required to demonstrate compliance
with the structural carbody design and
crashworthiness requirements contained
within parts 229 and 238, as applicable.
This proposed paragraph would
effectively codify FRA’s longstanding
guidance on the matter, and what the
RSAC considered to be industry ‘‘best
practice.’’ Specifically, proposed
paragraph (e)(1) would make clear that
compliance may be demonstrated by
any appropriate combination of fullscale testing, validated computer
modeling (e.g., finite element analysis),
or engineering calculations, including
manual calculations using accepted and
proven engineering formulas.
Designs incorporating dynamically
activated CEM components may require
additional scrutiny. In practice, some
combination of all three is typically
provided to establish compliance with
structural and crashworthiness
requirements. For example, a full-scale
test could be used to demonstrate the
strength of a collision post, but because
this test involves the ultimate load of
the material it may not be desirable or
safe to conduct a full-scale test where
plastic deformation, or even structural
failure, would be possible.
Consequently, computer modeling and
engineering calculations may be used to
predict the physical performance of
collision posts under certain load
conditions, but such modeling must be
validated. To this end, testing may also
14 Note, the specific alerter timing would be
required under proposed § 238.110(d)(1)(iii).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
be performed within the elastic-plastic
range and, if the model shows good
correlation to real-world testing under
the same load conditions, FRA would
consider the validated model to serve as
an adequate demonstration of
compliance for loading scenarios that
are impractical or unsafe to test at fullscale. Because testing plays such a vital
role to compliance demonstration, FRA
seeks to ensure close coordination with
railroads and their suppliers when such
testing is required, especially where
complex computer models require
validation.
Proposed paragraph (e)(2) outlines the
documentation expectations and FRA
notification requirements when carbody
or structural component testing would
be necessary for new, re-built, or
substantially modified passenger
equipment. Because designs that utilize
CEM components rely on the dynamicplastic deformation of structural
components in a predictable and
controlled manner, Tier I alternative,
Tier II, and Tier III passenger equipment
that incorporate such technology would
require additional scrutiny. As these
designs require models that are used to
analyze loading conditions that are
more complex than simple, quasi-static
loads, to ensure that adequate validation
of such models is performed, FRA
would require that carbody and
crashworthiness test procedures
associated with such equipment be
submitted to FRA prior to any test being
conducted for compliance purposes, as
proposed under paragraph (e)(2). Under
this proposal, FRA would notify the
railroad if FRA intends to witness the
test. This would not prohibit a railroad
or supplier from conducting preliminary
or ‘‘proof of design’’ testing without
submitting the test procedures to FRA,
provided such testing is not intended
for validation or compliance
demonstration purposes.
To address common interpretation
issues related to passenger equipment
safety appliances, FRA is proposing to
mandate its otherwise voluntary,
sample-equipment inspection process as
part of proposed paragraph (f). To
ensure consistency, the railroad would
be required to submit designs for FRA
review of all new passenger equipment
or modified equipment that include
carbody or structural modifications
affecting the design of existing safety
appliances, proposed to be validated as
part of the sample-equipment inspection
conducted in accordance with proposed
paragraph (g)(2).
Proposed paragraph (g)(1) outlines the
process and procedures for submittal
and approval of design review, testing,
and inspection documentation. FRA
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
proposes to notify the railroad whether
the submission is approved or
disapproved within 60 days of the
submission to FRA. Of particular note
are the timeframes for document
submission, and associated approval or
disapproval, for each type of request.
FRA invites comments on the
practicality of these timeframes and
whether approval of this documentation
is necessary in all cases or at all.
Proposed paragraph (g)(2) contains
the procedures for the sampleequipment inspection. Though this is
commonly known as a sample-car
inspection, FRA is proposing to call it
a sample-equipment inspection to
include different types of equipment
that might not be considered a ‘‘car,’’
per se (e.g., a Tier III trainset). Proposed
paragraph (g)(2)(i) would require
railroads to submit to FRA a request for
such an inspection at least 45 days in
advance of the proposed inspection
date. As part of its request, the railroad
would be required under proposed
paragraph (g)(2)(i)(A) to provide FRA
with the first available time and date
that the sample equipment can be
inspected. Also, under proposed
paragraph (g)(2)(i)(B), the railroad
would be required to submit, as part of
its request, engineering drawings
reflecting the design and configuration
of the safety appliances, emergency
systems and signage, and any other
elements to be inspected by FRA as part
of the sample-equipment inspection.
Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(ii) details
the procedures to be followed should
FRA take exception during the
inspection. Proposed paragraph
(g)(2)(iii) explains that should FRA take
no exceptions during the inspection,
FRA would provide the railroad with an
inspection report stating as such.
Section 238.111 Pre-Revenue Service
Acceptance Testing
With the proposed addition of
§ 238.110, FRA is proposing to revise
§ 238.111 to focus primarily on the
activities associated with dynamic ‘‘ontrack’’ testing and commissioning
procedures that occur during the later
stages of a project. These dynamic tests
typically occur when prototype or
production trainsets are ready to operate
over the general railroad system.
Through the separation of static
design and dynamic commissioning
phases of rolling stock compliance with
§§ 238.110 and 238.111, respectively,
more clarity can be given to the process
of assuring that passenger rolling stock
is ready for revenue service. FRA
envisions that initially the railroad
would look to proposed § 238.110 to
ensure compliance with static design
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
requirements and items that can be
examined as part of a sample-equipment
inspection as a means to determine if
prototype or production rolling stock is
ready to start the dynamic and
commissioning phase under § 238.111,
even though some overlap may occur
between the phases. For instance, it may
be desirable to initiate some level of
dynamic testing before carbody interiors
are completed, which may necessitate
the verification of emergency systems
after preliminary dynamic testing has
occurred.
Regardless, FRA intends that the
railroad make use of the combined, prerevenue planning process under
§§ 238.110 and 238.111 to ensure that
adequate testing occurs before
production sets of equipment types
leave the manufacturing facility, so that
compliance and quality issues can be
addressed by the manufacturer before
moving too far ahead into dynamic
testing, and thus limiting such issues to
initial prototype units. This approach
would allow certain elements to be
separated so that railroads and
manufacturers can take a more focused
approach to compliance assurance and
commissioning, thereby also allowing
railroads to produce a more focused
plan for the final stages of testing and
commissioning of passenger rolling
stock as part of their pre-revenue service
acceptance test plans.
While the individual requirements
within this section are intended to
capture important elements to help
validate and document compliance, of
equal importance is the planning aspect
of the section. FRA would require that
railroads use the development and
execution of their pre-revenue service
acceptance test plans to take a holistic
view of their testing and commissioning
programs so as to provide both FRA, as
well as themselves, insight as to how
the various tests and validations would
be organized and executed in an
effective manner. So, while part of the
effort intended by this proposed
language is to identify all of the tests
that need to be performed before a
vehicle can enter revenue passenger
service, FRA also would require that the
railroad identify how all of these tests
relate to each other and other activities
that must occur (required preceding
events), and the logical order in which
they should occur.
Using qualification under § 213.345 as
an example, a railroad must consider
what core tests should be performed
before high-speed testing begins (e.g.,
tests for proper brake system operation
to ensure the safety of the qualification
testing), and what tests would require
high-speed qualification or special test
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
approval to be performed (e.g., highspeed ATC/PTC tests). Identifying not
only the universe of tests to be
conducted, but also how those tests
interrelate, would help the railroad, its
suppliers, and FRA all work together
from the same perspective in achieving
the goal of putting the equipment safely
in service.
Under this proposed revision, this
section would remain divided primarily
between requirements for ‘‘new’’
equipment that has never been used in
revenue service before within the
United States, and requirements for
‘‘existing’’ equipment that is, or has
been previously, used within the United
States. However, FRA is proposing
significant revisions to this section to
capture current practice for vehicle
dynamic testing and qualification.
The first such significant revision is
based on an RSAC recommendation,
preferring that the requirements for
‘‘new’’ vehicles be outlined first,
because they are more comprehensive.
Thus, FRA is proposing to reorganize
the language so that the requirements
for ‘‘new’’ equipment are covered first,
under paragraph (a) rather than as
currently addressed under paragraph
(b), and the less comprehensive
requirements for ‘‘existing’’ equipment
are moved to paragraph (b), rather than
as currently addressed under paragraph
(a). FRA notes, however, that this
reorganization could lead to confusion
for plans developed prior to the
proposed publication of a final rule.
While FRA does not foresee this as a
problem for the execution of the intent
of these requirements, it welcomes
comment on whether this reorganization
may pose any potential concerns and, if
so, invites any potential solutions.
The fundamental requirements of this
section would be contained in proposed
paragraph (a)(1), which is based on
current paragraph (b)(1). This proposed
language outlines the minimum content
that a railroad would be required to
provide as part of a pre-revenue service
acceptance testing plan (test plan or
testing plan).
Proposed paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii)
would require the railroad to identify
the physical characteristics and salient
features that define both the equipment
and its intended operating environment,
respectively. The railroad should
consider the equipment and its
operating environment as parts of a
whole within a systems approach to
safety. In effect, these two proposed
paragraphs ask the railroad to capture
the ‘‘control’’ variables of the system
whose configurations may have
measurable effects on the performance
of the passenger equipment and its
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19743
overall safety. Items such as the wheel
profile, axle and truck spacing,
suspension characteristics, braking
rates, mass, and center-of-gravity are
just some examples (but in no way an
exhaustive list) of the types of vehicle
characteristics that must be identified
under proposed paragraph (a)(1)(i) that
can profoundly affect the safe
performance of rolling stock. Similarly,
the rail profile and cant, special
trackwork geometry, maximum grade,
effective track moduli, and signaling
and grade crossing technology interfaces
are just some examples of the
characteristics of the operating
environment for which the equipment’s
performance is being validated against,
which would also be appropriate to
identify under the requirements of the
railroad’s system description developed
pursuant to § 238.110.
This ‘‘systems’’ perspective is key to
the intent of §§ 238.110 and 238.111, as
it would not only help the railroad
establish and document the safety of the
equipment, but also the equipment’s
known and proven configurations and
operating conditions, such that a
railroad may be able to identify any
additional tests that may need to be
performed if a vehicle characteristic is
changed, or a vehicle is to be operated
in a different environment with
unproven characteristics (e.g., different
track circuit technology which may
result in different shunting
characteristics).
As the test plan is intended to be an
umbrella plan to capture all of the
necessary tests needed to demonstrate
regulatory safety compliance for
passenger equipment, this should
include any waivers that are anticipated
to be required, even if that test is part
of a separate testing approval,15 as these
may be predecessors to, or needed for,
other required tests. Thus, proposed
paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section
would require the railroad to identify
any approvals, qualification, or waivers
from other regulatory requirements in
this chapter, that would be required to
conduct certain tests under this plan.
For example, if tests are to occur on a
section of track before a block signal
system has been installed, then a waiver
from § 236.0(c)(2) may be necessary to
test at speeds above 60 mph until the
signal system if fully commissioned.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iv) would
require the railroad to identify the
maximum speed and cant deficiency at
which the equipment is intended to
operate, as well as any intermediate
qualifications it anticipates requesting
prior to achieving the intended
15 Such
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
as § 213.345 or § 236.1035.
03APP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19744
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
maximum speed and cant deficiency to
facilitate testing and qualification. For
example, if systems integration tests
would be required to validate grade
crossing functionality at a speed lower
than the intended maximum speed and
cant deficiency, then an intermediate
qualification at a speed and cant
deficiency less than the intended
maximum would be necessary in order
to accomplish such systems integration
testing. Accordingly, FRA would expect
such an intermediate qualification be
referenced in this portion of the test
plan.
Proposed paragraphs (a)(1)(v) through
(vii) represent the core of the test plan.
These proposed paragraphs are intended
to capture the railroad’s overall testing
and commissioning plan and tie these
tests to the procedures and records
associated with them. FRA would
caution the railroad or manufacturer not
to overthink this critical part of the
proposed regulation, as a simple table
may be used to fulfill the requirements
of these three proposed paragraphs.
What matters most would be the
information ascertained by the railroad
pursuant to these paragraphs, and there
would be no need for narrative or
explanations if a succinct format such as
a table or matrix is used.
More specifically, proposed paragraph
(a)(1)(v) would require the railroad to
provide a list of the tests to be
conducted as part of its dynamic testing
and commissioning phase. This list can
be inclusive of all the tests expected to
be performed or focused solely on those
tests related to demonstrating
compliance with regulatory
requirements, as outlined in proposed
paragraphs (a)(1)(vii)(A) through (D).
The railroad should present these tests
in some logical order, either
chronologically, or by sub-system. Any
interdependencies or predecessor
requirements (such as waivers or
certifications) should also be identified
for each test.
The identification of predecessors is
critical, as it would help all parties
understand the critical path to
completion of the testing and
commissioning process and should
logically tie to the estimated schedule
proposed paragraph (a)(1)(vi) would
require. FRA notes that the schedule
identified in proposed paragraph
(a)(1)(vi) is intended only to be an
approximation, such as the month in
which a test is to occur and anticipated
duration, so that FRA can plan for
resource needs to observe the testing, as
appropriate, as the test program is
executed. These dates can be modified
as the test program matures, particularly
if issues or delays occur. If this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
information is managed through a table
or matrix, as suggested, it can be easily
updated and provided to FRA, without
modifications to the entire test plan.
Whereas proposed paragraphs
(a)(1)(v) and (vi) would be used for
planning purposes, the content of
proposed paragraph (a)(1)(vii) is
intended more for execution and
recordkeeping. Proposed paragraph
(a)(1)(vii) would require the railroad
provide a list of all applicable test
procedures and reports (including test
results and post-test analysis, if
required) associated with each test.
Because this information may not be
readily available at the time the initial
plan is developed and provided to FRA,
it would be acceptable if the
information relevant to proposed
paragraph (a)(1)(vii) is left blank until it
becomes available. That is, FRA would
expect the initial submission to include
all information relevant to proposed
paragraphs (a)(1)(v) and (vi), but except
for any test procedures already
developed, the information relevant to
proposed paragraph (a)(1)(vii) may need
to be supplied as the test program is
executed. Further, because this
document is intended to serve both for
planning purposes and record
documentation, it is understood that
this would be a ‘‘working’’ document
during the testing and commissioning
phase.
Proposed paragraphs (a)(1)(vii)(A)
through (D) of this section would
provide a list of the safety-critical
subjects that must be addressed in the
railroad’s test plan, and any relevant
regulatory references. As stated
previously, the railroad’s test plan can
include all the tests intended to be
performed, or it can be focused on just
those tests relevant to the regulatory
requirements. Regardless of which
approach is taken, those tests and
documents that are intended to
demonstrate compliance with one or
more regulatory requirements should be
clearly identified.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would
provide the process by which a test plan
required under proposed paragraph
(a)(1) would be submitted. Because
separate approval is necessary for highspeed operations (including testing
approval), and final approval is required
before Tier II and III trainsets may enter
into service, FRA is proposing that prerevenue test plans need only be
submitted to FRA for review and
awareness—not for approval. This
would be consistent with how the
process applies to Tier I passenger
equipment today. FRA welcomes
comments as to the necessity of this
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
process and whether there is value in
FRA explicitly approving such plans.
Proposed paragraph (a)(3) would
require that test procedures included in
the railroad’s test plan contain at least
the minimum information as further
detailed in proposed appendix K to part
238.
FRA is not proposing to approve
individual test procedures as
recommended by the RSAC, as FRA
does not see the utility in doing so.
Instead, FRA is proposing that test
procedures be made available to FRA
upon request under proposed paragraph
(a)(4). FRA believes this would have no
impact on its ability to conduct audits
of test procedures in advance of testing
(particularly those tests that it intends to
witness) and would, instead, likely
remove a significant burden for both
industry and FRA. Because current
practice for most procurements is to
have project documentation, such as test
procedures, uploaded to a central,
secure website where FRA and other
stakeholders have access, allowing FRA
to review test procedures when they
become available and provide feedback
as necessary would obviate the need for
FRA approval.
Proposed paragraph (a)(5) would
make clear that a railroad must adopt
and comply with its own test
procedures. Because many of the
minimum requirements for procedures
outlined in proposed appendix K to part
238 are intended to ensure tests are
performed safely, and that records
provide adequate documentation for
showing compliance, tests that are not
performed appropriately may
necessitate re-testing.
Proposed paragraphs (a)(6) through (8)
outline the process by which FRA
would determine if the passenger
equipment is ready to be entered into
revenue service. It is based on current
§ 238.111(b)(4), (5), and (7). This process
is intended to culminate the efforts
resulting from §§ 238.110 and 238.111
and consider the railroad’s and
supplier’s efforts in demonstrating
compliance with the passenger
equipment safety standards. Proposed
paragraph (a)(6)(i) would require test
results for Tier I equipment be made
available upon request by FRA, with
proposed paragraph (a)(6)(ii) requiring
test results for Tier II and Tier III
equipment to be submitted to FRA at
least 60 days prior to the equipment
being placed in revenue service. FRA
notes that this timeframe may be longer
or different, as appropriate, should the
railroad also need to complete new
passenger service pre-revenue safety
demonstration under proposed
§ 238.108. Additionally, FRA notes that
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
the timeframe in this proposed
paragraph is shorter than what is
currently in effect under § 238.111(b)(4),
and therefore invites comments on the
appropriateness of the timeframe.
Proposed paragraph (a)(7) mirrors
current § 238.111(b)(5) without
substantive change, and FRA would
accordingly rely on the substantive
discussion contained in the May 1999
and November 2018 final rules.16
Under proposed paragraph (a)(8),
explicit approval to operate in revenue
service would be required for only Tier
II and Tier III equipment, as currently
required under § 238.111(b)(7), and FRA
would also rely on the substantive
discussions in the May 1999 and
November 2018 final rules in this
regard.17 FRA is considering if there is
value in expanding this approval to all
tiers of equipment and invites comment
on this question. FRA notes that this
approval would not supersede any other
certifications or approvals required,
such as those under § 213.345 or
§ 238.913 for operation of the equipment
on the general system, but FRA approval
under this section would be required
before the railroad may institute
passenger service. If a railroad seeks to
operate the equipment for non-testing
reasons before this approval has been
received (e.g., demonstration runs or
press events), the railroad would
likewise be required to receive explicit
FRA approval of such operations to
ensure their safety. In this regard, the
definition of ‘‘tourist, scenic, historic, or
excursion operations’’ in § 238.5 makes
clear that train movements of new
passenger equipment for demonstration
purposes are not tourist, scenic, historic,
or excursion operations.18
Proposed paragraph (b) contains the
pre-revenue testing and commissioning
requirements for equipment that has
been previously used within the United
States. As discussed, these requirements
are currently contained under
§ 238.111(a). The RSAC recommended
that the requirements for new and
16 64
FR 25540 and 83 FR 59182.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
17 Id.
18 67 FR 19969, 19971 (April 23, 2002) (‘‘FRA
recognizes that a train consisting of new passenger
equipment that is operated for demonstration
purposes is seemingly not conveying passengers to
a particular destination as its principal purpose.
However, the very usage of new passenger
equipment, as opposed to antiquated equipment,
and the clear business purposes of the train,
distinguish such demonstration train operations
from the class of train operations FRA intended to
exclude from the requirements of the rule under
§ 238.3(c)(3). Any person wishing to operate such
a demonstration train that does not comply with a
requirement of the rule must file a request for a
waiver and obtain FRA’s approval on the waiver
request prior to commencing the demonstration
train’s operation.’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
previously used equipment be swapped
in order to better reflect the order in
which these requirements would be
applied in practice, and the fact that
new vehicles, by nature, have more
requirements that must be met. FRA
invites comment on this proposed
change.
FRA is proposing to expand the
requirements for vehicles that have been
previously used in revenue service in
the United States. Under paragraph
(b)(1), the railroad would be required to
verify the applicability of previous tests
performed under paragraphs
(a)(1)(vii)(A) through (D) of this section
and perform such tests if previous test
data does not exist, cannot be obtained,
or does not support demonstration of
safe operation within the intended
operating environment. Additionally,
proposed paragraph (b)(2) contains a
record retention requirement, with
proposed paragraph (b)(3) detailing
what equipment would be considered
previously used in revenue service.
Proposed paragraph (c) outlines the
regulatory requirements for any
modifications, major upgrades, or
introduction of new technology on
passenger equipment that is currently in
revenue service. The proposed language
establishes the scope of any pre-revenue
testing, which would be expanded to
include Tier I equipment, limited to
only those safety-critical systems, subsystems, or functionality that may be
affected by the introduction of the
changes or new technology. As always,
FRA would encourage railroads and
suppliers to reach out to FRA if there
are any questions as to what the scope
of this testing should include.
19745
To comply with the proposed
requirement, the railroad must
determine the total number of unique
emergency system designs within its
railcar fleet and utilize an appropriate
statistical test method to determine the
required sample size for each design
type.
These proposed requirements, which
would be in addition to the existing
periodic inspection requirements
specified under § 238.307(c)(5)(i), are
intended to ensure that emergency
lighting systems function as intended in
accident scenarios, taking into
consideration the operational conditions
that might impact the performance of
emergency lighting and associated
electrical systems, particularly backup
power supplies. An emergency lighting
system may be compliant, by design, but
fail if activated during revenue
operations due to insufficient charging
of the backup power supply. For
example, to conserve fuel, many
railroads turn off head-end power (HEP)
on consists after their last revenue run.
If the same consist is not provided
sufficient time to charge its back-up
power system before it is placed back in
revenue service, the emergency lighting
system may fail to meet the performance
requirements of § 238.115. The railroad
would be required to take into
consideration these operational factors
when determining an appropriate
sampling method. FRA is also seeking
comment on whether public address or
emergency intercom systems should
also have a similar testing requirement,
as they are often powered by the same
back-up power supply.
Section 238.115 Emergency Lighting
FRA is proposing to revise this
section by adding new paragraph (c).
Under proposed paragraph (c), FRA
would include additional requirements
for periodic inspection of emergency
lighting systems pursuant to sec. 22406
of the IIJA. For consistency, the periodic
inspection requirements for this
paragraph are modeled after similar
requirements for emergency windows in
§ 238.113. Like the requirements for
emergency windows, FRA would expect
the railroad to develop an inspection
plan designed to capture a
representative sample of the emergency
lighting system designs used throughout
its fleet. In this regard, cars of similar
construction may still require unique
sample sets, if the design and
components are materially different.19
Section 238.131 Exterior Side Door
Safety Systems—New Passenger Cars
and Locomotives Used in Passenger
Service
FRA is proposing to revise paragraph
(a)(1) of this section, which describes
certain requirements applicable to safety
systems for powered exterior side doors.
The proposed revisions address new
door designs in high-speed trainsets,
and specifically address trainsets
equipped with plug-type exterior side
doors that do not provide a minimum
1.5-inch gap at the leading edge of the
door when the emergency release is
activated. These proposed revisions
would also permit a speed interlock
preventing operation of the emergency
release mechanism while the vehicle is
moving.
For equipment with plug-type exterior
side doors, the proposed revision to
19 For example, due to the age of a passenger car,
two cars of similar design may actually utilize two
very different lighting designs, particularly if one
involves a third-party retrofit to replace an older
system. The railroad should take this into account
when designing its sampling methodology.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
19746
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
paragraph (a)(1) states that the
requirements of section 2.9 (including
section 2.9.1) of the APTA standard for
the side door emergency release
mechanism, identified in APTA
standard PR–M–S–18–10, ‘‘Standard for
Powered Exterior Side Door System
Design for New Passenger Cars,’’
approved February 11, 2011, would be
supplanted with three new regulatory
requirements.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(i) describes
the proposed requirements for the visual
instructions, operation, and
functionality of the emergency release
mechanism for the plug-type exterior
side door. It also proposes a requirement
that some form of feedback must be
provided to the passenger to alert the
passenger that the emergency release
mechanism has actuated. For example,
a light activating over the door, or a
sound played over a speaker in close
proximity to the door, or a combination
thereof, may satisfy the feedback
requirement.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ii) would
establish requirements for the activation
of the emergency release mechanism,
specifying that activation must not
require electric or pneumatic power and
that access to the device not require the
use of tools or other implements. This
proposed paragraph also contains
requirements specifying the appropriate
amount of force necessary to activate
interior and exterior emergency release
mechanisms, along with requiring a
manual resetting of the device.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iii) would
permit a speed interlock preventing
operation of the emergency release
mechanism when the vehicle is moving.
In proposing to revise paragraph
(a)(1), FRA is considering further
revisions regarding movements of
locomotive consists within a yard, when
those locomotives are not connected to
passenger cars. There may be situations
where traction power to the locomotives
is inhibited by the door system as the
door system may not be able to
distinguish between the absence of
passenger cars and an exterior side door
being open. FRA invites comment on
this issue.
Section 238.139 Vehicle/Track System
Qualification
As proposed, this section would
adopt the general structure of § 213.345
of this chapter, which generally
provides vehicle/track qualification
requirements for equipment operating
on FRA track Class 6 and above (or at
speeds producing high cant
deficiencies), for passenger equipment
operating on lower-speed track classes.
Similar to § 213.345, this new section
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
would require demonstration that the
equipment can operate safely and
within the vehicle/track interaction
safety limits specified in § 213.333
either through dynamic testing only, or
through a combination of testing and
simulations. A major tenet of this
proposal is to provide transferability of
vehicle qualification through the use of
testing and simulations so that when
moving equipment from one part of a
system to another, or to another
railroad’s system, certain testing under
§ 238.111 does not need to be repeated.
In this regard, this proposed section
would serve as an extension and
clarification of pre-revenue service
acceptance testing under § 238.111,
helping to provide greater specificity as
to the pre-revenue service acceptance
testing requirements with respect to
vehicle/track qualification.
FRA makes clear that the proposed
requirements of this section in no way
modify or supplant the testing
requirements in § 213.345; § 213.345
applies on its own and must be
complied with when necessary. This
proposal is to be complementary to
§ 213.345, filling the gaps in stability
testing for passenger equipment not
addressed under § 213.345. Specifically,
and further discussed below, this
section would address gaps in testing
for new equipment through Class 5 track
speeds and 6 inches of cant deficiency,
and for previously qualified equipment
through Class 6 track speeds and 6
inches of cant deficiency by adding, as
an alternative, requirements for
demonstrating compliance through
dynamic testing over a representative
segment of the route and minimally
compliant analytical track (MCAT)
simulations.
As discussed elsewhere, this section
presents two paths for demonstrating
compliance with the safety limits of
§ 213.333, as part of the pre-revenue
service acceptance testing process. A
railroad could elect to measure carbody
and truck accelerations over the entirety
of the system the vehicle is intended to
operate (which is what is currently
required), or it could measure those
same accelerations over a representative
segment of the system coupled with
MCAT simulations. If a railroad elects
the former, the resultant qualification
would be applicable only for the
territory over which compliance was
demonstrated. If a railroad elects the
latter path, then that resultant
qualification under this section would
be transferable to a new territory so long
it was for the same FRA track class and
cant deficiency. With that said,
however, should a vehicle be subject to
high-speed qualification testing under
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 213.345, those requirements in
§ 213.345 apply regardless of the path
chosen under this section.
FRA invites comment whether this
section should cross-reference the
suspension system safety requirements
in § 238.227, whether § 238.227 requires
any conforming changes, or whether any
other changes are necessary in
establishing the requirements proposed
in this new section, including changes
to part 213 of this chapter. FRA also
invites comment on the nature of any
such changes and, as appropriate, may
provide for them in the final rule.
Under paragraph (a), FRA proposes
that, for qualification purposes, the
safety of the equipment must be
demonstrated in an overspeed condition
not to exceed 5 mph above the
maximum proposed operating speed as
specified in paragraph (a)(1). Proposed
paragraph (a)(2) would require that the
testing be conducted on track meeting
the track safety requirements specified
under part 213 for the class of track over
which the equipment would operate,
with an allowance for qualification
testing to be conducted at a speed
greater than that specified for the class
of track should the combination of the
proposed maximum operating speed
and overspeed testing requirement
exceed the maximum authorized speed
for that track class.
Paragraph (b) would address the
qualification of existing vehicle types
and provide that such vehicle types
previously qualified or permitted to
operate be considered qualified under
the requirements of this section for
operation at the previously operated
speeds and cant deficiencies over the
previously operated track segment(s).
FRA makes clear that this qualification
applies only for operation over the
previously operated track segment(s)
and does not confer transferability of
such qualification. To operate such
vehicle types over new routes (even at
the same track speeds and cant
deficiencies), the qualification
requirements contained in other
paragraphs of this section must be met,
in addition to any other applicable
testing and qualification requirements.
Proposed paragraph (c) would contain
the requirements for qualifying new
vehicle types (or vehicle types
previously qualified according to
paragraph (b) for operation over new
track segments). For clarity, FRA
intends that vehicles being qualified
under this proposed paragraph be tested
under the requirements of this section
through track Class 5 speeds and 6
inches of cant deficiency in addition to
any testing required under part 213 of
this chapter. This means that the
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
graduated method of demonstrating
vehicle stability would start at track
Class 2 speeds and 3 inches of cant
deficiency, as discussed in more detail
below.
Paragraph (c)(1)(i) would describe the
proposed testing procedure for new
vehicle types at track Class 1 speeds.
The procedure described is aligned with
FRA Safety Advisory 2013–02: LowSpeed, Wheel-Climb Derailments of
Passenger Equipment With ‘‘Stiff’’
Suspension Systems (Safety
Advisory).20 Compliance would be
demonstrated using computer
simulations with a validated numerical
model of the vehicle operating over the
geometry conditions specified in the
Safety Advisory at track Class 1 speeds
plus 5 mph in the AW0 (no ‘‘added
weight’’) and AW3 (maximum
passenger) loading conditions. The
simulation results must show that under
these conditions wheel/rail forces do
not exceed the safety limits in § 213.333.
Paragraph (c)(1)(i) would also require
demonstration of compliance with
APTA PR–M–S–014–06, Rev. 1,
‘‘Standard for Wheel Load Equalization
of Passenger Railroad Rolling Stock,’’
Authorized June 1, 2017, which is
accomplished by static testing to
demonstrate that wheel unloading does
not exceed the limits prescribed in the
standard. FRA is proposing to
incorporate by reference this APTA
standard into this paragraph. APTA PR–
M–S–014–06 establishes static wheel
load equalization requirements to
provide passenger equipment with the
wheel unloading characteristics
necessary to reduce the risk of lowspeed wheel climb derailments. It also
provides the test conditions, equipment,
and procedures necessary to
demonstrate compliance with the
enumerated static wheel load
equalization requirements. APTA PR–
M–S–014–06 is reasonably available to
all interested parties online at
www.apta.com. Additionally, FRA will
maintain a copy available for review.
FRA notes that APTA recently came
out with a standard for evaluating lowspeed vehicle curving performance of
railroad passenger equipment, APTA
PR–M–S–031–22, which follows the
intent of FRA’s Safety Advisory and
provides additional detail on
conducting simulations to evaluate
curving performance. FRA therefore
invites comment whether the final rule
should reference APTA standard PR–M–
S–031–22 in this section and on the
effect it should be given.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(ii) specifies
the testing necessary to demonstrate
20 50
FR 16358 (Mar. 14, 2013).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
compliance with the safety limits in
§ 213.333 at speeds from track Classes 2
through 5 and up to 6 inches of cant
deficiency. In order to be qualified
under this section, a railroad must
perform simulations, as specified in
proposed paragraph (c)(2), in addition to
the carbody and truck acceleration
measurements under proposed
paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) respectively.
The results of simulations and dynamic
testing must demonstrate that the safety
limits in § 213.333 are not exceeded.
This proposed paragraph would also
provide a mechanism for transferability
of the qualification under this proposed
section to allow operation of previously
qualified vehicles over new track
segments at the same class of track and
cant deficiency. This proposed
paragraph would not provide
transferability of any qualification
conferred under § 213.345, however.
Again, FRA makes clear that the
requirements of this section are
intended to be complementary to those
requirements found under § 213.345.
FRA recognizes that in some scenarios,
there may be overlap between the
requirement proposed under this
section and those under § 213.345. For
example, when attempting to qualify a
new vehicle type for operation at Class
4 track speeds, where up to 6 inches of
cant deficiency would be produced,
§ 213.345 would require the use of
carbody accelerometers and the
performance of a lean test. As proposed,
when attempting to qualify the same
new vehicle type for the same service,
this proposed section would also
require the use of carbody
accelerometers, in addition to truck
accelerometers and MCAT simulations.
So, while there may be overlap in
certain requirements between these
proposed requirements and existing
requirements under part 213 (such as
the use of carbody accelerometers), FRA
views any as harmonious. The new
vehicle type being qualified in this
scenario would be subject to the
following requirements: a lean test, the
use of carbody and truck
accelerometers, and MCAT simulations,
with the testing and simulations starting
at Class 2 track speeds and 3 inches of
cant deficiency. FRA does invite
comment, however, on whether there
are any possible scenarios where there
could be a conflict.
Paragraph (c)(2) describes the analysis
procedure that is to be performed using
an industry-recognized methodology.
The analysis considers the vehicle
under evaluation operating on
analytically defined track segments
representing minimally compliant track
conditions as defined in appendix C to
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19747
this part, and a track segment
representative of the route over which
the vehicle is to operate. These
requirements are reflective of similar
requirements in § 213.345 for track Class
6 and greater, but do not replace the
testing and analysis required under
§ 213.345. This paragraph also requires
a linear system analysis to identify the
frequency and damping of the truck
hunting modes. Damping of these
modes must be at least 5%, up to the
maximum intended operating speed + 5
mph considering equivalent conicities
starting at 0.1 up to 0.6. The conicities
range proposed is based on conicities
prevalent on the Northeast Corridor.
FRA invites comments on whether this
proposed range is appropriate.
Proposed paragraphs (c)(3) and (4)
would require representative route
testing for all operations at track Class
2 through 5 speeds and up to 6 inches
of cant deficiency. Testing shall include
measurements of carbody lateral and
vertical accelerations and truck lateral
accelerations that must not exceed the
safety limits specified in § 213.333.
In paragraph (d), FRA proposes to
separate and explicitly define the
qualification requirements for vehicle
types previously qualified by simulation
and testing under paragraph (c) of this
section intended to operate on new
track segments as defined in paragraphs
(d)(1) through (3). FRA notes
simulations are especially useful for
demonstrating that, when qualified
vehicles are intended to operate on a
new route, the new vehicle/track system
is adequately examined for deficiencies
prior to revenue service operation.
Paragraph (d)(1) addresses vehicle
types previously qualified in accordance
with paragraph (c). These vehicles may
be operated on other routes with the
same track class designation and at the
same or lower cant deficiency without
additional testing, simulations, or FRA
approval.
For vehicle types operating at speeds
not to exceed Class 6 track speeds or at
curving speeds producing greater than 5
inches of cant deficiency, but not
exceeding 6 inches, paragraph (d)(2)
would require that qualification testing
on a representative segment of the new
route be performed to demonstrate that
the carbody lateral and vertical
acceleration limits in § 213.333 are
respected.
Proposed paragraph (d)(3) would
require vehicle types that are previously
qualified by testing alone to be subject
to the requirements of paragraph (c) for
new equipment.
Paragraph (e) would provide
requirements for the content of the
qualification testing plan, which would
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19748
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
be submitted to FRA’s Associate
Administrator at least 60 days prior to
conducting the testing. This 60-day
period is to allow FRA sufficient time to
review and approve the plan, and to
seek clarification from the submitter as
necessary. In some cases, the review and
approval may be able to be
accomplished in less than 60 days; in
other cases, the process may take longer,
especially if the plan is incomplete or if
questions are raised. FRA is mindful of
the concern that FRA not unduly delay
testing, and at the same time recognizes
that safety is better and more efficiently
served by identifying potential safety
issues early in the qualification process.
FRA therefore encourages those
planning to conduct qualification
testing to approach FRA prior to the
submission of their test plans should
they have any questions or concerns
about the testing and approval process.
As proposed, the test program would
establish a program of tests that permit
identification of the operating limits of
the vehicle/track system and would
include, as identified in the following
proposed paragraphs: under (e)(1), a
description of the representative
segment of the route over which the
vehicle is intended to be operated;
under (e)(2), consideration of the
operating environment during
qualification testing, including
operating practices and conditions, the
signal system, highway-rail grade
crossings, and trains on adjacent tracks;
under (e)(3), identification of the
maximum angle found on the gage face
of the designed (newly profiled) wheel
flange referenced to the axis of the
wheelset (the wheel flange angle would
be used to determine the Single Wheel
L/V Ratio safety limit specified in
§ 213.333); under (e)(4), identification of
the target maximum testing speed in
accordance with paragraph (a) of this
section and the maximum testing cant
deficiency; and under (e)(5), the results
of vehicle/track performance
simulations required by this section.
Proposed paragraph (f) would contain
the requirements for conducting the
two-stage qualification testing upon
FRA approval of the qualification test
plan. The two-stage testing approach
permits assessment of safe vehicle
operation on tangent and curved track
segments individually as the test speed
is incrementally increased.
Stage-one testing, proposed under
paragraph (f)(1), would require that for
testing on tangent track (proposed under
paragraph (f)(1)(i)), test speed is
incrementally increased from maximum
speeds corresponding to each track class
to the target maximum test speed. Under
paragraph (f)(1)(ii), testing speeds for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
curved track would start at that speed
necessary to produce 3 inches of cant
deficiency and would be incrementally
increased until the maximum testing
cant deficiency is achieved. The target
maximum test speed and maximum
testing cant deficiency are specified in
the test plan. Incrementally increasing
the testing speed would allow for
assessment of the dynamic response of
the vehicle with respect to the vehicle/
track interaction safety limits specified
in § 213.333 of this chapter and
establish the maximum safe speed and
cant deficiency.
Under paragraph (f)(2), FRA proposes
requirements for stage-two testing of the
vehicle over the representative segment
of the route. As proposed, stage-two
testing can begin only when stage-one
testing has successfully demonstrated a
maximum safe operating speed and cant
deficiency. Under these proposed
requirements, two round-trips over the
representative segment of the route are
required: the first is at the speed for
which the railroad is seeking FRA
approval for service (which may be
limited by the results of stage-one
testing); the second is performed at 5
mph above this speed. The orientation
of the equipment (in the direction of
travel) is to be reversed for each leg of
the round-trip.
Under proposed paragraph (f)(3), if
during stage-one and -two testing, any of
the monitored safety limits are exceeded
on any segment of track, testing may
continue provided that the track
location(s) where any of the limits are
exceeded be identified and test speeds
be limited at the track location(s) until
corrective action is taken. Corrective
action may include making an
adjustment in the track, in the vehicle,
or in both of these system components.
Proposed paragraph (f)(4) would
require that Track Geometry
Measurement System (TGMS)
equipment be operated over the
intended test route (the representative
segment of the route) within 30 days
prior to the start of the testing, to help
ensure the integrity of the test results.
Proposed paragraph (g) would contain
the requirements for reporting to FRA’s
Associate Administrator the results of
the qualification testing program. The
qualification test report must include all
results obtained during the qualification
test program. When simulations
comprise a portion of the report,
comparisons of the simulated
accelerations to those measured during
the testing must be submitted to
demonstrate model validation. For
purposes of model validation, the report
should also include comparisons that
demonstrate the accuracy of the model
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
under various conditions, specifically:
predicting the transfer of wheel loads
when a vehicle is unbalanced, the
transfer of wheel loads when the
primary suspension is deflected to
simulate twist or warp, and the
frequency and damping ratio associated
with dominant vehicle modes. FRA
invites comment whether FRA should
make these expectations explicit in the
regulatory text for MCAT model
validation under this part, and
potentially under part 213 of this
chapter as well. The qualification test
report must be submitted no less than
60 days from the date the railroad
intends to operate the equipment in
revenue service.
Under paragraph (h)(1), FRA proposes
to approve a maximum train speed and
value of cant deficiency for revenue
service, based on the test results and all
other required submissions. FRA
intends to provide an approval decision
normally within 45 days of receipt of all
the required information in the form of
the qualification test report. FRA may
impose conditions, as necessary, to help
ensure safe operations at the maximum
train speed and value of cant deficiency
approved for revenue service.
Proposed paragraph (h)(2) would
consider vehicle types previously
qualified in accordance with paragraph
(c) of this section for operations at Class
2 through 5 speeds, or at curving speeds
producing up to 6 inches of cant
deficiency, on one route to be approved
for operation on another route at the
same maximum speed and cant
deficiency.
Proposed paragraph (i) makes clear
that the documents required by this
section must be provided to FRA by
either: (1) the track owner; or (2) a
railroad that provides service with the
same vehicle type over trackage of one
or more track owner(s), with the written
consent of each affected track owner.
For example, Amtrak is a railroad that
provides passenger service over trackage
often owned by other entities, usually
freight railroads. Under this example,
Amtrak would need the consent of the
freight railroad (the affected track
owner) to conduct the testing. This is to
ensure that the track owner is fully
apprised as to the status of the track
owner’s track in case any anomalies
during testing should arise. In another
example, Amtrak is also a track owner
over whose trackage numerous
passenger railroads operate, such as the
Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority (SEPTA) and
New Jersey Transit (NJT); under this
scenario, Amtrak, as the track owner,
would not need the consent of these
railroads, but these railroads would
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
need Amtrak’s consent when seeking
vehicle/track system qualification under
this section.
Section 238.201 Scope/Alternative
Compliance
FRA is proposing to revise paragraph
(a)(1) of this section to harmonize the
language with other changes being
proposed to part 238. Specifically, FRA
would harmonize the language
referencing the Safety Appliance Act (49
U.S.C. ch. 203) in an effort to make clear
that Tier I equipment may follow either
the current, legacy safety appliance
requirements (49 CFR part 231, and
§§ 238.229 and 238.230), or the
proposed requirements under § 238.791.
So, while the requirements of the Safety
Appliance Act would continue to
remain applicable, other means would
be provided for complying with those
statutory requirements.
Additionally, FRA proposes to correct
a typographical error. Currently, this
paragraph references § 232.2, which
does not exist. FRA would correct that
reference instead to § 232.3, the
applicability section of part 232.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Section 238.230 Safety Appliances—
New Equipment
FRA proposes to amend paragraph (a)
of this section to clarify that a Tier I
alternative passenger trainset that
complies with the requirements of
proposed § 238.791 is not subject to the
requirements of this section.
Section 238.235 Safety Appliances for
Non-Passenger Carrying Locomotives
Used in Passenger Service
FRA is proposing to revise this
section to identify the design standards
for safety appliances on non-passenger
carrying locomotives used in passenger
service, in an effort to provide clarity
and to remove the need for
interpretation for the various
requirements contained in 49 CFR part
231. Specifically, paragraph (a) proposes
to clarify that these requirements are
intended to apply to locomotives used
in passenger service that utilize
monocoque, semi-monocoque, or
carbody construction common to most
passenger road locomotives. FRA is
inviting comment on this paragraph
generally and, in particular, whether
specific implementation dates are
necessary (and, if so, what the
implementation dates should be).
Because many of these proposed
requirements were developed when the
PSWG developed the safety appliances
standards for Tier III trainsets
(contained in proposed § 238.791), there
is considerable overlap between the
proposed requirements. Accordingly,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
FRA references proposed § 238.791
when provisions under this section are
identical to those under § 238.791. In
such situations, FRA relies on the
analysis provided under § 238.791,
rather than repeat it here.
Proposed paragraphs (b) through (e) of
this section address attachment, fatigue
life, handholds, and sill steps. The
requirements proposed under each of
these paragraphs are identical to the
requirements under proposed
§ 238.791(b) through (e).
Proposed paragraph (f) contains the
requirements for ground level access to
(or egress to ground level from) the
locomotive cab and other carbody side
doors on a non-passenger carrying
locomotive. This proposed paragraph
contains the general requirement that
exterior side locomotive cab access
doors and other carbody side doors be
equipped with appropriate safety
appliances to permit safe access to the
locomotive cab by employees and other
authorized personnel from ground level.
Because many passenger road
locomotives do not utilize switching
steps and platforms with external
walkways, access to the locomotive cab
or other compartments, or the
locomotive’s B end, is usually provided
by an external door accompanied with
a ladder and handhold arrangement.
Accordingly, this proposed paragraph
would provide the requirements for how
such arrangements should be applied
properly, based on the governing
elements of part 231 and contemporary
practice on diesel-electric and electric
locomotives.
Proposed paragraph (f)(1) would
provide the requirements for the
number, location, dimension, and
clearance for handholds at each ground
level access location to the locomotive
cab and other carbody side doors on a
non-passenger carrying locomotive.
These requirements would mirror
similar provisions under proposed
§ 238.791(f). Additionally, proposed
paragraph (f)(2) would make the
requirements of proposed
§ 238.791(e)(2) and (3) applicable to
steps at each of these locations.
Under proposed paragraph (g),
concerning couplers on non-passenger
carrying locomotives, FRA would make
the coupler requirements of § 238.791(g)
applicable to these locomotives.
Proposed paragraph (h) would
provide requirements for uncoupling
levers. As these requirements would
very closely mirror similar requirements
under proposed § 238.791(h), FRA relies
on the same, supporting analysis.
However, there is a notable difference
between the two sections that should be
highlighted. If a non-passenger carrying
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19749
locomotive is equipped with a manual
uncoupling lever, that lever must be
operative from both sides of the
locomotive, rather than just the left side
of the equipment as proposed under
§ 238.791(h).
Proposed paragraph (i) would permit
the coupler, end handholds, and
uncoupling mechanism on the leading
and trailing ends of a non-passenger
carrying locomotive to be stored within
a removable shroud to reduce
aerodynamic effects. This mirrors the
same requirement proposed under
§ 238.791(i).
Proposed paragraph (j) contains the
requirement for a non-passenger
carrying locomotive to be equipped with
an efficient hand brake. This proposed
paragraph also includes the term
‘‘parking’’ brake, acknowledging the
brake’s primary role on a locomotive as
a device used to hold a locomotive or
train at a static location, as opposed to
a means to brake (slow or stop) the train,
as applied to railcars before the wide
adoption of pneumatic braking systems.
In this respect, the proposed
performance requirement based on a 3
percent grade, or the railroad’s
maximum grade (if greater), was also
added to reflect common practice. This
proposed requirement would mirror
§ 238.791(j).
Proposed paragraph (k)(1) provides
for the arrangement of safety appliances
on non-passenger carrying locomotives
to facilitate certain maintenance tasks.
Should a locomotive be equipped with
appurtenances such as headlights,
windshield wipers, marker lights, and
other similar items required for the safe
operation of the locomotive that are
designed to be maintained or replaced
from the exterior of the locomotive, then
the locomotive must be equipped with
handholds and steps meeting the
requirements of this section to allow for
the safe maintenance and replacement
of these appurtenances. However, under
proposed paragraph (k)(2), the
requirements under proposed paragraph
(k)(1) would not apply if railroad
operating rules require, and actual
practice entails, the maintenance and
replacement of these components by
maintenance personnel in locations that
are protected by the requirements of
subpart B of part 218 of this chapter and
equipped with ladders and other tools
to safely repair or maintain those
appurtenances. The requirements of this
proposed paragraph (k) mirror similar
requirements proposed under
§ 238.791(k).
Paragraph (l) would require that any
safety appliances installed at the option
of the railroad must be approved
pursuant to § 238.110.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
19750
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Subpart H—Specific Requirements for
Tier III Passenger Equipment
Section 238.701
Scope
This subpart contains requirements
for railroad passenger equipment
operating in a shared right-of-way at
speeds not exceeding 125 mph and in
an exclusive right-of-way without grade
crossings at speeds exceeding 125 mph
but not exceeding 220 mph. FRA
proposes to revise the scope of this
subpart by adding a reference to
proposed § 238.110, to help clarify the
compliance demonstration and approval
process for this Tier III passenger
equipment. FRA is also proposing to
remove the undesignated center
headings in this subpart (‘‘Trainset
Structure,’’ ‘‘Glazing,’’ ‘‘Brake System,’’
‘‘Interior Fittings and Surfaces,’’
‘‘Emergency Systems,’’ and ‘‘Cab
Equipment’’) to accommodate proposed
additions and other changes.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Section 238.719
Suspension
Trucks and
In this section, FRA proposes safety
performance standards for Tier III
suspension systems. These performance
standards would require a suspension
system design that reasonably prevents
wheel climb, wheel unloading, rail
rollover, rail shift, and vehicle overturn
to ensure safe, stable performance and
ride quality. The proposed requirements
are consistent with the general
standards for high-speed trainsets
adopted by the railroad industry and
regulatory bodies around the world, and
the overall approach is based on the
suspension system safety provisions in
existing §§ 238.227 and 238.427.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would
explain the general requirements
applicable to Tier III trucks and
suspension systems and describe the
different track conditions and
characteristics that must be taken into
account when determining compliance
with these requirements. Proposed
paragraph (a)(2) would clarify the
applicability of part 213 to Tier III
trucks and suspension systems subject
to this section, both while in general
operation and during the pre-revenue
service qualification and revenue
service operation stages of operations.
Paragraph (b) would prohibit Tier III
trainsets from operating under
conditions that result in a steady-state
lateral acceleration greater than 0.15g, as
measured parallel to the car floor inside
the passenger compartment. This
paragraph would also require that Tier
III trainsets comply with the carbody
acceleration limits specified in
§ 213.333.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
Paragraph (c) describes the proposed
lateral acceleration performance
standards, with specific reference to the
appropriate train monitoring system
response to the detection of truck
hunting and explains that compliance
with this paragraph would be subject to
the limits defined in § 213.333.
Paragraph (d) proposes limits for
wheelsets based on the distances
between wheel flanges. Notably,
paragraph (d)(3) proposes that the backto-back distance between flanges of two
wheels on the same axle not vary more
than 1⁄4 inch when measured at similar
points on each wheel. The back-to-back
distance is measured from the inside
face of the wheel (the portion of the
wheel facing the inside gage of the
track) to the inside face of the other
wheel. As proposed, the measurements
from a point on the flange of one wheel
to the same point on the opposite
wheel’s flange may not be more than 1⁄4
inch when multiple measurements are
taken around the circumference of the
wheel at the flange location. When this
is done, care should be taken to ensure
that the measurement points are the
same distance from a common, nondeformable reference point for
consistency and accuracy of
measurement.
FRA invites comments on this
proposed section, including comment
specifically on the appropriate track
conditions and characteristics to be
included in determining compliance
with this section.
Section 238.723 Pilots, Snowplows,
and End Plates
Under this section, FRA proposes
requirements for pilots, snowplows, and
end plates on passenger equipment,
which aim to serve the same purposes
as § 229.123 of this chapter, with slight
modifications to address the unique
characteristics of Tier III passenger
equipment and operations. The most
significant difference between the
proposed requirements for pilots,
snowplows, and end plates on Tier III
passenger equipment and similar
requirements in § 229.123 would be the
increase in the maximum clearance
from six inches to nine inches for a lead
vehicle equipped with an obstacle
deflector or truck (bogie)-mounted
wheel guard. FRA is proposing this
modification based on industry input to
address the greater vertical movement of
the lead vehicle during higher-speed
passenger operations.
Section 238.725 Overheat Sensors
Proposed section 238.725 would make
applicable to Tier III trainsets the same
minimum requirements for the use and
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
placement of overheat sensors currently
applicable to Tier II trainsets under
§ 238.428. Section 238.428 requires
overheat sensors for each Tier II
equipment wheelset journal bearing,
placed either onboard the equipment or
at reasonable intervals along the
railroad’s right-of-way. FRA invites
comment on this proposed application
to Tier III trainsets to monitor wheelset
journal overheating.
Section 238.745 Emergency
Communication
FRA is proposing to add this section
to address communication systems, to
provide requirements for public address
(PA) and intercom systems for Tier III
trainsets. By adding these requirements,
which FRA had intended to include in
the 2018 final rule, FRA would
harmonize the emergency
communication requirements for Tier III
trainsets with similar emergency system
requirements (i.e., emergency lighting)
already established.
With one exception, the proposed
emergency communication
requirements for Tier III trainsets would
be the same as the existing emergency
communication requirements in
§ 238.121 for passenger trainsets, as
stated in proposed paragraph (a). The
exception would be for emergency
communication back-up power systems,
permitting alternative crash loadings
instead of those required in
§ 238.121(c)(2). This proposed exception
is detailed in paragraph (b), under
which a railroad may seek to use the
loading requirements defined in Section
6.1.4, ‘‘Security of furniture, equipment
and features,’’ of Railway Group
Standard GM/RT2100, Issue Four,
‘‘Requirements for Rail Vehicle
Structures,’’ Rail Safety and Standards
Board Ltd., December 2010, which FRA
proposes to incorporate by reference in
this paragraph. In particular, these
loading requirements are the same as
those for alternatively demonstrating
adequate attachment strength of
emergency lighting back-up power
systems in Tier III trainsets discussed in
the 2016 NPRM and 2018 final rule
under § 238.743.21 Accordingly, both
the interior lighting fixtures and their
emergency back-up power systems
would be subject to the same alternative
loading requirements. As in § 238.743,
use of the alternative loading
requirements would be carried out
consistent with any conditions
identified by the railroad, as approved
by FRA.
21 81 FR 88006 (Dec. 6, 2016); 83 FR 59182 (Nov.
21, 2018).
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Section 6.1.4 contains requirements
for securement of furniture, on-board
equipment, and other trainset features to
help mitigate against injuries to
passengers and crew from secondary
impacts within the occupied volume.
GM/RT2100 is available to all interested
parties online at www.rgsonline.co.uk/
Railway_Group_Standards.
Additionally, FRA would maintain a
copy available for review.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Section 238.747 Emergency Roof
Access
In this section, FRA proposes
requirements for emergency roof access
to the cabs of Tier III trainsets. These
requirements aim to ensure that the
trainset design allows for proper roof
access for rescue access purposes for cab
occupants in Tier III trainsets. This
emergency roof access point would be
required only if trainset design does not
allow cab occupants access to
emergency roof access locations
otherwise required in the passenger
compartment of the trainset. The
proposed requirements would also
define the dimensions for the
emergency roof access location while
making specifically applicable
paragraphs (b), (d), and (e) of § 238.123
(Emergency roof access).
Should train crewmembers occupying
the Tier III cab have ready access to
emergency roof access locations in the
passenger compartment that comply
with § 238.123, then the railroad would
not need to comply with the
requirements of this section, as the
intent of the requirement (access to the
roof of the trainset for cab occupants in
emergency situations to facilitate rescue
access) would be fulfilled. FRA also
clarifies that the location of the
emergency roof access point under this
proposed section would not need to be
directly over or into the cab, and could
be a location behind the cab, so long as
cab occupants have access.
Section 238.755 General Safety
Requirements
Proposed § 238.755 is based on
existing §§ 229.13, 229.41, and 229.45.
Specifically, proposed paragraph (a)
would cross-reference the requirements
of § 229.41 for protection from personal
injury. Proposed paragraph (b) would
cross-reference the requirements of
§ 229.45, requiring that a Tier III trainset
be free from conditions that would
endanger the safety of the passengers,
crew, or equipment. Moreover, FRA
makes clear that it does not intend for
this provision to be limited to the list of
conditions identified under § 229.45.
FRA would view other conditions not
listed but still endangering the safety of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
passengers, crew, or equipment to be
covered by this provision. Proposed
paragraph (c) would make applicable
the requirements of § 229.13 when
multiple Tier III trainsets are coupled in
remote- or multiple-control. FRA
reiterates that although the term
‘‘locomotive’’ is used under § 229.13,
the substantive requirements of this
proposed paragraph are intended to be
applied to Tier III trainsets, and thus
should be read as such.
Section 238.757 Cab, Floors, and
Passageways
Under § 238.757, FRA is proposing
requirements for Tier III trainset cabs,
floors, and passageways, and is basing
these proposed requirements on
§ 229.119. Proposed paragraph (a), based
on § 229.119(a) and (i), contains the
requirements for Tier III trainset cab
doors. This paragraph proposes that
such trainset cab doors be equipped
with a secure and operable device to
lock the doors from both the inside and
outside without impeding egress from
the cab.
Proposed paragraph (b), based on
§ 229.119(b), would require that Tier III
end-facing windows located in the
leading end of the trainset be free of
cracks, breaks, or other conditions that
obscure the view of the right-of-way for
the crew from their normal positions in
the operating cab.
Proposed paragraph (c) would make
applicable to Tier III trainsets the
requirements of § 229.119(c).
Proposed paragraph (d), based on
§ 229.119(g) and (h), would require that
cabs of Tier III trainsets shall be climatecontrolled, providing both appropriate
heating and air conditioning. This
proposed paragraph also states that the
inspection, testing, and maintenance
requirements for the heating and air
condition system be specified in the
railroad’s ITM program.
Section 238.759 Trainset Cab Noise
Under § 238.759, FRA is proposing
requirements to address trainset cab
noise, which are based on § 229.121.
Proposed paragraph (a), based on
§ 229.121(a), would establish a
maximum noise threshold that
occupants of a Tier III trainset may be
subjected to (85 A-weighted decibels (85
db(A))); prohibit railroads from
modifying the cab in a manner that
would cause the noise to exceed the
maximum level; and require railroads to
follow the testing protocols, outlined
under proposed appendix I to part 238
(discussed further, below), to verify that
the noise levels within the cab do not
exceed the maximum level. Proposed
paragraph (b) would contain the
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19751
requirements addressing excessive noise
reports. This paragraph is based on
§ 229.121(b) with minor editorial
changes.
Section 238.761 Trainset Sanitation
Facilities for Employees
Under § 238.761, FRA is proposing a
set of requirements addressing
crewmember sanitation facilities, which
are based on § 229.137. Proposed
paragraph (a) would require that if a
railroad provides a crewmember
sanitation compartment, as that term is
defined under § 229.5, accessible only to
the crew onboard a Tier III trainset, that
compartment must meet the
requirements of § 229.137 and be
maintained in accordance with
§ 229.139. However, under proposed
paragraph (b), should a railroad not
provide such a sanitation compartment
exclusively for crewmembers on board
its trainset, the railroad would be
required to provide access to sanitation
facilities in accordance with
§ 229.137(b)(1)(i) in that employees
should have ready access to railroadprovided sanitation facilities external to
the trainset or sanitation facilities
elsewhere on the trainset.
Again, FRA reiterates that although
the term ‘‘locomotive’’ is used under
§ 229.137, the substantive requirements
of this proposed paragraph are intended
to be applied to Tier III trainsets, and
thus should be read as such.
Section 238.763 Speed Indicator
Under § 238.763, FRA is proposing
requirements addressing speed
indicators for Tier III trainsets. Although
these requirements are based on
§ 229.117, the requirements for speed
indicators being proposed mark a
significant departure from the
traditional requirements under part 229.
Proposed paragraph (a) provides that all
Tier III trainsets be equipped with speed
indicators, clearly readable for the
engineer’s normal position. Notably, the
accuracy requirements under proposed
paragraph (a)(1) would represent the
biggest modification of the speed
indicator requirements. Under this
proposal, a Tier III speed indicator
would be required to be accurate to
within plus or minus 1.24 mph for
speeds not exceeding 18.6 mph.22
However, the accuracy would be
permitted to deviate, linearly, up to plus
or minus 5 mph for speeds not
exceeding 220 mph. So, rather than
specifying static accuracy based on
whether one is above or below a certain
speed, FRA would permit use of a
22 These values are intended to correspond to 2
kilometers per hour (kph) and 30 kph.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
19752
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
sliding scale performance requirement.
Under this proposal, accuracy of the
speed indicator would be permitted to
change in a linear relationship to the
speed of the trainset. And, as the
necessity for more precise accuracy
diminishes the faster a Tier III trainset
operates,23 this requirement is reflective
of the actual Tier III operating
environment. Additionally, with the
advances in digital technology,
maintaining such an accuracy should
not be as challenging.
Proposed paragraph (b) would require
that the speed indicator output (what
the engineer sees) be based on a system
of independent, onboard speed
measurement sources to comply with
the accuracy requirements of proposed
paragraph (a). At a minimum, FRA
would expect that, from whatever
source the speed is derived, there would
be multiple (at least two) inputs
provided by different sensors to ensure
the accuracy of the speed as displayed
to the engineer.
Proposed paragraph (c) permits the
railroad to define the calibration
frequency for the speed indicator in its
ITM program.
Section 238.765 Event Recorders
Under this section, FRA is proposing
a set of requirements addressing event
recorders for Tier III trainsets. The
requirements, as proposed, largely
follow the event recorder requirements
under § 229.135. However, FRA has
made some changes to account for the
different technology. Notably, under
proposed paragraph (a), which would
contain the general requirement that all
Tier III trainsets be equipped with an inservice event recorder and is based on
§ 229.135(a), FRA would not require
railroads to note the mere presence of an
event recorder on FORM FRA F6180–
49A or other record, as all Tier III
trainsets would require event recorders.
Proposed paragraph (b) contains the
specific data elements to be recorded by
the event recorder and the level of
recording accuracy necessary. Notably,
proposed paragraph (b)(2) outlines the
data elements to be recorded. This
paragraph would cross-reference a large
majority of data elements contained in
§ 229.135(b)(4), specifically,
§ 229.135(b)(4)(i) through (xv), (xvii),
(xx) and (xxi). In addition, proposed
paragraph (b)(2) lists several more data
elements that are tailored toward Tier III
trainsets, such as: the application and
operation of the eddy current brake, if
equipped ((b)(2)(i)); a passenger brake
23 For example, a change in speed of 2 mph while
operating at 220 mph is not as significant as an
equivalent change in speed at 20 mph.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
alarm request ((b)(2)(ii)); a passenger
brake alarm override ((b)(2)(iii)); the
activation of the bell ((b)(2)(iv)); and the
trainset brake cylinder pressures
((b)(2)(v)). Finally, proposed paragraph
(b)(2) would require the recorded data to
be retained on a certified crashworthy
event recorder memory module that
meets the requirements of appendix D to
part 229 of this chapter.
Proposed paragraph (c), which is
based on § 229.135(c), would require
that when an in-service event recorder
is taken out of service, the date the
device was removed from service would
be annotated in the trainset’s
maintenance records, required in
accordance with proposed § 238.777.
Proposed paragraph (d), which is
based on § 229.135(d), would permit a
Tier III trainset on which the event
recorder has been taken out of service to
continue in service only until the next
pre-service inspection, as required by
the railroad’s ITM program under
proposed § 238.903(c)(2).
Proposed paragraph (e) would make
applicable to Tier III trainsets the
requirements set forth in § 229.135(e)
through (g).
Proposed paragraph (f) would require
that event recorders be tested at
intervals not to exceed 368 days, in
accordance with § 229.27(c).
FRA again reiterates that although the
term ‘‘locomotive’’ is used under
§ 229.135, the substantive requirements
of this proposed paragraph are intended
to be applied to Tier III trainsets, and
thus should be read as such.
Section 238.767
Headlights
Under this section, FRA is proposing
requirements for Tier III trainset
headlights. As proposed under
paragraph (a), each end of a Tier III
trainset would be required to be
equipped with a headlight comprised of
at least two lamps that meets the
angular, intensity, and illumination
requirements of § 229.125(a).
Proposed paragraph (b) would
prohibit Tier III trainsets from operating
with a leading end in revenue service if
a defective headlight is discovered
during the pre-service inspection; under
such circumstances, it would only be
allowed to move in accordance with the
requirements covering the movement of
defective equipment under proposed
§ 238.1003(e). However, this proposed
paragraph would permit continued
operation of a trainset’s leading end
with a defective headlight if the defect
is discovered while the trainset is in
service in accordance with the
requirements of proposed
§ 238.1003(b)(1) through (3).
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Proposed paragraph (c) would permit
the headlights of a Tier III trainset to be
dimmed, which is consistent with
existing § 229.125(c). However, because
the headlight and auxiliary light
standards are driven around the need
for consistency and conspicuity when
Tier III trainsets are used on a shared
right-of-way, the performance
requirements, themselves, would not
directly address that it may be
advantageous for a Tier III trainset to
operate for extended periods of time
with a lower candela setting.
Specifically, whereas a conventional
freight or passenger operation is likely
to utilize the dim setting only when
passing another train, idling, or as an
alternative to marker lights, a Tier III
trainset could operate for extended
periods of time within a dedicated (and
more protected) environment where the
higher output may not be necessary or
desired, particularly if the Tier III rightof-way is adjacent to or within a
highway corridor. The use of this
functionality, however, should be
described by the railroad under
proposed § 238.110(d)(2)(xv).
Proposed paragraph (d) would
provide an allowance to use alternative
lighting technology (e.g., LED versus
incandescent). It also would provide an
exception to the requirement that the
headlight consist of at least two lamps,
as required by proposed paragraph (a).
Further, this proposed paragraph (d)
would require that if such alternative
technology is used, then the railroad’s
ITM program plan must include
procedures for determining that such
headlights provide the illumination
intensity required by proposed
paragraph (a), and that the headlights
can achieve the minimum illumination
intensity under snow and ice conditions
(i.e., when there is a risk of snow and
ice accumulation on the headlight).
Section 238.769
Auxiliary Lights
Under this section, FRA is proposing
requirements addressing auxiliary lights
for Tier III trainsets, based on similar
requirements in § 229.125. Under
proposed paragraph (a), FRA would
establish the general requirement that
Tier III trainsets operating in shared
rights-of-way over public highway-rail
grade crossings at speeds 20 mph or
greater be equipped with auxiliary lights
that conform to § 229.125(d)(1) though
(3). FRA recognizes that § 229.125(d)(1)
through (3) uses some traditional terms,
such as ‘‘locomotive,’’ when describing
the placement of auxiliary lights;
however, the use of the term
‘‘locomotive,’’ or other similar terms,
should not be an impediment to
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
compliance with the requirements of
this proposed paragraph.
Proposed paragraph (b) would permit
auxiliary lights to be arranged in any
manner specified in § 229.125(e)(1)
through (2), and proposed paragraph (c)
would require compliance with
§ 229.125(f).
Proposed paragraphs (d)(1) through
(3) address requirements concerning
defective auxiliary lights, and would
require that a lead unit with a single
defective auxiliary light be switched to
a trailing position (or repaired) if
discovered during the pre-service
inspection. Although the proposal
would permit a unit to continue in the
lead position if a single defective
auxiliary light is discovered while in
service, a lead unit discovered with two
defective auxiliary lights while in
service would be allowed to continue in
service only to the next forward location
where repairs could be made.
Section 238.771 Marking Device
This section proposes a set of
requirements for rear marker devices for
Tier III trainsets, based generally on part
221. Proposed paragraph (a) contains
the general requirement that Tier III
trainsets be equipped with a rear
marking device. Paragraph (a) would
also require marking devices to conform
with the characteristics of § 221.14(a)(1)
through (a)(3), along with other
requirements in proposed paragraphs
(a)(1) and)(2) of this section.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would
require that marking devices
continuously illuminate, with proposed
paragraph (a)(2) permitting alternative
lighting technology so long as the
railroad’s ITM program plan contains
procedures for determining that the
marker lights conform with the
requirements of proposed paragraphs (a)
and (a)(1).
Proposed paragraph (b) specifies that
the centroid of the marking device
would be located 48 inches above the
top of the rail.
Proposed paragraph (c) would require
that marking devices be illuminated
while the trainset is in service and that
they be inspected as part of the preservice inspection.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would
specify that a trainset with a defective
or inoperative marking device not be
moved in revenue service if discovered
as part of a pre-service inspection.
However, proposed paragraph (d)(2)
would permit movement to the next
forward repair location if the marking
device is discovered inoperative while
the trainset in service.
Proposed paragraph (e) would provide
an exception to equipping trainsets with
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
a marking device in conformance with
paragraph (a) by allowing a headlight set
on dim to serve as a rear marking
device.
Section 238.773 Cab Lights
This proposed section would require
that cab lights comply with the
requirements of § 229.127(a). It also
would require that cab passageways and
compartments be adequately
illuminated.
FRA reiterates that although the term
‘‘locomotive’’ is used under § 229.127,
the substantive requirements of this
proposed section are intended to be
applied to Tier III trainsets, and thus
should be read as such.
Section 238.775 Trainset Horn
Proposed paragraph (a) would require
that each Tier III trainset be equipped
and arranged with a horn that conforms
with § 229.129(a).
Proposed paragraph (b) provides an
option for testing the trainset horn.
Railroads would be able either to
perform acceptance sampling in
accordance with § 229.129(b)(1) or test
each horn individually under the
procedures of proposed paragraph (e).
Proposed paragraph (c) would require
that, but for the exception under
proposed paragraph (d), replacement
trainset horns be tested individually in
accordance with proposed paragraph
(e). Under proposed paragraph (d),
replacement trainset horns need not be
tested if the replacement horn is of the
same model of horn being replaced that
had been successfully tested either in
accordance with § 229.129(b)(1) or
proposed paragraph (e).
Proposed paragraph (e) would require
that trainset horns be individually
tested in accordance with § 229.129(c),
subject to one exception and one
addition. The positioning of the
microphone used for testing the trainset
horn would be specified under
proposed paragraph (e)(1), in lieu of
complying with § 229.129(c)(7).
Additionally, proposed paragraph (e)(2)
would permit the records required
under § 229.129(c)(10) to be kept
electronically.
Although § 229.129 references the
term ‘‘locomotive,’’ this should not
prove an impediment to compliance, as
substantive requirements of this
proposed section are intended to be
applied to Tier III trainsets.
Section 238.777 Inspection Records
This proposed section is generally
based on § 229.23 insofar as certain
periodic inspections must be performed
at certain intervals and completion
thereof must be recorded. In addition,
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19753
and as discussed further below, certain
other pertinent information must also be
recorded and made available to railroad
employees and FRA inspectors.
The most significant aspect of this
proposed section is that FRA is not
requiring use of FRA form F6180–49A
(form 49A), or any future variants, to
record the pertinent inspection data and
other data that FRA necessitates under
part 229 (such as the presence of an inservice event recorder in the remarks
section of the form). FRA would permit
users of Tier III equipment the option of
using onboard technology to provide to
the engineer the same type of
information regarding the inspection
state of the Tier III trainset as would be
provided through use of form 49A under
part 229 and its physical presence in the
cab of a locomotive. As discussed
below, should a railroad using Tier III
equipment wish to use this option, the
onboard technology would need to have
the capability of informing the engineer
that, at the time of use, the trainset has
received all required periodic
inspections. The technology would also
need to be able to communicate the type
of brake system used, and various other
pieces of necessary information. On the
other hand, should a railroad using Tier
III equipment not elect this option, the
railroad may still use a physical form
under a transparent cover in the
controlling cab of the Tier III trainset.
Although a railroad would not be
required to use form 49A for Tier III
equipment specifically, this proposed
paragraph should not be construed as
absolving a railroad using Tier III
equipment from complying with the
applicable requirements for Tier I or II
equipment it may also operate. For
clarity, the periodic inspection
information intended to be captured
under this proposed section would be
analogous to the periodic inspection
information captured under § 229.23,
albeit the periodic inspections would be
conducted pursuant to a Tier III
railroad’s approved ITM program. FRA
also welcomes comment on whether to
make this option available to Tier I or
II equipment.
Proposed paragraph (a) would
establish a general requirement that for
certain periodic inspections as defined
by a Tier III railroad’s ITM program,
certain information be captured with
respect to those inspections. Proposed
paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) would
specify the minimum information
required for each inspection record: the
date the last inspection was done, the
name of the inspector conducting the
work, and the name of the supervisor
certifying the work was done correctly.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
19754
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Proposed paragraph (b) would require
that the locomotive engineer have
access to information from the
inspection record and summary report
and identify digital (proposed paragraph
(b)(1)) and physical methods (proposed
paragraph (b)(2)) for enabling that
access. Should a railroad using Tier III
equipment elect to comply with
proposed paragraph (b)(2), use of form
49A (or any future variant) to display or
record the particular maintenance
information listed in this proposed
section would not be required; the
railroad would be free to develop its
own form unique to its needs for its Tier
III equipment.
Proposed paragraph (c) would
establish the requirements for a
summary report. This summary report is
similar in intent to FRA’s form 49A
(providing pertinent information
regarding the state of the trainset to
those in the controlling cab), requiring
information that is consistent with what
is required currently under part 229.
However, use of FRA’s form is not
required for Tier III equipment, as
discussed under proposed paragraph
(b). This paragraph proposes that the
summary report, in whatever form it
takes, should contain certain
information regarding the specific
trainset such as the date(s) of the last
periodic inspection required under the
railroad’s ITM program plan, whether
there are any waivers of compliance
granted by FRA under part 211
applicable to the trainset, the type of
brake system used on the trainset, and
whether the event recorder is out of
service.
Proposed paragraph (d) would permit
compliance with § 229.23 as satisfying
the requirements of this section.
Section 238.781 Current Collectors
This proposed section would apply
many of the requirements for the use of
current collectors in part 229 to
passenger equipment and trainsets, with
some changes. Proposed paragraphs
(a)(1) and (b) would apply requirements
from part 229 through cross-references,
and proposed paragraph (a)(4) would
impose requirements similar to those in
part 229, with minor changes. Other
paragraphs in this proposed section
would contain requirements with no
direct counterpart in part 229.
Paragraph (a) proposes requirements
for pantographs and other overhead
collection systems. Paragraph (a)(1)
proposes to apply the requirements of
§ 229.77(a) to Tier III equipment.
Paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) have no
counterparts in part 229, and propose
requirements to provide additional
protection for engineers and other
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
personnel by requiring the electrical
grounding of insulated parts to reduce
the risk of electric shock and by
enabling an engineer to identify the
position of and secure the pantograph
without mounting the roof of the
trainset.
Proposed paragraph (a)(4), which is
based on § 229.81(a), would require that,
for pantographs used on Tier III
trainsets, a means be provided to safely
lower the pantograph in the event of an
emergency, permitting the use of an
emergency pole, subject to certain
requirements (such as properly marking
where the pole can be safely handled
and keeping the pole free from moisture
and damage when not in use). Paragraph
(a)(4) proposes an additional
requirement that a railroad’s ITM
program identify an alternate means of
securement and electrical isolation of a
damaged pantograph when automatic
methods are not possible.
Paragraph (b) proposes to apply the
requirements of §§ 229.79 and 229.81(b)
to trainsets equipped with pantographs
and third-rail shoes. Although the
requirements of §§ 229.79 and 229.81(b)
use the term ‘‘locomotive,’’ rather than
‘‘trainset,’’ the proposed language of
paragraph (b) would clarify the
application of these requirements to
Tier III trainsets.
Section 238.783 Circuit Protection
This section proposes requirements
for the protection of electrical circuits
used within a Tier III trainset. Proposed
paragraph (a) describes the general
requirements for circuit protection in
Tier III passenger equipment. Proposed
paragraphs (b) and (c) would provide
requirements for more specific
categories of circuit protection, with
proposed paragraph (b) addressing
lightning protection and proposed
paragraph (c) addressing overload and
ground fault protection. For purposes of
this section, the term ‘‘lightning
arrestor’’ includes a surge arrestor that
also functions as a lightning arrestor.
Section 238.785 Trainset Electrical
System
Under this section, FRA is proposing
requirements addressing various aspects
of a Tier III trainset’s electric system and
is proposing to apply by cross-reference
certain electrical system requirements
for locomotives in part 229. Proposed
paragraph (a) would address the
insulation or grounding of metal parts
and apply by cross-reference
requirements of §§ 229.83 and 238.225
to trainsets.
Proposed paragraph (b) would address
high voltage markings on doors, cover
plates, or barriers, and apply by cross-
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
reference the requirements of § 229.85.
Although in § 229.85 the words
‘‘Danger-High Voltage’’ or ‘‘Danger’’
appear with just each word’s first letter
capitalized, FRA makes clear that use of
all capital letters (i.e., ‘‘DANGER–HIGH
VOLTAGE’’ or ‘‘DANGER’’) would also
be acceptable. However, font size,
symbols, and colors must comply with
a national or international standard
recognized by the railroad industry, and
labels must be retro-reflective. FRA also
makes clear that the proposed
requirements for marking doors, cover
plates, or barriers under this paragraph
would apply to the external surfaces of
any doors, cover plates, or barriers, and
that the marking must be conspicuous
and legible. The purpose of these
proposed requirements would be
negated if the markings were hidden on
surfaces blocked from ready view or
were otherwise indistinguishable from
the external surface, or if the language
conveying the warning were illegible.
Proposed paragraph (c) would apply
the requirements for hand-operated
electrical switches in § 229.87 to Tier III
trainsets.
Under the proposed requirements of
paragraph (d), trainsets would be subject
to the requirements for conductors,
jumpers, and cable connections in
§§ 229.89 and 238.225(a). As
clarification, while § 229.89 refers to
cable and jumper connections for a
locomotive, proposed paragraph (d)
would apply such requirements to Tier
III trainsets.
Paragraph (e), as proposed, describes
requirements for energy storage systems
(batteries and capacitors) on Tier III
trainsets. Paragraph (e)(1), which
addresses batteries, proposes to apply
the requirements of § 238.225(b) and
also proposes an additional
requirement: battery circuits must
include an emergency battery cut-off
switch to completely disconnect the
energy stored in the batteries from the
load.
Paragraph (e)(2), which has no
counterpart in part 229, proposes
requirements for the design of
capacitors for high-energy storage on
trainsets and would require that such
capacitors be isolated by a fire-resistant
barrier from passenger seating areas and
the trainset cabs (proposed paragraph
(e)(2)(i)) and that the capacitors be
designed to protect against overcharging
(proposed paragraph (e)(2)(ii)).
Paragraph (f) proposes to apply the
requirements for power dissipation
resistors in § 238.225(c) to Tier III
trainsets, with one additional proposed
requirement: power dissipation resistor
circuits must incorporate warning or
protective devices for low ventilation air
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
flow, over-temperature, and short circuit
failures.
Paragraph (g) proposes to apply the
requirements for electromagnetic
interference and compatibility in
§ 238.225(d), so that the onboard
electronic equipment, among other
things, not produce electrical noise that
interferes with the trainline control and
communications or wayside signaling
systems. In addition to applying the
requirements of § 238.225(d), FRA is
proposing an additional requirement:
electrical and electronic systems of
equipment must be capable of operation
in the presence of external
electromagnetic noise sources.
In paragraph (h), FRA proposes
requirements for motors and generators
in use on a Tier III trainset. Proposed
paragraph (h)(1) contains a general
requirement that all motors and
generators would be in proper working
order or safely cut-out and isolated.
Proposed paragraph (h)(2) would
require that if motors and generators are
equipped with support brackets,
bearings, isolation mounts, or guards,
those items would be present and
function properly as defined by the
railroad’s ITM program.
Section 238.791 Safety Appliances
Under this section, FRA is proposing
a comprehensive set of requirements
addressing safety appliances for Tier III
trainsets. As described in paragraph (a),
this section may also be applied to Tier
I passenger-carrying vehicles and
trainsets. Non-passenger-carrying
passenger locomotives that are not part
of an integrated trainset design would
be covered under proposed § 238.235. A
railroad or supplier may still utilize the
relevant passenger rail car safety
appliance standards contained in part
231 of this chapter, if appropriate. The
proposed safety appliance standards in
this section, however, are intended to
address modern passenger rail vehicle
designs considerations and updated
ergonomics from the recommendations
provided by APTA and the international
car builders represented in the PSWG.
FRA notes that the application of these
proposed requirements to Tier I
equipment would be an all-or-none
approach, like the alternative
crashworthiness requirements under
§ 238.201 and appendix G to this part.
