50276 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Parts 223 and 238 

[Docket No. FRA–2006–25273, Notice No. 

1] 

RIN 2130–AB72 

Passenger Train Emergency Systems 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This NPRM is intended to 

further the safety of passenger train 

occupants through both enhancements 

and additions to FRA’s existing 

requirements for emergency systems on 

passenger trains. In this NPRM, FRA 

proposes to enhance existing 

requirements for emergency window 

exits and to establish requirements for 

rescue access windows to evacuate 

passenger train occupants. FRA also 

proposes to enhance passenger train 

emergency system requirements by 

expanding the application of 

requirements that are currently 

applicable only to passenger trains 

operating at speeds in excess of 125 

mph (Tier II passenger trains) to 

passenger trains operating at speeds at 

or below 125 mph (Tier I passenger 

trains); these proposed enhancements 

would require that Tier I passenger 

trains be equipped with public address 

and intercom systems for emergency 

communication and that passenger cars 

provide emergency roof access for use 

by emergency responders. FRA is 

proposing to apply certain of the 

requirements to both existing and new 

passenger equipment, while other 

requirements would apply to new 

passenger equipment only. 

DATES: (1) Written comments must be 

received by October 23, 2006. 

Comments received after that date will 

be considered to the extent possible 

without incurring additional expense or 

delay. 

(2) FRA anticipates being able to 

resolve this rulemaking without a 

public, oral hearing. However, if FRA 

receives a specific request for a public, 

oral hearing prior to September 25, 

2006, one will be scheduled and FRA 

will publish a supplemental notice in 

the Federal Register to inform 

interested parties of the date, time, and 

location of any such hearing. 

ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments 

related to Docket No. FRA–2006–25273 

may be submitted by any of the 

following methods: 

• Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments on the DOT electronic docket 

site. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number or Regulatory Identification 

Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Note 

that all comments received will be 

posted without change to http:// 

dms.dot.gov including 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 http:// 

dms.dot.gov at any time or to PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

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

through Friday, except Federal 

Holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brenda J. Moscoso, Office of Safety, 

Operations Research Analyst, RRS–23, 

Mail Stop 25, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 

202–493–6282); Daniel L. Alpert, Trial 

Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, Mail 

Stop 10, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 

202–493–6026); or Anna Nassif Winkle, 

Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, 

Mail Stop 10, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 

202–493–6166). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Supplementary 

Information 

I. Statutory Background 

II. Proceedings to Date 

A. Railroad Safety Advisory Committee 

(RSAC) Overview 

B. Establishment of the Passenger Safety 

Working Group 

C. Establishment of the Emergency 

Preparedness Task Force 

D. Development of the NPRM 

III. Technical Background 

A. Change in Passenger Car Fleet 

Composition 

B. NTSB Safety Recommendation on 

Windows 

C. Need for Emergency Communication 

Systems 

D. Window Technology 

E. APTA’s Standard for Emergency 

Evacuation Units 

IV. General Overview of Proposed 

Requirements 

A. Emergency Window Exits and Rescue 

Access Windows 

B. Emergency Communications—Public 

Address and Intercom Systems 

C. Emergency Roof Access 

D. Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance 

V. Section-by-Section Analysis 

VI. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 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. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 

G. Energy Impact 

H. Privacy Act 

List of Subjects 

I. Statutory Background 

In September of 1994, the Secretary of 

Transportation convened a meeting of 

representatives from all sectors of the 

rail industry with the goal of enhancing 

rail safety. As one of the initiatives 

arising from this Rail Safety Summit, 

the Secretary announced that DOT 

would begin developing safety 

standards for rail passenger equipment 

over a 5-year period. In November of 

1994, Congress adopted the Secretary’s 

schedule for implementing rail 

passenger equipment safety regulations 

and included it in the Federal Railroad 

Safety Authorization Act of 1994 (the 

Act), Public Law No. 103–440, 108 Stat. 

4619, 4623–4624 (November 2, 1994). 

Congress also authorized the Secretary 

to consult with various organizations 

involved in passenger train operations 

for purposes of prescribing and 

amending these regulations, as well as 

issuing orders pursuant to them. Section 

215 of the Act is codified at 49 U.S.C. 

20133. 

