Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3957 

DOT solicits comments from the public 

to better inform its rulemaking process. 

The DOT posts these comments without 

edit, including any personal information 

the commenter provides, to https://

www.regulations.gov, as described in 

the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– 

14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 

https://www.dot.gov/privacy. 

• Confidential Business Information: 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

is commercial or financial information 

that is both customarily and actually 

treated as private by its owner. Under 

the Freedom of Information Act (5 

U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public 

disclosure. If your comments in 

response to this document contain 

commercial or financial information 

that is customarily treated as private, 

that you actually treat as private, and 

that is relevant or responsive to this 

document, it is important that you 

clearly designate the submitted 

comments as CBI. Pursuant to 49 CFR 

190.343, you may ask PHMSA to 

provide confidential treatment to 

information you give to the agency by 

taking the following steps: (1) Mark each 

page of the original document 

submission containing CBI as 

‘‘Confidential;’’ (2) send PHMSA a copy 

of the original document with the CBI 

deleted along with the original, 

unaltered document; and (3) explain 

why the information you are submitting 

is CBI. Unless you are notified 

otherwise, PHMSA will treat such 

marked submissions as confidential 

under the Freedom of Information Act 

and they will not be placed in the 

public docket of this notification. 

Submissions containing CBI should be 

sent to James Reynolds, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE, E24–452, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001, or 

emailed to James.Reynolds@dot.gov. 

Any commentary PHMSA receives that 

is not specifically designated as CBI will 

be placed in the public docket for this 

guidance. 

• Docket: For access to the docket or 

to read background documents or 

comments, go to https://

www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you 

may review the documents in person at 

the U.S. Department of Transportation 

at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room 

W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday 

through Friday, except federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

General: James Reynolds, General 

Engineer, Office of Pipeline Safety, by 

phone at (202) 366–2786 or via email at 

James.Reynolds@dot.gov. Technical: 

Gregory Ochs, Central Region Director, 

Office of Pipeline Safety, by phone at 

(816) 329–3814 or via email at 

Gregory.Ochs@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PHMSA 

uses FAQs and other guidance materials 

to clarify the Federal pipeline safety 

regulations (PSRs) found in 49 CFR 

parts 190–199. PHMSA-developed 

FAQs include operator qualification 

FAQs that address the PSRs in 49 CFR 

part 192, subpart N, and 49 CFR part 

195, subpart G. These FAQs are 

currently available at https://

www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/operatorqualifications/oq-frequently-askedquestions. 

PHMSA proposes revisions to the 

operator qualification FAQs by 

modifying and eliminating some of the 

current FAQs. PHMSA requests public 

comment on the proposed revisions, 

which were developed by a team of 

PHMSA operator qualification subject 

matter experts (SMEs). The proposed 

revisions are intended to tie each FAQ 

to a specific operator qualification 

regulatory requirement and to eliminate 

obsolete FAQs. 

PHMSA created these FAQs to help 

the regulated community better 

understand how to comply with the 

PSRs. Like all PHMSA guidance, FAQs 

are not rules, nor do they create legally 

enforceable rights, assign duties, or 

impose new obligations that are not 

contained in the existing regulations 

and standards. Pipeline operators must 

comply with the underlying safety 

standards referred to in the FAQs. 

PHMSA’s operator qualification PSRs 

are codified in 49 CFR part 192, subpart 

N, and 49 CFR part 195, subpart G. 

PHMSA originally developed pipeline 

operator qualification FAQs following a 

series of public meetings in 2003. The 

FAQs address PHMSA’s operator 

qualification PSRs, which help to 

ensure that qualified individuals 

perform covered tasks on pipeline 

facilities and reduce the probability and 

consequences of pipeline incidents 

caused by human error. The PSRs state 

that each pipeline operator is 

responsible for developing and 

following an operator qualification 

program, establishing a covered task list 

that is applicable to their system, and 

defining the training and qualification 

requirements for personnel who perform 

covered tasks on pipeline facilities. 

Each operator is responsible for 

ensuring that its contractors and 

vendors comply with the requirements 

of the operator’s qualification program. 

PHMSA assembled a team of SMEs to 

develop the revised operator 

qualification FAQs based on the existing 

FAQs, the compliance questions 

received from operators and the public, 

and the requirements of the code. 

PHMSA SMEs reviewed the 63 current 

FAQs to determine whether any should 

be revised, added, or deleted. As a result 

of this review, PHMSA proposes 

publishing a total of 40 FAQs for public 

notice. The draft FAQs are available 

online on the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal, https://www.regulations.gov; 

search for Docket No. PHMSA–2020– 

0086. Once finalized, PHMSA will post 

the revised FAQs on its public website 

in place of the current FAQs. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 5, 

2021, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

1.97. 

Alan K. Mayberry, 

Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00152 Filed 1–14–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Part 232 

[Docket No. FRA–2019–0072; Notice No. 1] 

RIN 2130–AC82 

Amendments to Brake System Safety 

Standards Governing Operations 

Using an Electronic Air Brake Slip 

System 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: FRA proposes to amend its 

brake system safety standards to address 

operations using an electronic air brake 

slip (eABS) system, which is a system 

that tracks details related to individual 

freight car brake tests. The proposed 

rule would provide an alternative 

regulatory framework for railroads to 

utilize when choosing to use an eABS 

system, but would not require railroads 

to use such a system. The NPRM 

proposes to extend the distance certain 

individual rail cars may travel (from 

1,500 to 2,500 miles) without stopping 

for brake and mechanical tests, if the 

cars have a valid eABS record. The 

NPRM also proposes to allow railroads 

to add or remove multiple cars from a 

train without conducting additional 

brake tests, if the train is solely made up 

of cars with eABS records. 

DATES: Comments are requested no later 

than March 16, 2021. FRA will consider 

comments received after that date to the 

extent possible without incurring 

additional expense or delay. 

3958 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

1FRA has placed the Petition in the public docket 

for this rulemaking (Docket No. FRA–2019–0072) 

available at www.regulations.gov. 

2AAR defined a ‘‘valid’’ eABS as an electronic 

record containing a car’s identification information; 

date, time, and location of the last Class I brake test; 

the identity and qualifications of the person(s) who 

performed the last Class I brake test; and the 

mileage until the equipment reaches the limit it is 

allowed to travel. 

3This is similar to the existing requirements of 

§ 232.205(e), which requires railroads to maintain 

records of brake tests for entire trains (as opposed 

to individual cars within those trains). Existing 

§ 232.205(e) requires brake inspection records to 

contain the date, time, and location of a train’s 

Class I brake test, the identification of the qualified 

person(s) conducting the test, and because the 

record tracks the brake inspections of the train as 

a whole, the number of freight cars inspected. See 

§ 232.205(e). However, this record is not required to 

be retained once the train reaches its destination. 

The proposed rule would require retention of this 

information for a period of time, allowing for more 

detailed insight into the effectiveness of individual 

brake tests. 

ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments 

related to Docket No. FRA–2019–0072 

may be submitted by going to http://

www.regulations.gov and following the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name, docket 

number (FRA–2019–0072), and 

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) for 

this rulemaking (2130–AC82). All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to https://

www.regulations.gov; this includes any 

personal information. Please see the 

Privacy Act heading in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document for Privacy Act 

information related to any submitted 

comments or materials. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to https://

www.regulations.gov and follow the 

online instructions for accessing the 

docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Zuiderveen, Senior Safety 

Specialist, Motive & Power Equipment 

Division, Office of Railroad Safety, 

Federal Railroad Administration, RRS– 

14, West Building 3rd Floor, Room 

W35–204, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590, telephone: 202– 

493–6337, email: Steven.Zuiderveen@

dot.gov; or Jeffrey Frank, Attorney 

Adviser, Office of the Chief Counsel, 

Federal Railroad Administration, RCC– 

10, West Building 3rd Floor, Room 

W31–201, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590, telephone: (202) 

493–8957, email: Jeffrey.Frank@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of Regulatory Action 

B. Major Provisions of the Regulatory 

Action 

C. Costs and Benefits of the Proposed 

Regulatory Action 

II. Background 

A. The Basics of Train and Freight Car Air 

Brake Systems 

B. Brake Inspection Frequency 

C. Block Swapping 

D. AAR Petition 

E. Technological Improvements 

F. Supporting Data 

G. Safety Improvements 

III. Section-by-Section Analysis 

IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13771 and 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive 

Order 13272 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

D. Federalism Implications 

E. Environmental Impact 

F. Energy Impact 

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

H. Privacy Act 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of Regulatory Action 

In a March 1, 2019, petition (Petition), 

the Association of American Railroads 

(AAR) asked FRA to amend the existing 

brake system safety standards (49 CFR 

part 232) to increase the mileage 

individual freight cars are allowed to 

operate between required brake tests if 

the cars have a valid eABS system 

record.1 AAR requested that a car with 

a ‘‘valid’’ eABS system record 2 be 

allowed to move up to 2,500 miles 

between brake tests if the car had 

received a Class I brake test conducted 

by a qualified mechanical inspector 

(QMI), as defined in 49 CFR 232.5, and 

a freight car inspection performed by a 

designated inspector, as defined in 49 

CFR 215.11, similar to the existing 

requirements for extended haul trains in 

49 CFR 232.213. AAR requested all 

other cars with eABS system records 

(i.e., cars with Class I brake tests not 

performed by QMIs and/or freight car 

inspections not performed by 

designated inspectors) be allowed to 

move up to 1,500 miles between 

required brake tests, as opposed to the 

currently allowed limit of 1,000 miles. 

In its Petition, AAR also asked FRA to 

amend part 232 to remove the existing 

restrictions on ‘‘block swapping’’ and 

permit railroads to add or remove single 

cars or multiple cars from single or 

multiple locations in trains solely made 

up of cars with eABS system records 

without conducting an additional Class 

I brake test. This rulemaking responds 

to AAR’s Petition. 

B. Major Provisions of the Regulatory 

Action 

In response to AAR’s Petition, this 

NPRM proposes to amend part 232 to 

address operations using eABS systems. 

This proposed rule would provide an 

alternative regulatory framework to 

existing part 232 requirements for 

railroads utilizing eABS systems. As 

proposed, an eABS system would track 

detailed brake test information for 

individual rail cars, including each car’s 

identifying information; identification 

and qualification of the person 

performing the last Class I brake test on 

the car; the date, time, and location of 

that test; the distance the car can travel 

before its next brake test; and other 

information showing that the car meets 

the requirements of part 232.3

Consistent with AAR’s Petition, FRA 

proposes that railroads using an eABS 

system would only be required to 

inspect individual cars before these cars 

exceed their prescribed mileage limits, 

whereas currently railroads must 

inspect the entire train consist before 

any car in that train exceeds its 

prescribed mileage limit. The alternative 

regulatory framework proposed would 

replace the conditions triggering the 

Class I, Class IA, and II inspections of 

entire trains under §§ 232.205, 232.207, 

and 232.209. However, all other 

requirements of part 232, as well as the 

existing requirements of part 215, would 

continue to apply to cars operated under 

this alternative regulatory framework. 

For example, a car operated under 

proposed § 232.221 must comply with 

the off-air limits of § 232.205(a)(3), must 

not be overdue its single car air brake 

test under § 232.305(c), and must have 

received a part 215 freight car 

inspection when placed in a train. 

In addition, consistent with AAR’s 

Petition, for a railroad operating a train 

using an eABS system, FRA is 

proposing to extend the distance for 

travel between Class I brake tests from 

1,500 miles to 2,500 miles for cars 

receiving brake tests by QMIs and 

freight car inspections by designated 

inspectors. All other cars would be 

permitted to move a maximum distance 

of 1,000 miles between Class I brake 

tests. 

Finally, FRA is proposing to exempt 

trains in which all cars have valid eABS 

system records from those requirements 

to perform a Class I, Class IA, or Class 

II brake test that are due to adding or 

removing multiple blocks of cars to or 

from the train. When a train’s consist 

changes en route, part 232 currently 

requires effective recordkeeping and a 

Class I brake test of the entire train. 

Under the proposed rule, a train 

consisting entirely of cars operating 

under an eABS system would undergo 

a single Class I brake test of the entire 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3959 

train at its initial terminal. Following 

set-off or pick-up, only those cars in the 

train lacking sufficient mileage to 

proceed to the subsequent destination 

would require a Class I brake test. 

However, the requirement to undergo a 

Class III brake test (brake pipe 

continuity test) would continue to apply 

to the train following each set-out or 

pick-up. In other words, under the 

proposed rule, an eABS system would 

create the conditions necessary to 

permit block swapping, because the 

timeliness of inspections would be 

documented in a manner that ensures 

accuracy and reviewability. Therefore, 

FRA proposes to relieve all cars 

operating under an eABS with sufficient 

remaining mileage from the requirement 

to undergo a Class I or Class IA brake 

test following the pick-up or set-off of 

cars. 

FRA is not, however, proposing to 

amend part 232 to address all aspects of 

AAR’s Petition. FRA does not propose 

to extend the maximum permitted 

mileage of a car inspected by a qualified 

person (QP) (who is not QMI-qualified) 

from the present 1,000 miles to 1,500 

miles as AAR requests because FRA has 

not identified sufficient safety data to 

justify such an extension. In addition, 

FRA is proposing to require railroads to 

maintain eABS records for one year after 

creation, rather than AAR’s request to 

permit records to be overwritten after 

the next Class I air brake test. Retention 

of eABS records for one year will 

provide data that can be used to 

measure compliance with the eABS 

rule, and that same data can be used by 

FRA and railroads to evaluate the 

possibility of future regulatory changes 

allowing additional operation 

flexibilities (e.g., the AAR request to 

extend mileage for equipment inspected 

by a QP, as opposed to a QMI). 

C. Costs and Benefits of the Proposed 

Regulatory Action 

FRA analyzed the economic impacts 

of this NPRM over a 10-year period, and 

estimated its cost savings, costs, and 

benefits. Over the 10-year period of 

analysis, the total cost savings range 

from $128.1 million to $259.6 million 

(using a 3-percent discount rate) and 

$105.1 million to $217.3 million (using 

a 7-percent discount rate). The 

annualized cost savings range from 

$15.0 million to $30.4 million (using a 

3-percent discount rate) to $15.0 million 

to $30.9 million (using a 7-percent 

discount rate). The cost savings of this 

proposed rule are displayed in the table 

below. 

NET COST SAVINGS, LOW ESTIMATE, IN MILLIONS

[2018 Dollars] 

Section Present value 

3% 

Present value 

7% 

Annualized 

3% 

Annualized 

7% 

Total Cost Savings .......................................................................................... $185.6 $156.6 $21.8 $22.3 

Total New Costs .............................................................................................. 57.5 51.4 6.7 7.3 

Net Cost Savings ............................................................................................. 128.1 105.1 15.0 15.0 

NET COST SAVINGS, HIGH ESTIMATE, IN MILLIONS

[2018 Dollars] 

Section Present value 

3% 

Present value 

7% 

Annualized 

3% 

Annualized 

7% * 

Total Cost Savings .......................................................................................... $286.1 $241.4 $33.5 $34.4 

Total New Costs .............................................................................................. 26.4 24.1 3.1 3.4 

Net Cost Savings ............................................................................................. 259.6 217.3 30.4 30.9 

* Numbers may not tabulate due to rounding. 