This means that Tier I equipment would
either follow all the requirements, as
proposed under this section, or comply
with the existing safety appliance
requirements for Tier I equipment;
however, no mixing of the two sets of
requirements would be permitted.
Proposed paragraph (b) outlines the
requirements for the attachment of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
safety appliances to the structural
carbody of passenger rail equipment.
These requirements are subdivided into
two main categories: attachment by
mechanical fasteners (e.g., rivets, bolts),
and attachment by welding. Proposed
paragraph (b)(1) would establish the
minimum fastener mechanical strength
and fatigue resistance, as provided by a
1⁄2-inch SAE Grade 5 bolt, or equivalent,
by means of one- or two-piece rivets,
Huck bolts®, or threaded fasteners. To
ensure that threaded fasteners remain
appropriately secured, proposed
paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) would
provide the acceptable methods that
must be followed to ensure that bolts or
nuts used to secure the appliance to the
carbody do not become loose.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) addresses
the minimum requirements for
appliances, sub-assemblies, brackets,
and supports that are welded as a means
of attachment to the structural carbody.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would further
identify when brackets or supports (e.g.,
tapping blocks) can be considered part
of the structural carbody. FRA notes that
there is a small but important
distinction between the intended
treatment of brackets or supports in
paragraphs (b)(2) and (3). Proposed
paragraph (b)(2) would apply
specifically to brackets and supports
that are considered components of the
appliance itself (e.g., to add stiffness), as
distinguished from supports used for
the sole purpose of attaching the
appliance to the carbody under
proposed paragraph (b)(3).
Proposed paragraph (b)(4) would
require that safety appliance designs
facilitate the regular inspection of their
attachment points to ensure threaded
connections are not loose and welds
show no signs of premature failure.
Proposed paragraph (b)(5) would
provide for the use of a minimum factor
of safety of two, if the design loads in
proposed paragraphs (d)(4)(ii) or
(e)(4)(ii) are used as the method of
determining appliance strength. FRA
makes clear that this proposed
requirement would apply only if the
design load methodology for appliance
strength is utilized, as a factor of safety
would not be necessary if the traditional
(e.g., 5⁄8-inch diameter steel, or a
material providing an equivalent level
of mechanical strength) approach is
used.
Proposed paragraph (c) would
establish that the appliance and its
attachment must be designed to account
for fatigue, particularly as it relates to
the size of welded connections. Because
of the high-vibrational environment in
which safety appliances are utilized,
particularly where reciprocal engines
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19755
are also present (e.g., diesel-electric
locomotive, diesel multiple-unit), the
PSWG wanted to ensure designs
accounted for environmental service
factors, in addition to obvious static
loads. Traditional threaded connections
do occasionally come loose in such
environments when not secured
properly, but generally remain attached,
whereas a welded connection may fail
completely, without warning, if such
considerations are not taken into
account. This was a primary concern
raised in discussions within the PSWG
when alternative language to §§ 238.229
and 238.230 was being considered for
welded appliances and components.
Therefore, proposed paragraph (c) is
intended to complement the other
requirements for welded appliances
outlined in more detail within this
section, to help address many of these
concerns.
Proposed paragraphs (d) and (e)
address the pertinent requirements for
the design of all handholds and sill
steps, respectively. FRA notes that the
proposed text represents an
organizational change from the RSAC
recommendations. Because handholds
and sill steps are the most common
types of safety appliances installed on
passenger rail equipment, and the
requirements can vary depending on
their location and function, FRA
believes that by consolidating
requirements for all handholds and sill
steps, it can avoid repeating
requirements that are common to all
locations (e.g., clearance, strength)
while more succinctly delineating the
requirements for specific locations (e.g.,
end handholds). FRA welcomes
comments towards the utility of this
approach, and the value of possibly
including accompanying drawings in a
final rule.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would
detail the number of handholds
required, and any critical dimensions
depending on the function, location and
arrangement (i.e., horizontal or vertical)
of each type of handhold. Proposed
paragraph (d)(1)(i) would require
handrails to be present at all passenger
side door locations but note that
internal handrails installed to comply
with the requirements of § 38.97(a) or
§ 38.115(a) of this title, Americans with
Disabilities Act Accessibility
Specifications for Transportation
Vehicles, may be used to satisfy this
requirement, recognizing that this
would likely be the primary method of
compliance.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(ii)
addresses the minimum requirements
for locations where external access to
the cab of a trainset, power car, or
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19756
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
locomotive is provided, other than for
passenger access. These locations
typically include one or more vertical
handholds and sill steps stacked in
‘‘ladder’’ arrangement for crewmembers
to access the cab from the ground level.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(iii)
addresses the requirements for all side
handholds. Side handholds are required
at any location where sill steps are
installed, including those required by
statute or regulation, and optional
installations. A major goal of the PSWG
was to address the various arrangements
that have been developed over the years
to provide better ergonomics. For
example, some passenger equipment
designs incorporate two horizontal
handholds above side sill steps located
at car ends, as opposed to the single
horizontal handhold design codified
under part 231 for most passenger cars.
The multiple handhold arrangement
was adopted to provide better
ergonomics for crews riding on car ends
performing switching moves and other
activities, while providing a lower
handhold for stability from the ballast
level. Proposed paragraphs (d)(1)(iii)(A)
through (F) provide specific dimensions
for the different types of arrangements
that are commonly used on modern
passenger rail equipment.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(iv)
provides the requirements for end
handholds. End handholds are generally
required at the end of any car where a
coupler is installed that requires
crewmembers to manually couple,
uncouple, or make electrical or
pneumatic connections, as detailed in
this section. The PSWG
recommendations added additional
language to address position
requirements for vehicles with tapered
(aerodynamic noses), included in
proposed paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(C), and
when the use of an uncoupling lever is
acceptable in lieu of a separate end
handhold, as contained in proposed
paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(E). Perhaps most
significantly, this rule would codify the
exception proposed in paragraph
(d)(1)(iv)(F) that end handholds would
not be required at the ends of vehicles
equipped with an automatic coupling
mechanism that can be safely operated
from inside the appropriate cab of the
vehicle and does not require a person to
go between vehicle units. This approach
has been adopted in numerous, recent
equipment designs that incorporate
some level of semi-permanent
connection (e.g., trainsets, married pair
MUs), or utilize a ‘‘fully-automated’’
coupling device that can couple or
decouple and make all electrical and
pneumatic connections without the
need for manual intervention. Often
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
these couplers (commonly referred to as
‘‘transit type’’ couplers) can be
monitored and controlled from the cab
of a trainset. FRA is utilizing its
authority under 49 U.S.C. 20306 to
codify this exception through this
rulemaking process.24 By doing so, FRA
anticipates it would eliminate the need
for additional waiver requests on the
subject and better incorporate modern
technology and equipment designs, as
the statutory provision intends.
Proposed paragraphs (d)(2) and (3)
provide the required minimum
handhold dimension and hand
clearance requirements.
Proposed paragraph (d)(4) contains
the handhold strength and rigidity
requirements with proposed paragraph
(d)(4)(i) providing an option to utilize
the traditional 5⁄8-inch wrought-iron or
steel equivalency strength for those that
prefer to design appliances using the
traditional approach. In turn, proposed
paragraph (d)(4)(ii) reflects the new,
design strength approach, as
recommended by the PSWG.
Proposed paragraph (d)(5) addresses
the use of multiple handholds when
arranged vertically in a ‘‘ladder’’ type
arrangement, often used by
crewmembers to access cabs or carbody
doors from the ground level.
The requirements for different sill
step arrangements are consolidated
within proposed paragraph (e) of this
section. Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(i)
would specify the locations where sill
steps must be equipped and proposed
paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) and (iii),
respectively, the required dimensions.
Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(iv) would
provide exceptions for where side sill
steps are not required. Specifically,
under proposed paragraph (e)(1)(iv)(A),
side sill steps would not be required if
steps are provided for an exterior cab
access door in a location where a
crewmember can ride the equipment
with an unobstructed view of the track
ahead. This would reduce the need to
have redundant safety appliances where
the cab ladder arrangement can be
effectively used to safely perform
switching moves. Under proposed
paragraph (e)(1)(iv)(B), sill steps, as with
end handholds, would not be required
at locations equipped with an automatic
coupling mechanism that can be safely
operated from inside the appropriate
cab of the vehicle and does not require
ground intervention from a person to go
on, under, or between the equipment
such as to couple air, electric, or other
24 For further discussion on FRA’s proposed use
of its discretionary authority under 49 U.S.C. 20306,
see section III.E, above, Safety Appliances for NonPassenger Carrying Locomotives and Passenger
Equipment.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
connections. As with other safety
appliance requirements proposed in this
section, FRA proposes to adopt these
common exceptions from the statutory
need to equip a vehicle with sill steps
by the authority provided in 49 U.S.C.
20306. Doing so would also remove the
need for continued waiver requests
under this authority for modern
passenger equipment designs.25
Proposed paragraph (e)(2) provides
the various required dimensions for
various sill step arrangements. Proposed
paragraph (e)(2)(i) would establish the
minimum tread length as 10 inches,
which is the useable length of the step
where a person could place their foot,
excluding any construction features
such as bend radii where someone
could not step onto a flush surface of
the step. Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(ii)
would establish the clear (unobstructed)
distance required above the usable tread
of a step. This dimension has
historically been referred to as the clear
‘‘depth’’ in part 231. The PSWG
recommended use of the term ‘‘clear
distance’’ in the proposal, to avoid
historical confusion regarding the
meaning of the term ‘‘depth,’’ which
could also be interpreted as meaning the
distance from the outside vertical plane
of a step.
Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(A)
would require that a Tier III trainset
have a minimum of at least 4.7 inches
of clear distance, whereas proposed
paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(B) would provide
the traditional 8-inch clear distance
requirement for Tier I equipment. In
discussions with the PSWG, industry
requested that FRA adopt the serviceproven clear distance based on
international standards (4.7 inches). The
PSWG noted that this standard has
proven appropriate for international
high-speed passenger equipment as it
reduces the potential pocket size that
can be a major contributor to
aerodynamic noise. Additionally, the
PSWG noted that this standard would
help avoid the need for potential
modifications to the carbody
underframe of service-proven, highspeed trainsets if manufacturers were
required to increase the clear distance
length to the historical 8 inches. In a
continuing effort to harmonize FRA
regulations with service-proven
international standards to facilitate the
implementation of service-proven, highspeed rail in the United States, FRA is
proposing to adopt this
recommendation. However, as these
proposed regulations may also apply to
Tier I equipment, FRA is proposing to
retain the requirement that Tier I
25 Id.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
equipment maintain a minimum clear
distance of at least 8 inches.
Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(iii) would
specify the required clear space from the
outside edge of a sill step. The purpose
of this dimension is to allow the user to
have enough room to firmly place the
ball of their foot on the step. The most
common application of this requirement
would be where a step is built directly
into the side of a vehicle, or into the
pocket of the carbody or side sill of a
locomotive or passenger vehicle. The
term ‘‘clear space’’ is being introduced
here to avoid confusion with similar
terms, such as clear length and depth.
FRA welcomes comments on other
terminology that might be considered
for this dimension.
Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(iv) would
adopt a maximum vertical rise between
consecutive sill steps. This proposed
requirement is intended to ensure that
vertical spacing is ergonomic for users
in multiple sill step arrangements,
particularly those used in a ladder-type
arrangement, and is derived from other
regulations such as those for box car
ladders outlined in § 231.1(e) of this
chapter. Similarly, proposed paragraph
(e)(2)(v) would require that proper
clearance be provided behind a sill step
and running gear or any other moving
parts. This is intended to ensure that the
truck or other moving part of a
passenger vehicle does not come into
contact with the boot (foot) of a
crewmember riding on a sill step or cab
access ladder. This would also
effectively prohibit steps being installed
directly onto such moving parts, which
could present an unsafe condition if the
equipment starts to move.
Proposed paragraph (e)(3) would
establish the requirements for sill step
tread surfaces and provide some
examples for acceptable methods.
Railroad and suppliers should consider
the appropriate anti-skid material to use
depending on the functionality of the
sill step. For example, if a sill step is
also intended to function as a handhold,
then it should utilize an anti-skid
material that does not affect the use of
the handhold. This proposed language
would also require that enclosed steps,
such as those built into the side sill or
carbody of equipment, have at least 50
percent of the tread area as open space
to help prevent the minor build-up of
snow or ice from impacting the utility
of the anti-skid surface.
Proposed paragraph (e)(4) provides
the strength requirements for sill steps.
These requirements would be similar to
those the PSWG recommended for other
appliances in this section, but also
include an empirical requirement for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
sill steps constructed with a rectangular
cross-section.
Proposed paragraph (f) addresses the
minimum crew access locations for new
passenger trainsets and individual
pieces of equipment. It is intended to
ensure that vehicles designed to provide
only high-level boarding for passengers
also have a means for crewmembers to
board a trainset or passenger car from
ground level, or alight from one to the
ground. Specifically, proposed
paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iii) would
detail when such access locations must
be provided and when low-level
boarding or cab access locations can be
used to satisfy this requirement.
Proposed paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (ii)
provide the requirements for steps and
handholds utilized in crew access
locations, primarily referencing similar
requirements proposed in this section.
FRA is also including additional
provisions recommended by the PSWG
in proposed paragraphs (f)(2)(iii) and
(iv), which would allow for crew access
steps to be retractable, or for portable
ladders to be utilized in lieu of
permanently installed external steps,
respectively. These proposed
requirements were added to address
concerns with aerodynamic noise
contribution, particularly on Tier III
trainsets. If portable ladder
arrangements are used, they should be
readily accessible to crewmembers,
designed to provide strength equivalent
to or greater than that required for sill
step arrangements in this section, and
be securely attached to the equipment.
Proposed paragraph (g)(1) details
where ‘‘automatic’’ couplers must be
equipped, and their functionality, as
required by 49 U.S.C. ch. 203. FRA is
proposing to codify exemptions from
the need to install automatic couplers
and their associated appliances (e.g.,
uncoupling levers, end handholds) on
passenger trainsets or equipment with
semi-permanent connections, or at the
ends of trainsets where couplers are
only intended for rescue purposes, as
detailed in proposed paragraph (g)(2).
As described previously, FRA is
proposing to use its authority under 49
U.S.C. 20306 to permanently adopt
these exclusions for which waivers are
commonly requested for modern
trainset and MU passenger equipment
designs, and FRA believes this would
help reduce the burden associated with
such requests.26
Proposed paragraph (h) provides the
requirements for uncoupling levers or
devices and would require uncoupling
levers or devices on each vehicle end
equipped with an automatic coupler, as
26 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19757
required under proposed paragraph (g)
of this section. Proposed paragraphs
(h)(1)(i) and (ii) would require that an
automatic coupler be equipped with
either a traditional, manual uncoupling
lever or some other uncoupling
mechanism operated by controls located
in the appropriate cab, or other secure
location in a trainset, respectively.
Additionally, proposed paragraph
(h)(1)(ii) provides that additional
uncoupling levers or handles on the
coupler that serve only as a backup to
the remotely operated mechanism
would not be subject to the
requirements of proposed paragraph
(h)(2).
Proposed paragraph (h)(2) would
require that manual uncoupling levers
be installed so that the automatic
coupler may be operated from the left
side of the equipment, as determined
when facing the end of the equipment,
from ground level without requiring a
person to go between cars or equipment
units and have a clearance around the
handle of 2, preferably 21⁄2, inches. This
proposed performance requirement for
manual uncoupling levers is a slight
departure from the traditional
requirements for such appliances under
part 231. Yet, FRA believes that
adherence to the more rigid, traditional
measurement requirements from the
coupler to the outside edge of the
equipment is not appropriate, as it
becomes difficult to determine the
proper place at which to measure when
equipment ends are tapered.
Additionally, by setting the performance
requirement as requiring a person to be
able to operate the coupler without
going between cars or equipment units,
the requirement can be easily and
objectively measured.
Proposed paragraph (i) would permit
the automatic coupler, end handholds,
and uncoupling mechanism on the
leading and trailing ends of a trainset
unit to be located within a removable
shroud to reduce aerodynamic effects.
Proposed paragraph (j) would provide
that trainsets, and equipment units or
sections of trainsets that are not semipermanently coupled to an adjacent
equipment unit or section of trainset,
must be equipped with an efficient
parking or hand brake capable of
holding the trainset, equipment unit, or
section of trainset on at least a 3-percent
grade, or on the worst-case grade
conditions identified by the operating
railroad. This proposal is consistent
with that for use of worst-case grade
conditions under proposed § 238.110.
Proposed paragraph (k)(1) provides
for the arrangement of safety appliances
on trainsets and equipment units to
facilitate certain maintenance tasks.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
19758
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Should a trainset or equipment unit be
equipped with appurtenances such as
headlights, windshield wipers, marker
lights, and other similar items required
for the safe operation of the trainset or
equipment unit that are designed to be
maintained or replaced from the exterior
of the equipment, then the equipment
must have handholds and steps meeting
the requirements of this section to allow
for the safe maintenance and
replacement of these appurtenances.
However, under proposed paragraph
(k)(2), the requirements under proposed
paragraph (k)(1) would not apply if
railroad operating rules require, and
actual practice entails, the maintenance
and replacement of these components
by maintenance personnel in locations
protected by the requirements of subpart
B of part 218 of this chapter equipped
with ladders and other tools to safely
repair or maintain those appurtenances.
Paragraph (l) would require that any
safety appliances installed at the option
of the railroad must be approved
pursuant to proposed § 238.110.
Subpart I—Trainset Inspection, Testing,
and Maintenance Requirements for Tier
III Passenger Equipment
Section 238.901
Scope
This proposed subpart would contain
specific inspection, testing, and
maintenance requirements.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Section 238.903
General Requirements
Proposed § 238.903 would provide an
overview of the general requirements
applicable to Tier III passenger
equipment. Most of these requirements
are referenced and described in more
detail in other sections of part 238.
Accordingly, this proposed section
would address the ITM program for Tier
III passenger equipment, and
specifically the content of the program
and the procedures and intervals for
performance of inspection, testing, and
maintenance activities; requirements for
the safe operation of a Tier III trainset;
required safety inspections; and
requirements for the training and
qualification program and retention of
records.
Proposed paragraph (a) contains the
general requirement that railroads
operating Tier III equipment would have
an ITM program that contains detailed
information regarding the inspection,
testing, and maintenance procedures
necessary for the railroad to safely
maintain and operate its Tier III
passenger equipment.
Proposed paragraphs (b)(1) through
(8) list specific informational
requirements to be discussed in detail as
part of the railroad’s ITM program. Most
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
notably, proposed paragraph (b)(8)
would require the railroad to describe
the required operational braking
capability for the trainset. Consistent
with § 238.731(b), required operational
braking capability is proposed as the
capability of the trainset to stop from its
maximum operating speed within the
signal spacing existing on the track over
which the trainset is operating under
the worst-case adhesion conditions
defined by the railroad. Under this
proposed requirement, FRA would
require railroads to detail the total
effective braking power necessary to
achieve this performance standard. FRA
recognizes that this would mark a
significant change in how the health of
the brake system is categorized as
further discussed under proposed
§ 238.1003(d)(1). FRA notes that a
railroad would need to establish and
verify the required operational braking
capability during the dynamic testing
and commissioning of the trainset under
§ 238.111.
Proposed paragraph (c) would require
that trainsets receive thorough
inspections from qualified individuals.
It would prohibit a trainset from being
put into service with any safety-critical
defect until that defect is repaired,
except for defects discovered in the
brake system during a pre-service
inspection under proposed paragraph
(c)(2)(i). Proposed paragraphs (c)(1)
through (5) would list the specific safety
inspections required in addition to any
inspection required under subpart H of
this part.
A pre-departure inspection, as
proposed under paragraph (c)(1), would
mean trainset system verifications,
inspections, or functional tests that
must be performed prior to departure
from terminal locations or when
operating ends or crews are changed.
Pre-service inspections, as proposed
under paragraph (c)(2), would mean
those inspections to be performed before
a trainset goes into passenger service.
They would be conducted at locations
where such inspections can be
performed safely and properly, typically
in a shop location, but also at terminal
locations provided a qualified
individual performing the inspection
can safely go on, under, or between the
equipment. This inspection is proposed
to be performed before a trainset enters
revenue service, at an interval of no
more than every 48 hours. As proposed,
this inspection would ensure the
trainset is safe to enter revenue service,
similar to the mechanical and brake
inspections required of Tier I trains
under subpart D; however, the specifics
of the pre-departure inspection
proposed here for Tier III trainsets
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
would be defined by each individual
railroad in its ITM program. FRA is also
proposing certain minimum
requirements for pre-service
inspections.
Under proposed paragraph (c)(2)(i),
the procedures for pre-service
inspections would cover all the items
required by a pre-departure inspection
under proposed paragraph (c)(1). FRA is
also proposing to include the specific
exception for the brake system as
discussed elsewhere in this NPRM in
that, should the pre-service inspection
uncover an issue with brake system, but
yet the brake system still meet or exceed
the required operational braking
capability, the trainset may enter
passenger service, assuming no other
safety-critical defect is discovered.
However, in accordance with proposed
§ 238.1003(d)(1), this practice would be
permitted only for up to 5 consecutive
calendar days, at which time the trainset
could no longer continue in service and
would be required to have the brake
system fully repaired. Further, should a
pre-service inspection reveal that the
brake system no longer meets the
required operational braking capability,
then the trainset would not be permitted
to enter or continue in passenger service
and must move immediately to a repair
location with the trainset not being able
to depart the repair location until all
defects were repaired.
Paragraph (c)(2)(ii) proposes another
minimum requirement in that an
interior inspection of the trainset must
be performed of the emergency systems
to ensure proper functionality of certain
emergency systems (such as public
address, intercom, and emergency
lighting systems) and to ensure that any
permitted tools or other implements
necessary for emergency egress are
present.
Paragraph (c)(3) proposes that the
railroad’s ITM program have one
comprehensive section or chapter where
the railroad would detail all the
required brake inspections to be
performed on the trainset, to include the
procedures for performing those
inspections, along with the periodicity
of inspections. This would include
brake system inspections performed as
part of other inspections, such as a preservice inspection. FRA envisions this
section or chapter of a railroad’s ITM
program as a central repository of the
brake system inspections for ease of
reference and use. This discussion is
equally applicable to proposed
paragraph (c)(4), with respect to truck
inspections.
Under paragraph (c)(5), FRA is
proposing that the railroad detail all
other safety-critical periodic inspections
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
that are required to maintain the safety
of the trainset. Rather than attempt to
exhaustively list all those types of
inspections, FRA is placing the
responsibility on the railroad to
thoroughly evaluate and document the
required safety-critical inspections. FRA
would expect to see inspections of the
electrical and train control systems, as
examples. However, consistent with
FRA’s overall approach to high-speed
train inspection, testing, and
maintenance, FRA would provide the
railroad discretion in the development
of its ITM program, subject to FRA’s
review and approval, discussed below.
To set a baseline, FRA is proposing
under paragraph (d) that the railroad
specify in its initial ITM program
submission the initial scheduled
maintenance intervals for Tier III
equipment. Deviations from this
baseline for safety-critical components
could only be implemented when
approved by FRA, and those changes
would require justification by
accumulated, verifiable operating data.
Proposed paragraph (e) contains the
training and qualification program
requirements for individuals performing
inspections, testing, or maintenance on
Tier III trainsets. Proposed paragraph
(e)(1) would require the railroad to
identify which inspections, tests, or
maintenance tasks require special
training or qualification.
Proposed paragraph (e)(2) would
require the railroad to develop a training
and qualification program for those
tasks identified under proposed
paragraph (e)(1) of this section that, at
a minimum, addresses those items listed
under § 238.109(b).
Proposed paragraph (e)(3) would
require the railroad to maintain a list of
those individuals designated as
qualified pursuant to the railroad’s
training and qualification program to
perform those tasks identified in
proposed paragraph (e)(1). The railroad
would be required to make those
records available to FRA upon request.
Proposed paragraph (e)(4) contains
the proposed, overarching requirement
that only those individuals qualified
pursuant to the railroad’s training and
qualification program can inspect, test,
or maintain safety-critical components
or systems on Tier III equipment. This
approach was recommended by the
RSAC to avoid more specifically
defining those who can or cannot
perform certain inspection, testing, or
maintenance tasks under the regulation.
Proposed paragraph (f) specifies that
the railroad would maintain records of
each inspection required under
proposed paragraph (c) for at least one
year from the date of the inspection.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
Section 238.905 Compliance
This proposed section would require
the railroad to adopt and comply with
its ITM program once approved by FRA
under proposed § 238.913.
Section 238.907 Standard Procedures
for Safely Performing Inspection,
Testing, Maintenance, and Repairs
Proposed paragraph (a) would require
the railroad to establish standard
procedures addressing the performance
of inspection, testing, maintenance, and
repair tasks, and identify the
informational, approval, enforcement,
and review processes that must be
included in the procedures. Under
proposed paragraph (a)(5), ‘‘the
railroad’s official responsible for safety’’
would be the party who must approve
the written standard procedures;
however, FRA invites comment whether
it would be more appropriate to
designate the head of high-speed rail
maintenance, the chief maintenance
officer, some other railroad official, or a
combination thereof, as the ‘‘railroad’s
official responsible for safety.’’
Proposed paragraph (b) clarifies that
FRA does not intend for the ITM
program required by this subpart I to
address employee working conditions
related to the performance of the
inspections, tests, and maintenance
required by the program. Such working
conditions are the purview of the
Occupational Health and Safety
Administration.
Section 238.909 Quality Control/
Quality Assurance Program
This proposed section would require
that each railroad establish an
inspection, testing, and maintenance
quality control/quality assurance
program for the purpose of ensuring that
each railroad performs its inspections,
testing, and maintenance in accordance
with its approved ITM program. Either
the railroad or its contractors would be
able to perform compliance
responsibilities related to the quality
control program established under this
proposed section.
Section 238.911 Inspection, Testing,
and Maintenance Program Format
This proposed section establishes the
format in which the ITM program would
be submitted to FRA for review and
approval.
Proposed paragraph (a) would require
that the railroad prepare a complete ITM
program covering all components,
systems, or sub-systems on a Tier III
trainset, regardless of whether the
railroad deems those components,
systems, or sub-systems safety-critical.
This would include all inspections,
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19759
tests, and maintenance tasks required,
the intervals and periodicity of those
inspections, tests, and maintenance
tasks, and all associated information
and procedures required for the railroad
and its personnel to implement the
program. The purpose behind this
proposed requirement is to allow FRA
to ensure that the railroad has properly
captured all safety-critical items. Under
proposed paragraph (b), below, the
railroad would be required to submit a
condensed version of the program
addressing only the safety-critical
elements as deemed by the railroad.
FRA notes that under proposed
§ 238.913, FRA would approve the ITM
program addressing only those safetycritical elements. Additionally, once the
ITM program has received its initial
approval, FRA would not expect
submission of the complete ITM
program with any future amendment to
a safety-critical portion.
Proposed paragraph (b) would require
the railroad to submit a condensed
version of the ITM program, with only
the program items identified as safetycritical by the railroad. It would be this
condensed version of the ITM program
that FRA would approve under
§ 238.913. Nevertheless, FRA has
identified certain components or
systems that are always considered
safety-critical, such as the operation of
emergency equipment, emergency backup systems, trainset exits, and trainset
safety-critical hardware and software
systems.
FRA invites comment on the utility of
this approach.
Section 238.913 Inspection, Testing,
and Maintenance Program Approval
Procedure
Under this section, FRA is proposing
the procedures for the submission and
approval of the railroad’s ITM program.
Proposed paragraph (a) describes
requirements for both the initial
submission of the ITM program and the
submission of amendments. With
respect to the initial submission, the
proposed language under paragraph
(a)(1) explains that the ITM program
must be submitted no less than 180 days
prior to the commencement of revenue
service. FRA makes clear though, that
the mileage accumulated during
dynamic qualification testing must be
accurately recorded in the maintenance
records of the trainsets so that prior to
entering revenue service, the trainset is
current on all required inspection, tests,
and maintenance required under the
ITM based on the mileage of the
trainset. Thus, if a certain maintenance
interval is specified in miles, FRA
expects that the milage incurred during
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19760
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
dynamic pre-revenue testing would be
used when determining whether
maintenance of the equipment is
necessary. FRA recognizes that for the
dynamic testing of Tier III equipment,
the test procedures required under
§ 238.111 and appendix K must include
the inspection, testing, and maintenance
procedures to be followed to ensure
testing is conducted safely.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would
require that an amendment to an
approved ITM program must be
submitted for approval not less than 60
days prior to the railroad’s proposed
implementation date. FRA welcomes
comments on the appropriate review
period for both the initial submission
and the submission of program
amendments.
Proposed paragraph (b) identifies the
required content for the ITM program or
program amendment submission. As
proposed, not only must the railroad
submit the ITM program or amendment
itself, but it must also include the
primary point of contact for the program
or amendment and affirm that the
program or amendment was provided to
the designated representatives of
railroad employees along with a list of
the names and addresses of those
persons.
Proposed paragraph (c) would require
the railroad to provide a copy of the
ITM program or amendment to the
designated representatives of railroad
employees responsible for the
equipment’s operation, and inspection,
testing, and maintenance under this
subpart. Additionally, this proposed
paragraph would impose a deadline of
45 days for providing comment to FRA.
Proposed paragraphs (c)(1) through (3)
would outline the required process for
each comment.
Proposed paragraphs (d)(1) and (2)
would explain the approval process for
the initial ITM program submission and
amendments, the timing of FRA’s
review and approval determination, and
the requirement to correct a program or
amendment if FRA discovers a
deficiency during its review.
Notably, under proposed paragraph
(d)(3), at any time after its approval
determination, FRA would retain the
ability to review the program and
amendments under its general
inspection authority and to require
further corrections to the ITM program
or amendment. Submittal of a revised
program or amendment made pursuant
to this paragraph would follow the
submittal procedures detailed in
proposed paragraphs (d)(1) and (2).
Proposed paragraph (e) would
establish requirements for the annual
review of the ITM program, addressing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
the scheduling of such review with FRA
and the designated representatives of
railroad employees.
Subpart J—Movement of Defective Tier
III Passenger Equipment
Section 238.1001
Scope
This proposed subpart would contain
specific requirements for the movement
of Tier III passenger equipment that is
defective.
Section 238.1003 Movement of
Defective Tier III Passenger Equipment
Under § 238.1003, FRA is proposing
the procedural requirements for the
movement of defective Tier III
equipment. These requirements would
address defective conditions identified
during a pre-service inspection and
defective conditions discovered during
revenue service operations.
Except as explained in proposed
§ 238.903(c)(2)(i) and paragraph (d) of
this section, proposed paragraph (a)
would describe the general prohibition
on the movement of a Tier III trainset
with a defect identified during a preservice inspection and specify that such
a trainset may only move pursuant
proposed paragraph (e), as explained in
more detail below.
Proposed paragraph (b) would
describe the procedural requirements
for the movement of a Tier III trainset
with a safety-critical defect discovered
during revenue service operations (such
as during a pre-departure inspection
under proposed § 238.903(c)(1)) and
between required pre-service
inspections. Under these proposed
requirements, an individual qualified
pursuant to proposed § 238.903(e)
would be required to make a
determination, consistent with railroad
operating rules, that it is safe to move
the trainset (proposed paragraph (b)(1)).
It would be permissible for such a
qualified individual to make this
determination remotely based on
information provided by on-site
personnel, provided that a qualified
individual performs an on-site
inspection of the defect when the
trainset arrives at the first location
where an on-site inspection by a
qualified individual is possible.
After determining that it is safe to
move the defective trainset, the
qualified individual would be required
to notify the train crew of the authorized
speed and destination, and any other
operational restrictions on the
movement of the non-compliant
trainset, pursuant to proposed
paragraph (b)(2). The qualified
individual may provide this notice
through the tagging process described in
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
proposed paragraph (b)(3) or through
the automated tracking system
described in proposed paragraph (c),
which would adopt the requirements of
§ 238.15(c)(3).
Proposed paragraph (d) addresses the
requirements for the movement of a
trainset that experiences an in-service
failure of the braking system. During
PSWG meetings, there was significant
discussion regarding the applicability of
these requirements to trainsets with
advanced technology brake systems and
automated reporting systems that
provide the engineer with real-time
information concerning the operative
brakes within the trainset. Specifically,
there was discussion that these modern
Tier III trainsets are designed and
equipped with a braking capability that
most often exceeds what is necessary for
routine operational braking. Thus, FRA
is proposing a balanced approach that
considers the operational capability of
these trainsets without compromising
safety.
A such, under proposed paragraph
(d)(1), a trainset may continue in service
for no more than 5 consecutive calendar
days (to include leaving a repair point)
so long as the trainset meets or exceeds
its required operational braking
capability. As discussed above under
proposed § 238.903(a)(8), the railroad
would be required to describe in detail
in its ITM program this required
operational braking capability.
Additionally, FRA clarifies that
consistent with the proposal under
§ 238.19(d)(2), after 5 consecutive
calendar days elapse, a Tier III trainset
may not leave a designated brake repair
point with anything less than a brake
system that is free from defects,
regardless of whether the trainset meets
or exceeds its required operational
braking capability (i.e., with 100%
operative brakes). This would mean a
Tier III trainset may leave a designated
brake repair point with less than its
maximum designed braking capability,
so long as it retains its required
operational braking capability pursuant
to § 238.731(b). FRA is proposing this
approach based on industry’s input,
which is consistent with international,
service-proven operational practice.
Under paragraph (d)(2), FRA is
proposing requirements for a trainset
that has in-service failure of the brake
system bringing it below the required
operational braking capability. FRA is
proposing that in such a situation, a
trainset may only move in service until
its next pre-service inspection in
accordance with railroad operating rules
relating to the percentage of operative
brakes and at a speed no greater than the
maximum authorized speed as
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
determined by § 238.731(e)(4), so long
as the requirements of paragraph (b) of
this section are otherwise fully met.
Under this proposal, if a pre-service
inspection becomes due on such a
trainset, and the brake system has not
been repaired, then the trainset may not
be used in passenger service until such
repairs are made.
As part of the comment process for
this proposed rulemaking, FRA
welcomes input on the appropriateness
of these proposed requirements for the
movement of defective trainsets
equipped with advanced technology
brake systems.
Under proposed paragraph (e), a
railroad would be permitted to move a
trainset with a safety-critical defect
discovered during a pre-service
inspection for purposes of repair
without complying with the procedural
requirements of proposed paragraph (b),
provided the movement is without
passengers, within a yard, at speeds not
to exceed 10 mph, and for the sole
purpose of repair. FRA is also proposing
that, should a railroad elect to repair a
trainset with a safety-critical defect in
place, it would be required, at a
minimum, to apply a tag that complies
with proposed paragraph (b)(3) to
provide notice that the trainset is
defective and not in service. FRA makes
clear that the tag is to be applied while
the trainset is non-compliant; once the
repair is made, the tag may be removed,
and the trainset placed into service.
Proposed paragraph (f), which is
identical to § 238.17(f), makes clear that
the movement of a defective Tier III
trainset subject to a Special Notice for
Repair under part 216 would continue
to be subject to the restrictions in a
Special Notice.
Appendix C to Part 238—Minimally
Compliant Analytical Track (MCAT)
Simulations Used for Qualifying
Passenger Vehicles To Operate on Track
Classes 2 Through 5 and Up to 6 Inches
of Cant Deficiency
This proposed appendix would
contain requirements for using
computer simulations to comply with
the vehicle/track system qualification
testing requirements specified in
§ 238.139. These simulations would be
performed using a track model
containing defined geometry
perturbations at the limits that are
permitted for a specific class of track
and level of cant deficiency. This track
model is known as Minimally
Compliant Analytical Track (MCAT).
These simulations would be used to
identify vehicle dynamic performance
issues prior to service or, as appropriate,
a change in service, and demonstrate
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
that a vehicle type is suitable for
operation on the track over which it is
intended to operate. FRA notes that, for
the short warp (a12) MCAT segment in
figure 1, the profile deviations for the
inside and outside rails appear in
reverse order from their counterparts in
appendix D to part 213. This change
aims to address the risk of low-speed,
wheel-climb derailment, and FRA
welcomes comment on the need for a
similar change to appendix D to part
213.
For simulations measuring hunting
perturbation involving tangent track
segments, FRA proposes the use of a
high-conicity, wheel-rail profile
combination approved by FRA that
produces a minimum conicity of 0.4 for
wheelset lateral shifts up to flange
contact. FRA has added to the docket a
file that reflects wheel-rail profile
combinations FRA has found acceptable
in the past, and welcomes comment on
this data or the incorporation of such
combinations into the regulation.
As noted under the discussion of
proposed § 238.139, Vehicle/track
system qualification, the proposed
requirements are intended to
complement existing requirements for
higher speed and higher cant deficiency
operations in part 213 of this chapter.
Specifically, this appendix would apply
to operations up to 6 inches of cant
deficiency on lower-speed track classes,
and would have no impact on part 213
requirements for operations over 6
inches of cant deficiency on such track
classes. By illustration, proposed table 6
would apply to track Classes 2 through
5 where cant deficiency exceeds 5
inches but is not more than 6 inches,
while table 7 of appendix D to part 213
currently applies to track Classes 1
through 5 where cant deficiency
exceeds 6 inches. Although there would
be no direct conflict in application of
the respective appendices, FRA notes in
particular that the differences in
repeated surface limits and repeated
alinement limits between the two tables
may not necessarily be explained by the
differences in cant deficiency alone.
FRA therefore welcomes comments on
the potential impact of the proposed
changes, will evaluate any comments
received, and will consider revisions to
both parts 213 and 238 in the final rule
or a future rulemaking.
Appendix I to Part 238—Tier III Trainset
Cab Noise Test Protocol
In proposed appendix I to part 238,
which is modeled after appendix H to
part 229 of this chapter, FRA presents
proposed testing protocols to verify that
the noise levels within the cab of a Tier
III trainset comply with the
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19761
requirements established in
§ 238.759(a)(1). These proposed
protocols address measurement
instrumentation, test site requirements,
procedures for measurement, and
recordkeeping. In this proposal, FRA is
intending to align these measurement
procedures with those used in
international practice and welcomes
comments on any relevant international
practice that could contribute to the
further development of the proposed
protocols. FRA also notes that although
the requirements proposed in this
appendix are very similar to those under
appendix H to part 229, this appendix
would also contain a separate set of
requirements due to subtle but
significant differences. Notably, the test
proposed under this appendix would be
under dynamic conditions, while the
trainset is moving, whereas the test
under appendix H to part 229 is under
static conditions, not involving
equipment movement.
Appendix J to Part 238—Alternative
Requirements for Evaluating the
Crashworthiness and Occupant
Protection Performance of a Tier I
Passenger Trainset Equipped With
Crash Energy Management Features
Proposed appendix J would establish
a framework that enables the evaluation
of an individual piece of Tier I
passenger equipment for compliance
with crash energy management (CEM)
requirements. Current regulations
provide for the assessment of CEM
components in the context of a complete
trainset. Although a railroad, equipment
manufacturer, or other party is not
required to incorporate CEM features
into an individual piece of Tier I
equipment, this proposed appendix
would provide direction for the
development of these features for a
single vehicle, rather than a complete
trainset. Under the framework of this
proposed appendix, single pieces of rail
equipment that are fully compliant with
existing Tier I structural requirements,
and have additional CEM features,
could operate within conventional, Tier
I-compliant trains.
Proposed appendix J would define inline and offset collision scenarios for
locomotives, cab cars, and intermediate
cars. As proposed, the crashworthiness
requirements contained in proposed
appendix J would not apply to Tier I
alternatively designed trainsets or single
pieces of equipment with traditionally
compliant structures outfitted with
pushback couplers as the only CEM
feature.
Current industry standards served as
a model for the crashworthiness
requirements proposed in this
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
19762
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
appendix, and FRA welcomes
comments addressing the consistency
between the appendix and industry
standards.
Appendix K to Part 238—Minimum
Information for Test Procedures
FRA is proposing to add appendix K
to part 238 to contain the minimum
information necessary for test
procedures associated with the required
testing to be performed pursuant to the
railroad’s pre-revenue service
acceptance testing plan under § 238.111.
This is to ensure that testing is
performed in a safe and controlled
manner, and that the testing captures
information critical to the
demonstration of compliance. FRA
understands this level of information
may not be available for all tests at the
time of initial submission of a test plan;
however, if a test procedure relied on
for a test does not contain this minimum
level of information, FRA may take
exception to it and require the test be
the 30-year period analyzed, the net
costs of this proposed rule are estimated
to be approximately $55.2 million,
undiscounted. The present value is
approximately $21.4 million,
discounted at 7 percent, and $35.2
million, discounted at 3 percent. The
annualized net costs are approximately
$1.7 million and $1.8 million,
discounted at 7 and 3 percent,
respectively.
The analysis of this proposed rule
includes estimates of costs associated
with the proposed requirement for lowspeed vehicle/track system
qualification, emergency roof access for
certain Tier III trainsets, as well as for
the inspection, testing, and maintenance
of high-speed trainsets. FRA estimates
that the 30-year total costs of this
proposed rule would be approximately
$55.5 million, undiscounted. The
present value is approximately $21.7
million, discounted at 7 percent, and
$35.5 million, discounted at 3 percent.
repeated or the test procedure updated.
This determination may be made in
advance of testing (e.g., if FRA
personnel plan to witness the testing) or
as part of a records review, and FRA
encourages railroads and their suppliers
to pay particular attention to the quality
and content of their test procedures and
records to avoid any such issues.
V. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866
This proposed rule is not a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
(‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’)
and DOT Order 2100.6A (‘‘Rulemaking
and Guidance Procedures’’).
FRA has prepared and placed in the
docket (FRA–2021–0067) a Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA) addressing the
economic impacts of this proposed rule.
The RIA estimates the costs and benefits
of this proposed rule over a 30-year
period. FRA used discount rates of 7
and 3 percent with these estimates. For
REGULATORY COST SUMMARY
Total .........................................................
Annualized ...............................................
Vehicle track
analyses
Emergency
roof access
cost
ITM costs
Total costs
$1,350,000
........................
$1,650,000
........................
$52,500,000
........................
$55,500,000
........................
This analysis also estimates the
benefits associated with: (A) railroads
not needing to apply for a waiver for
pilots, snowplows, and end plates
installed on Tier III trainsets; (B)
railroads not having to redesign Tier III
trainsets to account for legacy
attachment strength requirements for
emergency communication equipment
back-up power fixtures; (C) modernizing
the safety appliance requirements for
Tier III and certain Tier I passenger
equipment, and for certain nonpassenger carrying locomotives
(reducing the need for railroads to seek
statutory exemptions); and (D) a
reduction in the administrative burden
of processing, reviewing, and
Discounted
7%
$21,669,972
1,746,305
Discounted
3%
$35,489,848
1,810,666
implementing safety regulatory waivers.
FRA estimates a 30-year total benefits of
approximately $0.3 million,
undiscounted, for this proposed rule.
The present value is approximately $0.2
million, discounted at 7 percent, and
$0.3 million, discounted at 3 percent.
REGULATORY BENEFITS SUMMARY
Total .........................
Annualized ...............
Pilots,
snowplows,
end plates
Emergency
communications
Safety
appliances
Government
benefits
Total benefits
$18,576
........................
$150,000
............................
$55,728
........................
$74,304
........................
$298,608
........................
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
The net costs of this proposed rule are
estimated to be approximately $55.2
million, undiscounted. The present
value is approximately $21.4 million,
discounted at 7 percent, and $35.2
million, discounted at 3 percent. The
annualized net costs are approximately
$1.7 million and $1.8 million,
Discounted
7%
Discounted
3%
$224,959
18,129
$256,003
13,061
discounted at 7 and 3 percent,
respectively.
NET REGULATORY COSTS
Impact
Costs ........................................................................................................................................................................
Benefits ....................................................................................................................................................................
Net Costs .................................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Present value
7%
Present value
3%
$21.67
0.22
21.45
$35.49
0.26
35.23
19763
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
NET REGULATORY COSTS—Continued
Impact
Present value
7%
Present value
3%
1.73
1.80
Annualized Net Costs .......................................................................................................................................
Details on the estimated costs and
benefits of this proposed rule can be
found in the RIA associated with this
docket. FRA invites comments on the
costs and benefits associated with this
proposed rule.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and
Executive Order 13272
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980 27 and E.O. 13272 28 require agency
review of proposed and final rules to
assess their impacts on small entities.
An agency must prepare an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis unless it
determines and certifies that a rule, if
promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Administrator
of the Federal Railroad Administration
certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Respondent
universe
CFR section
229.47(a)–(b)—Emergency
pipe valve as such.
Brake
Valve—Marking
brake
FRA is submitting the information
collection requirements in this proposed
rule to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.29
The sections that contain the new or
revised information collection
requirements and the estimated time to
fulfill each requirement are as follows:
Total annual
responses
Average
time per
responses
Total annual
burden hours
Wage rate
Total cost
equivalent
(A)
(B)
(C) = A * B
(D) 30
(E) = C * D
FRA anticipates zero submissions for stencils and markings.
238.7—Waivers .......................................................................
238.15(b)—Movement of passenger equipment with power
brake defects—Limitations on movement of passenger
equipment containing a power brake defect at the time a
Class I or IA brake test is performed—Passenger equipment tagged or information is recorded as prescribed
under § 238.15(c)(2).
—(c) Limitations on movement of passenger equipment in
passenger service that becomes defective en route after a
Class I or IA brake test—Tagging of defective equipment.
34 railroads ....
34 railroads ....
12.00 waivers
1,000.00 tags
6 hours ...........
3 minutes .......
72.00
50.00
$77.44
77.44
$5,575.68
3,872.00
34 railroads ....
288.00 tags ....
3 minutes .......
14.40
77.44
1,115.14
—(c)(4) Conditional requirement—Notice between employees.
The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under § 238.15(a)–(b).
238.17—Movement of passenger equipment with other than
power brake defects—Tagging of defective equipment.
34 railroads ....
—(e) Special requisites for movement of passenger equipment with safety appliance defects.
—(e)(4) Crewmember notifications .........................................
238.19(b)—Reporting and tracking defective passenger
equipment—Retention or availability of records for Tier I
and Tier III (Revised requirement).
The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under § 238.17.
—(d)(1) List of repair points—Railroads operating long-distance intercity and long-distance Tier II passenger equipment.
—(d)(2) List of repair points—Railroads operating Tier III
passenger trainsets (New requirement).
238.21(b)—Special approval procedure—Petitions for special
approval of alternative standard.
—(c) Petitions for special approval of alternative compliance
—(f) Comments on petitions ...................................................
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
238.103(c)—Fire safety analysis for procuring new passenger cars and locomotives.
—(d) Fire safety analysis for existing passenger cars and locomotives—Revised fire safety analysis for leased or
transferred equipment.
238.105(a)–(e)—Passenger electronic hardware and software safety—Safety program including safety analysis for
new and existing railroads (Revised requirement).
27 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002).
29 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
3 minutes .......
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
10.00
77.44
774.40
The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under § 238.17.
For Tier I trainsets, FRA determined since the 1990s retention and availability of records for reporting
and tracking defective passenger equipment are performed by the railroad industry as part of their normal business operations. For Tier III, FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR
period.
This ICR only affects Amtrak, which has submitted the necessary list of power brake repair points.
FRA does not anticipate any changes or updates to this list over the next few years. Consequently,
there is no burden associated with this requirement.
FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
34 railroads ....
1.00 petition ...
16 hours .........
16.00
77.44
1,239.04
34 railroads ....
Manufacturers
and public.
1 new railroad
1.00 petition ...
2.00 comments
40 hours .........
1 hour .............
40.00
2.00
77.44
77.44
3,097.60
154.88
1.00 analysis ..
150 hours .......
150.00
77.44
11,616.00
34 railroads ....
1.00 revised
analysis.
10 hours .........
10.00
77.44
774.40
2 new railroads.
2.00 program
plans.
150 hours .......
300.00
77.44
23,232.00
30 Throughout the tables in this document, the
dollar equivalent cost is derived from the 2020
Surface Transportation Board’s Full Year Wage A&B
data series using the appropriate employee group
28 67
VerDate Sep<11>2014
200.00 tags ....
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
hourly wage rate that includes 75-percent overhead
charges.
31 Totals may not add due to rounding.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
19764
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Respondent
universe
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
CFR section
Total annual
responses
Average
time per
responses
Total annual
burden hours
Wage rate
Total cost
equivalent
(A)
(B)
(C) = A * B
(D) 30
(E) = C * D
—(f) Additional requirements (Revised requirement) ..............
FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
—(g) Vehicle Communication and Control System Vulnerability Assessment—Railroad to assess and identify potential system vulnerabilities and resulting risk mitigation as
part of the overall Railroad System Safety Plan required
by part 270; PTC system must comply with the requirements in § 236.1033 (New requirement).
—(h) Notification of product failure—Notification to FRA
(New requirement).
238.107—Inspection, testing, and maintenance plan—Development of maintenance plan for new railroads.
—(d) Inspection, testing, and maintenance plan for existing
railroads—Maintenance plan review.
37 railroads ....
12.30 assessments.
20 hours .........
246.00
77.44
19,050.24
20 suppliers ...
1 minute .........
0.01
77.44
0.77
150 hours .......
150.00
77.44
11,616.00
20 hours .........
680.00
77.44
52,659.20
238.108(a)—New passenger service pre-revenue safety performance demonstration—Pre-revenue safety validation
plan (New requirement due to Sec. 22416 of the IIJA).
—(b)(2) Daily summary of the activities provided to FRA by
railroads (New requirement).
—(b)(3) Railroad to provide a final report to FRA (New requirement).
—(c) Compliance—Railroads to notify FRA on proposed
amendments (New requirement).
238.109(b)—Training, qualification, and designation program—Development of training program/curriculum for
new railroads.
37 railroads ....
0.33 notifications.
1.00 maintenance plan.
34.00 maintenance plan
reviews.
3.00 plans ......
63 hours .........
189.00
77.44
14,636.16
30 minutes .....
14.50
77.44
1,122.88
2 hours ...........
6.00
77.44
464.64
15 hours .........
15.00
77.44
1,161.60
160 hours .......
160.00
77.44
12,390.40
—(b) Training employees and supervisors .............................
The associated burdens relating to the training of employees and supervisors have been addressed
previously when FRA calculated the economic costs of the regulation.
—(b)(13) Recordkeeping—Employees and trainers—Training
qualifications.
34 railroads ....
238.110(b)(1)—Design criteria, testing, documentation, and
approvals—Documentation and recordkeeping (New requirement).
The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under paragraphs (b)(2)
through (g)(2) of this section.
—(b)(2) Recordkeeping or documentation (New requirement)
37 railroads ....
—(c)(1)(ii) Vehicle qualification plan—Compliance matrix
(New requirement).
37 railroads ....
—(c)(2) Approval of the vehicle qualification plan—Vehicle
qualification plan disapproved in part—Resubmission (New
requirement).
FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
—(d) System description (operating environment) and design
criteria (New requirement).
—(e)(2)(i) Structural carbody crashworthiness compliance—
A test plan submission to FRA (New requirement).
37 railroads ....
—(e)(2)(ii) Structural carbody crashworthiness compliance—
Finite element analysis results submitted to FRA (New requirement).
37 railroads ....
—(f) Safety Appliances (New requirement) ............................
The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under paragraphs (g)(1)
and (g)(2) of this section.
—(g)(1)(i) Approval of design review documentation, tests,
and inspections—Design review, testing, and inspection
documentation (New requirement).
37 railroads ....
—(g)(1)(ii) Approval of design review documentation, tests,
and inspections—Resubmission of revised document (New
requirement).
—(g)(2)(i) Approval of design review documentation, tests,
and inspections—Sample-equipment inspection—Request
(New requirement).
—(g)(2)(ii) Approval of design review documentation, tests,
and inspections—Railroad to address all exceptions taken
and then, if directed by FRA, request a reinspection pursuant to (g)(2)(i) of this section (New requirement).
238.111(a)(1)–(2)—Pre-revenue service acceptance testing—Passenger equipment designs that have not been
used in revenue service in the U.S.—Plan and submission
to FRA (previously under § 238.111(b)(1)–(2)) (Revised requirement).
37 railroads ....
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
1 new railroad
34 railroads ....
37 railroads ....
37 railroads ....
37 railroads ....
1 new railroad
37 railroads ....
29.00 summary reports.
3.00 reports ....
1.00 plan
modification.
1.00 training
program.
488.00 records
1.00 retention
of document.
1.00 new or
modified
plan.
11.67 system
descriptions.
1.00 new or
modified test
plan.
1.00 analysis ..
3 minutes .......
24.40
77.44
1,889.54
5 minutes .......
.08
77.44
6.20
75 hours .........
75.00
77.44
5,808.00
75 hours .........
875.25
77.44
67,779.36
8 hours ...........
8.00
77.44
619.52
10 hours .........
10.00
77.44
774.40
1.00 new or
modified
documentation.
1.00 revised
document.
4 hours ...........
4.00
77.44
309.76
1 hour .............
1.00
77.44
77.44
37 railroads ....
1.00 request ...
1 hour .............
1.00
77.44
77.44
37 railroads ....
1.00 re-request
1 hour .............
1.00
77.44
77.44
37 railroads ....
2.00 new and
modified
plans.
192 hours .......
384.00
77.44
29,736.96
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
19765
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Respondent
universe
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
CFR section
Total annual
responses
Average
time per
responses
Total annual
burden hours
Wage rate
Total cost
equivalent
(A)
(B)
(C) = A * B
(D) 30
(E) = C * D
—(a)(3)–(4) Test procedures containing minimum information
listed in appendix K to this part to be provided to FRA as
part of pre-revenue service acceptance testing plan test
procedures (previously under § 238.111(b)(3)–(4)) (Revised requirement).
The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement when it comes to the test plan development is covered under § 238.111(a). Additionally, the reporting of the test results is covered under
§ 238.111(a)(6)(ii).
—(a)(6)(i) Tier I passenger equipment: Test results made
available to FRA upon request (previously under
§ 238.111(b)(4)) (Revised requirement).
—(a)(6)(ii) Tier II & Tier III passenger equipment: Report of
test results to FRA (previously under § 238.111(b)(4)) (Revised requirement).
33 railroads ....
1.00 test result
4 hours ...........
4.00
77.44
309.76
4 railroads ......
1.00 letter .......
4 hours ...........
4.00
77.44
309.76
—(a)(7) Correction of safety deficiencies—Railroads can petition FRA for a waiver of a safety regulation under the
procedure specified in part 211 (previously under
§ 238.111(b)(5)).
FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
—(b) Passenger equipment that has previously been used in
revenue service in the U.S.—Railroads to verify the applicability
of
previous
tests
performed
under
§ 238.111(a)(1)(vii)(A)–(D)
(previously
under
238.111(a)(1)) (Revised requirement).
37 railroads ....
77.44
1,647.92
—(c) Modifications, new technology, and major upgrades
(Revised requirement).
The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under § 238.111(a).
238.115(c)—Emergency lighting—Periodic inspection (New
requirement).
The inspection time and mechanical testing are covered under the economic cost. Consequently, there
is no PRA burden.
238.131(a)—Exterior side door safety systems—new passenger cars and locomotives used in passenger service—
Labels and visual guidelines (Revised requirement).
FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
—(b) Exterior side door safety systems—new passenger
cars and locomotives used in passenger service—Failure
Modes, Effects, Criticality Analysis (FMECA).
238.133(a)—Exterior side door safety systems—Passenger
cars and locomotives used in passenger service—By-pass
device verification—Functional test plans.
1 new railroad
1.00 analysis ..
80 hours .........
80.00
77.44
6,195.20
1 new railroad
1.00 plan ........
4 hours ...........
4.00
77.44
309.76
—(b) Unsealed door by-pass device—Notification to railroad’s designated authority by train crewmember of unsealed door by-pass device.
The associated burdens related to safety job briefings have been addressed previously when FRA calculated the economic costs of the regulation.
—(c) En route failure—Safety briefing by train crew when
door by-pass device is activated.
34 railroads ....
—(c) Notification to designated RR authority by train crewmember that door by-pass device has been activated.
The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under § 238.133(c).
—(c)(1) On-site qualified person (QP) description to a qualified maintenance person (QMP) off-site that equipment is
safe to move for repairs.
The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under § 238.133(c).
—(c)(2) QP/QMP notification to crewmember in charge that
door by-pass has been activated and safety briefing by
train crew.
The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under § 238.133(c).
—(d) Records ..........................................................................
34 railroads ....
—(d) Records of unintended opening of a powered exterior
side door.
The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under § 238.133(d).
—(g)(2) RR record of by-pass activations found unsealed ....
The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under § 238.133(d).
238.135(a)(1)—Operating practices for exterior side door
safety systems—Daily job briefings.
The associated burdens related to daily job briefings have been addressed previously when FRA calculated the economic costs of the regulation.
—(c) Railroads’ request to FRA for special consideration to
operate passenger trains with exterior side doors or trap
doors, or both, open between stations.
The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under § 238.7 or
§ 238.21.
—(c)(4) Railroads’ response to FRA request for additional information concerning special consideration request.
The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under § 238.7 or
§ 238.21.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
1.33 plans ......
100.00 topicspecific
briefings and
notifications.
100.00 records
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16 hours .........
2 minutes .......
2 minutes .......
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
21.28
3.33
3.33
03APP2
77.44
77.44
257.88
257.88
19766
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Respondent
universe
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
CFR section
Total annual
responses
Average
time per
responses
Total annual
burden hours
Wage rate
Total cost
equivalent
(A)
(B)
(C) = A * B
(D) 30
(E) = C * D
1.00 operating
rule.
8 hours ...........
—(d) Operating rules on how to safely override a door summary circuit or no-motion system, or both, in the event of
an en route exterior side door failure or malfunction on a
passenger train (Note: Includes burden under § 238.137).
1 new railroad
—(d) Railroads to provide a copy of written operating rules
to train crewmembers and control center personnel.
Railroads were required to complete the requirements of this subsection by December 6, 2018, so the
estimated paperwork burden is zero.
—(e) Railroads’ training of train crewmembers on requirements of this section.
The associated burdens relating to the training of train crewmembers have been addressed previously
when FRA calculated the economic costs of the regulation. FRA estimates the paperwork burdens associated with training recordkeeping under § 238.109 or under the OMB control numbers 2130–0596
or 2130–0533.
—(e) Railroads’ training of new employees ............................
The associated burdens relating to the training of train crewmembers have been addressed previously
when FRA calculated the economic costs of the regulation. FRA estimates the paperwork burdens associated with training recordkeeping under § 238.109 or under the OMB control numbers 2130–0596
or 2130–0533.
—(g) RR operational/efficiency tests of train crewmembers &
control center employees.
The associated burdens relating to operational testing or observation of operating crewmembers and
control center personnel have been previously addressed when FRA calculated the economic costs of
the regulation.
238.139(e)—Vehicle/track system qualification—New vehicle
type qualification testing plan (New requirement).
33 railroads ....
—(e) Vehicle/track system qualification—Existing vehicle
type qualification testing plan (New requirement).
FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
—(g) Vehicle/track system qualification—Qualification testing
results (New requirement).
The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under paragraph (e)
of this section.
—(i)(1) Vehicle/track system qualification—Document retention (New requirement).
—(i)(2) Vehicle/track system qualification—Written consent
of each affected track owner (New requirement).
33 railroads ....
1.00 record .....
10 minutes .....
.17
77.44
13.16
33 railroads ....
2.00 written
consents.
30 minutes .....
1.00
77.44
77.44
238.201(b)—Scope/alternative compliance—Supporting documentation demonstrating compliance.
The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under § 238.21.
—(b) Notice of tests sent to FRA 30 days prior to commencement of operations.
The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under
§ 238.111(a)(4).
238.229(c)—Safety appliances—Welded safety appliances—
Written lists submitted to FRA by the railroads.
1 new railroad
1.00 list ...........
1 hour .............
1.00
77.44
77.44
—(d) Defective welded safety appliance or welded safety appliance bracket or support—Tagging.
—(d) Notification to crewmembers about non-compliant
equipment.
—(g) Inspection plans .............................................................
34 railroads ....
4.00 tags ........
3 minutes .......
.20
59.89
11.98
34 railroads ....
2.00 notices ....
1 minute .........
.03
77.44
2.32
1 new railroad
1.00 plan ........
16 hours .........
16.00
77.44
1,239.04
1.00 testing
plan.
120 hours .......
8.00
120.00
77.44
77.44
619.52
9,292.80
—(h) Inspection personnel—Training ......................................
The associated burdens relating to training of inspection personnel have been addressed previously
when FRA calculated the economic costs of the regulation. FRA estimates the paperwork burdens associated with the retention of training records under § 238.109.
—(j)(1)(iv) Remedial action: Defect/crack in weld—A record
of the welded repair.
The associated burdens relating to inspections have been addressed previously when FRA calculated
the economic costs of the regulation. FRA estimates the paperwork burdens associated with the retention of inspection records under § 238.229(k).
—(j)(2)(iv) Petitions for special approval of alternative compliance—Impractical equipment design.
The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under § 238.21.
—(k) Records of the inspection and repair of the welded
safety appliance brackets.
The estimated burden for this regulatory requirement is covered below under § 238.303 and under the
OMB control number 2130–0004 (§ 229.21).
238.230(b)(1)—Safety Appliances—New equipment—Inspection record of welded equipment by qualified employee.
FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
—(b)(3) Welded safety appliances: Documentation for equipment impractically designed to mechanically fasten safety
appliance support.
FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
238.231—Brake System—Inspection and repair of hand/
parking brake: Records (under FRA Form 6180.49A).
The estimated paperwork burden for this requirement is covered under § 238.303 and under the OMB
control number 2130–0004.
—(h) Procedures verifying hold of hand/parking brakes ........
238.237(a)–(b)—Automated monitoring- Documentation for
alerter/deadman control timing.
—(d) Defective alerter/deadman control: Tagging ..................
1 new railroad
1 new railroad
1.00 procedure
1.00 document
2 hours ...........
2 hours ...........
2.00
2.00
77.44
77.44
154.88
154.88
34 railroads ....
25.00 tags ......
3 minutes .......
1.25
59.89
74.86
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
19767
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Respondent
universe
CFR section
Average
time per
responses
Total annual
burden hours
Wage rate
Total cost
equivalent
(A)
(B)
(C) = A * B
(D) 30
(E) = C * D
238.303—Exterior calendar day mechanical inspection of
passenger equipment: Notice of previous inspection.
FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
—(e)(15) Dynamic brakes not in operating mode: Tag ..........
34 railroads ....
—(e)(15)(ii) Conventional locomotives equipped with inoperative dynamic brakes: Tagging.
The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under
§ 238.303(e)(15).
—(e)(17) MU passenger equipment found with inoperative/
ineffective air compressors at exterior calendar day inspection: Documents.
FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
—(e)(17)(v) Written notice to train crew about inoperative/ineffective air compressors.
The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under
§ 238.303(e)(15).
—(e)(18)(iv) Records of inoperative air compressors .............
The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered below under § 238.303(g).
—(g) Record of exterior calendar day mechanical inspection
(Other than locomotives) (* Note: Includes burden for
records
of
inoperative
air
compressors
under
§ 238.303(e)(18)(iv)).
238.305—Interior calendar day mechanical inspection of
passenger cars—Tagging of defective end/side doors.
—(f) Records of interior calendar day inspection ...................
34 railroads ....
1,734,115.00
daily inspection records.
1 minute .........
28,901.92
77.44
2,238,164.68
34 railroads ....
540.00 tags ....
3 minutes .......
27.00
77.44
2,090.88
34 railroads ....
1 minute .........
51,714.42
77.44
4,004,764.68
34 railroads ....
3,102,865.00
daily inspection records.
2.00 notices ....
5 hours ...........
10.00
77.44
774.40
34 railroads ....
200.00 notices
2 minutes .......
6.67
59.89
399.47
34 railroads ....
5,184.00 inspection
records.
2.00 documents.
50.00 tags ......
1 hour .............
5,184.00
59.89
310,469.76
100 hours .......
200.00
77.44
15,488.00
3 minutes .......
2.50
59.89
149.73
15,600.00
records.
30 minutes .....
7,800.00
59.89
467,142.00
238.307(a)(2)—Periodic mechanical inspection of passenger
cars and unpowered vehicles—Alternative inspection intervals: Notifications.
—(c)(1) Notice of seats and seat attachments broken or
loose.
—(e)(1) Records of each periodic mechanical inspection ......
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Total annual
responses
50.00 tags ......
3 minutes .......
2.50
59.89
149.73
—(e)(2) Detailed documentation of reliability assessments as
basis for alternative inspection interval.
238.311—Single car test—Tagging to indicate need for single car test.
238.313(h)—Class I Brake Test—Record for additional inspection for passenger equipment that does not comply
with § 238.231(b)(1).
34 railroads ....
238.315(a)(1)—Class IA brake test—Notice to train crew that
test has been performed (verbal notice).
The associated burdens related to briefings have been addressed previously when FRA calculated the
economic costs of the regulation.
—(f)(5) Communicating signal tested and operating as intended.
The associated burdens related to briefings have been addressed previously when FRA calculated the
economic costs of the regulation.
238.317—Class II brake test—Communicating signal tested
and operating as intended.
The associated burdens related to briefings have been addressed previously when FRA calculated the
economic costs of the regulation.
238.321—Out-of-service credit—Passenger car: Out-of-use
notation.
The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under § 238.307 and under
OMB control number 2130–0004 under § 229.23(d)–(g).
238.445(a)—Automated
toring: alerters/alarms.
moni-
There are no paperwork burdens associated with this subsection. FRA corrects its previous overinclusion.
—(c) Monitoring system: Self-test feature: Notifications .........
There are no paperwork burdens associated with this subsection. FRA corrects its previous overinclusion.
238.703—Quasi-static compression load requirements—Document to FRA on Tier III trainsets.
238.705—Dynamic collision scenario—Model validation document to FRA for review and approval.
238.707—Override protection—Anti-climbing performance
evaluation for Tier III trainsets.
238.709—Fluid entry inhibition—Information to demonstrate
compliance with this section of a Tier III trainset.
238.721—Glazing—Cab glazing; end facing—Documentation
containing technical justification.
1 new railroad
.33 document
40 hours .........
13.20
77.44
1,022.21
1 new railroad
40 hours .........
13.20
77.44
1,022.21
1 new railroad
.33 validation
document.
.33 evaluation
40 hours .........
13.20
77.44
1,022.21
1 new railroad
.33 analysis ....
20 hours .........
6.60
77.44
511.10
3 glass manufacturers.
.33 technical
documentation.
60 hours .........
19.80
77.44
1,533.31
—(a)(6) Marking of end-facing exterior windows for Tier III
trainsets.
Windows are, customarily, automatically marked during the production process. Therefore, there will
be no additional burden to mark the windows.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Monitoring—Performance
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
34 railroads ....
34 railroads ....
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
19768
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Respondent
universe
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
CFR section
Total annual
responses
Average
time per
responses
Total annual
burden hours
Wage rate
Total cost
equivalent
(A)
(B)
(C) = A * B
(D) 30
(E) = C * D
.33 analysis ....
10 hours .........
—(b) Cab Glazing; side-facing exterior windows in Tier III
cab—Each end-facing exterior window in a cab shall, at a
minimum, provide ballistic penetration resistance that
meets the requirements of appendix A to part 223 (Certification of Glazing Materials).
3 glass manufacturers.
—(b) Marking of side-facing exterior windows in Tier III
Trainsets.
Windows are, customarily, automatically marked during the production process. Therefore, there will
be no additional burden to mark the windows.
—(c) Non-Cab Glazing; Side-facing exterior windows—Tier
III—compliance document for Type II glazing.
3 glass manufacturers.
—(c) Marking of side-facing exterior windows—Tier III
Trainsets—non-cab cars.
Windows are, customarily, automatically marked during the production process. Therefore, there will
be no additional burden to mark the windows.
—(c)(2) Alternative standard to FRA for side-facing exterior
window intended to be breakable and serve as an emergency window exit (option to comply with an alternative
standard).
3 glass manufacturers.
238.731(a)—Brake Systems—RR analysis and testing Tier
III trainsets’ maximum safe operating speed.
The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under § 238.111(a).
—(d) Tier III trainsets’ passenger brake alarm—legible stenciling/marking of devices with words ‘‘Passenger Brake
Alarm’’ (Including the design of the sticker).
—(f) Main reservoir test/certification .......................................
—(h) Main reservoir tests—Inspection, testing and maintenance program (ITM).
—(j) Brake application/release—Brake actuator design with
approved brake cylinder pressure as part of design review
process.
—(o) Train securement—Tier III equipment: demonstrated
securement procedure.
238.733—Interior fixture attachment—Analysis for FRA approval (Tier III).
238.735—Seat crashworthiness standard (passenger & cab
crew)—Analysis for FRA approval (Tier III).
238.737—Luggage racks—Analysis for FRA approval (Tier
III).
238.741—Emergency window egress and rescue access—
Plan to FRA for passenger cars in Tier III trainsets not in
compliance with sections 238.113 or 238.114.
238.743—Emergency Lighting—Analysis for FRA approval
(Tier III).
238.745—Emergency communication—Marking of each
intercom intended for passenger use on Tier III trainsets
as specified in § 238.121 (New requirement; note the existing burden associated with Tier I & Tier II trainsets is
covered under OMB control no. 2130–0576).
238.747—Emergency roof access for cab occupants—
Marked emergency roof access locations on Tier III
trainsets as specified in § 238.123(a), (d), and (e) (New requirement; note the existing burden associated with Tier I
& Tier II trainsets is covered under OMB control no. 2130–
0576).
238.751—Alerters—Alternate technology—Analysis for FRA
approval (Tier III).
238.759—Trainset cab noise—Performance standards for
Tier III trainsets—Recordkeeping on cab noise test protocol as set forth in appendix I to this part (New requirement).
1 new railroad
53.33
stencilings.
1 new railroad
1 railroad ........
.33 analysis ....
.67 alternative
analysis.
3.30
20 hours .........
6.60
5 hours ...........
3.35
77.44
259.42
3,300.54
.33 certification
.33 ITM plan ...
1.98
3.30
59.89
77.44
118.58
255.55
1 railroad ........
.33 design ......
40 hours .........
13.20
77.44
1,022.21
1 railroad ........
.33 procedure
8 hours ...........
2.64
77.44
204.44
1 railroad ........
.33 analysis/
document.
.33 analysis/
document.
.33 analysis/
document.
.33 plan ..........
20 hours .........
6.60
77.44
511.10
40 hours .........
13.20
77.44
1,022.21
20 hours .........
6.60
77.44
511.10
60 hours .........
19.80
77.44
1,533.31
.33 analysis/
test.
277.00 marked
intercom locations.
60 hours .........
19.80
77.44
1,533.31
5 minutes .......
23.08
77.44
1,787.32
3 railroads ......
104.00 marked
emergency
roof access
locations.
30 minutes .....
52.00
77.44
4,026.88
1 railroad ........
.33 analysis/
test.
1.00 record .....
40 hours .........
13.20
77.44
1,022.21
5 minutes .......
.08
77.44
6.20
77.44
25.56
1 railroad ........
1 railroad ........
1 railroad ........
1 railroad ........
3 railroads ......
3 railroads ......
FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
238.775—Trainset horn—Testing of the trainset horn sound
level in accordance with § 229.129(c)—Written report and
record retention (New requirement).
3 railroads ......
238.777(e)(2)—Inspection Records—Copy of summary report made available to the engineer and to FRA upon request (New requirement).
FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
PO 00000
511.10
59.89
238.765—Event recorders (New requirement) .......................
Jkt 259001
77.44
55.11
FRA anticipates zero submissions for this 3-year ICR period.
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
255.55
1 hour (design)
+ 2 minutes
(marking).
6 hours ...........
10 hours .........
238.761—Trainset sanitation facilities for employees as
specified in §§ 229.137 and 229.139—Defective locomotive toilet facility—Tagging, notation on daily inspection
report (New requirement; note the existing burden associated with Tier I & Tier II trainsets is covered under OMB
control no. 2130–0552).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
77.44
Frm 00040
.33 written report.
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1 hour .............
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
.33
03APP2
19769
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Respondent
universe
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
CFR section
Total annual
responses
Average
time per
responses
Total annual
burden hours
Wage rate
Total cost
equivalent
(A)
(B)
(C) = A * B
(D) 30
(E) = C * D
238.785—Trainset electrical system—High voltage markings:
doors, cover plates, or barriers (New requirement).
FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
238.791—Safety appliances (New requirement) ....................
The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under §§ 238.110 (design)
and 238.901 et seq. (records).
238.903—Trainset Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance Requirements for Tier III Passenger Equipment—Program
(New requirement).
—(f) Retention of records ........................................................
3 railroads ......
.67 plan ..........
150 hours .......
100.50
77.44
7,782.72
3 railroads ......
10,140.00
records.
5 minutes .......
845.00
77.44
65,436.80
238.907—Standard procedures for safely performing inspection, testing, and maintenance, and repairs (New requirement).
The estimated paperwork burden for this requirement is covered under § 238.903.
238.909—Quality control/quality assurance program (New
requirement).
The estimated paperwork burden for this requirement is covered under § 238.903.
238.911—Inspection, testing, and maintenance program format—A condensed version of the program that contains
only those items identified as safety-critical by the railroad
submitted for approval by FRA (New requirement).
3 railroads ......
238.913(a)(1)—Inspection, testing, and maintenance program approval procedure—Initial submission (New requirement).
The estimated paperwork burden for this requirement is covered under § 238.903.
—(a)(2) Inspection, testing, and maintenance program approval procedure—Submission of amendments (New requirement).
FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
—(b)(3) Inspection, testing, and maintenance program approval procedure—Statement affirming that the railroad
has provided a copy of the program or amendments on
designated representatives of railroad employees as required under paragraph (c) of this section (New requirement).
—(c) Inspection, testing, and maintenance program approval
procedure—Comment—Railroad to provide a copy to the
designated representatives of railroad employees responsible for the equipment’s operation, inspection, testing,
and maintenance under this subpart, of each submission
filed with FRA (New requirement).
—(d)(1) Inspection, testing, and maintenance program approval procedure—FRA’s notification to railroads (New requirement).
3 railroads ......
.67 affirming
statement.
5 minutes .......
.06
77.44
4.65
3 railroads ......
.33 comment ..
5 hours ...........
1.65
77.44
127.78
3 railroads ......
.33 review of
deficiency.
2 hours ...........
.66
77.44
51.11
—(d)(2) Inspection, testing, and maintenance program approval procedure—Amendments in response to FRA’s disapproval (New requirement).
FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
—(d)(3) Inspection, testing, and maintenance program approval procedure—Resubmission of initial submission or
amendments in response to FRA’s identification of deficiencies after approval (New requirement).
The estimated paperwork burden for this requirement is covered above under paragraph (d)(1) of this
section.
—(e) Inspection, testing, and maintenance program approval
procedure—Annual review—Railroad to provide written notice to FRA and the designated representatives of the railroad’s employees prior to the annual review (New requirement).
FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
238.1003(a)–(e)—Movement of defective Tier III passenger
equipment—Tagging to indicate ‘‘non-complying trainset’’
(New requirement).
FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
—(f) Movement of defective Tier III passenger equipment—
Movement is made in accordance with the restrictions
contained in the Special Notice under part 216 (New requirement).
FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
Total 31 ..............................................................................
All estimates include the time for
reviewing instructions; searching
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
37 railroads ....
.67 condensed
program.
4,871,540 Responses.
2 hours ...........
N/A .................
existing data sources; gathering or
maintaining the needed data; and
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1.34
98,889
77.44
N/A
103.77
7,401,389
reviewing the information. Pursuant to
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
19770
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
comments concerning: Whether these
information collection requirements are
necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of FRA, including whether
the information has practical utility; the
accuracy of FRA’s estimates of the
burden of the information collection
requirements; the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and whether the burden of
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of automated collection techniques
or other forms of information
technology, may be minimized. For
information or a copy of the paperwork
package submitted to OMB, contact Ms.
Arlette Mussington, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, at 571–
609–1285 or Ms. Joanne Swafford,
Information Collection Clearance
Officer, at 757–897–9908. Organizations
and individuals desiring to submit
comments on the collection of
information requirements should direct
them via email to Ms. Mussington at
arlette.mussington@dot.gov or Ms.
Swafford at joanne.swafford@dot.gov.
OMB is required to decide concerning
the collection of information
requirements contained in this rule
between 30 and 60 days after
publication of this document in the
Federal Register. Therefore, a comment
to OMB is best assured of having its full
effect if OMB receives it within 30 days
of publication. FRA is not authorized to
impose a penalty on persons for
violating information collection
requirements that do not display a
current OMB control number, if
required. FRA intends to obtain current
OMB control numbers for any new
information collection requirements
resulting from this rulemaking action
prior to the effective date of the final
rule. The OMB control number, when
assigned, will be announced by separate
notice in the Federal Register.
D. Federalism Implications
Executive Order 13132, Federalism,32
requires FRA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and
timely input by State and local officials
in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ are defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’ Under
Executive Order 13132, the agency may
not issue a regulation with federalism
implications that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs and that is not
required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local
governments, the agency consults with
State and local governments, or the
agency consults with State and local
government officials early in the process
of developing the regulation. Where a
regulation has federalism implications
and preempts State law, the agency
seeks to consult with State and local
officials in the process of developing the
regulation.
FRA has analyzed this proposed rule
in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order
13132. FRA has determined that this
proposed rule has no federalism
implications, other than the possible
preemption of State laws under 49
U.S.C. 20106. Therefore, the
consultation and funding requirements
of Executive Order 13132 do not apply,
and preparation of a federalism
summary impact statement for the
proposed rule is not required.
E. International Trade Impact
Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 33
prohibits Federal agencies from
engaging in any standards or related
activities that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the
United States. Legitimate domestic
objectives, such as safety, are not
considered unnecessary obstacles. The
statute also requires consideration of
international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for
U.S. standards.
FRA has assessed the potential effect
of this rulemaking on foreign commerce
and believes that its proposed
requirements are consistent with the
Trade Agreements Act. The proposed
requirements are safety standards,
which, as noted, are not considered
unnecessary obstacles to trade.
Moreover, FRA has sought, to the extent
practicable, to state the proposed
requirements in terms of the
performance desired, rather than in
more narrow terms restricted to a
particular design or system.
F. Environmental Impact
FRA has evaluated this proposed rule
in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act 34 (NEPA), the
Council of Environmental Quality’s
33 19
32 64
FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
34 42
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
U.S.C. ch. 13.