II. Proceedings to Date 

The Secretary of Transportation 

delegated these rulemaking 

responsibilities to the Federal Railroad 

Administrator, see 49 CFR 1.49(m), and 

FRA formed the Passenger Equipment 

Safety Standards Working Group to 

provide FRA advice in developing the 

regulations. On June 17, 1996, FRA 

published an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) 

concerning the establishment of 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 50277 

comprehensive safety standards for 

railroad passenger equipment. See 61 

FR 30672. The ANPRM provided 

background information on the need for 

such standards, offered preliminary 

ideas on approaching passenger safety 

issues, and presented questions on 

various passenger safety topics. 

Following consideration of comments 

received on the ANPRM and advice 

from FRA’s Passenger Equipment Safety 

Standards Working Group, FRA 

published an NPRM on September 23, 

1997, to establish comprehensive safety 

standards for railroad passenger 

equipment. See 62 FR 49728. In 

addition to requesting written comment 

on the NPRM, FRA also solicited oral 

comment at a public hearing held on 

November 21, 1997. FRA considered the 

comments received on the NPRM and 

prepared a final rule establishing 

comprehensive safety standards for 

passenger equipment, which was 

published on May 12, 1999. See 64 FR 

25540. 

After publication of the final rule, 

interested parties filed petitions seeking 

FRA’s reconsideration of certain 

requirements contained in the rule. 

These petitions generally related to the 

following subject areas: structural 

design; fire safety; training; inspection, 

testing, and maintenance; and 

movement of defective equipment. To 

address the petitions, FRA grouped 

issues together and published in the 

Federal Register three sets of 

amendments to the final rule. Each set 

of amendments summarized the petition 

requests at issue, explained what action, 

if any, FRA decided to take in response 

to the issues raised, and described 

FRA’s justifications for its decisions and 

any action taken. Specifically, on July 3, 

2000, FRA issued a response to the 

petitions for reconsideration relating to 

the inspection, testing, and maintenance 

of passenger equipment, the movement 

of defective passenger equipment, and 

other miscellaneous provisions related 

to mechanical issues contained in the 

final rule. See 65 FR 41284. On April 

23, 2002, FRA responded to all 

remaining issues raised in the petitions 

for reconsideration, with the exception 

of those relating to fire safety. See 67 FR 

19970. Finally, on June 25, 2002, FRA 

completed its response to the petitions 

for reconsideration by publishing a 

response to the petitions for 

reconsideration concerning the fire 

safety portion of the rule. See 67 FR 

42892. (For more detailed information 

on the petitions for reconsideration and 

FRA’s response to them, please see 

these three rulemaking documents.) The 

product of this rulemaking was codified 

primarily at 49 CFR part 238 and 

secondarily at 49 CFR parts 216, 223, 

229, 231, and 232. 

Meanwhile, another rulemaking on 

passenger train emergency preparedness 

produced a final rule codified at 49 CFR 

part 239. See 63 FR 24629; May 4, 1998. 

The rule addresses passenger train 

emergencies of various kinds, including 

security situations, and requires the 

preparation, adoption, and 

implementation of emergency 

preparedness plans by railroads 

connected with the operation of 

passenger trains. The emergency 

preparedness plans must include 

elements such as communication, 

employee training and qualification, 

joint operations, tunnel safety, liaison 

with emergency responders, on-board 

emergency equipment, and passenger 

safety information. The rule requires 

each affected railroad to instruct its 

employees on the applicable provisions 

of its plan, and the plan adopted by 

each railroad is subject to formal review 

and approval by FRA. The rule also 

requires each railroad operating 

passenger train service to conduct 

emergency simulations to determine its 

capability to execute the emergency 

preparedness plan under the variety of 

emergency scenarios that could 

reasonably be expected to occur. In 

addition, among the rule’s other 

requirements, the rule provides that (i) 

all emergency window exits and all 

windows intended for rescue access by 

emergency responders be marked and 

that instructions be provided for their 

use (see 49 CFR 223.9(d)); and (ii) all 

door exits intended for egress be lighted 

or marked, all door exits intended for 

rescue access by emergency responders 

be marked, and that instructions be 

provided for the use of both (see 49 CFR 

239.107(a)). 

Although FRA had completed these 

rulemakings, FRA had identified 

various issues for possible future 

rulemaking, including those to be 

addressed following the completion of 

additional research, the gathering of 

additional operating experience, or the 

development of industry standards, or 

all three. One such issue concerned 

expanding the application of emergency 

system requirements applicable to Tier 

II passenger equipment to Tier I 

passenger equipment as well. FRA and 

interested industry members also began 

identifying other issues related to the 

new passenger equipment safety 

standards and the passenger train 

emergency preparedness regulations. 