II. Background 

A. The Basics of Train and Freight Car 

Air Brake Systems 

Each train air brake system consists of 

three major parts: A locomotive brake 

valve, a brake pipe (also known as a 

trainline), and the individual car control 

valves. The locomotive brake valve adds 

or releases air to or from the brake pipe, 

which is connected by flexible air hoses 

between each car, and is sealed at the 

rear of the train by a pneumatic end-oftrain (EOT) device. The locomotive 

brake valve’s pressure changes create 

signals that are received by each car’s 

air brake system via the brake pipe, and 

induce application or release of the 

brake. 

When the engineer ‘‘sets the brakes,’’ 

the locomotive air brake valve releases 

air from the brake pipe, reducing the 

brake pipe pressure, causing the brakes 

to apply. While the air pressure change 

usually occurs first at the front of the 

train, the locomotive may send a radio 

signal to the EOT device to command an 

emergency brake air pressure reduction 

from the other end. Similarly, when the 

brakes are released, the locomotive 

brake valve is positioned to pump air 

back into the brake pipe and re-stabilize 

the air pressure. The air brake system 

also applies car brakes automatically in 

an emergency, because a derailment 

typically causes a break in the brake 

pipe that results in a sudden loss of air 

pressure, causing an irretrievable, 

higher pressure application of the 

brakes. 

Each individual car’s air brake system 

can be further broken down into several 

major components, including an 

assemblage of car control valves, air 

reservoirs, cylinder(s), rigging, beams, 

and shoes. When a brake application 

signal is received by the car’s air brake 

control valve, it transfers air from the 

auxiliary reservoir to the brake cylinder, 

causing the cylinder’s piston to pull the 

brake rigging (a series of rods and levers 

designed to increase the braking ratio), 

the brake beam, and then the brake shoe 

against the wheel to create the braking 

action. The degree of brake pipe 

pressure drop governs the degree of 

braking effort. A full-service brake 

occurs when the control valve balances 

all of the auxiliary reservoir air into the 

cylinder. An emergency brake 

application occurs when the brake pipe 

is reduced faster than the normal rate, 

which causes the control valve to add 

emergency reservoir air to the auxiliary 

reservoir air in the cylinder. This creates 

15 percent more braking, and cannot be 

released by the locomotive without 

completely restoring the full pressure in 

the brake pipe and reservoirs. 

The control valve also ‘‘charges the 

train’’ by providing sufficient air to each 

car’s air reservoirs, which then store the 

3960 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

4 49 U.S.C. 20302. 

5Air brake propagation is at the degraded speed 

of sound, accounting for friction due to pipe length 

and elbows, at approximately 950 feet per second 

for emergency braking. AAR Standard S–469, 

incorporated at § 232.103(l), states at a service 

reduction of 10 psi, the 150th cars will apply at 

‘‘nominally 20 seconds or less’’ from the 

application of the first car (S–469–01 § 5.3). 

6To power or stretch air brakes means to apply 

locomotive power against an applied brake. 

7One exception to these mileage limits is for 

trains operating with electronically controlled 

pneumatic (ECP) brake systems. In 2008, FRA 

issued a final rule that allows such trains to travel 

up to 3,500 miles between brake tests. See 49 CFR 

232.607(b). FRA noted that this relief was provided 

in large part based on the ECP brake system’s selfmonitoring and data reporting capabilities— 

capabilities not present in traditional air brake 

systems. Another exception is granted for a unit or 

cycle train, which may travel in a continuous loop 

up to 3,000 miles, although such trains must receive 

a Class IA brake test. 49 CFR 232.205(a)(4). See 85 

FR 2494, 2495–2496 (Jan. 15, 2020) for a more 

detailed discussion of the different types of brake 

system tests. 

air to maintain a brake application. 

Because each application reduces the air 

in the car reservoirs, and some time 

must elapse before those reservoirs are 

fully recharged, an engineer has a 

limited number of brake applications 

that can be made in a short period of 

time. Several brake applications in a 

short time interval will sharply reduce 

the system’s braking effectiveness. 

The railroad must charge the train 

prior to each air brake test, which may 

take up to six minutes per empty car air 

reservoir. However, numerous cars can 

be charged simultaneously. Taking 

simultaneous charging into account, a 

fifty-car train can be charged in 

approximately twenty minutes, 

although this time can be longer 

depending on factors that affect the 

integrity of the brake line, including 

environmental factors such as 

temperature and the amount of brake 

pipe leakage. 

Today, in addition to the statutorily 

required air brakes,4 railroads use 

distributed power locomotive units 

(DPUs) and dynamic brakes to aid in 

controlling in-train forces and to 

provide additional braking capability. 

Distributed power units are locomotives 

that are physically distributed at 

intermediate points throughout the 

length of a train. These locomotives are 

remotely controlled from the leading 

locomotive. The use of DPUs permits 

quicker application of air brakes and 

localized control of in-train forces. With 

braking on a conventional train 

controlled at the head-end, it can take 

from several seconds (on a short train) 

to more than twenty seconds on a train 

exceeding 200 cars for the brake pipe 

pressure signal to propagate the length 

of the train.5 Using DPUs, however, 

brake pipe signals are initiated at the 

remote locomotives almost 

simultaneously with the command of 

the lead locomotive, providing a more 

rapid and uniform air brake response. 

Presently, most mainline locomotives 

are equipped with dynamic brakes, a 

supplementary braking system that can 

be used to control train speed without 

engaging a train’s air brakes. Dynamic 

brakes use the kinetic energy of a 

moving train to generate electric current 

at the locomotive traction motors. By 

engaging dynamic brakes, the normally 

powered traction motors on a 

locomotive’s axles are changed to 

generators, and the power generated is 

dissipated through resistance grids, 

similar to what happens when a motor 

vehicle driver shifts a vehicle into a 

lower gear when descending a steep 

grade. The primary benefits of dynamic 

brakes are the ability to reduce freight 

car brake shoe wear and wheel 

overheating, and to preserve freight car 

auxiliary air pressure on long 

downgrades. Dynamic brakes are also 

useful to control in-train forces on 

continuous (but varying) downhill 

grades and, as a result, effective use of 

a locomotive’s dynamic brakes leads to 

fuel savings by reducing the need to 

power or stretch brakes through grade 

variations.6 Due to these benefits, 

dynamic braking is often reflected in 

railroads’ operating rules as the 

preferred method of controlling a train, 

especially in heavy grade territory. 

Dynamic brakes, however, cannot be 

relied upon as a train’s primary braking 

system for a number of reasons. First, 

dynamic brakes provide braking force 

only on powered locomotive axles and 

are incapable of controlling in-train 

forces in the same way as air brakes in 

undulating grade territories. Second, 

dynamic brakes are effective only 

within a certain speed range and have 

no capability to physically stop and 

hold a train. Third, dynamic brakes are 

not fail-safe, and can fail without 

warning. When dynamic brakes fail, all 

braking force is lost. By comparison, air 

brakes are designed to be fail-safe and 

a loss of air brake system integrity will 

result in an emergency brake 

application. For these reasons, FRA, by 

statute and regulation, has long 

considered dynamic brakes secondary 

devices used for supplemental braking, 

and not as a safety-critical device. 

Nonetheless, railroads rely on dynamic 

brakes to control train speed and to aid 

in controlling trains on heavy grades. 

FRA’s regulations do not mandate the 

use of dynamic brakes, but require that 

if the railroad operates a locomotive 

equipped with dynamic brakes, the 

railroad adopt appropriate operating 

rules and any locomotive engineer 

assigned to operate such a locomotive 

be informed of the operational status of 

the dynamic brakes on all units in the 

consist at the initial terminal for the 

train. See § 232.109(j). Overreliance on 

dynamic brakes may lead to the 

inability to stop a train short of an 

obstruction or control point, result in 

very long trains pushing head-end cars 

out of the train due to excessive buff 

forces, or for an engineer not being able 

to recover a train from an overspeed 

situation. 

B. Brake Test Frequency 

Part 232 includes brake system test 

performance and frequency 

requirements. A central premise of Part 

232’s existing inspection requirements 

is that the capability of rail equipment 

to travel to its destination is contingent 

on the condition of the equipment when 

it begins operation and on the nature of 

the equipment’s planned operation. For 

rail equipment to travel extended 

distances between inspections, the 

condition and planned operation of the 

equipment must be thoroughly assessed 

at the beginning of a train’s journey 

through high quality inspections. 

The regulations provide for five 

primary types of brake system tests: 

Class I (a complete test of the brake 

equipment on each car, which is 

required to be performed at the location 

where a train is originally assembled, 

when the consist is changed in certain 

ways, and when a train is off-air for 

more than four hours); Class IA (a test 

that is less stringent than a Class I 

inspection and is required every 1,000 

miles); Class II (a less detailed test used 

for cars that have not received a 

compliant Class I test that are picked up 

by a train); Class III (a test that must be 

performed any time the brake pipe is 

opened to atmosphere on an operating 

train); and a single car air brake test (a 

comprehensive test used to validate the 

air brake effectiveness of individual cars 

every five years or when certain events 

or conditions trigger a testing 

requirement). Each test must be 

performed based on different 

circumstances. For instance, a train 

must receive a Class I brake test at its 

initial terminal and an intermediate test, 

such as a Class IA brake test, every 

1,000 or, for trains designated as 

extended haul trains, 1,500 miles. 49 

CFR 232.205, 232.207, 232.213.7

The frequency of required brake tests 

also depends on the qualifications of the 

person(s) conducting the brake tests. 

Brake tests may be performed by either 

a QP or a QMI. A QP is a person who 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3961 

8An ‘‘Appendix D Inspection’’ is an inspection 

designed to identify ‘‘imminently hazardous 

conditions . . . likely to cause an accident or 

casualty before a train arrives at its destination.’’ 

These conditions include conditions ‘‘readily 

discoverable by a train crew.’’ See 49 CFR part 215, 

appendix D. 

9Section 232.5 defines a QMI as a QP with 

certain additional experience and assigned 

responsibilities. Accordingly, by definition, a QMI 

is also a QP. The section-by-section analysis of 

proposed § 232.211, below, contains a more 

detailed discussion of the differences between QMIs 

and QPs, but in this NPRM, FRA uses the term QP 

to refer only to individuals who do not meet the 

additional requirements of a QMI. 

10See fn. 3, supra. 

11See e.g., 66 FR 4104, 4107–4108. 

12See FRA docket numbers FRA–2006–24812, 

FRA–2014–0070, and FRA–2015–0036. 

13As an added condition to ensure the safety of 

operations conducted under these waivers, FRA 

required the QMIs inspecting these waiver trains to 

have access to wayside detection data to assist in 

their inspections. This summary data, which 

measures conditions such as wheel impact loads, 

stiffness of railcar trucks and bearing temperatures, 

enables properly trained QMIs to focus their 

inspections on areas needing attention. When used 

as part of a comprehensive inspection by a QMI, the 

data provides a greater opportunity to detect brake 

and other defects and other potential areas of 

concern. 

has received instruction and training 

necessary to perform one or more 

functions required by part 232. 49 CFR 

232.5. In the context of this rulemaking, 

a QP generally would be a conductor or 

a brakeman assigned to operate a train 

who has also received training to 

perform a limited pre-departure 

inspection under appendix D to part 

215,8 and required brake tests. A QMI, 

however, is a QP who has received 

additional instruction and training that 

includes ‘‘hands-on’’ experience in 

‘‘troubleshooting, inspection, testing, 

maintenance or repair of specific train 

brake components and systems for 

which the person is assigned 

responsibility.’’ Id. As defined in 

§ 232.5, a QMI must understand what is 

required to repair and maintain properly 

the safety-critical brake components for 

which the person is assigned 

responsibility. Further, a QMI’s primary 

responsibilities must include work 

troubleshooting, inspecting, testing, 

maintaining or repairing brake 

components and systems. A QMI is also 

typically a designated inspector under 

part 215, and in the context of this 

rulemaking, would generally be a 

carman or a machinist.9

Part 232 generally requires a train to 

undergo a brake test every 1,000 miles 

unless the train has a Class I air brake 

test performed by a QMI and an initial 

terminal part 215 freight car inspection 

performed by an inspector designated 

under § 215.11, and is designated as an 

extended haul train under § 232.213. 

With certain exceptions, if a train that 

does not meet the requirements for an 

extended haul train (e.g., if a QP 

performs the train’s Class I brake test), 

part 232 limits the train’s movement to 

1,000 miles between brake tests.10

The mileage-based test requirements, 

which are based, in part, on historical 

agreements among all stakeholders (i.e., 

railroads, labor organizations, and FRA) 

and railroad accident/incident data,11

serve an important role in each freight 

train’s safe operation. Together with 

other requirements of part 232 designed 

to ensure the integrity of a train’s brake 

system throughout its journey, the 

mileage limits are designed to ensure 

that a train’s brake system, including all 

mechanical components, remains safely 

intact. 66 FR 4104 (Jan. 17, 2001). 

Federal statute authorizes FRA to 

amend the regulations for installing, 

inspecting, maintaining, and repairing 

power and train brakes only for the 

purpose of achieving safety. 49 U.S.C. 

20302(d)(2). As such, FRA can increase 

the mileage permitted between brake 

tests only when supported by sufficient 

data demonstrating that doing so is in 

the interest of safety. FRA last addressed 

the mileage limits between brake tests in 

a rulemaking in 2001, and prior to that 

in a notice of proposed rulemaking in 

1982, adopted as a final rule that same 

year. 47 FR 7286 (Feb. 18, 1982); 47 FR 

36792 (Aug. 23, 1982); and 66 FR 4104 

(Jan. 17, 2001). 

FRA’s 2001 final rule permitted 

‘‘extended haul trains’’ to move up to 

1,500 miles between brake tests, while 

other trains remained subject to the 

1,000-mile limit. 49 CFR 232.213. To 

qualify as an extended haul train under 

§ 232.213, the train must be designated 

in writing to FRA, receive at its initial 

terminal a freight car inspection under 

part 215 by an inspector designated 

under § 215.11 and a Class I air brake 

test by a QMI, as defined in § 232.5, and 

must otherwise comply with parts 215 

and 232. Since 2006, FRA has, in certain 

circumstances, granted conditional 

waivers from the 1,500-mile 

limitation.12 Such waivers have 

permitted trains to operate up to 1,800 

miles between brake tests provided that 

the qualifications under § 232.213 for 

extended haul trains continue to be met 

(including the performance of Class I 

brake tests by QMIs and part 215 freight 

car inspections by designated 

inspectors). In addition, FRA required 

the railroads operating under the 

waivers to provide certain data, 

including data comparing defects 

identified on trains operating under the 

waivers as compared to typical 1,500- 

mile extended haul trains. 

Those data, along with the service 

history of railroads operating trains 

under the waivers, demonstrate that 

trains meeting the existing requirements 

for extended haul trains (i.e., Class I 

brake tests performed by QMIs and 

freight car inspections performed by 

designated inspectors) can operate at 

least as safely at longer distances 

between brake tests as at distances 

currently allowed by the regulations. 

Generally, the data garnered from these 

waivers demonstrates that trains 

inspected by QMIs and designated 

inspectors that travel up to 1,800 miles 

experience the same number of brake 

anomalies and defects as extended haul 

trains limited to 1,500 miles.13 The 

service history, with no reportable 

accidents caused by brake systems 

defects on trains operating under the 

waivers providing for extended mileage, 

suggests that a train with a thoroughlyinspected brake system is capable of 

traveling longer distances than allowed 

by the regulations without developing a 

significant defect en route. 