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
NEPA implementing regulations,35 and
FRA’s NEPA implementing
regulations.36 FRA has determined that
this proposed rule is categorically
excluded from environmental review
and therefore does not require the
preparation of an environmental
assessment (EA) or environmental
impact statement (EIS). Categorical
exclusions (CEs) are actions identified
in an agency’s NEPA implementing
procedures that do not normally have a
significant impact on the environment
and therefore do not require either an
EA or EIS.37 Specifically, FRA has
determined that this proposed rule is
categorically excluded from detailed
environmental review.38
The main purpose of this rulemaking
is to amend FRA’s Passenger Equipment
Safety Standards by adding safety
standards to facilitate the safe
implementation of high-speed rail at
speeds up to 220 mph (Tier III). This
rulemaking would not directly or
indirectly impact any environmental
resources and would not result in
significantly increased emissions of air
or water pollutants or noise. In
analyzing the applicability of a CE, FRA
must also consider whether unusual
circumstances are present that would
warrant a more detailed environmental
review.39 FRA has concluded that no
such unusual circumstances exist with
respect to this proposed rule and it
meets the requirements for categorical
exclusion.40
Pursuant to Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act and
its implementing regulations, FRA has
determined this undertaking has no
potential to affect historic properties.41
FRA has also determined that this
rulemaking does not approve a project
resulting in a use of a resource protected
by Section 4(f).42 Further, FRA reviewed
this proposed rulemaking and found it
consistent with Executive Order 14008,
Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and
Abroad.43
35 40
CFR parts 1500–1508.
CFR part 771.
37 40 CFR 1508.4
38 See 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15) (categorically
excluding ‘‘[p]romulgation of rules, the issuance of
policy statements, the waiver or modification of
existing regulatory requirements, or discretionary
approvals that do not result in significantly
increased emissions of air or water pollutants or
noise’’).
39 23 CFR 771.116(b).
40 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15).
41 See 54 U.S.C. 306108.
42 See Department of Transportation Act of 1966,
as amended (Pub. L. 89–670, 80 Stat. 931); 49 U.S.C.
303.
43 86 FR 7619 (Feb. 1, 2021).
36 23
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
G. Executive Order 12898
(Environmental Justice)
Executive Order 12898, Federal
Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations,44 and DOT
Order 5610.2C 45 require DOT agencies
to achieve environmental justice as part
of their mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects,
including interrelated social and
economic effects, of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations. The DOT Order instructs
DOT agencies to address compliance
with Executive Order 12898 and
requirements within the DOT Order in
rulemaking activities, as appropriate,
and also requires consideration of the
benefits of transportation programs,
policies, and other activities where
minority populations and low-income
populations benefit, at a minimum, to
the same level as the general population
as a whole when determining impacts
on minority and low-income
populations. FRA has evaluated this
proposed rule under Executive Order
12898 and the DOT Order and has
determined that it would not cause
disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effects
on minority populations or low-income
populations.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
H. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal
Consultation)
FRA has evaluated this proposed rule
in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments, dated
November 6, 2000. The proposed rule
would not have a substantial direct
effect on one or more Indian tribes,
would not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on Indian tribal
governments, and would not preempt
tribal laws. Therefore, the funding and
consultation requirements of Executive
Order 13175 do not apply, and a tribal
summary impact statement is not
required.
I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
Under section 201 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995,46 each
Federal agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise
prohibited by law, assess the effects of
44 59
FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994).
45 Available at: https://www.transportation.gov/
sites/dot.gov/files/Final-for-OST-C-210312-003signed.pdf.
46 Public Law 104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
19771
Federal regulatory actions on State,
local, and tribal governments, and the
private sector (other than to the extent
that such regulations incorporate
requirements specifically set forth in
law).’’ Section 202 of the Act 47 further
requires that ‘‘before promulgating any
general notice of proposed rulemaking
that is likely to result in the
promulgation of any rule that includes
any Federal mandate that may result in
expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any
1 year, and before promulgating any
final rule for which a general notice of
proposed rulemaking was published,
the agency shall prepare a written
statement’’ detailing the effect on State,
local, and tribal governments and the
private sector. This proposed rule will
not result in the expenditure, in the
aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more (as
adjusted annually for inflation) in any
one year, and thus preparation of such
a statement is not required.
L. Analysis Under 1 CFR Part 51
J. Energy Impact
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, FRA proposes to amend
chapter II, subtitle B of title 49 of the
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use, requires Federal
agencies to prepare a Statement of
Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant
energy action.’’ 48 FRA evaluated this
proposed rule under Executive Order
13211 and determined that this
regulatory action is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ within the meaning of
Executive Order 13211.
K. Privacy Act
47 2
U.S.C. 1532.
48 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001).
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 216
Railroad safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 231
Railroad safety.
49 CFR Part 238
Incorporation by reference, Passenger
equipment, Railroad safety, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
The Proposed Rule
PART 216—SPECIAL NOTICE AND
EMERGENCY ORDER PROCEDURES:
RAILROAD TRACK, LOCOMOTIVE
AND EQUIPMENT
1. The authority citation for part 216
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20104, 20107,
20111, 20133, 20701–20702, 21301–21302,
21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
2. Revise § 216.14(c) to read as
follows:
■
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c),
DOT solicits comments from the public
to better inform its rulemaking process.
DOT posts these comments, without
edit, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records
notice, DOT/ALL–14 FDMS, accessible
through www.dot.gov/privacy. To
facilitate comment tracking and
response, we encourage commenters to
provide their name, or the name of their
organization; however, submission of
names is completely optional. Whether
or not commenters identify themselves,
all timely comments will be fully
considered. If you wish to provide
comments containing proprietary or
confidential information, please contact
the agency for alternate submission
instructions.
PO 00000
As required by 1 CFR 51.5, FRA has
summarized the standards it is
proposing to incorporate by reference
and shown the reasonable availability of
those standards in the section-bysection analysis of this rulemaking
document (see the discussions of
§§ 238.139(c)(1)(i) and 238.745(b)).
APTA standard PR–M–S–18–10 is
currently approved for the location
where is appears in the amendatory text;
no change to the standard is proposed.
Sfmt 4702
§ 216.214 Special notice for repairs—
passenger equipment.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Railroad passenger equipment
subject to a Special Notice may be
moved from the place where it was
found to be unsafe for further service to
the nearest available point where the
equipment can be repaired, if such
movement is necessary to make the
repairs. However, the movement is
subject to the further restrictions of
§§ 238.15 and 238.17, or § 238.1003 of
this chapter.
PART 231—RAILROAD SAFETY
APPLIANCE STANDARDS
3. The authority citation for part 231
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20103, 20107,
20131, 20301–20303, 21301–21302, 21304;
28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
19772
■
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
4. Add § 231.0(b)(6) to read as follows:
§ 231.0
Applicability and penalties.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(6) Tier III passenger equipment as
defined in § 238.5 of this chapter (i.e.,
passenger equipment operating in a
shared right-of-way at speeds not
exceeding 125 mph and in an exclusive
right-of-way without grade crossings at
speeds exceeding 125 mph but not
exceeding 220 mph).
*
*
*
*
*
PART 238—PASSENGER EQUIPMENT
SAFETY STANDARDS
5. The authority citation for part 238
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20133,
20141, 20302–20303, 20306, 20701–20702,
21301–21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note;
and 49 CFR 1.89.
Subpart A—General
6. Amend § 238.5 by adding in
alphabetical order definitions of ‘‘clear
length’’, ‘‘crew access side access
steps’’, ‘‘representative segment of the
route’’, and ‘‘Tier IV system’’, and
revising the definition of ‘‘in service’’.
The additions and revision read as
follows:
■
§ 238.5
Definitions.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
*
*
*
*
Clear length means, as applied to
handholds and handrails, the distance
about which a minimum 2-inch hand
clearance exists in all directions around
the handhold or handrail. Intermediate
supports on handrails may be
considered part of the clear length.
*
*
*
*
*
Crew access side steps means a step(s)
or stirrup(s) located on the side of the
car to assist an employee in entering or
existing through an exterior side door
for train crew use.
*
*
*
*
*
In service, when used in connection
with passenger equipment, means—
*
*
*
*
*
(2) * * *
(i) Is being handled in accordance
with §§ 238.15, 238.17, 238.305(d),
238.503(f), or 238.1003 as applicable;
*
*
*
*
*
Representative segment of the route
means—
(1) A continuous track section or
multiple track sections no less than 50
miles in length that consist of—
(i) A curvature distribution as
described below;
(ii) A segment or segments of tangent
track over which the intended
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
maximum operating speed can be
sustained; and
(iii) Any bridges and specialtrackwork that are within the track
section or track sections.
(2) If each of a railroad’s line segments
is less than 50 miles, then the
‘‘representative segment of the route’’
means one complete line segment that
consists of the conditions described in
paragraphs (1)(ii) and (iii) of this
definition.
(3) A track section as described under
paragraph (1) of this definition shall
have a curvature distribution that is
within 2% of the curvature distribution
of the complete line segment, evaluated
using the root mean squared (RMS) of
the differences between the two
distributions.
*
*
*
*
*
Tier IV system means any railroad
that provides or is available to provide
passenger service using noninteroperable technology that operates
on an exclusive right-of-way without
grade crossings, not comingled with
freight equipment or Tier I, II, or III
passenger equipment, and not
physically connected to the general
railroad system.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 7. In § 238.19, revise paragraphs (a)(4)
and (5), (b), and (d) to read as follows:
long-distance Tier II passenger
equipment shall designate locations, in
writing, where repairs to passenger
equipment with a power brake defect
will be made. Railroads operating these
trains shall designate a sufficient
number of repair locations to ensure the
safe and timely repair of passenger
equipment.
(2) Railroads operating Tier III
passenger trainsets shall designate
locations, in writing, where repairs to
safety-critical items on passenger
equipment, including those with a
power brake defect will be made. The
railroad shall designate brake system
repair point(s) in the inspection, testing,
and maintenance program required by
§ 238.903(a). No Tier III trainset shall
depart a brake system repair point
where repairs can be made with brake
system defect unless that trainset has its
required operational braking capability,
and not for a period to exceed 5
consecutive calendar days.
(3) The railroad shall provide the list
required under either paragraph (d)(1)
or (2) of this section to FRA’s Associate
Administrator and make it available to
FRA for inspection and copying upon
request. The designations made in such
lists shall not be changed without at
least 30 days’ advance written notice to
FRA’s Associate Administrator.
§ 238.19 Reporting and tracking of repairs
to defective passenger equipment.
Subpart B—Safety Planning and
General Requirements
(a) * * *
(4) The determination made by a
qualified person, qualified maintenance
person, or other qualified individual on
whether the equipment is safe to run;
(5) The name of the qualified person,
qualified maintenance person, or other
qualified individual making such a
determination;
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Retention of records. At a
minimum, each railroad shall keep the
records described in paragraph (a) of
this section in accordance with the
following:
(1) For Tier I equipment, one periodic
maintenance interval for each specific
type of equipment as described in the
railroad’s inspection, testing, and
maintenance plan required by § 238.107.
FRA strongly encourages railroads to
keep these records for longer periods of
time because they form the basis for
future reliability-based decisions
concerning test and maintenance
intervals that may be developed
pursuant to § 238.307(b).
(2) For Tier III equipment, at least one
year.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) List of repair points. (1) Railroads
operating long-distance intercity and
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
8. Amend § 238.105 by revising the
undesignated introductory text,
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), the paragraph
headings of (d) and (e), and adding
paragraphs (f) through (h). The revisions
and additions read as follows:
■
§ 238.105 Passenger electronic hardware
and software safety.
Except as provided below under
paragraph (f) of this section, the
requirements of this section apply to
electronic hardware and software used
to control or monitor safety functions in
passenger equipment ordered on or after
September 8, 2000, and such
components implemented or materially
modified in new or existing passenger
equipment on or after September 9,
2002.
(a) General. The railroad shall
develop, adopt, and comply with a
hardware and software safety program
to guide the design, development,
testing, integration, and verification of
safety-critical passenger equipment
electronic software and hardware. The
hardware and software safety program
may be maintained in either a written or
an electronic format.
(b) Safety program. The hardware and
software safety program shall include a
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
description of how the following will be
accomplished, achieved, carried out, or
implemented to ensure safety and
reliability:
(1) The hardware and software design
process;
(2) The hardware and software design
documentation;
(3) The hardware and software hazard
analysis;
(4) Hardware and software safety
reviews;
(5) Hardware and software hazard
monitoring and tracking;
(6) Hardware and software integration
safety testing;
(7) Demonstration of overall hardware
and software system safety as part of the
pre-revenue service testing of the
equipment; and
(8) Safety analysis that follows the
requirements of paragraph (c) of this
section.
(c) Safety analysis. The safety analysis
shall establish and document the
minimum requirements that will govern
the development and implementation of
all products subject to this section, and
be based on good engineering practice
and should be consistent with the
guidance contained in appendix F to
part 229 of this chapter in order to
establish that a product’s safety-critical
functions will operate with a high
degree of confidence in a fail-safe
manner. The hardware and software
safety analysis shall be based on a
formal safety methodology that includes
a Failure Modes, Effects, Criticality
Analysis (FMECA); verification and
validation testing for all hardware and
software components and their
interfaces; and comprehensive hardware
and software integration testing to
ensure that the hardware and software
system functions as intended.
(d) Fail safe requirements. * * *
(e) Compliance. * * *
(f) Additional requirements. The
requirements of this paragraph are
applicable as set forth under
§ 229.303(a)(1) and (2) of this chapter. In
addition to complying with paragraphs
(a) through (e) of this section, electronic
hardware and software used to control
or monitor safety functions in passenger
equipment must also comply with only
the following requirements of subpart E
of part 229 of this chapter:
(1) Section 229.309(a)(1) through (6),
Safety-critical changes and failures;
(2) Section 229.311(a), (c), and (d)(1)
through (3), Review of SAs;
(3) Section 229.313, Product testing
results and records;
(4) Section 229.315, Operations and
maintenance manual;
(5) Section 229.317(a), Training and
qualification program; and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
(6) Section 229.319, Operating
personnel training.
(g) Vehicle Communication and
Control System Vulnerability
Assessment. The railroad shall prepare
a Vehicle Communication and Control
System Vulnerability Assessment
identifying potential system
vulnerabilities, associated risk
(including exploitation likelihood and
consequences), countermeasures
applied, and resulting risk mitigation.
The PTC system must comply with the
requirements in § 236.1033 of this
chapter.
(h) Notification of product failure.
Suppliers will notify FRA of all safetycritical product failures without undue
delay.
■ 9. Add a new § 238.108 to read as
follows:
§ 238.108 New passenger service prerevenue safety performance demonstration.
(a) Pre-revenue safety validation
plan—(1) General. Any railroad subject
to this part providing new, regularly
scheduled, intercity or commuter
passenger service, an extension of
existing service, or a renewal of service
that has been discontinued for more
than 180 days shall develop and submit
for review a comprehensive pre-revenue
service safety validation plan. Such plan
shall include pertinent safety milestones
and a minimum period of simulated
revenue service to validate the safe
integration of major systems and
operational readiness, and that all
safety-sensitive personnel are properly
trained and qualified as outlined in this
section.
(2) Plan contents. A pre-revenue
safety validation plan shall be submitted
to FRA 60 days prior to the
commencement of the safety
performance demonstration period
containing, at a minimum, the
following:
(i) The status of all appliable safety
plans or regulatory programs, and any
associated certifications, qualifications,
and employee training required for the
start of revenue service including, but
not limited to, the following:
(A) Railroad workplace safety
procedures, programs, and training
pursuant to part 214 of this chapter;
(B) A drug and alcohol program
pursuant to part 219 of this chapter;
(C) If required, information on the
status of PTC certification or any request
for amendment under part 236 of this
chapter, and compliance with
conditions and requirements of
§ 236.1015 of this chapter as required by
the host railroad’s PTC safety plan. If
the railroad submitting the pre-revenue
safety validation plan is not the host
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19773
railroad, the host railroad must
acknowledge in writing that all requisite
testing, validation, or other conditions
have been satisfactorily met for the use
of the tenant’s PTC system in revenue
service;
(D) A bridge management program
pursuant to part 237 of this chapter;
(E) Passenger equipment compliance
validation and testing conducted
pursuant to §§ 238.110 and 238.111;
(F) Inspection, testing, and
maintenance programs, as required
under this part;
(G) Emergency preparedness planning
pursuant to part 239 of this chapter,
with a focus on first responder outreach
and employee training;
(H) Locomotive engineer and
conductor training, qualification and
certification programs under parts 240
and 242 of this chapter;
(I) Training, qualification, and
oversight program for safety-related
railroad employees under part 243 of
this chapter, to include information and
data indicating the number of safetyrelated employees required to receive
training and qualification, and
information regarding the roles and
responsibilities of executing the
program between the railroad and its
contractors;
(J) A system safety program plan
pursuant to part 270 of this chapter,
with particular focus on the status of
mitigations and actions associated with
hazard logs and risk assessments that
have a direct impact on the safety of the
operation; and,
(K) Speed limit action plans required
under 49 U.S.C. 20169, if applicable.
(ii) A detailed description of the
completeness of the system. This
description must, at a minimum,
include completeness descriptions of
the vehicles, signals, crossings, stations,
train control systems, track structure,
wayside systems, signage, rule books,
and employee staffing. For any area that
is not expected to be complete when the
system performance demonstration
period commences, the railroad must
provide an explanation as to why
completeness or substantial
completeness is not necessary for the
demonstration of safe operations. If the
railroad submitting the pre-revenue
safety validation plan is not the host
railroad, the host railroad must provide
the railroad submitting the pre-revenue
safety validation plan pertinent
information regarding any scheduled
construction activities planned during
the system performance demonstration
period and their anticipated completion
date. The railroad submitting the prerevenue safety validation plan must
then explain why completeness or
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19774
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
substantial completeness of the host
railroad construction activities is not
necessary for the demonstration of safe
operations.
(iii) A detailed description of the
operating plan including schedules,
headways, equipment required,
equipment staging locations, crew
schedules, grade crossing locations,
signal locations, timetable, general
orders, special instructions, and other
relevant information regarding the
regular railroad operations. This
description must also include a
summary of the operating plan that
includes, at a minimum, the number of
vehicles required to operate the plan,
the number of crewmembers per day,
the number of round trips per
crewmember, and the total number of
trips per day.
(iv) The period of simulated service
prior to revenue passenger service
(expressed either in days or number of
completed train trips) necessary to
demonstrate operational readiness and
reliability, to include successful
completion of any safety-critical
activities required (e.g., crewmember
training and qualification) and clear
pass/fail criteria that, at a minimum,
accounts for on-time performance,
signal and crossing failures, and vehicle
and on-board systems failures.
(b) Safety performance demonstration
period. The railroad shall conduct a
period of simulated service prior to
revenue passenger service, with the
specific period provided in the
railroad’s pre-revenue safety validation
plan pursuant to paragraph (a)(2)(iv) of
this section. During this period, the
railroad shall demonstrate that all
necessary infrastructure and systems (to
include traction power, signals/train
control, and dispatching), vehicles,
wayside equipment, timetable,
operating instructions, and training and
familiarization are properly integrated
and will safely operate in the operating
environment and under the service
demands for which they are intended.
Prior to commencing the safety
performance demonstration period, the
railroad will have successfully
completed pre-revenue service
acceptance testing under § 238.111 and
have obtained certification of its PTC
system or approval of any requests for
amendment under part 236 of this
chapter, if required.
(1) Simulated service requirements.
The railroad shall demonstrate the
successful completion of the safety
performance demonstration period in
accordance with the pass/fail criteria
required under paragraph (a)(2)(iv) of
this section.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
(i) For new passenger service or
extension of existing service, the safety
performance demonstration period must
be conducted while executing the full
schedule over the entire route utilizing
all stations and systems intended to
operate at the start of revenue passenger
service. The period shall be of sufficient
duration to demonstrate that all safetyrelated employees are properly trained
and able to execute the railroad’s
programs and plans identified in
paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section. The
railroad shall also demonstrate its
ability to operate its planned schedule
when speed restrictions, mandatory
directives, or other common situations
arise that may impact operations.
(ii) For the re-starting or permanent
re-routing of existing service, the safety
performance demonstration period may
be conducted using a modified schedule
or dedicated test trains accounting for
crew and equipment availability. The
period shall be of sufficient duration to
demonstrate that all safety-related
employees are properly trained and able
to execute the railroad’s programs and
plans identified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of
this section, with particular attention to
employees or groups of employees, who
are not actively engaged in the existing
operations.
(2) Daily summary report. During the
safety performance demonstration
period, the railroad will provide FRA a
daily summary of the activities
performed and results. Additionally,
any delays, system failures, unexpected
events, close calls, or other safety
concerns shall be described in detail.
(3) Final report. The railroad shall
correct any safety deficiencies identified
during the safety performance
demonstration period prior to
commencing revenue service. If safety
deficiencies cannot be corrected, the
railroad shall impose appropriate
mitigations or operational limitations on
the operation of the railroad that are
designed to ensure that the railroad can
operate safely. Corrections, mitigations,
or operational limitations shall be
discussed in a final report to FRA
addressing the complete safety
performance demonstration period. FRA
may require additional corrections,
mitigations, or operational limitations to
ensure the safety of the operation.
(c) Compliance. After submitting a
plan pursuant to paragraph (a) of this
section, the railroad shall adopt and
comply with such plan and may not
amend the plan without first notifying
the Associate Administrator of the
proposed amendment. Revenue service
may not begin until the railroad has
completed the requirements of its plan,
including the minimum safety
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
performance demonstration period
required by the plan and correcting any
safety deficiencies identified or, for
deficiencies that cannot be corrected,
imposing appropriate mitigations or
operational limitations on the operation
of the railroad that are designed to
ensure that the railroad can operate
safety, as required by paragraph (b)(3) of
this section.
■ 10. Add § 238.110 to read as follows:
§ 238.110 Design criteria, testing,
documentation, and approvals.
(a) Scope. Each railroad shall provide
the pertinent design criteria and
documentation, as defined within this
section, to obtain required approvals for
aspects of the design of passenger
equipment subject to the requirements
of this part prior to performance of onsite, dynamic acceptance testing under
§ 238.111 of this chapter.
(1) Applicability. Except for passenger
equipment defined in paragraph (a)(2) of
this section, the requirements of this
section apply to all passenger
equipment that qualifies under one of
the following conditions:
(i) A passenger equipment design that
has not been used in revenue service in
the United States.
(ii) Rebuilt or modified passenger
equipment where the carbody structure
or any safety-critical elements have been
modified or replaced by a new design
not identical to the original
component’s design. Submittals shall be
required only to verify the safe
operations of the modified system/subsystem and any safety-critical systems
affected by such change.
(2) Previously accepted passenger
equipment designs. Except for
paragraph (d) of this section, passenger
equipment designs that are the same as
passenger equipment designs previously
used in the United States are not subject
to the requirements of this section.
(b) Documentation and
recordkeeping. (1) Railroads are
required to obtain or develop; review;
and evaluate all documentation in
support of demonstrating compliance
with the design and testing
requirements of this section.
(2) The railroad shall retain a copy of
the documentation required under
paragraph (b)(1) of this section for the
lifetime of the equipment and make it
available to FRA for review upon
request. If the equipment is leased or
sold to another entity, a copy of the
documentation shall be provided to the
lessee or purchasing entity.
(c) Vehicle qualification plan—(1)
Plan content. Prior to conducting any
design reviews or tests, the railroad
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
shall develop a vehicle qualification
plan that is comprised of the following:
(i) System description and design
assumptions. As part of the vehicle
qualification plan, the railroad shall
include a description of the equipment’s
intended operating environment (system
description) as detailed in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section and a list of design
assumptions. Railroads operating Tier
III equipment must also address the
required elements for Tier III operations
as detailed in paragraph (d)(2) of this
section.
(ii) Compliance matrix. In addition to
the system description and design
assumptions, the railroad shall develop
and submit to FRA a compliance matrix
identifying all safety requirements with
which compliance must be
demonstrated to include those
requirements specified in paragraphs (e)
and (f) of this section.
(2) Approval of the vehicle
qualification plan. (i) The vehicle
qualification plan shall be submitted by
the railroad for FRA review at least 60
days before the first relevant design
review and/or test. FRA shall notify the
railroad within 30 days of receipt of the
railroad’s submission that the vehicle
qualification plan is approved,
disapproved or disapproved in part. The
notification shall also identify those
documents and/or tests that FRA will
require to be submitted for review and
approval.
(ii) If disapproved or disapproved in
part, FRA shall explain the reason(s) on
which the disapproval is based, and the
measures needed to obtain approval.
Upon receipt of notification by FRA of
the disapproval or disapproval in part,
the railroad shall revise the vehicle
qualification plan to address the
measures identified by FRA to obtain
approval, and resubmit to FRA in
accordance with paragraph (c)(2)(i) of
this section.
(iii) The railroad shall adopt and
comply with the approved vehicle
qualification plan, including completion
of all design review and/or testing
required by the plan.
(d) System description (operating
environment) and design criteria. The
railroad shall maintain a system
description to include relevant safetycritical elements affected by the
intended operating environment. The
system description shall identify
common criteria, design assumptions, or
other parameters that govern the design,
maintenance, and safe operation of the
equipment it operates, particularly as it
relates to safety-critical features and
systems.
(1) Required elements common to all
types of passenger equipment. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
following is a list of elements common
to all railroad passenger equipment
subject to this part.
(i) Infrastructure characteristics, to
include governing or limiting geometry
(including turnouts), maximum grade,
minimum required braking or safe
stopping distance, and rail or grinding
profile (if maintained).
(ii) Systems integration elements, to
include types of train control systems,
types of signal systems, grade crossing
system types, and traction power
systems (if used).
(iii) Railroad operational parameters,
to include alerter timing.
(2) Required elements for Tier III
operations. The following is a list of
elements specific to railroad passenger
equipment used in Tier III operations.
The railroad shall—
(i) Identify the assumptions used to
calculate the worst-case braking
adhesion conditions.
(ii) Specify the maximum designed
braking capacity.
(iii) Identify the on-board locations
where crewmembers can initiate an
irretrievable emergency brake
application.
(iv) Identify the on-board locations of
passenger brake alarms.
(v) Specify the time period for train
operations to remain under the full
control of the engineer after a passenger
brake alarm is activated.
(vi) Detail the manner or means used
to confirm that the trainset has safely
cleared the boarding platform in which
the application of a passenger brake
alarm will no longer immediately
initiate an irretrievable emergency brake
application.
(vii) Detail the railroad procedures to
be followed and trainset controls that
must be activated to retrieve the fullservice brake application described in
§ 238.731(d)(5).
(viii) Identify and maintain the
approved standard for designing and
testing main reservoirs, in accordance
with § 238.731(f).
(ix) Specify the parameters set by the
railroad to determine if the wheel-slide
protection system has failed to prevent
wheel-slide.
(x) Provide the details of the brake
system functionality, monitoring, and
diagnostics and any corresponding
safety analysis.
(xi) Identify the worst-case grade
condition on which Tier III equipment
must be effectively secured while
unattended.
(xii) Specify the operational
parameters under which the engineer
must acknowledge the alerter in order
for train operations to remain under the
full control of the engineer.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19775
(xiii) Provide the procedures to
retrieve a full-service brake application
as described in § 238.751(c).
(xiv) Provide an analysis that
confirms the ability of the railroad’s
alternate technology to provide an
equivalent level of safety if a standard
alerter is not used.
(xv) Provide information on the use of
the headlight dimming functionality for
Tier III trainsets when operating on a
dedicated right-of-way.
(xvi) Identify and maintain the
approved standard procedure for use of
flashing lights at public highway-rail
grade crossings if an alternative to the
flashing rate for auxiliary lights under
§ 238.769(b) is used.
(e) Structural carbody
crashworthiness compliance. (1)
Carbody and component
crashworthiness design. New or
modified passenger equipment
structural carbody designs must
demonstrate compliance with the
minimum applicable crashworthiness
requirements of parts 229 and 238 of
this chapter. Designs that include crashenergy management (CEM) components
must also comply with appendix J to
this part. Compliance may be
demonstrated by any of the following
methods:
(i) Full-scale testing;
(ii) Quasi-static and dynamic analysis
performed by a validated computer
model supported by quasi-static test
results; or
(iii) Engineering calculations.
(2) Carbody and component
crashworthiness compliance testing. For
any tests intended to be used for the
purpose of demonstrating compliance
with this section, the railroad must
submit the following to FRA no later
than 60 days prior to the start of testing:
(i) A test plan and associated
procedures; and
(ii) Finite element analysis results.
(f) Safety Appliances. New or
modified passenger equipment must be
equipped with safety appliances
according to the applicable
requirements of this part. The railroad
shall submit design review
documentation in accordance with
paragraph (g)(1) of this section for FRA
review. Compliance shall be validated
through a sample-equipment inspection
in accordance with paragraph (g)(2) of
this section.
(g) Approval of design review
documentation, tests, and inspections
for Safety Appliances—(1) Design
review, testing, and inspection
documentation.
(i) Design review, testing, or
inspection documentation shall be
submitted to FRA in advance for review.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
19776
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
FRA shall notify the railroad within 60
calendar days that the submission is
approved, disapproved, or disapproved
in part. If disapproved or disapproved
in part, FRA shall explain the reason on
which the disapproval is based, and the
measures needed to obtain approval.
(ii) Upon receipt of notification by
FRA of the disapproval or disapproval
in part, the railroad shall revise the
documentation to address the measures
identified by FRA to obtain approval.
The revised documentation shall be
reviewed and approved in accordance
with paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this section.
(2) Sample-equipment inspection. (i)
The railroad shall request a sampleequipment inspection from FRA by—
(A) Notifying FRA with the first
available date and location that the
sample equipment can be inspected,
which will be at least 45 days in
advance of the inspection; and
(B) Submitting engineering drawings
reflecting the design and configuration
of the safety appliances, emergency
systems and signage, and any other
elements to be inspected as part of the
sample-equipment inspection.
(ii) Should FRA take exception during
the inspection, FRA will provide the
railroad an inspection report
documenting the exceptions taken
within 30 days of the sample-equipment
inspection. The railroad shall address
all exceptions taken and then, if
directed by FRA, request a reinspection
pursuant to paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this
section.
(iii) If the sample equipment
conforms, then FRA will indicate that
no exceptions are noted on the
inspection report.
■ 11. Revise § 238.111 to read as
follows:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 238.111
testing.
Pre-revenue service acceptance
(a) Passenger equipment designs that
have not been used in revenue service
in the United States. Before using
passenger equipment for the first time
on its system that has not been used in
revenue service in the United States,
each railroad shall—
(1) Pre-revenue service acceptance
test plan contents. Develop a prerevenue service acceptance test plan for
the equipment that, at a minimum,
includes the following:
(i) A description of the passenger
equipment, its physical characteristics,
the version or type of safety-critical
features installed (e.g., type of brake
system), and any other features that may
be relevant to the testing to be
conducted.
(ii) A description of the railroad,
systems, and conditions against which
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
the pre-revenue service acceptance test
plan is intended to demonstrate safe
operation in accordance with the
railroad’s system description and design
criteria required under § 238.110(d).
This includes the physical
characteristics of the railroad, any
known physical constraints (e.g.,
clearance requirements), track geometry
constraints (i.e., turnouts), systems
integration requirements, required
alerter timing, and the minimum
required stopping distance of the
railroad pursuant to § 238.231(a),
§ 238.431(a), or § 238.731(b).
(iii) An identification of any
approvals, qualifications, or waivers of
FRA safety regulations required for the
testing or for revenue service operation
of the equipment.
(iv) An identification of the maximum
speed and cant deficiency at which the
equipment is intended to operate.
(v) A list of all tests to be conducted,
indicating any interdependences or
predecessor requirements that may
exist, and a list of any testing of the
equipment that has been previously
performed.
(vi) A schedule for conducting the
testing.
(vii) An identification of the
applicable test procedures, test results
or reports, and post-test analysis
required by this part, corresponding to
paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section
detailing the approach to verify—
(A) Safe vehicle-track system
interaction in accordance with
§§ 213.57, 213.329, 213.345, 238.139, or
any applicable combination thereof.
(B) The brake system functional
requirements and performance of the
system and components in accordance
with §§ 238.231, 238.431, or 238.731.
(C) That vehicle noise emission levels
comply with part 210 of this chapter.
(D) That locomotive or trainset cab
noise complies with §§ 229.121 or
238.759.
(E) Systems integration and
compatibility with technology utilized
on the routes the equipment is intended
to operate over, to include—
(1) The signaling systems and track
circuit technology over which the
equipment will operate, to include ATC
and PTC testing under part 236 of this
chapter;
(2) The grade crossing warning system
technology utilized; and
(3) Equipment inspection technology
and defect detectors.
(2) Pre-revenue service acceptance
test plan submission. Except as
provided for under § 239.139(e), the prerevenue service acceptance test plan
shall be submitted for FRA review at
least 30 days before the start of testing.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(3) Test procedures. Each test
procedure shall include at a minimum
the information contained in appendix
K to this part.
(4) Test procedure availability. Test
procedures utilized for compliance
demonstration shall be made available
to FRA upon request.
(5) Compliance with test plan and
procedures. The railroad shall comply
with its pre-revenue service acceptance
test plan and associated test procedures,
including fully executing the tests
required by the plan.
(6) Test results. Except as required by
§§ 213.57, 213.329, 213.345, or
238.139—
(i) Test results for Tier I equipment
will be made available to FRA upon
request.
(ii) Test results for Tier II and Tier III
equipment shall be submitted to FRA at
least 60 days prior to the equipment
being placed in revenue service.
(7) Correction of safety deficiencies.
The railroad shall correct any safety
deficiencies identified in the design of
the equipment or in the ITM
procedures, discovered during the
testing. If safety deficiencies cannot be
corrected by design changes, the
railroad shall impose operational
limitations that are designed to ensure
that the equipment can operate safely.
For Tier II and Tier III passenger
equipment, the railroad shall comply
with any operational limitations
imposed by the Associate Administrator
on the revenue service operation of the
equipment for cause stated following
FRA review of the results of the test
program under paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of
this section. This section does not
restrict a railroad from petitioning FRA
for a waiver of a safety regulation under
the procedures specified in part 211 of
this chapter.
(8) Approval. For Tier II or Tier III
passenger equipment, the railroad must
obtain approval from the Associate
Administrator before placing the
equipment in revenue service. The
Associate Administrator will grant such
approval if the railroad demonstrates
compliance with the applicable
requirements of this part.
(b) Passenger equipment design that
has previously been used in revenue
service in the United States. (1) For
passenger equipment design that has
previously been used in revenue service
in the United States, as defined in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section, each
railroad shall verify the applicability of
previous tests performed under
paragraphs (a)(1)(vii)(A) through (D) of
this section and perform such tests if
previous test data does not exist, cannot
be obtained, or does not support
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
demonstration of safe operation within
the intended operating environment.
(2) Retain a description of such testing
and make such description available to
FRA for inspection and copying upon
request.
(3) For purposes of paragraph (b) of
this section, passenger equipment
design that has previously been used in
revenue service in the United States
means—
(i) The actual equipment used in such
service;
(ii) Equipment manufactured
identically to that actual equipment;
and
(iii) Equipment manufactured
similarly to that actual equipment with
no material differences in safety-critical
components or systems.
(c) Modifications, new technology,
and major upgrades. Prior to
implementing a modification, installing
a new technology, and/or conducting a
major upgrade to any system component
or sub-system that impacts a safetycritical function on passenger
equipment that has been used in
revenue service in the United States, the
railroad shall follow the procedures
specified in paragraph (a) of this section
prior to placing the equipment in
revenue service with such modification,
new technology, or major upgrade.
Testing shall be required only to verify
the safe operations of any safety-critical
systems affected by such change.
■ 12. Add § 238.115(c) to read as
follows:
§ 238.115
Emergency lighting.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) At an interval not to exceed 184
days, as part of the required periodic
mechanical inspection, each railroad
shall test a representative sample of the
emergency lighting systems on its
passenger cars to determine that they
operate as intended when the cars are in
revenue service. The sampling method
must conform with a formalized,
statistical test method.
■ 13. Revise § 238.131(a)(1) to read as
follows:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 238.131 Exterior side door safety
systems—new passenger cars and
locomotives used in passenger service.
(a) * * *
(1) Be built in accordance with APTA
standard PR–M–S–18–10. In particular,
locomotives used in passenger service
shall be connected to or interlocked
with the door summary circuit to
prohibit the train from developing
tractive power if an exterior side door in
a passenger car is not closed, unless the
door is under the direct physical control
of a crewmember for their exclusive use.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
APTA standard PR–M–S–18–10,
‘‘Standard for Powered Exterior Side
Door System Design for New Passenger
Cars,’’ approved February 11, 2011 is
incorporated by reference into this
section with the approval of the Director
of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may
obtain a copy of the incorporated
document from the American Public
Transportation Association, 1666 K
Street NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC
20006 (telephone 202–496–4800;
www.apta.com). You may inspect a
copy of the document at the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) and the
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA), Contact FRA
at: Docket Clerk, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC;
FRALegal@dot.gov; https://
railroads.dot.gov. For information on
the availability of this material at
NARA, visit www.archives.gov/federalregister/cfr/ibr-locations.html or email
fr.inspection@nara.gov. Equipment with
plug-type exterior side doors, section
2.9 (including section 2.9.1) of the
APTA standard regarding the emergency
release mechanism shall be replaced
with the following requirements:
(i) Visual instructions for emergency
operations of each plug-type exterior
side door shall be provided. A manual
interior and exterior emergency release
mechanism shall be provided at each
plug-type exterior side door. A clearly
labeled emergency release mechanism,
when activated, shall unlatch the door,
disengage or unlock the local door
isolation lock (if engaged), remove
power from the door operator or
controls, and allow the door to be
moved to the open position. Feedback
must be provided to the passenger to
indicate that the mechanism has been
actuated.
(ii) The emergency release mechanism
shall not require the availability of
electric or pneumatic power to activate.
The emergency release actuation device
shall be readily accessible, without the
use of tools or another implement. The
force necessary to actuate the interior
emergency release mechanism shall not
exceed 20 lbf. The force necessary to
actuate the exterior emergency release
mechanism shall not exceed 30 lbf using
a lever type mechanism or 50 lbf using
a ‘‘T’’ handle type mechanism. When
actuated, the emergency release
mechanism shall override any local
door isolation locks, and it shall be
possible to manually open the released
door with a force not to exceed 35 lbf.
The emergency release mechanism shall
require a manual reset.
(iii) A speed interlock preventing
operation of emergency release
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19777
mechanism when vehicle is moving is
permitted.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 14. Add § 238.139 to read as follows:
§ 238.139 Vehicle/track system
qualification.
Pursuant to a railroad’s pre-revenue
service acceptance test plan under
§ 238.111, a railroad must demonstrate
that its equipment does not exceed the
safety limits of § 213.333 of this chapter.
A railroad may demonstrate compliance
by measuring the carbody and truck
accelerations in accordance with
§ 213.333 over the entirety of the
territory the vehicle is intended to
operate, or by complying with the below
enumerated requirements of this
section. Nothing in this section affects a
railroad’s responsibility to comply with
§ 213.345 of this chapter.
(a) General. Qualification testing shall
demonstrate that the vehicle/track
system will not exceed the wheel/rail
force safety limits and the carbody and
truck acceleration criteria specified in
§ 213.333 of this chapter—
(1) Up to and including 5 mph above
the proposed maximum operating
speed; and
(2) On track meeting the requirements
for the class of track associated with the
proposed maximum operating speed.
For purposes of qualification testing,
speeds may exceed the maximum
allowable operating speed for the class
of track in accordance with the test plan
approved by FRA under § 238.111.
(b) Existing vehicle type qualification.
Except as otherwise provided by FRA,
vehicle types previously qualified or
permitted to operate prior to (INSERT
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE), shall be deemed qualified under
the requirements of this section for
operation at the previously operated
speeds and cant deficiencies. However,
equipment deemed meeting the
requirements of this section pursuant to
this paragraph (b) does not have
transferability of qualification.
(c) New vehicle type qualification.
Vehicle types that were not previously
qualified under this section, or deemed
qualified under paragraph (b) of this
section, shall be qualified in accordance
with the following:
(1) Qualification methods. To
demonstrate that new vehicle types will
not exceed the wheel/rail force safety
limits and the carbody and truck
acceleration criteria specified in
§ 213.333—
(i) When operated over Class 1 track,
the vehicle type shall demonstrate the
ability to negotiate a 12-degree curve
with a coefficient of friction
representative of dry track conditions
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19778
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
(i.e., 0.5) and 3-inch track warp
variations with the following
wavelengths: 10, 20, 40, and 62 feet. The
demonstration shall be done by
simulating such track geometry
conditions at speeds up to 5 mph above
track Class 1 speeds, and the suspension
system(s) shall meet the APTA truck
equalization standard, APTA PR–M–S–
014–06. The results of the simulation
under both the AW0 and AW3 loading
conditions shall not exceed the wheel/
rail forces safety limits specified in
§ 213.333 of this chapter.
(ii) When operated over track Classes
2 through 5 at speeds producing no
more than 6 inches of cant deficiency,
the vehicle type shall be qualified by
simulations performed under paragraph
(c)(2) of this section and the
measurement of carbody and truck
accelerations during qualification
testing in accordance with paragraphs
(c)(3) and (4) of this section. If
successful, the testing shall result in a
transferable qualification with respect to
the requirements of this section so long
as the equipment is used at the same
track class and cant deficiency.
(iii) APTA PR–M–S–014–06, Rev. 1,
‘‘Standard for Wheel Load Equalization
of Passenger Railroad Rolling Stock,’’
Authorized June 1, 2017, is incorporated
by reference into this section with the
approval of the Director of the Federal
Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. All approved material is
available for inspection at FRA and at
the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). Contact FRA
at: Federal Railroad Administration
Docket Clerk, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC; FRALegal@dot.gov;
https://railroads.dot.gov. For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, visit
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/
ibr-locations.html or email
fr.inspection@nara.gov. The material is
also available from the American Public
Transportation Association, 1666 K
Street NW, Washington, DC 20006;
www.apta.com.
(2) Simulations. (i) Analysis of
vehicle/track performance (computer
simulations) shall be conducted using
an industry recognized methodology
on—
(A) Minimally compliant analytical
track (MCAT) conditions for the
respective track class(es) as specified in
appendix C to this part; and
(B) A track segment representative of
the full route on which the vehicle type
is intended to operate. Both simulations
and physical examinations of the route’s
track geometry shall be used to
determine a track segment
representative of the route.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
(ii) Linear system analysis shall be
performed to identify the frequency and
damping of the truck hunting modes. It
shall be demonstrated that the damping
of these modes is at least 5 percent, up
to the intended operating speed +5 mph
considering equivalent conicities
starting at 0.1 up to 0.6.
(3) Carbody acceleration. For vehicle
types intended to operate at track Class
2 through 5 speeds and up to 6 inches
of cant deficiency, qualification testing
conducted over a representative
segment of the route on which the
vehicle type is intended to operate shall
demonstrate that the vehicle type will
not exceed the carbody lateral and
vertical acceleration safety limits
specified in § 213.333 of this chapter.
(4) Truck lateral acceleration. For
vehicle types intended to operate at
track Class 2 through 5 speeds and up
to 6 inches of cant deficiency,
qualification testing conducted over a
representative segment of the route on
which the vehicle type is intended to
operate shall demonstrate that the
vehicle type will not exceed the truck
lateral acceleration safety limit specified
in § 213.333 of this chapter.
(d) Previously qualified vehicle types.
Vehicle types previously qualified by
simulation and testing in accordance
with paragraph (c) of this section for a
track class and cant deficiency on one
route may be qualified for operation at
the same class and cant deficiency on
another route in accordance with the
following:
(1) Vehicle types previously qualified
by simulation and testing in accordance
with paragraph (c) of this section on one
route shall not require additional
simulations, testing, or approval so long
as operated on routes with the same
track class designation and at the same
or lower cant deficiency.
(2) For vehicle types intended to
operate at speeds not to exceed Class 6
track or at any curving speed producing
more than 5 inches of cant deficiency,
but not exceeding 6 inches, qualification
testing conducted over a representative
segment of the new route shall
demonstrate that the vehicle type will
not exceed the carbody lateral and
vertical acceleration safety limits
specified in § 213.333 of this chapter.
(3) Vehicle types previously qualified
by testing alone shall be subject to the
requirements of paragraph (c) of this
section for new equipment.
(e) Qualification testing plan. To
obtain the data required to support the
qualification program outlined in
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section,
the track owner or railroad shall submit
a qualification testing plan to FRA’s
Associate Administrator at least 60 days
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
prior to testing, requesting approval to
conduct the testing at the desired speeds
and cant deficiencies. This test plan
shall provide for a test program
sufficient to evaluate the operating
limits of the track and vehicle type and
shall include—
(1) Identification of the representative
segment of the route on which the
vehicle type is intended to operate for
qualification testing;
(2) Consideration of the operating
environment during qualification
testing, including operating practices
and conditions, the signal system,
highway-rail grade crossings, and trains
on adjacent tracks;
(3) The maximum angle found on the
gage face of the designed (newly
profiled) wheel flange referenced with
respect to the axis of the wheelset that
will be used for the determination of the
Single Wheel L/V Ratio safety limit
specified in § 213.333 of this chapter
when conducting simulations in
accordance with (c)(2) of this section;
(4) A target maximum testing speed in
accordance with paragraph (a) of this
section and the maximum testing cant
deficiency; and
(5) The results of vehicle/track
performance simulations that are
required by this section.
(f) Qualification testing. Upon FRA
approval of the qualification testing
plan, qualification testing shall be
conducted in two sequential stages as
required in this subpart.
(1) Stage-one testing shall include
demonstration of acceptable vehicle
dynamic response of the subject vehicle
as speeds are incrementally increased—
(i) On a segment of tangent track, from
maximum speeds corresponding to each
track class to the target maximum test
speed; and
(ii) On a segment of curved track,
from the speeds corresponding to 3
inches of cant deficiency to the
maximum testing cant deficiency.
(2) When stage-one testing has
successfully demonstrated a maximum
safe operating speed and cant
deficiency, stage-two testing shall
commence with the subject vehicle over
a representative segment of the route as
identified in paragraph (e)(1) of this
section. A round-trip test run shall be
conducted over the representative route
segment at the speed the railroad will
request FRA to approve for such service.
An additional round-trip test run shall
be conducted at 5 mph above this speed.
The equipment shall be oriented
differently in each leg of the round-trip
test run.
(3) When conducting stage-one and
stage-two testing, if any of the
monitored safety limits are exceeded on
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
any segment of track, testing may
continue provided that the track
location(s) where any of the limits is
exceeded be identified and test speeds
be limited at the track location(s) until
corrective action is taken. Corrective
action may include making an
adjustment in the track, in the vehicle,
or in both of these system components.
(4) Prior to the start of the
qualification testing program, a
qualifying Track Geometry
Measurement System (TGMS) specified
in § 213.333 of this chapter shall be
operated over the intended route within
30 calendar days prior to the start of the
qualification testing program.
(g) Qualification testing results. The
track owner or railroad shall submit a
report to FRA’s Associate Administrator
detailing all the results of the
qualification program. When
simulations are submitted as part of
vehicle qualification, this report shall
include a comparison of simulation
predictions to the acceleration data
recorded during full-scale testing. The
report shall be submitted at least 60
days prior to the intended operation of
the equipment in revenue service over
the route.
(h) Approvals. (1) Based on the test
results and all other required
submissions, FRA will approve, for new
vehicle types qualified per paragraph (c)
of this section, a maximum train speed
and value of cant deficiency for revenue
service, normally within 45 days of
receipt of all the required information.
FRA may impose conditions necessary
for safely operating at the maximum
approved train speed and cant
deficiency.
(2) Previously qualified vehicle types
operating at track Class 2 through 5
speeds, or at curving speeds producing
up to 6 inches of cant deficiency, on one
route may be qualified and approved for
operation at the same class and cant
deficiency on another route provided
the vehicle types have been previously
qualified by simulation and testing in
accordance with paragraph (c) of this
section for the same track class and cant
deficiency.
(i) Document retention. The
documents required by this section
must be provided to FRA by:
(1) The track owner; or
(2) A railroad that provides service
with the same vehicle type over trackage
of one or more track owner(s), with the
written consent of each affected track
owner.
Subpart C—Specific Requirements for
Tier I Passenger Equipment
15. Revise § 238.201(a)(1) to read as
follows:
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
§ 238.201
Scope/alternative compliance.
(a) * * *
(1) This subpart contains
requirements for railroad passenger
equipment operating at speeds not
exceeding 125 miles per hour. All such
passenger equipment remains subject to
the safety appliance requirements
contained in Federal statute at 49 U.S.C.
chapter 203 and in applicable FRA
regulations in this part 238, at part 231,
and § 232.3 of this chapter. Unless
otherwise specified, these requirements
only apply to passenger equipment
ordered on or after September 8, 2000,
or placed in service for the first time on
or after September 9, 2002.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 16. Revise § 238.230(a) to read as
follows:
§ 238.230 Safety appliances—new
equipment.
(a) Applicability. Except as provided
in § 238.791, this section applies to
passenger equipment placed in service
on or after January 1, 2007.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 17. Revise § 238.235 to read as
follows:
§ 238.235 Safety appliances for nonpassenger carrying locomotives used in
passenger service.
(a) Application. The requirements of
this section apply to all non-passenger
carrying locomotives, used in passenger
service, that specifically utilize
monocoque, semi-monocoque, or are a
cowl unit, built on or after (INSERT
EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE),
unless the requirements of part 231 of
this chapter are applied.
(b) Attachment. All safety appliances
shall be securely fastened to the car
body structure and meet the
requirements of § 238.791(b).
(c) Fatigue life. The safety appliance,
the support or bracket to which the
safety appliance is attached, and the
carbody structure to which the safety
appliance is directly attached or the
support or bracket is attached, shall be
designed for a fatigue life as specified
under § 238.791(c).
(d) Handholds. Handholds used on
non-passenger carrying locomotives
subject to this section shall meet the
applicable requirements of § 238.791(d).
(e) Sill steps. Sill steps used on nonpassenger carrying locomotives subject
to this section shall meet the applicable
requirements of § 238.791(e).
(f) Ground level access to the
locomotive cab and other carbody side
doors. Non-passenger carrying
locomotives subject to the requirements
of this section shall be equipped with
appropriate safety appliances at exterior
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19779
side locomotive cab access doors and
other carbody side doors, to permit safe
access to the locomotive cab by
employees and other authorized
personnel from ground level.
(1) Handholds. Each exterior
locomotive cab side access door that
provide access to the locomotive cab
shall be equipped with two vertical
handholds, one on each side of the door,
which shall—
(i) Have a minimum diameter of 5⁄8
inch.
(ii) Have a distance from the bottom
clear length of the vertical handholds
not to exceed 54 inches above top of
rail.
(iii) Be installed so as to have a clear
length extending at least 60 inches, or
as high as practicable based on carbody
design, above the floor of the cab. The
design shall enable a person to safely
turn around in order to exit the trainset.
A smaller handhold, providing at least
16 inches clear length, may be installed
above the exterior cab access door
opening on the inside of the equipment
to facilitate a person’s ability to safely
turn around.
(iv) Have a clearance distance
between the vehicle body of a minimum
of 2 inches, preferably 21⁄2 inches for the
entire length, except when a
combination of handholds, additional
attachment points, or both, are
necessary due to the carbody design,
length of the handhold, or both.
(2) Steps. Exterior side doors that
provide access to the locomotive cab
shall be equipped with steps meeting
the requirements of § 238.791(e)(2) and
(3).
(g) Couplers. Couplers used on nonpassenger carrying locomotives subject
to this section shall comply with the
requirements of § 238.791(g).
(h) Uncoupling levers or devices. (1)
General. Each end of a non-passenger
carrying locomotive subject to the
requirements of this section equipped
with an automatic coupler required by
paragraph (g) of this section shall have
either—
(i) A manual, double-lever type
uncoupling lever, operative from either
side of the locomotive; or
(ii) An uncoupling mechanism
operated by controls located in the
locomotive cab, or other secure location.
Additional manual uncoupling levers or
handles on the coupler provided only as
a backup for that remotely operated
mechanism are not subject to paragraph
(h)(2) of this section.
(2) Manual uncoupling lever or
device. Manual uncoupling levers shall
be applied so that the automatic coupler
can be operated from either side of the
equipment, from ground level without
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
19780
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
requiring a person to go between cars or
equipment units. Manual uncoupling
levers shall have a minimum clearance
of 2 inches, preferably 21⁄2 inches,
around the handle.
(i) Shrouding. The automatic coupler,
end handholds, and uncoupling
mechanism on the leading and trailing
ends of a non-passenger carrying
locomotive may be stored within a
removable shroud to reduce
aerodynamic effects.
(j) Hand brakes. Non-passenger
carrying locomotives subject to the
requirements of this section shall be
equipped with an efficient hand or
parking brake capable of holding the
locomotive on the maximum grade
condition identified by the operating
railroad, or a minimum 3% grade,
whichever is greater.
(k) Safety appliances for
appurtenances and windshields. (1)
Non-passenger carrying locomotives
subject to the requirements of this
section having appurtenances such as
headlights, windshield wipers, marker
lights, and other similar items required
for the safe operation of the trainset or
trainset unit must be equipped with
handholds and steps meeting the
requirements of this section if the
appurtenances are designed to be
maintained or replaced from the exterior
of the trainset or equipment.
(2) The requirements of paragraph
(k)(1) of this section do not apply if
railroad operating rules require, and
actual practice entails, the maintenance
and replacement of these components
by maintenance personnel in locations
protected by the requirements of subpart
B of part 218 of this chapter equipped
with ladders and other tools to safely
repair or maintain those appurtenances.
(l) Optional safety appliances. Safety
appliances installed at the option of the
railroad shall be approved by FRA
pursuant to § 238.110.
Subpart H—Specific Requirements for
Tier III Passenger Equipment
18. Amend subpart H to part 238 by
removing undesignated center headings
‘‘Trainset Structure’’, ‘‘Glazing’’, ‘‘Brake
System’’, ‘‘Interior Fittings and
Surfaces’’, ‘‘Emergency Systems’’, and
‘‘Cab Equipment’’.
■ 19. Revise § 238.701 to read as
follows:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
■
§ 238.701
Scope.
This subpart contains specific
requirements for railroad passenger
equipment operating in a shared rightof-way at speeds not exceeding 125 mph
and in an exclusive right-of-way
without grade crossings at speeds
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
exceeding 125 mph but not exceeding
220 mph. Passenger seating is permitted
in the leading unit of a Tier III trainset
if the trainset complies with the
crashworthiness and occupant
protection requirements of this subpart,
and the railroad has an approved rightof-way plan under § 213.361 of this
chapter and an approved HSR–125 plan
under § 236.1007(c) of this chapter.
Demonstration of compliance with the
requirements of this subpart is subject to
FRA review and approval under
§§ 238.110 and 238.111.
■ 20. Add § 238.719 to read as follows:
§ 238.719
Trucks and Suspension.
(a) General requirements. (1)
Suspension systems shall be designed to
reasonably prevent wheel climb, wheel
unloading, rail rollover, rail shift, and a
vehicle from overturning to ensure safe,
stable performance and ride quality
under the following conditions:
(i) In all operating environments as
defined by the railroad under
§§ 238.110(d) and 238.111(a)(1)(ii); and
(ii) At all track speeds and over all
track qualities consistent with the Track
Safety Standards in part 213 of this
chapter, up to the maximum operating
speed and maximum cant deficiency for
which the equipment is qualified.
(2) All passenger equipment shall
meet the safety standards for suspension
systems contained in part 213 of this
chapter, or alternative standards
providing at least equivalent safety if
approved by FRA under the provisions
of § 238.21. In particular—
(i) Pre-revenue service qualification.
All passenger equipment shall
demonstrate safe operation during prerevenue service qualification in
accordance with § 213.345 of this
chapter and is subject to the
requirements of § 213.329 of this
chapter.
(ii) Revenue service operation. All
passenger equipment in service is
subject to the requirements of
§§ 213.329 and 213.333 of this chapter.
(b) Carbody acceleration. A passenger
car shall not operate under conditions
that result in a steady-state lateral
acceleration greater than 0.15g, as
measured parallel to the car floor inside
the passenger compartment. Additional
carbody acceleration limits are specified
in § 213.333 of this chapter.
(c) Lateral truck accelerations
(hunting). Each trainset shall be
equipped with a system capable of
detecting hunting on all trucks as
defined in § 213.333 of this chapter
(criteria based on reference location
defined in § 213.333(k)(2) of this
chapter). If truck hunting is detected,
the train monitoring system shall
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
provide an alarm to the controlling cab,
and the train shall be slowed to a speed
at least 5 mph less than the speed at
which the truck hunting stopped.
(d) Wheelsets. Unless further clarified
in the railroad’s approved ITM plan,
each trainset shall comply with the
following limits and be free of the
following defective conditions:
(1) The distance between the inside
gauge of the flanges on non-wide flange
wheels may not be less than 533⁄32
inches or more than 533⁄8 inches.
(2) The distance between the inside
gauge of the flanges on wide flange
wheels may not be less than 53 inches
or more than 533⁄32 inches.
(3) The back-to-back distance of
flanges of wheels mounted on the same
axle shall not vary more than 1⁄4 inch
when measured at similar points around
the circumference of the wheels.
■ 21. Add § 238.723 to read as follows:
§ 238.723
Pilots, Snowplows, End Plates.
Each lead vehicle must be equipped
with a pilot, snowplow, or end plate
that extends across both rails. The
minimum clearance above the rail of the
pilot, snowplow, or end plate is 3
inches. In general, the maximum
clearance is 6 inches. For a lead vehicle
equipped with an obstacle deflector or
truck-mounted wheel guard (or both) to
minimize the risk of derailment from
substantial obstacles that pass beneath
them and into the path of the wheels,
the maximum clearance is 9 inches.
■ 22. Add § 238.725 to read as follows:
§ 238.725
Overheat sensors.
Overheat sensors for each wheelset
journal bearing shall be provided. The
sensors may be placed either onboard
the equipment or at reasonable intervals
along the railroad’s right-of-way.
■ 23. Add § 238.745 to read as follows:
§ 238.745
Emergency communication.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section, Tier III trainsets shall
comply with the emergency
communication requirements specified
in § 238.121.
(b) Emergency communication backup power systems shall, at a minimum,
be capable of operating after
experiencing the individually applied
accelerations defined in either of the
following paragraphs:
(1) Section 238.121(c)(2); or
(2) Section 6.1.4, ‘‘Security of
furniture, equipment and features,’’ of
GM/RT2100, provided that—
(i) The conditions of § 238.705(b)(2)
are met;
(ii) The initial shock of a collision or
derailment is based on a minimum load
of 5g longitudinal, 3g lateral, and 3g
vertical; and
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
(iii) Use of the standard is carried out
under any conditions identified by the
railroad, as approved by FRA.
(c) Railway Group Standard GM/
RT2100, Issue Four, ‘‘Requirements for
Rail Vehicle Structures,’’ December
2010, is incorporated by reference into
this section with the approval of the
Director of the Federal Register under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All
approved material is available for
inspection at the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) and the National
Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). Contact FRA at: Federal
Railroad Administration Docket Clerk,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC; FRALegal@dot.gov;
https://railroads.dot.gov. For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, visit
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/
ibr-locations.html or email
fr.inspection@nara.gov. It is available
from Rail Safety and Standards Board
Ltd., Communications, RSSB, Block 2
Angel Square, 1 Torrens Street, London,
England EC1V 1NY;
www.rgsonline.co.uk.
■ 24. Add § 238.747 to read as follows:
§ 238.747
Emergency roof access.
Each cab of a Tier III trainset shall
have an emergency roof access location
for crewmembers occupying the cab,
unless the crewmembers have direct
access to an emergency roof access point
located in a passenger compartment of
the trainset. Each emergency roof access
location shall have a minimum opening
of 26 inches longitudinally by 24 inches
laterally and comply with the
emergency roof access requirements
specified in § 238.123(b), (d), and (e).
■ 25. Add § 238.755 to read as follows:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 238.755
General safety requirements.
(a) Protection against personal injury.
Tier III trainsets shall comply with
§ 229.41 of this chapter.
(b) General condition. All systems and
components on a trainset shall be free
of conditions that endanger the safety of
the passengers, crew, or equipment.
Such conditions may include those
conditions listed in § 229.45 of this
chapter, but are not limited thereto.
(c) Control of multiple trainsets.
Except when a trainset is moved in
accordance with § 238.1003, when
multiple trainsets are coupled in
remote- or multiple-control, the railroad
will comply with the requirements of
§ 229.13 of this chapter.
■ 26. Add § 238.757 to read as follows:
§ 238.757
Cabs, floors, and passageways.
(a) Cab doors. Tier III trainset cab
doors shall be equipped with a secure
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
and operable device to lock the door
from the outside that does not impede
egress from the cab and a securement
device that is capable of securing the
door from inside of the cab.
(b) End-facing cab windows. Endfacing cab windows of the lead trainset
cab shall be free of cracks, breaks or
other conditions that obscure the view
of the right-of-way for the crew from
their normal position in the cab.
(c) Cab floors, passageways, and
compartments. Tier III trainsets will
comply with § 229.119(c) of this
chapter.
(d) Cab climate control. Each lead cab
in a Tier III trainset shall be heated and
air conditioned. The heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning system
shall be inspected and maintained to
ensure that it operates properly and
meets the railroad’s performance
standard which shall be defined in the
inspection, testing, and maintenance
program.
■ 27. Add § 238.759 to read as follows:
§ 238.759
Trainset cab noise.
(a) Performance standards for Tier III
trainsets. (1) The average noise levels in
the trainset cab shall be less than or
equal to 85 dB(A) when the trainset is
operating at maximum operating speed.
Compliance shall be demonstrated
during the trainset qualification testing
as required by § 238.111.
(2) A railroad shall not make any
alterations during maintenance, or
otherwise modify the cab, to cause the
average sound level to exceed the
requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section.
(3) The railroad or manufacturer shall
follow the test protocols set forth in
appendix I to this part to determine
compliance with paragraph (a)(1) of this
section and, to the extent reasonably
necessary to evaluate the effect of
alterations during maintenance, to
determine compliance with paragraph
(a)(2) of this section.
(b) Maintenance of trainset cabs. (1) If
a railroad receives an excessive-noise
report, and if the condition giving rise
to the noise is not required to be
immediately corrected under this part,
the railroad shall maintain a record of
the report, and repair or replace the item
or component identified as substantially
contributing to the noise—
(i) On or before the next periodic
inspection required by the railroad’s
inspection, testing, and maintenance
program; or
(ii) At the time of the next major
equipment repair commonly used for
the particular type of maintenance
needed if the railroad determines that
the repair or replacement of the item or
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19781
component requires significant shop or
material resources that are not readily
available.
(2) A railroad has an obligation to
respond to an excessive noise report
filed by a trainset cab occupant. The
railroad meets its obligation to respond
to an excessive noise report, as set forth
in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, if the
railroad makes a good faith effort to
identify the cause of the reported noise,
and where the railroad is successful in
determining the cause, if the railroad
repairs or replaces the items that cause
the noise.
(3)(i) A railroad shall maintain a
written or electronic record of any
excessive noise report, inspection, test,
maintenance, and replacement or repair
completed pursuant to paragraph (b) of
this section, and the date on which that
inspection, test, maintenance, and
replacement or repair occurred. If a
railroad elects to maintain an electronic
record, the railroad must satisfy the
conditions listed in § 227.121(a)(2)(i)
through (v) of this chapter.
(ii) The railroad shall retain these
records for a period of one year.
(iii) The railroad shall establish an
internal, auditable, monitorable system
that contains these records.
■ 28. Add § 238.761 to read as follows:
§ 238.761 Trainset sanitation facilities for
employees.
(a) Tier III trainsets that are equipped
with a sanitation compartment, as this
term is defined in § 229.5 of this
chapter, accessible only to train
crewmembers shall meet the
requirements set forth in § 229.137 of
this chapter, and be maintained to the
requirements of § 229.139 of this
chapter.
(b) Railroads that do not provide
sanitation compartments solely for use
by crewmembers on board Tier III
trainsets shall provide an alternate
arrangement in accordance with
§ 229.137(b)(1)(i) of this chapter.
■ 29. Add § 238.763 to read as follows:
§ 238.763
Speed indicator.
(a) Each trainset controlling cab shall
be equipped with a speed indicator
which is—
(1) Accurate within ±1.24 mph for
speeds under 18.6 mph, then increasing
linearly up to ±5 mph at 220 mph; and
(2) Clearly readable from the
engineer’s normal position under all
light conditions.
(b) The speed indicator shall be based
on a system of independent on-board
speed measurement sources
guaranteeing the accuracy level
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section under all operational conditions.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
19782
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
The system shall be automatically
monitored for inconsistencies and the
engineer shall be automatically notified
of any inconsistency potentially
compromising this accuracy level.
(c) The speed indicator shall be
calibrated periodically as defined in the
railroad’s inspection, testing, and
maintenance program.
■ 30. Add § 238.765 to read as follows:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 238.765
Event recorders.
(a) Duty to equip and record. Except
as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of
this section, a trainset shall have an inservice event recorder, of the type
described in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section, to record data from the lead cab
and other locations within the trainset.
The event recorder shall record the most
recent 48 hours of operational data of
the trainset on which it is installed.
(b) Equipment requirements. (1) Event
recorders shall monitor and record data
elements or information needed to
support the data elements required by
this paragraph with at least the accuracy
required of the indicators displaying
any of the required data elements to the
engineer.
(2) A trainset shall be equipped with
an event recorder with a certified
crashworthy event recorder memory
module that meets the requirements of
appendix D to part 229 of this chapter.
The certified crashworthy event
recorder memory module shall be
mounted for its maximum protection.
(Although other mounting standards
may meet this requirement, an event
recorder memory module mounted in a
non-crush zone area of the trainset and
above the platform level is deemed
appropriate ‘‘for its maximum
protection.’’) The event recorder shall
record, and the certified crashworthy
event recorder memory module shall
retain, the data elements or information
needed to support the data elements as
specified in § 229.135(b)(4)(i) through
(xv), (xvii), (xx), and (xxi). In addition,
the event recorder shall record, and the
certified crashworthy event recorder
memory module shall retain, the
following data elements or information
needed to support the following data
elements:
(i) Application and operation of the
eddy current brake, if so equipped;
(ii) Passenger brake alarm request;
(iii) Passenger brake alarm override;
(iv) Bell activation; and
(v) Trainset brake cylinder pressures.
(c) Removal from service.
Notwithstanding the duty established in
paragraph (a) of this section to equip
trainsets with an in-service event
recorder, a railroad may remove an
event recorder from service. If a railroad
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
knows that an event recorder is not
monitoring or recording required data,
the railroad shall remove the event
recorder from service. When a railroad
removes an event recorder from service,
a qualified person shall record the date
that the device was removed from
service in the trainset’s maintenance
records, required in accordance with
§ 238.777.
(d) Response to defective equipment.
Notwithstanding the duty established in
paragraph (a) of this section to equip
Tier III trainsets with an in-service event
recorder, a trainset on which the event
recorder has been taken out of service as
provided in paragraph (c) of this section
may remain in service only until the
next pre-service inspection, as required
by § 238.903(c)(2). A trainset with an
inoperative event recorder is not
deemed to be in improper condition,
unsafe to operate, or a non-complying
trainset under § 238.1003, and, other
than the requirements of appendix D to
part 229 of this chapter, the inspection,
testing, and maintenance of event
recorders are limited to the
requirements set forth in subpart I of
this part.
(e) Preserving accident data,
relationship to other laws, and disabling
event recorders. In addition to the
requirements of paragraphs (a) through
(d) of this section, § 229.135(e) through
(g) of this chapter apply to Tier III
trainset event recorders.
(f) Annual test. At a minimum, event
recorders shall be tested at intervals not
to exceed 368 days in accordance with
§ 229.27(c) of this chapter.
■ 31. Add § 238.767 to read as follows:
§ 238.767
Headlights.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs
(c) and (d) of this section, each end of
a Tier III trainset shall be equipped with
a headlight comprised of at least two
lamps, one of which shall be
illuminated when the trainset is in use.
Each lamp, when illuminated, shall
comply with the angular, intensity, and
illumination requirements of
§ 229.125(a) of this chapter.
(b) The leading unit of a trainset with
a headlight not in compliance with the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section shall not be moved in revenue
service if the defective headlight is
discovered during the pre-service
inspection required by § 238.903(d)(1),
and may only move in accordance with
§ 238.1003(e). The leading unit of a
trainset with a headlight not in
compliance with the requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section that is
discovered while the trainset is in
service may continue in service only to
the nearest forward location where
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
either the leading unit can be switched,
repairs necessary to bring the trainset
into compliance can be made, or the
trainset can be moved according to the
procedures specified in § 238.1003(b)(1)
through (3).
(c) Headlights may be provided with
a device to dim the light. The use of this
feature for Tier III trainsets operating on
a dedicated right-of-way shall be
described by the railroad in its system
description required under
§ 238.110(d)(2)(xv).
(d) If Tier III trainsets are equipped
with headlights incorporating
alternative technology, the number of
lamps specified in paragraph (a) of this
section does not apply, and—
(1) The railroad’s inspection, testing,
and maintenance program shall include
procedures for determining that such
headlights provide the illumination
intensity required by paragraph (a) of
this section; and
(2) A means must be provided to
ensure that the minimum illumination
intensity required by paragraph (a) of
this section can be achieved under the
snow or ice conditions expected in the
geographic region in which the trainsets
will be operated.
■ 32. Add § 238.769 to read as follows:
§ 238.769
Auxiliary lights.
(a) Trainsets operated at a speed
greater than 20 mph in a shared rightof-way over one or more public
highway-rail grade crossings shall be
equipped with operative auxiliary
lights, in addition to the headlight
required by § 238.767. Auxiliary lights
shall conform with § 229.125(d)(1)
though (3) of this chapter.
(b) Auxiliary lights required by
paragraph (a) of this section may be
arranged in any manner specified in
§ 229.125(e)(1) through (2) of this
chapter.
(c) In addition to the requirements of
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section,
auxiliary lights required by paragraph
(a) of this section shall comply with
§ 229.125(f).
(d)(1) A lead unit of a trainset with
only one operative auxiliary light must
be repaired or switched to a trailing
position before departure from the place
where a pre-service inspection is
required under § 238.903(d)(1) for that
trainset.
(2) A lead unit of a trainset with only
one operative auxiliary light that is
discovered after the trainset enter
service may continue to be used in
passenger service:
(i) Until the next scheduled
inspection of the trainset where the
repairs necessary to bring the trainset
into compliance can be made; or
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
(ii) According to the procedures
specified in the railroad’s inspection,
testing, and maintenance program.
(3) A lead unit of a trainset with two
failed auxiliary lights may only proceed
to the next forward location where
repairs can be made. This movement
must be made according to the
procedures specified in § 238.1003(b)(1)
through (3).
■ 33. Add § 238.771 to read as follows:
§ 238.771
Marking device.
(a) Except for paragraph (d)(3) of this
section, the trailing end of each trainset
shall be equipped with at least one
marking device conforming with the
characteristics specified in
§ 221.14(a)(1) through (3), along with
the following other requirements:
(1) An arrangement to continuously
illuminate when on the trailing end of
the train; and
(2) For marker lights incorporating
alternative technology, the railroad’s
inspection, testing, and maintenance
program shall include procedures for
determining that such marker lights
meet the requirements of paragraphs (a)
and (a)(1) of this section.
(b) The centroid of the marking device
shall be located at a minimum of 48
inches above the top of the rail.
(c) Trailing end marking devices shall
operate when the trainset is in service
and be inspected as defined in the
railroad’s inspection, testing, and
maintenance program.
(d)(1) A trainset with a marking
device not in compliance with the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section shall not be moved in revenue
service if the defective marking device
is discovered during the pre-service
inspection required by § 238.903(c)(2).
(2) Whenever a marking device
prescribed in this section becomes
inoperative en route, the train may be
moved to the next forward location
where the marking device can be
repaired or replaced.
(3) A trainset’s trailing end headlight
illuminated on the dim setting satisfies
the requirements of a highly visible
marking device as described in
paragraph (a) of this section.
■ 34. Add § 238.773 to read as follows:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 238.773
Cab lights.
Each trainset cab shall have cab lights
in conformance with the requirements
of § 229.127(a) of this chapter. Cab
passageways and compartments shall
also be adequately illuminated.
■ 35. Add § 238.775 to read as follows:
§ 238.775
Trainset horn.
(a) Each leading end of trainset shall
be equipped with a horn that conforms
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
to the requirements of § 229.129(a) of
this chapter.
(b) Each trainset horn shall be
individually tested under paragraph (e)
of this section, or through acceptance
sampling under § 229.129(b)(1) of this
chapter, to ensure compliance with
paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph
(d) of this section, each trainset
equipped with a replacement horn shall
be tested, in accordance with paragraph
(e) of this section, before the next
specified test required by the railroad
inspection, testing and maintenance
program.
(d) Trainsets that have already been
tested individually under paragraph (e)
of this section, or through acceptance
sampling under § 229.129(b)(1) of this
chapter, shall not be required to
undergo sound level testing when
equipped with a replacement trainset
horn, provided the replacement trainset
horn is of the same model as the horn
that was replaced and the mounting
location and type of mounting are the
same.
(e) Testing of the trainset horn sound
level shall be in accordance with
§ 229.129(c) of this chapter, with the
following exceptions:
(1) In lieu of § 229.129(c)(7) of this
chapter, the microphone shall be
located 100 feet forward of the frontmost car body structure of the trainset,
four feet above the top of the rail, at an
angle no greater than 20 degrees from
the center line of the track, and oriented
with respect to the sound source
according to the manufacturer’s
recommendations. The observer shall
not stand between the microphone and
the horn.
(2) Reports required by
§ 229.129(c)(10) of this chapter may be
maintained electronically.
■ 36. Add § 238.777 to read as follows:
§ 238.777
Inspection records.
(a) For certain periodic inspections, as
defined by the railroad’s inspection,
testing, and maintenance program
required under subpart I of this part, the
railroad shall maintain a record of the
inspection that shall contain at a
minimum:
(1) The date the last periodic
inspection was performed as required
by the railroad’s inspection, testing, and
maintenance program;
(2) The name of the person
conducting the inspection; and
(3) The name of the supervisor
certifying that the inspection was
performed.
(b) The information contained in the
inspection record and summary report
required under paragraph (c) of this
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19783
section shall be made available to the
engineer so that the engineer knows the
trainset is ready for service. The
inspection record and summary report
shall be made available to the engineer
by either—
(1) Electronic displays provided in the
cab or other FRA-approved devices
located within the trainset; or
(2) Being physically displayed in
hardcopy form under a transparent
cover in a conspicuous place in the cab
of each trainset.
(c) The summary report shall be
generated that provides pertinent
information to review and will be made
available to FRA upon request. At a
minimum, the summary report shall
include information such as the
periodic inspection dates, applicable
waivers, the type of brake system used
(e.g., regenerative versus rheostatic),
whether the trainset’s event recorder is
out of service, the car number, the date
of manufacture, the number of
propulsion motors, the manufacturer’s
information, and verification that all
required inspections have been
performed.
(d) Compliance with the requirements
of § 229.23 of this chapter shall satisfy
the requirements of this section.
■ 37. Add § 238.781 to read as follows:
§ 238.781
Current collectors.
(a) Overhead Collector Systems. (1)
Pantographs shall comply with
§ 229.77(a) of this chapter.
(2) Each overhead collector system,
including the pantograph, shall be
equipped with a means to electrically
ground any uninsulated parts to prevent
the risk of electrical shock on personnel
working on the system.
(3) Means shall be provided to permit
the engineer to determine that the
pantograph is in its lowest position, and
for securing the pantograph if necessary,
without the need to mount the roof of
the trainset.
(4) Each pantograph shall be equipped
with a means to safely lower the
pantograph in the event of an
emergency. If an emergency pole is used
for this purpose, that part of the pole
which can be safely handled shall be
marked to so indicate. This pole shall be
protected from moisture and damage
when not in use. The means of
securement and electrical isolation of a
damaged pantograph, when automatic
methods are not possible, shall be
addressed in the railroad’s inspection,
testing, and maintenance program.
(b) Third Rail Shoes. Trainsets
equipped with pantographs and thirdrail shoes shall comply with §§ 229.79
and 229.81(b) of this chapter.
■ 38. Add § 238.783 to read as follows:
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
19784
§ 238.783
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Circuit protection.
(a) General. Circuits used for purposes
other than propelling the equipment
shall be provided with a circuit breaker
or equivalent current-limiting devices
located as near as practical to the point
of connection to the source of power for
that circuit. Such protection may be
omitted from circuits controlling safetycritical devices.
(b) Lightning protection. The main
propulsion power line shall be
protected with a lightning arrestor,
automatic circuit breaker, and overload
relay. The lightning arrestor shall be run
by the most direct path possible to
ground. These overload protection
devices shall be housed in an enclosure
designed specifically for that purpose
with the arc chute vented directly to
outside air. Safety-critical circuits shall
be protected against lightning damage.
Should safety-critical circuits be
adversely affected in such an instance,
the trainset shall default to a safe
condition.
(c) Overload and ground fault
protection. Head-end power, including
trainline power distribution, shall be
provided with both overload and
ground fault protection.
■ 39. Add § 238.785 to read as follows:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 238.785
Trainset electrical system.
(a) Insulation or grounding of metal
parts. Tier III trainsets shall comply
with § 229.83 of this chapter.
(b) High voltage markings: doors,
cover plates, or barriers. Tier III
trainsets shall comply with § 229.85 of
this chapter.
(c) Hand-operated electrical switches.
Tier III trainsets shall comply with
§ 229.87 of this chapter.
(d) Conductors, jumpers, and cable
connections. Tier III trainsets shall
comply with §§ 229.89 and 238.225(a) of
this chapter.
(e) Energy storage systems. (1)
Batteries. In addition to complying with
the requirements of § 238.225(b), battery
circuits shall include an emergency
battery cut-off switch to completely
disconnect the energy stored in the
batteries from the load.
(2) Capacitors for high-energy storage.
If provided, capacitors shall be—
(i) Isolated from the cab and passenger
seating areas by a fire-resistant barrier;
and
(ii) Designed to protect against
overcharging and overheating.
(f) Power dissipation resistors. In
addition to complying with the
requirements of § 238.225(c), power
dissipation resistor circuits shall
incorporate warning or protective
devices for low ventilation air flow,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
over-temperature, and short circuit
failures.
(g) Electromagnetic interference and
compatibility. In addition to complying
with the requirements of § 238.225(d),
electrical and electronic systems of
equipment shall be capable of operation
in the presence of external
electromagnetic noise sources.
(h) Motors and generators. (1) All
motors and generators shall be in proper
working order, or safely cut-out and
isolated.
(2) If equipped, support brackets,
bearings, isolation mounts, and guards
shall be present, function properly, and
function as intended, as specified in the
railroad’s inspection, testing, and
maintenance program.
■ 40. Add § 238.791 to read as follows:
§ 238.791
Safety appliances.
(a) Applicability. This section applies
to Tier III trainsets. The requirements of
this section may also be applied to Tier
I passenger cars and Tier I alternative
passenger trainsets in lieu of the
requirements of §§ 238.229 and 238.230,
or part 231 of this chapter, as
applicable.
(b) Attachment. Safety appliances
must be attached by either mechanical
fasteners meeting the requirements of
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, or by
welds meeting the requirements of
paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(1) Mechanical fasteners. Safety
appliance mechanical fasteners shall
have tensile strength and fatigue
resistance equal to or greater than a 1⁄2
inch (12 mm) diameter SAE Grade 5
steel bolt. Fasteners must be one- or
two-piece rivets, Huck bolts®, or
threaded fasteners secured by one of the
following methods:
(i) Self-locking feature, including
locknut and locking bolt, that meets the
prevailing torque requirements for
locking fasteners such as those specified
by the Industrial Fastener Institute for
the applicable grade and size fastener
used.