FRA decided to address these issues 

with the assistance of FRA’s Railroad 

Safety Advisory Committee. 

A. Railroad Safety Advisory Committee 

(RSAC) Overview 

In March 1996, FRA established 

RSAC, which provides a forum for 

developing consensus recommendations 

to FRA’s Administrator on rulemakings 

and other safety program issues. The 

Committee includes representation from 

all of the agency’s major customer 

groups, including railroads, labor 

organizations, suppliers and 

manufacturers, and other interested 

parties. A list of member groups follows: 

American Association of Private 

Railroad Car Owners (AARPCO); 

American Association of State Highway 

& Transportation Officials (AASHTO); 

American Public Transportation 

Association (APTA); 

American Short Line and Regional 

Railroad Association (ASLRRA); 

American Train Dispatchers Association 

(ATDA); 

Association of American Railroads 

(AAR); 

Association of Railway Museums 

(ARM); 

Association of State Rail Safety 

Managers (ASRSM); 

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers 

and Trainmen (BLET); 

Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way 

Employees Division (BMWED); 

Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen 

(BRS); 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA)*; 

High Speed Ground Transportation 

Association (HSGTA); 

International Association of Machinists 

and Aerospace Workers; 

International Brotherhood of Electrical 

Workers (IBEW); 

Labor Council for Latin American 

Advancement (LCLAA)*; 

League of Railway Industry Women*; 

National Association of Railroad 

Passengers (NARP); 

National Association of Railway 

Business Women*; 

National Conference of Firemen & 

Oilers; 

National Railroad Construction and 

Maintenance Association; 

National Railroad Passenger Corporation 

(Amtrak); 

National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB)*; 

Railway Supply Institute (RSI); 

Safe Travel America (STA); 

Secretaria de Comunicaciones y 

Transporte*; 

Sheet Metal Workers International 

Association (SMWIA); 

Tourist Railway Association Inc.; 

Transport Canada*; 

Transport Workers Union of America 

(TWU); 

Transportation Communications 

International Union/BRC (TCIU/BRC); 

and 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
50278 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

United Transportation Union (UTU). 

*Indicates associate, non-voting membership. 

When appropriate, FRA assigns a task 

to RSAC, and after consideration and 

debate, RSAC may accept or reject the 

task. If the task is accepted, RSAC 

establishes a working group that 

possesses the appropriate expertise and 

representation of interests to develop 

recommendations to FRA for action on 

the task. These recommendations are 

developed by consensus. A working 

group may establish one or more task 

forces to develop facts and options on 

a particular aspect of a given task. The 

task force then provides that 

information to the working group for 

consideration. If a working group comes 

to unanimous consensus on 

recommendations for action, the 

package is presented to the full RSAC 

for a vote. If the proposal is accepted by 

a simple majority of RSAC, the proposal 

is formally recommended to FRA. FRA 

then determines what action to take on 

the recommendation. Because FRA staff 

play an active role at the working group 

level in discussing the issues and 

options and in drafting the language of 

the consensus proposal, FRA is often 

favorably inclined toward the RSAC 

recommendation. However, FRA is in 

no way bound to follow the 

recommendation, and the agency 

exercises its independent judgment on 

whether the recommended rule achieves 

the agency’s regulatory goal, is soundly 

supported, and is in accordance with 

policy and legal requirements. Often, 

FRA varies in some respects from the 

RSAC recommendation in developing 

the actual regulatory proposal or final 

rule. Any such variations would be 

noted and explained in the rulemaking 

document issued by FRA. If the working 

group or RSAC is unable to reach 

consensus on recommendations for 

action, FRA moves ahead to resolve the 

issue through traditional rulemaking 

proceedings. 