Allowing trains to move longer 

distances between Class I brake tests 

will reduce the number of tests required 

to be conducted. As discussed in 

Section II.F below, a reduced number of 

tests may effectively lower the 

incidence of employee injuries by 

reducing employees’ exposure to risks 

arising from working in close proximity 

to movable equipment. Reducing the 

number of required brake tests may have 

additional benefits. These include 

environmental benefits, as locomotives 

will spend less idle time awaiting or 

undergoing brake tests, and economic 

benefits, as railroads may be able to 

allocate certain resources more 

efficiently (e.g., additional labor 

resources previously devoted to brake 

tests are freed up to perform other 

duties). Certain reallocations may have 

the potential to improve safety, such as 

through increasing specialization of 

safety inspection functions. Reducing 

the number and frequency of brake tests, 

however, makes the quality and 

comprehensiveness of the remaining 

tests critical. As FRA has stated before, 

for brake equipment to travel extended 

distances between brake tests, the 

conditions and planned operation of the 

equipment must be assessed thoroughly 

at the beginning of the equipment’s 

journey through high quality 

inspections. 66 FR at 4117. 

C. Block Swapping 

Part 232 currently requires a Class I 

brake test be performed if multiple 

individual cars or blocks of cars are 

added to or removed from a train’s 

consist. This is commonly referred to as 

3962 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

‘‘block swapping.’’ Existing part 232 

permits the addition or removal of a 

single car or a solid block of cars from 

a train without the performance of a 

brake test on the entire train. 49 CFR 

232.205(a)(5)(i) through (ii). With 

certain exceptions, however, any single 

car or solid block of cars from a single, 

previous train must receive a Class I 

brake test at the location where the car 

or cars are added to a train unless the 

car or cars have ‘‘previously received a 

Class I brake test and have remained 

continuously and consecutively coupled 

together with the train line remaining 

connected,’’ and have not been off-air 

for more than four hours. 49 CFR 

232.205(b). The rationale underlying 

this rule is that when cars added to a 

train are known to have passed a 

thorough brake test without a 

subsequent opportunity for degradation 

of their brake systems, there is little 

cause for concern that the added cars 

will cause any significant reduction in 

the train’s braking effectiveness. 

However, when cars without proper 

brake tests are added to a train, the 

brake health of the entire train may 

become compromised. 

When a Class I air brake test is 

performed, § 232.205(e) requires a valid 

written or electronic record of the brake 

test. This record is commonly referred 

to as a ‘‘brake slip’’ and, because a Class 

I brake test must be performed at the 

location where the train is originally 

assembled (the ‘‘initial terminal’’), it 

serves as proof that at the initial 

terminal for the train, the brake pipe 

and each of the individual cars in that 

train were inspected and found to be 

effective. Because the brake slip applies 

to the train as a whole and does not 

track the individual cars in a train, a 

subsequent change to the consist 

renders the initial brake slip inaccurate, 

often necessitating handwritten changes 

in addition to the brake slip. Each 

change to a train consist, however, 

increases the likelihood of an inaccurate 

brake slip and decreases the traceability 

of brake system tests. 

In the 2001 final rule, FRA discussed 

the possibility of multiple consist 

changes without the requirement for a 

new Class I brake test. In that rule, FRA 

expressed concern that unlimited 

additions and removals of cars from 

trains would blur the distinction 

between a limited change in the train’s 

consist and the assembly (or 

classification) of an entirely new train. 

If the distinction between the original 

train and new train were blurred, FRA 

concluded that the circumstances under 

which a Class I brake test would be 

required would also be blurred, 

potentially resulting in newly 

assembled trains never receiving Class I 

brake tests. Class I brake tests are 

intended to be comprehensive 

inspections of the brake equipment of 

each car in an assembled train and to 

ensure that a train’s brakes are in proper 

working condition and capable of 

traveling to the train’s destination with 

minimal problems en route. 

Accordingly, ensuring all equipment in 

a train receives a proper Class I brake 

test is critical. 66 FR 4104 at 4119. FRA 

concluded that if railroads were allowed 

to change a train consist substantially 

without the requirement for a new brake 

test, trains would not be required to 

receive comprehensive brake tests at 

their initial terminal. Second, FRA 

noted that if cars are permitted to be 

moved in and out of trains at will, Class 

IA brake tests, which rely upon the 

mileage of the most restrictive car, 

would likewise be impossible to track. 

Id. 

D. AAR Petition 

In its Petition, available in the docket 

to this rulemaking, AAR notes its 

member railroads developed a prototype 

eABS system to track brake tests of 

freight cars, and AAR asserts that the 

information that ‘‘can be obtained from 

the eABS exceeds’’ the existing 

regulatory requirements of part 232. An 

eABS system electronically tracks 

detailed brake test information for 

individual rail cars and the distance 

individual rail cars travel between brake 

tests. For cars with a valid eABS, AAR 

requests that FRA permit each 

individual freight car to move the 

maximum mileage permitted by the 

qualification of the car’s inspector, 

regardless of the distance cars may be 

moved without an initial (Class I) or 

intermediate (Class IA) brake test. AAR 

also requests that FRA provide 

flexibility to railroads adding or 

removing cars with valid eABS systems 

in and out of trains made up of solely 

of cars with a valid eABS. 

Under the existing requirements, a 

train’s allowed travel distance is limited 

to the distance the car in the train with 

the highest mileage is allowed to travel 

before becoming due for its next brake 

test. § 232.207(a) (‘‘The most restrictive 

car or block of cars in the train shall 

determine the location of [the Class I or 

IA brake] test.’’). In its Petition, AAR 

requests that FRA propose to require an 

intermediate brake test not on the entire 

train, but only on each car whose 

mileage exceeds the permitted amount. 

Adoption of this recommendation 

would allow movement up to 1,500 

miles between Class I and Class IA 

brake tests performed by a QP or up to 

2,500 miles between such tests if each 

car brake test is conducted by a QMI. 

AAR also requests FRA propose that 

each car operating under an eABS be 

exempt from the additional brake tests 

required when one or more blocks of 

cars with valid brake tests are added to 

or removed from a train (known as 

‘‘block swapping,’’ discussed further 

below). 

In its Petition, AAR posits that eABS 

systems have the potential to eliminate 

the stated safety concerns that form the 

basis for the block swapping restriction. 

According to AAR, a properly designed 

and implemented system tracking each 

car’s individual brake test record would 

provide increased information accuracy 

and confidence in tracking brake tests. 

AAR asserts that because an eABS 

system would track brake test 

information for each car (as opposed to 

whole trains), reclassification of the cars 

in a train (i.e., changing the position of 

individual cars or adding or removing 

single or multiple cars from a consist) 

would no longer hold the potential to 

result in a railroad avoiding or delaying 

brake tests for individual cars. AAR also 

states that the ability to block swap cars 

without the constraints of additional 

required brake tests would allow for the 

movement of a greater number of cars 

with fewer train stops, increasing rail 

network efficiency and reducing 

railroad employees’ exposure to safety 

hazards that may result in injuries from 

actions related to the performance of 

required brake tests, such as climbing 

cars in order to engage and disengage 

handbrakes. In its Petition, AAR also 

presents proposals and supporting data 

regarding eABS systems, information 

protection, eABS system integrity 

maintenance, and availability of records 

requirements. A more detailed 

description of AAR’s Petition and the 

supporting data provided is included 

below in the Section-by-Section 

Analysis. FRA requests comment on 

AAR’s Petition and on FRA’s proposals 

in this NPRM. 

E. Technological Improvements 

FRA has long recognized the 

relationship between a train brake 

system’s effectiveness and integrity and 

the mileage traveled between brake 

tests. E.g., 47 FR 7286 (Feb. 18, 1982). 

Since FRA last addressed the mileage 

limits between brake tests in 2001, 

technological improvements have 

increased the reliability of, and 

monitoring capability for, key brake 

system components. As AAR notes in a 

separate petition for rulemaking 

requesting a change in the number of 

hours a train may be permitted to 

remain off-air between brake tests, 

welded brake piping and fittings and 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3963 

14For a description of various wayside detector 

implementations and their potential uses, see An 

Implementation Guide for Wayside Detector 

Systems, from FRA’s Office of Research, 

Development, and Technology available at https:// 

railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/ 

18667/Wayside%20Detector%20

Implementation%20Guide.pdf. 

15Accident reports may be amended for five years 

from the initial report, in order to reflect updated 

information. As a result, current FRA accident 

statistics for the period show 1,175 accidents and 

63 injuries due to brake-related causes. Although 

there was one reported fatality, FRA previously 

reviewed the report and concluded that power 

brake failure was not the primary cause of the 

fatality. See 47 FR 7283 at 7288 (Feb. 18, 1982). 

16FRA notes that the 2001 final rule published 

data on brake-related incidents from 1994 to 1998 

that included brake-related human-factor caused 

accidents (e.g., train handling and improper use of 

brakes). 66 FR 4108. In developing this proposed 

rule, which would impact the frequency and 

tracking of brake tests, FRA has assessed only 

causes considered to be a result of defects that 

likely could have been identified by effective brake 

tests (see footnote 11). 

17The only reported fatalities since 1999 occurred 

in an accident in Granite Canyon, Wyoming on 

October 14, 2018, discussed below. Although FRA 

concluded that brake-related component 

malfunction was a contributing cause of the 

accident, additional causes that could not have 

been identified by brake testing or pre-departure 

inspections also contributed to the accident, 

including the failure of an EOT device to activate. 

Moreover, FRA notes that the report of 91 injuries 

during the period of 1994–1998 is overstated. On 

reviewing the accident reports from this period, 

FRA has concluded that 61 of the reported injuries 

resulted from human error that could not have been 

identified by brake tests. The 61 reported injuries 

resulted from a single accident, Railroad Accident 

No. 295963, that took place on June 17, 1995. The 

railroad reported that a flatcar of railroad ties rolled 

away 5 miles unsecured during a switching 

operation and struck an excursion train head-on. 

During switching operations, the car air brake 

system remains uncharged with air, and securement 

is by handbrakes or chocks/skates under the wheels 

of the car. The proximate cause of the accident was 

human error for not properly securing the flatcar. 

ferrule-clamped air hoses (instead of the 

previously used grip-type fittings now 

prohibited by interchange rules) have 

reduced the severity of brake pipe leaks 

in standing trains. FRA Docket Number 

FRA–2018–0093. In that same petition, 

AAR also notes continuous 

improvements in car control valves, 

increased compliance with Federal 

biannual yard air systems inspection 

requirements, and the installation of oil 

and contaminant separators in most 

locomotives to keep compressed air 

clean. AAR also asserts that 

improvements in air leakage reduction 

reduce each brake system’s exposure to 

such contaminants, helping to reduce 

wear and preserve its effective lifespan. 

According to AAR, improvements in 

other brake system components have 

continued to increase overall brake 

system lifespan and reliability. For 

example, AAR contends that brake shoe 

composition improvements have 

reduced stopping distances, smoothed 

brake applications, and reduced brake 

shoe and car wheel wear. Dynamic and 

blended braking, in which applications 

of the air brake are replaced or greatly 

supplemented by motors converting 

mechanical energy to electricity, are in 

widespread use. As a result, AAR 

contends that frequency of use of trains’ 

air brake systems, and therefore the 

long-term rate of wear on those systems, 

has been reduced. AAR has provided 

additional justification, in the form of a 

presentation available in the docket, 

titled ‘‘QMI versus QP Air Brake 

Inspections,’’ further detailing both 

technological improvements and 

changes to industry standards to retire 

obsolete components. 

AAR also notes that wayside detectors 

implemented along railroad track 

include sensors designed to recognize 

and alert railroads of conditions 

associated with mechanical defects. 

Wayside detectors most commonly 

collect information on the physical 

measurements and impact load of 

individual car wheels, and the 

temperature of individual car 

components including wheels, axles, 

and bearings. High temperatures can be 

indicative of a locked or sticking brake, 

while low temperatures may indicate 

that a car’s brake system is 

inoperative.14

FRA notes that although significant 

advancements have been made to air 

brake system technologies in recent 

years, and many obsolete components 

have been retired from the system 

population, many components remain 

essentially unchanged over the years. 

FRA seeks comment on the impact 

technological advancements have had 

on the reliability and durability of 

specific components of train air brake 

systems and those systems as a whole. 

FRA also seeks comment on how any 

existing or expected future 

technological advancements may impact 

the proposals in this NPRM. 

F. Supporting Data 

The number of accidents caused by 

brake system failures that FRA 

considers to be identifiable through the 

conduct of brake tests has historically 

been a small proportion of all reported 

accidents, injuries, and fatalities. 

Between 1976 and 1980, there were 

1,168 accidents identified as attributable 

to brake-related causes, resulting in no 

fatalities and 62 injuries.15 47 FR at 

7288 (Feb. 18, 1982). By comparison, 

during the same period, there were a 

total of 50,078 accidents reported to 

FRA, resulting in 62 fatalities and 5,114 

injuries. Id.16

As Table 1 below shows, the number 

of reportable accidents and injuries 

attributable to brake-related causes has 

declined significantly over time, while 

fatalities remain relatively rare.17 For 

example, between 2014 and 2018 the 

number of accidents attributable to 

brake-related causes, and particularly 

brake-related causes that are the result 

of defects that likely could have been 

identified by effective brake tests, 

declined to 158 accidents. Reported 

injuries have also declined significantly. 

3964 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

18For these accident statistics, FRA used the 

following cause codes: Air hose uncoupled or burst 

(E00C and E00L), Hydraulic hose uncoupled or 

burst (E01C), Broken brake pipe or connections 

(E02C and E02L), Obstructed brake pipe (E03C and 

E03L), Other brake component damage (E04C and 

E04L), Brake valve malfunction/undesired 

emergency (E05C and E05L), Brake valve 

malfunction/stuck brake (E06C and E06CL), Rigging 

down or dragging (E07C), Hand brake broken or 

defective (E08C and E08L), Other brake defects 

(E09C and E09L), Hand brake link and/or connect 

defect (E0HC and E0HL), and Failure to release 

hand brakes on car(s), railroad employee (H019). 

The numbers reported above are current as of 

February 2020. FRA believes accidents using these 

cause codes are the result of defects that could be 

identified by effective brake tests. 

19Under 49 CFR part 225, railroads are required 

to report certain accidents or incidents to FRA 

including (1) highway-rail grade crossings 

accidents, (2) rail equipment accidents resulting in 

damages above a current reporting threshold; and 

(3) death, injury, and occupational illnesses that 

arise from an event or exposure arising from the 

operation of a railroad that is a discernable cause 

of the resulting condition or a significant 

aggravation to a pre-existing accident or incident. 

49 CFR 225.19. 

20AAR-Union Pacific, at Docket No. FRA–2016– 

0018; and BNSF Railway, at Docket No. FRA–2018– 

0049. 