(ii) Locking device that provides the
minimum prevailing first removal
torque value for locking fasteners, such
as those specified by the Industrial
Fastener Institute for the applicable
grade and size fastener used.
(iii) Wedge-locking washers
consisting of two symmetrically
designed washers that have inclined
ramps on the sides in mutual contact
and non-slip contact surfaces on the
sides in contact with the nut and work
piece. Washer and nut or bolt
arrangements utilizing similar locking
principles are also acceptable.
(iv) Lock washers that meet the
requirements for lock washers specified
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
by the Industrial Fastener Institute for
the applicable grade and size fastener
used.
(v) Locking tab, cotter pin, or safety
wire that restricts rotation of the bolt, or
nut, or both.
(2) Welded Safety Appliances. Welds
for safety appliances, connections,
safety appliance subassemblies, and
brackets or supports shall be—
(i) Designed and fabricated in
accordance with the welding process
and the quality control procedures
contained in the applicable American
Welding Society Standard, the Canadian
Welding Bureau Standard, or an
equivalent nationally or internationally
recognized welding standard;
(ii) Performed by an individual
possessing the qualifications to be
certified under the applicable American
Welding Society Standard, the Canadian
Welding Bureau Standard, or an
equivalent nationally or internationally
recognized welding qualification
standard;
(iii) Inspected by an individual
qualified to determine that the welding
has been performed in accordance with
the requirements in paragraph (b)(2)(i)
of this section. A written or electronic
record of the inspection shall be
retained by the railroad operating the
equipment and shall be provided to
FRA upon request. At a minimum, this
record shall include the date, time, and
location of the inspection, and the
identification and qualifications of the
person performing the inspection.
(iv) Repaired in accordance with the
requirements of paragraphs (b)(2)(i)
through (iii) of this section.
(3) Carbody. Brackets or supports
welded in accordance with paragraphs
(b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section and
meeting the strength requirements in
paragraphs (c), (d)(4)(ii), and (e)(4)(ii) of
this section shall be considered part of
the carbody structure.
(4) Inspection. Except for couplers
and handbrakes, all safety appliances,
and brackets or supports shall, as far as
practicable, be installed to facilitate
inspection of attachments, whether
mechanical fasteners or welds.
(5) Strength. Welds, if used, and
mechanical fasteners shall be designed
to have an ultimate strength with a
factor of safety of at least two with
respect to the load values specified in
paragraphs (d)(3)(ii) and (e)(4)(ii) of this
section.
(c) Fatigue life. The safety appliance,
the support or bracket to which the
safety appliance is attached, and the
carbody structure to which the safety
appliance is directly attached or the
support or bracket is attached, shall be
designed for a fatigue life of 10 million
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
cycles based upon the service vibration
environment.
(d) Handholds. (1) Number, location,
and orientation. (i) Exterior side door
passenger access handholds. (A) A
vertical handhold shall be provided for
passengers on both sides of steps (one
on each side) used for boarding or
alighting. Internally installed handrails,
as that term is used under part 38 of this
title, may be used to satisfy the
requirements of this paragraph, and if
used must meet the applicable
requirements for handrails specified in
§ 38.97(a) or § 38.115(a) of this title.
(B) Each vertical handhold provided
for passengers shall be positioned so
that the bottom clear length shall not be
more than 54 inches above top of rail.
(ii) Exterior cab access handholds. (A)
Except as provided in paragraph
(f)(2)(iv) of this section, a vertical
handhold shall be provided for
crewmembers and other authorized
personnel on both sides (one on each
side) of any exterior cab access door, if
equipped.
(B) Vertical handholds provided for
cab access doors shall have a clear
length extending above the floor of the
cab at least 48 inches, and where
practicable at least 60 inches or as high
as feasible based on carbody design,
enabling a person to safely turn around.
A smaller handhold, providing at least
16 inches of clear length, may be
installed above the exterior cab access
door opening on the inside of the
equipment to facilitate a person’s ability
to safely turn around.
(iii) Side handholds. (A) At least one
side handhold, preferably two, shall be
provided at each location equipped with
a sill step, and be oriented either
vertically, horizontally, or a
combination thereof, relative to the
carbody. Each side handhold shall
provide at least 16 inches of clear
length. At least 12 inches of the clear
length of each horizontal side handhold
shall be directly over the sill step.
(B) If one horizontal handhold is used
it shall be not less than 58.5 nor more
than 64.5 inches above top of rail.
(C) If two horizontal handholds are
used, one horizontal handhold shall be
at most 54 inches above top of rail. The
second horizontal handhold shall be 54
to 58 inches above the step.
(D) If one vertical handhold is used,
its lowest clearance point shall be at
most 54 inches above top of rail. Its
highest clearance point shall be at least
70 inches above top of rail. The
handhold shall be located above the
clear length of the step.
(E) If two vertical handholds are used,
the lowest clearance point of each
vertical handhold shall be at most 54
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
inches above top of rail. The highest
clearance point of each vertical
handhold shall be at least 58 inches
above the step. Each set of vertical
handholds shall be spaced not less than
16 inches nor more than 22 inches
apart. To align two vertical handholds
with the sill steps, the handholds shall
be located in the longitudinal direction
such that the inside face of the outboard
handhold is no more than 2 inches
outboard of the inside face of the
outboard vertical leg of the step and is
no less than 10 inches outboard from
the inside face of the inboard vertical
leg.
(F) When a combination of horizontal
and vertical handholds is used, the
horizontal handhold shall be 54 to 58
inches above the step. The lowest
clearance point of the vertical handhold
shall be at most 54 inches above top of
rail. The highest clearance point of the
vertical handhold shall be at least 70
inches, preferably 78 inches above top
of rail. One continuous handhold may
be used as long as it meets the
dimensional requirements of this
paragraph.
(iv) End handholds. (A) Except as
provided in paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(F) of
this section, two horizontal end
handholds shall be provided at each end
of a vehicle or trainset unit equipped
with an automatic coupler, as described
in paragraph (g) of this section, with one
on each side of the vehicle or trainset
unit. Each end handhold shall provide
at least 16 inches of clear length.
(B) There shall be no more than 16
inches between the side of the vehicle
or trainset unit to the useable clear
length of an end handhold, measured
horizontally.
(C) If the equipment is designed with
a tapered nose, the side of the car shall
be determined based on the outer
dimension of the tapered nose where
the end handhold is attached.
(D) End handholds shall be positioned
no more than 50 inches from top of rail.
Handholds may be attached to any
primary structure (e.g., carbody frame;
or pilot, or plow on cab cars), provided
the dimension requirements in
paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(A) of this section
are met.
(E) An uncoupling lever may be used
as an end handhold if it meets the
requirements of paragraphs (b), (c), and
(d) of this section.
(F) End handholds are not required at
the ends of vehicles equipped with an
automatic coupling mechanism that can
be safely operated from inside the
appropriate cab of the vehicle and does
not require ground intervention from a
person such as to go on, under, or
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19785
between to couple air, electric or other
connections.
(2) Handhold dimensions. Regardless
of location or orientation, the minimum
diameter for each handhold listed under
paragraph (d)(1) of this section shall be
no less than 5⁄8 inch.
(3) Clearance. All handholds listed
under paragraph (d)(1) of this section
shall have a clearance between the
handhold and carbody of at least 2
inches, preferably 21⁄2 inches, for the
entire clear length, except when a
combination of handholds, or additional
attachment points, or both, are
necessary due to the carbody design, or
length of the handhold, or both. In such
cases, alternate ergonomic
configurations may be used instead,
subject to FRA approval.
(4) Strength and rigidity. Handholds
shall meet either of the following
strength and rigidity requirements:
(i) They must be made of 5⁄8-inch
diameter steel, or a material providing
an equivalent level of mechanical
strength; or
(ii) They must be designed to support
a load of 350 lbs at any point on the
useable length, in any direction, and
shall be rigidly attached to the carbody
structure such that the maximum elastic
deflection at the midpoint of an
unsupported span under 50 percent of
the applied 350-lb load shall be no
greater than L/120, where L is the
unsupported length of the span. Stresses
in the handhold and the carbody
structure to which it is attached shall be
less than the minimum yield strength
for the load values specified in this
paragraph. For purposes of evaluation,
the load may be distributed over a
distance of not more than 3 inches along
the usable clear length of the handhold.
(5) Multiple handholds. When
multiple handholds are arranged in a
ladder-style configuration, each
handhold shall meet the requirements of
this paragraph (d) and shall not have a
vertical rise between handholds
exceeding 18 inches.
(e) Sill steps. (1) Number and
location. (i) Except as provided in
paragraph (e)(1)(iv) of this section, two
sill steps shall be provided at each end
of a vehicle or trainset unit equipped
with an automatic coupler, with one on
each side of the vehicle or trainset unit
no more than 18 inches from the end of
the vehicle or trainset unit to the
useable clear length of the sill step. For
vehicle or trainset ends equipped with
shrouding or aerodynamic treatments
that taper toward the center of the
vehicle or trainset unit, the 18 inches
shall be measured from the point where
the shrouding or aerodynamic treatment
begins to taper.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19786
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
(ii) The sill step tread shall be no
more than 24 inches, preferably no more
than 22 inches, above top of rail.
(iii) The outside edge of the sill step
tread shall be no more than 2 inches
inside of any carbody structure located
directly above the sill step and below
the lowest side handhold.
(iv) Sill steps are not required—
(A) If an exterior cab access door or
an exterior passenger access door is
equipped with handholds and steps, as
required by this section, and is located
such that an employee riding on the
step has an unobstructed view of the
track ahead.
(B) At the ends of vehicles equipped
with an automatic coupling mechanism
that can be safely operated from inside
the appropriate cab of the vehicle and
does not require ground intervention
from a person such as to go on, under,
or between to couple air, electric or
other connections.
(2) Dimensions. (i) The minimum
clear length of the tread of the sill step
shall be 10 inches.
(ii) The minimum clear distance
above the usable clear length of each
step shall be—
(A) 4.7 inches for Tier III trainsets.
(B) 8 inches for applicable Tier I
equipment as specified in paragraph (a)
of this section.
(iii) The minimum clear space from
the outside edge of the sill step shall be
6 inches for the entire usable clear
length of the step, of which at least 2
inches shall be tread surface.
(iv) Sill steps shall not have a vertical
rise between treads exceeding 18 inches.
(v) Proper clearance must be provided
between steps and the vehicle running
gear to provide proper clearance from
moving parts.
(3) Sill step tread surface. The portion
of the tread surface area of each sill step
that is normally contacted by the foot
shall be treated with an anti-skid
material or be slip resistant by texturing
of the metal surface in such a way that
it lasts the life of the car. Some
examples of acceptable methods are:
diamond plate or stamped, upset, or
expanded metal. For enclosed step
designs, at least 50 percent of the tread
area shall be open space.
(4) Strength and rigidity. Sill steps
shall meet either of the following
strength and rigidity requirements:
(i) If a rectangular cross-section is
used, the sill step shall have a minimum
1⁄2-inch-thick by 2-inch-wide crosssectional area. Alternate material
sections may be used if they meet the
strength and rigidity of a 1⁄2-inch-thick
by 2-inch-wide steel section. Sill or
crew steps exceeding 18 inches (457
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
mm) in depth shall have an additional
tread and be laterally braced; or
(ii) Sill steps shall be designed to
support individually applied loads at
any point on the useable length of 450
lbs in the downward direction and 350
lbs in the horizontal direction (inward
or outward). Stresses in the sill step and
the carbody structure to which it is
attached shall be less than the minimum
yield strength for the load values
specified in this paragraph. For
purposes of evaluation, the load may be
distributed over a distance of not more
than 3 inches along the usable clear
length of the sill step.
(f) Crew access. (1) Ground-level crew
access. (i) Crewmembers shall be
provided the means where they can
board and alight the equipment from
ground level, safely.
(A) For a trainset, or any section of a
trainset that is not semi-permanently
connected to an adjacent unit of the
same trainset, a minimum of four
locations, two per side, shall be
provided.
(B) For single vehicles or trainset
units that are not semi-permanently
connected to an adjacent vehicle or
trainset unit, a minimum of two
locations, one per side, shall be
provided.
(ii) Exterior side doors used for
passenger boarding and alighting that
provide ground-level access equipped
with handholds meeting the
requirements of paragraphs (d)(1)(i),
(d)(2), and (d)(3) of this section may be
used to satisfy the requirements of
paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section so long
as access to the controlling cab can be
gained from the interior of the trainset.
(iii) An exterior cab access side door
that provides access to the trainset cab
and is equipped with handholds
meeting the requirements of paragraphs
(d)(1)(ii), (d)(2), and (d)(3) of this section
may be used to satisfy the requirements
of paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section so
long as access to the interior of the
trainset can be gained from the trainset
cab.
(2) Ground level crew access side
steps. (i) Except as provided in
paragraph (f)(2)(iv) of this section, for
each location provided for crewmember
ground-level access under paragraph
(f)(1)(i) of this section, steps shall be
provided that comply with the
requirements of paragraphs (e)(2)
through (4) of this section and meet the
following requirements:
(A) The outside edge of the tread of
the step shall be not more than 3 inches
inside of the edge of the door threshold;
and
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(B) The bottom tread shall be not
more than 24 inches, preferably not
more than 22, inches above top of rail.
(ii) Handholds meeting the
requirements of paragraphs (d)(1)(ii),
(d)(2), and (d)(3) of this section shall be
provided at each location where ground
level crew access steps are provided.
(iii) The steps required under
paragraph (f)(2)(i) may be retractable.
(iv) Portable ladders equipped with
handrails designed for safe access from
ground level can also be used in lieu of
crew side access steps.
(g) Couplers. (1) Except as provided in
paragraph (g)(2) of this section, trainset
units shall be equipped with automatic
couplers at each end. The coupler
shall—
(i) Couple on impact; and
(ii) Uncouple by either activation of a
traditional uncoupling lever, or some
other type of uncoupling mechanism
that does not require a person to go on,
under, or between the trainset units.
(2) An automatic coupler is not
required—
(i) At trainset unit ends that are semipermanently coupled to an adjacent
trainset unit; or
(ii) Where the coupler on the leading
and trailing ends of a trainset is only
used for rescue purposes. The railroad
shall develop and implement rescue
procedures that assure employee safety
during rescue operations are included as
part of its inspection, testing, and
maintenance program.
(h) Uncoupling levers or devices. (1)
General. Each trainset unit end
equipped with an automatic coupler
required by paragraph (g)(1) of this
section shall have either—
(i) A manual uncoupling lever; or,
(ii) An uncoupling mechanism
operated by controls located in the
appropriate cab, or other secure location
in a trainset. Additional manual
uncoupling levers or handles on the
coupler provided only as a backup for
that remotely operated mechanism are
not subject to paragraph (h)(2) of this
section, but shall allow use from outside
the gage of the track, or in accordance
with railroad procedures.
(2) Manual uncoupling lever or
device. Manual uncoupling levers shall
be applied so that the automatic coupler
can be operated from the left side of the
trainset unit as determined when facing
the end of the trainset unit, from ground
level without requiring a person to go
between cars or trainset units. Manual
uncoupling levers shall have a
minimum clearance of 2 inches,
preferably 21⁄2 inches, around the
handle.
(i) Shrouding or aerodynamic
treatments. The automatic coupler, end
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
handholds, and uncoupling mechanism
on the leading and trailing ends of a
trainset unit may be located within a
removable shroud to reduce
aerodynamic effects.
(j) Hand brakes. Trainsets, and
trainset units or sections of trainsets that
are not semi-permanently coupled to an
adjacent trainset unit or section of
trainset, must be equipped with an
efficient parking or hand brake capable
of holding the trainset, trainset unit, or
section of trainset on at least a 3-percent
grade, or on the worst-case grade
conditions identified by the operating
railroad, as approved by FRA.
(k) Safety appliances for
appurtenances and windshields. (1)
Trainsets and trainset units having
appurtenances such as headlights,
windshield wipers, marker lights, and
other similar items required for the safe
operation of the trainset or trainset unit
must be equipped with handholds and
steps meeting the requirements of this
section, if the appurtenances are
designed to be maintained or replaced
from the exterior of the trainset or
equipment.
(2) The requirements of paragraph
(k)(1) do not apply if railroad operating
rules require, and actual practice
entails, the maintenance and
replacement of these components by
maintenance personnel in locations
protected by the requirements of subpart
B of part 218 of this chapter equipped
with ladders and other tools to safely
repair or maintain those appurtenances.
(l) Optional safety appliances. Safety
appliances installed at the option of the
railroad shall be approved by FRA
pursuant to § 238.110.
■ 41. Add subpart I to part 238 to read
as follows:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Subpart I—Trainset Inspection, Testing, and
Maintenance Requirements for Tier III
Passenger Equipment
Sec.
Trainset Inspection, Testing, and
Maintenance Program
238.901 Scope.
238.903 General requirements.
238.905 Compliance.
238.907 Standard procedures for safely
performing inspections, testing,
maintenance, or repairs.
238.909 Quality control/quality assurance
program.
238.911 Inspection, testing, and
maintenance program format.
238.913 Inspection, testing, and
maintenance program approval
procedure.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
Subpart I—Trainset Inspection,
Testing, and Maintenance
Requirements for Tier III Passenger
Equipment
§ 238.901
Scope.
This subpart contains specific
requirements for inspection, testing, and
maintenance of Tier III passenger
equipment.
§ 238.903
General requirements.
(a) General. Each railroad operating
Tier III passenger equipment shall have
a written inspection, testing, and
maintenance program, approved
pursuant to § 238.913.
(b) Program contents. The program
shall provide detailed information,
consistent with the requirements set
forth in this subpart, on the inspection,
testing, and maintenance procedures
necessary for the railroad to safely
maintain and operate its Tier III
passenger equipment. This information
shall include a detailed description of—
(1) Inspection procedures, intervals,
and acceptance/rejection criteria
addressing applicable reliability-based
monitoring and inspections based on
appendix E to this part or an equivalent
national or international standard;
(2) Test procedures and intervals;
(3) Scheduled preventative
maintenance intervals;
(4) Maintenance procedures;
(5) Special testing equipment or
measuring devices required to perform
inspections and tests;
(6) The training, qualification, and
designation of employees and
contractors to perform inspections, tests,
and maintenance pursuant to the
requirements of paragraph (h) of this
section;
(7) Out-of-service procedures to
protect out-of-service equipment, to
account for time out of service, and how
the railroad will return out-of-service
equipment back to service; and
(8) The required operational braking
capability.
(c) Specific safety inspections. The
program required under paragraph (a) of
this section shall ensure that all Tier III
passenger trainsets receive thorough
safety inspections by qualified
personnel designated by the railroad at
regular intervals. Each inspection
identified in this paragraph shall be
performed on Tier III trainsets in
accordance with the test procedures and
inspection criteria and at the intervals
defined by the railroad’s approved
inspection, testing, and maintenance
program. Except as specified in
paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section
regarding defects in a trainset’s braking
system, if any system or component that
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19787
is defined as safety-critical under
§ 238.911(b) is found to be defective or
otherwise non-compliant during these
inspections, the trainset shall not be put
into service until that condition is
rectified. In addition to other
inspections required under subpart H of
this part, the following inspections shall
be performed on each trainset:
(1) Pre-departure inspections, i.e.,
trainset system verifications,
inspections, or functional tests that
must be performed prior to departures
from terminal locations where operating
ends or operating crews are changed.
Pre-departure inspection procedures
must include—
(i) Verification of application and
release of the service and emergency
brakes using the monitoring system; and
(ii) Functional tests of the passenger
access exterior side doors.
(2) Pre-service inspections, i.e.,
inspections conducted at identified
locations where such inspections can be
safely and properly conducted prior to
the trainset entering service after the
previous pre-service inspection, at a
period not to exceed 48 hours. At a
minimum, pre-service inspections must
include—
(i) All items covered under paragraph
(c)(1) of this section. Defects with the
brake system discovered during a preservice inspection shall be handled in
accordance with § 238.1003(d)(1),
except that if a trainset’s braking system
is discovered having less than the
required operational braking capability,
it shall move immediately to a repair
point under the provisions of
§ 238.1003(b) and (e).
(ii) An interior inspection of
emergency systems, ensuring
functionality of certain systems (such as
the public address and intercom
systems) including a determination that
any required tools or other implements
necessary for emergency egress are
present.
(3) Brake system inspections.
(4) Truck inspections.
(5) Other safety-critical periodic
inspections.
(d) Inspection, testing and
maintenance intervals. The program
shall identify the railroad’s initial
scheduled inspection, testing, and
maintenance intervals for Tier III
equipment. Changes to scheduled
inspection, testing, and maintenance
intervals of safety-critical components,
as identified by § 238.911(b), shall be
implemented only when approved by
FRA under § 238.913. Such changes
must be justified by accumulated,
verifiable operating data.
(e) Training and qualification
program. The program required under
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
19788
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
this subpart shall describe the training,
qualification, and designation program
established by the railroad to qualify
individuals to inspect, test, and
maintain the equipment.
(1) The railroad shall identify which
inspection, testing, or maintenance tasks
require special training or
qualifications.
(2) The training and qualification
program shall, at a minimum, address
the items in § 238.109(b).
(3) A list of all personnel and
contractors designated as qualified to
perform activities specific to paragraph
(e)(1) of this section, training material,
and records shall be maintained and
made available to FRA upon request.
(4) Only individuals qualified under
the railroad’s program may inspect, test,
or maintain components or systems the
railroad deems safety-critical.
(f) Retention of records. At a
minimum, the railroad shall keep the
records of each inspection required
under paragraph (c) of this section. Each
record shall be maintained for at least
one year from the date of the inspection.
§ 238.905
Compliance.
After the railroad’s inspection, testing,
and maintenance program is approved
by FRA pursuant to § 238.913, the
railroad shall adopt and comply with
the program, and perform—
(a) All inspections and tests described
in the program in accordance with the
procedures and criteria for the
components that the railroad identifies
as safety-critical; and
(b) All maintenance tasks described in
the program in accordance with the
procedures and intervals for the
components that the railroad identifies
as safety-critical.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 238.907 Standard procedures for safely
performing inspection, testing, and
maintenance, and repairs.
(a) The railroad shall establish
standard procedures for performing all
safety-critical or potentially hazardous
inspection, testing, maintenance, and
repair tasks. These standard procedures
shall—
(1) Describe in detail each step
required to safely perform the task;
(2) Describe the knowledge necessary
to safely perform the task;
(3) Describe any precautions that shall
be taken to safely perform the task;
(4) Describe the use of any safety
equipment necessary to perform the
task;
(5) Be approved by the railroad’s
official responsible for safety;
(6) Be enforced by the railroad’s
supervisors responsible for
accomplishing the tasks; and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
(7) Be reviewed annually by the
railroad and its designated employee
representatives pursuant to § 238.913(e).
(b) The inspection, testing, and
maintenance program required by this
section is not intended to address and
should not include procedures to
address employee working conditions
that arise in the course of conducting
the inspections, tests, and maintenance
set forth in the program. When
reviewing the railroad’s program, FRA
does not intend to review any portion of
the program that relates to employee
working conditions.
§ 238.909 Quality control/quality
assurance program.
Each railroad shall establish an
inspection, testing, and maintenance
quality control/quality assurance
program. The railroad or its
contractor(s), or both, shall ensure that
inspections, testing, and maintenance
are performed in accordance with the
railroad’s approved inspection, testing,
and maintenance program.
§ 238.911 Inspection, testing, and
maintenance program format.
The railroad’s inspection, testing, and
maintenance program established
pursuant to this subpart I shall be
comprised of—
(a) The complete inspection, testing,
and maintenance program for all
components, systems, or sub-systems on
a Tier III trainset, whether safety-critical
or not, to include all inspections, tests,
and maintenance tasks required, the
intervals and periodicity of those
inspections, tests, and maintenance
tasks, and all associated information
and procedures required for the railroad
and its personnel to implement the
program. The railroad shall submit the
complete program to FRA along with
the condensed version required under
paragraph (b) of this section for FRA
review to ensure that the railroad has
properly classified a particular
inspection, test, or maintenance task as
safety-critical or not. Should FRA
identify a particular inspection, test, or
maintenance task as safety-critical, the
railroad shall include the particular
inspection, test, or maintenance task in
the condensed version of the program
under paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) A condensed version of the
program that contains only those items
identified as safety-critical by the
railroad. The railroad shall submit this
version for approval by FRA, as
provided in § 238.913. The operation of
emergency equipment, emergency backup systems, trainset exits, and trainset
safety-critical hardware and software
systems shall be deemed safety-critical.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 238.913 Inspection, testing, and
maintenance program approval procedure.
(a) Submission—(1) Initial
submission. The railroad shall submit
for approval an inspection, testing, and
maintenance program not less than 180
days prior to commencing revenue
service. The program shall be submitted
to the Associate Administrator.
(2) Submission of amendments. If the
railroad seeks to amend an approved
program, the railroad shall file with the
Associate Administrator for approval of
such amendment not less than 60 days
prior to the proposed implementation
date of the amendment.
(b) Contents. Each program or
amendment shall contain the following:
(1) The information prescribed in this
subpart for such program or
amendment;
(2) The name, title, address, and
telephone number of the primary point
of contact for the program or
amendment; and
(3) A statement affirming that the
railroad has provided a copy of the
program or amendment on designated
representatives of railroad employees as
required under paragraph (c) of this
section, together with a list of the names
and addresses of those persons.
(c) Comment. Each railroad shall
provide a copy to the designated
representatives of railroad employees
responsible for the equipment’s
operation, inspection, testing, and
maintenance under this subpart, of each
submission filed with FRA. Designated
representatives will then have 45 days
from the date of filing to provide any
comment to FRA.
(1) Each comment shall set forth
specifically the basis upon which it is
made and contain a concise statement of
the interest of the commenter in the
proceeding.
(2) Each comment shall be submitted
to the Associate Administrator.
(3) The commenter shall certify that a
copy of the comment was provided to
the railroad.
(d) Approval—(1) Initial submission.
Within 60 days of receipt of each initial
inspection, testing, and maintenance
program, FRA will conduct a formal
review of the program. FRA will then
notify the primary railroad contact
person in writing whether the
inspection, testing, and maintenance
program is approved and, if not
approved, the specific points in which
the program is deficient. If a program is
not approved by FRA, the railroad shall
amend its program to correct all
deficiencies and resubmit its program
with the required revisions not later
than 45 days prior to commencing
revenue service. The railroad shall not
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
implement its inspection, testing, and
maintenance program until approved by
FRA.
(2) Amendments. FRA will review
each proposed amendment to the
program within 45 days of receipt. FRA
will then notify the primary railroad
contact person and the designated
employee representatives in writing
whether the proposed amendment has
been approved by FRA and, if not
approved, the specific points in which
the proposed amendment is deficient.
The railroad shall correct any
deficiencies and file the corrected
amendment prior to implementing the
amendment.
(3) Identification of deficiencies after
approval. Should FRA identify
deficiencies within the program
following initial approval of a program
or approval of an amendment, FRA will
notify the railroad of the specific points
in which the program or amendment is
deficient. The railroad must resubmit its
program or amendment with the
necessary revisions for review and
approval in accordance with paragraph
(d)(1) or (2) of this section.
(e) Annual review. The inspection,
testing, and maintenance program
required by this section shall be
reviewed by the railroad annually. The
railroad shall provide written notice to
the Associate Administrator and the
designated representatives of the
railroad’s employees at least one month
prior to the annual review. If the
Associate Administrator or their
designee indicates a desire to be
present, the railroad shall provide a
scheduled date and location for the
annual review. If the Associate
Administrator requests the annual
review be performed on another date
but the railroad and the Associate
Administrator are unable to agree on a
date for rescheduling, the annual review
may be performed as scheduled.
■ 42. Add subpart J to part 238 to read
as follows:
Subpart J—Movement of Defective Tier III
Passenger Equipment
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Sec.
238.1001 Scope.
238.1003 Movement of defective Tier III
passenger equipment.
Subpart J—Movement of Defective Tier
III Passenger Equipment
§ 238.1001
Scope.
This subpart contains specific
requirements for the movement of
defective Tier III passenger equipment.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
§ 238.1003 Movement of defective Tier III
passenger equipment.
(a) Except as provided in
§ 238.903(c)(2)(i) and paragraph (d)(1) of
this section, a Tier III trainset with one
or more safety-critical items not in
compliance with the railroad’s approved
inspection, testing, and maintenance
program identified during a pre-service
inspection required by § 238.903(c)(2)
shall not be moved in revenue service
and may only be moved in accordance
with paragraph (e) of this section.
(b) A Tier III trainset with one or more
safety-critical items not in compliance
with the railroad’s approved inspection,
testing, and maintenance program
identified while en route to its
destination after its pre-service
inspection is performed and before its
next pre-service inspection is
performed, may be moved only after the
railroad has complied with the
following:
(1) An individual qualified under the
training and qualification program
implemented pursuant to § 238.903(e)
determines that it is safe to move the
trainset, consistent with the railroad’s
operating rules. If appropriate, this
determination may be made based upon
a description of the defective condition
provided by a crewmember. If the
determination required by this
paragraph is made by an off-site,
qualified individual based on a
description of the defective condition by
on-site personnel, then a qualified
individual shall perform a physical
inspection of the defective equipment at
the first location possible to verify the
description of the defect provided by
the on-site personnel.
(2) The qualified individual who
made the determination in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section notifies the train
crew, in accordance with the railroad’s
operating rules, of the maximum
authorized speed, authorized
destination, and any other operational
restrictions that apply to the movement
of the non-compliant trainset. This
notification may be achieved through
the tag required by paragraph (b)(3) of
this section.
(3) The qualified individual securely
attaches to the control stand on each
control cab of the trainset a tag bearing
the words ‘‘NON–COMPLIANT
TRAINSET’’ and containing the
following information:
(i) The trainset, and unit or car
number;
(ii) The name, job title, location, and
signature if possible, of the qualified
individual making the determination
that the non-compliant trainset is
otherwise safe to move;
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19789
(iii) The location and date of the
inspection that led to the discovery of
the non-compliant item;
(iv) A description of each noncompliant item;
(v) Movement restrictions, if any; and
(vi) The authorized destination of the
trainset.
(c) Automated tracking systems used
to meet the tagging requirements
contained in paragraph (b)(3) of this
section must comply with § 238.15(c)(3).
(d) In the event of an in-service failure
of the braking system—
(1) The trainset may continue in
service for no more than 5 consecutive
calendar days so long as the trainset
meets or exceeds its required
operational braking capability.
(2) When below the required
operational braking capability, the
trainset may remain in service until the
next pre-service inspection and proceed
only in accordance with railroad
operating rules relating to the
percentage of operative brakes and at a
speed no greater than the maximum
authorized speed as determined by
§ 238.731(e)(4), so long as the
requirements of paragraph (b) of this
section are otherwise fully met.
(e) Except as provided in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section, a trainset with one
or more safety-critical items not in
compliance with the railroad’s approved
inspection, testing, and maintenance
program may be moved without
passengers, within a yard, and at speeds
not to exceed 10 mph, without meeting
the requirements of paragraph (b) of this
section where the movement is solely
for the purpose of repair. A railroad
shall ensure that the movement is made
safely. If the railroad elects to repair the
equipment in place, it shall, at a
minimum, tag the equipment in
accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of this
section to make clear that the trainset is
defective.
(f) Nothing in this section authorizes
the movement of Tier III equipment
subject to a Special Notice for Repair
under part 216 of this chapter unless the
movement is made in accordance with
the restrictions contained in the Special
Notice.
■ 43. Revise appendix C to part 238 to
read as follows:
Appendix C to Part 238—Minimally
Compliant Analytical Track (MCAT)
Simulations Used for Qualifying
Passenger Vehicles To Operate on
Track Classes 2 Through 5 and up to 6
Inches of Cant Deficiency
(a) This appendix contains requirements
for using computer simulations to comply
with the vehicle/track system qualification
testing requirements specified in § 238.139.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
These simulations shall be performed using
a track model containing defined geometry
perturbations at the limits that are permitted
for a specific class of track and level of cant
deficiency. This track model is known as
Minimally Compliant Analytical Track
(MCAT). These simulations shall be used to
identify vehicle dynamic performance issues
prior to service or, as appropriate, a change
in service, and demonstrate that a vehicle
type is suitable for operation on the track
over which it is intended to operate.
(b) As specified in § 238.139(c), MCAT
shall be used for the qualification of new
vehicle types intended to operate at track
Classes 2 through 5 speeds, or at any curving
speed producing no more than 6 inches of
cant deficiency. In addition, as specified in
§ 238.139(d)(2), MCAT shall be used to
qualify on new routes vehicle types that have
previously been qualified, by testing only, on
other routes.
(1) Validation. To validate the vehicle
model used for simulations under this part,
the track owner or railroad shall obtain
vehicle simulation predictions using
measured track geometry data, chosen from
the same track section over which testing
shall be performed as specified in
§ 238.139(c)(2)(ii). These predictions shall be
submitted to FRA in support of the request
for approval of the qualification testing plan.
Full validation of the vehicle model used for
simulations under this part shall be
determined when the results of the
simulations demonstrate that they replicate
all key responses observed during
qualification testing.
(2) MCAT layout. MCAT consists of nine
segments, each designed to test a vehicle’s
performance in response to a specific type of
track perturbation. The basic layout of MCAT
is shown in figure 1 of this appendix, by type
of track (curving or tangent), class of track,
and cant deficiency (CD). The values for
wavelength, l, amplitude of perturbation, a,
and segment length, d, are specified in this
appendix. The bars at the top of figure 1
show which segments are required
depending on the speed and degree of
curvature.
(i) MCAT segments. MCAT’s nine segments
contain different types of track deviations in
which the shape of each deviation is a
versine having wavelength and amplitude
varied for each simulation speed as further
specified. The nine MCAT segments are
defined as follows:
(A) Hunting perturbation (a1). This
segment contains an alinement deviation
having a wavelength, l, of 10 feet and
amplitude of 0.25 inch on both rails to test
vehicle stability on tangent track.
(B) Gage narrowing (a2). This segment
contains an alinement deviation on one rail
to reduce the gage from the nominal value to
the minimum permissible gage or maximum
alinement (whichever comes first).
(C) Gage widening (a3). This segment
contains an alinement deviation on one rail
to increase the gage from the nominal value
to the maximum permissible gage or
maximum alinement (whichever comes first).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
(D) Repeated surface (a9). This segment
contains three consecutive profile variations
on each rail.
(E) Repeated alinement (a4). This segment
contains two consecutive alinement
variations on each rail.
(F) Single surface (a10, a11). This segment
contains a maximum permissible profile
variation on one rail. If the maximum
permissible profile variation alone produces
a condition which exceeds the maximum
allowed warp condition, a second profile
variation is also placed on the opposite rail
to limit the warp to the maximum
permissible value.
(G) Single alinement (a5, a6). This segment
contains a maximum permissible alinement
variation on one rail. If the maximum
permissible alinement variation alone
produces a condition which exceeds the
maximum allowed gage condition, a second
alinement variation is also placed on the
opposite rail to limit the gage to the
maximum permissible value.
(H) Short warp (a12). This segment contains
a pair of profile deviations to produce a
maximum permissible 10-foot warp
perturbation. The first is on the inner rail,
and the second follows 10 feet farther on the
outside rail. Each deviation has a
wavelength, l, of 20 feet and variable
amplitude for each simulation speed as
described below. This segment is to be used
only on curved track simulations.
(I) Combined perturbation (a7, a8, a13). This
segment contains a down and out combined
geometry condition on the outside rail in the
body of the curve. If the variations produce
a condition which exceeds the maximum
allowed gage condition, a second variation is
also placed on the opposite rail as for the
MCAT segments described in paragraphs
(b)(2)(i)(F) and (G) of this appendix. This
segment is to be used for all curved track
simulations at speeds producing no more
than 6 inches of cant deficiency on track
Classes 2 through 5.
(ii) Segment lengths. Each MCAT segment
shall be long enough to allow the vehicle’s
response to the track deviation(s) to damp
out. Each segment shall also have a minimum
length as specified in table 1 of this
appendix, which references the distances in
figure 1 of this appendix. For curved track
segments, the perturbations shall be placed
far enough in the body of the curve to allow
for any spiral effects to damp out.
(iii) Degree of curvature. (A) For each
simulation involving assessment of curving
performance, the degree of curvature, D,
which generates a particular level of cant
deficiency, Eu, for a given speed, V, shall be
calculated using the following equation:
Where
D = Degree of curvature (degrees).
V = Simulation speed (mph).
Ea = 3 inches for Class 2 and 6 inches for
Classes 3 through 5.
Eu = Cant deficiency (inches).
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(B) Table 2 of this appendix depicts the
degree of curvature for use in MCAT
simulations of passenger equipment
performance on Class 2 through 5 track,
based on the equation in paragraph
(b)(2)(iii)(A) of this appendix.
(3) Required simulations—(i) General. To
develop a comprehensive assessment of
vehicle performance, simulations shall be
performed for a variety of scenarios using
MCAT. These simulations shall be performed
on tangent or curved track, or both,
depending on the level of cant deficiency and
speed (track class) as summarized in table 3
of this appendix.
(A) All simulations shall be performed
using the design wheel profile and a nominal
track gage of 56.5 inches, using tables 4, 5,
or 6 of this appendix, as appropriate. In
addition, all simulations involving the
assessment of curving performance shall be
repeated using a nominal track gage of 57.0
inches, using tables 5 or 6 of this appendix,
as appropriate.
(B) For tangent track segments, all
simulations on the hunting perturbation shall
be repeated using a high-conicity, wheel-rail
profile combination approved by FRA that
produces a minimum conicity of 0.4 for
wheelset lateral shifts up to flange contact.
(C) All simulations shall be performed
using a wheel/rail coefficient of friction of
0.5.
(ii) Vehicle performance on tangent track
Classes 2 through 5. For maximum vehicle
speeds corresponding to track Classes 2
through 5, the MCAT segments described in
paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(A) through (G) of this
appendix shall be used to assess vehicle
performance on tangent track. A parametric
matrix of MCAT simulations shall be
performed using the following range of
conditions:
(A) Vehicle speed. Simulations shall
demonstrate that at up to 5 mph above the
proposed maximum operating speed, the
vehicle type shall not exceed the wheel/rail
force and acceleration criteria defined in the
Vehicle/Track Interaction Safety Limits table
in § 213.333 of this chapter. Simulations
shall also demonstrate acceptable vehicle
dynamic response by incrementally
increasing speed, as shown in table 2, up to
5 mph above the proposed maximum
operating speed for each track class (in 5
mph increments).
(B) Perturbation wavelength. For each
speed, a set of two separate MCAT
simulations shall be performed. In each
MCAT simulation for the perturbation
segments described in paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(B)
through (G) of this appendix, every
perturbation shall have the same wavelength.
The following two wavelengths, l, shall be
used: 31, and 62 feet. The hunting
perturbation segment described in paragraph
(b)(2)(i)(A) of this appendix has a fixed
wavelength, l, of 10 feet.
(C) Amplitude parameters. Table 4 of this
appendix provides the amplitude values for
the MCAT segments described in paragraphs
(b)(2)(i)(A) through (G) of this appendix for
each speed of the required parametric MCAT
simulations. The last set of simulations shall
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
EP03AP23.000
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19790
19791
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
be performed at 5 mph above the proposed
maximum operating speed, as shown in table
2, using the amplitude values in table 4 that
correspond to the proposed maximum
operating speed.
Figure 1 of Appendix C to Part 238 MCAT
Simulations on Curved Track (Cant
Deficiency ≤6 Inches) Track Layout
TABLE 1 OF APPENDIX C TO PART 238—MINIMUM LENGTHS OF MCAT SEGMENTS
Distances
(ft)
d1
d2
d3
d4
1,000
d5
d6
d7
1,500
d8
d9
1,000
TABLE 2 OF APPENDIX C TO PART 238—DEGREE OF CURVATURE FOR USE IN MCAT SIMULATIONS (TRACK CLASSES 2
THROUGH 5) CANT DEFICIENCY ≤6 INCHES
Cant deficiency
Class 2 Ea 1 = 3″, Class 3 through 5 Ea = 6″
Tangent
3″
Class 2:
30 mph
35 mph
Class 3:
35 mph
40 mph
45 mph
50 mph
55 mph
60 mph
65 mph
Class 4:
65 mph
70 mph
75 mph
80 mph
85 mph
Class 5:
85 mph
90 mph
95 mph
5″
6″
..............................................................................................
..............................................................................................
0
0
9.52
9.52
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
..............................................................................................
..............................................................................................
..............................................................................................
..............................................................................................
..............................................................................................
..............................................................................................
..............................................................................................
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10.50
8.04
6.35
5.14
4.25
3.57
3.57
11.66
8.93
7.05
5.71
4.72
3.97
3.97
12.83
9.82
7.76
6.29
5.19
4.37
4.37
13.99
10.71
8.47
6.86
5.67
4.76
4.76
..............................................................................................
..............................................................................................
..............................................................................................
..............................................................................................
..............................................................................................
0
0
0
0
0
3.04
2.62
2.29
2.01
2.01
3.38
2.92
2.54
2.23
2.23
3.72
3.21
2.79
2.46
2.46
4.06
3.50
3.05
2.68
2.68
..............................................................................................
..............................................................................................
..............................................................................................
0
0
0
1.78
1.59
1.59
1.98
1.76
1.76
2.17
1.94
1.94
2.37
2.12
2.12
means actual elevation.
TABLE 3 OF APPENDIX C TO PART 238—SUMMARY OF REQUIRED VEHICLE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT USING
SIMULATIONS
New vehicle types
Curved Track: cant deficiency ≤6 inches .................................................
Tangent track ............................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:34 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Curving performance simulation: required for track classes 2 through 5.
Tangent performance simulation: required for track classes 2 through
5.
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
EP03AP23.001
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
1 ‘‘Ea’’
4″
19792
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Table 4 of Appendix C to Part 238—Track
Class 2 Through 5 Amplitude Parameters (in
Inches) for MCAT Simulations on Tangent
Track
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
EP03AP23.002
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
19793
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
EP03AP23.003
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Table 5 of Appendix C to Part 238 Track
Class 2 Through 5 Amplitude Parameters (in
Inches) for MCAT Simulations on Curved
Track With Cant Deficiency ≥3 and ≤5
Inches
19794
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Table 6 of Appendix C to Part 238 Track
Class 2 Through 5 Amplitude Parameters (in
Inches) for MCAT Simulations on Curved
Track With Cant Deficiency >5 Inches and
≤6 Inches)
noise testing is to ensure that the noise levels
within the cab of the trainset meet the
minimum requirements defined within
§ 238.759(a)(1).
44. Add Appendix I to part 238 to
read as follows:
■
Appendix I to Part 238—Tier III
Trainset Cab Noise Test Protocol
This appendix prescribes the procedures
for the in-cab noise measurements for Tier III
trainsets at speed. The purpose of the cab
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
I. Measurement Instrumentation
The instrumentation used shall conform to
the measurement instrumentation
requirements prescribed in paragraph I of
appendix H to part 229 of this chapter.
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
II. Test Site Requirements
The test site shall meet the following
requirements:
(1) The passenger trainset shall be tested
over a representative segment of the railroad
and shall not be tested in any site specifically
designed to artificially lower in-cab noise
levels.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
EP03AP23.004
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
BILLING CODE 4910–06–C
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
(2) All windows, doors, cabinets seals, etc.,
must be installed in the trainset cab and be
closed.
(3) The heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) system or a dedicated
heating or air conditioner system must be
operating on high, and the vents must be
open and unobstructed.
III. Procedures for Measurement
(1) LAeq, T is defined as the A-weighted,
equivalent sound level for a duration of T
seconds, and the sound level meter shall be
set for A-weighting with slow response.
(2) The sound level meter shall be
calibrated with the acoustic calibrator
immediately before and after the in-cab tests.
The calibration levels shall be recorded.
(3) Any change in the before and after
calibration level(s) shall be less than 0.5 dB.
(4) The sound level meter shall be located:
(i) Laterally as close as practicable to the
longitudinal centerline of the cab, adjacent to
the engineer’s seat;
(ii) Longitudinally at the center of the
engineer’s nominal seating position; and
(iii) At a height 1,219 mm (48 inches)
above the floor.
(5) The sound measurements shall be taken
autonomously within the cab.
(6) The sound level shall be recorded at the
maximum approved train speed ± 3km/h
(±1.86 mph).
(7) After the trainset speed has become
constant at the maximum test speed and the
in-cab noise is continuous, LAeq, T shall be
measured, either directly or using a 1-second
sampling interval, for a minimum duration of
30 seconds at the measurement position
(LAeq, 30s).
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
IV. Recordkeeping
To demonstrate compliance, the entity
conducting the test shall maintain records of
the following data. The records created under
this procedure shall be retained and made
readily accessible for review for a minimum
of three years. All records may be maintained
in either written or electronic form.
(1) Name(s) of persons conducting the test,
and the date of the test.
(2) Description of the passenger trainset
cab being tested, including: model number,
serial number, and date of manufacture.
(3) Description of sound level meter and
calibrator, including: make, model, type,
serial number, and manufacturer’s calibration
date.
(4) The recorded measurement during
calibration and for the microphone location
during operating conditions.
(5) The recorded measurements taken
during the test.
(6) Other information as appropriate to
describe the testing conditions and
procedure.
(7) Where a trainset fails a test and is retested under the provisions of section III(7)
of this appendix, the suspected reason(s) for
the failure.
45. Add Appendix J to part 238 to
read as follows:
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
Appendix J to Part 238—Alternative
Requirements for Evaluating the
Crashworthiness and Occupant
Protection Performance of a Tier I
Passenger Trainset Equipped With
Crash Energy Management Features
General
As required by § 238.110(e)(1), this
appendix applies to single pieces of
passenger equipment that are fully compliant
with existing Tier I structural requirements,
provide additional CEM features, and are
intended for interoperable use within
conventional, Tier I-compliant trains. The
requirements of this appendix do not apply
to Tier I alternatively designed trainsets, or
single pieces of equipment fully compliant
with existing Tier I structural requirements
outfitted with pushback couplers as the only
CEM feature. Each new, fully Tier Icompliant single vehicle design equipped
with additional CEM features shall be subject
to the following collision scenarios to ensure
appropriate performance of the crush zone
and stable load transmission.
In-Line Collision Scenario Between Identical
Trains
The new single car or locomotive design
shall be placed into a reference train
composed of vehicles of similar design, the
details of which depend upon whether the
single car is a locomotive, cab car, or an
intermediate car. The vehicles shall be inline without offset between adjacent cars.
The reference train shall be subjected to a
collision with an identical train on level,
tangent track as described below. This
symmetric scenario may be simulated by a
collision of the reference train moving at onehalf the collision speed into a rigid,
stationary plane whose normal direction is
parallel to the direction of travel
(representing the plane of symmetry). Each
car in both trains shall have a weight
corresponding to AW0 and shall not have the
brakes applied.
Non-Passenger Carrying Locomotives
For non-passenger carrying locomotives
with CEM features, the reference train shall
consist of five of the non-passenger carrying
CEM locomotives. The closing speed for this
collision scenario is that which is sufficient
to exhaust the design energy-absorption
capacity of the leading locomotive crush
zone.
CEM-Equipped Cab Cars
For evaluation of the performance of a
CEM-equipped cab car, the reference train
shall consist of five such CEM-equipped cab
cars. If the CEM-equipped cab cars are not all
of symmetric design, each end of the trailing
four cars shall have the same crush zone as
that of the non-cab end of the non-symmetric
cab car under evaluation. The closing speed
for this collision scenario is that which
results in dissipation of no less than 75
percent of the design energy-absorption
capacity of at least one crush zone at the
colliding interface.
CEM-Equipped Intermediate Cars
Evaluation of the performance of CEMequipped intermediate cars shall be
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19795
performed using a reference train consisting
of four identical intermediate cars behind a
leading vehicle with the following
characteristics:
(a)(1) The leading vehicle shall be
decelerated to zero by:
(i) A prescribed motion equivalent to a
constant, longitudinal deceleration of 8g; or
(ii) An application of forces resulting in a
deceleration of at least 8g.
(2) The point of application of the motion
constraint or the measurement of the
resulting speed shall be located in the rear
half of the leading vehicle.
(b) The trailing end of the leading vehicle
shall have the same crash characteristic as
the adjacent end of the coach to be assessed
(if the evaluation vehicle is of a symmetric
design), or the same crash characteristic as
the trailing end of the coach to be assessed
(if the evaluation vehicle is of a nonsymmetric design), where:
(1) The crush zone shall be represented
with the same degree of detail as the coach
to be assessed; and
(2) Any additional potential contact
surfaces shall be represented, at a minimum,
as rigid geometry.
(c) The forward structure of the leading
vehicle may be modelled:
(1) Identically to the coach to be assessed;
(2) As a lumped mass model with a
stiffness not less than the coach to be
assessed; or
(3) As rigid.
(d) The criteria for preservation of survival
space in § 238.705(b)(1)(i) and (ii) shall apply
to the deformable portion of the lead vehicle,
excluding its crush zone.
(e) The four remaining identical
intermediate cars (including the intermediate
car being assessed) shall follow the leading
vehicle described, because CEM-equipped
intermediate cars cannot be placed in the
lead position in a train. The intermediate car
to be assessed shall be placed immediately
behind the leading vehicle; all other vehicles
are not part of the assessment and may be
simplified.
(f) The closing speed for this collision
scenario is that which results in dissipation
of no less than 75 percent of the design
energy-absorption capacity of at least one
crush zone at the colliding interface.
Offset Collision Scenario Between Identical
Trains
An offset simulated collision between
identical trains shall be run under the
conditions defined in § 238.707(a) for
locomotive- or cab car-led trains.
The performance of the evaluated single
vehicle in the in-line and offset collision
scenarios shall meet the deformation
requirements in § 238.705(b)(1)(i) and (ii),
and, if the single vehicle being evaluated is
a cab car or locomotive, the requirements in
§ 238.705(b)(3)(i) through (iv).
46. Add appendix K to part 238 to
read as follows:
■
Appendix K to Part 238—Minimum
Information for Test Procedures
The following is the minimum information
necessary to be provided to FRA as part of
pre-revenue service acceptance testing plan
procedures under § 238.111(a)(3):
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
19796
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
(a) A clear statement of the test objectives.
One of the principal test objectives shall be
to demonstrate that the equipment meets the
safety requirements specified in this part
when operated in the environment in which
it is to be used.
(b) Dates, times, and locations of the prerevenue service tests to permit FRA
observation of such tests.
(c) Any special safety precautions to be
observed during testing.
(d) A description of the railroad property
or test facilities to be used to conduct the
testing.
(e) Prerequisites for conducting each test.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Mar 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
(f) A detailed description of how the
testing is to be conducted. This description
shall include all the following:
(1) Identification of the equipment and onboard sub-systems to be tested.
(2) The method for testing.
(3) The instrumentation to be used.
(4) The means by which the test results
will be recorded and reported.
(5) A description of the information or data
to be obtained.
(6) A description of any criteria to be used
as safety limits during the testing.
(7) The acceptance criteria to be used to
evaluate the equipment and on-board sub-
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
systems performance. If acceptance is to be
based on extrapolation of less than full-level
testing results, the analysis to be done to
justify the validity of the extrapolation shall
be described.
(g) Inspection, testing, and maintenance
procedures to be followed to ensure testing
is conducted safely.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Amitabha Bose,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023–05576 Filed 3–31–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 63 (Monday, April 3, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19730-19796]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05576]
[[Page 19729]]
Vol. 88
Monday,
No. 63
April 3, 2023
Part II
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Railroad Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
49 CFR Parts 216, 231, and 238
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards; Standards for High-Speed
Trainsets; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 19730]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Parts 216, 231, and 238
[Docket No. FRA-2021-0067, Notice No. 1]
RIN 2130-AC90
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards; Standards for High-Speed
Trainsets
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FRA is proposing to amend its Passenger Equipment Safety
Standards to modernize Tier I and Tier III safety appliance
requirements; update the pre-revenue compliance documentation and
testing requirements; establish crashworthiness requirements for
individual Tier I-compliant vehicles equipped with crash energy
management (CEM); establish standards for Tier III inspection, testing,
and maintenance (ITM) and movement of defective equipment (MODE);
incorporate general safety requirements from FRA's Railroad Locomotive
Safety Standards for Tier III trainsets; and provide for periodic
inspection of emergency lighting to ensure proper functioning.
DATES: Written comments must be received by June 2, 2023. Comments
received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable
without incurring additional expense or delay.
FRA anticipates it can resolve this rulemaking without a public,
oral hearing. However, if FRA receives a specific request for a public,
oral hearing prior to May 3, 2023, FRA will schedule one and will
publish a supplemental notice in the Federal Register to inform
interested parties of the date, time, and location of any such hearing.
ADDRESSES:
Comments: Comments related to Docket No. FRA-2021-0067, Notice No.
1, may be submitted by going to https://www.regulations.gov and
following the online instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name, docket
name, and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for
this rulemaking (2130-AC90). Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading in
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document for Privacy Act
information related to any submitted comments or materials.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the
online instructions for accessing the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Hunter, Executive Staff
Director, Office of Railroad Systems and Technology, telephone: 202-
579-5508 or email: [email protected]; or James Mecone, Attorney
Adviser, Office of the Chief Counsel, telephone: (202) 380-5324 or
email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Statutory Authority and Regulatory Development
III. Technical Background and Overview
A. Passenger Electronic Hardware and Software Safety
B. Updates to Pre-Revenue Compliance Documentation and Testing
Requirements
C. Exterior Side Door Safety Systems--New Passenger Cars and
Locomotives
D. Alternative Crashworthiness Requirements for Evaluating Tier
I Equipment Utilizing Crash Energy Management (CEM) on Individual
Vehicles
E. Safety Appliances for Non-Passenger Carrying Locomotives and
Passenger Equipment
F. Tier III Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance, and Movement
of Defective Equipment
G. General Tier III Safety Requirements
H. Congressional Mandates Under the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
V. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Federalism Implications
E. International Trade Impact Assessment
F. Environmental Impact
G. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
H. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
J. Energy Impact
K. Privacy Act
L. Analysis Under 1 CFR Part 51
Table of Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this document's preamble:
ATC automatic train control
CE categorical exclusion
CEM crash energy management
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EA environmental assessment
EIS environmental impact statement
ETF Engineering Task Force
FMECA Failure Modes, Effects, Criticality Analysis
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
HEP head-end power
ICC Interstate Commerce Commission
IIJA Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
ITM inspection, testing, and maintenance
LED light-emitting diode
LIA Locomotive Inspection Act
MCAT minimally compliant analytical track
MODE movement of defective equipment
mph miles per hour
MCAT minimally compliant analytical track
MU multiple-unit
NPRM notice of proposed rulemaking
OEM original equipment manufacturer
PA public address
PSWG Passenger Safety Working Group
PTC positive train control
RMS root mean squared
RSAC Railroad Safety Advisory Committee
U.S. United States
I. Executive Summary
This NPRM is based on recommendations from the Railroad Safety
Advisory Committee (RSAC) \1\ and will complete the Tier III passenger
equipment safety standards.\2\ This NPRM is proposing new requirements
and revisions to two main subject areas: (1) requirements generally
applicable to all passenger equipment, such as new passenger service
pre-revenue safety performance demonstration, and vehicle design and
dynamic qualification; and (2) requirements specific to Tier III
passenger equipment, such as general safety requirements and safety
appliances, inspection, testing, and maintenance, and movement of
defective equipment. FRA estimates the 30-year costs of this proposed
rule to be approximately $55.5 million, undiscounted, with the majority
of the costs deriving from Tier III equipment ITM requirements. The
present value of these costs is approximately $21.7 million, discounted
at 7 percent, and $35.5 million, discounted at 3 percent; of note,
however, the majority of the costs are incurred only if an operator
[[Page 19731]]
chooses to take advantage of flexibilities in the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ RSAC was established to provide a forum for considering
railroad safety issues and developing recommendations on rulemakings
and other safety program areas. It includes representation from all
FRA's major stakeholder groups, including railroads, labor
organizations, suppliers, manufacturers, and other interested
parties.
\2\ Tier I passenger equipment is permitted to travel up to 125
mph; Tier II passenger equipment is permitted to travel up to 160
mph; and Tier III passenger equipment is permitted to travel up to
125 mph in a shared right-of-way and 220 mph in an exclusive right-
of-way without highway-rail grade crossings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The benefits of this proposed rule are estimated to be
approximately $0.3 million, undiscounted. The majority of the benefits
are derived from emergency communication and savings to the Federal
Government. The present value is approximately $0.2 million, discounted
at 7 percent, and $0.3 million, discounted at 3 percent.
In 2018, FRA issued a final rule adopting new and modified
requirements governing the construction of conventional-speed and high-
speed passenger rail equipment. FRA notes that it is important to
consider the costs and benefits of this proposed rulemaking in
conjunction with the costs and benefits of the 2018 rulemaking, as the
current rulemaking is necessary to complete the regulatory framework
set out in the 2018 final rule. Over the 30-year period of analysis for
the 2018 final rule, FRA estimated net regulatory cost savings of
$284.8 million (low range) to $541.9 million (high range), discounted
at 7 percent. Annualized net regulatory cost savings totaled between
$22.9 million and $43.7 million when discounted at a 7-percent rate.
The net costs of this proposed rule are estimated to be
approximately $55.2 million, undiscounted. The annualized net costs are
approximately $1.7 million, discounted at 7 percent.
Net Regulatory Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present Present
Impact value 7% value 3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs......................................... $21.67 $35.49
Benefits...................................... 0.22 0.26
Net Costs..................................... 21.45 35.23
-------------------------
Annualized Net Costs........................ 1.73 1.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Statutory Authority and Regulatory Development
In September 1994, the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary)
convened a meeting of representatives from all sectors of the rail
industry with the goal of enhancing rail safety. As one initiative of
this Rail Safety Summit, the Secretary announced that DOT would begin
developing safety standards for rail passenger equipment over a five-
year period. In November 1994, Congress adopted the Secretary's
schedule for implementing rail passenger equipment safety regulations
and included it in the Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of
1994 (the Act), Public Law 103-440, 108 Stat. 4619, 4623-4624 (November
2, 1994). In the Act, Congress also authorized the Secretary to consult
with various organizations involved in passenger train operations for
purposes of prescribing and amending these regulations and to issue
orders under it. See section 215 of the Act (codified at 49 U.S.C.
20133).
Since FRA promulgated the inaugural set of passenger equipment
safety standards in May 1999, satisfying the Congressional mandate, FRA
has engaged in a number of rulemakings to amend and enhance its
passenger equipment safety requirements. Most pertinent to this
proposed rulemaking, FRA published a final rule on November 21, 2018,
adopting new and modified requirements governing the construction of
conventional-speed and high-speed passenger rail equipment. See 83 FR
59182. FRA added a new tier of passenger equipment safety standards
(Tier III) to facilitate the safe implementation of nation-wide,
interoperable passenger rail service at speeds up to 220 miles per hour
(mph). FRA also established crashworthiness and occupant protection
requirements in the alternative to those previously specified for Tier
I passenger trainsets. Additionally, FRA increased from 150 mph to 160
mph the maximum speed for passenger equipment that complies with FRA's
Tier II requirements.
Due to the complexity of the Tier III safety requirements, FRA
separated their establishment into two distinct rulemaking efforts. The
2018 final rule primarily established the occupant volume protection
and other major structural requirements, such as brake and emergency
systems requirements. This NPRM is proposing requirements that would
complement those requirements and complete the Tier III rulemaking
process.
This proposed rule is the product of consensus reached by FRA's
RSAC, which accepted the task of reviewing passenger equipment safety
needs and programs and recommending specific actions that could be
useful to advance the safety of passenger service, including the
development of standards for the next generation of high-speed
trainsets. The RSAC established the Passenger Safety Working Group
(PSWG) \3\ to handle this task and develop recommendations for the full
RSAC to consider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Engineering Task Force (ETF) was discontinued when the
charter for RSAC expired on May 17, 2018. The RSAC was re-chartered
on September 10, 2018, and on February 1, 2019, the RSAC established
the PSWG to continue the work of the ETF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2019, the PSWG convened to discuss the topics considered
previously by the ETF that were not included in the initial, Tier III
final rule published November 21, 2018.\4\ During this meeting, the
PSWG reached consensus on revising or establishing, as appropriate,
safety standards for Tier I and Tier III safety appliances and non-
passenger carrying locomotives. The PSWG also reached consensus on
requirements for CEM for a single car or locomotive; Tier III
inspection, testing, and maintenance; and movement of defective
equipment. On November 26, 2019, the RSAC voted to recommend the
consensus items to FRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 83 FR 59182.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Technical Background and Overview
A. Passenger Electronic Hardware and Software Safety
With the proliferation of microprocessor control technologies, the
integration of electronic hardware and software on passenger rail
equipment has grown exponentially. Software-based electronic systems
are currently used to manage virtually all critical subsystems on board
a passenger train ranging from primarily passenger comfort features
such as air temperature and wireless networking systems, to safety-
critical controls and monitoring systems, particularly for braking,
traction and diagnostics systems. These systems are generally separate
from safety-critical train control technology, such as positive train
control (PTC) and automatic train control (ATC), which are governed by
part 236.
In the 1999 Passenger Equipment Safety Standards final rule,\5\ FRA
established Sec. 238.105, Train electronic hardware and software
safety, to address ``the growing role of automated systems to control
or monitor passenger train safety functions.'' These requirements were
revised in 2002 \6\ to provide more clarity in the applicability of the
requirements to subsystems traditionally considered to perform safety-
critical functions and therefore expected to be implemented based on a
failsafe philosophy. In 2012,\7\ the section was further revised to
codify the terms of waivers from the requirements then in Sec.
238.105(d) to provide flexibility for systems to provide either a
service or emergency brake application in the event of a hardware/
software failure, in lieu of a full-service brake application alone, as
originally written.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 64 FR 25591 (May 12, 1999).
\6\ 67 FR 19970 (Apr. 23, 2002).
\7\ 77 FR 21356 (Apr. 9, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19732]]
Also, in 2012, the Locomotive Safety Standards final rule \8\
established subpart E of part 229, providing comprehensive requirements
for locomotive electronics, and appendix F to part 229, providing
recommended practices for design and safety analysis for locomotive
electronics. With the publication of the first set of standards for
microprocessor-based train control systems in 2005,\9\ and requirements
for statutorily mandated PTC systems in 2010, the 2012 locomotive
electronics requirements and accompanying appendix F to part 229
correspondingly reflected many of the concepts and industry practices
that had evolved since Sec. 238.105 was first established in 1999. In
doing so, this created slightly overlapping requirements because Sec.
238.105 was not revised with similar language and passenger
locomotives, especially cab cars and multiple-unit locomotives common
to passenger operations, also qualify as locomotives under part 229 of
this chapter and are therefore subject to part 229's requirements. For
this reason, the PSWG decided to address the issue by recommending
updates to Sec. 238.105 to reconcile the requirements with subpart E
of part 229 to help clarify the applicability of the requirements and
remove or modify any that may potentially overlap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 77 FR 21348 (Apr. 9, 2012).
\9\ 70 FR 11052 (Mar. 7, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These proposed updates to the passenger electronic hardware and
software safety requirements in this NPRM would establish uniform
safety standards applicable to all safety-critical electronic control
systems, subsystems, and components on passenger equipment. At the same
time, in recognition of some of the differences between passenger and
freight operations, this NPRM would create separate electronic hardware
and software safety requirements specifically for passenger operations.
However, the proposed requirements are not intended to impact
technology or software subject to other FRA regulations, such as 49 CFR
part 236.
B. Updates to Pre-Revenue Compliance Documentation and Testing
Requirements
FRA is updating the pre-revenue compliance documentation and
testing requirements to address and clarify issues that have been
identified by FRA and the industry during pre-revenue service testing
acceptance for rolling stock, such as the types of testing and
compliance validation required, the timing for such activities, and the
documentation required. Additionally, with the establishment of Tier
III, the additional flexibility afforded by the regulations that allow
certain safety elements to be defined by the railroad (e.g., the
functionality of a passenger brake alarm) necessitates establishing the
means to capture the design and validate the performance of such
attributes. Further, experience gained from administering the current
pre-revenue service acceptance testing plan requirements under Sec.
238.111 since 1999 has provided FRA the perspective that the industry
as a whole would benefit from a more detailed regulation governing the
design validation and dynamic acceptance process for passenger rolling
stock. This concept was acknowledged by the PSWG, and with considerable
help and input from participants, a new approach was developed by
creating proposed Sec. 238.110. That section would address design
criteria, testing, documentation, and approval, and would separate
early-stage, design-related compliance validations (e.g., carbody
structure and safety appliances) from the later-stage, over-the-route
running tests required under Sec. 238.111, prior to putting the
equipment into revenue service.
By separating design criteria from dynamic testing requirements,
more clarity can be provided as to the expectations for passenger
equipment compliance demonstration throughout the life cycle of a
procurement. Proposed Sec. 238.110 would also provide a means for
railroads to document critical vehicle platform design criteria and
operational performance requirements, systems integration requirements,
and assumptions that are used to validate certain safety parameters
(e.g., friction coefficient used to determine the minimum required
braking distance). The identification of these governing parameters
would provide a means for FRA and the railroad to effectively validate
safety requirements tied to what would otherwise be configurable
criteria, i.e., trainset elements that may differ between trainset
manufacturers or trainset types, based on the operating environment,
intended service, or even customer preference. It would also ensure
that the limit of safe performance of the vehicles is clearly
established and would require that new testing or validation be
performed if the railroad intended to operate the passenger equipment
outside of this established operating paradigm. For example, under this
proposal, if a railroad has previously demonstrated a vehicle's safe
operation at speeds up to only 100 mph, then additional testing and
validation would be required to operate the same rolling stock at
speeds above 100 mph. Similarly, if a railroad were to acquire
passenger equipment from another railroad where it is operated with a
longer minimum safe braking distance than it would be on the acquiring
railroad, then the acquiring railroad would need to perform additional
pre-revenue acceptance testing on its property to validate that that
braking system is still compliant with the requirements of this part in
the new operating environment.
Much of proposed Sec. 238.110 formalizes and memorializes what is
industry best practice. However, this proposal contains a significant
addition above what is currently industry practice in the requirement
for railroads to develop a ``vehicle qualification plan.'' This
proposed plan would require the railroad to take into consideration the
entire compliance demonstration process, from the early stages of a
project through the creation of tools such as a compliance matrix. This
would help ensure the railroad, rolling stock supplier, and FRA
effectively work from the same ``sheet of music,'' by determining what
regulatory metrics must be met to achieve compliance, and then what
constitutes an effective method to demonstrate that compliance, either
by validation testing, physical inspection, design review, analysis,
calculation, computer modeling, or some combination thereof.
By proposing to separate the requirements that were intrinsically
considered part of the current language in Sec. 238.111 into two
sections (Sec. Sec. 238.110 and 238.111), FRA would be able to provide
more clarity as to the procedural and documentation requirements for
the entire compliance validation process, particularly for Tier III
where the documentation of configurable elements may be essential to
establishing the expected safety performance which is to be
demonstrated. In this spirit, the proposal would refine and expand upon
much of the current Sec. 238.111 language to reinforce expectations
and process considerations for key documentation, including test plans,
procedures, and results. Further, more explicit expectations and
examples have been provided for the types of validations required to
occur during the final commissioning stages before equipment may enter
into revenue service, in addition to how re-built or relocated
equipment must be treated.
[[Page 19733]]
C. Exterior Side Door Safety Systems--New Passenger Cars and
Locomotives
As with other components of passenger rail equipment, innovations
in the design and construction of door safety systems have generated
new issues for potential regulation. The proposed language in this rule
for exterior side door safety systems incorporated in new passenger
cars and locomotives, developed from recommendations by RSAC, would
revise Sec. 238.131 to address newer door designs, with a specific
focus on plug doors (i.e., doors composed of a sliding panel that opens
and slides along the side of the car, rather than retract into a
pocket; when closed, the door conforms to the side of the car to seal
out environmental noise and minimize aerodynamic resistance). This
proposed language would address the additional function of a plug door
in regard to a high-speed trainset and the system design pursuant to
American Public Transportation Association (APTA) standard PR-M-S-18-
10, ``Standard for Powered Exterior Side Door System Design for New
Passenger Cars.'' As revised, Sec. 238.131 would establish provisions
for passenger equipment equipped with plug-style side doors that do not
provide a minimum 1.5-inch gap at the leading edge of the door when the
emergency release mechanism is activated and permit a speed interlock
to prevent operation of the emergency release mechanism when the
vehicle is moving.
Although the proposed revisions to Sec. 238.131 could require
stakeholders to apply or construct additional signage or handles, the
expected efficiency enhancement in the equipment procurement and
development process resulting from acceptance of the existing
functionality of the plug door design could justify any such burden.
D. Alternative Crashworthiness Requirements for Evaluating Tier I
Equipment Utilizing Crash Energy Management (CEM) on Individual
Vehicles
The final rule published on November 21, 2018, included
crashworthiness requirements for certain Tier I trainsets, but not for
individual passenger rail vehicles or locomotives. And although there
is no requirement for the development of CEM components at the
individual Tier I passenger rail vehicle or locomotive level, some
railroads and other stakeholders have nonetheless demonstrated an
increased interest in the construction and installation of CEM
components at the individual passenger rail vehicle or locomotive
level. To augment existing regulations on CEM and provide guidance for
the development and use of CEM at the individual vehicle level, FRA
proposes adding new requirements providing alternatives for evaluating
crashworthiness and occupant protection of individual vehicles equipped
with CEM based on the RSAC recommendations.
The proposed alternative requirements would provide guidance and a
means for evaluating individual locomotives or passenger rail vehicles
that are fully compliant with existing Tier I structural requirements
and have additional CEM features incorporated into their structure to
operate within conventional, Tier I-compliant trains. These evaluation
requirements would not apply to Tier I trainsets designed to
alternative crashworthiness requirements under Sec. 238.201 and
appendix G to part 238 or single pieces of equipment with traditionally
compliant structures outfitted with pushback couplers as the only CEM
feature.
By establishing alternative requirements for evaluating
crashworthiness and occupant protection of Tier I equipment utilizing
CEM on individual vehicles, FRA would create clarity and reduce
uncertainty for stakeholders who pursue the development of CEM at the
individual vehicle level. Such clarification could also reduce the
burden and time required for FRA to evaluate compliance issues related
to passenger equipment utilizing CEM on an individual vehicle.
E. Safety Appliances for Non-Passenger Carrying Locomotives and
Passenger Equipment
Coinciding with the development of safety appliance requirements
for Tier III equipment, the PSWG also looked at updating the safety
appliance requirements for modern Tier I passenger equipment. While
safety appliance regulations have long existed for passenger cars under
49 CFR part 231, these standards are derived, in most cases verbatim,
from the requirements set forth by the Interstate Commerce Commission
(ICC) in 1910 and guidance of the Master Car Builders Association
around the turn of the twentieth century.\10\ While these requirements
have proven to be sufficient for the types of passenger cars they were
explicitly developed to address (passenger train cars with wide
vestibules, passenger train cars with open end platforms, and passenger
train cars without end platforms), they generally have not been updated
to reflect modern advancements in passenger train equipment or human
ergonomics in over 100 years since they were adopted by the ICC.
Likewise, they are based on individual cars that were common on
railroads at the turn of the twentieth century, and do not reflect
vehicle designs that utilize some form of semi-permanent coupling, such
as fixed trainset configurations, or even married-pair, MU locomotives.
The PSWG determined this would be a good opportunity to update the
regulations to account for these modern vehicle types and apply more
modern requirements, in addition to updating and reconciling the
regulatory framework with the current APTA standard, APTA-PR-M-S-016-
06, ``Standard for Safety Appliances for Rail Passenger Cars.''
Specifically, FRA is taking this opportunity to update some
requirements to reflect more modern design requirements based on
recommendations particularly relating to strength and attachment
requirements. These new standards, developed by the PSWG, reflect the
significant changes in material and engineering design practice that
have occurred since the first standards were adopted, when timber and
iron were still the predominant railcar building materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ While various safety appliance standards were developed for
different classes of equipment throughout the development of
railroads in America, the publication titled, ``United Sates Safety
Appliances for All Classes of Cars and Locomotives,'' M.C.B.
Edition, published by Gibson, Pribble & Company, represents one of
the first sets of comprehensives guidance on the matter. This
guidance was later adopted by the ICC, and subsequently FRA, as
regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As modern Tier I passenger equipment is functionally similar to
Tier III high-speed trainsets in many ways, FRA decided that a single
baseline set of requirements could be adopted for certain passenger
carrying vehicles. It should also be noted, however, that while this
proposed rule would establish and clarify requirements that could be
used for both new and existing passenger equipment, it is not intended
to replace the established regulations. Because passenger railcars tend
to have long service lives in North America, there will remain a
perpetual need to maintain the existing regulations for cars built to
those standards, in addition to private cars and special car types
(e.g., baggage) that are based on car types that are not addressed by
contemporary standards.
This proposed rule would also create a new regulatory section for
Tier I non-passenger carrying locomotives. The proposal incorporates
applicable requirements from part 231 pertaining
[[Page 19734]]
to passenger locomotives and various other car types that have
historically been used to define the requirements for monocoque, semi-
monocoque, and cowl unit \11\ passenger road locomotives. Currently,
the safety appliance requirements for road locomotives are primarily
based on Sec. 231.15 (Steam locomotives used in road service), and
Sec. 231.17 (Specifications common to all steam locomotives), which
are also virtually unchanged from the original ICC standards. The
existing regulations were not developed to specifically address the
common designs utilized by diesel-electric or electric locomotives in
passenger service within North America. Through the adoption of these
proposed standards, FRA would help provide clarity and uniformity in
how the Safety Appliance Act (49 U.S.C. ch. 203) is applied to all
modern passenger road locomotives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For the purposes of this rulemaking, ``cowl unit''
locomotives are locomotives with a traditional frame, but whose
mechanical components and walkways are enclosed within a non-
structural, non-load bearing element, typically made of steel or
other metal alloy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current FRA regulations for safety appliances are based on
longstanding statutory requirements for individual railroad cars used
in general service. These requirements are primarily intended to keep
railroad employees safe while performing their essential job functions.
Historically, these duties have revolved around the practice of
building trains by switching individual cars or groups of cars and are
not specifically applicable to how modern, high-speed passenger
equipment is designed and operated. The application of such appliances
would require a significant redesign of high-speed rail equipment and
would create aerodynamic problems particularly with respect to
associated noise emissions. Therefore, FRA proposes to exempt Tier III
(and certain Tier I) equipment from the following requirements of 49
U.S.C. ch. 203: (1) couplers that couple automatically by impact, and
are capable of being uncoupled, without individuals having to go
between the ends of equipment; and (2) secure sill steps and grab irons
or handholds on the vehicle's ends and sides.
Rather than apply legacy requirements that are inappropriate for
the proposed equipment design and service environment, this proposed
rule focuses on how to provide a safe environment for employees as it
pertains to modern high-speed equipment and operations. In this
respect, the proposed rule would define specific safety appliance
performance requirements applicable to these modern trainsets subject
to the rule. By focusing on employee job functions, rather than
mandating specific legacy designs for dissimilar equipment, the
proposed approach would likely not only improve safety for railroad
employees, but also provide flexibility for superior designs based on
modern ergonomics and eliminate appliances that might otherwise
encourage their use even though their functionality is moot (e.g.,
riding on side sills despite an inability to couple/decouple cars).
Under 49 U.S.C. 20306, FRA may exempt a railroad or railroads from
the above-identified statutory requirements for safety appliances based
on evidence received and findings developed at a hearing demonstrating
that the statutory requirements ``preclude the development or
implementation of more efficient railroad transportation equipment or
other transportation innovations under existing law.'' FRA notes that
49 U.S.C. 20306 does not require a separate public hearing as related
to Tier III (and certain Tier I) equipment for each new vehicle design.
FRA conducted hearings in 2009, 2019, and 2020 addressing both Tier III
and Tier I trainsets.\12\ Based on these hearings, FRA has determined
that the equipment design regarding the application of safety
appliances as proposed in this NPRM is substantially similar among the
vehicle types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Docket numbers FRA-2006-25040, FRA-2019-0066, and FRA
2019-0068.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, FRA believes it is appropriate to consider relief
under the discretionary process established under 49 U.S.C. 20306 and
proposes to adopt the requirements proposed in this NPRM under its
statutory authority as part of this rulemaking without holding an
additional public hearing, as an additional public hearing would not
develop any new facts.
F. Tier III Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance, and Movement of
Defective Equipment
In developing new standards for modern high-speed trainsets, the
PSWG deliberately separated later-stage design elements and
operational-related requirements from those early-stage design issues
that influence the vehicle platform (e.g., vehicle carbody design
requirements). In this manner, the 2018 final rule provided a level of
regulatory certainty for Tier III procurements to move forward, while
providing additional time for the PSWG to help mature the remaining
standards governing elements that are more critical to the later-stage
equipment production and operational testing phases of such
procurements. Following this concept, the development of the
inspection, testing, and maintenance (ITM) requirements for Tier III
trainsets was identified as an essential part of this second rulemaking
to help complete the Tier III regulatory framework. While many of the
elements in the 2018 rulemaking established a certain level of safety
from a design perspective, the ITM requirements are intended to ensure
that railroads can maintain the expected level of safety throughout the
life of the equipment.
To facilitate the development of appropriate ITM requirements,
along with clarifying the applicability of general safety requirements
(see Section III.G, General Tier III Safety Requirements, below) for
modern high-speed trainsets, the PSWG considered the inspection and
maintenance needs of modern trainsets based on current global practice,
in comparison to longstanding North American practice established for
locomotives, passenger equipment, and passenger brake systems codified
in parts 229 and 238, respectively.
A guiding light for this effort has been the experience
implementing, and relative success of, the ITM requirements established
for Tier II equipment under subpart F of part 238. Unlike many of the
explicit requirements and intervals used for conventional Tier I
passenger equipment in subpart D of part 238, the Tier II requirements
provide a broader approach to ITM, setting out various parameters the
railroad must follow in determining the appropriate procedures and
periodicity for inspections, tests, and maintenance specific to the
equipment it operates, as approved by FRA. This approach utilizes the
development of a comprehensive ITM program, appropriate for the
equipment design and technology, that can then be enforced and managed
through an FRA approval process that includes an annual review of the
railroad's program to monitor its effectiveness. When this approach was
established in the 1999 final rule, it marked a significant departure
from conventional practice, but this departure was viewed as
appropriate given the nature of high-speed trainset technology, and the
fact that the equipment's operational limits would be more closely
defined and overseen than for conventional equipment. Since this
parallels the need and operational considerations for Tier III
trainsets, the approach was viewed as a logical starting point for the
PSWG. This rule, as proposed, reflects the desire of the PSWG to
continue the success of the Tier II ITM approach,
[[Page 19735]]
while incorporating lessons learned by FRA through applying subpart F
of part 238 to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation's (Amtrak)
Acela fleet.