B. Establishment of the Passenger Safety 

Working Group 

On May 20, 2003, FRA presented, and 

RSAC accepted, the task of reviewing 

existing passenger equipment safety 

needs and programs and recommending 

consideration of specific actions that 

could be useful in advancing the safety 

of rail passenger service. The RSAC 

established the Passenger Safety 

Working Group (Working Group) to 

handle this task and develop 

recommendations for the full RSAC to 

consider. Members of the Working 

Group, in addition to FRA, include the 

following: 

• AAR, including members from 

BNSF Railway Company (BNSF), CSX 

Transportation, Incorporated (CSX), and 

Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP); 

• AAPRCO; 

• AASHTO; 

• Amtrak; 

• APTA, including members from 

Long Island Rail Road (LIRR), MetroNorth Railroad (MNR), Northeast 

Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad 

Corporation (Metra), Southeastern 

Pennsylvania Transportation Authority 

(SEPTA), Southern California Regional 

Rail Authority (Metrolink), Saint Gobian 

Sully NA, LDK Engineering, and Herzog 

Transit Services, Incorporated; 

• BLET; 

• BRS; 

• FTA; 

• HSGTA; 

• IBEW; 

• NARP; 

• RSI; 

• SMWIA; 

• STA; 

• TCIU/BRC; 

• TWU; and 

• UTU. 

Staff from DOT’s John A. Volpe 

National Transportation Systems Center 

(Volpe Center) attended all of the 

meetings and contributed to the 

technical discussions. In addition, staff 

from the NTSB met with the Working 

Group when possible. The Working 

Group met on the following dates at the 

following locations: 

• September 9–10, 2003, in 

Washington, DC; 

• November 6, 2003, in Philadelphia, 

PA; 

• May 11, 2004, in Schaumburg, IL; 

• October 26–27, 2004 in Linthicum/ 

Baltimore, MD; 

• March 9–10, 2005, in Ft. 

Lauderdale, FL; and 

• September 7, 2005 in Chicago, IL. 

At the meetings in Ft. Lauderdale and 

Chicago, FRA met with representatives 

of Tri-County Commuter Rail and Metra, 

respectively, and toured their passenger 

equipment. The visits, which included 

demonstrations of emergency system 

features, were open to all members of 

the Working Group, and FRA believes 

they have added to the collective 

understanding of the Group in 

identifying and addressing passenger 

train emergency system issues. 

C. Establishment of the Emergency 

Preparedness Task Force 

Due to the variety of issues involved, 

at its November 2003 meeting the 

Working Group established four smaller 

task forces, with specific expertise, to 

develop recommendations on those 

issues within each group’s particular 

area of expertise. Members of the task 

forces include various representatives 

from the respective organizations that 

were part of the larger Working Group. 

One of these task forces was assigned 

the job of identifying and developing 

issues and recommendations 

specifically related to the inspection, 

testing, and operation of passenger 

equipment as well as concerns related to 

the attachment of safety appliances on 

passenger equipment, and helped to 

develop an NPRM on these topics that 

was published on December 8, 2005. 

See 70 FR 73069. Another of these task 

forces, the Emergency Preparedness 

Task Force (Task Force), was 

established to identify issues and 

develop recommendations related to 

emergency systems, procedures, and 

equipment. Specifically, the Task Force 

was charged with evaluating APTA’s 

standards for emergency systems for 

their incorporation by reference as 

Federal standards and requirements. 

These APTA standards are aimed at 

promoting the ability of passenger car 

occupants to reach, identify, and 

operate emergency exits under various 

conditions. The Task Force was also 

given the responsibility of addressing a 

number of other emergency system 

issues and to recommend any research 

necessary to facilitate their resolution. 

Members of the Task Force, in addition 

to FRA, include the following: 

• Amtrak; 

• APTA, including members from 

Bombardier, Ellcon National, Interfleet, 

Jacobs Civil Engineering, Jessup 

Manufacturing Company, Kawasaki Rail 

Car, Inc., LDK Engineering, LIRR, LTK, 

Luminator, Maryland Transit 

Administration, Massachusetts Bay 

Commuter Rail Corporation (MBCR), 

Metrolink, MNR, Northern Indiana 

Commuter Transit District (NICTD), 

SEPTA, San Diego Northern Commuter 

Railroad (Coaster), Permalight, PO’s 

Ability USA, Inc, Prolink, Transit 

Design Group (TDG), Transit Safety 

Management (TSM), Translite, and STV 

Inc.; 

• BLET; 

• California Department of 

Transportation (Caltrans); 

• NARP; 

• RSI, including Globe Transportation 

Graphics; and 

• UTU. 

While not voting members of the Task 

Force, representatives from the NTSB 

and from the Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) of the U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) attended certain of the meetings 

and contributed to the discussions of 

the Task Force. In addition, staff from 

the Volpe Center attended all of the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 50279 

meetings and contributed to the 

technical discussions through their 

comments and presentations and by 

setting up various lighting, marking, and 

signage demonstrations. 