TABLE 1—ACCIDENTS RELATED TO BRAKE SYSTEMS FAILURES RESULTING FROM DEFECTS POTENTIALLY IDENTIFIABLE BY

INSPECTION 18

Years Number of 

accidents Injuries Fatalities 

1984–1988 ................................................................................................................................... 318 21 0 

1989–1993 ................................................................................................................................... 236 27 0 

1994–1998 ................................................................................................................................... 184 91 1 

1999–2003 ................................................................................................................................... 198 9 0 

2004–2008 ................................................................................................................................... 212 9 0 

2009–2013 ................................................................................................................................... 159 0 0 

2014–2018 ................................................................................................................................... 158 7 2 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 1,465 163 3 

Since 1994, FRA has received fewer 

than 200 accident reports in each fiveyear period attributable to brake-related 

causes (aside from 2004–2008), and 

fewer than ten reported injuries.19 This 

amounts to fewer than 40 accident 

reports per year and fewer than two 

reported injuries per year that are 

related to causes that could have been 

identified in the course of an effective 

brake test. By contrast, FRA has 

typically received between 11,000 and 

23,000 accident reports per year over 

the same period. Given the relief 

granted in the 1982 final rule, and in the 

2001 final rule for extended haul trains, 

the trend of diminishing brake-caused 

reportable accidents leads FRA to 

conclude that the relief provided by 

those rules did not adversely impact 

safety and the proposed regulatory relief 

is possible without adversely impacting 

safety. 

AAR provided data with its Petition 

that it says demonstrates that the rate of 

brake-related or other defects observed 

in trains that travel greater than 1,500 

miles between brake tests is not greater 

than the rate observed for trains that 

travel less than 1,500 miles between 

such tests. This data is from certain 

operations with trains traveling up to 

1,680 miles and 1,702 miles between 

brake tests under waivers granted to 

Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and BNSF 

Railway (BNSF), respectively (see 

Docket Nos. FRA–2015–0036 and FRA– 

2006–24812; and FRA–2019–0072– 

0001, Appendix B). FRA generally 

agrees with AAR that this data shows 

that the increased mileage allowed 

under the waivers does not impact the 

safe operation of the trains. FRA notes, 

however, that both waivers require 

QMIs to conduct the required brake tests 

and designated inspectors to conduct 

the required freight car inspections on 

trains subject to the waivers. Out of 

7,827 UP trains operated 1,500 to 1,680 

miles between brake inspections 

between November 2015 and June 2018, 

there were two reportable accidents, 

neither of which was caused by a defect 

in the air brake system. According to 

AAR, of 15,480 BNSF trains operated 

1,500 to 1,702 miles between 

inspections from July 2015 to June 2018, 

there was only one accident, which was 

caused by a broken car axle. FRA 

recognizes that such accident rates 

suggest that the extension of miles 

traveled between brake tests likely 

would not increase the rate of accidents 

due to causes the brake test would be 

expected to detect. 

AAR also provided wayside detection 

data related to operations under the 

BNSF 1,702-mile waiver, and to 

Canadian National Railway (CN) 

operations in Canada. This wayside 

detection data includes a comparison of 

wheel impact load detector anomaly 

data from trains operating under the 

BNSF waiver and traveling over 1,500, 

but not exceeding 1,702 miles (waiver 

trains) versus trains traveling 1,500 

miles or less (non-waiver trains). CN 

provided data from detectors of stuck 

brakes (i.e., indications of increased 

wheel temperature due to increased 

friction). See Docket No. FRA–2019– 

0072–0001, Appendix C. The subject CN 

trains included trains traveling in 

Canada for distances between brake 

testing exceeding the maximum of 1,702 

miles permitted for the longest distance 

in a waiver issued for any train in the 

United States. AAR concluded that the 

CN data showed that longer trip miles 

were associated with fewer stuck brake 

defects detected and asserted that, 

overall, the data provided suggests that 

there is little or no correlation between 

mileage traveled and additional defects. 

FRA, however, does not reach the 

same conclusion as AAR based on the 

data provided. While wayside detection 

data provides indications of possible 

defects, a QMI follow-up inspection is 

generally required to verify that a defect 

actually exists. Moreover, the accuracy 

of wayside detection data would better 

serve this analysis if AAR could provide 

a measurement of false positives/false 

negatives of wayside detection 

indications versus actual defects 

detected and repaired by QMIs. In light 

of these shortcomings, FRA seeks 

comment on the accuracy and 

predictive value of the wayside 

detection data provided by AAR in 

support of its Petition. For example, 

FRA seeks comment and data on the 

extent to which wayside detector 

indications are already being utilized to 

accurately identify and/or predict brake 

defects. Two railroads are presently 

conducting hot/cold wheel wayside 

detector waivers 20 that could provide 

preliminary information on the efficacy 

of wayside detection to provide 

indications of defects. FRA also seeks 

comment and data on potential ways 

wayside detection data could be 

factored into determinations of rail 

equipment’s overall brake health and on 

alternative sources of data or 

methodologies that could be employed 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3965 

21See Transport Canada, Train Brake Rules, TC 

O–0–165, published November 17, 2017. 

22See Section II.B. Brake Test Frequency for a 

more detailed discussion of the differences between 

QMIs and QPs. See also the section-by-section 

analysis of proposed § 232.211, below, also contains 

a discussion of the differences between QMIs and 

QPs. 

23FRA’s regulations allow trains equipped with 

ECP brakes and operating in ECP brake mode to 

travel up to 3,500 miles between Class I brake tests. 

49 CFR 232.607. FRA has additionally authorized 

railroads to operate trains in ECP brake mode up 

to 5,000 miles between brake tests with QMI 

inspections. See Docket No. FRA–2009–0088. 

Although ECP brake control valves are designed to 

electronically operate and self-report defective 

brake components in real time, the brake pipe, 

brake cylinders, and foundational brake rigging of 

an ECP brake system are the same components that 

make up traditional air brake systems. Successful 

operation of trains with ECP brakes demonstrates 

that these components can safely operate at 

extended distances between brake tests. 

to determine the effect of Class I brake 

tests on defects more accurately. 

AAR also provided monthly data from 

2017 on the number of brake systemrelated defects and bad-ordered cars 

discovered in outbound inspection data 

compiled for certain Class I railroad 

yards in Birmingham, Alabama; Elkhart, 

Indiana; Kirk, Indiana; and Symington, 

Manitoba, Canada. See Docket Number 

FRA–2017–0130–0001, Attachment 3. 

According to AAR’s data, over 500,000 

cars were inspected at each yard in the 

United States and more than one 

million cars inspected at the Canadian 

yard. Notably, in Canada there is no 

limit on the miles trains or individual 

rail cars may travel between brake 

inspections.21 The resulting inspection 

data shows a difference that is not 

statistically significant in the defect and 

bad order rates between the cars found 

in the U.S. and Canada. However, this 

data is of limited use in the context of 

this rulemaking because it is not clear 

whether these locations are truly 

representative of the global population 

of railcars. FRA believes that 

comparison of these numbers to a true 

national sample of car repair billing 

records could help to illuminate the 

usefulness of this data to the analysis. 

Alternatively, absent a true national 

sample, a smaller sample size could be 

used provided an analysis of any 

potential sampling bias is conducted 

and provided any such potential bias is 

effectively mitigated. In addition, it is 

also not clear whether the cars were 

inspected by QMIs or QPs, or their 

Canadian equivalents. FRA requests that 

AAR provide information clarifying the 

distance these trains traveled, the 

qualifications of the individual 

inspectors who inspected the subject 

equipment, and either an analysis 

comparing the existing data to a true 

national sample of car repair billing 

records, or other appropriate analysis 

that identifies and mitigates any 

potential sampling bias. 

In further support of its Petition, AAR 

and some of its member railroads have 

provided data (available in the docket) 

purporting to show no significant 

difference in the critical incident rate 

discovered between inspections 

conducted by QPs and inspections 

conducted by QMIs. FRA disagrees with 

AAR’s findings, because the data does 

not indicate how inspections conducted 

by individuals qualified as QMIs (who 

are typically designated mechanical 

employees) were distinguished from 

individuals qualified only as QPs (who 

are typically train crew members).22

Currently, there is no requirement for 

railroads to differentiate between QMI 

and QP inspections in their records, 

other than for extended haul trains and 

trains operated under certain waivers, 

and QMIs meet the regulatory criteria to 

be designated as QPs. Accordingly, the 

methodology described by UP for 

eliminating QMI inspections would not 

have removed from the data any 

inspections conducted by more highlyqualified QMIs who were acting in their 

capacity as QPs. If a clear delineation 

between QP and QMI inspections can be 

made in this data so that the resulting 

data does not commingle the two types 

of inspections, the data could 

potentially be more compelling. 

In addition, the AAR data is from two 

unnamed Class I railroads, one of which 

AAR indicates operates in the eastern 

United States while the other AAR 

indicates operates in the western United 

States. FRA cannot determine from the 

information provided whether the data 

is generally representative of the 

industry for variables that can affect 

braking equipment, such as weather, 

general equipment conditions, or 

geography. Relatedly, UP provided data 

it stated showed that QP-only 

inspections resulted in bad orders for 

cars (orders to send a car for repairs) for 

less than 0.2% of car trips. FRA notes 

that the methodology described by UP 

also fails to distinguish QMI-trained 

inspectors from QPs, resulting in the 

commingling of data. In addition, FRA 

notes that the data cannot be interpreted 

without contextual information about 

the true defect rate. 

In sum, given the shortcomings of the 

data related to QP inspections as 

described above, FRA finds that it does 

not have sufficient data to consider 

allowing an extension of the mileage 

permitted between brake tests when 

those tests are performed by QPs due to 

the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 

20302(d)(2). When trains undergo 

comprehensive Class I brake tests by 

QMIs and freight car inspections by 

designated inspectors, however, FRA 

finds that a mileage extension up to 

2,500 miles between brake tests may be 

justified at this time. FRA’s finding is 

based on the data discussed above 

gathered through the ongoing waivers 

permitting certain trains to travel up to 

1,702 miles between brake tests and 

preliminary data from separate, newer 

waivers involving trains inspected by 

QMIs and designated inspectors and 

traveling up to 2,600 miles between 

brake tests. See docket numbers FRA– 

2016–0018 and FRA–2018–0049. 

Although data from each of these 

waivers is preliminary, coupled with 

FRA’s and industry’s experience 

operating trains equipped with 

electronically controlled pneumatic 

(ECP) brakes up to 5,000 miles between 

brake tests,23 FRA finds that an 

incremental increase in mileage on nonECP brake trains inspected by QMIs and 

designated inspectors may be justified. 

Finally, AAR provides results of its 

analysis of FRA data on employee 

incidents that it concludes show that 

from 2015 to 2017 there were 277 

employee injuries related to the use of 

handbrakes, and an additional 200 

injuries associated with getting on or off 

standing equipment or related activities. 

Over the three-year period, this amounts 

to 159 annual employee injuries. Citing 

this data, AAR asserts that ‘‘the 

reduction of unnecessary brake tests, 

including any additional train stops and 

car handling, will in turn reduce 

exposure to risk of injury from walking 

on track, as well as from applying and 

releasing handbrakes and climbing on 

and off railcars to do so.’’ 

FRA finds that AAR’s conclusion may 

overestimate injuries related to brake 

testing to the extent that some of the 

injuries may have occurred during 

activities not performed for the purpose 

of conducting brake tests. AAR’s 

estimate, however, demonstrates that 

there may be opportunity to reduce the 

incidence of employee injury through a 

reduction in the frequency of required 

brake tests. FRA concludes from this 

information that the proposed rule 

would likely reduce the number of 

employee injuries related to brake tests, 

but FRA cannot estimate the reduction 

in incidence of employee injury that 

would result without more information. 

G. Safety Improvements 

Because the overall reliability of brake 

systems has increased through 

technological and operational 

improvements and no measurable 

3966 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

24Sections 232.205, 232.207, and 232.209 set 

forth the requirements for Class I, Class IA, and 

Class II brake tests, respectively. 

decrease in safety resulted from the 

increase in allowed mileage in 2001, 

FRA believes that reducing the 

frequency or extent of brake tests as 

proposed in this rule may be warranted. 

This would have the benefit of reducing 

the risk of injury for employees charged 

with inspection and testing duties. 

Increasing overall brake system 

reliability results in decreasing the 

expected number of defects discovered 

during a brake test. FRA expects the 

flexibility proposed in this NPRM 

would have the potential to increase the 

overall quality of brake tests, because 

the flexibility provided incentivizes the 

increased use of more-qualified 

inspectors, QMIs, and the data 

collection and retention requirements 

permit FRA and the railroad industry to 

analyze the effectiveness of brake tests 

closely to discover best practices and 

areas for improvement. FRA also 

recognizes the potential that added 

flexibility in the reallocation of 

resources could result in increased 

safety through such channels as 

increasing specialization in safety 

inspection functions. 

FRA expects data generated by eABS 

systems may provide information useful 

to further maintain safe car brake 

systems, and may promote railroad 

safety generally by encouraging the use 

of eABS systems and therefore 

identifying and resolving potential 

brake problems before brakes fail. For 

example, electronic tracking of factors 

that are correlated with brake system 

defects such as car age and load weight, 

train length, locomotive power, 

quantity, and distribution, and 

applicable routes and terrain, may lead 

to identification of defects without a 

brake test. 

III. Section-by-Section Analysis 

Unless otherwise noted, all section 

references below refer to sections in title 

49 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR). FRA seeks comments on all 

proposals made in this NPRM. 

Section 232.5 Definitions 

FRA proposes to add to this section 

definitions for the following terms: 

‘‘Electronic air brake slip’’ or ‘‘eABS,’’ 

and ‘‘eABS system.’’ The terms 

‘‘Electronic air brake slip’’ or ‘‘eABS’’ 

are intended to refer to the record that 

must be stored for the car in order for 

the railroad to avail itself of the relief 

granted in the proposed rule. The term 

‘‘eABS system’’ would describe the 

electronic system that stores the record. 

Sections 232.205, 232.207, and 232.209

Class I Brake Test—Initial Terminal 

Inspection, Class IA Brake Tests—1,000- 

Mile Inspection, and Class II Brake 

Tests—Intermediate Inspection 

Under the proposed rule, FRA would 

provide railroads an option to comply 

with new § 232.221 in lieu of 

§§ 232.205, 232.207, and 232.209.24

Specifically, FRA proposes to revise 

each of these sections to reference 

§ 232.221 as an alternative means of 

compliance. Proposed § 232.221 

(discussed in more detail below) would 

set forth the proposed requirements for 

operations using an eABS system and 

would also specify the conditions under 

which proposed §§ 232.205, 232.207, 

and 232.209 would apply. 

Section 232.221 Electronic Air Brake 

Slip (eABS) System Requirements 

Proposed § 232.221 would set forth 

the requirements for eABS systems and 

railroad operations under those systems. 

As proposed, this section would allow 

railroads to move cars with a compliant 

eABS up to either 1,000 or 2,500 miles 

between brake tests provided certain 

conditions are met. FRA intends the 

proposed requirements of this section 

(e.g., automatic tracking of individual 

car’s mileage, testing prior to exceeding 

the permitted mileage, and 

recordkeeping) to support the ability of 

an eABS system to ensure that cars 

operated under this proposed rule 

would be appropriately inspected with 

the parameters of the rule. 