In particular, the proposed rule maintains the approach of subpart
F of part 238 and the concept that an ITM program for Tier III
trainsets should have the flexibility to be modified and updated based
on verifiable data and the evolution of technology integrated into
these high-performance trainsets. The requirements, as proposed,
effectively perform two regulatory functions. First, they would require
the railroad to establish the safety-critical maintenance needs for the
trainset and its components, the appropriate periods for inspections,
and the means by which inspections or maintenance must be performed
(i.e., tools and methods). Second, they would establish the
qualification requirements of the personnel designated to perform such
activities.
Additionally, this proposed rule would establish requirements for
the movement of defective Tier III equipment, should a non-compliant
condition arise where efficient repairs cannot be performed (e.g., such
as an en-route failure of a safety-critical component). The
requirements are intended to complement the ITM program, which would
effectively establish the safe operating conditions required for the
intended service of the trainsets and therefore be integrated into the
same proposed subpart I. Together, these would require the railroad to
establish the conditions under which defective equipment can be moved,
the conditions movements may occur when defects are discovered during
revenue service (e.g., en-route failures), the associated procedures
that must be followed, including identifying who may determine that the
movement is safe to make, and documentation requirements.
G. General Tier III Safety Requirements
This proposed rule includes a number of provisions that would adopt
certain relevant general safety requirements of part 229 and apply them
to Tier III trainsets. As with most of the proposals in this NPRM,
these provisions were developed from consensus recommendations by the
RSAC.
Overall, the proposals cross-reference relevant sections of part
229 for Tier III trainsets aiming to distinguish legacy locomotive
requirements of part 229 from those requirements more appropriate for
modern high-speed passenger equipment. Additionally, the proposal would
provide consistency between the general safety standards for Tier III
trainsets and those standards applicable to trainsets qualified at
other tiers, and to ensure that Tier III trainsets remain free of any
condition that endangers the safety of the crew, passengers, or
equipment.
FRA notes that the proposed rule text to implement this initiative
would make various sections and specific requirements of part 229
directly applicable to Tier III trainsets by cross-reference, rather
than simply repeat numerous similar or identical requirements in part
238. This approach hopefully fulfills the intent by resolving ambiguity
about applicability of these part 229 requirements to Tier III
trainsets and avoiding drafting errors in the future if a requirement
under part 229 changes without otherwise similarly changing a companion
provision under part 238. FRA recognizes that this part uses some
traditional terms, such as locomotive, when describing certain
requirements. However, the use of the term locomotive, or other similar
terms, should not be an impediment to compliance with the requirements
of this proposed rule. Where appropriate, additional clarifying
language has been included in the section-by-section analysis or rule
text, or both, to help make the requirement and its application clear.
FRA invites comments on these sections, below.
In addition, FRA invites comment on whether it is more appropriate
for part 229 not to apply to Tier III equipment, in toto. There may be
some benefit in wholly separating Tier III from the requirements of
part 229 for clarity and ease of use of the regulation. FRA notes,
however, that even should part 229 be made not applicable to Tier III
equipment, the requirements of the Locomotive Inspection Act codified
at 49 U.S.C. ch. 207, would still apply independently. In inviting
comment on this approach and its validity, FRA also seeks comment on
whether it is more appropriate to make only certain sections under part
229 inapplicable to Tier III equipment, and if so, which sections
specifically.
H. Congressional Mandates Under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act
On November 15, 2021, President Biden signed into law the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), Public Law 117-58, 135
Stat. 429. As part of the IIJA, Congress directed FRA, as the
Secretary's delegate, to promulgate regulations concerning periodic
inspection plans for emergency lighting and pre-revenue service safety
validation plans. Secs. 22406 and 22416. Congress also directed FRA, as
the Secretary's delegate, to promulgate regulations ``as may be
necessary for high-speed rail services[.]'' Sec. 22419 (codified at 49
U.S.C. 26103). Through this rulemaking, FRA is addressing both these
substantive mandates while promulgating regulations that are necessary
for the implementation of high-speed rail services in the United
States.
Under Sec. 22406 of the IIJA, FRA must initiate a rulemaking to
require that all rail carriers providing intercity passenger rail
transportation or commuter rail passenger transportation develop and
implement periodic inspection plans to ensure that passenger equipment
offered for revenue service complies with the requirements of this
part. This includes ensuring that, in the event of a loss of power,
there is adequate emergency lighting available to allow passengers,
crewmembers, and first responders to orient themselves to identify
obstacles and to safely move through and evacuate from a rail car. This
proposed rule would satisfy this requirement.
Under Sec. 22416 of the IIJA, any railroad providing new, regularly
scheduled, intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation, an
extension of existing service, or renewal of service discontinued for
more than 180 days to develop and submit for review a comprehensive
pre-revenue safety validation plan to FRA no less than 60 days prior to
the start of revenue service. Once submitted, the railroad must adopt
and comply with the plan. This section of the IIJA also requires FRA to
develop conforming regulations to implement this section, which are
proposed under Sec. 238.108.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
Part 216--Special Notice and Emergency Order Procedures: Railroad
Track, Locomotive and Equipment
Section 216.14 Special Notice for Repairs--Passenger Equipment
FRA proposes to revise Sec. 216.14(c) to add a cross-reference to
Sec. 238.1003, which would contain the requirements for movement of
defective equipment for Tier III trainsets. This change would harmonize
part 216 with the proposed changes to part 238 contained in this
rulemaking applicable to Tier III equipment.
Part 231--Railroad Safety Appliance Standards
Section 231.0 Applicability and Penalties
FRA is proposing to add paragraph (b)(6) to this section to
harmonize part 231 with the changes proposed to part
[[Page 19736]]
238 in this NPRM. As FRA is proposing standalone and comprehensive
safety appliance requirements for Tier III trainsets under proposed
Sec. 238.791, this rule would make part 231 not applicable to Tier III
trainsets.
Part 238--Passenger Equipment Safety Standards
Subpart A--General
Section 238.5 Definitions
FRA is proposing to revise existing definitions and add new
definitions to this part to clarify the meaning of important terms and
minimize potential for misinterpretation of the rule. FRA requests
public comment regarding the proposed terms to be defined in this
section and whether definition of other terms is necessary.
FRA proposes to revise paragraph (2)(i), the definition of ``in
service,'' to include a reference to the movement of defective
equipment provisions of Sec. 238.1003 for Tier III equipment.
FRA proposes to add a definition of ``clear length,'' as applied to
handholds and handrails, to mean the distance about which a minimum 2-
inch hand clearance exists in all directions around the handhold or
handrail, with intermediate supports on handrails considered part of
the clear length. FRA proposes to add this definition to clarify the
appropriate measurement for determining compliance with part 238's
requirements.
FRA proposes to add a definition of ``crew access side steps'' to
mean a step or stirrup, or a series of steps or stirrups, located on
the carbody side to assist an employee boarding the equipment or
exiting from the equipment to ground level through an exterior side
door dedicated for train crew use. FRA proposes to add this definition
to clarify the safety measures necessary for crewmembers operating
passenger equipment with no provisions for platform-level boarding.
FRA proposes to add a definition of ``representative segment of the
route'' to mean either a continuous track section or a compilation of
track no less than fifty miles in length that consists of a curvature
distribution that is within two percent of the curvature distribution
of the complete line segment (as evaluated using the root mean squared
(RMS) of the differences between the two distributions), a segment or
segments of tangent track over which the intended maximum operating
speed can be sustained, and any bridges and special trackwork that are
within the track section(s). Depending on the size of the railroad, a
``representative segment of the route'' could include the entire system
in order for the ``representative segment of the route'' to consist of
a segment of tangent track over which the intended maximum operating
speed can be sustained, any bridges and special trackwork, and have a
curvature distribution that is within two percent of the curvature
distribution of the complete line segment (as evaluated using the RMS
of the differences between the two distributions). FRA proposes to add
this definition to clarify the appropriate methods of qualification
testing for passenger equipment to determine compliance with
requirements addressing vehicle/track interaction.
FRA proposes to define ``Tier IV system'' to mean any railroad that
provides or is available to provide passenger service using non-
interoperable technology that operates on an exclusive right-of-way
without grade crossings, not comingled with Tier I, II, or III
passenger equipment or freight equipment, and not physically connected
to the general railroad system. FRA proposes to add this definition to
establish a classification and foundation applicable to passenger
equipment that is subject to FRA regulation but falls outside the scope
of the existing tier classifications. Unlike what was recommended by
the RSAC to FRA, FRA is not proposing to include language in the
definition that references a particular type of regulatory framework.
FRA notes that the type of regulatory mechanism FRA employs to ensure
effective safety oversight would not be consequential to whether a
particular technology is considered a ``Tier IV system.'' FRA welcomes
comment on the use of the term ``Tier IV,'' or an alternative
categorization, to identify the type of system described in this
paragraph.
Section 238.19 Reporting and Tracking of Repairs to Defective Passenger
Equipment
FRA is proposing to amend this section to harmonize the existing
requirements with proposed new requirements applicable to Tier III
passenger equipment. As part of the RSAC consensus recommendations,
RSAC recommended that FRA issue regulations specific to Tier III
equipment with respect to reporting and tracking of repairs made to
defective Tier III equipment, so that these requirements would be
included as part of the Tier III ITM requirements under proposed Sec.
238.903. The recommended approach was based on the existing
requirements codified under this section (Sec. 238.19). Yet, after
further consideration, FRA is proposing to simply amend this section
rather than add these requirements to subpart I, for clarity.
Specifically, FRA is proposing to amend paragraphs (a), (b), and
(d). In proposed paragraphs (a)(4) and (5), FRA would add the term
qualified individual to account for the nomenclature's use under
subpart H and proposed subpart I for Tier III equipment.
In the proposed revision to paragraph (b), FRA would redesignate
paragraph (b) as paragraph (b)(1) and add new paragraph (b)(2). In
proposed paragraph (b)(2), FRA would add record retention requirements
for reporting and tracking system records for Tier III equipment
regarding the information in paragraph (a). FRA is also proposing that
for Tier III equipment, the records be retained for at least one year.
In FRA's proposed revision to paragraph (d), FRA would revise the
paragraph heading, redesignate paragraph (d) as paragraph (d)(1), and
add new paragraph (d)(2). Under proposed paragraph (d)(2), FRA would
add the requirement that operators of Tier III equipment designate
locations where repairs to safety-critical systems on Tier III
equipment can be made, including repairs to Tier III brake systems.
This requirement would follow the requirements in existing paragraph
(d)(4) that such designations be made in writing, that the written
designations be provided to FRA and made available for inspection and
copying, and that the list of repair points could not be changed
without at least 30 days' advance notice provided to FRA.\13\ Further,
FRA would require that Tier III trainsets not leave designated brake
repair points with anything less than the required operational braking
capability. This means that a trainset could leave the designated brake
repair point with less than its maximum designed braking capability,
still retaining its required operational braking capability, but could
not do so for a period exceeding 5 consecutive calendar days under
proposed Sec. 238.1003(d)(1). This proposal is based on international,
service-proven practice and FRA's approach to inspection, testing, and
maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 64 FR 25540, 25587-25588.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA notes that it has introduced two new terms under proposed
paragraph (d)(2), exclusive to Tier III equipment: required operational
braking capability and maximum designed braking capability. As further
discussed below under proposed Sec. Sec. 238.903(a)(8) and
238.1003(d), the required operational braking capability with respect
to Tier III equipment would be the capability of
[[Page 19737]]
the trainset to stop from its maximum operating speed within the signal
spacing existing on the track over which the trainset is operating
under the worst-case adhesion conditions defined by the railroad. This
would also be consistent with Sec. 238.731(b). Maximum designed
braking capability would be the maximum braking capability of the Tier
III trainset as designed--a performance element of a Tier III trainset
that must be specified by the railroad under proposed Sec.
238.110(d)(2)(ii).
Subpart B--Safety Planning and General Requirements
Section 238.105 Passenger Electronic Hardware and Software Safety
FRA is proposing to revise this section to clarify the requirements
of this section and to reconcile overlapping requirements with subpart
E of part 229 of this chapter. It has been FRA's experience over the
last decade that much ambiguity exists with the correct application of
part 238 requirements and similar requirements under part 229. In FRA's
view, the requirements that are being proposed have been applicable to
the passenger industry, consistent with the applicability dates listed
in the introductory text of this section. FRA is also making clear that
it is not expanding the applicability dates.
Under paragraph (a), FRA is proposing to make editorial changes and
is also proposing to permit railroads to maintain the hardware and
software safety program in either a written or an electronic format.
Additionally, FRA is proposing to swap current paragraphs (b) and
(c) with each other, redesignating current paragraph (b) as paragraph
(c) and current paragraph (c) as paragraph (b) for clarity and
organizational purposes. Further, FRA is proposing to add a new
requirement under proposed paragraph (b)(8). Proposed paragraph (b)(8)
would make explicit that the safety analysis outlined in proposed
paragraph (c) is a required part of the hardware and software safety
program required under paragraph (a) of this section.
Under proposed paragraph (c), FRA is providing additional detail on
how to perform the safety analysis that is being proposed under
paragraph (b)(8). FRA is proposing to use the term ``safety analysis''
rather than the legacy term ``safety program,'' to make clear that this
is an analysis to be conducted as part of the broader safety program
rather than a standalone program. Additionally, FRA is proposing that
the safety analysis establish and document the minimum requirements
governing the development and implementation of all products subject to
this section. Further, the safety analysis, as proposed, would be based
on good engineering practice and should be consistent with the guidance
contained in appendix F to part 229 of this chapter in order to
establish that a product's safety-critical functions operate with a
high degree of confidence in a fail-safe manner. As proposed, the
safety analysis would be based on a formal safety methodology, to
include a Failure Modes, Effects, Criticality Analysis (FMECA),
verification and validation testing for all hardware and software
components and their interfaces, and comprehensive hardware and
software integration testing to ensure that the hardware and software
system functions as intended.
FRA is proposing to revise paragraphs (d) and (e) simply by adding
paragraph headings.
FRA is also proposing to add paragraph (f) to this section to make
explicit which specific requirements from subpart E of part 229 are
being made applicable to passenger equipment. Consistent with the
discussion above regarding the applicability of this section, FRA is
proposing to reference the applicability dates set forth in Sec.
229.303(a)(1) and (2), to make clear that FRA is not intending to
expand the applicability of these requirements. In proposed paragraphs
(f)(1) through (6), FRA has listed each provision of subpart E of part
229 being made applicable to passenger equipment. Accordingly, if a
provision in subpart E of part 229 is not listed in this paragraph (f),
then that requirement would not be applicable to passenger equipment
under this part.
Additionally, FRA is proposing to add paragraph (g) to this
section. Proposed paragraph (g) would add a requirement that railroads
prepare a Vehicle Communication and Control System Vulnerability
Assessment identifying potential system vulnerabilities, associated
risk (including exploit likelihood and consequences), countermeasures
applied, and resulting risk mitigation.
Further, FRA is proposing to add paragraph (h) to this section,
which would add a requirement that suppliers of safety-critical
railroad products notify FRA of any safety-critical product failures.
By requiring this notice to FRA, FRA may in turn help ensure that
notice of the faulty product is provided to other possible users of the
equipment.
Section 238.108 New Passenger Service Pre-Revenue Safety Performance
Demonstration
Pursuant to Section 22416 of the IIJA, FRA is proposing to add
requirements for new passenger service pre-revenue safety performance
demonstration. This proposal incorporates the requirements of the IIJA
and provides additional direction for railroads to assist them with the
development and execution of pre-revenue safety and operational
readiness demonstration. These proposed requirements would apply to any
new passenger rail service subject to FRA safety jurisdiction,
including line extensions and the resumption of service if passenger
rail service has not been present on a line for more than 180 days.
This proposed section would not apply to the temporary re-routing of
existing passenger service due to weather events, emergency scenarios,
or planned PTC maintenance under Sec. 236.1005(g).
Through this proposed section, FRA would require railroads and
project stakeholders to use safety and operational readiness as the
deciding factors as to when revenue passenger service should begin over
a line, rather than an earlier date influenced by other factors. As an
example, FRA is aware of an instance where the use of emergency phones
located in a railroad's stations knocked out the signal system of the
railroad as the two systems were using the same support infrastructure
(a router). However, this problem was only discovered through
happenstance, and not part of an overall system safety and operational
readiness evaluation before the rail service began. This example is
provided to illustrate the scope of the intended safety performance
demonstration and the critical evaluation necessary to accomplish the
goals of this proposed section.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1) establishes who must submit a pre-revenue
safety validation plan. The requirements would apply to any railroad
subject to the requirements of part 238 regardless of tier of service,
or any other responsible entity providing new, regularly scheduled,
intercity or commuter passenger service, an extension of existing
service, or the re-start of service that has been suspended or
otherwise discontinued for more than 180 days. These requirements would
apply regardless of whether the railroad is already operating similar
service. For example, an existing commuter railroad that is already
providing commuter service would still need to comply with the proposed
requirements of this section for any new commuter rail line
[[Page 19738]]
or physical extension of its existing network. A plan would not be
required for changes in service frequency or other modifications to
existing services, such as changes to contract operators (or other
contracted activities), or the addition of in-fill stations. However, a
railroad proposing to operate new passenger service over a line that
already provides passenger service would still be required to develop a
plan under this section.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) outlines the content requirements for the
proposed pre-revenue safety validation plan and would require that it
be submitted to FRA for review no less than 60 days prior to the start
of the service's safety demonstration period, the requirements of which
are outlined further in this section. Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i)
would require that the railroad provide the status of all appliable
safety plans or regulatory programs, and any associated certifications,
qualifications, and employee training required for the start of revenue
service, that are enumerated in proposed paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(A)
through (K). The railroad must be able to demonstrate that these
programs, plans, certifications, qualifications, and employee training
would be not only substantially complete and/or in place to support the
service, but that it would also adequately execute the programs or
plans as intended. FRA may look to validate this with field inspections
during the service demonstration period. For example, if an employee
(or contractor) is required to comply with the railroad's on-track
safety program for the duties being performed, FRA would expect that
field inspections would validate that the employee has received
training and is knowledgeable on the requirements of the railroad's on-
track safety program. In providing its pre-revenue safety validation
plan, the railroad should pay particular attention to the completion of
required activities, testing and certification (especially engineer and
conductor certification), the adequacy of its training programs, and
appropriate close-out or mitigation of any identified hazards as part
of its system safety planning efforts. Additionally, the railroad would
be required to provide data indicating which safety-related employees
are required to receive training, qualifications or other
certifications, and the status of those programs (the number who have
completed each step) as identified in proposed paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(H)
and (I). Completion of FRA's ``new starts'' process may satisfy this
requirement.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(ii) would require the railroad to provide
a description of how it would measure ``substantial completion'' of the
system. This must include items such as any tests or validations to be
performed by contractors for facilities, structures, systems, or other
major construction activities that must be performed before they can be
accepted by the railroad, or before testing or revenue service can
begin. Because system level testing and integration testing often
require the availability of substantially complete infrastructure and
supporting systems to conduct testing, the railroad must be able to
demonstrate that it would have adequate access to these facilities to
properly perform required testing under FRA's regulations. The
availability of core infrastructure and systems is also necessary for
the service demonstration period and FRA would require that the safety
and acceptance of these core elements be addressed on their own merit,
and that such activities would not conflict with required tests or
other activities identified in this section due to schedule
compression.
Further, should there be a host-tenant relationship, and the
railroad submitting the pre-revenue safety validation plan is not the
host railroad, then the host railroad and the railroad submitting the
pre-revenue safety validation plan must coordinate. Specifically, FRA
is concerned about host railroads scheduling construction activities
unbeknownst to the railroad submitting the pre-revenue safety
validation plan that could potentially interfere with the safety
performance demonstration period (simulated service). To help resolve
this concern, FRA is proposing to require that host railroads share
pertinent information with the railroad submitting the pre-revenue
safety validation plan (when not the host railroad).
Proposed paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (iv) would require the railroad
to provide details on its proposed operations over the line, and its
expectations and plans for its safety performance demonstration and
simulated service required under this section. In each of these
paragraphs, FRA has listed specific information requirements. These
lists are not intended to be exhaustive. Specifically, under proposed
paragraph (a)(2)(iv), the railroad would be required to provide its
plans for simulated service (e.g., the minimum number or days or
successful runs), and its criteria for determining if the simulated
service has been successful.
Proposed paragraph (b) outlines the requirements for the railroad's
safety performance demonstration period (simulated service) to be
performed to demonstrate operational readiness. The safety performance
demonstration period would provide the railroad an opportunity to
demonstrate operational readiness in a dynamic real-world environment,
with all major elements and systems in place. The period may also be
used by FRA to conduct inspections to validate that the railroad has
effectively trained employees and executed its critical plans and
programs.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1) specifies that a minimum period of
simulated service must be successfully performed prior to the start of
revenue service (to be expressed in days or number of runs as required
under proposed paragraph (a)(2)(iv)). Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(i)
provides requirements for new operations or physical extensions to
existing services. These services require the most activities to ensure
operational readiness and should be conducted using the full proposed
schedule to ensure that the service schedule can be practically
implemented to support safe operations. For example, the railroad must
be able to demonstrate that the scheduled running times and turns can
be performed reliably, even when factoring in common scenarios that
might affect service, such as speed restrictions or mandatory
directives. This would ensure that crews are not subjected to undue
stress and potential safety concerns when revenue service begins, due
to delays that could otherwise be avoided if the schedule and
operational readiness had been validated. In FRA's experience, most new
operations that voluntarily conducted a period of simulated service
prior to commencing revenue service have required a minimum of two to
six weeks of simulated service to address issues and ensure operational
readiness. FRA notes, however, that the process is not necessarily
intended to be linear, and certain activities may also be completed in
parallel with the simulated service, when appropriate.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(ii) provides considerations for the re-
start or re-routing of existing operations. For these situations, the
amount of simulated service can vary greatly depending on the scope of
the re-started or re-routed service. For example, the re-start of a
discontinued service may necessitate running full, scheduled operations
for a certain number of days, whereas re-routing of a service may only
require a certain number of ``successful'' test runs. The railroad may
reach out to and work with FRA in determining the appropriate period
based on the individual circumstances.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would require the railroad to provide a
daily
[[Page 19739]]
summary of the activities and results from the safety performance
demonstration period, including discussion on any delays, system
failures, unexpected events, close calls, or other safety concerns
uncovered during simulated service.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would require the railroad to correct any
safety deficiencies identified during the safety performance
demonstration period prior to commencing revenue service. Additionally,
this proposed paragraph would require that, if a safety deficiency
cannot be corrected, then it must be addressed through mitigations or
operational restrictions that would ensure the safety of the operation.
Finally, this proposed paragraph would require a final report to be
submitted to FRA addressing the complete safety performance
demonstration period, specifically detailing the deficiencies uncovered
and the associated corrections, mitigations, or operational
restrictions imposed. FRA notes that it would reserve the right to
require additional corrections, mitigations, or operational
restrictions should it determine that those imposed by the railroad
would not be sufficient to ensure the safety of the operation.
Proposed paragraph (c) would require a railroad to comply with its
plan before revenue service may begin. It would also prohibit a
railroad from amending its plan without first notifying FRA, to prevent
a railroad from effectively ``moving the goal posts'' to commence
revenue service by a pre-determined date if the requirements of the
plan have not otherwise been met. In addition, this proposed paragraph
would impose a general prohibition against commencing revenue service
until the plan has been successfully completed by the railroad, to
include the imposition of corrections, mitigation, or operational
limitations as required by proposed paragraph (b)(3).
Section 238.110 Design Criteria, Testing, Documentation, and Approvals
To help clarify the compliance demonstration and approval process
for passenger equipment, FRA is proposing new Sec. 238.110. This
proposed section is intended to complement Sec. 238.111, as proposed
to be revised in this NPRM. This section would require the railroad to
establish the design criteria and provide the system description for
the intended service against which the railroad is demonstrating safety
compliance. This proposed section would also provide the ability for
the railroad to define certain elements required for Tier III
operations, as well as require the railroad to develop a vehicle
qualification plan to establish how compliance would be demonstrated.
Further, this proposal includes specific language for the demonstration
of early-stage, vehicle design matters, such as carbody construction
with respect to crashworthiness and safety appliances. In developing
this language, FRA worked closely with industry subject matter experts
through the RSAC to provide more detail about passenger vehicle
compliance demonstration to help clarify the process. FRA welcomes any
comments or considerations that might further improve the clarity of
this section.
Proposed paragraph (a) outlines the scope of this section and its
relationship with Sec. 238.111. Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would make
the requirements of this section applicable to new passenger equipment
designs (i.e., an equipment design that has not been previously used in
revenue service in the U.S.), and rebuilt or modified equipment where
the carbody structure or any safety-critical elements have been
modified or replaced by a new design not identical to the original
component.
While FRA has attempted to provide clear language with respect to
when a vehicle design has been altered to a point where an updated
demonstration of compliance with the safety standards would be
required, FRA recognizes that this can be a matter of nuance, and
additional feedback from FRA may be necessary as to when a modification
to an existing vehicle platform may have crossed such a threshold. For
instance, changes to the traction control or braking systems,
modifications to trucks or suspensions systems, changes to the carbody
structure or its material, or alterations that change the mass or
center-of-gravity of the vehicle (and thus its dynamic performance),
are all common examples of when a new safety assessment and compliance
demonstration would likely be appropriate.
Under proposed paragraph (a)(2), previously accepted passenger
vehicle designs would not be subject to the requirements of this
section, except for the development and maintenance of a system
description under proposed paragraph (d). Even though development of a
vehicle qualification plan would not be required, FRA still would
require railroads to develop a system description to capture the
critical information of the operating environment of the equipment in
case changes are made that would necessitate a new safety assessment
and compliance demonstration.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would make the railroad responsible for
maintaining any documents or evidence related to the design and
performance of the vehicle that may be necessary to establish or
demonstrate compliance with the safety regulations. Even if material is
provided to FRA for review or approval, this would not relieve the
railroad from the proper maintenance of its records in this regard. FRA
would require that the railroad be able to produce relevant
documentation, including any changes or modifications to one or more of
the vehicles in its fleet should the need arise, as proposed under
paragraph (b)(2). Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would also require that the
documentation be maintained for the life of the equipment. If the
equipment is leased or sold, this paragraph would require a copy of the
documentation to be provided to the lessee or purchasing entity,
respectively.
Under paragraph (c), FRA is proposing to require railroads develop
a vehicle qualification plan. This plan would assist railroads in
demonstrating compliance with the requirements of this proposed
section. As proposed, the vehicle qualification plan would be comprised
of a system description (which includes certain vehicle design
assumptions) and a compliance matrix.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(i) contains the requirement for a
railroad to develop a system description (a description of the intended
operational environment for the equipment), which would cover topics
listed under proposed paragraph (d)(1), as well as a listing of
assumptions used when designing the equipment. This initial portion of
the proposed system description would be for all passenger equipment.
Additionally, railroads seeking to qualify Tier III equipment under
this section would need to address the required elements for Tier III
operations, as listed in proposed paragraph (d)(2).
Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(ii) introduces the concept of a
comprehensive compliance matrix (matrix) that must be developed by the
railroad to outline the means by which compliance with various safety
requirements under FRA's regulations would be demonstrated. This
matrix, as proposed, is an extrapolation of what FRA has historically
expected under the current language of Sec. 238.111, in that the
railroad should be able to identify all tests required to demonstrate
compliance under FRA's regulations--whether a carbody structural test
to validate compliance with the occupied volume protection
requirements, or a braking test performed during the final
commissioning stages of a project. Both of these exemplar tests provide
critical safety validation of the design and must
[[Page 19740]]
occur prior to the use of the equipment in revenue service. But as
these two tests can occur years apart, it is not unusual for some to
focus on the requirements of current Sec. 238.111 as relating to only
those activities that occur when full-scale dynamic testing has begun.
By proposing to move this planning requirement into Sec. 238.110 and
expand language to require the development of a comprehensive test
matrix at the early stages of a project, FRA would ensure the railroad
and rolling stock supplier clearly articulate the intended means by
which all critical compliance elements of FRA's regulations would be
demonstrated. In doing so, the parties would also gain FRA's
perspective and feedback on whether the means identified are adequate.
In practice, as proposed under paragraph (c)(1)(ii), FRA is
envisioning the compliance matrix as being a table to help identify the
requirements for which compliance must be demonstrated (keeping in mind
that certain projects, such as equipment modifications, may only
require a limited number of items to be assessed), and the means by
which compliance would be demonstrated (e.g., testing, analysis,
calculations, computer modeling, etc.). This matrix would also allow
all stakeholders to identify critical milestones in which an FRA
observation, inspection, or approval may be necessary, particularly
when testing is required. By doing this early in the process, FRA can
work with the parties to set expectations and can coordinate
participation or reviews where appropriate, to avoid delays due to
inadequate documentation or failure to notify the agency of critical
compliance-related activities. Moreover, FRA is contemplating including
guidance in an appendix to this part to help guide railroads in
properly developing compliance matrices and plans. FRA seeks comment as
to whether such an appendix should be included or whether such guidance
should be provided in a standalone document.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) further outlines the process and timing
by which a railroad's vehicle qualification plan would be approved. FRA
is seeking comment on whether there is utility in explicit FRA approval
of this item, the process described, and the timeframe proposed.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iii) would simply enforce the execution of
the plan by the railroad.
In paragraph (d), FRA proposes that a railroad provide a
description of the environment and service in which the passenger
equipment is intended to operate (system description), key design
criteria and physical characteristics of the equipment, and any
assumptions used for key calculations or analysis. This information
would help provide a baseline for the configuration and intended
operating environment of the equipment against which the safety of the
vehicle is being assessed. Such information would be useful when
changes or modifications to a vehicle or its operating environment
occur, or if the same equipment type is acquired by the railroad, or
leased to another railroad, as it would provide a means for the
railroad and FRA to determine if any new or different conditions,
configurations, or operating parameters might require additional
compliance testing or analysis.
For example, proposed Sec. 238.791(j) would require an efficient
handbrake or parking brake that is capable of holding a locomotive on
the maximum grade condition identified by the operating railroad, or a
minimum 3% grade, whichever is greater. If a railroad initially were to
procure a passenger locomotive that operates over a network with a
maximum grade of 1.3%, that railroad would be required to validate the
sufficiency of the design and performance of the handbrake or parking
brake when subjected to the minimum forces resulting from a 3% grade.
If the same locomotive is leased to another railroad that operates over
territory where the maximum grade is 3.5%, the original documentation
must indicate to the acquiring railroad that additional validation may
be necessary to ensure that the parking brake design is adequate for
the characteristics of its new operating environment.
As another example, if a railroad is electing to follow the
interior fixture attachment strength requirements under Sec.
238.733(a)(2), which permit an attachment strength sufficient to resist
applied loads of 5g longitudinal, 3g lateral, and 3g vertical when
applied to the mass of the fixture, then appropriate discussion and
documentation must be provided demonstrating the trainset does not
experience a crash pulse in excess of 5g.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would require the railroad to provide a
description of the operational environment to which the railroad's
passenger equipment is subject. This would include the defining
physical characteristics of the environment that all passenger
equipment would operate within, regardless of whether the equipment is
intended for conventional or high-speed operations. Paragraphs
(d)(1)(i) through (iii), as proposed, would help the railroad
categorize and describe the operating environment and conditions, and
provides examples for each.
Of these, physical infrastructure as proposed under paragraph
(d)(1)(i), would require the most extensive description, encapsulating
a number of physical characteristics of the environment that may
directly affect the safe operation of the equipment. In this portion of
the system description, the railroad should be able to articulate the
limiting track geometry (including turnout geometry), maximum grade,
the minimum required stopping distance, and any other safety-critical
limits or thresholds within which the equipment would be expected to
operate safely. It is critical to note that the characteristics or
limits listed are intended to help establish the operating limits of
the equipment itself and are not intended simply to catalog the
characteristics of the railroad.
For example, when identifying limiting track geometry conditions,
if the equipment is not designed to navigate anything less than a
turnout having a certain curvature, then that is a limiting track
geometry condition for the equipment that must be identified. The
railroad may own or have access to track with even more limiting
geometry conditions, such as turnouts having even tighter curvatures
within a yard. Yet, by identifying the known limitations of the
equipment to navigate such trackwork, and making known the safe
operating limits of the equipment, the railroad can craft operating
rules or instructions to ensure that the equipment is either not
operated on portions of the railroad where such geometry exists, or
operated under appropriate limitations so that the equipment can safely
navigate such geometry.
Similarly, proposed paragraph (d)(1)(ii) would require the railroad
to identify the universe of systems that the equipment is expected to
operate over or interface with. This would primarily include track
circuits, control systems, electric traction systems, and wayside
detectors and devices. Of particular importance would be those elements
essential to signaling, train control, and active grade crossing
warning systems. Here, the railroad must also be able to identify the
core technologies (e.g., DC, AC, audio frequency overlay) and systems
utilized by any host railroads on the routes it is expected to operate
over, and whether or not those systems themselves are operating and
maintained within their original equipment manufacturer (OEM)
specifications. This information can then be used to help the railroad
[[Page 19741]]
determine what systems integration and validation testing would be
necessary as part of its pre-revenue service acceptance test plan,
developed pursuant to Sec. 238.111.
Systems integration has become a critical element in the safe
introduction of new passenger equipment in recent years, particularly
as it relates to effective track circuit shunting to ensure the safe
operation of signal and grade crossing systems. Taking the time to
identify and validate performance characteristics of the equipment over
these systems within the context of Sec. Sec. 238.110 and 238.111
would help the railroad ensure that both the passenger vehicle and
wayside technologies are operating as designed, and assist in
establishing special operating rules, maintenance procedures, or design
changes, as necessary, to ensure safe interactions between the two.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(iii) would require the railroad to
identify any special operating parameters or rules that might apply to
the design and operation of the passenger equipment. At a minimum, this
must include information on the design time and setup of the alerter,
as this design time may need to account for other operating parameters,
such as the required minimum stopping distance identified in proposed
paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section.
Proposed paragraph (d)(2) is intended to catalog design and
operational variables specific to Tier III equipment. As many of the
requirements pertaining to Tier III equipment are more performance-
based and technology neutral, it is essential that the railroad
identify specific design and operational parameters where such
flexibility is provided, so that necessary safety thresholds can be
identified and maintained with proper oversight. Braking systems
received particular attention in this regard, during the RSAC process,
as there are many different, proven approaches to braking technology
and operational rules used on high-speed trainsets throughout the
world. To this effect, proposed paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (xiv)
catalog the railroad's approach as it relates to Tier III braking
technology.
Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(ii), as discussed above under Sec.
238.19, would require the railroad to define the maximum designed
braking capacity of the Tier III trainset.
Proposed paragraphs (d)(2)(iii) through (v) are of particular note,
as these sections would define the use of emergency braking and its
accessibility to crewmembers and the general public. Unlike most
conventional operations, the application of an irretrievable emergency
brake application may pose a safety risk to the occupants at very high
speeds, or within certain locations (e.g., tunnels or bridges),
particularly if an immediate stop is unnecessary. As such, many systems
throughout the world restrict access to only qualified crewmembers to
initiate an irretrievable emergency brake application and utilize
emergency brake ``alarms'' for passengers. These alarms notify the
engineer that an emergency stop has been requested by a passenger and
require the engineer to take some immediate action, while still
allowing the engineer to continue train movement if an immediate stop
is unnecessary, or if a different location may offer a more appropriate
environment to address an emergency (e.g., enabling a train to exit a
tunnel if an alarm is activated due to the presence of smoke in a
passenger cabin).
Proposed paragraphs (d)(2)(iii) and (iv) would require the railroad
to identify both irretrievable emergency brake locations accessible
only to crewmembers and passenger brake ``alarm'' locations (if used),
respectively, within the Tier III trainset. A picture or diagram may be
used to demonstrate compliance.
If passenger brake alarm technology is employed by the railroad,
proposed paragraphs (d)(2)(v) through (vii) would require the railroad
to specify certain operational aspects of the technology. For example,
proposed paragraph (d)(2)(v) would require defining the time period in
which the trainset remains under full control of the engineer after an
alarm is pulled. Like an alerter, this is intended to ensure that the
engineer acknowledges the alarm and takes appropriate action promptly.
As proposed, if no action is taken by the engineer in response to the
passenger brake alarm, then the trainset's brake system would be
required to automatically initiate an irretrievable emergency brake to
ensure the safety of the occupants, crew, and trainset.
Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(vi) would require the railroad to detail
how the passenger brake alarm would function within station locations,
as delayed application of the brakes would be unacceptable if the alarm
is activated when a train is departing a station due to a passenger
emergency, such as a passenger trapped in a door. Only once a train has
safely cleared the station platform would the retrievable aspect of the
passenger emergency brake alarm be allowed to engage. To this end, the
railroad would have to identify how to achieve this, to ensure that
both passengers and crew can immediately stop a train if a dangerous
situation is encountered while leaving a station. Nonetheless, as
discussed above, there is concern about situations when an engineer may
decide against immediately stopping the train following activation of a
passenger brake alarm at a station location, such as when in a tunnel
if smoke is present. FRA believes that the above discussion provides
the necessary clarity on this issue but invites comment.
Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(vii) would allow the railroad to further
define the operation of a passenger brake alarm by detailing what steps
must be taken by an engineer to retrieve control from a full-service
brake application in the event an alarm is activated, within the
timeframe proposed by paragraph (d)(2)(v).
Additional core braking parameters are defined in proposed
paragraphs (d)(2)(viii) through (xiii). Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(viii)
would require the railroad to identify and maintain a copy of the FRA-
approved industry standard utilized to comply with Sec. 238.731(f),
which requires that main reservoirs be designed and tested according to
a recognized industry standard. The railroad would be required to
document the actual standard used to qualify main reservoirs for Tier
III trainsets in its vehicle qualification plan. Any inspections or
tests required by the standard must be incorporated into the railroad's
ITM plan as well.
Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(ix) would require the railroad to
identify the preset parameters by which it would determine if a Tier
III trainset's wheel-slide protection has failed, as required by Sec.
238.731(m)(3). The railroad would be required to document the
corresponding operational restrictions within its ITM plan. Similarly,
proposed paragraph (d)(2)(x) would require the railroad to provide
information on brake system functionality, monitoring, and diagnostics,
and any corresponding safety analysis. For example, if a railroad were
to utilize an electronic brake system, it must ensure compliance with
Sec. 238.105 if deemed-safety critical.
Proposed paragraph (xi) would require the railroad to identify the
worst-case grade condition for which the Tier III trainset must be
secured.
In relation to Sec. 238.751, proposed paragraphs (xii) and (xiii)
would require the railroad to outline the functionality of the cab
alerter system, and its integration with the braking system.
Specifically, paragraph (xii) proposes to require the railroad to
establish the parameters and scenarios in which the engineer must
acknowledge the alerter, including which actions reset the timing, and
which actions would be
[[Page 19742]]
ignored so that the engineer would be required to take some other
action or directly acknowledge the alerter.\14\ Proposed paragraph
(xiii) would require the railroad to outline what steps must be
followed by the engineer to recover control should a full-service brake
application occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Note, the specific alerter timing would be required under
proposed Sec. 238.110(d)(1)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remaining items proposed under paragraphs (d)(2)(xiv) through
(xvi) are for optional features that a railroad may elect to include on
Tier III rolling stock based on service-proven experience. If the
railroad elects to use a technology other than a standard alerter
pursuant to Sec. 238.751(e), plans to utilize a feature to dim
headlights for extended periods of time on Tier III dedicated rights-
of-way pursuant to proposed Sec. 238.767(c), or utilizes a flashing
rate other than what is described in proposed Sec. 238.769(b)(2)(i),
then it would be required to comply with the requirements specific to
each alternate technology as described in proposed paragraphs
(d)(2)(xiv), (xv), and (xvi), respectively.
Proposed paragraph (e) outlines the means by which a railroad would
be required to demonstrate compliance with the structural carbody
design and crashworthiness requirements contained within parts 229 and
238, as applicable. This proposed paragraph would effectively codify
FRA's longstanding guidance on the matter, and what the RSAC considered
to be industry ``best practice.'' Specifically, proposed paragraph
(e)(1) would make clear that compliance may be demonstrated by any
appropriate combination of full-scale testing, validated computer
modeling (e.g., finite element analysis), or engineering calculations,
including manual calculations using accepted and proven engineering
formulas.
Designs incorporating dynamically activated CEM components may
require additional scrutiny. In practice, some combination of all three
is typically provided to establish compliance with structural and
crashworthiness requirements. For example, a full-scale test could be
used to demonstrate the strength of a collision post, but because this
test involves the ultimate load of the material it may not be desirable
or safe to conduct a full-scale test where plastic deformation, or even
structural failure, would be possible. Consequently, computer modeling
and engineering calculations may be used to predict the physical
performance of collision posts under certain load conditions, but such
modeling must be validated. To this end, testing may also be performed
within the elastic-plastic range and, if the model shows good
correlation to real-world testing under the same load conditions, FRA
would consider the validated model to serve as an adequate
demonstration of compliance for loading scenarios that are impractical
or unsafe to test at full-scale. Because testing plays such a vital
role to compliance demonstration, FRA seeks to ensure close
coordination with railroads and their suppliers when such testing is
required, especially where complex computer models require validation.
Proposed paragraph (e)(2) outlines the documentation expectations
and FRA notification requirements when carbody or structural component
testing would be necessary for new, re-built, or substantially modified
passenger equipment. Because designs that utilize CEM components rely
on the dynamic-plastic deformation of structural components in a
predictable and controlled manner, Tier I alternative, Tier II, and
Tier III passenger equipment that incorporate such technology would
require additional scrutiny. As these designs require models that are
used to analyze loading conditions that are more complex than simple,
quasi-static loads, to ensure that adequate validation of such models
is performed, FRA would require that carbody and crashworthiness test
procedures associated with such equipment be submitted to FRA prior to
any test being conducted for compliance purposes, as proposed under
paragraph (e)(2). Under this proposal, FRA would notify the railroad if
FRA intends to witness the test. This would not prohibit a railroad or
supplier from conducting preliminary or ``proof of design'' testing
without submitting the test procedures to FRA, provided such testing is
not intended for validation or compliance demonstration purposes.
To address common interpretation issues related to passenger
equipment safety appliances, FRA is proposing to mandate its otherwise
voluntary, sample-equipment inspection process as part of proposed
paragraph (f). To ensure consistency, the railroad would be required to
submit designs for FRA review of all new passenger equipment or
modified equipment that include carbody or structural modifications
affecting the design of existing safety appliances, proposed to be
validated as part of the sample-equipment inspection conducted in
accordance with proposed paragraph (g)(2).
Proposed paragraph (g)(1) outlines the process and procedures for
submittal and approval of design review, testing, and inspection
documentation. FRA proposes to notify the railroad whether the
submission is approved or disapproved within 60 days of the submission
to FRA. Of particular note are the timeframes for document submission,
and associated approval or disapproval, for each type of request. FRA
invites comments on the practicality of these timeframes and whether
approval of this documentation is necessary in all cases or at all.
Proposed paragraph (g)(2) contains the procedures for the sample-
equipment inspection. Though this is commonly known as a sample-car
inspection, FRA is proposing to call it a sample-equipment inspection
to include different types of equipment that might not be considered a
``car,'' per se (e.g., a Tier III trainset). Proposed paragraph
(g)(2)(i) would require railroads to submit to FRA a request for such
an inspection at least 45 days in advance of the proposed inspection
date. As part of its request, the railroad would be required under
proposed paragraph (g)(2)(i)(A) to provide FRA with the first available
time and date that the sample equipment can be inspected. Also, under
proposed paragraph (g)(2)(i)(B), the railroad would be required to
submit, as part of its request, engineering drawings reflecting the
design and configuration of the safety appliances, emergency systems
and signage, and any other elements to be inspected by FRA as part of
the sample-equipment inspection.
Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(ii) details the procedures to be followed
should FRA take exception during the inspection. Proposed paragraph
(g)(2)(iii) explains that should FRA take no exceptions during the
inspection, FRA would provide the railroad with an inspection report
stating as such.
Section 238.111 Pre-Revenue Service Acceptance Testing
With the proposed addition of Sec. 238.110, FRA is proposing to
revise Sec. 238.111 to focus primarily on the activities associated
with dynamic ``on-track'' testing and commissioning procedures that
occur during the later stages of a project. These dynamic tests
typically occur when prototype or production trainsets are ready to
operate over the general railroad system.
Through the separation of static design and dynamic commissioning
phases of rolling stock compliance with Sec. Sec. 238.110 and 238.111,
respectively, more clarity can be given to the process of assuring that
passenger rolling stock is ready for revenue service. FRA envisions
that initially the railroad would look to proposed Sec. 238.110 to
ensure compliance with static design
[[Page 19743]]
requirements and items that can be examined as part of a sample-
equipment inspection as a means to determine if prototype or production
rolling stock is ready to start the dynamic and commissioning phase
under Sec. 238.111, even though some overlap may occur between the
phases. For instance, it may be desirable to initiate some level of
dynamic testing before carbody interiors are completed, which may
necessitate the verification of emergency systems after preliminary
dynamic testing has occurred.
Regardless, FRA intends that the railroad make use of the combined,
pre-revenue planning process under Sec. Sec. 238.110 and 238.111 to
ensure that adequate testing occurs before production sets of equipment
types leave the manufacturing facility, so that compliance and quality
issues can be addressed by the manufacturer before moving too far ahead
into dynamic testing, and thus limiting such issues to initial
prototype units. This approach would allow certain elements to be
separated so that railroads and manufacturers can take a more focused
approach to compliance assurance and commissioning, thereby also
allowing railroads to produce a more focused plan for the final stages
of testing and commissioning of passenger rolling stock as part of
their pre-revenue service acceptance test plans.
While the individual requirements within this section are intended
to capture important elements to help validate and document compliance,
of equal importance is the planning aspect of the section. FRA would
require that railroads use the development and execution of their pre-
revenue service acceptance test plans to take a holistic view of their
testing and commissioning programs so as to provide both FRA, as well
as themselves, insight as to how the various tests and validations
would be organized and executed in an effective manner. So, while part
of the effort intended by this proposed language is to identify all of
the tests that need to be performed before a vehicle can enter revenue
passenger service, FRA also would require that the railroad identify
how all of these tests relate to each other and other activities that
must occur (required preceding events), and the logical order in which
they should occur.
Using qualification under Sec. 213.345 as an example, a railroad
must consider what core tests should be performed before high-speed
testing begins (e.g., tests for proper brake system operation to ensure
the safety of the qualification testing), and what tests would require
high-speed qualification or special test approval to be performed
(e.g., high-speed ATC/PTC tests). Identifying not only the universe of
tests to be conducted, but also how those tests interrelate, would help
the railroad, its suppliers, and FRA all work together from the same
perspective in achieving the goal of putting the equipment safely in
service.
Under this proposed revision, this section would remain divided
primarily between requirements for ``new'' equipment that has never
been used in revenue service before within the United States, and
requirements for ``existing'' equipment that is, or has been
previously, used within the United States. However, FRA is proposing
significant revisions to this section to capture current practice for
vehicle dynamic testing and qualification.
The first such significant revision is based on an RSAC
recommendation, preferring that the requirements for ``new'' vehicles
be outlined first, because they are more comprehensive. Thus, FRA is
proposing to reorganize the language so that the requirements for
``new'' equipment are covered first, under paragraph (a) rather than as
currently addressed under paragraph (b), and the less comprehensive
requirements for ``existing'' equipment are moved to paragraph (b),
rather than as currently addressed under paragraph (a). FRA notes,
however, that this reorganization could lead to confusion for plans
developed prior to the proposed publication of a final rule. While FRA
does not foresee this as a problem for the execution of the intent of
these requirements, it welcomes comment on whether this reorganization
may pose any potential concerns and, if so, invites any potential
solutions.
The fundamental requirements of this section would be contained in
proposed paragraph (a)(1), which is based on current paragraph (b)(1).
This proposed language outlines the minimum content that a railroad
would be required to provide as part of a pre-revenue service
acceptance testing plan (test plan or testing plan).
Proposed paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) would require the railroad
to identify the physical characteristics and salient features that
define both the equipment and its intended operating environment,
respectively. The railroad should consider the equipment and its
operating environment as parts of a whole within a systems approach to
safety. In effect, these two proposed paragraphs ask the railroad to
capture the ``control'' variables of the system whose configurations
may have measurable effects on the performance of the passenger
equipment and its overall safety. Items such as the wheel profile, axle
and truck spacing, suspension characteristics, braking rates, mass, and
center-of-gravity are just some examples (but in no way an exhaustive
list) of the types of vehicle characteristics that must be identified
under proposed paragraph (a)(1)(i) that can profoundly affect the safe
performance of rolling stock. Similarly, the rail profile and cant,
special trackwork geometry, maximum grade, effective track moduli, and
signaling and grade crossing technology interfaces are just some
examples of the characteristics of the operating environment for which
the equipment's performance is being validated against, which would
also be appropriate to identify under the requirements of the
railroad's system description developed pursuant to Sec. 238.110.
This ``systems'' perspective is key to the intent of Sec. Sec.
238.110 and 238.111, as it would not only help the railroad establish
and document the safety of the equipment, but also the equipment's
known and proven configurations and operating conditions, such that a
railroad may be able to identify any additional tests that may need to
be performed if a vehicle characteristic is changed, or a vehicle is to
be operated in a different environment with unproven characteristics
(e.g., different track circuit technology which may result in different
shunting characteristics).
As the test plan is intended to be an umbrella plan to capture all
of the necessary tests needed to demonstrate regulatory safety
compliance for passenger equipment, this should include any waivers
that are anticipated to be required, even if that test is part of a
separate testing approval,\15\ as these may be predecessors to, or
needed for, other required tests. Thus, proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iii)
of this section would require the railroad to identify any approvals,
qualification, or waivers from other regulatory requirements in this
chapter, that would be required to conduct certain tests under this
plan. For example, if tests are to occur on a section of track before a
block signal system has been installed, then a waiver from Sec.
236.0(c)(2) may be necessary to test at speeds above 60 mph until the
signal system if fully commissioned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Such as Sec. 213.345 or Sec. 236.1035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iv) would require the railroad to
identify the maximum speed and cant deficiency at which the equipment
is intended to operate, as well as any intermediate qualifications it
anticipates requesting prior to achieving the intended
[[Page 19744]]
maximum speed and cant deficiency to facilitate testing and
qualification. For example, if systems integration tests would be
required to validate grade crossing functionality at a speed lower than
the intended maximum speed and cant deficiency, then an intermediate
qualification at a speed and cant deficiency less than the intended
maximum would be necessary in order to accomplish such systems
integration testing. Accordingly, FRA would expect such an intermediate
qualification be referenced in this portion of the test plan.
Proposed paragraphs (a)(1)(v) through (vii) represent the core of
the test plan. These proposed paragraphs are intended to capture the
railroad's overall testing and commissioning plan and tie these tests
to the procedures and records associated with them. FRA would caution
the railroad or manufacturer not to overthink this critical part of the
proposed regulation, as a simple table may be used to fulfill the
requirements of these three proposed paragraphs. What matters most
would be the information ascertained by the railroad pursuant to these
paragraphs, and there would be no need for narrative or explanations if
a succinct format such as a table or matrix is used.
More specifically, proposed paragraph (a)(1)(v) would require the
railroad to provide a list of the tests to be conducted as part of its
dynamic testing and commissioning phase. This list can be inclusive of
all the tests expected to be performed or focused solely on those tests
related to demonstrating compliance with regulatory requirements, as
outlined in proposed paragraphs (a)(1)(vii)(A) through (D). The
railroad should present these tests in some logical order, either
chronologically, or by sub-system. Any interdependencies or predecessor
requirements (such as waivers or certifications) should also be
identified for each test.
The identification of predecessors is critical, as it would help
all parties understand the critical path to completion of the testing
and commissioning process and should logically tie to the estimated
schedule proposed paragraph (a)(1)(vi) would require. FRA notes that
the schedule identified in proposed paragraph (a)(1)(vi) is intended
only to be an approximation, such as the month in which a test is to
occur and anticipated duration, so that FRA can plan for resource needs
to observe the testing, as appropriate, as the test program is
executed. These dates can be modified as the test program matures,
particularly if issues or delays occur. If this information is managed
through a table or matrix, as suggested, it can be easily updated and
provided to FRA, without modifications to the entire test plan.
Whereas proposed paragraphs (a)(1)(v) and (vi) would be used for
planning purposes, the content of proposed paragraph (a)(1)(vii) is
intended more for execution and recordkeeping. Proposed paragraph
(a)(1)(vii) would require the railroad provide a list of all applicable
test procedures and reports (including test results and post-test
analysis, if required) associated with each test. Because this
information may not be readily available at the time the initial plan
is developed and provided to FRA, it would be acceptable if the
information relevant to proposed paragraph (a)(1)(vii) is left blank
until it becomes available. That is, FRA would expect the initial
submission to include all information relevant to proposed paragraphs
(a)(1)(v) and (vi), but except for any test procedures already
developed, the information relevant to proposed paragraph (a)(1)(vii)
may need to be supplied as the test program is executed. Further,
because this document is intended to serve both for planning purposes
and record documentation, it is understood that this would be a
``working'' document during the testing and commissioning phase.
Proposed paragraphs (a)(1)(vii)(A) through (D) of this section
would provide a list of the safety-critical subjects that must be
addressed in the railroad's test plan, and any relevant regulatory
references. As stated previously, the railroad's test plan can include
all the tests intended to be performed, or it can be focused on just
those tests relevant to the regulatory requirements. Regardless of
which approach is taken, those tests and documents that are intended to
demonstrate compliance with one or more regulatory requirements should
be clearly identified.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would provide the process by which a test
plan required under proposed paragraph (a)(1) would be submitted.
Because separate approval is necessary for high-speed operations
(including testing approval), and final approval is required before
Tier II and III trainsets may enter into service, FRA is proposing that
pre-revenue test plans need only be submitted to FRA for review and
awareness--not for approval. This would be consistent with how the
process applies to Tier I passenger equipment today. FRA welcomes
comments as to the necessity of this process and whether there is value
in FRA explicitly approving such plans.
Proposed paragraph (a)(3) would require that test procedures
included in the railroad's test plan contain at least the minimum
information as further detailed in proposed appendix K to part 238.
FRA is not proposing to approve individual test procedures as
recommended by the RSAC, as FRA does not see the utility in doing so.
Instead, FRA is proposing that test procedures be made available to FRA
upon request under proposed paragraph (a)(4). FRA believes this would
have no impact on its ability to conduct audits of test procedures in
advance of testing (particularly those tests that it intends to
witness) and would, instead, likely remove a significant burden for
both industry and FRA. Because current practice for most procurements
is to have project documentation, such as test procedures, uploaded to
a central, secure website where FRA and other stakeholders have access,
allowing FRA to review test procedures when they become available and
provide feedback as necessary would obviate the need for FRA approval.
Proposed paragraph (a)(5) would make clear that a railroad must
adopt and comply with its own test procedures. Because many of the
minimum requirements for procedures outlined in proposed appendix K to
part 238 are intended to ensure tests are performed safely, and that
records provide adequate documentation for showing compliance, tests
that are not performed appropriately may necessitate re-testing.
Proposed paragraphs (a)(6) through (8) outline the process by which
FRA would determine if the passenger equipment is ready to be entered
into revenue service. It is based on current Sec. 238.111(b)(4), (5),
and (7). This process is intended to culminate the efforts resulting
from Sec. Sec. 238.110 and 238.111 and consider the railroad's and
supplier's efforts in demonstrating compliance with the passenger
equipment safety standards. Proposed paragraph (a)(6)(i) would require
test results for Tier I equipment be made available upon request by
FRA, with proposed paragraph (a)(6)(ii) requiring test results for Tier
II and Tier III equipment to be submitted to FRA at least 60 days prior
to the equipment being placed in revenue service. FRA notes that this
timeframe may be longer or different, as appropriate, should the
railroad also need to complete new passenger service pre-revenue safety
demonstration under proposed Sec. 238.108. Additionally, FRA notes
that
[[Page 19745]]
the timeframe in this proposed paragraph is shorter than what is
currently in effect under Sec. 238.111(b)(4), and therefore invites
comments on the appropriateness of the timeframe.
Proposed paragraph (a)(7) mirrors current Sec. 238.111(b)(5)
without substantive change, and FRA would accordingly rely on the
substantive discussion contained in the May 1999 and November 2018
final rules.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 64 FR 25540 and 83 FR 59182.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under proposed paragraph (a)(8), explicit approval to operate in
revenue service would be required for only Tier II and Tier III
equipment, as currently required under Sec. 238.111(b)(7), and FRA
would also rely on the substantive discussions in the May 1999 and
November 2018 final rules in this regard.\17\ FRA is considering if
there is value in expanding this approval to all tiers of equipment and
invites comment on this question. FRA notes that this approval would
not supersede any other certifications or approvals required, such as
those under Sec. 213.345 or Sec. 238.913 for operation of the
equipment on the general system, but FRA approval under this section
would be required before the railroad may institute passenger service.
If a railroad seeks to operate the equipment for non-testing reasons
before this approval has been received (e.g., demonstration runs or
press events), the railroad would likewise be required to receive
explicit FRA approval of such operations to ensure their safety. In
this regard, the definition of ``tourist, scenic, historic, or
excursion operations'' in Sec. 238.5 makes clear that train movements
of new passenger equipment for demonstration purposes are not tourist,
scenic, historic, or excursion operations.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Id.
\18\ 67 FR 19969, 19971 (April 23, 2002) (``FRA recognizes that
a train consisting of new passenger equipment that is operated for
demonstration purposes is seemingly not conveying passengers to a
particular destination as its principal purpose. However, the very
usage of new passenger equipment, as opposed to antiquated
equipment, and the clear business purposes of the train, distinguish
such demonstration train operations from the class of train
operations FRA intended to exclude from the requirements of the rule
under Sec. 238.3(c)(3). Any person wishing to operate such a
demonstration train that does not comply with a requirement of the
rule must file a request for a waiver and obtain FRA's approval on
the waiver request prior to commencing the demonstration train's
operation.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed paragraph (b) contains the pre-revenue testing and
commissioning requirements for equipment that has been previously used
within the United States. As discussed, these requirements are
currently contained under Sec. 238.111(a). The RSAC recommended that
the requirements for new and previously used equipment be swapped in
order to better reflect the order in which these requirements would be
applied in practice, and the fact that new vehicles, by nature, have
more requirements that must be met. FRA invites comment on this
proposed change.
FRA is proposing to expand the requirements for vehicles that have
been previously used in revenue service in the United States. Under
paragraph (b)(1), the railroad would be required to verify the
applicability of previous tests performed under paragraphs
(a)(1)(vii)(A) through (D) of this section and perform such tests if
previous test data does not exist, cannot be obtained, or does not
support demonstration of safe operation within the intended operating
environment. Additionally, proposed paragraph (b)(2) contains a record
retention requirement, with proposed paragraph (b)(3) detailing what
equipment would be considered previously used in revenue service.
Proposed paragraph (c) outlines the regulatory requirements for any
modifications, major upgrades, or introduction of new technology on
passenger equipment that is currently in revenue service. The proposed
language establishes the scope of any pre-revenue testing, which would
be expanded to include Tier I equipment, limited to only those safety-
critical systems, sub-systems, or functionality that may be affected by
the introduction of the changes or new technology. As always, FRA would
encourage railroads and suppliers to reach out to FRA if there are any
questions as to what the scope of this testing should include.
Section 238.115 Emergency Lighting
FRA is proposing to revise this section by adding new paragraph
(c). Under proposed paragraph (c), FRA would include additional
requirements for periodic inspection of emergency lighting systems
pursuant to sec. 22406 of the IIJA. For consistency, the periodic
inspection requirements for this paragraph are modeled after similar
requirements for emergency windows in Sec. 238.113. Like the
requirements for emergency windows, FRA would expect the railroad to
develop an inspection plan designed to capture a representative sample
of the emergency lighting system designs used throughout its fleet. In
this regard, cars of similar construction may still require unique
sample sets, if the design and components are materially different.\19\
To comply with the proposed requirement, the railroad must determine
the total number of unique emergency system designs within its railcar
fleet and utilize an appropriate statistical test method to determine
the required sample size for each design type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ For example, due to the age of a passenger car, two cars of
similar design may actually utilize two very different lighting
designs, particularly if one involves a third-party retrofit to
replace an older system. The railroad should take this into account
when designing its sampling methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These proposed requirements, which would be in addition to the
existing periodic inspection requirements specified under Sec.
238.307(c)(5)(i), are intended to ensure that emergency lighting
systems function as intended in accident scenarios, taking into
consideration the operational conditions that might impact the
performance of emergency lighting and associated electrical systems,
particularly backup power supplies. An emergency lighting system may be
compliant, by design, but fail if activated during revenue operations
due to insufficient charging of the backup power supply. For example,
to conserve fuel, many railroads turn off head-end power (HEP) on
consists after their last revenue run. If the same consist is not
provided sufficient time to charge its back-up power system before it
is placed back in revenue service, the emergency lighting system may
fail to meet the performance requirements of Sec. 238.115. The
railroad would be required to take into consideration these operational
factors when determining an appropriate sampling method. FRA is also
seeking comment on whether public address or emergency intercom systems
should also have a similar testing requirement, as they are often
powered by the same back-up power supply.
Section 238.131 Exterior Side Door Safety Systems--New Passenger Cars
and Locomotives Used in Passenger Service
FRA is proposing to revise paragraph (a)(1) of this section, which
describes certain requirements applicable to safety systems for powered
exterior side doors. The proposed revisions address new door designs in
high-speed trainsets, and specifically address trainsets equipped with
plug-type exterior side doors that do not provide a minimum 1.5-inch
gap at the leading edge of the door when the emergency release is
activated. These proposed revisions would also permit a speed interlock
preventing operation of the emergency release mechanism while the
vehicle is moving.
For equipment with plug-type exterior side doors, the proposed
revision to
[[Page 19746]]
paragraph (a)(1) states that the requirements of section 2.9 (including
section 2.9.1) of the APTA standard for the side door emergency release
mechanism, identified in APTA standard PR-M-S-18-10, ``Standard for
Powered Exterior Side Door System Design for New Passenger Cars,''
approved February 11, 2011, would be supplanted with three new
regulatory requirements.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(i) describes the proposed requirements
for the visual instructions, operation, and functionality of the
emergency release mechanism for the plug-type exterior side door. It
also proposes a requirement that some form of feedback must be provided
to the passenger to alert the passenger that the emergency release
mechanism has actuated. For example, a light activating over the door,
or a sound played over a speaker in close proximity to the door, or a
combination thereof, may satisfy the feedback requirement.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ii) would establish requirements for the
activation of the emergency release mechanism, specifying that
activation must not require electric or pneumatic power and that access
to the device not require the use of tools or other implements. This
proposed paragraph also contains requirements specifying the
appropriate amount of force necessary to activate interior and exterior
emergency release mechanisms, along with requiring a manual resetting
of the device.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iii) would permit a speed interlock
preventing operation of the emergency release mechanism when the
vehicle is moving.
In proposing to revise paragraph (a)(1), FRA is considering further
revisions regarding movements of locomotive consists within a yard,
when those locomotives are not connected to passenger cars. There may
be situations where traction power to the locomotives is inhibited by
the door system as the door system may not be able to distinguish
between the absence of passenger cars and an exterior side door being
open. FRA invites comment on this issue.
Section 238.139 Vehicle/Track System Qualification
As proposed, this section would adopt the general structure of
Sec. 213.345 of this chapter, which generally provides vehicle/track
qualification requirements for equipment operating on FRA track Class 6
and above (or at speeds producing high cant deficiencies), for
passenger equipment operating on lower-speed track classes. Similar to
Sec. 213.345, this new section would require demonstration that the
equipment can operate safely and within the vehicle/track interaction
safety limits specified in Sec. 213.333 either through dynamic testing
only, or through a combination of testing and simulations. A major
tenet of this proposal is to provide transferability of vehicle
qualification through the use of testing and simulations so that when
moving equipment from one part of a system to another, or to another
railroad's system, certain testing under Sec. 238.111 does not need to
be repeated. In this regard, this proposed section would serve as an
extension and clarification of pre-revenue service acceptance testing
under Sec. 238.111, helping to provide greater specificity as to the
pre-revenue service acceptance testing requirements with respect to
vehicle/track qualification.
FRA makes clear that the proposed requirements of this section in
no way modify or supplant the testing requirements in Sec. 213.345;
Sec. 213.345 applies on its own and must be complied with when
necessary. This proposal is to be complementary to Sec. 213.345,
filling the gaps in stability testing for passenger equipment not
addressed under Sec. 213.345. Specifically, and further discussed
below, this section would address gaps in testing for new equipment
through Class 5 track speeds and 6 inches of cant deficiency, and for
previously qualified equipment through Class 6 track speeds and 6
inches of cant deficiency by adding, as an alternative, requirements
for demonstrating compliance through dynamic testing over a
representative segment of the route and minimally compliant analytical
track (MCAT) simulations.
As discussed elsewhere, this section presents two paths for
demonstrating compliance with the safety limits of Sec. 213.333, as
part of the pre-revenue service acceptance testing process. A railroad
could elect to measure carbody and truck accelerations over the
entirety of the system the vehicle is intended to operate (which is
what is currently required), or it could measure those same
accelerations over a representative segment of the system coupled with
MCAT simulations. If a railroad elects the former, the resultant
qualification would be applicable only for the territory over which
compliance was demonstrated. If a railroad elects the latter path, then
that resultant qualification under this section would be transferable
to a new territory so long it was for the same FRA track class and cant
deficiency. With that said, however, should a vehicle be subject to
high-speed qualification testing under Sec. 213.345, those
requirements in Sec. 213.345 apply regardless of the path chosen under
this section.
FRA invites comment whether this section should cross-reference the
suspension system safety requirements in Sec. 238.227, whether Sec.
238.227 requires any conforming changes, or whether any other changes
are necessary in establishing the requirements proposed in this new
section, including changes to part 213 of this chapter. FRA also
invites comment on the nature of any such changes and, as appropriate,
may provide for them in the final rule.
Under paragraph (a), FRA proposes that, for qualification purposes,
the safety of the equipment must be demonstrated in an overspeed
condition not to exceed 5 mph above the maximum proposed operating
speed as specified in paragraph (a)(1). Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would
require that the testing be conducted on track meeting the track safety
requirements specified under part 213 for the class of track over which
the equipment would operate, with an allowance for qualification
testing to be conducted at a speed greater than that specified for the
class of track should the combination of the proposed maximum operating
speed and overspeed testing requirement exceed the maximum authorized
speed for that track class.
Paragraph (b) would address the qualification of existing vehicle
types and provide that such vehicle types previously qualified or
permitted to operate be considered qualified under the requirements of
this section for operation at the previously operated speeds and cant
deficiencies over the previously operated track segment(s). FRA makes
clear that this qualification applies only for operation over the
previously operated track segment(s) and does not confer
transferability of such qualification. To operate such vehicle types
over new routes (even at the same track speeds and cant deficiencies),
the qualification requirements contained in other paragraphs of this
section must be met, in addition to any other applicable testing and
qualification requirements.
Proposed paragraph (c) would contain the requirements for
qualifying new vehicle types (or vehicle types previously qualified
according to paragraph (b) for operation over new track segments). For
clarity, FRA intends that vehicles being qualified under this proposed
paragraph be tested under the requirements of this section through
track Class 5 speeds and 6 inches of cant deficiency in addition to any
testing required under part 213 of this chapter. This means that the
[[Page 19747]]
graduated method of demonstrating vehicle stability would start at
track Class 2 speeds and 3 inches of cant deficiency, as discussed in
more detail below.
Paragraph (c)(1)(i) would describe the proposed testing procedure
for new vehicle types at track Class 1 speeds. The procedure described
is aligned with FRA Safety Advisory 2013-02: Low-Speed, Wheel-Climb
Derailments of Passenger Equipment With ``Stiff'' Suspension Systems
(Safety Advisory).\20\ Compliance would be demonstrated using computer
simulations with a validated numerical model of the vehicle operating
over the geometry conditions specified in the Safety Advisory at track
Class 1 speeds plus 5 mph in the AW0 (no ``added weight'') and AW3
(maximum passenger) loading conditions. The simulation results must
show that under these conditions wheel/rail forces do not exceed the
safety limits in Sec. 213.333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 50 FR 16358 (Mar. 14, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (c)(1)(i) would also require demonstration of compliance
with APTA PR-M-S-014-06, Rev. 1, ``Standard for Wheel Load Equalization
of Passenger Railroad Rolling Stock,'' Authorized June 1, 2017, which
is accomplished by static testing to demonstrate that wheel unloading
does not exceed the limits prescribed in the standard. FRA is proposing
to incorporate by reference this APTA standard into this paragraph.
APTA PR-M-S-014-06 establishes static wheel load equalization
requirements to provide passenger equipment with the wheel unloading
characteristics necessary to reduce the risk of low-speed wheel climb
derailments. It also provides the test conditions, equipment, and
procedures necessary to demonstrate compliance with the enumerated
static wheel load equalization requirements. APTA PR-M-S-014-06 is
reasonably available to all interested parties online at www.apta.com.
Additionally, FRA will maintain a copy available for review.
FRA notes that APTA recently came out with a standard for
evaluating low-speed vehicle curving performance of railroad passenger
equipment, APTA PR-M-S-031-22, which follows the intent of FRA's Safety
Advisory and provides additional detail on conducting simulations to
evaluate curving performance. FRA therefore invites comment whether the
final rule should reference APTA standard PR-M-S-031-22 in this section
and on the effect it should be given.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(ii) specifies the testing necessary to
demonstrate compliance with the safety limits in Sec. 213.333 at
speeds from track Classes 2 through 5 and up to 6 inches of cant
deficiency. In order to be qualified under this section, a railroad
must perform simulations, as specified in proposed paragraph (c)(2), in
addition to the carbody and truck acceleration measurements under
proposed paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) respectively. The results of
simulations and dynamic testing must demonstrate that the safety limits
in Sec. 213.333 are not exceeded. This proposed paragraph would also
provide a mechanism for transferability of the qualification under this
proposed section to allow operation of previously qualified vehicles
over new track segments at the same class of track and cant deficiency.
This proposed paragraph would not provide transferability of any
qualification conferred under Sec. 213.345, however.
Again, FRA makes clear that the requirements of this section are
intended to be complementary to those requirements found under Sec.
213.345. FRA recognizes that in some scenarios, there may be overlap
between the requirement proposed under this section and those under
Sec. 213.345. For example, when attempting to qualify a new vehicle
type for operation at Class 4 track speeds, where up to 6 inches of
cant deficiency would be produced, Sec. 213.345 would require the use
of carbody accelerometers and the performance of a lean test. As
proposed, when attempting to qualify the same new vehicle type for the
same service, this proposed section would also require the use of
carbody accelerometers, in addition to truck accelerometers and MCAT
simulations. So, while there may be overlap in certain requirements
between these proposed requirements and existing requirements under
part 213 (such as the use of carbody accelerometers), FRA views any as
harmonious. The new vehicle type being qualified in this scenario would
be subject to the following requirements: a lean test, the use of
carbody and truck accelerometers, and MCAT simulations, with the
testing and simulations starting at Class 2 track speeds and 3 inches
of cant deficiency. FRA does invite comment, however, on whether there
are any possible scenarios where there could be a conflict.
Paragraph (c)(2) describes the analysis procedure that is to be
performed using an industry-recognized methodology. The analysis
considers the vehicle under evaluation operating on analytically
defined track segments representing minimally compliant track
conditions as defined in appendix C to this part, and a track segment
representative of the route over which the vehicle is to operate. These
requirements are reflective of similar requirements in Sec. 213.345
for track Class 6 and greater, but do not replace the testing and
analysis required under Sec. 213.345. This paragraph also requires a
linear system analysis to identify the frequency and damping of the
truck hunting modes. Damping of these modes must be at least 5%, up to
the maximum intended operating speed + 5 mph considering equivalent
conicities starting at 0.1 up to 0.6. The conicities range proposed is
based on conicities prevalent on the Northeast Corridor. FRA invites
comments on whether this proposed range is appropriate.
Proposed paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) would require representative
route testing for all operations at track Class 2 through 5 speeds and
up to 6 inches of cant deficiency. Testing shall include measurements
of carbody lateral and vertical accelerations and truck lateral
accelerations that must not exceed the safety limits specified in Sec.
213.333.
In paragraph (d), FRA proposes to separate and explicitly define
the qualification requirements for vehicle types previously qualified
by simulation and testing under paragraph (c) of this section intended
to operate on new track segments as defined in paragraphs (d)(1)
through (3). FRA notes simulations are especially useful for
demonstrating that, when qualified vehicles are intended to operate on
a new route, the new vehicle/track system is adequately examined for
deficiencies prior to revenue service operation.
Paragraph (d)(1) addresses vehicle types previously qualified in
accordance with paragraph (c). These vehicles may be operated on other
routes with the same track class designation and at the same or lower
cant deficiency without additional testing, simulations, or FRA
approval.
For vehicle types operating at speeds not to exceed Class 6 track
speeds or at curving speeds producing greater than 5 inches of cant
deficiency, but not exceeding 6 inches, paragraph (d)(2) would require
that qualification testing on a representative segment of the new route
be performed to demonstrate that the carbody lateral and vertical
acceleration limits in Sec. 213.333 are respected.
Proposed paragraph (d)(3) would require vehicle types that are
previously qualified by testing alone to be subject to the requirements
of paragraph (c) for new equipment.
Paragraph (e) would provide requirements for the content of the
qualification testing plan, which would
[[Page 19748]]
be submitted to FRA's Associate Administrator at least 60 days prior to
conducting the testing. This 60-day period is to allow FRA sufficient
time to review and approve the plan, and to seek clarification from the
submitter as necessary. In some cases, the review and approval may be
able to be accomplished in less than 60 days; in other cases, the
process may take longer, especially if the plan is incomplete or if
questions are raised. FRA is mindful of the concern that FRA not unduly
delay testing, and at the same time recognizes that safety is better
and more efficiently served by identifying potential safety issues
early in the qualification process. FRA therefore encourages those
planning to conduct qualification testing to approach FRA prior to the
submission of their test plans should they have any questions or
concerns about the testing and approval process.
As proposed, the test program would establish a program of tests
that permit identification of the operating limits of the vehicle/track
system and would include, as identified in the following proposed
paragraphs: under (e)(1), a description of the representative segment
of the route over which the vehicle is intended to be operated; under
(e)(2), consideration of the operating environment during qualification
testing, including operating practices and conditions, the signal
system, highway-rail grade crossings, and trains on adjacent tracks;
under (e)(3), identification of the maximum angle found on the gage
face of the designed (newly profiled) wheel flange referenced to the
axis of the wheelset (the wheel flange angle would be used to determine
the Single Wheel L/V Ratio safety limit specified in Sec. 213.333);
under (e)(4), identification of the target maximum testing speed in
accordance with paragraph (a) of this section and the maximum testing
cant deficiency; and under (e)(5), the results of vehicle/track
performance simulations required by this section.
Proposed paragraph (f) would contain the requirements for
conducting the two-stage qualification testing upon FRA approval of the
qualification test plan. The two-stage testing approach permits
assessment of safe vehicle operation on tangent and curved track
segments individually as the test speed is incrementally increased.
Stage-one testing, proposed under paragraph (f)(1), would require
that for testing on tangent track (proposed under paragraph (f)(1)(i)),
test speed is incrementally increased from maximum speeds corresponding
to each track class to the target maximum test speed. Under paragraph
(f)(1)(ii), testing speeds for curved track would start at that speed
necessary to produce 3 inches of cant deficiency and would be
incrementally increased until the maximum testing cant deficiency is
achieved. The target maximum test speed and maximum testing cant
deficiency are specified in the test plan. Incrementally increasing the
testing speed would allow for assessment of the dynamic response of the
vehicle with respect to the vehicle/track interaction safety limits
specified in Sec. 213.333 of this chapter and establish the maximum
safe speed and cant deficiency.
Under paragraph (f)(2), FRA proposes requirements for stage-two
testing of the vehicle over the representative segment of the route. As
proposed, stage-two testing can begin only when stage-one testing has
successfully demonstrated a maximum safe operating speed and cant
deficiency. Under these proposed requirements, two round-trips over the
representative segment of the route are required: the first is at the
speed for which the railroad is seeking FRA approval for service (which
may be limited by the results of stage-one testing); the second is
performed at 5 mph above this speed. The orientation of the equipment
(in the direction of travel) is to be reversed for each leg of the
round-trip.
Under proposed paragraph (f)(3), if during stage-one and -two
testing, any of the monitored safety limits are exceeded on any segment
of track, testing may continue provided that the track location(s)
where any of the limits are exceeded be identified and test speeds be
limited at the track location(s) until corrective action is taken.
Corrective action may include making an adjustment in the track, in the
vehicle, or in both of these system components.
Proposed paragraph (f)(4) would require that Track Geometry
Measurement System (TGMS) equipment be operated over the intended test
route (the representative segment of the route) within 30 days prior to
the start of the testing, to help ensure the integrity of the test
results.
Proposed paragraph (g) would contain the requirements for reporting
to FRA's Associate Administrator the results of the qualification
testing program. The qualification test report must include all results
obtained during the qualification test program. When simulations
comprise a portion of the report, comparisons of the simulated
accelerations to those measured during the testing must be submitted to
demonstrate model validation. For purposes of model validation, the
report should also include comparisons that demonstrate the accuracy of
the model under various conditions, specifically: predicting the
transfer of wheel loads when a vehicle is unbalanced, the transfer of
wheel loads when the primary suspension is deflected to simulate twist
or warp, and the frequency and damping ratio associated with dominant
vehicle modes. FRA invites comment whether FRA should make these
expectations explicit in the regulatory text for MCAT model validation
under this part, and potentially under part 213 of this chapter as
well. The qualification test report must be submitted no less than 60
days from the date the railroad intends to operate the equipment in
revenue service.
Under paragraph (h)(1), FRA proposes to approve a maximum train
speed and value of cant deficiency for revenue service, based on the
test results and all other required submissions. FRA intends to provide
an approval decision normally within 45 days of receipt of all the
required information in the form of the qualification test report. FRA
may impose conditions, as necessary, to help ensure safe operations at
the maximum train speed and value of cant deficiency approved for
revenue service.
Proposed paragraph (h)(2) would consider vehicle types previously
qualified in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section for
operations at Class 2 through 5 speeds, or at curving speeds producing
up to 6 inches of cant deficiency, on one route to be approved for
operation on another route at the same maximum speed and cant
deficiency.
Proposed paragraph (i) makes clear that the documents required by
this section must be provided to FRA by either: (1) the track owner; or
(2) a railroad that provides service with the same vehicle type over
trackage of one or more track owner(s), with the written consent of
each affected track owner. For example, Amtrak is a railroad that
provides passenger service over trackage often owned by other entities,
usually freight railroads. Under this example, Amtrak would need the
consent of the freight railroad (the affected track owner) to conduct
the testing. This is to ensure that the track owner is fully apprised
as to the status of the track owner's track in case any anomalies
during testing should arise. In another example, Amtrak is also a track
owner over whose trackage numerous passenger railroads operate, such as
the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) and New
Jersey Transit (NJT); under this scenario, Amtrak, as the track owner,
would not need the consent of these railroads, but these railroads
would
[[Page 19749]]
need Amtrak's consent when seeking vehicle/track system qualification
under this section.
Section 238.201 Scope/Alternative Compliance
FRA is proposing to revise paragraph (a)(1) of this section to
harmonize the language with other changes being proposed to part 238.