The Task Force met on the following 

dates at the following locations: 

• February 25–26, 2004, in Los 

Angeles, CA; 

• April 14–15, 2004, in Cambridge, 

MA; 

• July 7–8, 2004, in Washington, DC; 

• September 13–14, 2004, in New 

York, NY; 

• December 1–2, 2004, in San Diego, 

CA; 

• February 16–17, 2005, in 

Philadelphia, PA; 

• April 19–20, 2005, in Cambridge, 

MA; 

• August 2–3, 2005, in Cambridge, 

MA; and 

• December 13–14, 2005, in 

Baltimore, MD. 

At the meetings in Los Angeles, 

Cambridge, Washington, New York, San 

Diego, and Philadelphia, FRA met with 

representatives of Metrolink, MBCR, 

Amtrak, LIRR, Coaster, and SEPTA, 

respectively, and toured their passenger 

equipment. The visits were open to all 

members of the Task Force and 

included demonstration of emergency 

system features. As in the case of the 

Working Group visits, FRA believes 

they have added to the collective 

understanding of the Task Force in 

identifying and addressing passenger 

train emergency system issues. 

D. Development of the NPRM 

This NPRM was developed to address 

a number of the concerns raised and 

issues discussed during the various 

Task Force and Working Group 

meetings. Minutes of each of these 

meetings have been made part of the 

docket in this proceeding and are 

available for public inspection. The 

Working Group reached full consensus 

on all the regulatory provisions 

contained in this proposal at its 

meetings in March and September 2005. 

After the March 2005 meeting, the 

Working Group presented its 

recommendations to the full RSAC for 

concurrence at its meeting in May 2005. 

All of the members of the full RSAC in 

attendance at its May 2005 meeting 

accepted the regulatory 

recommendations submitted by the 

Working Group. Thus, the Working 

Group’s recommendations became the 

full RSAC’s recommendations to FRA in 

this matter. In October 2005, the full 

RSAC also recommended that FRA 

adopt a further recommendation from 

the Working Group at its September 

2005 meeting: That FRA grant 

additional time for compliance with the 

proposal on rescue access windows. 

After reviewing the full RSAC’s 

recommendations, FRA agreed that the 

recommendations provided a sound 

basis for a proposed rule and adopted 

the recommendations with generally 

minor changes for purposes of clarity 

and formatting in the Federal Register. 

This NPRM is the product of FRA’s 

review, consideration, and acceptance 

of the recommendations of the Task 

Force, Working Group, and full RSAC. 

Throughout the preamble discussion of 

this proposal, FRA refers to comments, 

views, suggestions, or recommendations 

made by members of the Task Force, 

Working Group, and full RSAC, as they 

are identified or contained in the 

minutes of their meetings. FRA does so 

to show the origin of certain issues and 

the nature of discussions concerning 

those issues at the Task Force, Working 

Group, and full RSAC level. FRA 

believes this serves to illuminate factors 

it has weighed in making its regulatory 

decisions, as well as the logic behind 

those decisions. The reader should keep 

in mind, of course, that only the full 

RSAC makes recommendations to FRA, 

and it is the consensus recommendation 

of the full RSAC on which FRA is 

acting. However, as noted above, FRA is 

in no way bound to follow the 

recommendation, and the agency 

exercises its independent judgment on 

whether the recommended rule achieves 

the agency’s regulatory goal, is soundly 

supported, and is in accordance with 

policy and legal requirements. 

III. Technical Background 

Trends in new passenger car orders, 

recent experience with train accidents, 

concern about emergency 

communication, and technological 

advances in emergency systems 

provided the main impetus for these 

proposed enhancements and additions 

to FRA’s standards for passenger train 

emergency systems, as highlighted 

below. 

A. Change in Passenger Car Fleet 

Composition 

While FRA was developing 

regulations on Passenger Equipment 

Safety Standards and Passenger Train 

Emergency Preparedness in the 1990s, 

the operation of multi-level passenger 

cars having two seating levels for 

passengers (i.e., bi-level cars) was 

common. However, the operation of 

multi-level passengers cars having three 

seating levels for passengers (i.e., cars 

with intermediate (or mezzanine) 

seating levels) was not as prevalent in 

the U.S. as it is today. As a result, in 

those rulemakings there was less focus 

on the need for applying emergency 

system safety standards to intermediate 

seating levels of multi-level passenger 

cars. 