Proposed paragraph (a) 

If a railroad has implemented an 

eABS system and is operating a train 

using the eABS system, proposed 

paragraph (a) would allow the railroad 

to move an individual freight car in that 

train up to 1,000 miles between brake 

tests provided certain conditions are 

met. First, proposed paragraph (a)(1) 

would require that the mileage the car 

travels since its last Class I brake test be 

automatically tracked in the eABS 

system. Second, consistent with AAR’s 

petition, proposed paragraph (a)(2) 

would require the car to be moved only 

as part of a train consist consisting 

entirely of cars being operated under 

proposed § 232.221. Third, proposed 

paragraph (a)(3) would require the eABS 

system to retain a record of the car’s 

Class I brake test containing certain 

required information. 

The alternative framework outlined in 

paragraph (a) replaces the conditions 

that trigger Class I, Class IA, and Class 

II inspections of entire trains under 

§§ 232.205, 232.207, and 232.209. As 

proposed, any car that meets the 

requirements of paragraph (a) may be 

moved up to 1,000 miles between Class 

I air brake inspections, whether that car 

moves in one train or multiple trains. 

Although this reframing of brake test 

requirements from the level of the train 

to the individual car is a major 

departure from historical practice, it 

reflects the recognition that a Class I 

brake test is at the core a detailed, visual 

inspection of the functioning of the 

brake systems of the cars that compose 

the train. This shift, from a single, 

whole-train inspection to timely 

inspections of individual cars in a 

train’s consist on a separately-tracked 

basis, is possible due to technological 

improvements in the ability to track 

large amounts of information reliably. 

Paragraph (a)(3)’s proposed brake test 

record requirement is based on AAR’s 

Petition, and follows current Class I 

brake test recordkeeping requirements 

and industry practices. FRA proposes to 

require the eABS records contain the 

following additional information to 

preserve existing requirements and 

industry practices and to facilitate 

effective oversight: (1) Identification and 

railroad affiliation of the person creating 

the eABS record and inputting the 

record into the eABS system (the 

‘‘author’’ of the record); (2) 

identification and railroad affiliation of 

the person who performed the brake 

test, if different from the author; (3) 

record creation date and time; and (4) a 

certification that the requirements of 

§§ 232.205(a)(3) and 232.305(c) have 

been met. FRA expects that, for 

railroads utilizing eABS systems, the 

individual putting the record of a brake 

test into the eABS system may not be 

the individual who conducted the test. 

FRA also expects that many eABS 

systems would be interoperable, or 

alternately, that many railroads would 

elect to utilize jointly a single eABS 

system. This may result in one railroad 

conducting the brake test and reporting 

information to another railroad for 

creation of the record. Because the 

author of the record in either case may 

be less likely to have firsthand 

knowledge of the brake test, it is 

important to ensure that the record 

identifies, in separate fields, the name 

and railroad affiliation of the author of 

the record, and the name and railroad 

affiliation of the person who performed 

the last Class I brake test. See proposed 

paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (ii) and (vi). 

FRA recognizes that industry practice 

varies in the identification of railroad 

employees, with some railroads 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3967 

providing for the use of employee 

names and others requiring the use of 

employee identification numbers. Under 

the proposed rule, any effective method 

of identification is permitted. 

Consistent with AAR’s Petition, and 

for the reasons explained in more detail 

below, proposed paragraph (a)(3)(vii) 

would require the eABS to identify the 

qualifications of the person conducting 

each car’s Class I brake test (i.e., 

whether the person who conducted the 

brake test is a QP or QMI as defined in 

§ 232.5). The proposed requirement to 

record the qualifications of individuals 

performing the brake tests is intended to 

ensure that only individuals possessing 

sufficient knowledge and ability do so, 

and that the specific qualifications of 

each person are known. As discussed 

below, the recording of this 

qualification information will also 

permit the collection of information on 

which to determine more accurately the 

relative benefit to safety of inspections 

by a QMI compared to inspections by a 

QP. Such information is necessary to 

conclude whether a future extension of 

the miles traveled between brake tests 

would be appropriate where an 

inspection was conducted by a QP. 

Consistent with AAR’s petition, 

proposed paragraph (a)(3)(viii) would 

require an eABS record to contain an 

‘‘accurate calculation of the mileage 

remaining until the next Class I brake 

test is required.’’ Further description of 

such a calculation has been proposed as 

part of paragraph (h). Proposed 

paragraph (a)(3)(ix)’s requirement that 

railroads record adherence to existing 

off-air requirements and existing single 

car air brake testing timeframes is 

intended to reinforce the requirement 

for continued compliance with those 

rules, even under the alternative 

regulatory framework of § 232.221. FRA 

notes it made changes to these 

requirements in a recent final rule that 

extends the time-off-air limits and 

provides additional flexibility as to the 

frequency of single car air brake tests. 85 

FR 80544 (Dec. 11, 2020). The 

requirements in this paragraph 

complement the changes in that final 

rule. Since added flexibilities in the 

timing and frequency of air brake tests 

have been implemented, timely 

adherence to the revised requirements 

as well as all other brake inspection and 

testing requirements will take on greater 

importance. 

FRA notes that proposed paragraph 

(a)(3)(v)’s requirement that the eABS 

include the date and time of the last 

Class I brake test may provide sufficient 

information that the car has not 

triggered a testing requirement based on 

time-off-air, because each Class I test 

requires that a car be placed on a source 

of air during testing. Similarly, because 

operation of a train requires a 

locomotive to provide air to each car in 

the train, the time of each car’s most 

recent arrival and/or departure in a train 

may likewise serve as sufficient 

information. For this reason, proposed 

paragraph (a)(3)(ix) does not require an 

eABS to contain specific information 

showing that a car has met the off-air 

requirements of § 232.205(a)(3) if the 

maximum time the car has been off air 

can be determined from other 

information on the eABS record. 

Accordingly, as proposed, specific 

information showing that a car has not 

been off air in excess of the time 

allowed by § 232.205(a)(3) would not be 

required except where it cannot be 

determined from the other required 

information on the eABS (e.g., time and 

location of the last Class I brake test) 

whether or not the car has been off air 

for more than 24 hours. FRA expects 

that railroads will be able to track timeoff-air by reference to this or other 

information commonly maintained in 

the railroad industry or required by 

regulation. FRA requests comment on 

whether the proposed provisions are 

sufficient to track individual cars’ timeoff-air or if a separate record keeping 

requirement for time-off-air as part of 

the eABS is necessary. 

FRA expects that for a significant 

majority of cars, information based on 

the most recently recorded arrival and 

departure of a car may be included in 

the eABS to provide sufficient 

information for this proposed 

recordkeeping requirement. This is 

based on AAR’s assertion that the 

proposal in its Petition would result in 

higher car utilization rates. AAR also 

states that the large majority of freight 

cars use Automatic Equipment 

Identification (‘‘AEI’’) tags that already 

facilitate automatic recording of arrival 

and departure data. Accordingly, FRA 

considers that the burden of this 

requirement will not be significant. 

Proposed Paragraph (b) 

Consistent with AAR’s petition, 

proposed paragraph (b) would allow a 

railroad to move individual freight cars 

up to 2,500 miles between Class I brake 

tests if they meet the requirements of 

paragraph (a) and meet certain 

additional conditions designed to 

ensure the cars remain in proper 

condition for the extended mileage. 

First, proposed paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) 

would require the cars to have their part 

215 inspections performed by 

designated inspectors as defined in 

§ 215.11 and their Class I brake tests 

performed by QMIs as defined in 

§ 232.5. The proposed requirements 

mirror the existing requirements 

applicable to extended haul trains. 49 

CFR 232.213. As noted in the 2001 final 

rule that first allowed for extended haul 

trains, greater distances provide a 

greater risk of brake failure, and 

therefore it is important to ensure high 

quality inspections are performed prior 

to extended haul trips. Such inspections 

must be performed by individuals who 

can identify defective conditions, have 

the knowledge and experience to know 

how a particular defective condition 

affects other parts of the brake system or 

mechanical components, and have an 

understanding of what might have 

caused a particular defective condition 

to arise. 

As noted earlier in section II.B of this 

preamble, part 232 requires only that a 

QP receive the instruction and training 

required to perform the specific brake 

test function that the QP will perform 

under part 232. §§ 232.5 and 232.203. 

For the purpose of a Class I brake test 

under § 232.205, a QP is expected to be 

able to identify those observable defects 

that would cause the train or any car in 

the train to fail the test. For example, a 

QP would be expected to have the 

training necessary to identify whether 

brake rigging is unsecured, binding or 

fouling, and engaged or released under 

appropriate conditions. In general, a QP 

is unlikely to be qualified as a 

designated inspector for purposes of the 

pre-departure inspection under part 

215. As a result, a QP would only 

perform a limited pre-departure 

inspection focused on apparent safety 

hazards (i.e., an Appendix D 

inspection). 49 CFR 215.13; appendix D 

to 49 CFR part 215. 

As also discussed in section II.B 

above, to meet the requirements for 

designation as a QMI, a QP must 

additionally have primary, ‘‘hands-on’’ 

responsibility for troubleshooting, 

inspecting, testing, maintaining, or 

repairing of specific train brake 

components and systems. This required, 

additional experience is intended to 

ensure that such individuals provide a 

high-quality train air brake inspection. 

66 FR at 4104. In addition, a QMI is 

generally qualified as a designated 

inspector for purposes of a predeparture inspection. Such inspectors 

are required by regulation to determine 

whether each car inspected is in 

compliance with part 215. As a result, 

QMIs generally possess the additional 

experience and responsibility to identify 

a wider range of mechanical defects and 

equipment conditions that may 

adversely affect safety. For example, a 

QMI must be able to recognize not only 

the presence of unsafe conditions, but 

3968 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

also will, through experience, be able to 

recognize indications of developing 

conditions that could become safety 

defects. 

In the absence of convincing data for 

inspections by QPs comparable to that 

available for inspections by QMIs, FRA 

proposes to maintain the current 

mileage between inspections for cars 

inspected by QPs. Because cars 

operating under an eABS would be 

permitted to be added to or removed 

from a train without limitation, FRA 

expects that a larger number of cars 

would be operated closer to the 

maximum permitted distance between 

inspections. FRA notes that the 

requirement to record each inspector’s 

qualification would provide an 

opportunity to establish more firmly the 

comparable safety benefit of inspections 

by QPs and QMIs. Should data and 

experience demonstrate a continued 

safety benefit to the use of QMIs, FRA 

expects that the significant extension of 

mileage afforded for inspections by 

QMIs would result in a corresponding 

increase in the proportion of QMI 

inspections. FRA seeks comments on 

proposed paragraph (b), as well as 

information and data that may affect 

this proposal. 

Proposed Paragraph (c) 

This proposed paragraph would 

allow, in certain circumstances, a car 

that does not have an eABS record 

meeting the requirements of paragraph 

(a) to move under the provisions of 

proposed § 232.211. Proposed paragraph 

(c) operates in conjunction with 

proposed paragraph (d), which sets 

conditions on the movement of trains 

with eABS cars. However, proposed 

paragraph (c) not only applies in the 

event of a disruption in communication 

with the eABS system but also to other 

events leading to a delay in the 

recording of eABS information prior to 

a train movement (e.g., including both 

delays in the creation of a new eABS 

and delays in the update of mileage 

remaining under proposed paragraph 

(a)(3)(viii)). The AAR Petition did not 

request provisions for flexibility in the 

event of eABS system disruption. 

However, some flexibility may be 

necessary to facilitate adoption of 

electronic recordkeeping, to promote 

interoperability of eABS systems, and to 

permit railroads to better adapt 

recordkeeping under eABS to existing 

business practices. FRA requests 

comment on the issue of providing 

appropriate flexibility in recordkeeping 

under an eABS system while 

maintaining timely and accurate 

records. 

To perfect a car movement under 

proposed paragraph (c), the railroad 

must enter an eABS record for the car 

into its system as soon as practicable 

after departure from one location, but no 

later than the time at which the car 

departs any further location in a new 

train. This means proposed paragraph 

(c) would permit a railroad to convert a 

train with a Class I brake test under 

§ 232.205 into an eABS train at a 

subsequent location, provided that the 

train consist has remained intact prior 

to entering records for the cars in the 

eABS system and a record of all 

necessary car information is available. 

However, a railroad would not be 

permitted under the proposed rule to 

convert subsequently an eABS train to 

a train operating under a § 232.205 

brake slip without complying with both 

rules at the initial terminal. 

A railroad could split an eABS train 

at a location without requiring 

compliance with the proposed 

requirement to enter the eABS record 

before departure. Under present policy, 

FRA considers the splitting of a train to 

be the classification of two new trains, 

of which one may continue if it has 

mileage remaining on its brake test. 

Under the framework of eABS, FRA 

does not consider the splitting of a train 

to create a new train because any train 

movement that occurs after the splitting 

of the train remains dependent upon 

each individual car’s mileage since its 

last qualifying brake test, and would be 

contemporaneous with a train 

movement of the original train had the 

split not occurred. 

FRA notes that operation under 

proposed paragraph (c) obligates a 

railroad to perfect the train movement 

by entering accurate eABS records 

including the remaining allowable 

mileage within the proposed limits. 

This is intended to prevent a railroad 

from using the flexibility provided in 

paragraph (c) to avoid the requirements 

of § 232.205. FRA seeks comment on the 

effects of this proposal. 

Proposed Paragraph (d) 

Current regulations for Class I and 

Class IA brake tests explicitly apply to 

trains, and the Class I brake test applies 

separately both to trains and to 

individual cars traveling in a train. 

Proposed paragraph (d) clarifies the 

conditions under which an eABS train 

is exempted from the requirement to 

undergo these tests. Specifically, 

proposed paragraph (d) specifies that a 

train may move the number of miles 

that the most restrictive car in the train 

is authorized to move, provided: (1) A 

record is maintained in the cab of the 

controlling locomotive that includes 

certain information for each car in the 

train; and (2) the record is updated at 

each location where the consist is 

changed to reflect those changes. 

Proposed paragraph (d) further provides 

that in the event of a disruption of 

communication between a train and the 

eABS system, the train’s further 

movement is limited to the mileage the 

most restrictive car in the train is 

permitted to move under either 

paragraph (a) or (b). Taken together, 

proposed paragraphs (c) and (d) would 

allow movement of a train, regardless of 

whether the eABS for each car is fully 

up-to-date, if the railroad performs a 

Class I brake test on each added car 

requiring such test and timely and 

accurately records each test. Otherwise, 

such a train would be required to 

undergo a new Class I brake test for the 

entire train under the requirements of 

part 232. Similarly, where the eABS 

system fails to recalculate accurately a 

car’s available mileage between stops or 

fails to capture information about 

compliance with time-off-air 

requirements, the error may be corrected 

through an amended record to restore 

the validity of the eABS. Such records 

must be placed in the eABS system as 

soon as practicable after departure of the 

car in a train, but no later than the time 

at which the car departs a location in 

any subsequent train. 

Existing § 232.205(e) requires each 

railroad to ensure subsequent crews are 

notified about prior Class I brake test 

information. While such information 

may be provided to the locomotive 

engineer by any written or electronic 

means determined appropriate by the 

railroad, it must be retained in the 

controlling locomotive’s cab and 

contain certain prescribed data. The 

prescribed data is sufficient for a 

railroad to create an accurate eABS for 

each car in the train at a later time, 

should conditions prevent 

communication with the eABS system. 

It is essential for train crews to be 

notified of relevant train brake test 

information. Because each car would 

have its own eABS record, proposed 

paragraph (d) would require a written or 

electronic record of all such information 

for each car in a train be placed in the 

cab of the controlling locomotive. 