Specifically, FRA would harmonize the language referencing the Safety
Appliance Act (49 U.S.C. ch. 203) in an effort to make clear that Tier
I equipment may follow either the current, legacy safety appliance
requirements (49 CFR part 231, and Sec. Sec. 238.229 and 238.230), or
the proposed requirements under Sec. 238.791. So, while the
requirements of the Safety Appliance Act would continue to remain
applicable, other means would be provided for complying with those
statutory requirements.
Additionally, FRA proposes to correct a typographical error.
Currently, this paragraph references Sec. 232.2, which does not exist.
FRA would correct that reference instead to Sec. 232.3, the
applicability section of part 232.
Section 238.230 Safety Appliances--New Equipment
FRA proposes to amend paragraph (a) of this section to clarify that
a Tier I alternative passenger trainset that complies with the
requirements of proposed Sec. 238.791 is not subject to the
requirements of this section.
Section 238.235 Safety Appliances for Non-Passenger Carrying
Locomotives Used in Passenger Service
FRA is proposing to revise this section to identify the design
standards for safety appliances on non-passenger carrying locomotives
used in passenger service, in an effort to provide clarity and to
remove the need for interpretation for the various requirements
contained in 49 CFR part 231. Specifically, paragraph (a) proposes to
clarify that these requirements are intended to apply to locomotives
used in passenger service that utilize monocoque, semi-monocoque, or
carbody construction common to most passenger road locomotives. FRA is
inviting comment on this paragraph generally and, in particular,
whether specific implementation dates are necessary (and, if so, what
the implementation dates should be).
Because many of these proposed requirements were developed when the
PSWG developed the safety appliances standards for Tier III trainsets
(contained in proposed Sec. 238.791), there is considerable overlap
between the proposed requirements. Accordingly, FRA references proposed
Sec. 238.791 when provisions under this section are identical to those
under Sec. 238.791. In such situations, FRA relies on the analysis
provided under Sec. 238.791, rather than repeat it here.
Proposed paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section address
attachment, fatigue life, handholds, and sill steps. The requirements
proposed under each of these paragraphs are identical to the
requirements under proposed Sec. 238.791(b) through (e).
Proposed paragraph (f) contains the requirements for ground level
access to (or egress to ground level from) the locomotive cab and other
carbody side doors on a non-passenger carrying locomotive. This
proposed paragraph contains the general requirement that exterior side
locomotive cab access doors and other carbody side doors be equipped
with appropriate safety appliances to permit safe access to the
locomotive cab by employees and other authorized personnel from ground
level. Because many passenger road locomotives do not utilize switching
steps and platforms with external walkways, access to the locomotive
cab or other compartments, or the locomotive's B end, is usually
provided by an external door accompanied with a ladder and handhold
arrangement. Accordingly, this proposed paragraph would provide the
requirements for how such arrangements should be applied properly,
based on the governing elements of part 231 and contemporary practice
on diesel-electric and electric locomotives.
Proposed paragraph (f)(1) would provide the requirements for the
number, location, dimension, and clearance for handholds at each ground
level access location to the locomotive cab and other carbody side
doors on a non-passenger carrying locomotive. These requirements would
mirror similar provisions under proposed Sec. 238.791(f).
Additionally, proposed paragraph (f)(2) would make the requirements of
proposed Sec. 238.791(e)(2) and (3) applicable to steps at each of
these locations.
Under proposed paragraph (g), concerning couplers on non-passenger
carrying locomotives, FRA would make the coupler requirements of Sec.
238.791(g) applicable to these locomotives.
Proposed paragraph (h) would provide requirements for uncoupling
levers. As these requirements would very closely mirror similar
requirements under proposed Sec. 238.791(h), FRA relies on the same,
supporting analysis. However, there is a notable difference between the
two sections that should be highlighted. If a non-passenger carrying
locomotive is equipped with a manual uncoupling lever, that lever must
be operative from both sides of the locomotive, rather than just the
left side of the equipment as proposed under Sec. 238.791(h).
Proposed paragraph (i) would permit the coupler, end handholds, and
uncoupling mechanism on the leading and trailing ends of a non-
passenger carrying locomotive to be stored within a removable shroud to
reduce aerodynamic effects. This mirrors the same requirement proposed
under Sec. 238.791(i).
Proposed paragraph (j) contains the requirement for a non-passenger
carrying locomotive to be equipped with an efficient hand brake. This
proposed paragraph also includes the term ``parking'' brake,
acknowledging the brake's primary role on a locomotive as a device used
to hold a locomotive or train at a static location, as opposed to a
means to brake (slow or stop) the train, as applied to railcars before
the wide adoption of pneumatic braking systems. In this respect, the
proposed performance requirement based on a 3 percent grade, or the
railroad's maximum grade (if greater), was also added to reflect common
practice. This proposed requirement would mirror Sec. 238.791(j).
Proposed paragraph (k)(1) provides for the arrangement of safety
appliances on non-passenger carrying locomotives to facilitate certain
maintenance tasks. Should a locomotive be equipped with appurtenances
such as headlights, windshield wipers, marker lights, and other similar
items required for the safe operation of the locomotive that are
designed to be maintained or replaced from the exterior of the
locomotive, then the locomotive must be equipped with handholds and
steps meeting the requirements of this section to allow for the safe
maintenance and replacement of these appurtenances. However, under
proposed paragraph (k)(2), the requirements under proposed paragraph
(k)(1) would not apply if railroad operating rules require, and actual
practice entails, the maintenance and replacement of these components
by maintenance personnel in locations that are protected by the
requirements of subpart B of part 218 of this chapter and equipped with
ladders and other tools to safely repair or maintain those
appurtenances. The requirements of this proposed paragraph (k) mirror
similar requirements proposed under Sec. 238.791(k).
Paragraph (l) would require that any safety appliances installed at
the option of the railroad must be approved pursuant to Sec. 238.110.
[[Page 19750]]
Subpart H--Specific Requirements for Tier III Passenger Equipment
Section 238.701 Scope
This subpart contains requirements for railroad passenger equipment
operating in a shared right-of-way at speeds not exceeding 125 mph and
in an exclusive right-of-way without grade crossings at speeds
exceeding 125 mph but not exceeding 220 mph. FRA proposes to revise the
scope of this subpart by adding a reference to proposed Sec. 238.110,
to help clarify the compliance demonstration and approval process for
this Tier III passenger equipment. FRA is also proposing to remove the
undesignated center headings in this subpart (``Trainset Structure,''
``Glazing,'' ``Brake System,'' ``Interior Fittings and Surfaces,''
``Emergency Systems,'' and ``Cab Equipment'') to accommodate proposed
additions and other changes.
Section 238.719 Trucks and Suspension
In this section, FRA proposes safety performance standards for Tier
III suspension systems. These performance standards would require a
suspension system design that reasonably prevents wheel climb, wheel
unloading, rail rollover, rail shift, and vehicle overturn to ensure
safe, stable performance and ride quality. The proposed requirements
are consistent with the general standards for high-speed trainsets
adopted by the railroad industry and regulatory bodies around the
world, and the overall approach is based on the suspension system
safety provisions in existing Sec. Sec. 238.227 and 238.427.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would explain the general requirements
applicable to Tier III trucks and suspension systems and describe the
different track conditions and characteristics that must be taken into
account when determining compliance with these requirements. Proposed
paragraph (a)(2) would clarify the applicability of part 213 to Tier
III trucks and suspension systems subject to this section, both while
in general operation and during the pre-revenue service qualification
and revenue service operation stages of operations.
Paragraph (b) would prohibit Tier III trainsets from operating
under conditions that result in a steady-state lateral acceleration
greater than 0.15g, as measured parallel to the car floor inside the
passenger compartment. This paragraph would also require that Tier III
trainsets comply with the carbody acceleration limits specified in
Sec. 213.333.
Paragraph (c) describes the proposed lateral acceleration
performance standards, with specific reference to the appropriate train
monitoring system response to the detection of truck hunting and
explains that compliance with this paragraph would be subject to the
limits defined in Sec. 213.333.
Paragraph (d) proposes limits for wheelsets based on the distances
between wheel flanges. Notably, paragraph (d)(3) proposes that the
back-to-back distance between flanges of two wheels on the same axle
not vary more than \1/4\ inch when measured at similar points on each
wheel. The back-to-back distance is measured from the inside face of
the wheel (the portion of the wheel facing the inside gage of the
track) to the inside face of the other wheel. As proposed, the
measurements from a point on the flange of one wheel to the same point
on the opposite wheel's flange may not be more than \1/4\ inch when
multiple measurements are taken around the circumference of the wheel
at the flange location. When this is done, care should be taken to
ensure that the measurement points are the same distance from a common,
non-deformable reference point for consistency and accuracy of
measurement.
FRA invites comments on this proposed section, including comment
specifically on the appropriate track conditions and characteristics to
be included in determining compliance with this section.
Section 238.723 Pilots, Snowplows, and End Plates
Under this section, FRA proposes requirements for pilots,
snowplows, and end plates on passenger equipment, which aim to serve
the same purposes as Sec. 229.123 of this chapter, with slight
modifications to address the unique characteristics of Tier III
passenger equipment and operations. The most significant difference
between the proposed requirements for pilots, snowplows, and end plates
on Tier III passenger equipment and similar requirements in Sec.
229.123 would be the increase in the maximum clearance from six inches
to nine inches for a lead vehicle equipped with an obstacle deflector
or truck (bogie)-mounted wheel guard. FRA is proposing this
modification based on industry input to address the greater vertical
movement of the lead vehicle during higher-speed passenger operations.
Section 238.725 Overheat Sensors
Proposed section 238.725 would make applicable to Tier III
trainsets the same minimum requirements for the use and placement of
overheat sensors currently applicable to Tier II trainsets under Sec.
238.428. Section 238.428 requires overheat sensors for each Tier II
equipment wheelset journal bearing, placed either onboard the equipment
or at reasonable intervals along the railroad's right-of-way. FRA
invites comment on this proposed application to Tier III trainsets to
monitor wheelset journal overheating.
Section 238.745 Emergency Communication
FRA is proposing to add this section to address communication
systems, to provide requirements for public address (PA) and intercom
systems for Tier III trainsets. By adding these requirements, which FRA
had intended to include in the 2018 final rule, FRA would harmonize the
emergency communication requirements for Tier III trainsets with
similar emergency system requirements (i.e., emergency lighting)
already established.
With one exception, the proposed emergency communication
requirements for Tier III trainsets would be the same as the existing
emergency communication requirements in Sec. 238.121 for passenger
trainsets, as stated in proposed paragraph (a). The exception would be
for emergency communication back-up power systems, permitting
alternative crash loadings instead of those required in Sec.
238.121(c)(2). This proposed exception is detailed in paragraph (b),
under which a railroad may seek to use the loading requirements defined
in Section 6.1.4, ``Security of furniture, equipment and features,'' of
Railway Group Standard GM/RT2100, Issue Four, ``Requirements for Rail
Vehicle Structures,'' Rail Safety and Standards Board Ltd., December
2010, which FRA proposes to incorporate by reference in this paragraph.
In particular, these loading requirements are the same as those for
alternatively demonstrating adequate attachment strength of emergency
lighting back-up power systems in Tier III trainsets discussed in the
2016 NPRM and 2018 final rule under Sec. 238.743.\21\ Accordingly,
both the interior lighting fixtures and their emergency back-up power
systems would be subject to the same alternative loading requirements.
As in Sec. 238.743, use of the alternative loading requirements would
be carried out consistent with any conditions identified by the
railroad, as approved by FRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 81 FR 88006 (Dec. 6, 2016); 83 FR 59182 (Nov. 21, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19751]]
Section 6.1.4 contains requirements for securement of furniture,
on-board equipment, and other trainset features to help mitigate
against injuries to passengers and crew from secondary impacts within
the occupied volume. GM/RT2100 is available to all interested parties
online at www.rgsonline.co.uk/Railway_Group_Standards. Additionally,
FRA would maintain a copy available for review.
Section 238.747 Emergency Roof Access
In this section, FRA proposes requirements for emergency roof
access to the cabs of Tier III trainsets. These requirements aim to
ensure that the trainset design allows for proper roof access for
rescue access purposes for cab occupants in Tier III trainsets. This
emergency roof access point would be required only if trainset design
does not allow cab occupants access to emergency roof access locations
otherwise required in the passenger compartment of the trainset. The
proposed requirements would also define the dimensions for the
emergency roof access location while making specifically applicable
paragraphs (b), (d), and (e) of Sec. 238.123 (Emergency roof access).
Should train crewmembers occupying the Tier III cab have ready
access to emergency roof access locations in the passenger compartment
that comply with Sec. 238.123, then the railroad would not need to
comply with the requirements of this section, as the intent of the
requirement (access to the roof of the trainset for cab occupants in
emergency situations to facilitate rescue access) would be fulfilled.
FRA also clarifies that the location of the emergency roof access point
under this proposed section would not need to be directly over or into
the cab, and could be a location behind the cab, so long as cab
occupants have access.
Section 238.755 General Safety Requirements
Proposed Sec. 238.755 is based on existing Sec. Sec. 229.13,
229.41, and 229.45. Specifically, proposed paragraph (a) would cross-
reference the requirements of Sec. 229.41 for protection from personal
injury. Proposed paragraph (b) would cross-reference the requirements
of Sec. 229.45, requiring that a Tier III trainset be free from
conditions that would endanger the safety of the passengers, crew, or
equipment. Moreover, FRA makes clear that it does not intend for this
provision to be limited to the list of conditions identified under
Sec. 229.45. FRA would view other conditions not listed but still
endangering the safety of passengers, crew, or equipment to be covered
by this provision. Proposed paragraph (c) would make applicable the
requirements of Sec. 229.13 when multiple Tier III trainsets are
coupled in remote- or multiple-control. FRA reiterates that although
the term ``locomotive'' is used under Sec. 229.13, the substantive
requirements of this proposed paragraph are intended to be applied to
Tier III trainsets, and thus should be read as such.
Section 238.757 Cab, Floors, and Passageways
Under Sec. 238.757, FRA is proposing requirements for Tier III
trainset cabs, floors, and passageways, and is basing these proposed
requirements on Sec. 229.119. Proposed paragraph (a), based on Sec.
229.119(a) and (i), contains the requirements for Tier III trainset cab
doors. This paragraph proposes that such trainset cab doors be equipped
with a secure and operable device to lock the doors from both the
inside and outside without impeding egress from the cab.
Proposed paragraph (b), based on Sec. 229.119(b), would require
that Tier III end-facing windows located in the leading end of the
trainset be free of cracks, breaks, or other conditions that obscure
the view of the right-of-way for the crew from their normal positions
in the operating cab.
Proposed paragraph (c) would make applicable to Tier III trainsets
the requirements of Sec. 229.119(c).
Proposed paragraph (d), based on Sec. 229.119(g) and (h), would
require that cabs of Tier III trainsets shall be climate-controlled,
providing both appropriate heating and air conditioning. This proposed
paragraph also states that the inspection, testing, and maintenance
requirements for the heating and air condition system be specified in
the railroad's ITM program.
Section 238.759 Trainset Cab Noise
Under Sec. 238.759, FRA is proposing requirements to address
trainset cab noise, which are based on Sec. 229.121. Proposed
paragraph (a), based on Sec. 229.121(a), would establish a maximum
noise threshold that occupants of a Tier III trainset may be subjected
to (85 A-weighted decibels (85 db(A))); prohibit railroads from
modifying the cab in a manner that would cause the noise to exceed the
maximum level; and require railroads to follow the testing protocols,
outlined under proposed appendix I to part 238 (discussed further,
below), to verify that the noise levels within the cab do not exceed
the maximum level. Proposed paragraph (b) would contain the
requirements addressing excessive noise reports. This paragraph is
based on Sec. 229.121(b) with minor editorial changes.
Section 238.761 Trainset Sanitation Facilities for Employees
Under Sec. 238.761, FRA is proposing a set of requirements
addressing crewmember sanitation facilities, which are based on Sec.
229.137. Proposed paragraph (a) would require that if a railroad
provides a crewmember sanitation compartment, as that term is defined
under Sec. 229.5, accessible only to the crew onboard a Tier III
trainset, that compartment must meet the requirements of Sec. 229.137
and be maintained in accordance with Sec. 229.139. However, under
proposed paragraph (b), should a railroad not provide such a sanitation
compartment exclusively for crewmembers on board its trainset, the
railroad would be required to provide access to sanitation facilities
in accordance with Sec. 229.137(b)(1)(i) in that employees should have
ready access to railroad-provided sanitation facilities external to the
trainset or sanitation facilities elsewhere on the trainset.
Again, FRA reiterates that although the term ``locomotive'' is used
under Sec. 229.137, the substantive requirements of this proposed
paragraph are intended to be applied to Tier III trainsets, and thus
should be read as such.
Section 238.763 Speed Indicator
Under Sec. 238.763, FRA is proposing requirements addressing speed
indicators for Tier III trainsets. Although these requirements are
based on Sec. 229.117, the requirements for speed indicators being
proposed mark a significant departure from the traditional requirements
under part 229. Proposed paragraph (a) provides that all Tier III
trainsets be equipped with speed indicators, clearly readable for the
engineer's normal position. Notably, the accuracy requirements under
proposed paragraph (a)(1) would represent the biggest modification of
the speed indicator requirements. Under this proposal, a Tier III speed
indicator would be required to be accurate to within plus or minus 1.24
mph for speeds not exceeding 18.6 mph.\22\ However, the accuracy would
be permitted to deviate, linearly, up to plus or minus 5 mph for speeds
not exceeding 220 mph. So, rather than specifying static accuracy based
on whether one is above or below a certain speed, FRA would permit use
of a
[[Page 19752]]
sliding scale performance requirement. Under this proposal, accuracy of
the speed indicator would be permitted to change in a linear
relationship to the speed of the trainset. And, as the necessity for
more precise accuracy diminishes the faster a Tier III trainset
operates,\23\ this requirement is reflective of the actual Tier III
operating environment. Additionally, with the advances in digital
technology, maintaining such an accuracy should not be as challenging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ These values are intended to correspond to 2 kilometers per
hour (kph) and 30 kph.
\23\ For example, a change in speed of 2 mph while operating at
220 mph is not as significant as an equivalent change in speed at 20
mph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed paragraph (b) would require that the speed indicator
output (what the engineer sees) be based on a system of independent,
onboard speed measurement sources to comply with the accuracy
requirements of proposed paragraph (a). At a minimum, FRA would expect
that, from whatever source the speed is derived, there would be
multiple (at least two) inputs provided by different sensors to ensure
the accuracy of the speed as displayed to the engineer.
Proposed paragraph (c) permits the railroad to define the
calibration frequency for the speed indicator in its ITM program.
Section 238.765 Event Recorders
Under this section, FRA is proposing a set of requirements
addressing event recorders for Tier III trainsets. The requirements, as
proposed, largely follow the event recorder requirements under Sec.
229.135. However, FRA has made some changes to account for the
different technology. Notably, under proposed paragraph (a), which
would contain the general requirement that all Tier III trainsets be
equipped with an in-service event recorder and is based on Sec.
229.135(a), FRA would not require railroads to note the mere presence
of an event recorder on FORM FRA F6180-49A or other record, as all Tier
III trainsets would require event recorders.
Proposed paragraph (b) contains the specific data elements to be
recorded by the event recorder and the level of recording accuracy
necessary. Notably, proposed paragraph (b)(2) outlines the data
elements to be recorded. This paragraph would cross-reference a large
majority of data elements contained in Sec. 229.135(b)(4),
specifically, Sec. 229.135(b)(4)(i) through (xv), (xvii), (xx) and
(xxi). In addition, proposed paragraph (b)(2) lists several more data
elements that are tailored toward Tier III trainsets, such as: the
application and operation of the eddy current brake, if equipped
((b)(2)(i)); a passenger brake alarm request ((b)(2)(ii)); a passenger
brake alarm override ((b)(2)(iii)); the activation of the bell
((b)(2)(iv)); and the trainset brake cylinder pressures ((b)(2)(v)).
Finally, proposed paragraph (b)(2) would require the recorded data to
be retained on a certified crashworthy event recorder memory module
that meets the requirements of appendix D to part 229 of this chapter.
Proposed paragraph (c), which is based on Sec. 229.135(c), would
require that when an in-service event recorder is taken out of service,
the date the device was removed from service would be annotated in the
trainset's maintenance records, required in accordance with proposed
Sec. 238.777.
Proposed paragraph (d), which is based on Sec. 229.135(d), would
permit a Tier III trainset on which the event recorder has been taken
out of service to continue in service only until the next pre-service
inspection, as required by the railroad's ITM program under proposed
Sec. 238.903(c)(2).
Proposed paragraph (e) would make applicable to Tier III trainsets
the requirements set forth in Sec. 229.135(e) through (g).
Proposed paragraph (f) would require that event recorders be tested
at intervals not to exceed 368 days, in accordance with Sec.
229.27(c).
FRA again reiterates that although the term ``locomotive'' is used
under Sec. 229.135, the substantive requirements of this proposed
paragraph are intended to be applied to Tier III trainsets, and thus
should be read as such.
Section 238.767 Headlights
Under this section, FRA is proposing requirements for Tier III
trainset headlights. As proposed under paragraph (a), each end of a
Tier III trainset would be required to be equipped with a headlight
comprised of at least two lamps that meets the angular, intensity, and
illumination requirements of Sec. 229.125(a).
Proposed paragraph (b) would prohibit Tier III trainsets from
operating with a leading end in revenue service if a defective
headlight is discovered during the pre-service inspection; under such
circumstances, it would only be allowed to move in accordance with the
requirements covering the movement of defective equipment under
proposed Sec. 238.1003(e). However, this proposed paragraph would
permit continued operation of a trainset's leading end with a defective
headlight if the defect is discovered while the trainset is in service
in accordance with the requirements of proposed Sec. 238.1003(b)(1)
through (3).
Proposed paragraph (c) would permit the headlights of a Tier III
trainset to be dimmed, which is consistent with existing Sec.
229.125(c). However, because the headlight and auxiliary light
standards are driven around the need for consistency and conspicuity
when Tier III trainsets are used on a shared right-of-way, the
performance requirements, themselves, would not directly address that
it may be advantageous for a Tier III trainset to operate for extended
periods of time with a lower candela setting. Specifically, whereas a
conventional freight or passenger operation is likely to utilize the
dim setting only when passing another train, idling, or as an
alternative to marker lights, a Tier III trainset could operate for
extended periods of time within a dedicated (and more protected)
environment where the higher output may not be necessary or desired,
particularly if the Tier III right-of-way is adjacent to or within a
highway corridor. The use of this functionality, however, should be
described by the railroad under proposed Sec. 238.110(d)(2)(xv).
Proposed paragraph (d) would provide an allowance to use
alternative lighting technology (e.g., LED versus incandescent). It
also would provide an exception to the requirement that the headlight
consist of at least two lamps, as required by proposed paragraph (a).
Further, this proposed paragraph (d) would require that if such
alternative technology is used, then the railroad's ITM program plan
must include procedures for determining that such headlights provide
the illumination intensity required by proposed paragraph (a), and that
the headlights can achieve the minimum illumination intensity under
snow and ice conditions (i.e., when there is a risk of snow and ice
accumulation on the headlight).
Section 238.769 Auxiliary Lights
Under this section, FRA is proposing requirements addressing
auxiliary lights for Tier III trainsets, based on similar requirements
in Sec. 229.125. Under proposed paragraph (a), FRA would establish the
general requirement that Tier III trainsets operating in shared rights-
of-way over public highway-rail grade crossings at speeds 20 mph or
greater be equipped with auxiliary lights that conform to Sec.
229.125(d)(1) though (3). FRA recognizes that Sec. 229.125(d)(1)
through (3) uses some traditional terms, such as ``locomotive,'' when
describing the placement of auxiliary lights; however, the use of the
term ``locomotive,'' or other similar terms, should not be an
impediment to
[[Page 19753]]
compliance with the requirements of this proposed paragraph.
Proposed paragraph (b) would permit auxiliary lights to be arranged
in any manner specified in Sec. 229.125(e)(1) through (2), and
proposed paragraph (c) would require compliance with Sec. 229.125(f).
Proposed paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) address requirements
concerning defective auxiliary lights, and would require that a lead
unit with a single defective auxiliary light be switched to a trailing
position (or repaired) if discovered during the pre-service inspection.
Although the proposal would permit a unit to continue in the lead
position if a single defective auxiliary light is discovered while in
service, a lead unit discovered with two defective auxiliary lights
while in service would be allowed to continue in service only to the
next forward location where repairs could be made.
Section 238.771 Marking Device
This section proposes a set of requirements for rear marker devices
for Tier III trainsets, based generally on part 221. Proposed paragraph
(a) contains the general requirement that Tier III trainsets be
equipped with a rear marking device. Paragraph (a) would also require
marking devices to conform with the characteristics of Sec.
221.14(a)(1) through (a)(3), along with other requirements in proposed
paragraphs (a)(1) and)(2) of this section.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would require that marking devices
continuously illuminate, with proposed paragraph (a)(2) permitting
alternative lighting technology so long as the railroad's ITM program
plan contains procedures for determining that the marker lights conform
with the requirements of proposed paragraphs (a) and (a)(1).
Proposed paragraph (b) specifies that the centroid of the marking
device would be located 48 inches above the top of the rail.
Proposed paragraph (c) would require that marking devices be
illuminated while the trainset is in service and that they be inspected
as part of the pre-service inspection.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would specify that a trainset with a
defective or inoperative marking device not be moved in revenue service
if discovered as part of a pre-service inspection. However, proposed
paragraph (d)(2) would permit movement to the next forward repair
location if the marking device is discovered inoperative while the
trainset in service.
Proposed paragraph (e) would provide an exception to equipping
trainsets with a marking device in conformance with paragraph (a) by
allowing a headlight set on dim to serve as a rear marking device.
Section 238.773 Cab Lights
This proposed section would require that cab lights comply with the
requirements of Sec. 229.127(a). It also would require that cab
passageways and compartments be adequately illuminated.
FRA reiterates that although the term ``locomotive'' is used under
Sec. 229.127, the substantive requirements of this proposed section
are intended to be applied to Tier III trainsets, and thus should be
read as such.
Section 238.775 Trainset Horn
Proposed paragraph (a) would require that each Tier III trainset be
equipped and arranged with a horn that conforms with Sec. 229.129(a).
Proposed paragraph (b) provides an option for testing the trainset
horn. Railroads would be able either to perform acceptance sampling in
accordance with Sec. 229.129(b)(1) or test each horn individually
under the procedures of proposed paragraph (e).
Proposed paragraph (c) would require that, but for the exception
under proposed paragraph (d), replacement trainset horns be tested
individually in accordance with proposed paragraph (e). Under proposed
paragraph (d), replacement trainset horns need not be tested if the
replacement horn is of the same model of horn being replaced that had
been successfully tested either in accordance with Sec. 229.129(b)(1)
or proposed paragraph (e).
Proposed paragraph (e) would require that trainset horns be
individually tested in accordance with Sec. 229.129(c), subject to one
exception and one addition. The positioning of the microphone used for
testing the trainset horn would be specified under proposed paragraph
(e)(1), in lieu of complying with Sec. 229.129(c)(7). Additionally,
proposed paragraph (e)(2) would permit the records required under Sec.
229.129(c)(10) to be kept electronically.
Although Sec. 229.129 references the term ``locomotive,'' this
should not prove an impediment to compliance, as substantive
requirements of this proposed section are intended to be applied to
Tier III trainsets.
Section 238.777 Inspection Records
This proposed section is generally based on Sec. 229.23 insofar as
certain periodic inspections must be performed at certain intervals and
completion thereof must be recorded. In addition, and as discussed
further below, certain other pertinent information must also be
recorded and made available to railroad employees and FRA inspectors.
The most significant aspect of this proposed section is that FRA is
not requiring use of FRA form F6180-49A (form 49A), or any future
variants, to record the pertinent inspection data and other data that
FRA necessitates under part 229 (such as the presence of an in-service
event recorder in the remarks section of the form). FRA would permit
users of Tier III equipment the option of using onboard technology to
provide to the engineer the same type of information regarding the
inspection state of the Tier III trainset as would be provided through
use of form 49A under part 229 and its physical presence in the cab of
a locomotive. As discussed below, should a railroad using Tier III
equipment wish to use this option, the onboard technology would need to
have the capability of informing the engineer that, at the time of use,
the trainset has received all required periodic inspections. The
technology would also need to be able to communicate the type of brake
system used, and various other pieces of necessary information. On the
other hand, should a railroad using Tier III equipment not elect this
option, the railroad may still use a physical form under a transparent
cover in the controlling cab of the Tier III trainset. Although a
railroad would not be required to use form 49A for Tier III equipment
specifically, this proposed paragraph should not be construed as
absolving a railroad using Tier III equipment from complying with the
applicable requirements for Tier I or II equipment it may also operate.
For clarity, the periodic inspection information intended to be
captured under this proposed section would be analogous to the periodic
inspection information captured under Sec. 229.23, albeit the periodic
inspections would be conducted pursuant to a Tier III railroad's
approved ITM program. FRA also welcomes comment on whether to make this
option available to Tier I or II equipment.
Proposed paragraph (a) would establish a general requirement that
for certain periodic inspections as defined by a Tier III railroad's
ITM program, certain information be captured with respect to those
inspections. Proposed paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) would specify the
minimum information required for each inspection record: the date the
last inspection was done, the name of the inspector conducting the
work, and the name of the supervisor certifying the work was done
correctly.
[[Page 19754]]
Proposed paragraph (b) would require that the locomotive engineer
have access to information from the inspection record and summary
report and identify digital (proposed paragraph (b)(1)) and physical
methods (proposed paragraph (b)(2)) for enabling that access. Should a
railroad using Tier III equipment elect to comply with proposed
paragraph (b)(2), use of form 49A (or any future variant) to display or
record the particular maintenance information listed in this proposed
section would not be required; the railroad would be free to develop
its own form unique to its needs for its Tier III equipment.
Proposed paragraph (c) would establish the requirements for a
summary report. This summary report is similar in intent to FRA's form
49A (providing pertinent information regarding the state of the
trainset to those in the controlling cab), requiring information that
is consistent with what is required currently under part 229. However,
use of FRA's form is not required for Tier III equipment, as discussed
under proposed paragraph (b). This paragraph proposes that the summary
report, in whatever form it takes, should contain certain information
regarding the specific trainset such as the date(s) of the last
periodic inspection required under the railroad's ITM program plan,
whether there are any waivers of compliance granted by FRA under part
211 applicable to the trainset, the type of brake system used on the
trainset, and whether the event recorder is out of service.
Proposed paragraph (d) would permit compliance with Sec. 229.23 as
satisfying the requirements of this section.
Section 238.781 Current Collectors
This proposed section would apply many of the requirements for the
use of current collectors in part 229 to passenger equipment and
trainsets, with some changes. Proposed paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) would
apply requirements from part 229 through cross-references, and proposed
paragraph (a)(4) would impose requirements similar to those in part
229, with minor changes. Other paragraphs in this proposed section
would contain requirements with no direct counterpart in part 229.
Paragraph (a) proposes requirements for pantographs and other
overhead collection systems. Paragraph (a)(1) proposes to apply the
requirements of Sec. 229.77(a) to Tier III equipment. Paragraphs
(a)(2) and (3) have no counterparts in part 229, and propose
requirements to provide additional protection for engineers and other
personnel by requiring the electrical grounding of insulated parts to
reduce the risk of electric shock and by enabling an engineer to
identify the position of and secure the pantograph without mounting the
roof of the trainset.
Proposed paragraph (a)(4), which is based on Sec. 229.81(a), would
require that, for pantographs used on Tier III trainsets, a means be
provided to safely lower the pantograph in the event of an emergency,
permitting the use of an emergency pole, subject to certain
requirements (such as properly marking where the pole can be safely
handled and keeping the pole free from moisture and damage when not in
use). Paragraph (a)(4) proposes an additional requirement that a
railroad's ITM program identify an alternate means of securement and
electrical isolation of a damaged pantograph when automatic methods are
not possible.
Paragraph (b) proposes to apply the requirements of Sec. Sec.
229.79 and 229.81(b) to trainsets equipped with pantographs and third-
rail shoes. Although the requirements of Sec. Sec. 229.79 and
229.81(b) use the term ``locomotive,'' rather than ``trainset,'' the
proposed language of paragraph (b) would clarify the application of
these requirements to Tier III trainsets.
Section 238.783 Circuit Protection
This section proposes requirements for the protection of electrical
circuits used within a Tier III trainset. Proposed paragraph (a)
describes the general requirements for circuit protection in Tier III
passenger equipment. Proposed paragraphs (b) and (c) would provide
requirements for more specific categories of circuit protection, with
proposed paragraph (b) addressing lightning protection and proposed
paragraph (c) addressing overload and ground fault protection. For
purposes of this section, the term ``lightning arrestor'' includes a
surge arrestor that also functions as a lightning arrestor.
Section 238.785 Trainset Electrical System
Under this section, FRA is proposing requirements addressing
various aspects of a Tier III trainset's electric system and is
proposing to apply by cross-reference certain electrical system
requirements for locomotives in part 229. Proposed paragraph (a) would
address the insulation or grounding of metal parts and apply by cross-
reference requirements of Sec. Sec. 229.83 and 238.225 to trainsets.
Proposed paragraph (b) would address high voltage markings on
doors, cover plates, or barriers, and apply by cross-reference the
requirements of Sec. 229.85. Although in Sec. 229.85 the words
``Danger-High Voltage'' or ``Danger'' appear with just each word's
first letter capitalized, FRA makes clear that use of all capital
letters (i.e., ``DANGER-HIGH VOLTAGE'' or ``DANGER'') would also be
acceptable. However, font size, symbols, and colors must comply with a
national or international standard recognized by the railroad industry,
and labels must be retro-reflective. FRA also makes clear that the
proposed requirements for marking doors, cover plates, or barriers
under this paragraph would apply to the external surfaces of any doors,
cover plates, or barriers, and that the marking must be conspicuous and
legible. The purpose of these proposed requirements would be negated if
the markings were hidden on surfaces blocked from ready view or were
otherwise indistinguishable from the external surface, or if the
language conveying the warning were illegible.
Proposed paragraph (c) would apply the requirements for hand-
operated electrical switches in Sec. 229.87 to Tier III trainsets.
Under the proposed requirements of paragraph (d), trainsets would
be subject to the requirements for conductors, jumpers, and cable
connections in Sec. Sec. 229.89 and 238.225(a). As clarification,
while Sec. 229.89 refers to cable and jumper connections for a
locomotive, proposed paragraph (d) would apply such requirements to
Tier III trainsets.
Paragraph (e), as proposed, describes requirements for energy
storage systems (batteries and capacitors) on Tier III trainsets.
Paragraph (e)(1), which addresses batteries, proposes to apply the
requirements of Sec. 238.225(b) and also proposes an additional
requirement: battery circuits must include an emergency battery cut-off
switch to completely disconnect the energy stored in the batteries from
the load.
Paragraph (e)(2), which has no counterpart in part 229, proposes
requirements for the design of capacitors for high-energy storage on
trainsets and would require that such capacitors be isolated by a fire-
resistant barrier from passenger seating areas and the trainset cabs
(proposed paragraph (e)(2)(i)) and that the capacitors be designed to
protect against overcharging (proposed paragraph (e)(2)(ii)).
Paragraph (f) proposes to apply the requirements for power
dissipation resistors in Sec. 238.225(c) to Tier III trainsets, with
one additional proposed requirement: power dissipation resistor
circuits must incorporate warning or protective devices for low
ventilation air
[[Page 19755]]
flow, over-temperature, and short circuit failures.
Paragraph (g) proposes to apply the requirements for
electromagnetic interference and compatibility in Sec. 238.225(d), so
that the onboard electronic equipment, among other things, not produce
electrical noise that interferes with the trainline control and
communications or wayside signaling systems. In addition to applying
the requirements of Sec. 238.225(d), FRA is proposing an additional
requirement: electrical and electronic systems of equipment must be
capable of operation in the presence of external electromagnetic noise
sources.
In paragraph (h), FRA proposes requirements for motors and
generators in use on a Tier III trainset. Proposed paragraph (h)(1)
contains a general requirement that all motors and generators would be
in proper working order or safely cut-out and isolated. Proposed
paragraph (h)(2) would require that if motors and generators are
equipped with support brackets, bearings, isolation mounts, or guards,
those items would be present and function properly as defined by the
railroad's ITM program.
Section 238.791 Safety Appliances
Under this section, FRA is proposing a comprehensive set of
requirements addressing safety appliances for Tier III trainsets. As
described in paragraph (a), this section may also be applied to Tier I
passenger-carrying vehicles and trainsets. Non-passenger-carrying
passenger locomotives that are not part of an integrated trainset
design would be covered under proposed Sec. 238.235. A railroad or
supplier may still utilize the relevant passenger rail car safety
appliance standards contained in part 231 of this chapter, if
appropriate. The proposed safety appliance standards in this section,
however, are intended to address modern passenger rail vehicle designs
considerations and updated ergonomics from the recommendations provided
by APTA and the international car builders represented in the PSWG. FRA
notes that the application of these proposed requirements to Tier I
equipment would be an all-or-none approach, like the alternative
crashworthiness requirements under Sec. 238.201 and appendix G to this
part. This means that Tier I equipment would either follow all the
requirements, as proposed under this section, or comply with the
existing safety appliance requirements for Tier I equipment; however,
no mixing of the two sets of requirements would be permitted.
Proposed paragraph (b) outlines the requirements for the attachment
of safety appliances to the structural carbody of passenger rail
equipment. These requirements are subdivided into two main categories:
attachment by mechanical fasteners (e.g., rivets, bolts), and
attachment by welding. Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would establish the
minimum fastener mechanical strength and fatigue resistance, as
provided by a \1/2\-inch SAE Grade 5 bolt, or equivalent, by means of
one- or two-piece rivets, Huck bolts[supreg], or threaded fasteners. To
ensure that threaded fasteners remain appropriately secured, proposed
paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) would provide the acceptable methods
that must be followed to ensure that bolts or nuts used to secure the
appliance to the carbody do not become loose.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) addresses the minimum requirements for
appliances, sub-assemblies, brackets, and supports that are welded as a
means of attachment to the structural carbody. Proposed paragraph
(b)(3) would further identify when brackets or supports (e.g., tapping
blocks) can be considered part of the structural carbody. FRA notes
that there is a small but important distinction between the intended
treatment of brackets or supports in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3).
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would apply specifically to brackets and
supports that are considered components of the appliance itself (e.g.,
to add stiffness), as distinguished from supports used for the sole
purpose of attaching the appliance to the carbody under proposed
paragraph (b)(3).
Proposed paragraph (b)(4) would require that safety appliance
designs facilitate the regular inspection of their attachment points to
ensure threaded connections are not loose and welds show no signs of
premature failure. Proposed paragraph (b)(5) would provide for the use
of a minimum factor of safety of two, if the design loads in proposed
paragraphs (d)(4)(ii) or (e)(4)(ii) are used as the method of
determining appliance strength. FRA makes clear that this proposed
requirement would apply only if the design load methodology for
appliance strength is utilized, as a factor of safety would not be
necessary if the traditional (e.g., \5/8\-inch diameter steel, or a
material providing an equivalent level of mechanical strength) approach
is used.
Proposed paragraph (c) would establish that the appliance and its
attachment must be designed to account for fatigue, particularly as it
relates to the size of welded connections. Because of the high-
vibrational environment in which safety appliances are utilized,
particularly where reciprocal engines are also present (e.g., diesel-
electric locomotive, diesel multiple-unit), the PSWG wanted to ensure
designs accounted for environmental service factors, in addition to
obvious static loads. Traditional threaded connections do occasionally
come loose in such environments when not secured properly, but
generally remain attached, whereas a welded connection may fail
completely, without warning, if such considerations are not taken into
account. This was a primary concern raised in discussions within the
PSWG when alternative language to Sec. Sec. 238.229 and 238.230 was
being considered for welded appliances and components. Therefore,
proposed paragraph (c) is intended to complement the other requirements
for welded appliances outlined in more detail within this section, to
help address many of these concerns.
Proposed paragraphs (d) and (e) address the pertinent requirements
for the design of all handholds and sill steps, respectively. FRA notes
that the proposed text represents an organizational change from the
RSAC recommendations. Because handholds and sill steps are the most
common types of safety appliances installed on passenger rail
equipment, and the requirements can vary depending on their location
and function, FRA believes that by consolidating requirements for all
handholds and sill steps, it can avoid repeating requirements that are
common to all locations (e.g., clearance, strength) while more
succinctly delineating the requirements for specific locations (e.g.,
end handholds). FRA welcomes comments towards the utility of this
approach, and the value of possibly including accompanying drawings in
a final rule.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would detail the number of handholds
required, and any critical dimensions depending on the function,
location and arrangement (i.e., horizontal or vertical) of each type of
handhold. Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(i) would require handrails to be
present at all passenger side door locations but note that internal
handrails installed to comply with the requirements of Sec. 38.97(a)
or Sec. 38.115(a) of this title, Americans with Disabilities Act
Accessibility Specifications for Transportation Vehicles, may be used
to satisfy this requirement, recognizing that this would likely be the
primary method of compliance.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(ii) addresses the minimum requirements
for locations where external access to the cab of a trainset, power
car, or
[[Page 19756]]
locomotive is provided, other than for passenger access. These
locations typically include one or more vertical handholds and sill
steps stacked in ``ladder'' arrangement for crewmembers to access the
cab from the ground level.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(iii) addresses the requirements for all
side handholds. Side handholds are required at any location where sill
steps are installed, including those required by statute or regulation,
and optional installations. A major goal of the PSWG was to address the
various arrangements that have been developed over the years to provide
better ergonomics. For example, some passenger equipment designs
incorporate two horizontal handholds above side sill steps located at
car ends, as opposed to the single horizontal handhold design codified
under part 231 for most passenger cars. The multiple handhold
arrangement was adopted to provide better ergonomics for crews riding
on car ends performing switching moves and other activities, while
providing a lower handhold for stability from the ballast level.
Proposed paragraphs (d)(1)(iii)(A) through (F) provide specific
dimensions for the different types of arrangements that are commonly
used on modern passenger rail equipment.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(iv) provides the requirements for end
handholds. End handholds are generally required at the end of any car
where a coupler is installed that requires crewmembers to manually
couple, uncouple, or make electrical or pneumatic connections, as
detailed in this section. The PSWG recommendations added additional
language to address position requirements for vehicles with tapered
(aerodynamic noses), included in proposed paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(C), and
when the use of an uncoupling lever is acceptable in lieu of a separate
end handhold, as contained in proposed paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(E). Perhaps
most significantly, this rule would codify the exception proposed in
paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(F) that end handholds would not be required at the
ends of vehicles equipped with an automatic coupling mechanism that can
be safely operated from inside the appropriate cab of the vehicle and
does not require a person to go between vehicle units. This approach
has been adopted in numerous, recent equipment designs that incorporate
some level of semi-permanent connection (e.g., trainsets, married pair
MUs), or utilize a ``fully-automated'' coupling device that can couple
or decouple and make all electrical and pneumatic connections without
the need for manual intervention. Often these couplers (commonly
referred to as ``transit type'' couplers) can be monitored and
controlled from the cab of a trainset. FRA is utilizing its authority
under 49 U.S.C. 20306 to codify this exception through this rulemaking
process.\24\ By doing so, FRA anticipates it would eliminate the need
for additional waiver requests on the subject and better incorporate
modern technology and equipment designs, as the statutory provision
intends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ For further discussion on FRA's proposed use of its
discretionary authority under 49 U.S.C. 20306, see section III.E,
above, Safety Appliances for Non-Passenger Carrying Locomotives and
Passenger Equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) provide the required minimum
handhold dimension and hand clearance requirements.
Proposed paragraph (d)(4) contains the handhold strength and
rigidity requirements with proposed paragraph (d)(4)(i) providing an
option to utilize the traditional \5/8\-inch wrought-iron or steel
equivalency strength for those that prefer to design appliances using
the traditional approach. In turn, proposed paragraph (d)(4)(ii)
reflects the new, design strength approach, as recommended by the PSWG.
Proposed paragraph (d)(5) addresses the use of multiple handholds
when arranged vertically in a ``ladder'' type arrangement, often used
by crewmembers to access cabs or carbody doors from the ground level.
The requirements for different sill step arrangements are
consolidated within proposed paragraph (e) of this section. Proposed
paragraph (e)(1)(i) would specify the locations where sill steps must
be equipped and proposed paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) and (iii), respectively,
the required dimensions. Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(iv) would provide
exceptions for where side sill steps are not required. Specifically,
under proposed paragraph (e)(1)(iv)(A), side sill steps would not be
required if steps are provided for an exterior cab access door in a
location where a crewmember can ride the equipment with an unobstructed
view of the track ahead. This would reduce the need to have redundant
safety appliances where the cab ladder arrangement can be effectively
used to safely perform switching moves. Under proposed paragraph
(e)(1)(iv)(B), sill steps, as with end handholds, would not be required
at locations equipped with an automatic coupling mechanism that can be
safely operated from inside the appropriate cab of the vehicle and does
not require ground intervention from a person to go on, under, or
between the equipment such as to couple air, electric, or other
connections. As with other safety appliance requirements proposed in
this section, FRA proposes to adopt these common exceptions from the
statutory need to equip a vehicle with sill steps by the authority
provided in 49 U.S.C. 20306. Doing so would also remove the need for
continued waiver requests under this authority for modern passenger
equipment designs.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed paragraph (e)(2) provides the various required dimensions
for various sill step arrangements. Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(i) would
establish the minimum tread length as 10 inches, which is the useable
length of the step where a person could place their foot, excluding any
construction features such as bend radii where someone could not step
onto a flush surface of the step. Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(ii) would
establish the clear (unobstructed) distance required above the usable
tread of a step. This dimension has historically been referred to as
the clear ``depth'' in part 231. The PSWG recommended use of the term
``clear distance'' in the proposal, to avoid historical confusion
regarding the meaning of the term ``depth,'' which could also be
interpreted as meaning the distance from the outside vertical plane of
a step.
Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(A) would require that a Tier III
trainset have a minimum of at least 4.7 inches of clear distance,
whereas proposed paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(B) would provide the traditional
8-inch clear distance requirement for Tier I equipment. In discussions
with the PSWG, industry requested that FRA adopt the service-proven
clear distance based on international standards (4.7 inches). The PSWG
noted that this standard has proven appropriate for international high-
speed passenger equipment as it reduces the potential pocket size that
can be a major contributor to aerodynamic noise. Additionally, the PSWG
noted that this standard would help avoid the need for potential
modifications to the carbody underframe of service-proven, high-speed
trainsets if manufacturers were required to increase the clear distance
length to the historical 8 inches. In a continuing effort to harmonize
FRA regulations with service-proven international standards to
facilitate the implementation of service-proven, high-speed rail in the
United States, FRA is proposing to adopt this recommendation. However,
as these proposed regulations may also apply to Tier I equipment, FRA
is proposing to retain the requirement that Tier I
[[Page 19757]]
equipment maintain a minimum clear distance of at least 8 inches.
Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(iii) would specify the required clear
space from the outside edge of a sill step. The purpose of this
dimension is to allow the user to have enough room to firmly place the
ball of their foot on the step. The most common application of this
requirement would be where a step is built directly into the side of a
vehicle, or into the pocket of the carbody or side sill of a locomotive
or passenger vehicle. The term ``clear space'' is being introduced here
to avoid confusion with similar terms, such as clear length and depth.
FRA welcomes comments on other terminology that might be considered for
this dimension.
Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(iv) would adopt a maximum vertical rise
between consecutive sill steps. This proposed requirement is intended
to ensure that vertical spacing is ergonomic for users in multiple sill
step arrangements, particularly those used in a ladder-type
arrangement, and is derived from other regulations such as those for
box car ladders outlined in Sec. 231.1(e) of this chapter. Similarly,
proposed paragraph (e)(2)(v) would require that proper clearance be
provided behind a sill step and running gear or any other moving parts.
This is intended to ensure that the truck or other moving part of a
passenger vehicle does not come into contact with the boot (foot) of a
crewmember riding on a sill step or cab access ladder. This would also
effectively prohibit steps being installed directly onto such moving
parts, which could present an unsafe condition if the equipment starts
to move.
Proposed paragraph (e)(3) would establish the requirements for sill
step tread surfaces and provide some examples for acceptable methods.
Railroad and suppliers should consider the appropriate anti-skid
material to use depending on the functionality of the sill step. For
example, if a sill step is also intended to function as a handhold,
then it should utilize an anti-skid material that does not affect the
use of the handhold. This proposed language would also require that
enclosed steps, such as those built into the side sill or carbody of
equipment, have at least 50 percent of the tread area as open space to
help prevent the minor build-up of snow or ice from impacting the
utility of the anti-skid surface.
Proposed paragraph (e)(4) provides the strength requirements for
sill steps. These requirements would be similar to those the PSWG
recommended for other appliances in this section, but also include an
empirical requirement for sill steps constructed with a rectangular
cross-section.
Proposed paragraph (f) addresses the minimum crew access locations
for new passenger trainsets and individual pieces of equipment. It is
intended to ensure that vehicles designed to provide only high-level
boarding for passengers also have a means for crewmembers to board a
trainset or passenger car from ground level, or alight from one to the
ground. Specifically, proposed paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iii) would
detail when such access locations must be provided and when low-level
boarding or cab access locations can be used to satisfy this
requirement.
Proposed paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (ii) provide the requirements for
steps and handholds utilized in crew access locations, primarily
referencing similar requirements proposed in this section. FRA is also
including additional provisions recommended by the PSWG in proposed
paragraphs (f)(2)(iii) and (iv), which would allow for crew access
steps to be retractable, or for portable ladders to be utilized in lieu
of permanently installed external steps, respectively. These proposed
requirements were added to address concerns with aerodynamic noise
contribution, particularly on Tier III trainsets. If portable ladder
arrangements are used, they should be readily accessible to
crewmembers, designed to provide strength equivalent to or greater than
that required for sill step arrangements in this section, and be
securely attached to the equipment.
Proposed paragraph (g)(1) details where ``automatic'' couplers must
be equipped, and their functionality, as required by 49 U.S.C. ch. 203.
FRA is proposing to codify exemptions from the need to install
automatic couplers and their associated appliances (e.g., uncoupling
levers, end handholds) on passenger trainsets or equipment with semi-
permanent connections, or at the ends of trainsets where couplers are
only intended for rescue purposes, as detailed in proposed paragraph
(g)(2). As described previously, FRA is proposing to use its authority
under 49 U.S.C. 20306 to permanently adopt these exclusions for which
waivers are commonly requested for modern trainset and MU passenger
equipment designs, and FRA believes this would help reduce the burden
associated with such requests.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed paragraph (h) provides the requirements for uncoupling
levers or devices and would require uncoupling levers or devices on
each vehicle end equipped with an automatic coupler, as required under
proposed paragraph (g) of this section. Proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(i)
and (ii) would require that an automatic coupler be equipped with
either a traditional, manual uncoupling lever or some other uncoupling
mechanism operated by controls located in the appropriate cab, or other
secure location in a trainset, respectively. Additionally, proposed
paragraph (h)(1)(ii) provides that additional uncoupling levers or
handles on the coupler that serve only as a backup to the remotely
operated mechanism would not be subject to the requirements of proposed
paragraph (h)(2).
Proposed paragraph (h)(2) would require that manual uncoupling
levers be installed so that the automatic coupler may be operated from
the left side of the equipment, as determined when facing the end of
the equipment, from ground level without requiring a person to go
between cars or equipment units and have a clearance around the handle
of 2, preferably 2\1/2\, inches. This proposed performance requirement
for manual uncoupling levers is a slight departure from the traditional
requirements for such appliances under part 231. Yet, FRA believes that
adherence to the more rigid, traditional measurement requirements from
the coupler to the outside edge of the equipment is not appropriate, as
it becomes difficult to determine the proper place at which to measure
when equipment ends are tapered. Additionally, by setting the
performance requirement as requiring a person to be able to operate the
coupler without going between cars or equipment units, the requirement
can be easily and objectively measured.
Proposed paragraph (i) would permit the automatic coupler, end
handholds, and uncoupling mechanism on the leading and trailing ends of
a trainset unit to be located within a removable shroud to reduce
aerodynamic effects.
Proposed paragraph (j) would provide that trainsets, and equipment
units or sections of trainsets that are not semi-permanently coupled to
an adjacent equipment unit or section of trainset, must be equipped
with an efficient parking or hand brake capable of holding the
trainset, equipment unit, or section of trainset on at least a 3-
percent grade, or on the worst-case grade conditions identified by the
operating railroad. This proposal is consistent with that for use of
worst-case grade conditions under proposed Sec. 238.110.
Proposed paragraph (k)(1) provides for the arrangement of safety
appliances on trainsets and equipment units to facilitate certain
maintenance tasks.
[[Page 19758]]
Should a trainset or equipment unit be equipped with appurtenances such
as headlights, windshield wipers, marker lights, and other similar
items required for the safe operation of the trainset or equipment unit
that are designed to be maintained or replaced from the exterior of the
equipment, then the equipment must have handholds and steps meeting the
requirements of this section to allow for the safe maintenance and
replacement of these appurtenances.
However, under proposed paragraph (k)(2), the requirements under
proposed paragraph (k)(1) would not apply if railroad operating rules
require, and actual practice entails, the maintenance and replacement
of these components by maintenance personnel in locations protected by
the requirements of subpart B of part 218 of this chapter equipped with
ladders and other tools to safely repair or maintain those
appurtenances.
Paragraph (l) would require that any safety appliances installed at
the option of the railroad must be approved pursuant to proposed Sec.
238.110.
Subpart I--Trainset Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance Requirements
for Tier III Passenger Equipment
Section 238.901 Scope
This proposed subpart would contain specific inspection, testing,
and maintenance requirements.
Section 238.903 General Requirements
Proposed Sec. 238.903 would provide an overview of the general
requirements applicable to Tier III passenger equipment. Most of these
requirements are referenced and described in more detail in other
sections of part 238. Accordingly, this proposed section would address
the ITM program for Tier III passenger equipment, and specifically the
content of the program and the procedures and intervals for performance
of inspection, testing, and maintenance activities; requirements for
the safe operation of a Tier III trainset; required safety inspections;
and requirements for the training and qualification program and
retention of records.
Proposed paragraph (a) contains the general requirement that
railroads operating Tier III equipment would have an ITM program that
contains detailed information regarding the inspection, testing, and
maintenance procedures necessary for the railroad to safely maintain
and operate its Tier III passenger equipment.
Proposed paragraphs (b)(1) through (8) list specific informational
requirements to be discussed in detail as part of the railroad's ITM
program. Most notably, proposed paragraph (b)(8) would require the
railroad to describe the required operational braking capability for
the trainset. Consistent with Sec. 238.731(b), required operational
braking capability is proposed as the capability of the trainset to
stop from its maximum operating speed within the signal spacing
existing on the track over which the trainset is operating under the
worst-case adhesion conditions defined by the railroad. Under this
proposed requirement, FRA would require railroads to detail the total
effective braking power necessary to achieve this performance standard.
FRA recognizes that this would mark a significant change in how the
health of the brake system is categorized as further discussed under
proposed Sec. 238.1003(d)(1). FRA notes that a railroad would need to
establish and verify the required operational braking capability during
the dynamic testing and commissioning of the trainset under Sec.
238.111.
Proposed paragraph (c) would require that trainsets receive
thorough inspections from qualified individuals. It would prohibit a
trainset from being put into service with any safety-critical defect
until that defect is repaired, except for defects discovered in the
brake system during a pre-service inspection under proposed paragraph
(c)(2)(i). Proposed paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) would list the
specific safety inspections required in addition to any inspection
required under subpart H of this part.
A pre-departure inspection, as proposed under paragraph (c)(1),
would mean trainset system verifications, inspections, or functional
tests that must be performed prior to departure from terminal locations
or when operating ends or crews are changed.
Pre-service inspections, as proposed under paragraph (c)(2), would
mean those inspections to be performed before a trainset goes into
passenger service. They would be conducted at locations where such
inspections can be performed safely and properly, typically in a shop
location, but also at terminal locations provided a qualified
individual performing the inspection can safely go on, under, or
between the equipment. This inspection is proposed to be performed
before a trainset enters revenue service, at an interval of no more
than every 48 hours. As proposed, this inspection would ensure the
trainset is safe to enter revenue service, similar to the mechanical
and brake inspections required of Tier I trains under subpart D;
however, the specifics of the pre-departure inspection proposed here
for Tier III trainsets would be defined by each individual railroad in
its ITM program. FRA is also proposing certain minimum requirements for
pre-service inspections.
Under proposed paragraph (c)(2)(i), the procedures for pre-service
inspections would cover all the items required by a pre-departure
inspection under proposed paragraph (c)(1). FRA is also proposing to
include the specific exception for the brake system as discussed
elsewhere in this NPRM in that, should the pre-service inspection
uncover an issue with brake system, but yet the brake system still meet
or exceed the required operational braking capability, the trainset may
enter passenger service, assuming no other safety-critical defect is
discovered. However, in accordance with proposed Sec. 238.1003(d)(1),
this practice would be permitted only for up to 5 consecutive calendar
days, at which time the trainset could no longer continue in service
and would be required to have the brake system fully repaired. Further,
should a pre-service inspection reveal that the brake system no longer
meets the required operational braking capability, then the trainset
would not be permitted to enter or continue in passenger service and
must move immediately to a repair location with the trainset not being
able to depart the repair location until all defects were repaired.
Paragraph (c)(2)(ii) proposes another minimum requirement in that
an interior inspection of the trainset must be performed of the
emergency systems to ensure proper functionality of certain emergency
systems (such as public address, intercom, and emergency lighting
systems) and to ensure that any permitted tools or other implements
necessary for emergency egress are present.
Paragraph (c)(3) proposes that the railroad's ITM program have one
comprehensive section or chapter where the railroad would detail all
the required brake inspections to be performed on the trainset, to
include the procedures for performing those inspections, along with the
periodicity of inspections. This would include brake system inspections
performed as part of other inspections, such as a pre-service
inspection. FRA envisions this section or chapter of a railroad's ITM
program as a central repository of the brake system inspections for
ease of reference and use. This discussion is equally applicable to
proposed paragraph (c)(4), with respect to truck inspections.
Under paragraph (c)(5), FRA is proposing that the railroad detail
all other safety-critical periodic inspections
[[Page 19759]]
that are required to maintain the safety of the trainset. Rather than
attempt to exhaustively list all those types of inspections, FRA is
placing the responsibility on the railroad to thoroughly evaluate and
document the required safety-critical inspections. FRA would expect to
see inspections of the electrical and train control systems, as
examples. However, consistent with FRA's overall approach to high-speed
train inspection, testing, and maintenance, FRA would provide the
railroad discretion in the development of its ITM program, subject to
FRA's review and approval, discussed below.
To set a baseline, FRA is proposing under paragraph (d) that the
railroad specify in its initial ITM program submission the initial
scheduled maintenance intervals for Tier III equipment. Deviations from
this baseline for safety-critical components could only be implemented
when approved by FRA, and those changes would require justification by
accumulated, verifiable operating data.
Proposed paragraph (e) contains the training and qualification
program requirements for individuals performing inspections, testing,
or maintenance on Tier III trainsets. Proposed paragraph (e)(1) would
require the railroad to identify which inspections, tests, or
maintenance tasks require special training or qualification.
Proposed paragraph (e)(2) would require the railroad to develop a
training and qualification program for those tasks identified under
proposed paragraph (e)(1) of this section that, at a minimum, addresses
those items listed under Sec. 238.109(b).
Proposed paragraph (e)(3) would require the railroad to maintain a
list of those individuals designated as qualified pursuant to the
railroad's training and qualification program to perform those tasks
identified in proposed paragraph (e)(1). The railroad would be required
to make those records available to FRA upon request.
Proposed paragraph (e)(4) contains the proposed, overarching
requirement that only those individuals qualified pursuant to the
railroad's training and qualification program can inspect, test, or
maintain safety-critical components or systems on Tier III equipment.
This approach was recommended by the RSAC to avoid more specifically
defining those who can or cannot perform certain inspection, testing,
or maintenance tasks under the regulation.
Proposed paragraph (f) specifies that the railroad would maintain
records of each inspection required under proposed paragraph (c) for at
least one year from the date of the inspection.
Section 238.905 Compliance
This proposed section would require the railroad to adopt and
comply with its ITM program once approved by FRA under proposed Sec.
238.913.
Section 238.907 Standard Procedures for Safely Performing Inspection,
Testing, Maintenance, and Repairs
Proposed paragraph (a) would require the railroad to establish
standard procedures addressing the performance of inspection, testing,
maintenance, and repair tasks, and identify the informational,
approval, enforcement, and review processes that must be included in
the procedures. Under proposed paragraph (a)(5), ``the railroad's
official responsible for safety'' would be the party who must approve
the written standard procedures; however, FRA invites comment whether
it would be more appropriate to designate the head of high-speed rail
maintenance, the chief maintenance officer, some other railroad
official, or a combination thereof, as the ``railroad's official
responsible for safety.''
Proposed paragraph (b) clarifies that FRA does not intend for the
ITM program required by this subpart I to address employee working
conditions related to the performance of the inspections, tests, and
maintenance required by the program. Such working conditions are the
purview of the Occupational Health and Safety Administration.
Section 238.909 Quality Control/Quality Assurance Program
This proposed section would require that each railroad establish an
inspection, testing, and maintenance quality control/quality assurance
program for the purpose of ensuring that each railroad performs its
inspections, testing, and maintenance in accordance with its approved
ITM program. Either the railroad or its contractors would be able to
perform compliance responsibilities related to the quality control
program established under this proposed section.
Section 238.911 Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance Program Format
This proposed section establishes the format in which the ITM
program would be submitted to FRA for review and approval.
Proposed paragraph (a) would require that the railroad prepare a
complete ITM program covering all components, systems, or sub-systems
on a Tier III trainset, regardless of whether the railroad deems those
components, systems, or sub-systems safety-critical. This would include
all inspections, tests, and maintenance tasks required, the intervals
and periodicity of those inspections, tests, and maintenance tasks, and
all associated information and procedures required for the railroad and
its personnel to implement the program. The purpose behind this
proposed requirement is to allow FRA to ensure that the railroad has
properly captured all safety-critical items. Under proposed paragraph
(b), below, the railroad would be required to submit a condensed
version of the program addressing only the safety-critical elements as
deemed by the railroad. FRA notes that under proposed Sec. 238.913,
FRA would approve the ITM program addressing only those safety-critical
elements. Additionally, once the ITM program has received its initial
approval, FRA would not expect submission of the complete ITM program
with any future amendment to a safety-critical portion.
Proposed paragraph (b) would require the railroad to submit a
condensed version of the ITM program, with only the program items
identified as safety-critical by the railroad. It would be this
condensed version of the ITM program that FRA would approve under Sec.
238.913. Nevertheless, FRA has identified certain components or systems
that are always considered safety-critical, such as the operation of
emergency equipment, emergency back-up systems, trainset exits, and
trainset safety-critical hardware and software systems.
FRA invites comment on the utility of this approach.
Section 238.913 Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance Program Approval
Procedure
Under this section, FRA is proposing the procedures for the
submission and approval of the railroad's ITM program.
Proposed paragraph (a) describes requirements for both the initial
submission of the ITM program and the submission of amendments. With
respect to the initial submission, the proposed language under
paragraph (a)(1) explains that the ITM program must be submitted no
less than 180 days prior to the commencement of revenue service. FRA
makes clear though, that the mileage accumulated during dynamic
qualification testing must be accurately recorded in the maintenance
records of the trainsets so that prior to entering revenue service, the
trainset is current on all required inspection, tests, and maintenance
required under the ITM based on the mileage of the trainset. Thus, if a
certain maintenance interval is specified in miles, FRA expects that
the milage incurred during
[[Page 19760]]
dynamic pre-revenue testing would be used when determining whether
maintenance of the equipment is necessary. FRA recognizes that for the
dynamic testing of Tier III equipment, the test procedures required
under Sec. 238.111 and appendix K must include the inspection,
testing, and maintenance procedures to be followed to ensure testing is
conducted safely.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would require that an amendment to an
approved ITM program must be submitted for approval not less than 60
days prior to the railroad's proposed implementation date. FRA welcomes
comments on the appropriate review period for both the initial
submission and the submission of program amendments.
Proposed paragraph (b) identifies the required content for the ITM
program or program amendment submission. As proposed, not only must the
railroad submit the ITM program or amendment itself, but it must also
include the primary point of contact for the program or amendment and
affirm that the program or amendment was provided to the designated
representatives of railroad employees along with a list of the names
and addresses of those persons.
Proposed paragraph (c) would require the railroad to provide a copy
of the ITM program or amendment to the designated representatives of
railroad employees responsible for the equipment's operation, and
inspection, testing, and maintenance under this subpart. Additionally,
this proposed paragraph would impose a deadline of 45 days for
providing comment to FRA. Proposed paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) would
outline the required process for each comment.
Proposed paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) would explain the approval
process for the initial ITM program submission and amendments, the
timing of FRA's review and approval determination, and the requirement
to correct a program or amendment if FRA discovers a deficiency during
its review.
Notably, under proposed paragraph (d)(3), at any time after its
approval determination, FRA would retain the ability to review the
program and amendments under its general inspection authority and to
require further corrections to the ITM program or amendment. Submittal
of a revised program or amendment made pursuant to this paragraph would
follow the submittal procedures detailed in proposed paragraphs (d)(1)
and (2).
Proposed paragraph (e) would establish requirements for the annual
review of the ITM program, addressing the scheduling of such review
with FRA and the designated representatives of railroad employees.
Subpart J--Movement of Defective Tier III Passenger Equipment
Section 238.1001 Scope
This proposed subpart would contain specific requirements for the
movement of Tier III passenger equipment that is defective.
Section 238.1003 Movement of Defective Tier III Passenger Equipment
Under Sec. 238.1003, FRA is proposing the procedural requirements
for the movement of defective Tier III equipment. These requirements
would address defective conditions identified during a pre-service
inspection and defective conditions discovered during revenue service
operations.
Except as explained in proposed Sec. 238.903(c)(2)(i) and
paragraph (d) of this section, proposed paragraph (a) would describe
the general prohibition on the movement of a Tier III trainset with a
defect identified during a pre-service inspection and specify that such
a trainset may only move pursuant proposed paragraph (e), as explained
in more detail below.
Proposed paragraph (b) would describe the procedural requirements
for the movement of a Tier III trainset with a safety-critical defect
discovered during revenue service operations (such as during a pre-
departure inspection under proposed Sec. 238.903(c)(1)) and between
required pre-service inspections. Under these proposed requirements, an
individual qualified pursuant to proposed Sec. 238.903(e) would be
required to make a determination, consistent with railroad operating
rules, that it is safe to move the trainset (proposed paragraph
(b)(1)). It would be permissible for such a qualified individual to
make this determination remotely based on information provided by on-
site personnel, provided that a qualified individual performs an on-
site inspection of the defect when the trainset arrives at the first
location where an on-site inspection by a qualified individual is
possible.
After determining that it is safe to move the defective trainset,
the qualified individual would be required to notify the train crew of
the authorized speed and destination, and any other operational
restrictions on the movement of the non-compliant trainset, pursuant to
proposed paragraph (b)(2). The qualified individual may provide this
notice through the tagging process described in proposed paragraph
(b)(3) or through the automated tracking system described in proposed
paragraph (c), which would adopt the requirements of Sec.
238.15(c)(3).
Proposed paragraph (d) addresses the requirements for the movement
of a trainset that experiences an in-service failure of the braking
system. During PSWG meetings, there was significant discussion
regarding the applicability of these requirements to trainsets with
advanced technology brake systems and automated reporting systems that
provide the engineer with real-time information concerning the
operative brakes within the trainset. Specifically, there was
discussion that these modern Tier III trainsets are designed and
equipped with a braking capability that most often exceeds what is
necessary for routine operational braking. Thus, FRA is proposing a
balanced approach that considers the operational capability of these
trainsets without compromising safety.
A such, under proposed paragraph (d)(1), a trainset may continue in
service for no more than 5 consecutive calendar days (to include
leaving a repair point) so long as the trainset meets or exceeds its
required operational braking capability. As discussed above under
proposed Sec. 238.903(a)(8), the railroad would be required to
describe in detail in its ITM program this required operational braking
capability. Additionally, FRA clarifies that consistent with the
proposal under Sec. 238.19(d)(2), after 5 consecutive calendar days
elapse, a Tier III trainset may not leave a designated brake repair
point with anything less than a brake system that is free from defects,
regardless of whether the trainset meets or exceeds its required
operational braking capability (i.e., with 100% operative brakes). This
would mean a Tier III trainset may leave a designated brake repair
point with less than its maximum designed braking capability, so long
as it retains its required operational braking capability pursuant to
Sec. 238.731(b). FRA is proposing this approach based on industry's
input, which is consistent with international, service-proven
operational practice.
Under paragraph (d)(2), FRA is proposing requirements for a
trainset that has in-service failure of the brake system bringing it
below the required operational braking capability. FRA is proposing
that in such a situation, a trainset may only move in service until its
next pre-service inspection in accordance with railroad operating rules
relating to the percentage of operative brakes and at a speed no
greater than the maximum authorized speed as
[[Page 19761]]
determined by Sec. 238.731(e)(4), so long as the requirements of
paragraph (b) of this section are otherwise fully met. Under this
proposal, if a pre-service inspection becomes due on such a trainset,
and the brake system has not been repaired, then the trainset may not
be used in passenger service until such repairs are made.
As part of the comment process for this proposed rulemaking, FRA
welcomes input on the appropriateness of these proposed requirements
for the movement of defective trainsets equipped with advanced
technology brake systems.
Under proposed paragraph (e), a railroad would be permitted to move
a trainset with a safety-critical defect discovered during a pre-
service inspection for purposes of repair without complying with the
procedural requirements of proposed paragraph (b), provided the
movement is without passengers, within a yard, at speeds not to exceed
10 mph, and for the sole purpose of repair. FRA is also proposing that,
should a railroad elect to repair a trainset with a safety-critical
defect in place, it would be required, at a minimum, to apply a tag
that complies with proposed paragraph (b)(3) to provide notice that the
trainset is defective and not in service. FRA makes clear that the tag
is to be applied while the trainset is non-compliant; once the repair
is made, the tag may be removed, and the trainset placed into service.
Proposed paragraph (f), which is identical to Sec. 238.17(f),
makes clear that the movement of a defective Tier III trainset subject
to a Special Notice for Repair under part 216 would continue to be
subject to the restrictions in a Special Notice.
Appendix C to Part 238--Minimally Compliant Analytical Track (MCAT)
Simulations Used for Qualifying Passenger Vehicles To Operate on Track
Classes 2 Through 5 and Up to 6 Inches of Cant Deficiency
This proposed appendix would contain requirements for using
computer simulations to comply with the vehicle/track system
qualification testing requirements specified in Sec. 238.139. These
simulations would be performed using a track model containing defined
geometry perturbations at the limits that are permitted for a specific
class of track and level of cant deficiency. This track model is known
as Minimally Compliant Analytical Track (MCAT). These simulations would
be used to identify vehicle dynamic performance issues prior to service
or, as appropriate, a change in service, and demonstrate that a vehicle
type is suitable for operation on the track over which it is intended
to operate. FRA notes that, for the short warp (a12) MCAT
segment in figure 1, the profile deviations for the inside and outside
rails appear in reverse order from their counterparts in appendix D to
part 213. This change aims to address the risk of low-speed, wheel-
climb derailment, and FRA welcomes comment on the need for a similar
change to appendix D to part 213.
For simulations measuring hunting perturbation involving tangent
track segments, FRA proposes the use of a high-conicity, wheel-rail
profile combination approved by FRA that produces a minimum conicity of
0.4 for wheelset lateral shifts up to flange contact. FRA has added to
the docket a file that reflects wheel-rail profile combinations FRA has
found acceptable in the past, and welcomes comment on this data or the
incorporation of such combinations into the regulation.
As noted under the discussion of proposed Sec. 238.139, Vehicle/
track system qualification, the proposed requirements are intended to
complement existing requirements for higher speed and higher cant
deficiency operations in part 213 of this chapter. Specifically, this
appendix would apply to operations up to 6 inches of cant deficiency on
lower-speed track classes, and would have no impact on part 213
requirements for operations over 6 inches of cant deficiency on such
track classes. By illustration, proposed table 6 would apply to track
Classes 2 through 5 where cant deficiency exceeds 5 inches but is not
more than 6 inches, while table 7 of appendix D to part 213 currently
applies to track Classes 1 through 5 where cant deficiency exceeds 6
inches. Although there would be no direct conflict in application of
the respective appendices, FRA notes in particular that the differences
in repeated surface limits and repeated alinement limits between the
two tables may not necessarily be explained by the differences in cant
deficiency alone. FRA therefore welcomes comments on the potential
impact of the proposed changes, will evaluate any comments received,
and will consider revisions to both parts 213 and 238 in the final rule
or a future rulemaking.
Appendix I to Part 238--Tier III Trainset Cab Noise Test Protocol
In proposed appendix I to part 238, which is modeled after appendix
H to part 229 of this chapter, FRA presents proposed testing protocols
to verify that the noise levels within the cab of a Tier III trainset
comply with the requirements established in Sec. 238.759(a)(1). These
proposed protocols address measurement instrumentation, test site
requirements, procedures for measurement, and recordkeeping. In this
proposal, FRA is intending to align these measurement procedures with
those used in international practice and welcomes comments on any
relevant international practice that could contribute to the further
development of the proposed protocols. FRA also notes that although the
requirements proposed in this appendix are very similar to those under
appendix H to part 229, this appendix would also contain a separate set
of requirements due to subtle but significant differences. Notably, the
test proposed under this appendix would be under dynamic conditions,
while the trainset is moving, whereas the test under appendix H to part
229 is under static conditions, not involving equipment movement.
Appendix J to Part 238--Alternative Requirements for Evaluating the
Crashworthiness and Occupant Protection Performance of a Tier I
Passenger Trainset Equipped With Crash Energy Management Features
Proposed appendix J would establish a framework that enables the
evaluation of an individual piece of Tier I passenger equipment for
compliance with crash energy management (CEM) requirements. Current
regulations provide for the assessment of CEM components in the context
of a complete trainset. Although a railroad, equipment manufacturer, or
other party is not required to incorporate CEM features into an
individual piece of Tier I equipment, this proposed appendix would
provide direction for the development of these features for a single
vehicle, rather than a complete trainset. Under the framework of this
proposed appendix, single pieces of rail equipment that are fully
compliant with existing Tier I structural requirements, and have
additional CEM features, could operate within conventional, Tier I-
compliant trains.
Proposed appendix J would define in-line and offset collision
scenarios for locomotives, cab cars, and intermediate cars. As
proposed, the crashworthiness requirements contained in proposed
appendix J would not apply to Tier I alternatively designed trainsets
or single pieces of equipment with traditionally compliant structures
outfitted with pushback couplers as the only CEM feature.
Current industry standards served as a model for the
crashworthiness requirements proposed in this
[[Page 19762]]
appendix, and FRA welcomes comments addressing the consistency between
the appendix and industry standards.
Appendix K to Part 238--Minimum Information for Test Procedures
FRA is proposing to add appendix K to part 238 to contain the
minimum information necessary for test procedures associated with the
required testing to be performed pursuant to the railroad's pre-revenue
service acceptance testing plan under Sec. 238.111. This is to ensure
that testing is performed in a safe and controlled manner, and that the
testing captures information critical to the demonstration of
compliance. FRA understands this level of information may not be
available for all tests at the time of initial submission of a test
plan; however, if a test procedure relied on for a test does not
contain this minimum level of information, FRA may take exception to it
and require the test be repeated or the test procedure updated. This
determination may be made in advance of testing (e.g., if FRA personnel
plan to witness the testing) or as part of a records review, and FRA
encourages railroads and their suppliers to pay particular attention to
the quality and content of their test procedures and records to avoid
any such issues.
V. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action within
the meaning of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and
Review'') and DOT Order 2100.6A (``Rulemaking and Guidance
Procedures'').
FRA has prepared and placed in the docket (FRA-2021-0067) a
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) addressing the economic impacts of
this proposed rule. The RIA estimates the costs and benefits of this
proposed rule over a 30-year period. FRA used discount rates of 7 and 3
percent with these estimates. For the 30-year period analyzed, the net
costs of this proposed rule are estimated to be approximately $55.2
million, undiscounted. The present value is approximately $21.4
million, discounted at 7 percent, and $35.2 million, discounted at 3
percent. The annualized net costs are approximately $1.7 million and
$1.8 million, discounted at 7 and 3 percent, respectively.
The analysis of this proposed rule includes estimates of costs
associated with the proposed requirement for low-speed vehicle/track
system qualification, emergency roof access for certain Tier III
trainsets, as well as for the inspection, testing, and maintenance of
high-speed trainsets. FRA estimates that the 30-year total costs of
this proposed rule would be approximately $55.5 million, undiscounted.
The present value is approximately $21.7 million, discounted at 7
percent, and $35.5 million, discounted at 3 percent.
Regulatory Cost Summary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle track Emergency roof
analyses access cost ITM costs Total costs Discounted 7% Discounted 3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... $1,350,000 $1,650,000 $52,500,000 $55,500,000 $21,669,972 $35,489,848
Annualized.............................................. .............. .............. .............. .............. 1,746,305 1,810,666
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This analysis also estimates the benefits associated with: (A)
railroads not needing to apply for a waiver for pilots, snowplows, and
end plates installed on Tier III trainsets; (B) railroads not having to
redesign Tier III trainsets to account for legacy attachment strength
requirements for emergency communication equipment back-up power
fixtures; (C) modernizing the safety appliance requirements for Tier
III and certain Tier I passenger equipment, and for certain non-
passenger carrying locomotives (reducing the need for railroads to seek
statutory exemptions); and (D) a reduction in the administrative burden
of processing, reviewing, and implementing safety regulatory waivers.
FRA estimates a 30-year total benefits of approximately $0.3 million,
undiscounted, for this proposed rule. The present value is
approximately $0.2 million, discounted at 7 percent, and $0.3 million,
discounted at 3 percent.
Regulatory Benefits Summary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilots,
snowplows, Emergency Safety Government Total benefits Discounted 7% Discounted 3%
end plates communications appliances benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. $18,576 $150,000 $55,728 $74,304 $298,608 $224,959 $256,003
Annualized............................ .............. ................ .............. .............. .............. 18,129 13,061
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The net costs of this proposed rule are estimated to be
approximately $55.2 million, undiscounted. The present value is
approximately $21.4 million, discounted at 7 percent, and $35.2
million, discounted at 3 percent. The annualized net costs are
approximately $1.7 million and $1.8 million, discounted at 7 and 3
percent, respectively.