Since that time, the composition of 

the Nation’s commuter rail fleet has 

changed. Multi-level passenger cars 

with passenger seating in intermediate 

levels have become more prevalent and 

now account for over 15 percent of all 

passenger cars. The intermediate seating 

levels in these multi-level passenger 

cars are normally located at the far ends 

of the cars and are connected to the 

upper and lower seating levels by stairs. 

Exterior side doors are also normally 

located toward the ends of these cars to 

facilitate boarding and de-boarding. 

Given the constraint posed by station 

platform lengths and the desire to 

minimize station dwell time, railroads 

have turned to multi-level passenger 

cars with intermediate seating levels to 

meet much of the increased demand for 

service, to the extent vertical clearances 

permit their operation. 

In light of the growing use of multilevel passenger cars with intermediate 

seating levels, this NPRM addresses the 

need to provide more explicit 

emergency system safety standards for 

these passenger cars. 

B. NTSB Safety Recommendation on 

Windows 

On April 23, 2002, a BNSF freight 

train collided head on with a standing 

Metrolink passenger train near 

Placentia, CA, resulting in two fatalities 

and numerous injuries on the Metrolink 

train. Though not a contributing factor 

to the fatalities or injuries, the force of 

the collision blocked the rear end door 

and also blocked the rear stairway 

linking the upper and lower seating 

levels to the seating area on the 

intermediate level at the rear of the 

Metrolink cab car. Although passengers 

in that intermediate level seating area 

did exit through an emergency window, 

no windows on the intermediate level 

had been designated for rescue access, 

and consequently no instructions for 

emergency responders to gain access to 

the intermediate level through a 

window had been posted. Concerned 

with the extent of Federal requirements 

relating to rescuing passengers from the 

intermediate level of a multi-level 

passenger car, the NTSB issued Safety 

Recommendation R–03–21 to FRA on 

November 6, 2003. Safety 

Recommendation R–03–21 provides in 

full as follows: 

Revise the language of 49 Code of Federal 

Regulations 238.113(a)(1) to reflect that 

appropriate exterior instructional signage 

describing the emergency removal procedure 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
50280 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

be required at emergency windows on all 

levels of a multiple-level passenger railcar. 

In a February 20, 2004 letter to the 

NTSB, FRA noted that its existing 

regulations do require that windows 

intended for emergency responder 

access on every level of a multi-level 

passenger car be clearly marked and that 

clear and understandable instructions 

for their removal be posted at or near 

the windows on the car’s exterior. See 

49 CFR 223.9(d)(2). FRA also sent a 

letter to passenger railroads to make this 

clear in the event there was any 

confusion about these requirements. 

Nevertheless, the NTSB’s 

recommendation highlighted the fact 

that several related concerns were not 

specifically addressed in FRA’s 

regulations. One of these concerns was 

specifying minimum numbers and 

locations of windows intended for 

emergency responder access to 

passenger cars, as 49 CFR 223.9(d)(2) 

addresses only marking and instruction 

requirements and does not provide any 

express requirement that any such 

rescue access windows exist. A second 

prominent issue concerned specifying 

minimum numbers and locations of 

emergency window exits on any level of 

a multi-level passenger car—not just 

main levels, as provided in 49 CFR 

238.113(a)(1). 

FRA informed the NTSB that it was 

reviewing and considering the necessity 

of making amendments to its safety 

standards for passenger trains through 

the RSAC process and that these and 

other passenger safety issues would be 

presented to the Working Group and the 

Task Force for their consideration. 

Therefore, FRA asked that the NTSB 

classify Safety Recommendation R–03–

21 as ‘‘Open—Acceptable Response,’’

pending the results of this effort. (The 

NTSB classification ‘‘Open—Acceptable 

Response’’ means a ‘‘[r]esponse by 

recipient indicates a planned action that 

would comply with the safety 

recommendation when completed.’’) By 

letter dated June 2, 2004, the NTSB 

formally classified the recommendation 

as FRA requested. 

The Task Force reviewed the NTSB’s 

recommendation and the related issues 

FRA presented to it and agreed to 

address emergency window exits and 

rescue access windows on a broad basis, 

with the goal that windows for 

emergency egress and rescue access 

would be available on every level of a 

passenger car in the event that a 

stairway or interior door is 

compromised and access to the primary 

means of exit (doors) is blocked. To this 

end, the Task Force agreed to develop 

requirements for emergency window 

exits on non-main levels of multi-level 

passenger cars, and rescue access 

windows on all levels of these cars, thus 

addressing requirements for every 

seating level of a passenger car. 