To allow the possibility of manually 

updating the cab record (e.g., in the 

event of a communications failure), 

proposed paragraph (d) does not require 

that the cab record be modified for every 

car at every location. This applies in 

particular to information on remaining 

mileage and compliance with time-offair requirements, which have the 

potential to vary for every car at every 

location. Instead, a cab record would 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3969 

need only to be updated as to consist 

changes. An accurate cab record must 

note the removal of any cars set off from 

the train, and add all required 

information for any cars picked up. 

In conjunction with proposed 

paragraph (c), movement under the 

proposed rule would be permitted based 

upon this cab record. The railroad 

would remain responsible for ensuring 

that no car exceeds its permitted 

mileage, and that each car picked up as 

part of a train operated under the 

proposed rule is in compliance with 

paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) of this section. 

FRA expects that most railroads would 

choose to update the cab record 

electronically wherever possible in 

order to minimize compliance risk, 

promote convenience, and maintain the 

proposed flexibility in paragraphs (c) 

and (d) to continue operations during 

periods of disruption. However, under 

proposed paragraphs (c) and (d), FRA 

expects that some railroads for which 

participation in an eABS system would 

be impractical would be able to 

interchange with railroads participating 

in an eABS system with minimal 

burden. FRA seeks comment on the 

proposed paragraph with respect to the 

likelihood of Class III railroads and 

other small entities to participate in an 

eABS system. 

Proposed Paragraph (e) 

For trains consisting entirely of cars 

operating under an eABS, proposed 

paragraph (e) removes the restriction on 

block swapping, or setting off and 

picking up more than one car or a solid 

block of cars at a single location. FRA 

expects that real-time, accurate tracking 

of brake tests and testing at the car level, 

as eABS systems are designed to do, 

would enable railroads to ensure that 

cars are tested in a timely manner. The 

current requirements for block 

swapping help ensure that any cars that 

trains pick up en route are in proper 

condition for continued movement, and 

help ensure accurate monitoring and 

recordkeeping functions. At least some 

brake tests triggered by current block 

swapping requirements are unnecessary 

so long as cars picked up en route have 

had valid brake tests and freight car 

inspections already performed, and the 

tests therefore expose railroad 

employees to potentially unnecessary 

workplace hazards associated with the 

stopping, securing, inspecting, and 

classifying of trains to minimal safety 

benefit. 

Proposed paragraph (e) also permits a 

change in the motive power for the 

consist without the requirement of an 

additional brake test, other than the 

Class III test. This proposal is consistent 

with existing regulations that allow for 

changing the motive power on a consist 

without a Class I brake test in certain 

instances (see e.g., § 232.205(a)(5)(iii), 

§ 232.211(a)(1), and § 232.219). FRA 

does not expect that the changing of 

motive power as proposed would 

present any different safety 

considerations. 

Proposed Paragraph (f) 

This proposed paragraph would 

establish the minimum requirements 

that the eABS system must meet to 

permit coverage under the proposed 

rule. The requirements address issues of 

record integrity, availability, retention, 

accuracy, and access. FRA intends for 

the eABS system to provide access to 

information to maintain a level of 

information and oversight comparable 

to current regulations. Additional 

provisions are designed to enable the 

development of an adequate body of 

data to determine whether additional 

flexibility may be provided in the future 

(e.g., future mileage extensions between 

brake tests). The proposed availability 

and retention requirements under this 

paragraph are intended to augment more 

limited direct data generated through 

FRA inspections with a supply of 

detailed, auditable data generated by 

railroads. As the relative sourcing of 

data shifts from FRA towards regulated 

entities, a heightened requirement for 

data integrity and availability is 

necessary for FRA to remain confident 

in the safety of railroad testing and 

inspection programs. While such 

requirements increase the burden of 

compliance on participating railroads, 

FRA expects that the relief provided 

under the proposed rule would offset 

such burdens with substantially greater 

benefits. 

FRA expects that participating 

railroads would maintain the security of 

the eABS system in a manner consistent 

with industry standards for 

cybersecurity. A failure to maintain the 

integrity or availability of records may 

be evidenced by events including a 

significant loss of data required to be 

retained, an unexplained loss of 

availability of more than 48 hours, and 

a pattern or practice of providing 

inaccurate records or a delayed response 

to FRA requests. Although many such 

instances may also reflect violations of 

other provisions of the proposed rule, 

FRA may in its discretion treat such 

evidence as a failure to maintain 

integrity or availability for purposes of 

assessing penalties or for suspension or 

revocation of a railroad’s authority to 

operate under the proposed rule. 

Consistent with AAR’s Petition, 

proposed paragraph (f)(1) would require 

an eABS system to recognize a unique 

identifier associated with each person 

that authors records in an eABS system. 

Use of a unique identifier, combined 

with restrictions in the proposed rule on 

destruction or modification of records, 

is intended to provide confidence in the 

authorship and accuracy of the records. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(2) would 

require an eABS system to ensure that 

records stored contain all the 

information required by paragraph 

(a)(3). A requirement that records be 

fully complete before entry into the 

system would help ensure that the 

system would not accept a partial 

record. FRA would consider incomplete 

records to be ineffective for the purpose 

of establishing that a car is operating 

under an eABS. Although FRA 

recognizes that certain circumstances 

may require the ability to make 

amendments to stored records (e.g., to 

correct identified errors in those 

records), as proposed, those 

amendments must be clearly identified 

and tracked. See proposed paragraph (g) 

of this section. 

Paragraph (f)(3) would require a 

means to ensure that any individual 

performing inspections is identified as a 

QMI if he or she meets such 

requirements. In conjunction with 

paragraph (b)(3), as proposed, paragraph 

(f)(3) would prohibit an eABS system 

from identifying a QMI as a QP, even 

though current regulations otherwise 

permit a QMI to be considered a QP. As 

proposed, an eABS system must ensure 

that the qualifications of inspectors are 

accurately designated so that no person 

who does not meet the requirements of 

a QMI is designated as such and so that 

no person who does meet the 

requirements of a QMI is identified as 

a QP. This proposed requirement would 

increase the quality of data collected 

from eABS records and would provide 

a method for future comparative 

analysis between the results of 

inspections performed by QPs and 

inspections performed by QMIs. 

Although FRA expects that the 

enhanced training and experience of 

QMIs result overall in higher quality 

brake tests, AAR has provided data with 

its Petition that challenges this 

expectation (at least as applied to some 

railroads). Based on that data, AAR 

asserts that the rate of defect discovery 

is the same between QMIs and QPs. As 

discussed in Section II.F, above, FRA 

disagrees with AAR’s conclusion on this 

issue based on the information 

provided, but FRA finds that use of 

eABS systems could provide an 

opportunity to gather relevant data to 

better inform the issue and potential 

future regulatory action. 

3970 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Proposed paragraph (f)(4) would 

require that records in an eABS system 

be made immediately available upon 

request to FRA and State inspectors. 

The proposed paragraph provides a 

general performance standard to replace 

a requirement to maintain a record in a 

paper format. Under current regulations, 

it is common practice for FRA to 

observe Class I brake tests, and to 

compare observed activities with the 

written brake slip to ensure the accuracy 

of both the brake test and brake slip. 

There would be reduced time and 

opportunity both for FRA to observe 

inspections and to compare submitted 

records to FRA observations of the 

corresponding cars because the 

proposed rule is expected both to 

increase utilization of cars and to reduce 

total Class I brake tests. To address this 

expected reduction of in-person 

observation, it is essential that FRA 

inspectors are able to access eABS 

records quickly. 

Access to inspection records may 

involve use of an internet-accessible 

portal, a telephone hotline, electronic 

mail, or other effective means developed 

by the railroad. In very limited cases 

such as in areas with limited access to 

wireless communication, use of 

railroad-owned computer terminals 

linked to the eABS system or the use of 

railroad employees as intermediaries 

may be sufficient to meet the proposed 

requirement. However, widespread use 

of such on-site provision of records risks 

the curtailment of effective oversight. 

FRA inspectors would be required to 

alert railroad employees to their 

presence prior to obtaining records that 

may be pertinent to oversight, and this 

may impede FRA review of ordinary 

operations absent inspector 

surveillance. As such, FRA concludes 

that exclusive use of on-site records 

access is not consistent with immediate 

availability. Whatever the method for 

providing access to inspection records, 

the railroad may not cause undue delay 

which would hinder the FRA 

inspector’s ability to provide accurate 

and enforceable oversight reports 

regarding eABS compliance. 

Proposed Paragraph (g) 

This paragraph defines the proposed, 

permitted exceptions for the 

modification of an eABS. Although the 

proposed rule generally would prohibit 

modification of an eABS once 

submitted, amendments would be 

permitted where the amended record 

will supersede, but not replace, the 

original. This is based upon AAR’s 

proposal in its Petition. FRA expects 

that common corrections of records 

would include an update of the time-offair or single car testing requirements if 

circumstances changed for a subject car. 

An exception is also proposed to allow 

records to be updated as to mileage on 

the same record, as this element of the 

record will change frequently, and must 

be accurately maintained. 

Proposed Paragraph (h) 

Proposed paragraph (h) includes the 

minimum requirements for any 

methodology for calculating and 

reporting mileage remaining on an eABS 

until a car is required to receive a Class 

I brake test. The proposed rule would tie 

the tracking of mileage to movements of 

a train. Movements for purpose of train 

classification, known as switching 

movements, would not be required to be 

recorded as part of the mileage 

calculation. Consistent with 

longstanding practice and existing legal 

precedent, movement of a small number 

of cars over distances less than one mile 

is typically considered switching 

movement, while movement that 

crosses public highways or another 

railroad’s tracks at grade is typically 

train movement, even if over short 

distances and within a yard. FRA 

requests comment upon the proposal for 

the calculation and tracking of mileage, 

and in particular seeks alternative 

proposals for addressing movements of 

short distance or low risk for which the 

recording and calculation of mileage 

may not be practical. 

Proposed paragraph (h) establishes 

that a car’s remaining mileage would be 

updated as soon as practicable after 

each car’s departure in a train. To align 

with paragraph (c) and in recognition of 

the potential need for flexibility in the 

proposed alternative regulatory 

framework, proposed paragraph (h) 

requires as an absolute minimum that 

mileage be updated prior to a car’s 

departure in a subsequent train. 

Departure in a subsequent train occurs 

after a car has been dropped off from 

one train and picked up in any train at 

a later time. FRA does not consider that 

a train can be subsequent to itself absent 

a train movement; however, a train that 

leaves a location and subsequently 

returns to that location to pick up a car 

would be considered a subsequent train 

for the purposes of this proposed rule. 

Accordingly, FRA would not consider 

the splitting of a train at any location to 

create a requirement under this 

proposed paragraph. 

If a car exceeds its permitted 

accumulated mileage between brake 

tests, proposed paragraph (h)(3) would 

require the eABS to track this excess 

mileage as a negative number. FRA is 

proposing this provision to ensure the 

eABS clearly reflects instances where 

cars exceed their permitted mileage. 

Proposed Paragraph (i) 

This proposed paragraph would 

require railroads to retain eABS records 

for a minimum of one year from 

creation. The proposed retention period 

would provide an adequate body of data 

to inform appropriate enforcement of 

the rule and would provide a basis to 

evaluate the relative quality of QP and 

QMI inspections, and may serve to 

support future safety analyses of 

additional potential flexibilities under 

the regulations. The proposed 

requirements under this paragraph are 

also intended to augment more limited, 

direct data generated through FRA 

inspections with a supply of detailed, 

auditable data generated by railroads. 

FRA seeks comment on this proposed 

record retention period. 

Proposed Paragraph (j) 

This paragraph would notify railroads 

that operate eABS trains that FRA 

reserves the right to revoke, in whole or 

in part, their authority to operate under 

proposed § 232.211 if the eABS system 

utilized fails to meet the requirements of 

proposed § 232.211 or if a railroad 

demonstrates a record of repeated or 

willful noncompliance with applicable 

regulations. This proposed section is 

modeled on existing § 232.15(b)(5), 

which allows railroads to use automated 

tracking systems to track and monitor 

the movement of defective equipment. 

Existing § 232.15(b)(5) provides that if 

FRA finds a railroad’s automated 

tracking system to be insecure, 

inaccessible, or inadequate to track and 

monitor defective equipment, FRA may 

‘‘prohibit or revoke’’ a railroad’s 

authority to use an approved automated 

system. When FRA adopted this 

provision, FRA found that the ability to 

monitor and prohibit the use of 

deficient systems was necessary in part 

because no adequate automated system 

for tracking defective equipment thenexisted on most railroads. 66 FR at 4151. 

FRA has enacted similar provisions 

applicable to electronic or automated 

tracking systems for single car air brake 

tests and the designation of extended 

haul trains. See §§ 232.303(f)(1) and 

232.213(b); see also 66 FR at 4142 and 

4175. 

FRA concludes that the proposed rule 

merits a similar reservation of the right 

to revoke, in whole or in part, a 

railroad’s authority to operate cars 

under an eABS system if FRA 

subsequently finds issues related to 

security, access, accuracy, or other 

inadequacy in properly tracking the 

movement of equipment using the eABS 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3971 

system. As with past relief granted for 

the use of electronic and automated 

tracking systems, easy availability of 

records that accurately reflect the testing 

and inspection of operating equipment 

is critical to ensure FRA is able to 

exercise its statutory obligation to 

oversee compliance with railroad safety 

requirements. With regard to eABS, 

FRA’s ready access to accurate records 

is key to enabling the agency to ensure 

effective oversight, develop data, and 

support future changes such as the 

consideration of future regulatory relief. 

The combination of proposals in this 

NPRM that would provide regulatory 

relief and additional operational 

flexibility for railroads operating using 

eABS systems place additional 

importance on the quality of inspections 

and on the accuracy of recordkeeping 

compared with the relief granted in the 

2001 final rule discussed above. As 

AAR states in its Petition, the proposed 

rule is expected to increase freight 

traffic flow and reduce overall dwell 

time. These significant operational and 

economic benefits come at the cost of 

reduced opportunity for FRA equipment 

inspection, which takes place when 

equipment is not moving. 

FRA expects the proposed rule to 

improve overall safety; it is not clear 

that the relief proposed would improve 

safety under all conditions due to the 

novelty of the AAR proposal. Such 

conditions are, as a result, not known 

with enough certainty to merit 

additional and specific limitations to 

the proposed relief. FRA therefore 

considers that a reserved right to revoke 

the authority to operate under the 

proposed rule, in whole or in part, 

would permit FRA to act expeditiously 

to remedy any specific unsafe condition 

that may arise that may not have been 

considered until the enactment of a rule. 

Such conditions would relate to the 

suitability of freight equipment for safe 

transit, which includes not only 

requirement under part 232, but 

additionally requirements for freight 

cars and locomotives under parts 215 

and 229, respectively. Although the 

principal purpose of the brake test and 

inspection requirement is inspection of 

the brake system, FRA notes that brake 

tests indirectly bolster compliance with 

parts 215 and 229 because their 

performance provides railroad 

inspection forces with an additional 

opportunity to observe the general 

condition of all tested equipment. FRA 

proposes that repeated or willful 

noncompliance with the provisions of 

parts 215, 229, or 232 would provide 

sufficient basis upon which to revoke a 

railroad’s authority to utilize the 

proposed relief. Because FRA expects 

that the proposed rule would improve 

safety performance under most 

conditions, proposed paragraph (j) 

requires that FRA’s Associate 

Administrator for Railroad Safety 

establish both the basis for revocation of 

authority and conditions under which 

such authority would be restored. 

IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13771 

and DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures 

This NPRM is a significant regulatory 

action in accordance with existing 

policies and procedures under 

Executive Order 12866. In addition, this 

proposed rule is considered an E.O. 

13771 deregulatory action. Details on 

the estimated cost savings of this 

proposed rule can be found in the 

proposed rule’s Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (RIA), which FRA has 

prepared and placed in the docket. The 

RIA details the estimated costs and cost 

savings that the Class I railroads are 

likely to see over a 10-year period. 

This analysis provides low and high 

estimates for costs and cost savings. 

Cost savings would primarily come from 

the reduction in brake tests that would 

result from mileage and block-swap 

relief. The proposed rule would also 

reduce the filing of waiver renewals by 

Class I railroads seeking relief from 

mileage limitations between brake tests. 

Costs would primarily come from 

training, acquisition of hardware, and 

maintenance of the eABS system. 

As shown in Table E–1 and Table E– 

2, over the 10-year period of analysis the 

proposed rule would result in 

annualized cost savings ranging 

between $15.0 million to $30.9 million 

(discounted at a rate of 7%) and $15.0 

million to $30.4 million (discounted at 

a rate of 3%). 

TABLE E–1—NET COST SAVINGS

[Low] 

Section 

Present value 

($) 

Annualized 

($) 

Undiscounted 3% 7% 3% 7% 

Cost Savings: 

Increased Mileage ............................................................................................. 91,641,000 79,932,000 67,672,000 9,370,000 9,635,000 

Unlimited Block Swapping ............................................................................. 121,590,000 105,551,000 88,804,000 12,374,000 12,644,000 

Waiver Filing and Review .............................................................................. 133,000 118,000 101,000 14,000 14,000 

Government Waiver Review .......................................................................... 12,000 11,000 10,000 1,000 1,000 

Total Cost Savings ................................................................................. 213,376,000 185,612,000 156,587,000 21,759,000 22,294,000 

New Costs: 

System Development and Maintenance ........................................................ 13,845,000 12,665,000 11,427,000 1,485,000 1,627,000 

Training .......................................................................................................... 6,830,000 6,830,000 6,830,000 801,000 972,000 

Hardware ........................................................................................................ 42,613,000 37,982,000 33,188,000 4,453,000 4,725,000 

Total New Costs ..................................................................................... 63,288,000 57,477,000 51,445,000 6,738,000 7,325,000 

Net Cost Savings ............................................................................. 150,088,000 128,135,000 105,142,000 15,021,000 14,969,000 

TABLE E–2—NET COST SAVINGS

[High] 

Section 

Present value 

($) 

Annualized 

($) 

Undiscounted 3% 7% 3% 7% 

Cost Savings: 

Increased Mileage .......................................................................................... 164,554,000 143,527,000 121,514,000 16,826,000 17,301,000 

Unlimited Block Swapping ............................................................................. 164,047,000 142,408,000 119,813,000 16,695,000 17,059,000 

3972 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE E–2—NET COST SAVINGS—Continued 

[High] 

Section 

Present value 

($) 

Annualized 

($) 

Undiscounted 3% 7% 3% 7% 

Waiver Filing .................................................................................................. 133,000 118,000 101,000 14,000 14,000 

Government Waiver Review .......................................................................... 12,000 11,000 10,000 1,000 1,000 

Total Cost Savings ................................................................................. 328,746,000 286,064,000 241,438,000 33,536,000 34,375,000 

New Costs: 

System Development and Maintenance ........................................................ 13,845,000 12,665,000 11,427,000 1,485,000 1,627,000 

Training .......................................................................................................... 5,126,000 5,126,000 5,126,000 601,000 730,000 

Hardware ........................................................................................................ 9,690,000 8,637,000 7,547,000 1,013,000 1,075,000 

Total New Costs ..................................................................................... 28,661,000 26,428,000 24,100,000 3,099,000 3,432,000 

Net Cost Savings ............................................................................. 300,085,000 259,636,000 217,338,000 30,437,000 30,943,000 

In addition to the net cost savings, the 

RIA identifies non-quantified benefits 

that may come from issuing the 

proposed rule. The benefits discussed 

may maximize and expand freight 

capacity, increase equipment 

availability, shorten cycle times, boost 

on-time performance and incentive 

greater accountability of employees who 

perform brake tests. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and 

Executive Order 13272 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and E.O. 13272 (67 

FR 53461, Aug. 16, 2002) require agency 

review of proposed and final rules to 

assess their impacts on small entities. 

An agency must prepare an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

unless it determines and certifies that a 

rule, if promulgated, would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

FRA has not determined whether this 

proposed rule would have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Therefore, 

FRA seeks comment on the potential 

small business impacts of the 

requirements in this NPRM. FRA 

prepared an IRFA, which is included as 

an appendix to the accompanying RIA 

and available in the docket for the 

rulemaking (FRA 2019–0072), to aid the 

public in commenting on the potential 

small business impacts of the 

requirements proposed in this NPRM. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

FRA is submitting the information 

collection requirements in this proposed 

rule to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The sections that 

contain the proposed and current 

information collection requirements and 

the estimated time to fulfill each 

requirement are as follows: 

CFR section 25 Respondent universe Total Annual responses Average time per responses 

Total annual 

burden hours 26

Total cost 

equivalent 27

229.27—Annual tests .......................................... 30,000 locomotives ..... 30,000 records of tests 30 seconds .................. 250 $18,000 

232.3—Applicability—Export, industrial, & other 

cars not owned by railroads—identification.

708 railroads ................ 8 cards ......................... 10 minutes ................... 1 72 

232.7—Waivers ................................................... 708 railroads ................ 2 petitions .................... 160 hours .................... 320 23,040 

232.15—Movement of Defective Equipment— 

Tags/Records.

1,620,000 cars ............. 128,400 tags/records ... 3 minutes ..................... 5,350 385,200 

—Written Notification .......................................... 1,620,000 cars ............. 25,000 notices ............. 3 minutes ..................... 1,250 90,000 

232.17—Special Approval Procedure—Petitions 

for special approval of safety-critical revision.

708 railroads ................ 1 petition ...................... 100 hours .................... 100 7,200 

—Petitions for special approval of pre-revenue 

service acceptance plan.

708 railroads ................ 1 petition ...................... 100 hours .................... 100 7,200 

—(d) Service of petitions .................................... 708 railroads ................ 1 petition ...................... 20 hours ...................... 20 1,440 

—(d)(2)(ii) Statement of interest ......................... Public/railroads ............ 4 statements ................ 15 minutes ................... 1 hour 72 

—(f) Comment .................................................... Public/railroads ............ 6 comments ................. 4 hours ........................ 24 1,728 

232.103(f)(2)—Gen’l requirements—all train 

brake systems—stickers.

1,200,000 cars ............. 70,000 stickers/stencils/badge plates.10 minutes ................... 11,667 840,024 

(n)(7)—RR Plan identifying specific locations or 

circumstances where equipment may be left 

unattended.

708 railroads ................ 1 revised plan .............. 10 hours ...................... 10 720 

—Notification to FRA when RR develops and 

has plan in place or modifies existing plan.

708 railroads ................ 1 notice ........................ 30 minutes ................... 1 hour 72 

—Inspection of Equipment by Qualified Employee after Responder Visit.708 railroads ................ 12 inspections/records 4 hours ........................ 48 3,456 

232.107—Air source requirements and cold 

weather operations—Monitoring Plan (Subsequent Years).

10 new railroads .......... 1 plan ........................... 40 hours ...................... 40 2,880 

—Amendments/Revisions to Plan ...................... 50 railroads/plans ........ 10 revisions ................. 20 hours ...................... 200 14,400 

—Recordkeeping ................................................ 50 railroads/plans ........ 1,150 records .............. 10 minutes ................... 192 13,824 

232.109—Dynamic brake requirements—status/ 

record.

708 railroads ................ 1,656,000 records ....... 4 minutes ..................... 110,400 7,948,800 

—Inoperative dynamic brakes: repair record ...... 30,000 locomotives ..... 6,358 records .............. 4 minutes ..................... 424 30,528 

—Tag bearing words ‘‘inoperative dynamic 

brakes’’.

30,000 locomotives ..... 6,358 tags .................... 30 seconds .................. 53 3,816 

—Deactivated dynamic brakes (Sub. Yrs.) ......... 8,000 locomotives ....... 10 markings ................. 5 minutes ..................... 1 hour 72 

—Operating rules (Subsequent Years) ............... 5 new ........................... 5 rules .......................... 4 hours ........................ 20 1,440 

—Amendments/Revisions ................................... 708 railroads ................ 15 revisions ................. 1 hour .......................... 15 1,080 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3973 

CFR section 25 Respondent universe Total Annual responses Average time per responses 

Total annual 

burden hours 26

Total cost 

equivalent 27

—Requests to increase 5 mph overspeed restriction.708 railroads ................ 5 requests .................... 30 min. + 20 hours ...... 103 7,416 

—Knowledge criteria—locomotive engineers 

–Subsequent Years.

5 new ........................... 5 amendments ............. 16 hours ...................... 80 5,760 

232.111—Train information handling .................. 5 new ........................... 5 procedures ............... 40 hours ...................... 200 14,400 

Sub. Yrs.—Amendments/Revisions .................... 100 railroads ................ 100 revisions ............... 20 hours ...................... 2,000 144,000 

—Report requirements to train crew ................... 708 railroads ................ 2,112,000 reports ........ 5 minutes ..................... 176,000 12,672,000 

232.203—Training requirements—Tr. Prog.— 

Sub Yr..

15 railroads .................. 5 programs .................. 100 hours .................... 500 36,000 

—Amendments to written program ..................... 708 railroads ................ 236 revisions ............... 8 hours ........................ 1,888 135,936 

—Training records .............................................. 708 railroads ................ 24,781 records ............ 8 minutes ..................... 3,304 237,888 

—Training notifications ....................................... 708 railroads ................ 24,781 notices ............. 1 minute ....................... 413 29,736 

—Efficiency test plans ......................................... 708 railroads ................ 708 copies ................... 1 minute ....................... 12 864 

232.205—Initial terminal inspection: Class I 

brake tests and notifications/records (Revised/new burden currently under review with 

OMB).

708 railroads ................ 383,840 notices/ 

records.

45 seconds .................. 4,798 345,456 

(c)(1)(ii)(B)—RR Development/implementation 

of operating rules to ensure compliant operation of train if air flow exceeds stipulated 

section parameters after Class I brake test is 

completed (Revised/new burden currently 

under review with OMB).

708 railroads ................ 10 revised operating 

rules.

8 hours ........................ 80 5,760 

232.207—Class IA brake tests—Designation 

Lists Where Performed.

708 railroads ................ 1 list ............................. 1 hour .......................... 1 hour 72 

Subsequent Years: Notice of Change ................ 708 railroads ................ 250 notices .................. 10 minutes ................... 42 3,024 

232.209—Class II brake tests—intermediate 

‘‘Roll-by inspection –Results to train driver.

708 railroads ................ 159,740 comments ...... 3 seconds .................... 133 9,576 

232.213—Written Designation to FRA of Extended haul trains.83,000 long .................. 250 letters .................... 15 minutes ................... 63 4,536 

—Notification to FRA Associate Administrator 

for Safety of a change in the location where 

an extended haul brake test is performed 

(Revised/new burden currently under review 

with OMB).

7 railroads .................... 250 notices .................. 10 minutes ................... 42 3,024 

232.219—Double heading and helper service: 

Testing/calibration/records of Helper Link devices used by locomotives (formerly under 

232.219(c)(3)) (Revised/new burden currently 

under review with OMB).

2 railroads .................... 100 records ................. 5 minutes ..................... 8 576 

232.221—Inspection and Testing Requirements 

for Cars with Electronic Air Brake Slip System 

(eABS) Records (New requirement).

708 railroads ................ 280,203 records and 

copies.

90 seconds + 30 seconds.9,341 672,552 

232.303—General requirements—single car 

test: Tagging of Moved Equipment.

1,600,000 frgt. ............. 5,600 tags .................... 5 minutes ..................... 467 33,624 

—Last repair track brake test/single car test— 

Stenciled on Side of Equipment.

1,600,000 frgt. ............. 240,000 markings ........ 2 minutes ..................... 8,000 576,000 

232.307—Modification of single car air brake 

test procedures: Requests (includes 

232.409(e)).

railroads/AAR .............. 1 request + 3 copies ... 20 hours + 5 minutes .. 20 1,440 

—Affirmation Statement on Mod. Req. To Employee Representatives.railroads/AAR .............. 1 statement + 4 copies 30 minutes + 5 minutes 1 hour 72 

232.309—Repair track brake test equipment 

and devices used to perform single car air 

brake tests—Periodic calibration of devices.

640 shops .................... 5,000 records of calibrations.2 minutes ..................... 167 12,024 

232.403—Unique Code ...................................... 245 railroads ................ 12 requests .................. 5 minutes ..................... 1 hour 72 

232.409—Inspection/Tests/Records EOTs ......... 245 railroads ................ 447,500 recording of 

tests.

30 seconds .................. 3,729 268,488 

—(d)–(e) Telemetry equipment—Testing/Calibration/Rcds/—Documentations of testing 

(paragraph (d) is a revised requirement; paragraph (e) clarifies the use of § 229.27) (Revised/new burden currently under review with 

OMB).

245 railroads ................ 17,000 records ............ 2 minutes ..................... 567 40,824 

—(f)(2) Annual report to FRA on radios found 

with frequency drift (Revised/new burden currently under review with OMB).

1 manufacturer ............ 1 report ........................ 12 hours ...................... 12 864 

232.503—Process to introduce new brake technology.708 railroads ................ 1 letter ......................... 1 hour .......................... 1 hour 72 

—Special approval .............................................. 708 railroads ................ 1 request ..................... 3 hours ........................ 3 216 

232.505—Pre-revenue service acceptance test 

plan—Submission of maintenance procedure.

708 railroads ................ 1 procedure ................. 160 hours .................... 160 11,520 

—Amendments to maintenance procedure ........ 708 railroads ................ 1 revision ..................... 40 hours ...................... 40 2,880 

—Design description ........................................... 708 railroads ................ 1 petition ...................... 67 hours ...................... 67 4,824 

—Report to FRA Assoc. Admin. for Safety ........ 708 railroads ................ 1 report ........................ 13 hours ...................... 13 936 

—Brake system technology testing .................... 708 railroads ................ 1 description ................ 40 hours ...................... 40 2,880 

232.717(c)—Freight and passenger train car 

brakes—Written maintenance plan (formerly 

under appendix B, recodified subpart H) (Revised burden currently under review with 

OMB).

40 railroads .................. 40 written plans ........... 6 hours ........................ 240 17,280 

3974 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

25Note: The burden resulting from proposed 

§ 232.221(a)(3) is covered under § 232.205. 

Proposed § 232.221(d)(2) reflects a usual and 

customary industry procedure and, consequently, 

would result in no burden. The burden associated 

with § 232.205(c)(1)(iii) is covered under OMB 

Control Number 2130–0004. 26Totals may not add due to rounding. 27The dollar equivalent cost is derived from the 

Surface Transportation Board’s Full Year Wage A&B 

data series using the appropriate employee group 

hourly wage rate that includes 75 percent overhead 

charges. 

