Proposed Rule2023-05576
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards; Standards for High-Speed Trainsets
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 3, 2023
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentFederal Railroad Administration
Abstract
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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 63 (Monday, April 3, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[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 [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#35585c565d5450591b5d405b41504775515a411b525a43"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f79a9e949f96929bd99f8299839285b7939883d9909881">[email protected]</span></a>; or James Mecone, Attorney
Adviser, Office of the Chief Counsel, telephone: (202) 380-5324 or
email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9df7fcf0f8eeb3f0f8fef2f3f8ddf9f2e9b3faf2eb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f09a919d9583de9d95939f9e95b0949f84de979f86">[email protected]</span></a>.
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 <a href="http://www.apta.com">www.apta.com</a>.
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 <a href="http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Railway_Group_Standards">www.rgsonline.co.uk/Railway_Group_Standards</a>. 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
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on April 3, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.