Net Regulatory Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present value Present value
Impact 7% 3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs................................... $21.67 $35.49
Benefits................................ 0.22 0.26
Net Costs............................... 21.45 35.23
[[Page 19763]]
Annualized Net Costs................ 1.73 1.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Details on the estimated costs and benefits of this proposed rule
can be found in the RIA associated with this docket. FRA invites
comments on the costs and benefits associated with this proposed rule.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 \27\ and E.O. 13272 \28\
require agency review of proposed and final rules to assess their
impacts on small entities. An agency must prepare an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis unless it determines and certifies that a rule, if
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Pursuant to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Administrator of the Federal
Railroad Administration certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
\28\ 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
FRA is submitting the information collection requirements in this
proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.\29\ The sections that
contain the new or revised information collection requirements and the
estimated time to fulfill each requirement are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
\30\ Throughout the tables in this document, the dollar
equivalent cost is derived from the 2020 Surface Transportation
Board's Full Year Wage A&B data series using the appropriate
employee group hourly wage rate that includes 75-percent overhead
charges.
\31\ Totals may not add due to rounding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total annual Average time per Total annual Total cost
CFR section Respondent universe responses responses burden hours Wage rate equivalent
(A).................. (B).................. (C) = A * B (D) \30\ (E) = C * D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
229.47(a)-(b)--Emergency Brake FRA anticipates zero submissions for stencils and markings.
Valve--Marking brake pipe valve as
such.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.7--Waivers..................... 34 railroads......... 12.00 waivers........ 6 hours.............. 72.00 $77.44 $5,575.68
238.15(b)--Movement of passenger 34 railroads......... 1,000.00 tags........ 3 minutes............ 50.00 77.44 3,872.00
equipment with power brake
defects--Limitations on movement
of passenger equipment containing
a power brake defect at the time a
Class I or IA brake test is
performed--Passenger equipment
tagged or information is recorded
as prescribed under Sec.
238.15(c)(2).
--(c) Limitations on movement of 34 railroads......... 288.00 tags.......... 3 minutes............ 14.40 77.44 1,115.14
passenger equipment in passenger
service that becomes defective en
route after a Class I or IA brake
test--Tagging of defective
equipment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(c)(4) Conditional requirement-- The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under Sec. 238.15(a)-(b).
Notice between employees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.17--Movement of passenger 34 railroads......... 200.00 tags.......... 3 minutes............ 10.00 77.44 774.40
equipment with other than power
brake defects--Tagging of
defective equipment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(e) Special requisites for The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under Sec. 238.17.
movement of passenger equipment
with safety appliance defects.
--(e)(4) Crewmember notifications.. The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under Sec. 238.17.
238.19(b)--Reporting and tracking For Tier I trainsets, FRA determined since the 1990s retention and availability of records for reporting and
defective passenger equipment-- tracking defective passenger equipment are performed by the railroad industry as part of their normal business
Retention or availability of operations. For Tier III, FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
records for Tier I and Tier III
(Revised requirement).
--(d)(1) List of repair points-- This ICR only affects Amtrak, which has submitted the necessary list of power brake repair points. FRA does not
Railroads operating long-distance anticipate any changes or updates to this list over the next few years. Consequently, there is no burden
intercity and long-distance Tier associated with this requirement.
II passenger equipment.
--(d)(2) List of repair points-- FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
Railroads operating Tier III
passenger trainsets (New
requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.21(b)--Special approval 34 railroads......... 1.00 petition........ 16 hours............. 16.00 77.44 1,239.04
procedure--Petitions for special
approval of alternative standard.
--(c) Petitions for special 34 railroads......... 1.00 petition........ 40 hours............. 40.00 77.44 3,097.60
approval of alternative compliance.
--(f) Comments on petitions........ Manufacturers and 2.00 comments........ 1 hour............... 2.00 77.44 154.88
public.
238.103(c)--Fire safety analysis 1 new railroad....... 1.00 analysis........ 150 hours............ 150.00 77.44 11,616.00
for procuring new passenger cars
and locomotives.
--(d) Fire safety analysis for 34 railroads......... 1.00 revised analysis 10 hours............. 10.00 77.44 774.40
existing passenger cars and
locomotives--Revised fire safety
analysis for leased or transferred
equipment.
238.105(a)-(e)--Passenger 2 new railroads...... 2.00 program plans... 150 hours............ 300.00 77.44 23,232.00
electronic hardware and software
safety--Safety program including
safety analysis for new and
existing railroads (Revised
requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19764]]
--(f) Additional requirements FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
(Revised requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(g) Vehicle Communication and 37 railroads......... 12.30 assessments.... 20 hours............. 246.00 77.44 19,050.24
Control System Vulnerability
Assessment--Railroad to assess and
identify potential system
vulnerabilities and resulting risk
mitigation as part of the overall
Railroad System Safety Plan
required by part 270; PTC system
must comply with the requirements
in Sec. 236.1033 (New
requirement).
--(h) Notification of product 20 suppliers......... 0.33 notifications... 1 minute............. 0.01 77.44 0.77
failure--Notification to FRA (New
requirement).
238.107--Inspection, testing, and 1 new railroad....... 1.00 maintenance plan 150 hours............ 150.00 77.44 11,616.00
maintenance plan--Development of
maintenance plan for new railroads.
--(d) Inspection, testing, and 34 railroads......... 34.00 maintenance 20 hours............. 680.00 77.44 52,659.20
maintenance plan for existing plan reviews.
railroads--Maintenance plan review.
238.108(a)--New passenger service 37 railroads......... 3.00 plans........... 63 hours............. 189.00 77.44 14,636.16
pre-revenue safety performance
demonstration--Pre-revenue safety
validation plan (New requirement
due to Sec. 22416 of the IIJA).
--(b)(2) Daily summary of the 37 railroads......... 29.00 summary reports 30 minutes........... 14.50 77.44 1,122.88
activities provided to FRA by
railroads (New requirement).
--(b)(3) Railroad to provide a 37 railroads......... 3.00 reports......... 2 hours.............. 6.00 77.44 464.64
final report to FRA (New
requirement).
--(c) Compliance--Railroads to 37 railroads......... 1.00 plan 15 hours............. 15.00 77.44 1,161.60
notify FRA on proposed amendments modification.
(New requirement).
238.109(b)--Training, 1 new railroad....... 1.00 training program 160 hours............ 160.00 77.44 12,390.40
qualification, and designation
program--Development of training
program/curriculum for new
railroads.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(b) Training employees and The associated burdens relating to the training of employees and supervisors have been addressed previously when
supervisors. FRA calculated the economic costs of the regulation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(b)(13) Recordkeeping--Employees 34 railroads......... 488.00 records....... 3 minutes............ 24.40 77.44 1,889.54
and trainers--Training
qualifications.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.110(b)(1)--Design criteria, The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under paragraphs (b)(2) through (g)(2) of
testing, documentation, and this section.
approvals--Documentation and
recordkeeping (New requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(b)(2) Recordkeeping or 37 railroads......... 1.00 retention of 5 minutes............ .08 77.44 6.20
documentation (New requirement). document.
--(c)(1)(ii) Vehicle qualification 37 railroads......... 1.00 new or modified 75 hours............. 75.00 77.44 5,808.00
plan--Compliance matrix (New plan.
requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(c)(2) Approval of the vehicle FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
qualification plan--Vehicle
qualification plan disapproved in
part--Resubmission (New
requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(d) System description (operating 37 railroads......... 11.67 system 75 hours............. 875.25 77.44 67,779.36
environment) and design criteria descriptions.
(New requirement).
--(e)(2)(i) Structural carbody 37 railroads......... 1.00 new or modified 8 hours.............. 8.00 77.44 619.52
crashworthiness compliance--A test test plan.
plan submission to FRA (New
requirement).
--(e)(2)(ii) Structural carbody 37 railroads......... 1.00 analysis........ 10 hours............. 10.00 77.44 774.40
crashworthiness compliance--Finite
element analysis results submitted
to FRA (New requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(f) Safety Appliances (New The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of
requirement). this section.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(g)(1)(i) Approval of design 37 railroads......... 1.00 new or modified 4 hours.............. 4.00 77.44 309.76
review documentation, tests, and documentation.
inspections--Design review,
testing, and inspection
documentation (New requirement).
--(g)(1)(ii) Approval of design 37 railroads......... 1.00 revised document 1 hour............... 1.00 77.44 77.44
review documentation, tests, and
inspections--Resubmission of
revised document (New requirement).
--(g)(2)(i) Approval of design 37 railroads......... 1.00 request......... 1 hour............... 1.00 77.44 77.44
review documentation, tests, and
inspections--Sample-equipment
inspection--Request (New
requirement).
--(g)(2)(ii) Approval of design 37 railroads......... 1.00 re-request...... 1 hour............... 1.00 77.44 77.44
review documentation, tests, and
inspections--Railroad to address
all exceptions taken and then, if
directed by FRA, request a
reinspection pursuant to (g)(2)(i)
of this section (New requirement).
238.111(a)(1)-(2)--Pre-revenue 37 railroads......... 2.00 new and modified 192 hours............ 384.00 77.44 29,736.96
service acceptance testing-- plans.
Passenger equipment designs that
have not been used in revenue
service in the U.S.--Plan and
submission to FRA (previously
under Sec. 238.111(b)(1)-(2))
(Revised requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19765]]
--(a)(3)-(4) Test procedures The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement when it comes to the test plan development is
containing minimum information covered under Sec. 238.111(a). Additionally, the reporting of the test results is covered under Sec.
listed in appendix K to this part 238.111(a)(6)(ii).
to be provided to FRA as part of
pre-revenue service acceptance
testing plan test procedures
(previously under Sec.
238.111(b)(3)-(4)) (Revised
requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(a)(6)(i) Tier I passenger 33 railroads......... 1.00 test result..... 4 hours.............. 4.00 77.44 309.76
equipment: Test results made
available to FRA upon request
(previously under Sec.
238.111(b)(4)) (Revised
requirement).
--(a)(6)(ii) Tier II & Tier III 4 railroads.......... 1.00 letter.......... 4 hours.............. 4.00 77.44 309.76
passenger equipment: Report of
test results to FRA (previously
under Sec. 238.111(b)(4))
(Revised requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(a)(7) Correction of safety FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
deficiencies--Railroads can
petition FRA for a waiver of a
safety regulation under the
procedure specified in part 211
(previously under Sec.
238.111(b)(5)).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(b) Passenger equipment that has 37 railroads......... 1.33 plans........... 16 hours............. 21.28 77.44 1,647.92
previously been used in revenue
service in the U.S.--Railroads to
verify the applicability of
previous tests performed under
Sec. 238.111(a)(1)(vii)(A)-(D)
(previously under 238.111(a)(1))
(Revised requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(c) Modifications, new The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under Sec. 238.111(a).
technology, and major upgrades
(Revised requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.115(c)--Emergency lighting-- The inspection time and mechanical testing are covered under the economic cost. Consequently, there is no PRA
Periodic inspection (New burden.
requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.131(a)--Exterior side door FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
safety systems--new passenger cars
and locomotives used in passenger
service--Labels and visual
guidelines (Revised requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(b) Exterior side door safety 1 new railroad....... 1.00 analysis........ 80 hours............. 80.00 77.44 6,195.20
systems--new passenger cars and
locomotives used in passenger
service--Failure Modes, Effects,
Criticality Analysis (FMECA).
238.133(a)--Exterior side door 1 new railroad....... 1.00 plan............ 4 hours.............. 4.00 77.44 309.76
safety systems--Passenger cars and
locomotives used in passenger
service--By-pass device
verification--Functional test
plans.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(b) Unsealed door by-pass device-- The associated burdens related to safety job briefings have been addressed previously when FRA calculated the
Notification to railroad's economic costs of the regulation.
designated authority by train
crewmember of unsealed door by-
pass device.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(c) En route failure--Safety 34 railroads......... 100.00 topic-specific 2 minutes............ 3.33 77.44 257.88
briefing by train crew when door briefings and
by-pass device is activated. notifications.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(c) Notification to designated RR The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under Sec. 238.133(c).
authority by train crewmember that
door by-pass device has been
activated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(c)(1) On-site qualified person The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under Sec. 238.133(c).
(QP) description to a qualified
maintenance person (QMP) off-site
that equipment is safe to move for
repairs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(c)(2) QP/QMP notification to The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under Sec. 238.133(c).
crewmember in charge that door by-
pass has been activated and safety
briefing by train crew.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(d) Records...................... 34 railroads......... 100.00 records....... 2 minutes............ 3.33 77.44 257.88
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(d) Records of unintended opening The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under Sec. 238.133(d).
of a powered exterior side door.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(g)(2) RR record of by-pass The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under Sec. 238.133(d).
activations found unsealed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.135(a)(1)--Operating practices The associated burdens related to daily job briefings have been addressed previously when FRA calculated the
for exterior side door safety economic costs of the regulation.
systems--Daily job briefings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(c) Railroads' request to FRA for The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under Sec. 238.7 or Sec.
special consideration to operate 238.21.
passenger trains with exterior
side doors or trap doors, or both,
open between stations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(c)(4) Railroads' response to FRA The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under Sec. 238.7 or Sec.
request for additional information 238.21.
concerning special consideration
request.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19766]]
--(d) Operating rules on how to 1 new railroad....... 1.00 operating rule.. 8 hours.............. 8.00 77.44 619.52
safely override a door summary
circuit or no-motion system, or
both, in the event of an en route
exterior side door failure or
malfunction on a passenger train
(Note: Includes burden under Sec.
238.137).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(d) Railroads to provide a copy Railroads were required to complete the requirements of this subsection by December 6, 2018, so the estimated
of written operating rules to paperwork burden is zero.
train crewmembers and control
center personnel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(e) Railroads' training of train The associated burdens relating to the training of train crewmembers have been addressed previously when FRA
crewmembers on requirements of calculated the economic costs of the regulation. FRA estimates the paperwork burdens associated with training
this section. recordkeeping under Sec. 238.109 or under the OMB control numbers 2130-0596 or 2130-0533.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(e) Railroads' training of new The associated burdens relating to the training of train crewmembers have been addressed previously when FRA
employees. calculated the economic costs of the regulation. FRA estimates the paperwork burdens associated with training
recordkeeping under Sec. 238.109 or under the OMB control numbers 2130-0596 or 2130-0533.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(g) RR operational/efficiency The associated burdens relating to operational testing or observation of operating crewmembers and control center
tests of train crewmembers & personnel have been previously addressed when FRA calculated the economic costs of the regulation.
control center employees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.139(e)--Vehicle/track system 33 railroads......... 1.00 testing plan.... 120 hours............ 120.00 77.44 9,292.80
qualification--New vehicle type
qualification testing plan (New
requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(e) Vehicle/track system FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
qualification--Existing vehicle
type qualification testing plan
(New requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(g) Vehicle/track system The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under paragraph (e) of this
qualification--Qualification section.
testing results (New requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(i)(1) Vehicle/track system 33 railroads......... 1.00 record.......... 10 minutes........... .17 77.44 13.16
qualification--Document retention
(New requirement).
--(i)(2) Vehicle/track system 33 railroads......... 2.00 written consents 30 minutes........... 1.00 77.44 77.44
qualification--Written consent of
each affected track owner (New
requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.201(b)--Scope/alternative The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under Sec. 238.21.
compliance--Supporting
documentation demonstrating
compliance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(b) Notice of tests sent to FRA The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under Sec. 238.111(a)(4).
30 days prior to commencement of
operations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.229(c)--Safety appliances-- 1 new railroad....... 1.00 list............ 1 hour............... 1.00 77.44 77.44
Welded safety appliances--Written
lists submitted to FRA by the
railroads.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(d) Defective welded safety 34 railroads......... 4.00 tags............ 3 minutes............ .20 59.89 11.98
appliance or welded safety
appliance bracket or support--
Tagging.
--(d) Notification to crewmembers 34 railroads......... 2.00 notices......... 1 minute............. .03 77.44 2.32
about non-compliant equipment.
--(g) Inspection plans............. 1 new railroad....... 1.00 plan............ 16 hours............. 16.00 77.44 1,239.04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(h) Inspection personnel-- The associated burdens relating to training of inspection personnel have been addressed previously when FRA
Training. calculated the economic costs of the regulation. FRA estimates the paperwork burdens associated with the retention
of training records under Sec. 238.109.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(j)(1)(iv) Remedial action: The associated burdens relating to inspections have been addressed previously when FRA calculated the economic
Defect/crack in weld--A record of costs of the regulation. FRA estimates the paperwork burdens associated with the retention of inspection records
the welded repair. under Sec. 238.229(k).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(j)(2)(iv) Petitions for special The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under Sec. 238.21.
approval of alternative
compliance--Impractical equipment
design.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(k) Records of the inspection and The estimated burden for this regulatory requirement is covered below under Sec. 238.303 and under the OMB
repair of the welded safety control number 2130-0004 (Sec. 229.21).
appliance brackets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.230(b)(1)--Safety Appliances-- FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
New equipment--Inspection record
of welded equipment by qualified
employee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(b)(3) Welded safety appliances: FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
Documentation for equipment
impractically designed to
mechanically fasten safety
appliance support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.231--Brake System--Inspection The estimated paperwork burden for this requirement is covered under Sec. 238.303 and under the OMB control
and repair of hand/parking brake: number 2130-0004.
Records (under FRA Form 6180.49A).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(h) Procedures verifying hold of 1 new railroad....... 1.00 procedure....... 2 hours.............. 2.00 77.44 154.88
hand/parking brakes.
238.237(a)-(b)--Automated 1 new railroad....... 1.00 document........ 2 hours.............. 2.00 77.44 154.88
monitoring- Documentation for
alerter/deadman control timing.
--(d) Defective alerter/deadman 34 railroads......... 25.00 tags........... 3 minutes............ 1.25 59.89 74.86
control: Tagging.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19767]]
238.303--Exterior calendar day FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
mechanical inspection of passenger
equipment: Notice of previous
inspection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(e)(15) Dynamic brakes not in 34 railroads......... 50.00 tags........... 3 minutes............ 2.50 59.89 149.73
operating mode: Tag.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(e)(15)(ii) Conventional The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under Sec. 238.303(e)(15).
locomotives equipped with
inoperative dynamic brakes:
Tagging.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(e)(17) MU passenger equipment FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
found with inoperative/ineffective
air compressors at exterior
calendar day inspection: Documents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(e)(17)(v) Written notice to The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under Sec. 238.303(e)(15).
train crew about inoperative/
ineffective air compressors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(e)(18)(iv) Records of The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered below under Sec. 238.303(g).
inoperative air compressors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(g) Record of exterior calendar 34 railroads......... 1,734,115.00 daily 1 minute............. 28,901.92 77.44 2,238,164.68
day mechanical inspection (Other inspection records.
than locomotives) (* Note:
Includes burden for records of
inoperative air compressors under
Sec. 238.303(e)(18)(iv)).
238.305--Interior calendar day 34 railroads......... 540.00 tags.......... 3 minutes............ 27.00 77.44 2,090.88
mechanical inspection of passenger
cars--Tagging of defective end/
side doors.
--(f) Records of interior calendar 34 railroads......... 3,102,865.00 daily 1 minute............. 51,714.42 77.44 4,004,764.68
day inspection. inspection records.
238.307(a)(2)--Periodic mechanical 34 railroads......... 2.00 notices......... 5 hours.............. 10.00 77.44 774.40
inspection of passenger cars and
unpowered vehicles--Alternative
inspection intervals:
Notifications.
--(c)(1) Notice of seats and seat 34 railroads......... 200.00 notices....... 2 minutes............ 6.67 59.89 399.47
attachments broken or loose.
--(e)(1) Records of each periodic 34 railroads......... 5,184.00 inspection 1 hour............... 5,184.00 59.89 310,469.76
mechanical inspection. records.
--(e)(2) Detailed documentation of 34 railroads......... 2.00 documents....... 100 hours............ 200.00 77.44 15,488.00
reliability assessments as basis
for alternative inspection
interval.
238.311--Single car test--Tagging 34 railroads......... 50.00 tags........... 3 minutes............ 2.50 59.89 149.73
to indicate need for single car
test.
238.313(h)--Class I Brake Test-- 34 railroads......... 15,600.00 records.... 30 minutes........... 7,800.00 59.89 467,142.00
Record for additional inspection
for passenger equipment that does
not comply with Sec.
238.231(b)(1).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.315(a)(1)--Class IA brake test-- The associated burdens related to briefings have been addressed previously when FRA calculated the economic costs
Notice to train crew that test has of the regulation.
been performed (verbal notice).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(f)(5) Communicating signal The associated burdens related to briefings have been addressed previously when FRA calculated the economic costs
tested and operating as intended. of the regulation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.317--Class II brake test-- The associated burdens related to briefings have been addressed previously when FRA calculated the economic costs
Communicating signal tested and of the regulation.
operating as intended.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.321--Out-of-service credit-- The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under Sec. 238.307 and under OMB
Passenger car: Out-of-use notation. control number 2130-0004 under Sec. 229.23(d)-(g).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.445(a)--Automated Monitoring-- There are no paperwork burdens associated with this subsection. FRA corrects its previous overinclusion.
Performance monitoring: alerters/
alarms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(c) Monitoring system: Self-test There are no paperwork burdens associated with this subsection. FRA corrects its previous overinclusion.
feature: Notifications.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.703--Quasi-static compression 1 new railroad....... .33 document......... 40 hours............. 13.20 77.44 1,022.21
load requirements--Document to FRA
on Tier III trainsets.
238.705--Dynamic collision 1 new railroad....... .33 validation 40 hours............. 13.20 77.44 1,022.21
scenario--Model validation document.
document to FRA for review and
approval.
238.707--Override protection--Anti- 1 new railroad....... .33 evaluation....... 40 hours............. 13.20 77.44 1,022.21
climbing performance evaluation
for Tier III trainsets.
238.709--Fluid entry inhibition-- 1 new railroad....... .33 analysis......... 20 hours............. 6.60 77.44 511.10
Information to demonstrate
compliance with this section of a
Tier III trainset.
238.721--Glazing--Cab glazing; end 3 glass manufacturers .33 technical 60 hours............. 19.80 77.44 1,533.31
facing--Documentation containing documentation.
technical justification.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(a)(6) Marking of end-facing Windows are, customarily, automatically marked during the production process. Therefore, there will be no
exterior windows for Tier III additional burden to mark the windows.
trainsets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19768]]
--(b) Cab Glazing; side-facing 3 glass manufacturers .33 analysis......... 10 hours............. 3.30 77.44 255.55
exterior windows in Tier III cab--
Each end-facing exterior window in
a cab shall, at a minimum, provide
ballistic penetration resistance
that meets the requirements of
appendix A to part 223
(Certification of Glazing
Materials).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(b) Marking of side-facing Windows are, customarily, automatically marked during the production process. Therefore, there will be no
exterior windows in Tier III additional burden to mark the windows.
Trainsets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(c) Non-Cab Glazing; Side-facing 3 glass manufacturers .33 analysis......... 20 hours............. 6.60 77.44 511.10
exterior windows--Tier III--
compliance document for Type II
glazing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(c) Marking of side-facing Windows are, customarily, automatically marked during the production process. Therefore, there will be no
exterior windows--Tier III additional burden to mark the windows.
Trainsets--non-cab cars.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(c)(2) Alternative standard to 3 glass manufacturers .67 alternative 5 hours.............. 3.35 77.44 259.42
FRA for side-facing exterior analysis.
window intended to be breakable
and serve as an emergency window
exit (option to comply with an
alternative standard).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.731(a)--Brake Systems--RR The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under Sec. 238.111(a).
analysis and testing Tier III
trainsets' maximum safe operating
speed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(d) Tier III trainsets' passenger 1 new railroad....... 53.33 stencilings.... 1 hour (design) + 2 55.11 59.89 3,300.54
brake alarm--legible stenciling/ minutes (marking).
marking of devices with words
``Passenger Brake Alarm''
(Including the design of the
sticker).
--(f) Main reservoir test/ 1 new railroad....... .33 certification.... 6 hours.............. 1.98 59.89 118.58
certification.
--(h) Main reservoir tests-- 1 railroad........... .33 ITM plan......... 10 hours............. 3.30 77.44 255.55
Inspection, testing and
maintenance program (ITM).
--(j) Brake application/release-- 1 railroad........... .33 design........... 40 hours............. 13.20 77.44 1,022.21
Brake actuator design with
approved brake cylinder pressure
as part of design review process.
--(o) Train securement--Tier III 1 railroad........... .33 procedure........ 8 hours.............. 2.64 77.44 204.44
equipment: demonstrated securement
procedure.
238.733--Interior fixture 1 railroad........... .33 analysis/document 20 hours............. 6.60 77.44 511.10
attachment--Analysis for FRA
approval (Tier III).
238.735--Seat crashworthiness 1 railroad........... .33 analysis/document 40 hours............. 13.20 77.44 1,022.21
standard (passenger & cab crew)--
Analysis for FRA approval (Tier
III).
238.737--Luggage racks--Analysis 1 railroad........... .33 analysis/document 20 hours............. 6.60 77.44 511.10
for FRA approval (Tier III).
238.741--Emergency window egress 1 railroad........... .33 plan............. 60 hours............. 19.80 77.44 1,533.31
and rescue access--Plan to FRA for
passenger cars in Tier III
trainsets not in compliance with
sections 238.113 or 238.114.
238.743--Emergency Lighting-- 1 railroad........... .33 analysis/test.... 60 hours............. 19.80 77.44 1,533.31
Analysis for FRA approval (Tier
III).
238.745--Emergency communication-- 3 railroads.......... 277.00 marked 5 minutes............ 23.08 77.44 1,787.32
Marking of each intercom intended intercom locations.
for passenger use on Tier III
trainsets as specified in Sec.
238.121 (New requirement; note the
existing burden associated with
Tier I & Tier II trainsets is
covered under OMB control no. 2130-
0576).
238.747--Emergency roof access for 3 railroads.......... 104.00 marked 30 minutes........... 52.00 77.44 4,026.88
cab occupants--Marked emergency emergency roof
roof access locations on Tier III access locations.
trainsets as specified in Sec.
238.123(a), (d), and (e) (New
requirement; note the existing
burden associated with Tier I &
Tier II trainsets is covered under
OMB control no. 2130-0576).
238.751--Alerters--Alternate 1 railroad........... .33 analysis/test.... 40 hours............. 13.20 77.44 1,022.21
technology--Analysis for FRA
approval (Tier III).
238.759--Trainset cab noise-- 3 railroads.......... 1.00 record.......... 5 minutes............ .08 77.44 6.20
Performance standards for Tier III
trainsets--Recordkeeping on cab
noise test protocol as set forth
in appendix I to this part (New
requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.761--Trainset sanitation FRA anticipates zero submissions for this 3-year ICR period.
facilities for employees as
specified in Sec. Sec. 229.137
and 229.139--Defective locomotive
toilet facility--Tagging, notation
on daily inspection report (New
requirement; note the existing
burden associated with Tier I &
Tier II trainsets is covered under
OMB control no. 2130-0552).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.765--Event recorders (New FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.775--Trainset horn--Testing of 3 railroads.......... .33 written report... 1 hour............... .33 77.44 25.56
the trainset horn sound level in
accordance with Sec. 229.129(c)--
Written report and record
retention (New requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.777(e)(2)--Inspection Records-- FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
Copy of summary report made
available to the engineer and to
FRA upon request (New requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19769]]
238.785--Trainset electrical FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
system--High voltage markings:
doors, cover plates, or barriers
(New requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.791--Safety appliances (New The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under Sec. Sec. 238.110 (design) and
requirement). 238.901 et seq. (records).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.903--Trainset Inspection, 3 railroads.......... .67 plan............. 150 hours............ 100.50 77.44 7,782.72
Testing, and Maintenance
Requirements for Tier III
Passenger Equipment--Program (New
requirement).
--(f) Retention of records......... 3 railroads.......... 10,140.00 records.... 5 minutes............ 845.00 77.44 65,436.80
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.907--Standard procedures for The estimated paperwork burden for this requirement is covered under Sec. 238.903.
safely performing inspection,
testing, and maintenance, and
repairs (New requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.909--Quality control/quality The estimated paperwork burden for this requirement is covered under Sec. 238.903.
assurance program (New
requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.911--Inspection, testing, and 3 railroads.......... .67 condensed program 2 hours.............. 1.34 77.44 103.77
maintenance program format--A
condensed version of the program
that contains only those items
identified as safety-critical by
the railroad submitted for
approval by FRA (New requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.913(a)(1)--Inspection, testing, The estimated paperwork burden for this requirement is covered under Sec. 238.903.
and maintenance program approval
procedure--Initial submission (New
requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(a)(2) Inspection, testing, and FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
maintenance program approval
procedure--Submission of
amendments (New requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(b)(3) Inspection, testing, and 3 railroads.......... .67 affirming 5 minutes............ .06 77.44 4.65
maintenance program approval statement.
procedure--Statement affirming
that the railroad has provided a
copy of the program or amendments
on designated representatives of
railroad employees as required
under paragraph (c) of this
section (New requirement).
--(c) Inspection, testing, and 3 railroads.......... .33 comment.......... 5 hours.............. 1.65 77.44 127.78
maintenance program approval
procedure--Comment--Railroad to
provide a copy to the designated
representatives of railroad
employees responsible for the
equipment's operation, inspection,
testing, and maintenance under
this subpart, of each submission
filed with FRA (New requirement).
--(d)(1) Inspection, testing, and 3 railroads.......... .33 review of 2 hours.............. .66 77.44 51.11
maintenance program approval deficiency.
procedure--FRA's notification to
railroads (New requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(d)(2) Inspection, testing, and FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
maintenance program approval
procedure--Amendments in response
to FRA's disapproval (New
requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(d)(3) Inspection, testing, and The estimated paperwork burden for this requirement is covered above under paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
maintenance program approval
procedure--Resubmission of initial
submission or amendments in
response to FRA's identification
of deficiencies after approval
(New requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(e) Inspection, testing, and FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
maintenance program approval
procedure--Annual review--Railroad
to provide written notice to FRA
and the designated representatives
of the railroad's employees prior
to the annual review (New
requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.1003(a)-(e)--Movement of FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
defective Tier III passenger
equipment--Tagging to indicate
``non-complying trainset'' (New
requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(f) Movement of defective Tier FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
III passenger equipment--Movement
is made in accordance with the
restrictions contained in the
Special Notice under part 216 (New
requirement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total \31\..................... 37 railroads......... 4,871,540 Responses.. N/A.................. 98,889 N/A 7,401,389
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions;
searching existing data sources; gathering or maintaining the needed
data; and reviewing the information. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits
[[Page 19770]]
comments concerning: Whether these information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of FRA,
including whether the information has practical utility; the accuracy
of FRA's estimates of the burden of the information collection
requirements; the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and whether the burden of collection of information on
those who are to respond, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology, may be
minimized. For information or a copy of the paperwork package submitted
to OMB, contact Ms. Arlette Mussington, Information Collection
Clearance Officer, at 571-609-1285 or Ms. Joanne Swafford, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, at 757-897-9908. Organizations and
individuals desiring to submit comments on the collection of
information requirements should direct them via email to Ms. Mussington
at [email protected] or Ms. Swafford at
[email protected].
OMB is required to decide concerning the collection of information
requirements contained in this rule between 30 and 60 days after
publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a
comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication. FRA is not authorized to
impose a penalty on persons for violating information collection
requirements that do not display a current OMB control number, if
required. FRA intends to obtain current OMB control numbers for any new
information collection requirements resulting from this rulemaking
action prior to the effective date of the final rule. The OMB control
number, when assigned, will be announced by separate notice in the
Federal Register.
D. Federalism Implications
Executive Order 13132, Federalism,\32\ requires FRA to develop an
accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue
a regulation with federalism implications that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs and that is not required by statute, unless the
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, the agency
consults with State and local governments, or the agency consults with
State and local government officials early in the process of developing
the regulation. Where a regulation has federalism implications and
preempts State law, the agency seeks to consult with State and local
officials in the process of developing the regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. FRA has
determined that this proposed rule has no federalism implications,
other than the possible preemption of State laws under 49 U.S.C. 20106.
Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order
13132 do not apply, and preparation of a federalism summary impact
statement for the proposed rule is not required.
E. International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 \33\ prohibits Federal agencies
from engaging in any standards or related activities that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States.
Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered
unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
for U.S. standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 19 U.S.C. ch. 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA has assessed the potential effect of this rulemaking on foreign
commerce and believes that its proposed requirements are consistent
with the Trade Agreements Act. The proposed requirements are safety
standards, which, as noted, are not considered unnecessary obstacles to
trade. Moreover, FRA has sought, to the extent practicable, to state
the proposed requirements in terms of the performance desired, rather
than in more narrow terms restricted to a particular design or system.
F. Environmental Impact
FRA has evaluated this proposed rule in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act \34\ (NEPA), the Council of
Environmental Quality's NEPA implementing regulations,\35\ and FRA's
NEPA implementing regulations.\36\ FRA has determined that this
proposed rule is categorically excluded from environmental review and
therefore does not require the preparation of an environmental
assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). Categorical
exclusions (CEs) are actions identified in an agency's NEPA
implementing procedures that do not normally have a significant impact
on the environment and therefore do not require either an EA or
EIS.\37\ Specifically, FRA has determined that this proposed rule is
categorically excluded from detailed environmental review.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
\35\ 40 CFR parts 1500-1508.
\36\ 23 CFR part 771.
\37\ 40 CFR 1508.4
\38\ See 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15) (categorically excluding
``[p]romulgation of rules, the issuance of policy statements, the
waiver or modification of existing regulatory requirements, or
discretionary approvals that do not result in significantly
increased emissions of air or water pollutants or noise'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The main purpose of this rulemaking is to amend FRA's Passenger
Equipment Safety Standards by adding safety standards to facilitate the
safe implementation of high-speed rail at speeds up to 220 mph (Tier
III). This rulemaking would not directly or indirectly impact any
environmental resources and would not result in significantly increased
emissions of air or water pollutants or noise. In analyzing the
applicability of a CE, FRA must also consider whether unusual
circumstances are present that would warrant a more detailed
environmental review.\39\ FRA has concluded that no such unusual
circumstances exist with respect to this proposed rule and it meets the
requirements for categorical exclusion.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ 23 CFR 771.116(b).
\40\ 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and its implementing regulations, FRA has determined this undertaking
has no potential to affect historic properties.\41\ FRA has also
determined that this rulemaking does not approve a project resulting in
a use of a resource protected by Section 4(f).\42\ Further, FRA
reviewed this proposed rulemaking and found it consistent with
Executive Order 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and
Abroad.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See 54 U.S.C. 306108.
\42\ See Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended
(Pub. L. 89-670, 80 Stat. 931); 49 U.S.C. 303.
\43\ 86 FR 7619 (Feb. 1, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19771]]
G. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,\44\ and DOT
Order 5610.2C \45\ require DOT agencies to achieve environmental
justice as part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic
effects, of their programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations. The DOT Order instructs DOT
agencies to address compliance with Executive Order 12898 and
requirements within the DOT Order in rulemaking activities, as
appropriate, and also requires consideration of the benefits of
transportation programs, policies, and other activities where minority
populations and low-income populations benefit, at a minimum, to the
same level as the general population as a whole when determining
impacts on minority and low-income populations. FRA has evaluated this
proposed rule under Executive Order 12898 and the DOT Order and has
determined that it would not cause disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effects on minority populations or low-
income populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ 59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994).
\45\ Available at: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/Final-for-OST-C-210312-003-signed.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
FRA has evaluated this proposed rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, dated
November 6, 2000. The proposed rule would not have a substantial direct
effect on one or more Indian tribes, would not impose substantial
direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and would not
preempt tribal laws. Therefore, the funding and consultation
requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply, and a tribal
summary impact statement is not required.
I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Under section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,\46\
each Federal agency ``shall, unless otherwise prohibited by law, assess
the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments, and the private sector (other than to the extent that such
regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law).''
Section 202 of the Act \47\ further requires that ``before promulgating
any general notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in
the promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may
result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted
annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and before promulgating any
final rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was
published, the agency shall prepare a written statement'' detailing the
effect on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector.
This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure, in the
aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more (as adjusted annually for inflation)
in any one year, and thus preparation of such a statement is not
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Public Law 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531.
\47\ 2 U.S.C. 1532.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Energy Impact
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use, requires
Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any
``significant energy action.'' \48\ FRA evaluated this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13211 and determined that this regulatory action
is not a ``significant energy action'' within the meaning of Executive
Order 13211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
K. Privacy Act
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through
www.dot.gov/privacy. To facilitate comment tracking and response, we
encourage commenters to provide their name, or the name of their
organization; however, submission of names is completely optional.
Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all timely comments will
be fully considered. If you wish to provide comments containing
proprietary or confidential information, please contact the agency for
alternate submission instructions.
L. Analysis Under 1 CFR Part 51
As required by 1 CFR 51.5, FRA has summarized the standards it is
proposing to incorporate by reference and shown the reasonable
availability of those standards in the section-by-section analysis of
this rulemaking document (see the discussions of Sec. Sec.
238.139(c)(1)(i) and 238.745(b)). APTA standard PR-M-S-18-10 is
currently approved for the location where is appears in the amendatory
text; no change to the standard is proposed.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 216
Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 231
Railroad safety.
49 CFR Part 238
Incorporation by reference, Passenger equipment, Railroad safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The Proposed Rule
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA proposes to amend
chapter II, subtitle B of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations
as follows:
PART 216--SPECIAL NOTICE AND EMERGENCY ORDER PROCEDURES: RAILROAD
TRACK, LOCOMOTIVE AND EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 216 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-20104, 20107, 20111, 20133, 20701-
20702, 21301-21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
0
2. Revise Sec. 216.14(c) to read as follows:
Sec. 216.214 Special notice for repairs--passenger equipment.
* * * * *
(c) Railroad passenger equipment subject to a Special Notice may be
moved from the place where it was found to be unsafe for further
service to the nearest available point where the equipment can be
repaired, if such movement is necessary to make the repairs. However,
the movement is subject to the further restrictions of Sec. Sec.
238.15 and 238.17, or Sec. 238.1003 of this chapter.
PART 231--RAILROAD SAFETY APPLIANCE STANDARDS
0
3. The authority citation for part 231 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-20103, 20107, 20131, 20301-20303,
21301-21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
[[Page 19772]]
0
4. Add Sec. 231.0(b)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 231.0 Applicability and penalties.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) Tier III passenger equipment as defined in Sec. 238.5 of this
chapter (i.e., passenger equipment operating in a shared right-of-way
at speeds not exceeding 125 mph and in an exclusive right-of-way
without grade crossings at speeds exceeding 125 mph but not exceeding
220 mph).
* * * * *
PART 238--PASSENGER EQUIPMENT SAFETY STANDARDS
0
5. The authority citation for part 238 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20133, 20141, 20302-20303,
20306, 20701-20702, 21301-21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; and 49
CFR 1.89.
Subpart A--General
0
6. Amend Sec. 238.5 by adding in alphabetical order definitions of
``clear length'', ``crew access side access steps'', ``representative
segment of the route'', and ``Tier IV system'', and revising the
definition of ``in service''. The additions and revision read as
follows:
Sec. 238.5 Definitions.
* * * * *
Clear length means, as applied to handholds and handrails, the
distance about which a minimum 2-inch hand clearance exists in all
directions around the handhold or handrail. Intermediate supports on
handrails may be considered part of the clear length.
* * * * *
Crew access side steps means a step(s) or stirrup(s) located on the
side of the car to assist an employee in entering or existing through
an exterior side door for train crew use.
* * * * *
In service, when used in connection with passenger equipment,
means--
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Is being handled in accordance with Sec. Sec. 238.15, 238.17,
238.305(d), 238.503(f), or 238.1003 as applicable;
* * * * *
Representative segment of the route means--
(1) A continuous track section or multiple track sections no less
than 50 miles in length that consist of--
(i) A curvature distribution as described below;
(ii) A segment or segments of tangent track over which the intended
maximum operating speed can be sustained; and
(iii) Any bridges and special-trackwork that are within the track
section or track sections.
(2) If each of a railroad's line segments is less than 50 miles,
then the ``representative segment of the route'' means one complete
line segment that consists of the conditions described in paragraphs
(1)(ii) and (iii) of this definition.
(3) A track section as described under paragraph (1) of this
definition shall have a curvature distribution that is within 2% of the
curvature distribution of the complete line segment, evaluated using
the root mean squared (RMS) of the differences between the two
distributions.
* * * * *
Tier IV system means any railroad that provides or is available to
provide passenger service using non-interoperable technology that
operates on an exclusive right-of-way without grade crossings, not
comingled with freight equipment or Tier I, II, or III passenger
equipment, and not physically connected to the general railroad system.
* * * * *
0
7. In Sec. 238.19, revise paragraphs (a)(4) and (5), (b), and (d) to
read as follows:
Sec. 238.19 Reporting and tracking of repairs to defective passenger
equipment.
(a) * * *
(4) The determination made by a qualified person, qualified
maintenance person, or other qualified individual on whether the
equipment is safe to run;
(5) The name of the qualified person, qualified maintenance person,
or other qualified individual making such a determination;
* * * * *
(b) Retention of records. At a minimum, each railroad shall keep
the records described in paragraph (a) of this section in accordance
with the following:
(1) For Tier I equipment, one periodic maintenance interval for
each specific type of equipment as described in the railroad's
inspection, testing, and maintenance plan required by Sec. 238.107.
FRA strongly encourages railroads to keep these records for longer
periods of time because they form the basis for future reliability-
based decisions concerning test and maintenance intervals that may be
developed pursuant to Sec. 238.307(b).
(2) For Tier III equipment, at least one year.
* * * * *
(d) List of repair points. (1) Railroads operating long-distance
intercity and long-distance Tier II passenger equipment shall designate
locations, in writing, where repairs to passenger equipment with a
power brake defect will be made. Railroads operating these trains shall
designate a sufficient number of repair locations to ensure the safe
and timely repair of passenger equipment.
(2) Railroads operating Tier III passenger trainsets shall
designate locations, in writing, where repairs to safety-critical items
on passenger equipment, including those with a power brake defect will
be made. The railroad shall designate brake system repair point(s) in
the inspection, testing, and maintenance program required by Sec.
238.903(a). No Tier III trainset shall depart a brake system repair
point where repairs can be made with brake system defect unless that
trainset has its required operational braking capability, and not for a
period to exceed 5 consecutive calendar days.
(3) The railroad shall provide the list required under either
paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section to FRA's Associate
Administrator and make it available to FRA for inspection and copying
upon request. The designations made in such lists shall not be changed
without at least 30 days' advance written notice to FRA's Associate
Administrator.
Subpart B--Safety Planning and General Requirements
0
8. Amend Sec. 238.105 by revising the undesignated introductory text,
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), the paragraph headings of (d) and (e), and
adding paragraphs (f) through (h). The revisions and additions read as
follows:
Sec. 238.105 Passenger electronic hardware and software safety.
Except as provided below under paragraph (f) of this section, the
requirements of this section apply to electronic hardware and software
used to control or monitor safety functions in passenger equipment
ordered on or after September 8, 2000, and such components implemented
or materially modified in new or existing passenger equipment on or
after September 9, 2002.
(a) General. The railroad shall develop, adopt, and comply with a
hardware and software safety program to guide the design, development,
testing, integration, and verification of safety-critical passenger
equipment electronic software and hardware. The hardware and software
safety program may be maintained in either a written or an electronic
format.
(b) Safety program. The hardware and software safety program shall
include a
[[Page 19773]]
description of how the following will be accomplished, achieved,
carried out, or implemented to ensure safety and reliability:
(1) The hardware and software design process;
(2) The hardware and software design documentation;
(3) The hardware and software hazard analysis;
(4) Hardware and software safety reviews;
(5) Hardware and software hazard monitoring and tracking;
(6) Hardware and software integration safety testing;
(7) Demonstration of overall hardware and software system safety as
part of the pre-revenue service testing of the equipment; and
(8) Safety analysis that follows the requirements of paragraph (c)
of this section.
(c) Safety analysis. The safety analysis shall establish and
document the minimum requirements that will govern the development and
implementation of all products subject to this section, and be based on
good engineering practice and should be consistent with the guidance
contained in appendix F to part 229 of this chapter in order to
establish that a product's safety-critical functions will operate with
a high degree of confidence in a fail-safe manner. The hardware and
software safety analysis shall be based on a formal safety methodology
that includes a Failure Modes, Effects, Criticality Analysis (FMECA);
verification and validation testing for all hardware and software
components and their interfaces; and comprehensive hardware and
software integration testing to ensure that the hardware and software
system functions as intended.
(d) Fail safe requirements. * * *
(e) Compliance. * * *
(f) Additional requirements. The requirements of this paragraph are
applicable as set forth under Sec. 229.303(a)(1) and (2) of this
chapter. In addition to complying with paragraphs (a) through (e) of
this section, electronic hardware and software used to control or
monitor safety functions in passenger equipment must also comply with
only the following requirements of subpart E of part 229 of this
chapter:
(1) Section 229.309(a)(1) through (6), Safety-critical changes and
failures;
(2) Section 229.311(a), (c), and (d)(1) through (3), Review of SAs;
(3) Section 229.313, Product testing results and records;
(4) Section 229.315, Operations and maintenance manual;
(5) Section 229.317(a), Training and qualification program; and
(6) Section 229.319, Operating personnel training.
(g) Vehicle Communication and Control System Vulnerability
Assessment. The railroad shall prepare a Vehicle Communication and
Control System Vulnerability Assessment identifying potential system
vulnerabilities, associated risk (including exploitation likelihood and
consequences), countermeasures applied, and resulting risk mitigation.
The PTC system must comply with the requirements in Sec. 236.1033 of
this chapter.
(h) Notification of product failure. Suppliers will notify FRA of
all safety-critical product failures without undue delay.
0
9. Add a new Sec. 238.108 to read as follows:
Sec. 238.108 New passenger service pre-revenue safety performance
demonstration.
(a) Pre-revenue safety validation plan--(1) General. Any railroad
subject to this part providing new, regularly scheduled, intercity or
commuter passenger service, an extension of existing service, or a
renewal of service that has been discontinued for more than 180 days
shall develop and submit for review a comprehensive pre-revenue service
safety validation plan. Such plan shall include pertinent safety
milestones and a minimum period of simulated revenue service to
validate the safe integration of major systems and operational
readiness, and that all safety-sensitive personnel are properly trained
and qualified as outlined in this section.
(2) Plan contents. A pre-revenue safety validation plan shall be
submitted to FRA 60 days prior to the commencement of the safety
performance demonstration period containing, at a minimum, the
following:
(i) The status of all appliable safety plans or regulatory
programs, and any associated certifications, qualifications, and
employee training required for the start of revenue service including,
but not limited to, the following:
(A) Railroad workplace safety procedures, programs, and training
pursuant to part 214 of this chapter;
(B) A drug and alcohol program pursuant to part 219 of this
chapter;
(C) If required, information on the status of PTC certification or
any request for amendment under part 236 of this chapter, and
compliance with conditions and requirements of Sec. 236.1015 of this
chapter as required by the host railroad's PTC safety plan. If the
railroad submitting the pre-revenue safety validation plan is not the
host railroad, the host railroad must acknowledge in writing that all
requisite testing, validation, or other conditions have been
satisfactorily met for the use of the tenant's PTC system in revenue
service;
(D) A bridge management program pursuant to part 237 of this
chapter;
(E) Passenger equipment compliance validation and testing conducted
pursuant to Sec. Sec. 238.110 and 238.111;
(F) Inspection, testing, and maintenance programs, as required
under this part;
(G) Emergency preparedness planning pursuant to part 239 of this
chapter, with a focus on first responder outreach and employee
training;
(H) Locomotive engineer and conductor training, qualification and
certification programs under parts 240 and 242 of this chapter;
(I) Training, qualification, and oversight program for safety-
related railroad employees under part 243 of this chapter, to include
information and data indicating the number of safety-related employees
required to receive training and qualification, and information
regarding the roles and responsibilities of executing the program
between the railroad and its contractors;
(J) A system safety program plan pursuant to part 270 of this
chapter, with particular focus on the status of mitigations and actions
associated with hazard logs and risk assessments that have a direct
impact on the safety of the operation; and,
(K) Speed limit action plans required under 49 U.S.C. 20169, if
applicable.
(ii) A detailed description of the completeness of the system. This
description must, at a minimum, include completeness descriptions of
the vehicles, signals, crossings, stations, train control systems,
track structure, wayside systems, signage, rule books, and employee
staffing. For any area that is not expected to be complete when the
system performance demonstration period commences, the railroad must
provide an explanation as to why completeness or substantial
completeness is not necessary for the demonstration of safe operations.
If the railroad submitting the pre-revenue safety validation plan is
not the host railroad, the host railroad must provide the railroad
submitting the pre-revenue safety validation plan pertinent information
regarding any scheduled construction activities planned during the
system performance demonstration period and their anticipated
completion date. The railroad submitting the pre-revenue safety
validation plan must then explain why completeness or
[[Page 19774]]
substantial completeness of the host railroad construction activities
is not necessary for the demonstration of safe operations.
(iii) A detailed description of the operating plan including
schedules, headways, equipment required, equipment staging locations,
crew schedules, grade crossing locations, signal locations, timetable,
general orders, special instructions, and other relevant information
regarding the regular railroad operations. This description must also
include a summary of the operating plan that includes, at a minimum,
the number of vehicles required to operate the plan, the number of
crewmembers per day, the number of round trips per crewmember, and the
total number of trips per day.
(iv) The period of simulated service prior to revenue passenger
service (expressed either in days or number of completed train trips)
necessary to demonstrate operational readiness and reliability, to
include successful completion of any safety-critical activities
required (e.g., crewmember training and qualification) and clear pass/
fail criteria that, at a minimum, accounts for on-time performance,
signal and crossing failures, and vehicle and on-board systems
failures.
(b) Safety performance demonstration period. The railroad shall
conduct a period of simulated service prior to revenue passenger
service, with the specific period provided in the railroad's pre-
revenue safety validation plan pursuant to paragraph (a)(2)(iv) of this
section. During this period, the railroad shall demonstrate that all
necessary infrastructure and systems (to include traction power,
signals/train control, and dispatching), vehicles, wayside equipment,
timetable, operating instructions, and training and familiarization are
properly integrated and will safely operate in the operating
environment and under the service demands for which they are intended.
Prior to commencing the safety performance demonstration period, the
railroad will have successfully completed pre-revenue service
acceptance testing under Sec. 238.111 and have obtained certification
of its PTC system or approval of any requests for amendment under part
236 of this chapter, if required.
(1) Simulated service requirements. The railroad shall demonstrate
the successful completion of the safety performance demonstration
period in accordance with the pass/fail criteria required under
paragraph (a)(2)(iv) of this section.
(i) For new passenger service or extension of existing service, the
safety performance demonstration period must be conducted while
executing the full schedule over the entire route utilizing all
stations and systems intended to operate at the start of revenue
passenger service. The period shall be of sufficient duration to
demonstrate that all safety-related employees are properly trained and
able to execute the railroad's programs and plans identified in
paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section. The railroad shall also
demonstrate its ability to operate its planned schedule when speed
restrictions, mandatory directives, or other common situations arise
that may impact operations.
(ii) For the re-starting or permanent re-routing of existing
service, the safety performance demonstration period may be conducted
using a modified schedule or dedicated test trains accounting for crew
and equipment availability. The period shall be of sufficient duration
to demonstrate that all safety-related employees are properly trained
and able to execute the railroad's programs and plans identified in
paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, with particular attention to
employees or groups of employees, who are not actively engaged in the
existing operations.
(2) Daily summary report. During the safety performance
demonstration period, the railroad will provide FRA a daily summary of
the activities performed and results. Additionally, any delays, system
failures, unexpected events, close calls, or other safety concerns
shall be described in detail.
(3) Final report. The railroad shall correct any safety
deficiencies identified during the safety performance demonstration
period prior to commencing revenue service. If safety deficiencies
cannot be corrected, the railroad shall impose appropriate mitigations
or operational limitations on the operation of the railroad that are
designed to ensure that the railroad can operate safely. Corrections,
mitigations, or operational limitations shall be discussed in a final
report to FRA addressing the complete safety performance demonstration
period. FRA may require additional corrections, mitigations, or
operational limitations to ensure the safety of the operation.
(c) Compliance. After submitting a plan pursuant to paragraph (a)
of this section, the railroad shall adopt and comply with such plan and
may not amend the plan without first notifying the Associate
Administrator of the proposed amendment. Revenue service may not begin
until the railroad has completed the requirements of its plan,
including the minimum safety performance demonstration period required
by the plan and correcting any safety deficiencies identified or, for
deficiencies that cannot be corrected, imposing appropriate mitigations
or operational limitations on the operation of the railroad that are
designed to ensure that the railroad can operate safety, as required by
paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
0
10. Add Sec. 238.110 to read as follows:
Sec. 238.110 Design criteria, testing, documentation, and approvals.
(a) Scope. Each railroad shall provide the pertinent design
criteria and documentation, as defined within this section, to obtain
required approvals for aspects of the design of passenger equipment
subject to the requirements of this part prior to performance of on-
site, dynamic acceptance testing under Sec. 238.111 of this chapter.
(1) Applicability. Except for passenger equipment defined in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the requirements of this section
apply to all passenger equipment that qualifies under one of the
following conditions:
(i) A passenger equipment design that has not been used in revenue
service in the United States.
(ii) Rebuilt or modified passenger equipment where the carbody
structure or any safety-critical elements have been modified or
replaced by a new design not identical to the original component's
design. Submittals shall be required only to verify the safe operations
of the modified system/sub-system and any safety-critical systems
affected by such change.
(2) Previously accepted passenger equipment designs. Except for
paragraph (d) of this section, passenger equipment designs that are the
same as passenger equipment designs previously used in the United
States are not subject to the requirements of this section.
(b) Documentation and recordkeeping. (1) Railroads are required to
obtain or develop; review; and evaluate all documentation in support of
demonstrating compliance with the design and testing requirements of
this section.
(2) The railroad shall retain a copy of the documentation required
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section for the lifetime of the
equipment and make it available to FRA for review upon request. If the
equipment is leased or sold to another entity, a copy of the
documentation shall be provided to the lessee or purchasing entity.
(c) Vehicle qualification plan--(1) Plan content. Prior to
conducting any design reviews or tests, the railroad
[[Page 19775]]
shall develop a vehicle qualification plan that is comprised of the
following:
(i) System description and design assumptions. As part of the
vehicle qualification plan, the railroad shall include a description of
the equipment's intended operating environment (system description) as
detailed in paragraph (d)(1) of this section and a list of design
assumptions. Railroads operating Tier III equipment must also address
the required elements for Tier III operations as detailed in paragraph
(d)(2) of this section.
(ii) Compliance matrix. In addition to the system description and
design assumptions, the railroad shall develop and submit to FRA a
compliance matrix identifying all safety requirements with which
compliance must be demonstrated to include those requirements specified
in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section.
(2) Approval of the vehicle qualification plan. (i) The vehicle
qualification plan shall be submitted by the railroad for FRA review at
least 60 days before the first relevant design review and/or test. FRA
shall notify the railroad within 30 days of receipt of the railroad's
submission that the vehicle qualification plan is approved, disapproved
or disapproved in part. The notification shall also identify those
documents and/or tests that FRA will require to be submitted for review
and approval.
(ii) If disapproved or disapproved in part, FRA shall explain the
reason(s) on which the disapproval is based, and the measures needed to
obtain approval. Upon receipt of notification by FRA of the disapproval
or disapproval in part, the railroad shall revise the vehicle
qualification plan to address the measures identified by FRA to obtain
approval, and resubmit to FRA in accordance with paragraph (c)(2)(i) of
this section.
(iii) The railroad shall adopt and comply with the approved vehicle
qualification plan, including completion of all design review and/or
testing required by the plan.
(d) System description (operating environment) and design criteria.
The railroad shall maintain a system description to include relevant
safety-critical elements affected by the intended operating
environment. The system description shall identify common criteria,
design assumptions, or other parameters that govern the design,
maintenance, and safe operation of the equipment it operates,
particularly as it relates to safety-critical features and systems.
(1) Required elements common to all types of passenger equipment.
The following is a list of elements common to all railroad passenger
equipment subject to this part.
(i) Infrastructure characteristics, to include governing or
limiting geometry (including turnouts), maximum grade, minimum required
braking or safe stopping distance, and rail or grinding profile (if
maintained).
(ii) Systems integration elements, to include types of train
control systems, types of signal systems, grade crossing system types,
and traction power systems (if used).
(iii) Railroad operational parameters, to include alerter timing.
(2) Required elements for Tier III operations. The following is a
list of elements specific to railroad passenger equipment used in Tier
III operations. The railroad shall--
(i) Identify the assumptions used to calculate the worst-case
braking adhesion conditions.
(ii) Specify the maximum designed braking capacity.
(iii) Identify the on-board locations where crewmembers can
initiate an irretrievable emergency brake application.
(iv) Identify the on-board locations of passenger brake alarms.
(v) Specify the time period for train operations to remain under
the full control of the engineer after a passenger brake alarm is
activated.
(vi) Detail the manner or means used to confirm that the trainset
has safely cleared the boarding platform in which the application of a
passenger brake alarm will no longer immediately initiate an
irretrievable emergency brake application.
(vii) Detail the railroad procedures to be followed and trainset
controls that must be activated to retrieve the full-service brake
application described in Sec. 238.731(d)(5).
(viii) Identify and maintain the approved standard for designing
and testing main reservoirs, in accordance with Sec. 238.731(f).
(ix) Specify the parameters set by the railroad to determine if the
wheel-slide protection system has failed to prevent wheel-slide.
(x) Provide the details of the brake system functionality,
monitoring, and diagnostics and any corresponding safety analysis.
(xi) Identify the worst-case grade condition on which Tier III
equipment must be effectively secured while unattended.
(xii) Specify the operational parameters under which the engineer
must acknowledge the alerter in order for train operations to remain
under the full control of the engineer.
(xiii) Provide the procedures to retrieve a full-service brake
application as described in Sec. 238.751(c).
(xiv) Provide an analysis that confirms the ability of the
railroad's alternate technology to provide an equivalent level of
safety if a standard alerter is not used.
(xv) Provide information on the use of the headlight dimming
functionality for Tier III trainsets when operating on a dedicated
right-of-way.
(xvi) Identify and maintain the approved standard procedure for use
of flashing lights at public highway-rail grade crossings if an
alternative to the flashing rate for auxiliary lights under Sec.
238.769(b) is used.
(e) Structural carbody crashworthiness compliance. (1) Carbody and
component crashworthiness design. New or modified passenger equipment
structural carbody designs must demonstrate compliance with the minimum
applicable crashworthiness requirements of parts 229 and 238 of this
chapter. Designs that include crash-energy management (CEM) components
must also comply with appendix J to this part. Compliance may be
demonstrated by any of the following methods:
(i) Full-scale testing;
(ii) Quasi-static and dynamic analysis performed by a validated
computer model supported by quasi-static test results; or
(iii) Engineering calculations.
(2) Carbody and component crashworthiness compliance testing. For
any tests intended to be used for the purpose of demonstrating
compliance with this section, the railroad must submit the following to
FRA no later than 60 days prior to the start of testing:
(i) A test plan and associated procedures; and
(ii) Finite element analysis results.
(f) Safety Appliances. New or modified passenger equipment must be
equipped with safety appliances according to the applicable
requirements of this part. The railroad shall submit design review
documentation in accordance with paragraph (g)(1) of this section for
FRA review. Compliance shall be validated through a sample-equipment
inspection in accordance with paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
(g) Approval of design review documentation, tests, and inspections
for Safety Appliances--(1) Design review, testing, and inspection
documentation.
(i) Design review, testing, or inspection documentation shall be
submitted to FRA in advance for review.
[[Page 19776]]
FRA shall notify the railroad within 60 calendar days that the
submission is approved, disapproved, or disapproved in part. If
disapproved or disapproved in part, FRA shall explain the reason on
which the disapproval is based, and the measures needed to obtain
approval.
(ii) Upon receipt of notification by FRA of the disapproval or
disapproval in part, the railroad shall revise the documentation to
address the measures identified by FRA to obtain approval. The revised
documentation shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with
paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this section.
(2) Sample-equipment inspection. (i) The railroad shall request a
sample-equipment inspection from FRA by--
(A) Notifying FRA with the first available date and location that
the sample equipment can be inspected, which will be at least 45 days
in advance of the inspection; and
(B) Submitting engineering drawings reflecting the design and
configuration of the safety appliances, emergency systems and signage,
and any other elements to be inspected as part of the sample-equipment
inspection.
(ii) Should FRA take exception during the inspection, FRA will
provide the railroad an inspection report documenting the exceptions
taken within 30 days of the sample-equipment inspection. The railroad
shall address all exceptions taken and then, if directed by FRA,
request a reinspection pursuant to paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section.
(iii) If the sample equipment conforms, then FRA will indicate that
no exceptions are noted on the inspection report.
0
11. Revise Sec. 238.111 to read as follows:
Sec. 238.111 Pre-revenue service acceptance testing.
(a) Passenger equipment designs that have not been used in revenue
service in the United States. Before using passenger equipment for the
first time on its system that has not been used in revenue service in
the United States, each railroad shall--
(1) Pre-revenue service acceptance test plan contents. Develop a
pre-revenue service acceptance test plan for the equipment that, at a
minimum, includes the following:
(i) A description of the passenger equipment, its physical
characteristics, the version or type of safety-critical features
installed (e.g., type of brake system), and any other features that may
be relevant to the testing to be conducted.
(ii) A description of the railroad, systems, and conditions against
which the pre-revenue service acceptance test plan is intended to
demonstrate safe operation in accordance with the railroad's system
description and design criteria required under Sec. 238.110(d). This
includes the physical characteristics of the railroad, any known
physical constraints (e.g., clearance requirements), track geometry
constraints (i.e., turnouts), systems integration requirements,
required alerter timing, and the minimum required stopping distance of
the railroad pursuant to Sec. 238.231(a), Sec. 238.431(a), or Sec.
238.731(b).
(iii) An identification of any approvals, qualifications, or
waivers of FRA safety regulations required for the testing or for
revenue service operation of the equipment.
(iv) An identification of the maximum speed and cant deficiency at
which the equipment is intended to operate.
(v) A list of all tests to be conducted, indicating any
interdependences or predecessor requirements that may exist, and a list
of any testing of the equipment that has been previously performed.
(vi) A schedule for conducting the testing.
(vii) An identification of the applicable test procedures, test
results or reports, and post-test analysis required by this part,
corresponding to paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section detailing the
approach to verify--
(A) Safe vehicle-track system interaction in accordance with
Sec. Sec. 213.57, 213.329, 213.345, 238.139, or any applicable
combination thereof.
(B) The brake system functional requirements and performance of the
system and components in accordance with Sec. Sec. 238.231, 238.431,
or 238.731.
(C) That vehicle noise emission levels comply with part 210 of this
chapter.
(D) That locomotive or trainset cab noise complies with Sec. Sec.
229.121 or 238.759.
(E) Systems integration and compatibility with technology utilized
on the routes the equipment is intended to operate over, to include--
(1) The signaling systems and track circuit technology over which
the equipment will operate, to include ATC and PTC testing under part
236 of this chapter;
(2) The grade crossing warning system technology utilized; and
(3) Equipment inspection technology and defect detectors.
(2) Pre-revenue service acceptance test plan submission. Except as
provided for under Sec. 239.139(e), the pre-revenue service acceptance
test plan shall be submitted for FRA review at least 30 days before the
start of testing.
(3) Test procedures. Each test procedure shall include at a minimum
the information contained in appendix K to this part.
(4) Test procedure availability. Test procedures utilized for
compliance demonstration shall be made available to FRA upon request.
(5) Compliance with test plan and procedures. The railroad shall
comply with its pre-revenue service acceptance test plan and associated
test procedures, including fully executing the tests required by the
plan.
(6) Test results. Except as required by Sec. Sec. 213.57, 213.329,
213.345, or 238.139--
(i) Test results for Tier I equipment will be made available to FRA
upon request.
(ii) Test results for Tier II and Tier III equipment shall be
submitted to FRA at least 60 days prior to the equipment being placed
in revenue service.
(7) Correction of safety deficiencies. The railroad shall correct
any safety deficiencies identified in the design of the equipment or in
the ITM procedures, discovered during the testing. If safety
deficiencies cannot be corrected by design changes, the railroad shall
impose operational limitations that are designed to ensure that the
equipment can operate safely. For Tier II and Tier III passenger
equipment, the railroad shall comply with any operational limitations
imposed by the Associate Administrator on the revenue service operation
of the equipment for cause stated following FRA review of the results
of the test program under paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of this section. This
section does not restrict a railroad from petitioning FRA for a waiver
of a safety regulation under the procedures specified in part 211 of
this chapter.
(8) Approval. For Tier II or Tier III passenger equipment, the
railroad must obtain approval from the Associate Administrator before
placing the equipment in revenue service. The Associate Administrator
will grant such approval if the railroad demonstrates compliance with
the applicable requirements of this part.
(b) Passenger equipment design that has previously been used in
revenue service in the United States. (1) For passenger equipment
design that has previously been used in revenue service in the United
States, as defined in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, each railroad
shall verify the applicability of previous tests performed under
paragraphs (a)(1)(vii)(A) through (D) of this section and perform such
tests if previous test data does not exist, cannot be obtained, or does
not support
[[Page 19777]]
demonstration of safe operation within the intended operating
environment.
(2) Retain a description of such testing and make such description
available to FRA for inspection and copying upon request.
(3) For purposes of paragraph (b) of this section, passenger
equipment design that has previously been used in revenue service in
the United States means--
(i) The actual equipment used in such service;
(ii) Equipment manufactured identically to that actual equipment;
and
(iii) Equipment manufactured similarly to that actual equipment
with no material differences in safety-critical components or systems.
(c) Modifications, new technology, and major upgrades. Prior to
implementing a modification, installing a new technology, and/or
conducting a major upgrade to any system component or sub-system that
impacts a safety-critical function on passenger equipment that has been
used in revenue service in the United States, the railroad shall follow
the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section prior to
placing the equipment in revenue service with such modification, new
technology, or major upgrade. Testing shall be required only to verify
the safe operations of any safety-critical systems affected by such
change.
0
12. Add Sec. 238.115(c) to read as follows:
Sec. 238.115 Emergency lighting.
* * * * *
(c) At an interval not to exceed 184 days, as part of the required
periodic mechanical inspection, each railroad shall test a
representative sample of the emergency lighting systems on its
passenger cars to determine that they operate as intended when the cars
are in revenue service. The sampling method must conform with a
formalized, statistical test method.
0
13. Revise Sec. 238.131(a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 238.131 Exterior side door safety systems--new passenger cars
and locomotives used in passenger service.
(a) * * *
(1) Be built in accordance with APTA standard PR-M-S-18-10. In
particular, locomotives used in passenger service shall be connected to
or interlocked with the door summary circuit to prohibit the train from
developing tractive power if an exterior side door in a passenger car
is not closed, unless the door is under the direct physical control of
a crewmember for their exclusive use. APTA standard PR-M-S-18-10,
``Standard for Powered Exterior Side Door System Design for New
Passenger Cars,'' approved February 11, 2011 is incorporated by
reference into this section with the approval of the Director of the
Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may
obtain a copy of the incorporated document from the American Public
Transportation Association, 1666 K Street NW, Suite 1100, Washington,
DC 20006 (telephone 202-496-4800; www.apta.com). You may inspect a copy
of the document at the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), Contact FRA at:
Docket Clerk, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC;
[email protected]; https://railroads.dot.gov. For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html or email [email protected].
Equipment with plug-type exterior side doors, section 2.9 (including
section 2.9.1) of the APTA standard regarding the emergency release
mechanism shall be replaced with the following requirements:
(i) Visual instructions for emergency operations of each plug-type
exterior side door shall be provided. A manual interior and exterior
emergency release mechanism shall be provided at each plug-type
exterior side door. A clearly labeled emergency release mechanism, when
activated, shall unlatch the door, disengage or unlock the local door
isolation lock (if engaged), remove power from the door operator or
controls, and allow the door to be moved to the open position. Feedback
must be provided to the passenger to indicate that the mechanism has
been actuated.
(ii) The emergency release mechanism shall not require the
availability of electric or pneumatic power to activate. The emergency
release actuation device shall be readily accessible, without the use
of tools or another implement. The force necessary to actuate the
interior emergency release mechanism shall not exceed 20 lbf. The force
necessary to actuate the exterior emergency release mechanism shall not
exceed 30 lbf using a lever type mechanism or 50 lbf using a ``T''
handle type mechanism. When actuated, the emergency release mechanism
shall override any local door isolation locks, and it shall be possible
to manually open the released door with a force not to exceed 35 lbf.
The emergency release mechanism shall require a manual reset.
(iii) A speed interlock preventing operation of emergency release
mechanism when vehicle is moving is permitted.
* * * * *
0
14. Add Sec. 238.139 to read as follows:
Sec. 238.139 Vehicle/track system qualification.
Pursuant to a railroad's pre-revenue service acceptance test plan
under Sec. 238.111, a railroad must demonstrate that its equipment
does not exceed the safety limits of Sec. 213.333 of this chapter. A
railroad may demonstrate compliance by measuring the carbody and truck
accelerations in accordance with Sec. 213.333 over the entirety of the
territory the vehicle is intended to operate, or by complying with the
below enumerated requirements of this section. Nothing in this section
affects a railroad's responsibility to comply with Sec. 213.345 of
this chapter.
(a) General. Qualification testing shall demonstrate that the
vehicle/track system will not exceed the wheel/rail force safety limits
and the carbody and truck acceleration criteria specified in Sec.
213.333 of this chapter--
(1) Up to and including 5 mph above the proposed maximum operating
speed; and
(2) On track meeting the requirements for the class of track
associated with the proposed maximum operating speed. For purposes of
qualification testing, speeds may exceed the maximum allowable
operating speed for the class of track in accordance with the test plan
approved by FRA under Sec. 238.111.
(b) Existing vehicle type qualification. Except as otherwise
provided by FRA, vehicle types previously qualified or permitted to
operate prior to (INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE), shall be
deemed qualified under the requirements of this section for operation
at the previously operated speeds and cant deficiencies. However,
equipment deemed meeting the requirements of this section pursuant to
this paragraph (b) does not have transferability of qualification.
(c) New vehicle type qualification. Vehicle types that were not
previously qualified under this section, or deemed qualified under
paragraph (b) of this section, shall be qualified in accordance with
the following:
(1) Qualification methods. To demonstrate that new vehicle types
will not exceed the wheel/rail force safety limits and the carbody and
truck acceleration criteria specified in Sec. 213.333--
(i) When operated over Class 1 track, the vehicle type shall
demonstrate the ability to negotiate a 12-degree curve with a
coefficient of friction representative of dry track conditions
[[Page 19778]]
(i.e., 0.5) and 3-inch track warp variations with the following
wavelengths: 10, 20, 40, and 62 feet. The demonstration shall be done
by simulating such track geometry conditions at speeds up to 5 mph
above track Class 1 speeds, and the suspension system(s) shall meet the
APTA truck equalization standard, APTA PR-M-S-014-06. The results of
the simulation under both the AW0 and AW3 loading conditions shall not
exceed the wheel/rail forces safety limits specified in Sec. 213.333
of this chapter.
(ii) When operated over track Classes 2 through 5 at speeds
producing no more than 6 inches of cant deficiency, the vehicle type
shall be qualified by simulations performed under paragraph (c)(2) of
this section and the measurement of carbody and truck accelerations
during qualification testing in accordance with paragraphs (c)(3) and
(4) of this section. If successful, the testing shall result in a
transferable qualification with respect to the requirements of this
section so long as the equipment is used at the same track class and
cant deficiency.
(iii) APTA PR-M-S-014-06, Rev. 1, ``Standard for Wheel Load
Equalization of Passenger Railroad Rolling Stock,'' Authorized June 1,
2017, is incorporated by reference into this section with the approval
of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. All approved material is available for inspection at FRA and
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact FRA
at: Federal Railroad Administration Docket Clerk, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC; [email protected]; https://railroads.dot.gov.
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html or email
[email protected]. The material is also available from the
American Public Transportation Association, 1666 K Street NW,
Washington, DC 20006; www.apta.com.
(2) Simulations. (i) Analysis of vehicle/track performance
(computer simulations) shall be conducted using an industry recognized
methodology on--
(A) Minimally compliant analytical track (MCAT) conditions for the
respective track class(es) as specified in appendix C to this part; and
(B) A track segment representative of the full route on which the
vehicle type is intended to operate. Both simulations and physical
examinations of the route's track geometry shall be used to determine a
track segment representative of the route.
(ii) Linear system analysis shall be performed to identify the
frequency and damping of the truck hunting modes. It shall be
demonstrated that the damping of these modes is at least 5 percent, up
to the intended operating speed +5 mph considering equivalent
conicities starting at 0.1 up to 0.6.
(3) Carbody acceleration. For vehicle types intended to operate at
track Class 2 through 5 speeds and up to 6 inches of cant deficiency,
qualification testing conducted over a representative segment of the
route on which the vehicle type is intended to operate shall
demonstrate that the vehicle type will not exceed the carbody lateral
and vertical acceleration safety limits specified in Sec. 213.333 of
this chapter.
(4) Truck lateral acceleration. For vehicle types intended to
operate at track Class 2 through 5 speeds and up to 6 inches of cant
deficiency, qualification testing conducted over a representative
segment of the route on which the vehicle type is intended to operate
shall demonstrate that the vehicle type will not exceed the truck
lateral acceleration safety limit specified in Sec. 213.333 of this
chapter.
(d) Previously qualified vehicle types. Vehicle types previously
qualified by simulation and testing in accordance with paragraph (c) of
this section for a track class and cant deficiency on one route may be
qualified for operation at the same class and cant deficiency on
another route in accordance with the following:
(1) Vehicle types previously qualified by simulation and testing in
accordance with paragraph (c) of this section on one route shall not
require additional simulations, testing, or approval so long as
operated on routes with the same track class designation and at the
same or lower cant deficiency.
(2) For vehicle types intended to operate at speeds not to exceed
Class 6 track or at any curving speed producing more than 5 inches of
cant deficiency, but not exceeding 6 inches, qualification testing
conducted over a representative segment of the new route shall
demonstrate that the vehicle type will not exceed the carbody lateral
and vertical acceleration safety limits specified in Sec. 213.333 of
this chapter.
(3) Vehicle types previously qualified by testing alone shall be
subject to the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section for new
equipment.
(e) Qualification testing plan. To obtain the data required to
support the qualification program outlined in paragraphs (c) and (d) of
this section, the track owner or railroad shall submit a qualification
testing plan to FRA's Associate Administrator at least 60 days prior to
testing, requesting approval to conduct the testing at the desired
speeds and cant deficiencies. This test plan shall provide for a test
program sufficient to evaluate the operating limits of the track and
vehicle type and shall include--
(1) Identification of the representative segment of the route on
which the vehicle type is intended to operate for qualification
testing;
(2) Consideration of the operating environment during qualification
testing, including operating practices and conditions, the signal
system, highway-rail grade crossings, and trains on adjacent tracks;
(3) The maximum angle found on the gage face of the designed (newly
profiled) wheel flange referenced with respect to the axis of the
wheelset that will be used for the determination of the Single Wheel L/
V Ratio safety limit specified in Sec. 213.333 of this chapter when
conducting simulations in accordance with (c)(2) of this section;
(4) A target maximum testing speed in accordance with paragraph (a)
of this section and the maximum testing cant deficiency; and
(5) The results of vehicle/track performance simulations that are
required by this section.
(f) Qualification testing. Upon FRA approval of the qualification
testing plan, qualification testing shall be conducted in two
sequential stages as required in this subpart.
(1) Stage-one testing shall include demonstration of acceptable
vehicle dynamic response of the subject vehicle as speeds are
incrementally increased--
(i) On a segment of tangent track, from maximum speeds
corresponding to each track class to the target maximum test speed; and
(ii) On a segment of curved track, from the speeds corresponding to
3 inches of cant deficiency to the maximum testing cant deficiency.
(2) When stage-one testing has successfully demonstrated a maximum
safe operating speed and cant deficiency, stage-two testing shall
commence with the subject vehicle over a representative segment of the
route as identified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section. A round-trip
test run shall be conducted over the representative route segment at
the speed the railroad will request FRA to approve for such service. An
additional round-trip test run shall be conducted at 5 mph above this
speed. The equipment shall be oriented differently in each leg of the
round-trip test run.
(3) When conducting stage-one and stage-two testing, if any of the
monitored safety limits are exceeded on
[[Page 19779]]
any segment of track, testing may continue provided that the track
location(s) where any of the limits is exceeded be identified and test
speeds be limited at the track location(s) until corrective action is
taken. Corrective action may include making an adjustment in the track,
in the vehicle, or in both of these system components.
(4) Prior to the start of the qualification testing program, a
qualifying Track Geometry Measurement System (TGMS) specified in Sec.
213.333 of this chapter shall be operated over the intended route
within 30 calendar days prior to the start of the qualification testing
program.
(g) Qualification testing results. The track owner or railroad
shall submit a report to FRA's Associate Administrator detailing all
the results of the qualification program. When simulations are
submitted as part of vehicle qualification, this report shall include a
comparison of simulation predictions to the acceleration data recorded
during full-scale testing. The report shall be submitted at least 60
days prior to the intended operation of the equipment in revenue
service over the route.
(h) Approvals. (1) Based on the test results and all other required
submissions, FRA will approve, for new vehicle types qualified per
paragraph (c) of this section, a maximum train speed and value of cant
deficiency for revenue service, normally within 45 days of receipt of
all the required information. FRA may impose conditions necessary for
safely operating at the maximum approved train speed and cant
deficiency.
(2) Previously qualified vehicle types operating at track Class 2
through 5 speeds, or at curving speeds producing up to 6 inches of cant
deficiency, on one route may be qualified and approved for operation at
the same class and cant deficiency on another route provided the
vehicle types have been previously qualified by simulation and testing
in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section for the same track
class and cant deficiency.
(i) Document retention. The documents required by this section must
be provided to FRA by:
(1) The track owner; or
(2) A railroad that provides service with the same vehicle type
over trackage of one or more track owner(s), with the written consent
of each affected track owner.
Subpart C--Specific Requirements for Tier I Passenger Equipment
0
15. Revise Sec. 238.201(a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 238.201 Scope/alternative compliance.
(a) * * *
(1) This subpart contains requirements for railroad passenger
equipment operating at speeds not exceeding 125 miles per hour. All
such passenger equipment remains subject to the safety appliance
requirements contained in Federal statute at 49 U.S.C. chapter 203 and
in applicable FRA regulations in this part 238, at part 231, and Sec.
232.3 of this chapter. Unless otherwise specified, these requirements
only apply to passenger equipment ordered on or after September 8,
2000, or placed in service for the first time on or after September 9,
2002.
* * * * *
0
16. Revise Sec. 238.230(a) to read as follows:
Sec. 238.230 Safety appliances--new equipment.
(a) Applicability. Except as provided in Sec. 238.791, this
section applies to passenger equipment placed in service on or after
January 1, 2007.
* * * * *
0
17. Revise Sec. 238.235 to read as follows:
Sec. 238.235 Safety appliances for non-passenger carrying locomotives
used in passenger service.
(a) Application. The requirements of this section apply to all non-
passenger carrying locomotives, used in passenger service, that
specifically utilize monocoque, semi-monocoque, or are a cowl unit,
built on or after (INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE), unless the
requirements of part 231 of this chapter are applied.