CFR section 25 Respondent universe Total Annual responses Average time per responses 

Total annual 

burden hours 26

Total cost 

equivalent 27

Total ............................................................. 708 railroads ................ 5,625,811 responses ... N/A ............................... 343,023 24,697,656 

All estimates include the time for 

reviewing instructions; searching 

existing data sources; gathering or 

maintaining the needed data; and 

reviewing the information. Pursuant to 

44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits 

comments concerning: whether these 

information collection requirements are 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of FRA, including whether 

the information has practical utility; the 

accuracy of FRA’s estimates of the 

burden of the information collection 

requirements; the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and whether the burden of 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology, may be minimized. 

Organizations and individuals 

desiring to submit comments on the 

collection of information requirements 

should direct them to Ms. Hodan Wells, 

Information Collection Clearance 

Officer, at 202–493–0440 or via email at 

Hodan.Wells@dot.gov. 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the collection of information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule between 30 and 60 days after 

publication of this document in the 

Federal Register. Therefore, a comment 

to OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it within 30 days 

of publication. The final rule will 

respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

D. Federalism Implications 

Executive Order (E.O.) 13132, 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 

1999), requires FRA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ are defined in 

E.O. 13132 to include regulations that 

have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ Under E.O. 

13132, the agency may not issue a 

regulation with federalism implications 

that imposes substantial direct 

compliance costs and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

Government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or the agency consults 

with State and local government 

officials early in the process of 

developing the regulation. Where a 

regulation has federalism implications 

and preempts State law, the agency 

seeks to consult with State and local 

officials in the process of developing the 

regulation. FRA has analyzed this 

NPRM in accordance with the 

principles and criteria contained in E.O. 

13132. This NPRM establishes an 

optional alternative to current Federal 

regulation that reduces certain 

obligations of railroads to perform brake 

tests. FRA has determined that this 

proposed rule has no federalism 

implications, other than the possible 

preemption of State laws under 49 

U.S.C. 20106. Therefore, the 

consultation and funding requirements 

of E.O. 13132 do not apply, and 

preparation of a federalism summary 

impact statement for the proposed rule 

is not required. 

E. Environmental Impact 

FRA has evaluated this proposed rule 

in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), FRA’s regulations 

implementing NEPA, and other 

environmental statues, Executive 

Orders, and related regulatory 

requirements. FRA has determined that 

the proposed rule is categorically 

excluded from detailed environmental 

review under 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). 

FRA has also evaluated this rule under 

23 CFR 771.116(b) to determine whether 

the proposed rule would involve 

unusual circumstances including 

significant environmental impacts; 

substantial controversy on 

environmental grounds; significant 

impact on certain Federally protected 

properties; or inconsistencies with any 

Federal, State, or local law, requirement, 

or administrative determination related 

to the environmental aspects of the 

action. FRA has determined that no 

unusual circumstances exist with 

respect to this proposed rule that might 

trigger the need for a more detailed 

environmental review. As a result, FRA 

finds that the proposed rule is not a 

major Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human 

environment. 

F. Energy Impact 

E.O. 13211 requires Federal agencies 

to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects 

for any ‘‘significant energy action.’’ 66 

FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). FRA has 

evaluated this proposed rule in 

accordance with E.O. 13211 and 

determined that this proposed rule is 

not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ within 

the meaning of E.O. 13211. 

E.O. 13783, ‘‘Promoting Energy 

Independence and Economic Growth,’’ 

requires Federal agencies to review 

regulations to determine whether they 

potentially burden the development or 

use of domestically produced energy 

resources, with particular attention to 

oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy 

resources. 82 FR 16093 (March 31, 

2017). FRA determined this proposed 

rule will not potentially burden the 

development or use of domestically 

produced energy resources. 

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Under Section 201 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), each 

Federal agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise 

prohibited by law, assess the effects of 

Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and tribal governments, and the 

private sector (other than to the extent 

that such regulations incorporate 

requirements specifically set forth in 

law).’’ Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1532) 

further requires that before 

promulgating any general notice of 

proposed rulemaking that is likely to 

result in the promulgation of any rule 

that includes any Federal mandate that 

may result in expenditure by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100,000,000 or more (adjusted 

annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and 

before promulgating any final rule for 

which a general notice of proposed 

rulemaking was published, the agency 

shall prepare a written statement 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3975 

detailing the effect on State, local, and 

tribal governments and the private 

sector. This proposed rule would not 

result in the expenditure, in the 

aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

one year, and thus preparation of such 

a statement is not required. 

H. Privacy Act 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), 

DOT solicits comments from the public 

to better inform its rulemaking process. 

DOT posts these comments, without 

edit, to www.regulations.gov, as 

described in the system of records 

notice, DOT/ALL–14 FDMS, accessible 

through www.dot.gov/privacy. In order 

to facilitate comment tracking and 

response, we encourage commenters to 

provide their name, or the name of their 

organization; however, submission of 

names is completely optional. Whether 

or not commenters identify themselves, 

all timely comments will be fully 

considered. If you wish to provide 

comments containing proprietary or 

confidential information, please contact 

the agency for alternate submission 

instructions. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 232 

Power brakes, Railroad safety, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

The Proposed Rule 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, FRA proposes to amend part 

232 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, 

Code of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 232—BRAKE SYSTEM SAFETY 

STANDARDS FOR FREIGHT AND 

OTHER NON-PASSENGER TRAINS 

AND EQUIPMENT; END-OF-TRAIN 

DEVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 232 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20103, 20107, 

20133, 20141, 20301–20303, 20306, 21301– 

21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 

CFR 1.89. 

■ 2. Amend § 232.5 by adding the 

definitions for ‘‘eABS system’’ and 

‘‘Electronic air brake slip’’ or ‘‘eABS’’ in 

alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 232.5 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

eABS system means an electronic 

record keeping system used to track 

individual cars and air brake tests that 

meets the requirements of § 232.221. 

* * * * * 

Electronic air brake slip or eABS 

means the record of inspection, 

contained in an eABS system. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 232.205 by revising the 

introductory texts of paragraphs (a) and 

(b) to read as follows: 

§ 232.205 Class I brake test—initial 

terminal inspection. 

(a) Except as provided in § 232.221, 

each train and each car in the train shall 

receive a Class I brake test as described 

in paragraph (c) of this section by a 

qualified person, as defined in § 232.5, 

at the following points: 

* * * * * 

(b) Except as provided in §§ 232.209 

and 232.221, each car and each solid 

block of cars added to a train shall 

receive a Class I brake test as described 

in paragraph (c) of this section at the 

location where it is added to a train 

unless: 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 232.207 by revising the 

first sentence of paragraph (a) to read as 

follows: 

§ 232.207 Class IA brake tests—1,000-mile 

inspection. 

(a) Except as provided in §§ 232.213 

and 232.221, each train shall receive a 

Class IA brake test performed by a 

qualified person, as defined in § 232.5, 

at a location that is not more than 1,000 

miles from the point where any car in 

the train last received a Class I or Class 

IA brake test. * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 232.209 by revising 

paragraph (a) introductory text to read 

as follows: 

§ 232.209 Class II brake tests— 

intermediate inspection. 

(a) Except as provided in § 232.221, at 

a location other than the initial terminal 

of a train, a Class II brake test shall be 

performed by a qualified person, as 

defined in § 232.5, on the following 

equipment when added to a train: 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Add § 232.221 to subpart C to read 

as follows: 

§ 232.221 Inspection and testing 

requirements for cars with electronic air 

brake slip system (eABS) records. 

(a) A railroad may move a car for a 

cumulative distance not exceeding 

1,000 miles between the brake tests 

described in §§ 232.205 through 232.209 

if the car meets the following 

requirements: 

(1) The mileage since the car’s most 

recent Class I brake test is automatically 

tracked in an eABS system; 

(2) The car is only moved as part of 

a train consisting solely of cars operated 

pursuant to this section; and 

(3) A record is retained in the eABS 

system that includes the following 

information: 

(i) Identification and railroad 

affiliation of the author of the record; 

(ii) A unique identifier exclusively 

associated with the author of the record; 

(iii) The date, time, and location the 

record was created; 

(iv) The reporting mark and car 

number; 

(v) The date, time, and location of the 

most recent Class I brake test; 

(vi) The identification and railroad 

affiliation of the person who conducted 

the most recent Class I brake test, if 

different than the author of the record; 

(vii) Identification of the person who 

conducted the Class I brake test as a 

‘‘qualified person’’, or a ‘‘qualified 

mechanical inspector’’, as defined in 

§ 232.5; 

(viii) An accurate calculation of the 

mileage remaining until the next Class 

I brake test is required; and 

(ix) Information certifying that the car 

has met the requirements of 

§ 232.205(a)(3) (if that cannot be 

determined by the information 

otherwise required by this paragraph) 

and is in compliance with § 232.305(c). 

(b) A railroad may move a car for a 

cumulative distance not exceeding 

2,500 miles between the brake tests 

described in §§ 232.205 through 232.209 

if the car meets the requirements of 

paragraph (a) of this section and the 

following requirements: 

(1) A designated inspector as defined 

in § 215.11 of this chapter inspects the 

car in accordance with § 215.13 of this 

chapter at the location at which the car 

is first authorized to move under this 

paragraph; and 

(2) The Class I brake test that is the 

basis for the permitted mileage is 

performed by a qualified mechanical 

inspector as defined in § 232.5. 

(c) A car that does not have a record 

meeting the requirements of paragraph 

(a)(3) of this section prior to a train 

movement may otherwise be operated 

under this section if the following 

requirements are met: 

(1) The car meets the requirements of 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section and, if 

applicable, paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of 

this section; and 

(2) A record meeting the requirements 

of paragraph (a)(3) of this section is 

entered into the eABS system as soon as 

practicable after departure of the car in 

a train, but no later than the time at 

which the car departs in any subsequent 

train. 

(d) A train meeting the following 

requirements may be operated under 

this section for a cumulative distance 

not exceeding the mileage permitted for 

3976 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

the most restrictive car in the train 

between the brake tests described in 

§§ 232.205 through 232.207: 

(1) A written or electronic record is 

maintained in the cab of the controlling 

locomotive that includes the following 

information for each car: 

(i) Its location in the train; 

(ii) The reporting mark and car 

number; 

(iii) The date, time, and location of its 

most recent Class I or IA brake test; 

(iv) The identification and 

qualification of the person who 

performed the test (qualified person or 

qualified mechanical inspector, as 

defined in § 232.5); and 

(v) An accurate calculation of the 

mileage remaining under paragraph (a) 

or (b) of this section, as applicable; 

(2) The copy of this cab record must 

be updated at each location to reflect 

changes in the train consist; and 

(3) In the event of disruption of 

communication with the eABS system, 

a train is permitted to move based upon 

the mileage permitted to the most 

restrictive car as reported in the cab 

record. 

(e) Notwithstanding §§ 232.205 

through 232.209, a Class I, Class IA, or 

Class II brake test is not required to be 

performed at the following locations for 

a train consisting solely of cars operated 

under this section: 

(1) A location where one or more cars 

are removed from any location in the 

train; 

(2) A location where any car meeting 

the requirements of paragraph (a) or (b) 

of this section is added to a train; or 

(3) A location where the motive 

power for the train consist is changed. 

(f) The eABS system must maintain 

the integrity and availability of records, 

including but not limited to: 

(1) Recognition of a unique identifier 

associated with each person that authors 

records in the eABS system, with 

provisions to ensure that records 

containing such identifier accurately 

reflect that the individual associated 

with the identifier authored the record; 

(2) Implementation of means to 

ensure that stored records contain all 

information required in paragraph (a)(3) 

of this section; 

(3) Implementation of means to 

ensure that each record containing the 

statements described in paragraph (a)(3) 

of this section identifies as a qualified 

mechanical inspector any person 

performing a Class I brake test who 

meets the criteria for a qualified 

mechanical inspector, as defined in 

§ 232.5; 

(4) Accessibility for FRA review and 

monitoring at any time. Records in the 

eABS system must be made 

immediately available upon request to 

FRA and State inspectors under part 212 

of this chapter for inspection and 

copying for no less than 30 days after 

entry or last amendment; and 

(5) Procedures to minimize the effect 

of breakdown or malfunction, including 

redundant storage of records, and means 

to communicate and record the 

information required by paragraph (a)(3) 

of this section when access to the eABS 

system is unavailable. 

(g) Records in the eABS system may 

only be modified for the following 

purposes: 

(1) Correction of records, provided the 

eABS system stores amended records 

separately from the original records and 

the amended record clearly identifies 

the information being amended; and 

(2) To update the calculation of 

mileage remaining until the next Class 

I brake test is required. 

(h) An accurate calculation of the 

mileage remaining under paragraph (a) 

or (b) of this section must, at minimum: 

(1) Be based upon the number of 

miles the car has traveled as part of a 

train; 

(2) Be updated for the car as soon as 

practicable after departure of the car in 

a train, but no later than the time at 

which the car departs in any subsequent 

train; and 

(3) Be inclusive of any excess mileage 

accumulated between brake tests. Such 

excess mileage shall be reported as a 

negative number. 

(i) The eABS system must retain 

records for a minimum of one year from 

the records’ creation. 

(j) FRA’s Associate Administrator for 

Railroad Safety may revoke a railroad’s 

authority to utilize the provisions of this 

section, in whole or in part, if: 

(i) FRA finds that the railroad’s eABS 

system or the records contained in the 

railroad’s eABS system are not properly 

secure, are inaccessible to FRA or the 

railroad’s employees, or fail to 

adequately track and monitor the 

movement of equipment operating 

pursuant to this section; or 

(ii) The railroad demonstrates a record 

of repeated or willful noncompliance 

with the provisions of this part or parts 

215 and 229 of this chapter. 

(2) Revocation may be limited to 

specific locations, equipment, 

environmental conditions, train routes, 

employees, or eABS systems. 

(3) FRA will record such a 

determination in writing, state the basis 

for such action, establish conditions of 

revocation, including a specific period 

of suspension or conditions for the 

restoration of the authority to utilize the 

provisions of this section, and provide 

a copy of the document to the railroad. 

Issued in Washington, DC. 

Quintin C. Kendall, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28870 Filed 1–14–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2019–0056; 

FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 201] 

RIN 1018–BD65 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Reclassifying Furbish’s 

Lousewort (Pedicularis furbishiae) 

From Endangered to Threatened 

Status With a Section 4(d) Rule 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

reclassify (downlist) Furbish’s 

lousewort (Pedicularis furbishiae) from 

an endangered species to a threatened 

species under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act), and we 

propose a rule under section 4(d) of the 

Act to promote the conservation of 

Furbish’s lousewort. This information is 

based on a thorough review of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, which indicates the threats 

to the species have been reduced to the 

point that the species no longer meets 

the definition of an endangered species 

under the Act. We request information 

and comments from the public on this 

proposal. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

March 16, 2021. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 

below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on the closing date. We 

must receive requests for a public 

hearing, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by March 1, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R5–ES–2019–0056, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

Then, click on the Search button. On the 

resulting page, in the Search panel on 

the left side of the screen, under the 

Document Type heading, click on the 

Proposed Rule box to locate this