C. Need for Emergency Communication 

Systems 

Traditionally, conductors and 

assistant conductors have been relied 

upon to relay information to passengers 

in both normal and emergency 

situations through face-to-face 

communication or by use of the PA 

system. However, with smaller crew 

sizes, passengers may not be able to 

communicate to the crew a medical 

emergency, report a fire on board the 

train, or provide notification of other 

safety issues as quickly as may be 

necessary. For instance, a passenger in 

the last car of a train needing to report 

an emergency situation could 

potentially have to walk the entire 

length of the train to communicate with 

the conductor (assuming the crew is 

composed of an engineer and only one 

conductor). Further, if the conductor 

became incapacitated, passengers would 

need to communicate directly with the 

engineer. 

FRA also notes that the NTSB 

accident investigation report of the 

February 9, 1996 collision near 

Secaucus, NJ, that involved two New 

Jersey Transit Rail Operations (NJTR) 

trains and resulted in three fatalities and 

numerous injuries, touches on the 

importance of emergency 

communications to prevent panic and 

further injuries. According to the NTSB 

report of the accident investigation, 

[a]lthough the train crews said that they 

went from car to car instructing passengers 

to remain seated, passengers said that they 

were not told about the severity of the 

situation and were concerned about a 

possible fire or being struck by an oncoming 

train. They therefore left the train and 

wandered around the tracks waiting for 

guidance, potentially posing a greater hazard 

because of the leaking fuel from train 1107. 

No crewmember used the public address 

system to communicate with passengers. By 

using the public address system, all 

passengers would have received the same 

message in less time than it would have 

taken the NJT employees to walk from car to 

car. 

The report also stated that 

[i]nformation about the possibility of a fire 

or a collision with an oncoming train could 

have been provided to passengers over the 

public address system to address their 

concerns and prevent them from leaving the 

train. The Safety Board concludes that the 

lack of public announcements addressing the 

passengers’ concerns caused them to act 

independently, evacuate the train, and 

wander along the tracks, thus potentially 

contributing to the dangerous conditions at 

the collision site. NTSB/RAR–97/01, at p. 27. 

In 1998, APTA recognized the 

importance of emergency 

communications when it issued APTA 

SS–PS–001–98, ‘‘Standard for Passenger 

Railroad Emergency Communications,’’

noting that the establishment and 

execution of communications among 

train crews, operations control 

personnel and train passengers are of 

the utmost importance under normal 

circumstances. According to the APTA 

standard, during emergency situations 

such communications take on added 

importance in the task of assuring the 

safety of all involved. 

While the Passenger Equipment 

Safety Standards issued in 1999 by FRA 

contain requirements for two-way 

emergency communication systems for 

Tier II passenger equipment (trains 

operating at speeds exceeding 125 mph, 

but not exceeding 150 mph), there are 

no requirements that Tier I passenger 

cars be equipped with any emergency 

communication system. In that 

rulemaking, concern had been raised 

about the practicality of applying such 

requirements to Tier I passenger 

equipment because of the 

interoperability of such equipment and 

the possible incompatibility of 

communications equipment in a Tier I 

passenger train. See 64 FR 25540, 

25641; May 12, 1999. Nevertheless, 

today most existing passenger cars are 

equipped with PA systems, and 

intercom systems are common in new 

passenger cars. 

FRA notes that, while there are many 

possible ways for an emergency 

situation to arise on a passenger train, 

an emergency system may be useful in 

many situations, regardless of the origin 

of the emergency. In this regard, 

emergency communication systems 

provide the added benefit of conveying 

information about security threats and 

handling security concerns. According 

to TSA, terrorists have considered 

attacks on subways and trains in the 

U.S., and TSA has found that passenger 

railroads and subways in the U.S. are 

particularly high-consequence targets in 

terms of potential loss of life and 

economic disruption. DHS, including 

TSA, as well as DOT’s FRA and FTA 

have been actively engaged in 

responding to the threat of terrorism to 

our Nation’s rail system, and the 

initiatives that have been undertaken to 

do so are too numerous to detail in this 

NPRM. Consistent with this response, 

the ability of passengers to timely report 

suspicious items and suspicious activity 

onboard passenger trains to appropriate 

personnel increases the likelihood of 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 50281 

detecting a terrorist attack and thwarting 

it, or at least disrupting it and 

minimizing its consequences. This 

would also be facilitated by the ability 

of the train crew to timely communicate 

emergency information and instructions 

to passengers in response to a security 

threat. 