(b) Attachment. All safety appliances shall be securely fastened to
the car body structure and meet the requirements of Sec. 238.791(b).
(c) Fatigue life. The safety appliance, the support or bracket to
which the safety appliance is attached, and the carbody structure to
which the safety appliance is directly attached or the support or
bracket is attached, shall be designed for a fatigue life as specified
under Sec. 238.791(c).
(d) Handholds. Handholds used on non-passenger carrying locomotives
subject to this section shall meet the applicable requirements of Sec.
238.791(d).
(e) Sill steps. Sill steps used on non-passenger carrying
locomotives subject to this section shall meet the applicable
requirements of Sec. 238.791(e).
(f) Ground level access to the locomotive cab and other carbody
side doors. Non-passenger carrying locomotives subject to the
requirements of this section shall be equipped with appropriate safety
appliances at exterior side locomotive cab access doors and other
carbody side doors, to permit safe access to the locomotive cab by
employees and other authorized personnel from ground level.
(1) Handholds. Each exterior locomotive cab side access door that
provide access to the locomotive cab shall be equipped with two
vertical handholds, one on each side of the door, which shall--
(i) Have a minimum diameter of \5/8\ inch.
(ii) Have a distance from the bottom clear length of the vertical
handholds not to exceed 54 inches above top of rail.
(iii) Be installed so as to have a clear length extending at least
60 inches, or as high as practicable based on carbody design, above the
floor of the cab. The design shall enable a person to safely turn
around in order to exit the trainset. A smaller handhold, providing at
least 16 inches clear length, may be installed above the exterior cab
access door opening on the inside of the equipment to facilitate a
person's ability to safely turn around.
(iv) Have a clearance distance between the vehicle body of a
minimum of 2 inches, preferably 2\1/2\ inches for the entire length,
except when a combination of handholds, additional attachment points,
or both, are necessary due to the carbody design, length of the
handhold, or both.
(2) Steps. Exterior side doors that provide access to the
locomotive cab shall be equipped with steps meeting the requirements of
Sec. 238.791(e)(2) and (3).
(g) Couplers. Couplers used on non-passenger carrying locomotives
subject to this section shall comply with the requirements of Sec.
238.791(g).
(h) Uncoupling levers or devices. (1) General. Each end of a non-
passenger carrying locomotive subject to the requirements of this
section equipped with an automatic coupler required by paragraph (g) of
this section shall have either--
(i) A manual, double-lever type uncoupling lever, operative from
either side of the locomotive; or
(ii) An uncoupling mechanism operated by controls located in the
locomotive cab, or other secure location. Additional manual uncoupling
levers or handles on the coupler provided only as a backup for that
remotely operated mechanism are not subject to paragraph (h)(2) of this
section.
(2) Manual uncoupling lever or device. Manual uncoupling levers
shall be applied so that the automatic coupler can be operated from
either side of the equipment, from ground level without
[[Page 19780]]
requiring a person to go between cars or equipment units. Manual
uncoupling levers shall have a minimum clearance of 2 inches,
preferably 2\1/2\ inches, around the handle.
(i) Shrouding. The automatic coupler, end handholds, and uncoupling
mechanism on the leading and trailing ends of a non-passenger carrying
locomotive may be stored within a removable shroud to reduce
aerodynamic effects.
(j) Hand brakes. Non-passenger carrying locomotives subject to the
requirements of this section shall be equipped with an efficient hand
or parking brake capable of holding the locomotive on the maximum grade
condition identified by the operating railroad, or a minimum 3% grade,
whichever is greater.
(k) Safety appliances for appurtenances and windshields. (1) Non-
passenger carrying locomotives subject to the requirements of this
section having appurtenances such as headlights, windshield wipers,
marker lights, and other similar items required for the safe operation
of the trainset or trainset unit must be equipped with handholds and
steps meeting the requirements of this section if the appurtenances are
designed to be maintained or replaced from the exterior of the trainset
or equipment.
(2) The requirements of paragraph (k)(1) of this section do not
apply if railroad operating rules require, and actual practice entails,
the maintenance and replacement of these components by maintenance
personnel in locations protected by the requirements of subpart B of
part 218 of this chapter equipped with ladders and other tools to
safely repair or maintain those appurtenances.
(l) Optional safety appliances. Safety appliances installed at the
option of the railroad shall be approved by FRA pursuant to Sec.
238.110.
Subpart H--Specific Requirements for Tier III Passenger Equipment
0
18. Amend subpart H to part 238 by removing undesignated center
headings ``Trainset Structure'', ``Glazing'', ``Brake System'',
``Interior Fittings and Surfaces'', ``Emergency Systems'', and ``Cab
Equipment''.
0
19. Revise Sec. 238.701 to read as follows:
Sec. 238.701 Scope.
This subpart contains specific requirements for railroad passenger
equipment operating in a shared right-of-way at speeds not exceeding
125 mph and in an exclusive right-of-way without grade crossings at
speeds exceeding 125 mph but not exceeding 220 mph. Passenger seating
is permitted in the leading unit of a Tier III trainset if the trainset
complies with the crashworthiness and occupant protection requirements
of this subpart, and the railroad has an approved right-of-way plan
under Sec. 213.361 of this chapter and an approved HSR-125 plan under
Sec. 236.1007(c) of this chapter. Demonstration of compliance with the
requirements of this subpart is subject to FRA review and approval
under Sec. Sec. 238.110 and 238.111.
0
20. Add Sec. 238.719 to read as follows:
Sec. 238.719 Trucks and Suspension.
(a) General requirements. (1) Suspension systems shall be designed
to reasonably prevent wheel climb, wheel unloading, rail rollover, rail
shift, and a vehicle from overturning to ensure safe, stable
performance and ride quality under the following conditions:
(i) In all operating environments as defined by the railroad under
Sec. Sec. 238.110(d) and 238.111(a)(1)(ii); and
(ii) At all track speeds and over all track qualities consistent
with the Track Safety Standards in part 213 of this chapter, up to the
maximum operating speed and maximum cant deficiency for which the
equipment is qualified.
(2) All passenger equipment shall meet the safety standards for
suspension systems contained in part 213 of this chapter, or
alternative standards providing at least equivalent safety if approved
by FRA under the provisions of Sec. 238.21. In particular--
(i) Pre-revenue service qualification. All passenger equipment
shall demonstrate safe operation during pre-revenue service
qualification in accordance with Sec. 213.345 of this chapter and is
subject to the requirements of Sec. 213.329 of this chapter.
(ii) Revenue service operation. All passenger equipment in service
is subject to the requirements of Sec. Sec. 213.329 and 213.333 of
this chapter.
(b) Carbody acceleration. A passenger car shall not operate under
conditions that result in a steady-state lateral acceleration greater
than 0.15g, as measured parallel to the car floor inside the passenger
compartment. Additional carbody acceleration limits are specified in
Sec. 213.333 of this chapter.
(c) Lateral truck accelerations (hunting). Each trainset shall be
equipped with a system capable of detecting hunting on all trucks as
defined in Sec. 213.333 of this chapter (criteria based on reference
location defined in Sec. 213.333(k)(2) of this chapter). If truck
hunting is detected, the train monitoring system shall provide an alarm
to the controlling cab, and the train shall be slowed to a speed at
least 5 mph less than the speed at which the truck hunting stopped.
(d) Wheelsets. Unless further clarified in the railroad's approved
ITM plan, each trainset shall comply with the following limits and be
free of the following defective conditions:
(1) The distance between the inside gauge of the flanges on non-
wide flange wheels may not be less than 53\3/32\ inches or more than
53\3/8\ inches.
(2) The distance between the inside gauge of the flanges on wide
flange wheels may not be less than 53 inches or more than 53\3/32\
inches.
(3) The back-to-back distance of flanges of wheels mounted on the
same axle shall not vary more than \1/4\ inch when measured at similar
points around the circumference of the wheels.
0
21. Add Sec. 238.723 to read as follows:
Sec. 238.723 Pilots, Snowplows, End Plates.
Each lead vehicle must be equipped with a pilot, snowplow, or end
plate that extends across both rails. The minimum clearance above the
rail of the pilot, snowplow, or end plate is 3 inches. In general, the
maximum clearance is 6 inches. For a lead vehicle equipped with an
obstacle deflector or truck-mounted wheel guard (or both) to minimize
the risk of derailment from substantial obstacles that pass beneath
them and into the path of the wheels, the maximum clearance is 9
inches.
0
22. Add Sec. 238.725 to read as follows:
Sec. 238.725 Overheat sensors.
Overheat sensors for each wheelset journal bearing shall be
provided. The sensors may be placed either onboard the equipment or at
reasonable intervals along the railroad's right-of-way.
0
23. Add Sec. 238.745 to read as follows:
Sec. 238.745 Emergency communication.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, Tier III
trainsets shall comply with the emergency communication requirements
specified in Sec. 238.121.
(b) Emergency communication back-up power systems shall, at a
minimum, be capable of operating after experiencing the individually
applied accelerations defined in either of the following paragraphs:
(1) Section 238.121(c)(2); or
(2) Section 6.1.4, ``Security of furniture, equipment and
features,'' of GM/RT2100, provided that--
(i) The conditions of Sec. 238.705(b)(2) are met;
(ii) The initial shock of a collision or derailment is based on a
minimum load of 5g longitudinal, 3g lateral, and 3g vertical; and
[[Page 19781]]
(iii) Use of the standard is carried out under any conditions
identified by the railroad, as approved by FRA.
(c) Railway Group Standard GM/RT2100, Issue Four, ``Requirements
for Rail Vehicle Structures,'' December 2010, is incorporated by
reference into this section with the approval of the Director of the
Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved
material is available for inspection at the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) and the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). Contact FRA at: Federal Railroad Administration
Docket Clerk, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC;
[email protected]; https://railroads.dot.gov. For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html or email [email protected]. It is
available from Rail Safety and Standards Board Ltd., Communications,
RSSB, Block 2 Angel Square, 1 Torrens Street, London, England EC1V 1NY;
www.rgsonline.co.uk.
0
24. Add Sec. 238.747 to read as follows:
Sec. 238.747 Emergency roof access.
Each cab of a Tier III trainset shall have an emergency roof access
location for crewmembers occupying the cab, unless the crewmembers have
direct access to an emergency roof access point located in a passenger
compartment of the trainset. Each emergency roof access location shall
have a minimum opening of 26 inches longitudinally by 24 inches
laterally and comply with the emergency roof access requirements
specified in Sec. 238.123(b), (d), and (e).
0
25. Add Sec. 238.755 to read as follows:
Sec. 238.755 General safety requirements.
(a) Protection against personal injury. Tier III trainsets shall
comply with Sec. 229.41 of this chapter.
(b) General condition. All systems and components on a trainset
shall be free of conditions that endanger the safety of the passengers,
crew, or equipment. Such conditions may include those conditions listed
in Sec. 229.45 of this chapter, but are not limited thereto.
(c) Control of multiple trainsets. Except when a trainset is moved
in accordance with Sec. 238.1003, when multiple trainsets are coupled
in remote- or multiple-control, the railroad will comply with the
requirements of Sec. 229.13 of this chapter.
0
26. Add Sec. 238.757 to read as follows:
Sec. 238.757 Cabs, floors, and passageways.
(a) Cab doors. Tier III trainset cab doors shall be equipped with a
secure and operable device to lock the door from the outside that does
not impede egress from the cab and a securement device that is capable
of securing the door from inside of the cab.
(b) End-facing cab windows. End-facing cab windows of the lead
trainset cab shall be free of cracks, breaks or other conditions that
obscure the view of the right-of-way for the crew from their normal
position in the cab.
(c) Cab floors, passageways, and compartments. Tier III trainsets
will comply with Sec. 229.119(c) of this chapter.
(d) Cab climate control. Each lead cab in a Tier III trainset shall
be heated and air conditioned. The heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning system shall be inspected and maintained to ensure that it
operates properly and meets the railroad's performance standard which
shall be defined in the inspection, testing, and maintenance program.
0
27. Add Sec. 238.759 to read as follows:
Sec. 238.759 Trainset cab noise.
(a) Performance standards for Tier III trainsets. (1) The average
noise levels in the trainset cab shall be less than or equal to 85
dB(A) when the trainset is operating at maximum operating speed.
Compliance shall be demonstrated during the trainset qualification
testing as required by Sec. 238.111.
(2) A railroad shall not make any alterations during maintenance,
or otherwise modify the cab, to cause the average sound level to exceed
the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(3) The railroad or manufacturer shall follow the test protocols
set forth in appendix I to this part to determine compliance with
paragraph (a)(1) of this section and, to the extent reasonably
necessary to evaluate the effect of alterations during maintenance, to
determine compliance with paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(b) Maintenance of trainset cabs. (1) If a railroad receives an
excessive-noise report, and if the condition giving rise to the noise
is not required to be immediately corrected under this part, the
railroad shall maintain a record of the report, and repair or replace
the item or component identified as substantially contributing to the
noise--
(i) On or before the next periodic inspection required by the
railroad's inspection, testing, and maintenance program; or
(ii) At the time of the next major equipment repair commonly used
for the particular type of maintenance needed if the railroad
determines that the repair or replacement of the item or component
requires significant shop or material resources that are not readily
available.
(2) A railroad has an obligation to respond to an excessive noise
report filed by a trainset cab occupant. The railroad meets its
obligation to respond to an excessive noise report, as set forth in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, if the railroad makes a good faith
effort to identify the cause of the reported noise, and where the
railroad is successful in determining the cause, if the railroad
repairs or replaces the items that cause the noise.
(3)(i) A railroad shall maintain a written or electronic record of
any excessive noise report, inspection, test, maintenance, and
replacement or repair completed pursuant to paragraph (b) of this
section, and the date on which that inspection, test, maintenance, and
replacement or repair occurred. If a railroad elects to maintain an
electronic record, the railroad must satisfy the conditions listed in
Sec. 227.121(a)(2)(i) through (v) of this chapter.
(ii) The railroad shall retain these records for a period of one
year.
(iii) The railroad shall establish an internal, auditable,
monitorable system that contains these records.
0
28. Add Sec. 238.761 to read as follows:
Sec. 238.761 Trainset sanitation facilities for employees.
(a) Tier III trainsets that are equipped with a sanitation
compartment, as this term is defined in Sec. 229.5 of this chapter,
accessible only to train crewmembers shall meet the requirements set
forth in Sec. 229.137 of this chapter, and be maintained to the
requirements of Sec. 229.139 of this chapter.
(b) Railroads that do not provide sanitation compartments solely
for use by crewmembers on board Tier III trainsets shall provide an
alternate arrangement in accordance with Sec. 229.137(b)(1)(i) of this
chapter.
0
29. Add Sec. 238.763 to read as follows:
Sec. 238.763 Speed indicator.
(a) Each trainset controlling cab shall be equipped with a speed
indicator which is--
(1) Accurate within 1.24 mph for speeds under 18.6 mph,
then increasing linearly up to 5 mph at 220 mph; and
(2) Clearly readable from the engineer's normal position under all
light conditions.
(b) The speed indicator shall be based on a system of independent
on-board speed measurement sources guaranteeing the accuracy level
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section under all operational
conditions.
[[Page 19782]]
The system shall be automatically monitored for inconsistencies and the
engineer shall be automatically notified of any inconsistency
potentially compromising this accuracy level.
(c) The speed indicator shall be calibrated periodically as defined
in the railroad's inspection, testing, and maintenance program.
0
30. Add Sec. 238.765 to read as follows:
Sec. 238.765 Event recorders.
(a) Duty to equip and record. Except as provided in paragraphs (c)
and (d) of this section, a trainset shall have an in-service event
recorder, of the type described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, to
record data from the lead cab and other locations within the trainset.
The event recorder shall record the most recent 48 hours of operational
data of the trainset on which it is installed.
(b) Equipment requirements. (1) Event recorders shall monitor and
record data elements or information needed to support the data elements
required by this paragraph with at least the accuracy required of the
indicators displaying any of the required data elements to the
engineer.
(2) A trainset shall be equipped with an event recorder with a
certified crashworthy event recorder memory module that meets the
requirements of appendix D to part 229 of this chapter. The certified
crashworthy event recorder memory module shall be mounted for its
maximum protection. (Although other mounting standards may meet this
requirement, an event recorder memory module mounted in a non-crush
zone area of the trainset and above the platform level is deemed
appropriate ``for its maximum protection.'') The event recorder shall
record, and the certified crashworthy event recorder memory module
shall retain, the data elements or information needed to support the
data elements as specified in Sec. 229.135(b)(4)(i) through (xv),
(xvii), (xx), and (xxi). In addition, the event recorder shall record,
and the certified crashworthy event recorder memory module shall
retain, the following data elements or information needed to support
the following data elements:
(i) Application and operation of the eddy current brake, if so
equipped;
(ii) Passenger brake alarm request;
(iii) Passenger brake alarm override;
(iv) Bell activation; and
(v) Trainset brake cylinder pressures.
(c) Removal from service. Notwithstanding the duty established in
paragraph (a) of this section to equip trainsets with an in-service
event recorder, a railroad may remove an event recorder from service.
If a railroad knows that an event recorder is not monitoring or
recording required data, the railroad shall remove the event recorder
from service. When a railroad removes an event recorder from service, a
qualified person shall record the date that the device was removed from
service in the trainset's maintenance records, required in accordance
with Sec. 238.777.
(d) Response to defective equipment. Notwithstanding the duty
established in paragraph (a) of this section to equip Tier III
trainsets with an in-service event recorder, a trainset on which the
event recorder has been taken out of service as provided in paragraph
(c) of this section may remain in service only until the next pre-
service inspection, as required by Sec. 238.903(c)(2). A trainset with
an inoperative event recorder is not deemed to be in improper
condition, unsafe to operate, or a non-complying trainset under Sec.
238.1003, and, other than the requirements of appendix D to part 229 of
this chapter, the inspection, testing, and maintenance of event
recorders are limited to the requirements set forth in subpart I of
this part.
(e) Preserving accident data, relationship to other laws, and
disabling event recorders. In addition to the requirements of
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, Sec. 229.135(e) through
(g) of this chapter apply to Tier III trainset event recorders.
(f) Annual test. At a minimum, event recorders shall be tested at
intervals not to exceed 368 days in accordance with Sec. 229.27(c) of
this chapter.
0
31. Add Sec. 238.767 to read as follows:
Sec. 238.767 Headlights.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section,
each end of a Tier III trainset shall be equipped with a headlight
comprised of at least two lamps, one of which shall be illuminated when
the trainset is in use. Each lamp, when illuminated, shall comply with
the angular, intensity, and illumination requirements of Sec.
229.125(a) of this chapter.
(b) The leading unit of a trainset with a headlight not in
compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section shall
not be moved in revenue service if the defective headlight is
discovered during the pre-service inspection required by Sec.
238.903(d)(1), and may only move in accordance with Sec. 238.1003(e).
The leading unit of a trainset with a headlight not in compliance with
the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section that is discovered
while the trainset is in service may continue in service only to the
nearest forward location where either the leading unit can be switched,
repairs necessary to bring the trainset into compliance can be made, or
the trainset can be moved according to the procedures specified in
Sec. 238.1003(b)(1) through (3).
(c) Headlights may be provided with a device to dim the light. The
use of this feature for Tier III trainsets operating on a dedicated
right-of-way shall be described by the railroad in its system
description required under Sec. 238.110(d)(2)(xv).
(d) If Tier III trainsets are equipped with headlights
incorporating alternative technology, the number of lamps specified in
paragraph (a) of this section does not apply, and--
(1) The railroad's inspection, testing, and maintenance program
shall include procedures for determining that such headlights provide
the illumination intensity required by paragraph (a) of this section;
and
(2) A means must be provided to ensure that the minimum
illumination intensity required by paragraph (a) of this section can be
achieved under the snow or ice conditions expected in the geographic
region in which the trainsets will be operated.
0
32. Add Sec. 238.769 to read as follows:
Sec. 238.769 Auxiliary lights.
(a) Trainsets operated at a speed greater than 20 mph in a shared
right-of-way over one or more public highway-rail grade crossings shall
be equipped with operative auxiliary lights, in addition to the
headlight required by Sec. 238.767. Auxiliary lights shall conform
with Sec. 229.125(d)(1) though (3) of this chapter.
(b) Auxiliary lights required by paragraph (a) of this section may
be arranged in any manner specified in Sec. 229.125(e)(1) through (2)
of this chapter.
(c) In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section, auxiliary lights required by paragraph (a) of this
section shall comply with Sec. 229.125(f).
(d)(1) A lead unit of a trainset with only one operative auxiliary
light must be repaired or switched to a trailing position before
departure from the place where a pre-service inspection is required
under Sec. 238.903(d)(1) for that trainset.
(2) A lead unit of a trainset with only one operative auxiliary
light that is discovered after the trainset enter service may continue
to be used in passenger service:
(i) Until the next scheduled inspection of the trainset where the
repairs necessary to bring the trainset into compliance can be made; or
[[Page 19783]]
(ii) According to the procedures specified in the railroad's
inspection, testing, and maintenance program.
(3) A lead unit of a trainset with two failed auxiliary lights may
only proceed to the next forward location where repairs can be made.
This movement must be made according to the procedures specified in
Sec. 238.1003(b)(1) through (3).
0
33. Add Sec. 238.771 to read as follows:
Sec. 238.771 Marking device.
(a) Except for paragraph (d)(3) of this section, the trailing end
of each trainset shall be equipped with at least one marking device
conforming with the characteristics specified in Sec. 221.14(a)(1)
through (3), along with the following other requirements:
(1) An arrangement to continuously illuminate when on the trailing
end of the train; and
(2) For marker lights incorporating alternative technology, the
railroad's inspection, testing, and maintenance program shall include
procedures for determining that such marker lights meet the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (a)(1) of this section.
(b) The centroid of the marking device shall be located at a
minimum of 48 inches above the top of the rail.
(c) Trailing end marking devices shall operate when the trainset is
in service and be inspected as defined in the railroad's inspection,
testing, and maintenance program.
(d)(1) A trainset with a marking device not in compliance with the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section shall not be moved in
revenue service if the defective marking device is discovered during
the pre-service inspection required by Sec. 238.903(c)(2).
(2) Whenever a marking device prescribed in this section becomes
inoperative en route, the train may be moved to the next forward
location where the marking device can be repaired or replaced.
(3) A trainset's trailing end headlight illuminated on the dim
setting satisfies the requirements of a highly visible marking device
as described in paragraph (a) of this section.
0
34. Add Sec. 238.773 to read as follows:
Sec. 238.773 Cab lights.
Each trainset cab shall have cab lights in conformance with the
requirements of Sec. 229.127(a) of this chapter. Cab passageways and
compartments shall also be adequately illuminated.
0
35. Add Sec. 238.775 to read as follows:
Sec. 238.775 Trainset horn.
(a) Each leading end of trainset shall be equipped with a horn that
conforms to the requirements of Sec. 229.129(a) of this chapter.
(b) Each trainset horn shall be individually tested under paragraph
(e) of this section, or through acceptance sampling under Sec.
229.129(b)(1) of this chapter, to ensure compliance with paragraph (a)
of this section.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, each
trainset equipped with a replacement horn shall be tested, in
accordance with paragraph (e) of this section, before the next
specified test required by the railroad inspection, testing and
maintenance program.
(d) Trainsets that have already been tested individually under
paragraph (e) of this section, or through acceptance sampling under
Sec. 229.129(b)(1) of this chapter, shall not be required to undergo
sound level testing when equipped with a replacement trainset horn,
provided the replacement trainset horn is of the same model as the horn
that was replaced and the mounting location and type of mounting are
the same.
(e) Testing of the trainset horn sound level shall be in accordance
with Sec. 229.129(c) of this chapter, with the following exceptions:
(1) In lieu of Sec. 229.129(c)(7) of this chapter, the microphone
shall be located 100 feet forward of the front-most car body structure
of the trainset, four feet above the top of the rail, at an angle no
greater than 20 degrees from the center line of the track, and oriented
with respect to the sound source according to the manufacturer's
recommendations. The observer shall not stand between the microphone
and the horn.
(2) Reports required by Sec. 229.129(c)(10) of this chapter may be
maintained electronically.
0
36. Add Sec. 238.777 to read as follows:
Sec. 238.777 Inspection records.
(a) For certain periodic inspections, as defined by the railroad's
inspection, testing, and maintenance program required under subpart I
of this part, the railroad shall maintain a record of the inspection
that shall contain at a minimum:
(1) The date the last periodic inspection was performed as required
by the railroad's inspection, testing, and maintenance program;
(2) The name of the person conducting the inspection; and
(3) The name of the supervisor certifying that the inspection was
performed.
(b) The information contained in the inspection record and summary
report required under paragraph (c) of this section shall be made
available to the engineer so that the engineer knows the trainset is
ready for service. The inspection record and summary report shall be
made available to the engineer by either--
(1) Electronic displays provided in the cab or other FRA-approved
devices located within the trainset; or
(2) Being physically displayed in hardcopy form under a transparent
cover in a conspicuous place in the cab of each trainset.
(c) The summary report shall be generated that provides pertinent
information to review and will be made available to FRA upon request.
At a minimum, the summary report shall include information such as the
periodic inspection dates, applicable waivers, the type of brake system
used (e.g., regenerative versus rheostatic), whether the trainset's
event recorder is out of service, the car number, the date of
manufacture, the number of propulsion motors, the manufacturer's
information, and verification that all required inspections have been
performed.
(d) Compliance with the requirements of Sec. 229.23 of this
chapter shall satisfy the requirements of this section.
0
37. Add Sec. 238.781 to read as follows:
Sec. 238.781 Current collectors.
(a) Overhead Collector Systems. (1) Pantographs shall comply with
Sec. 229.77(a) of this chapter.
(2) Each overhead collector system, including the pantograph, shall
be equipped with a means to electrically ground any uninsulated parts
to prevent the risk of electrical shock on personnel working on the
system.
(3) Means shall be provided to permit the engineer to determine
that the pantograph is in its lowest position, and for securing the
pantograph if necessary, without the need to mount the roof of the
trainset.
(4) Each pantograph shall be equipped with a means to safely lower
the pantograph in the event of an emergency. If an emergency pole is
used for this purpose, that part of the pole which can be safely
handled shall be marked to so indicate. This pole shall be protected
from moisture and damage when not in use. The means of securement and
electrical isolation of a damaged pantograph, when automatic methods
are not possible, shall be addressed in the railroad's inspection,
testing, and maintenance program.
(b) Third Rail Shoes. Trainsets equipped with pantographs and
third-rail shoes shall comply with Sec. Sec. 229.79 and 229.81(b) of
this chapter.
0
38. Add Sec. 238.783 to read as follows:
[[Page 19784]]
Sec. 238.783 Circuit protection.
(a) General. Circuits used for purposes other than propelling the
equipment shall be provided with a circuit breaker or equivalent
current-limiting devices located as near as practical to the point of
connection to the source of power for that circuit. Such protection may
be omitted from circuits controlling safety-critical devices.
(b) Lightning protection. The main propulsion power line shall be
protected with a lightning arrestor, automatic circuit breaker, and
overload relay. The lightning arrestor shall be run by the most direct
path possible to ground. These overload protection devices shall be
housed in an enclosure designed specifically for that purpose with the
arc chute vented directly to outside air. Safety-critical circuits
shall be protected against lightning damage. Should safety-critical
circuits be adversely affected in such an instance, the trainset shall
default to a safe condition.
(c) Overload and ground fault protection. Head-end power, including
trainline power distribution, shall be provided with both overload and
ground fault protection.
0
39. Add Sec. 238.785 to read as follows:
Sec. 238.785 Trainset electrical system.
(a) Insulation or grounding of metal parts. Tier III trainsets
shall comply with Sec. 229.83 of this chapter.
(b) High voltage markings: doors, cover plates, or barriers. Tier
III trainsets shall comply with Sec. 229.85 of this chapter.
(c) Hand-operated electrical switches. Tier III trainsets shall
comply with Sec. 229.87 of this chapter.
(d) Conductors, jumpers, and cable connections. Tier III trainsets
shall comply with Sec. Sec. 229.89 and 238.225(a) of this chapter.
(e) Energy storage systems. (1) Batteries. In addition to complying
with the requirements of Sec. 238.225(b), battery circuits shall
include an emergency battery cut-off switch to completely disconnect
the energy stored in the batteries from the load.
(2) Capacitors for high-energy storage. If provided, capacitors
shall be--
(i) Isolated from the cab and passenger seating areas by a fire-
resistant barrier; and
(ii) Designed to protect against overcharging and overheating.
(f) Power dissipation resistors. In addition to complying with the
requirements of Sec. 238.225(c), power dissipation resistor circuits
shall incorporate warning or protective devices for low ventilation air
flow, over-temperature, and short circuit failures.
(g) Electromagnetic interference and compatibility. In addition to
complying with the requirements of Sec. 238.225(d), electrical and
electronic systems of equipment shall be capable of operation in the
presence of external electromagnetic noise sources.
(h) Motors and generators. (1) All motors and generators shall be
in proper working order, or safely cut-out and isolated.
(2) If equipped, support brackets, bearings, isolation mounts, and
guards shall be present, function properly, and function as intended,
as specified in the railroad's inspection, testing, and maintenance
program.
0
40. Add Sec. 238.791 to read as follows:
Sec. 238.791 Safety appliances.
(a) Applicability. This section applies to Tier III trainsets. The
requirements of this section may also be applied to Tier I passenger
cars and Tier I alternative passenger trainsets in lieu of the
requirements of Sec. Sec. 238.229 and 238.230, or part 231 of this
chapter, as applicable.
(b) Attachment. Safety appliances must be attached by either
mechanical fasteners meeting the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of
this section, or by welds meeting the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)
of this section.
(1) Mechanical fasteners. Safety appliance mechanical fasteners
shall have tensile strength and fatigue resistance equal to or greater
than a \1/2\ inch (12 mm) diameter SAE Grade 5 steel bolt. Fasteners
must be one- or two-piece rivets, Huck bolts[supreg], or threaded
fasteners secured by one of the following methods:
(i) Self-locking feature, including locknut and locking bolt, that
meets the prevailing torque requirements for locking fasteners such as
those specified by the Industrial Fastener Institute for the applicable
grade and size fastener used.
(ii) Locking device that provides the minimum prevailing first
removal torque value for locking fasteners, such as those specified by
the Industrial Fastener Institute for the applicable grade and size
fastener used.
(iii) Wedge-locking washers consisting of two symmetrically
designed washers that have inclined ramps on the sides in mutual
contact and non-slip contact surfaces on the sides in contact with the
nut and work piece. Washer and nut or bolt arrangements utilizing
similar locking principles are also acceptable.
(iv) Lock washers that meet the requirements for lock washers
specified by the Industrial Fastener Institute for the applicable grade
and size fastener used.
(v) Locking tab, cotter pin, or safety wire that restricts rotation
of the bolt, or nut, or both.
(2) Welded Safety Appliances. Welds for safety appliances,
connections, safety appliance subassemblies, and brackets or supports
shall be--
(i) Designed and fabricated in accordance with the welding process
and the quality control procedures contained in the applicable American
Welding Society Standard, the Canadian Welding Bureau Standard, or an
equivalent nationally or internationally recognized welding standard;
(ii) Performed by an individual possessing the qualifications to be
certified under the applicable American Welding Society Standard, the
Canadian Welding Bureau Standard, or an equivalent nationally or
internationally recognized welding qualification standard;
(iii) Inspected by an individual qualified to determine that the
welding has been performed in accordance with the requirements in
paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section. A written or electronic record of
the inspection shall be retained by the railroad operating the
equipment and shall be provided to FRA upon request. At a minimum, this
record shall include the date, time, and location of the inspection,
and the identification and qualifications of the person performing the
inspection.
(iv) Repaired in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs
(b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(3) Carbody. Brackets or supports welded in accordance with
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section and meeting the
strength requirements in paragraphs (c), (d)(4)(ii), and (e)(4)(ii) of
this section shall be considered part of the carbody structure.
(4) Inspection. Except for couplers and handbrakes, all safety
appliances, and brackets or supports shall, as far as practicable, be
installed to facilitate inspection of attachments, whether mechanical
fasteners or welds.
(5) Strength. Welds, if used, and mechanical fasteners shall be
designed to have an ultimate strength with a factor of safety of at
least two with respect to the load values specified in paragraphs
(d)(3)(ii) and (e)(4)(ii) of this section.
(c) Fatigue life. The safety appliance, the support or bracket to
which the safety appliance is attached, and the carbody structure to
which the safety appliance is directly attached or the support or
bracket is attached, shall be designed for a fatigue life of 10 million
[[Page 19785]]
cycles based upon the service vibration environment.
(d) Handholds. (1) Number, location, and orientation. (i) Exterior
side door passenger access handholds. (A) A vertical handhold shall be
provided for passengers on both sides of steps (one on each side) used
for boarding or alighting. Internally installed handrails, as that term
is used under part 38 of this title, may be used to satisfy the
requirements of this paragraph, and if used must meet the applicable
requirements for handrails specified in Sec. 38.97(a) or Sec.
38.115(a) of this title.
(B) Each vertical handhold provided for passengers shall be
positioned so that the bottom clear length shall not be more than 54
inches above top of rail.
(ii) Exterior cab access handholds. (A) Except as provided in
paragraph (f)(2)(iv) of this section, a vertical handhold shall be
provided for crewmembers and other authorized personnel on both sides
(one on each side) of any exterior cab access door, if equipped.
(B) Vertical handholds provided for cab access doors shall have a
clear length extending above the floor of the cab at least 48 inches,
and where practicable at least 60 inches or as high as feasible based
on carbody design, enabling a person to safely turn around. A smaller
handhold, providing at least 16 inches of clear length, may be
installed above the exterior cab access door opening on the inside of
the equipment to facilitate a person's ability to safely turn around.
(iii) Side handholds. (A) At least one side handhold, preferably
two, shall be provided at each location equipped with a sill step, and
be oriented either vertically, horizontally, or a combination thereof,
relative to the carbody. Each side handhold shall provide at least 16
inches of clear length. At least 12 inches of the clear length of each
horizontal side handhold shall be directly over the sill step.
(B) If one horizontal handhold is used it shall be not less than
58.5 nor more than 64.5 inches above top of rail.
(C) If two horizontal handholds are used, one horizontal handhold
shall be at most 54 inches above top of rail. The second horizontal
handhold shall be 54 to 58 inches above the step.
(D) If one vertical handhold is used, its lowest clearance point
shall be at most 54 inches above top of rail. Its highest clearance
point shall be at least 70 inches above top of rail. The handhold shall
be located above the clear length of the step.
(E) If two vertical handholds are used, the lowest clearance point
of each vertical handhold shall be at most 54 inches above top of rail.
The highest clearance point of each vertical handhold shall be at least
58 inches above the step. Each set of vertical handholds shall be
spaced not less than 16 inches nor more than 22 inches apart. To align
two vertical handholds with the sill steps, the handholds shall be
located in the longitudinal direction such that the inside face of the
outboard handhold is no more than 2 inches outboard of the inside face
of the outboard vertical leg of the step and is no less than 10 inches
outboard from the inside face of the inboard vertical leg.
(F) When a combination of horizontal and vertical handholds is
used, the horizontal handhold shall be 54 to 58 inches above the step.
The lowest clearance point of the vertical handhold shall be at most 54
inches above top of rail. The highest clearance point of the vertical
handhold shall be at least 70 inches, preferably 78 inches above top of
rail. One continuous handhold may be used as long as it meets the
dimensional requirements of this paragraph.
(iv) End handholds. (A) Except as provided in paragraph
(d)(1)(iv)(F) of this section, two horizontal end handholds shall be
provided at each end of a vehicle or trainset unit equipped with an
automatic coupler, as described in paragraph (g) of this section, with
one on each side of the vehicle or trainset unit. Each end handhold
shall provide at least 16 inches of clear length.
(B) There shall be no more than 16 inches between the side of the
vehicle or trainset unit to the useable clear length of an end
handhold, measured horizontally.
(C) If the equipment is designed with a tapered nose, the side of
the car shall be determined based on the outer dimension of the tapered
nose where the end handhold is attached.
(D) End handholds shall be positioned no more than 50 inches from
top of rail. Handholds may be attached to any primary structure (e.g.,
carbody frame; or pilot, or plow on cab cars), provided the dimension
requirements in paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(A) of this section are met.
(E) An uncoupling lever may be used as an end handhold if it meets
the requirements of paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section.
(F) End handholds are not required at the ends of vehicles equipped
with an automatic coupling mechanism that can be safely operated from
inside the appropriate cab of the vehicle and does not require ground
intervention from a person such as to go on, under, or between to
couple air, electric or other connections.
(2) Handhold dimensions. Regardless of location or orientation, the
minimum diameter for each handhold listed under paragraph (d)(1) of
this section shall be no less than \5/8\ inch.
(3) Clearance. All handholds listed under paragraph (d)(1) of this
section shall have a clearance between the handhold and carbody of at
least 2 inches, preferably 2\1/2\ inches, for the entire clear length,
except when a combination of handholds, or additional attachment
points, or both, are necessary due to the carbody design, or length of
the handhold, or both. In such cases, alternate ergonomic
configurations may be used instead, subject to FRA approval.
(4) Strength and rigidity. Handholds shall meet either of the
following strength and rigidity requirements:
(i) They must be made of \5/8\-inch diameter steel, or a material
providing an equivalent level of mechanical strength; or
(ii) They must be designed to support a load of 350 lbs at any
point on the useable length, in any direction, and shall be rigidly
attached to the carbody structure such that the maximum elastic
deflection at the midpoint of an unsupported span under 50 percent of
the applied 350-lb load shall be no greater than L/120, where L is the
unsupported length of the span. Stresses in the handhold and the
carbody structure to which it is attached shall be less than the
minimum yield strength for the load values specified in this paragraph.
For purposes of evaluation, the load may be distributed over a distance
of not more than 3 inches along the usable clear length of the
handhold.
(5) Multiple handholds. When multiple handholds are arranged in a
ladder-style configuration, each handhold shall meet the requirements
of this paragraph (d) and shall not have a vertical rise between
handholds exceeding 18 inches.
(e) Sill steps. (1) Number and location. (i) Except as provided in
paragraph (e)(1)(iv) of this section, two sill steps shall be provided
at each end of a vehicle or trainset unit equipped with an automatic
coupler, with one on each side of the vehicle or trainset unit no more
than 18 inches from the end of the vehicle or trainset unit to the
useable clear length of the sill step. For vehicle or trainset ends
equipped with shrouding or aerodynamic treatments that taper toward the
center of the vehicle or trainset unit, the 18 inches shall be measured
from the point where the shrouding or aerodynamic treatment begins to
taper.
[[Page 19786]]
(ii) The sill step tread shall be no more than 24 inches,
preferably no more than 22 inches, above top of rail.
(iii) The outside edge of the sill step tread shall be no more than
2 inches inside of any carbody structure located directly above the
sill step and below the lowest side handhold.
(iv) Sill steps are not required--
(A) If an exterior cab access door or an exterior passenger access
door is equipped with handholds and steps, as required by this section,
and is located such that an employee riding on the step has an
unobstructed view of the track ahead.
(B) At the ends of vehicles equipped with an automatic coupling
mechanism that can be safely operated from inside the appropriate cab
of the vehicle and does not require ground intervention from a person
such as to go on, under, or between to couple air, electric or other
connections.
(2) Dimensions. (i) The minimum clear length of the tread of the
sill step shall be 10 inches.
(ii) The minimum clear distance above the usable clear length of
each step shall be--
(A) 4.7 inches for Tier III trainsets.
(B) 8 inches for applicable Tier I equipment as specified in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(iii) The minimum clear space from the outside edge of the sill
step shall be 6 inches for the entire usable clear length of the step,
of which at least 2 inches shall be tread surface.
(iv) Sill steps shall not have a vertical rise between treads
exceeding 18 inches.
(v) Proper clearance must be provided between steps and the vehicle
running gear to provide proper clearance from moving parts.
(3) Sill step tread surface. The portion of the tread surface area
of each sill step that is normally contacted by the foot shall be
treated with an anti-skid material or be slip resistant by texturing of
the metal surface in such a way that it lasts the life of the car. Some
examples of acceptable methods are: diamond plate or stamped, upset, or
expanded metal. For enclosed step designs, at least 50 percent of the
tread area shall be open space.
(4) Strength and rigidity. Sill steps shall meet either of the
following strength and rigidity requirements:
(i) If a rectangular cross-section is used, the sill step shall
have a minimum \1/2\-inch-thick by 2-inch-wide cross-sectional area.
Alternate material sections may be used if they meet the strength and
rigidity of a \1/2\-inch-thick by 2-inch-wide steel section. Sill or
crew steps exceeding 18 inches (457 mm) in depth shall have an
additional tread and be laterally braced; or
(ii) Sill steps shall be designed to support individually applied
loads at any point on the useable length of 450 lbs in the downward
direction and 350 lbs in the horizontal direction (inward or outward).
Stresses in the sill step and the carbody structure to which it is
attached shall be less than the minimum yield strength for the load
values specified in this paragraph. For purposes of evaluation, the
load may be distributed over a distance of not more than 3 inches along
the usable clear length of the sill step.
(f) Crew access. (1) Ground-level crew access. (i) Crewmembers
shall be provided the means where they can board and alight the
equipment from ground level, safely.
(A) For a trainset, or any section of a trainset that is not semi-
permanently connected to an adjacent unit of the same trainset, a
minimum of four locations, two per side, shall be provided.
(B) For single vehicles or trainset units that are not semi-
permanently connected to an adjacent vehicle or trainset unit, a
minimum of two locations, one per side, shall be provided.
(ii) Exterior side doors used for passenger boarding and alighting
that provide ground-level access equipped with handholds meeting the
requirements of paragraphs (d)(1)(i), (d)(2), and (d)(3) of this
section may be used to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (f)(1)(i)
of this section so long as access to the controlling cab can be gained
from the interior of the trainset.
(iii) An exterior cab access side door that provides access to the
trainset cab and is equipped with handholds meeting the requirements of
paragraphs (d)(1)(ii), (d)(2), and (d)(3) of this section may be used
to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section so
long as access to the interior of the trainset can be gained from the
trainset cab.
(2) Ground level crew access side steps. (i) Except as provided in
paragraph (f)(2)(iv) of this section, for each location provided for
crewmember ground-level access under paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this
section, steps shall be provided that comply with the requirements of
paragraphs (e)(2) through (4) of this section and meet the following
requirements:
(A) The outside edge of the tread of the step shall be not more
than 3 inches inside of the edge of the door threshold; and
(B) The bottom tread shall be not more than 24 inches, preferably
not more than 22, inches above top of rail.
(ii) Handholds meeting the requirements of paragraphs (d)(1)(ii),
(d)(2), and (d)(3) of this section shall be provided at each location
where ground level crew access steps are provided.
(iii) The steps required under paragraph (f)(2)(i) may be
retractable.
(iv) Portable ladders equipped with handrails designed for safe
access from ground level can also be used in lieu of crew side access
steps.
(g) Couplers. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (g)(2) of this
section, trainset units shall be equipped with automatic couplers at
each end. The coupler shall--
(i) Couple on impact; and
(ii) Uncouple by either activation of a traditional uncoupling
lever, or some other type of uncoupling mechanism that does not require
a person to go on, under, or between the trainset units.
(2) An automatic coupler is not required--
(i) At trainset unit ends that are semi-permanently coupled to an
adjacent trainset unit; or
(ii) Where the coupler on the leading and trailing ends of a
trainset is only used for rescue purposes. The railroad shall develop
and implement rescue procedures that assure employee safety during
rescue operations are included as part of its inspection, testing, and
maintenance program.
(h) Uncoupling levers or devices. (1) General. Each trainset unit
end equipped with an automatic coupler required by paragraph (g)(1) of
this section shall have either--
(i) A manual uncoupling lever; or,
(ii) An uncoupling mechanism operated by controls located in the
appropriate cab, or other secure location in a trainset. Additional
manual uncoupling levers or handles on the coupler provided only as a
backup for that remotely operated mechanism are not subject to
paragraph (h)(2) of this section, but shall allow use from outside the
gage of the track, or in accordance with railroad procedures.
(2) Manual uncoupling lever or device. Manual uncoupling levers
shall be applied so that the automatic coupler can be operated from the
left side of the trainset unit as determined when facing the end of the
trainset unit, from ground level without requiring a person to go
between cars or trainset units. Manual uncoupling levers shall have a
minimum clearance of 2 inches, preferably 2\1/2\ inches, around the
handle.
(i) Shrouding or aerodynamic treatments. The automatic coupler, end
[[Page 19787]]
handholds, and uncoupling mechanism on the leading and trailing ends of
a trainset unit may be located within a removable shroud to reduce
aerodynamic effects.
(j) Hand brakes. Trainsets, and trainset units or sections of
trainsets that are not semi-permanently coupled to an adjacent trainset
unit or section of trainset, must be equipped with an efficient parking
or hand brake capable of holding the trainset, trainset unit, or
section of trainset on at least a 3-percent grade, or on the worst-case
grade conditions identified by the operating railroad, as approved by
FRA.
(k) Safety appliances for appurtenances and windshields. (1)
Trainsets and trainset units having appurtenances such as headlights,
windshield wipers, marker lights, and other similar items required for
the safe operation of the trainset or trainset unit must be equipped
with handholds and steps meeting the requirements of this section, if
the appurtenances are designed to be maintained or replaced from the
exterior of the trainset or equipment.
(2) The requirements of paragraph (k)(1) do not apply if railroad
operating rules require, and actual practice entails, the maintenance
and replacement of these components by maintenance personnel in
locations protected by the requirements of subpart B of part 218 of
this chapter equipped with ladders and other tools to safely repair or
maintain those appurtenances.
(l) Optional safety appliances. Safety appliances installed at the
option of the railroad shall be approved by FRA pursuant to Sec.
238.110.
0
41. Add subpart I to part 238 to read as follows:
Subpart I--Trainset Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance Requirements
for Tier III Passenger Equipment
Sec.
Trainset Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance Program
238.901 Scope.
238.903 General requirements.
238.905 Compliance.
238.907 Standard procedures for safely performing inspections,
testing, maintenance, or repairs.
238.909 Quality control/quality assurance program.
238.911 Inspection, testing, and maintenance program format.
238.913 Inspection, testing, and maintenance program approval
procedure.
Subpart I--Trainset Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance
Requirements for Tier III Passenger Equipment
Sec. 238.901 Scope.
This subpart contains specific requirements for inspection,
testing, and maintenance of Tier III passenger equipment.
Sec. 238.903 General requirements.
(a) General. Each railroad operating Tier III passenger equipment
shall have a written inspection, testing, and maintenance program,
approved pursuant to Sec. 238.913.
(b) Program contents. The program shall provide detailed
information, consistent with the requirements set forth in this
subpart, on the inspection, testing, and maintenance procedures
necessary for the railroad to safely maintain and operate its Tier III
passenger equipment. This information shall include a detailed
description of--
(1) Inspection procedures, intervals, and acceptance/rejection
criteria addressing applicable reliability-based monitoring and
inspections based on appendix E to this part or an equivalent national
or international standard;
(2) Test procedures and intervals;
(3) Scheduled preventative maintenance intervals;
(4) Maintenance procedures;
(5) Special testing equipment or measuring devices required to
perform inspections and tests;
(6) The training, qualification, and designation of employees and
contractors to perform inspections, tests, and maintenance pursuant to
the requirements of paragraph (h) of this section;
(7) Out-of-service procedures to protect out-of-service equipment,
to account for time out of service, and how the railroad will return
out-of-service equipment back to service; and
(8) The required operational braking capability.
(c) Specific safety inspections. The program required under
paragraph (a) of this section shall ensure that all Tier III passenger
trainsets receive thorough safety inspections by qualified personnel
designated by the railroad at regular intervals. Each inspection
identified in this paragraph shall be performed on Tier III trainsets
in accordance with the test procedures and inspection criteria and at
the intervals defined by the railroad's approved inspection, testing,
and maintenance program. Except as specified in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of
this section regarding defects in a trainset's braking system, if any
system or component that is defined as safety-critical under Sec.
238.911(b) is found to be defective or otherwise non-compliant during
these inspections, the trainset shall not be put into service until
that condition is rectified. In addition to other inspections required
under subpart H of this part, the following inspections shall be
performed on each trainset:
(1) Pre-departure inspections, i.e., trainset system verifications,
inspections, or functional tests that must be performed prior to
departures from terminal locations where operating ends or operating
crews are changed. Pre-departure inspection procedures must include--
(i) Verification of application and release of the service and
emergency brakes using the monitoring system; and
(ii) Functional tests of the passenger access exterior side doors.
(2) Pre-service inspections, i.e., inspections conducted at
identified locations where such inspections can be safely and properly
conducted prior to the trainset entering service after the previous
pre-service inspection, at a period not to exceed 48 hours. At a
minimum, pre-service inspections must include--
(i) All items covered under paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
Defects with the brake system discovered during a pre-service
inspection shall be handled in accordance with Sec. 238.1003(d)(1),
except that if a trainset's braking system is discovered having less
than the required operational braking capability, it shall move
immediately to a repair point under the provisions of Sec. 238.1003(b)
and (e).
(ii) An interior inspection of emergency systems, ensuring
functionality of certain systems (such as the public address and
intercom systems) including a determination that any required tools or
other implements necessary for emergency egress are present.
(3) Brake system inspections.
(4) Truck inspections.
(5) Other safety-critical periodic inspections.
(d) Inspection, testing and maintenance intervals. The program
shall identify the railroad's initial scheduled inspection, testing,
and maintenance intervals for Tier III equipment. Changes to scheduled
inspection, testing, and maintenance intervals of safety-critical
components, as identified by Sec. 238.911(b), shall be implemented
only when approved by FRA under Sec. 238.913. Such changes must be
justified by accumulated, verifiable operating data.
(e) Training and qualification program. The program required under
[[Page 19788]]
this subpart shall describe the training, qualification, and
designation program established by the railroad to qualify individuals
to inspect, test, and maintain the equipment.
(1) The railroad shall identify which inspection, testing, or
maintenance tasks require special training or qualifications.
(2) The training and qualification program shall, at a minimum,
address the items in Sec. 238.109(b).
(3) A list of all personnel and contractors designated as qualified
to perform activities specific to paragraph (e)(1) of this section,
training material, and records shall be maintained and made available
to FRA upon request.
(4) Only individuals qualified under the railroad's program may
inspect, test, or maintain components or systems the railroad deems
safety-critical.
(f) Retention of records. At a minimum, the railroad shall keep the
records of each inspection required under paragraph (c) of this
section. Each record shall be maintained for at least one year from the
date of the inspection.
Sec. 238.905 Compliance.
After the railroad's inspection, testing, and maintenance program
is approved by FRA pursuant to Sec. 238.913, the railroad shall adopt
and comply with the program, and perform--
(a) All inspections and tests described in the program in
accordance with the procedures and criteria for the components that the
railroad identifies as safety-critical; and
(b) All maintenance tasks described in the program in accordance
with the procedures and intervals for the components that the railroad
identifies as safety-critical.
Sec. 238.907 Standard procedures for safely performing inspection,
testing, and maintenance, and repairs.
(a) The railroad shall establish standard procedures for performing
all safety-critical or potentially hazardous inspection, testing,
maintenance, and repair tasks. These standard procedures shall--
(1) Describe in detail each step required to safely perform the
task;
(2) Describe the knowledge necessary to safely perform the task;
(3) Describe any precautions that shall be taken to safely perform
the task;
(4) Describe the use of any safety equipment necessary to perform
the task;
(5) Be approved by the railroad's official responsible for safety;
(6) Be enforced by the railroad's supervisors responsible for
accomplishing the tasks; and
(7) Be reviewed annually by the railroad and its designated
employee representatives pursuant to Sec. 238.913(e).
(b) The inspection, testing, and maintenance program required by
this section is not intended to address and should not include
procedures to address employee working conditions that arise in the
course of conducting the inspections, tests, and maintenance set forth
in the program. When reviewing the railroad's program, FRA does not
intend to review any portion of the program that relates to employee
working conditions.
Sec. 238.909 Quality control/quality assurance program.
Each railroad shall establish an inspection, testing, and
maintenance quality control/quality assurance program. The railroad or
its contractor(s), or both, shall ensure that inspections, testing, and
maintenance are performed in accordance with the railroad's approved
inspection, testing, and maintenance program.
Sec. 238.911 Inspection, testing, and maintenance program format.
The railroad's inspection, testing, and maintenance program
established pursuant to this subpart I shall be comprised of--
(a) The complete inspection, testing, and maintenance program for
all components, systems, or sub-systems on a Tier III trainset, whether
safety-critical or not, to include all inspections, tests, and
maintenance tasks required, the intervals and periodicity of those
inspections, tests, and maintenance tasks, and all associated
information and procedures required for the railroad and its personnel
to implement the program. The railroad shall submit the complete
program to FRA along with the condensed version required under
paragraph (b) of this section for FRA review to ensure that the
railroad has properly classified a particular inspection, test, or
maintenance task as safety-critical or not. Should FRA identify a
particular inspection, test, or maintenance task as safety-critical,
the railroad shall include the particular inspection, test, or
maintenance task in the condensed version of the program under
paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) A condensed version of the program that contains only those
items identified as safety-critical by the railroad. The railroad shall
submit this version for approval by FRA, as provided in Sec. 238.913.
The operation of emergency equipment, emergency back-up systems,
trainset exits, and trainset safety-critical hardware and software
systems shall be deemed safety-critical.
Sec. 238.913 Inspection, testing, and maintenance program approval
procedure.
(a) Submission--(1) Initial submission. The railroad shall submit
for approval an inspection, testing, and maintenance program not less
than 180 days prior to commencing revenue service. The program shall be
submitted to the Associate Administrator.
(2) Submission of amendments. If the railroad seeks to amend an
approved program, the railroad shall file with the Associate
Administrator for approval of such amendment not less than 60 days
prior to the proposed implementation date of the amendment.
(b) Contents. Each program or amendment shall contain the
following:
(1) The information prescribed in this subpart for such program or
amendment;
(2) The name, title, address, and telephone number of the primary
point of contact for the program or amendment; and
(3) A statement affirming that the railroad has provided a copy of
the program or amendment on designated representatives of railroad
employees as required under paragraph (c) of this section, together
with a list of the names and addresses of those persons.
(c) Comment. Each railroad shall provide a copy to the designated
representatives of railroad employees responsible for the equipment's
operation, inspection, testing, and maintenance under this subpart, of
each submission filed with FRA. Designated representatives will then
have 45 days from the date of filing to provide any comment to FRA.
(1) Each comment shall set forth specifically the basis upon which
it is made and contain a concise statement of the interest of the
commenter in the proceeding.
(2) Each comment shall be submitted to the Associate Administrator.
(3) The commenter shall certify that a copy of the comment was
provided to the railroad.
(d) Approval--(1) Initial submission. Within 60 days of receipt of
each initial inspection, testing, and maintenance program, FRA will
conduct a formal review of the program. FRA will then notify the
primary railroad contact person in writing whether the inspection,
testing, and maintenance program is approved and, if not approved, the
specific points in which the program is deficient. If a program is not
approved by FRA, the railroad shall amend its program to correct all
deficiencies and resubmit its program with the required revisions not
later than 45 days prior to commencing revenue service. The railroad
shall not
[[Page 19789]]
implement its inspection, testing, and maintenance program until
approved by FRA.
(2) Amendments. FRA will review each proposed amendment to the
program within 45 days of receipt. FRA will then notify the primary
railroad contact person and the designated employee representatives in
writing whether the proposed amendment has been approved by FRA and, if
not approved, the specific points in which the proposed amendment is
deficient. The railroad shall correct any deficiencies and file the
corrected amendment prior to implementing the amendment.
(3) Identification of deficiencies after approval. Should FRA
identify deficiencies within the program following initial approval of
a program or approval of an amendment, FRA will notify the railroad of
the specific points in which the program or amendment is deficient. The
railroad must resubmit its program or amendment with the necessary
revisions for review and approval in accordance with paragraph (d)(1)
or (2) of this section.
(e) Annual review. The inspection, testing, and maintenance program
required by this section shall be reviewed by the railroad annually.
The railroad shall provide written notice to the Associate
Administrator and the designated representatives of the railroad's
employees at least one month prior to the annual review. If the
Associate Administrator or their designee indicates a desire to be
present, the railroad shall provide a scheduled date and location for
the annual review. If the Associate Administrator requests the annual
review be performed on another date but the railroad and the Associate
Administrator are unable to agree on a date for rescheduling, the
annual review may be performed as scheduled.
0
42. Add subpart J to part 238 to read as follows:
Subpart J--Movement of Defective Tier III Passenger Equipment
Sec.
238.1001 Scope.
238.1003 Movement of defective Tier III passenger equipment.
Subpart J--Movement of Defective Tier III Passenger Equipment
Sec. 238.1001 Scope.
This subpart contains specific requirements for the movement of
defective Tier III passenger equipment.
Sec. 238.1003 Movement of defective Tier III passenger equipment.
(a) Except as provided in Sec. 238.903(c)(2)(i) and paragraph
(d)(1) of this section, a Tier III trainset with one or more safety-
critical items not in compliance with the railroad's approved
inspection, testing, and maintenance program identified during a pre-
service inspection required by Sec. 238.903(c)(2) shall not be moved
in revenue service and may only be moved in accordance with paragraph
(e) of this section.
(b) A Tier III trainset with one or more safety-critical items not
in compliance with the railroad's approved inspection, testing, and
maintenance program identified while en route to its destination after
its pre-service inspection is performed and before its next pre-service
inspection is performed, may be moved only after the railroad has
complied with the following:
(1) An individual qualified under the training and qualification
program implemented pursuant to Sec. 238.903(e) determines that it is
safe to move the trainset, consistent with the railroad's operating
rules. If appropriate, this determination may be made based upon a
description of the defective condition provided by a crewmember. If the
determination required by this paragraph is made by an off-site,
qualified individual based on a description of the defective condition
by on-site personnel, then a qualified individual shall perform a
physical inspection of the defective equipment at the first location
possible to verify the description of the defect provided by the on-
site personnel.
(2) The qualified individual who made the determination in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section notifies the train crew, in accordance
with the railroad's operating rules, of the maximum authorized speed,
authorized destination, and any other operational restrictions that
apply to the movement of the non-compliant trainset. This notification
may be achieved through the tag required by paragraph (b)(3) of this
section.
(3) The qualified individual securely attaches to the control stand
on each control cab of the trainset a tag bearing the words ``NON-
COMPLIANT TRAINSET'' and containing the following information:
(i) The trainset, and unit or car number;
(ii) The name, job title, location, and signature if possible, of
the qualified individual making the determination that the non-
compliant trainset is otherwise safe to move;
(iii) The location and date of the inspection that led to the
discovery of the non-compliant item;
(iv) A description of each non-compliant item;
(v) Movement restrictions, if any; and
(vi) The authorized destination of the trainset.
(c) Automated tracking systems used to meet the tagging
requirements contained in paragraph (b)(3) of this section must comply
with Sec. 238.15(c)(3).
(d) In the event of an in-service failure of the braking system--
(1) The trainset may continue in service for no more than 5
consecutive calendar days so long as the trainset meets or exceeds its
required operational braking capability.
(2) When below the required operational braking capability, the
trainset may remain in service until the next pre-service inspection
and proceed only in accordance with railroad operating rules relating
to the percentage of operative brakes and at a speed no greater than
the maximum authorized speed as determined by Sec. 238.731(e)(4), so
long as the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section are otherwise
fully met.
(e) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, a
trainset with one or more safety-critical items not in compliance with
the railroad's approved inspection, testing, and maintenance program
may be moved without passengers, within a yard, and at speeds not to
exceed 10 mph, without meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) of
this section where the movement is solely for the purpose of repair. A
railroad shall ensure that the movement is made safely. If the railroad
elects to repair the equipment in place, it shall, at a minimum, tag
the equipment in accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of this section to
make clear that the trainset is defective.
(f) Nothing in this section authorizes the movement of Tier III
equipment subject to a Special Notice for Repair under part 216 of this
chapter unless the movement is made in accordance with the restrictions
contained in the Special Notice.
0
43. Revise appendix C to part 238 to read as follows:
Appendix C to Part 238--Minimally Compliant Analytical Track (MCAT)
Simulations Used for Qualifying Passenger Vehicles To Operate on Track
Classes 2 Through 5 and up to 6 Inches of Cant Deficiency
(a) This appendix contains requirements for using computer
simulations to comply with the vehicle/track system qualification
testing requirements specified in Sec. 238.139.
[[Page 19790]]
These simulations shall be performed using a track model containing
defined geometry perturbations at the limits that are permitted for
a specific class of track and level of cant deficiency. This track
model is known as Minimally Compliant Analytical Track (MCAT). These
simulations shall be used to identify vehicle dynamic performance
issues prior to service or, as appropriate, a change in service, and
demonstrate that a vehicle type is suitable for operation on the
track over which it is intended to operate.
(b) As specified in Sec. 238.139(c), MCAT shall be used for the
qualification of new vehicle types intended to operate at track
Classes 2 through 5 speeds, or at any curving speed producing no
more than 6 inches of cant deficiency. In addition, as specified in
Sec. 238.139(d)(2), MCAT shall be used to qualify on new routes
vehicle types that have previously been qualified, by testing only,
on other routes.
(1) Validation. To validate the vehicle model used for
simulations under this part, the track owner or railroad shall
obtain vehicle simulation predictions using measured track geometry
data, chosen from the same track section over which testing shall be
performed as specified in Sec. 238.139(c)(2)(ii). These predictions
shall be submitted to FRA in support of the request for approval of
the qualification testing plan. Full validation of the vehicle model
used for simulations under this part shall be determined when the
results of the simulations demonstrate that they replicate all key
responses observed during qualification testing.
(2) MCAT layout. MCAT consists of nine segments, each designed
to test a vehicle's performance in response to a specific type of
track perturbation. The basic layout of MCAT is shown in figure 1 of
this appendix, by type of track (curving or tangent), class of
track, and cant deficiency (CD). The values for wavelength,
[lambda], amplitude of perturbation, a, and segment length, d, are
specified in this appendix. The bars at the top of figure 1 show
which segments are required depending on the speed and degree of
curvature.
(i) MCAT segments. MCAT's nine segments contain different types
of track deviations in which the shape of each deviation is a
versine having wavelength and amplitude varied for each simulation
speed as further specified. The nine MCAT segments are defined as
follows:
(A) Hunting perturbation (a1). This segment contains an
alinement deviation having a wavelength, [lambda], of 10 feet and
amplitude of 0.25 inch on both rails to test vehicle stability on
tangent track.
(B) Gage narrowing (a2). This segment contains an alinement
deviation on one rail to reduce the gage from the nominal value to
the minimum permissible gage or maximum alinement (whichever comes
first).
(C) Gage widening (a3). This segment contains an alinement
deviation on one rail to increase the gage from the nominal value to
the maximum permissible gage or maximum alinement (whichever comes
first).
(D) Repeated surface (a9). This segment contains three
consecutive profile variations on each rail.
(E) Repeated alinement (a4). This segment contains two
consecutive alinement variations on each rail.
(F) Single surface (a10, a11). This segment contains a maximum
permissible profile variation on one rail. If the maximum
permissible profile variation alone produces a condition which
exceeds the maximum allowed warp condition, a second profile
variation is also placed on the opposite rail to limit the warp to
the maximum permissible value.
(G) Single alinement (a5, a6). This segment contains a maximum
permissible alinement variation on one rail. If the maximum
permissible alinement variation alone produces a condition which
exceeds the maximum allowed gage condition, a second alinement
variation is also placed on the opposite rail to limit the gage to
the maximum permissible value.
(H) Short warp (a12). This segment contains a pair of profile
deviations to produce a maximum permissible 10-foot warp
perturbation. The first is on the inner rail, and the second follows
10 feet farther on the outside rail. Each deviation has a
wavelength, [lambda], of 20 feet and variable amplitude for each
simulation speed as described below. This segment is to be used only
on curved track simulations.
(I) Combined perturbation (a7, a8, a13). This segment contains a
down and out combined geometry condition on the outside rail in the
body of the curve. If the variations produce a condition which
exceeds the maximum allowed gage condition, a second variation is
also placed on the opposite rail as for the MCAT segments described
in paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(F) and (G) of this appendix. This segment is
to be used for all curved track simulations at speeds producing no
more than 6 inches of cant deficiency on track Classes 2 through 5.
(ii) Segment lengths. Each MCAT segment shall be long enough to
allow the vehicle's response to the track deviation(s) to damp out.
Each segment shall also have a minimum length as specified in table
1 of this appendix, which references the distances in figure 1 of
this appendix. For curved track segments, the perturbations shall be
placed far enough in the body of the curve to allow for any spiral
effects to damp out.
(iii) Degree of curvature. (A) For each simulation involving
assessment of curving performance, the degree of curvature, D, which
generates a particular level of cant deficiency, Eu, for
a given speed, V, shall be calculated using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AP23.000
Where
D = Degree of curvature (degrees).
V = Simulation speed (mph).
Ea = 3 inches for Class 2 and 6 inches for Classes 3
through 5.
Eu = Cant deficiency (inches).
(B) Table 2 of this appendix depicts the degree of curvature for
use in MCAT simulations of passenger equipment performance on Class
2 through 5 track, based on the equation in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A)
of this appendix.
(3) Required simulations--(i) General. To develop a
comprehensive assessment of vehicle performance, simulations shall
be performed for a variety of scenarios using MCAT. These
simulations shall be performed on tangent or curved track, or both,
depending on the level of cant deficiency and speed (track class) as
summarized in table 3 of this appendix.
(A) All simulations shall be performed using the design wheel
profile and a nominal track gage of 56.5 inches, using tables 4, 5,
or 6 of this appendix, as appropriate. In addition, all simulations
involving the assessment of curving performance shall be repeated
using a nominal track gage of 57.0 inches, using tables 5 or 6 of
this appendix, as appropriate.
(B) For tangent track segments, all simulations on the hunting
perturbation shall be repeated using a high-conicity, wheel-rail
profile combination approved by FRA that produces a minimum conicity
of 0.4 for wheelset lateral shifts up to flange contact.
(C) All simulations shall be performed using a wheel/rail
coefficient of friction of 0.5.
(ii) Vehicle performance on tangent track Classes 2 through 5.
For maximum vehicle speeds corresponding to track Classes 2 through
5, the MCAT segments described in paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(A) through
(G) of this appendix shall be used to assess vehicle performance on
tangent track. A parametric matrix of MCAT simulations shall be
performed using the following range of conditions:
(A) Vehicle speed. Simulations shall demonstrate that at up to 5
mph above the proposed maximum operating speed, the vehicle type
shall not exceed the wheel/rail force and acceleration criteria
defined in the Vehicle/Track Interaction Safety Limits table in
Sec. 213.333 of this chapter. Simulations shall also demonstrate
acceptable vehicle dynamic response by incrementally increasing
speed, as shown in table 2, up to 5 mph above the proposed maximum
operating speed for each track class (in 5 mph increments).
(B) Perturbation wavelength. For each speed, a set of two
separate MCAT simulations shall be performed. In each MCAT
simulation for the perturbation segments described in paragraphs
(b)(2)(i)(B) through (G) of this appendix, every perturbation shall
have the same wavelength. The following two wavelengths, [lambda],
shall be used: 31, and 62 feet. The hunting perturbation segment
described in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) of this appendix has a fixed
wavelength, [lambda], of 10 feet.
(C) Amplitude parameters. Table 4 of this appendix provides the
amplitude values for the MCAT segments described in paragraphs
(b)(2)(i)(A) through (G) of this appendix for each speed of the
required parametric MCAT simulations. The last set of simulations
shall
[[Page 19791]]
be performed at 5 mph above the proposed maximum operating speed, as
shown in table 2, using the amplitude values in table 4 that
correspond to the proposed maximum operating speed.
Figure 1 of Appendix C to Part 238 MCAT Simulations on Curved Track
(Cant Deficiency <=6 Inches) Track Layout
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AP23.001
Table 1 of Appendix C to Part 238--Minimum Lengths of MCAT Segments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distances (ft)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 d9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000 1,500 1,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 of Appendix C to Part 238--Degree of Curvature for Use in MCAT Simulations (Track Classes 2 Through 5)
Cant Deficiency <=6 Inches
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cant deficiency
---------------------------------------------------
Tangent Class 2 Ea \1\ = 3'', Class 3 through 5 Ea = 6''
---------------------------------------------------
3'' 4'' 5'' 6''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 2:
30 mph..................................... 0 9.52 ........... ........... ...........
35 mph..................................... 0 9.52 ........... ........... ...........
Class 3:
35 mph..................................... 0 10.50 11.66 12.83 13.99
40 mph..................................... 0 8.04 8.93 9.82 10.71
45 mph..................................... 0 6.35 7.05 7.76 8.47
50 mph..................................... 0 5.14 5.71 6.29 6.86
55 mph..................................... 0 4.25 4.72 5.19 5.67
60 mph..................................... 0 3.57 3.97 4.37 4.76
65 mph..................................... 0 3.57 3.97 4.37 4.76
Class 4:
65 mph..................................... 0 3.04 3.38 3.72 4.06
70 mph..................................... 0 2.62 2.92 3.21 3.50
75 mph..................................... 0 2.29 2.54 2.79 3.05
80 mph..................................... 0 2.01 2.23 2.46 2.68
85 mph..................................... 0 2.01 2.23 2.46 2.68
Class 5:
85 mph..................................... 0 1.78 1.98 2.17 2.37
90 mph..................................... 0 1.59 1.76 1.94 2.12
95 mph..................................... 0 1.59 1.76 1.94 2.12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Ea'' means actual elevation.
Table 3 of Appendix C to Part 238--Summary of Required Vehicle
Performance Assessment Using Simulations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New vehicle types
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curved Track: cant deficiency <=6 Curving performance simulation:
inches. required for track classes 2
through 5.
Tangent track.......................... Tangent performance simulation:
required for track classes 2
through 5.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19792]]
Table 4 of Appendix C to Part 238--Track Class 2 Through 5 Amplitude
Parameters (in Inches) for MCAT Simulations on Tangent Track
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AP23.002
[[Page 19793]]
Table 5 of Appendix C to Part 238 Track Class 2 Through 5 Amplitude
Parameters (in Inches) for MCAT Simulations on Curved Track With Cant
Deficiency >=3 and <=5 Inches
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AP23.003
[[Page 19794]]
Table 6 of Appendix C to Part 238 Track Class 2 Through 5 Amplitude
Parameters (in Inches) for MCAT Simulations on Curved Track With Cant
Deficiency >5 Inches and <=6 Inches)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AP23.004
BILLING CODE 4910-06-C
0
44. Add Appendix I to part 238 to read as follows:
Appendix I to Part 238--Tier III Trainset Cab Noise Test Protocol
This appendix prescribes the procedures for the in-cab noise
measurements for Tier III trainsets at speed. The purpose of the cab
noise testing is to ensure that the noise levels within the cab of
the trainset meet the minimum requirements defined within Sec.
238.759(a)(1).
I. Measurement Instrumentation
The instrumentation used shall conform to the measurement
instrumentation requirements prescribed in paragraph I of appendix H
to part 229 of this chapter.
II. Test Site Requirements
The test site shall meet the following requirements:
(1) The passenger trainset shall be tested over a representative
segment of the railroad and shall not be tested in any site
specifically designed to artificially lower in-cab noise levels.
[[Page 19795]]
(2) All windows, doors, cabinets seals, etc., must be installed
in the trainset cab and be closed.
(3) The heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system
or a dedicated heating or air conditioner system must be operating
on high, and the vents must be open and unobstructed.
III. Procedures for Measurement
(1) LAeq, T is defined as the A-weighted, equivalent
sound level for a duration of T seconds, and the sound level meter
shall be set for A-weighting with slow response.
(2) The sound level meter shall be calibrated with the acoustic
calibrator immediately before and after the in-cab tests. The
calibration levels shall be recorded.
(3) Any change in the before and after calibration level(s)
shall be less than 0.5 dB.
(4) The sound level meter shall be located:
(i) Laterally as close as practicable to the longitudinal
centerline of the cab, adjacent to the engineer's seat;
(ii) Longitudinally at the center of the engineer's nominal
seating position; and
(iii) At a height 1,219 mm (48 inches) above the floor.
(5) The sound measurements shall be taken autonomously within
the cab.
(6) The sound level shall be recorded at the maximum approved
train speed 3km/h (1.86 mph).
(7) After the trainset speed has become constant at the maximum
test speed and the in-cab noise is continuous, LAeq, T
shall be measured, either directly or using a 1-second sampling
interval, for a minimum duration of 30 seconds at the measurement
position (LAeq, 30s).
IV. Recordkeeping
To demonstrate compliance, the entity conducting the test shall
maintain records of the following data. The records created under
this procedure shall be retained and made readily accessible for
review for a minimum of three years. All records may be maintained
in either written or electronic form.
(1) Name(s) of persons conducting the test, and the date of the
test.
(2) Description of the passenger trainset cab being tested,
including: model number, serial number, and date of manufacture.
(3) Description of sound level meter and calibrator, including:
make, model, type, serial number, and manufacturer's calibration
date.
(4) The recorded measurement during calibration and for the
microphone location during operating conditions.
(5) The recorded measurements taken during the test.
(6) Other information as appropriate to describe the testing
conditions and procedure.
(7) Where a trainset fails a test and is re-tested under the
provisions of section III(7) of this appendix, the suspected
reason(s) for the failure.
0
45. Add Appendix J to part 238 to read as follows:
Appendix J to Part 238--Alternative Requirements for Evaluating the
Crashworthiness and Occupant Protection Performance of a Tier I
Passenger Trainset Equipped With Crash Energy Management Features
General
As required by Sec. 238.110(e)(1), this appendix applies to
single pieces of passenger equipment that are fully compliant with
existing Tier I structural requirements, provide additional CEM
features, and are intended for interoperable use within
conventional, Tier I-compliant trains. The requirements of this
appendix do not apply to Tier I alternatively designed trainsets, or
single pieces of equipment fully compliant with existing Tier I
structural requirements outfitted with pushback couplers as the only
CEM feature. Each new, fully Tier I-compliant single vehicle design
equipped with additional CEM features shall be subject to the
following collision scenarios to ensure appropriate performance of
the crush zone and stable load transmission.
In-Line Collision Scenario Between Identical Trains
The new single car or locomotive design shall be placed into a
reference train composed of vehicles of similar design, the details
of which depend upon whether the single car is a locomotive, cab
car, or an intermediate car. The vehicles shall be in-line without
offset between adjacent cars. The reference train shall be subjected
to a collision with an identical train on level, tangent track as
described below. This symmetric scenario may be simulated by a
collision of the reference train moving at one-half the collision
speed into a rigid, stationary plane whose normal direction is
parallel to the direction of travel (representing the plane of
symmetry). Each car in both trains shall have a weight corresponding
to AW0 and shall not have the brakes applied.
Non-Passenger Carrying Locomotives
For non-passenger carrying locomotives with CEM features, the
reference train shall consist of five of the non-passenger carrying
CEM locomotives. The closing speed for this collision scenario is
that which is sufficient to exhaust the design energy-absorption
capacity of the leading locomotive crush zone.
CEM-Equipped Cab Cars
For evaluation of the performance of a CEM-equipped cab car, the
reference train shall consist of five such CEM-equipped cab cars. If
the CEM-equipped cab cars are not all of symmetric design, each end
of the trailing four cars shall have the same crush zone as that of
the non-cab end of the non-symmetric cab car under evaluation. The
closing speed for this collision scenario is that which results in
dissipation of no less than 75 percent of the design energy-
absorption capacity of at least one crush zone at the colliding
interface.
CEM-Equipped Intermediate Cars
Evaluation of the performance of CEM-equipped intermediate cars
shall be performed using a reference train consisting of four
identical intermediate cars behind a leading vehicle with the
following characteristics:
(a)(1) The leading vehicle shall be decelerated to zero by:
(i) A prescribed motion equivalent to a constant, longitudinal
deceleration of 8g; or
(ii) An application of forces resulting in a deceleration of at
least 8g.
(2) The point of application of the motion constraint or the
measurement of the resulting speed shall be located in the rear half
of the leading vehicle.
(b) The trailing end of the leading vehicle shall have the same
crash characteristic as the adjacent end of the coach to be assessed
(if the evaluation vehicle is of a symmetric design), or the same
crash characteristic as the trailing end of the coach to be assessed
(if the evaluation vehicle is of a non-symmetric design), where:
(1) The crush zone shall be represented with the same degree of
detail as the coach to be assessed; and
(2) Any additional potential contact surfaces shall be
represented, at a minimum, as rigid geometry.
(c) The forward structure of the leading vehicle may be
modelled:
(1) Identically to the coach to be assessed;
(2) As a lumped mass model with a stiffness not less than the
coach to be assessed; or
(3) As rigid.
(d) The criteria for preservation of survival space in Sec.
238.705(b)(1)(i) and (ii) shall apply to the deformable portion of
the lead vehicle, excluding its crush zone.
(e) The four remaining identical intermediate cars (including
the intermediate car being assessed) shall follow the leading
vehicle described, because CEM-equipped intermediate cars cannot be
placed in the lead position in a train. The intermediate car to be
assessed shall be placed immediately behind the leading vehicle; all
other vehicles are not part of the assessment and may be simplified.
(f) The closing speed for this collision scenario is that which
results in dissipation of no less than 75 percent of the design
energy-absorption capacity of at least one crush zone at the
colliding interface.
Offset Collision Scenario Between Identical Trains
An offset simulated collision between identical trains shall be
run under the conditions defined in Sec. 238.707(a) for locomotive-
or cab car-led trains.
The performance of the evaluated single vehicle in the in-line
and offset collision scenarios shall meet the deformation
requirements in Sec. 238.705(b)(1)(i) and (ii), and, if the single
vehicle being evaluated is a cab car or locomotive, the requirements
in Sec. 238.705(b)(3)(i) through (iv).
0
46. Add appendix K to part 238 to read as follows:
Appendix K to Part 238--Minimum Information for Test Procedures
The following is the minimum information necessary to be
provided to FRA as part of pre-revenue service acceptance testing
plan procedures under Sec. 238.111(a)(3):
[[Page 19796]]
(a) A clear statement of the test objectives. One of the
principal test objectives shall be to demonstrate that the equipment
meets the safety requirements specified in this part when operated
in the environment in which it is to be used.
(b) Dates, times, and locations of the pre-revenue service tests
to permit FRA observation of such tests.
(c) Any special safety precautions to be observed during
testing.
(d) A description of the railroad property or test facilities to
be used to conduct the testing.
(e) Prerequisites for conducting each test.
(f) A detailed description of how the testing is to be
conducted. This description shall include all the following:
(1) Identification of the equipment and on-board sub-systems to
be tested.
(2) The method for testing.
(3) The instrumentation to be used.
(4) The means by which the test results will be recorded and
reported.
(5) A description of the information or data to be obtained.
(6) A description of any criteria to be used as safety limits
during the testing.
(7) The acceptance criteria to be used to evaluate the equipment
and on-board sub-systems performance. If acceptance is to be based
on extrapolation of less than full-level testing results, the
analysis to be done to justify the validity of the extrapolation
shall be described.
(g) Inspection, testing, and maintenance procedures to be
followed to ensure testing is conducted safely.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Amitabha Bose,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-05576 Filed 3-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P