FRA also notes that emergency system 

requirements for such features as 

emergency window exits and emergency 

lighting, which were not specifically 

developed to address security threats, 

may play a critical role in minimizing 

the consequences of a terrorist attack on 

board a passenger train. The safety and 

security functions that passenger train 

emergency systems may serve make 

them vital, and further enhancements 

and additions to emergency systems 

should be explored both to minimize 

the risk of a terrorist attack to passenger 

trains, to reduce the death, injuries, and 

other consequences of such an attack if 

it occurs, and to promote passenger 

train safety overall. 

D. Window Technology 

A ‘‘zip-strip’’ is a strip of rubber 

gasketing that holds a window panel in 

place and is capable of being pulled, or 

pried and then pulled, like a zipper 

from the panel it holds. Use of zip-strips 

for window removal has been around 

for some time. Yet, the introduction of 

windows using zips-strips on both faces 

of the same window has allowed 

railroads to designate for rescue access 

those windows that are best suited for 

that purpose without impacting the 

selection of emergency window exits, or 

compromising compliance with safety 

glazing requirements. Before this 

technology was available, railroads that 

used zip-strips for window removal had 

to decide which windows would be 

designated for emergency egress and 

which would be designated for rescue 

access, as there was only one zip-strip 

available to open. Equipping cars with 

more rescue access windows with zipstrips meant having fewer emergency 

window exits, all things being equal, 

even though it would be preferable to 

have more emergency window exits 

than rescue access windows as 

occupants should normally begin to 

self-evacuate via emergency window 

exits before emergency responders 

arrive to assist. Whereas railroads could 

generally designate any window for 

rescue access by providing instructions 

for removal using tools normally 

available to emergency responders to 

pop out a window, such as a sledge 

hammer or a fire axe, some railroads 

prefer to equip windows with exterior 

zips-strips for rescue access because 

they allow for window removal with 

less effort. 

Although FRA is not proposing to 

require the use of zip-strips for rescue 

access windows, FRA is proposing to 

recognize ‘‘dual-function windows,’’

which serve as both emergency exit and 

rescue access windows, through the use 

of zip-strips on both faces of the 

window. This recognition would afford 

railroads more flexibility in the location 

of their windows, as it would not 

require railroads to find locations for 

emergency window exits distinct from 

the locations specified for rescue access 

windows, and vice versa. 

E. APTA’s Standard for Emergency 

Evacuation Units 

As FRA noted in the preamble to the 

final rule promulgating the Passenger 

Equipment Safety Standards, FRA has 

had under consideration a performance 

standard for emergency evacuation 

similar to that used in commercial 

aviation where a sufficient number of 

emergency exits must be provided to 

evacuate the maximum passenger load 

in a specified time for various types of 

emergency situations. See 64 FR 25550. 

FRA further noted that it would 

evaluate whether an APTA performance 

standard for emergency egress, then 

under development in APTA’s PRESS 

Task Force, should be incorporated into 

FRA’s standards. 64 FR 25551. FRA’s 

intent is that such a performance 

standard would serve to supplement, as 

necessary, FRA’s minimum 

requirements for emergency window 

exits and door exits. 

In 1999, APTA issued APTA SS–PS–

003–98, ‘‘Standard for Emergency 

Evacuation Units for Rail Passenger 

Cars.’’ This standard assigns to doors 

and window exits a numerical value, 

referred to as an ‘‘emergency evacuation 

unit’’ (EEU), that is intended to correlate 

to the speed and ease of passenger 

egress. Each emergency window exit is 

assigned an EEU of 1, and each door leaf 

an EEU of 2. It defines the ‘‘usable exit 

path’’ (UXP) as the number of 

emergency window and door exits that 

can be used by passengers after an 

incident that requires emergency egress 

from the vehicle, and requires that it be 

calculated as ‘‘the sum of EEUs for one 

side of the car less 50% of car end 

doors.’’ The APTA standard requires 

railroads to assign to each new 

passenger car a ‘‘capacity exit factor’’

(CXF), which is a value equal to the 

seating capacity of the car divided by 17 

and rounded up to the next whole 

number, and to designate a sufficient 

number of exits to achieve a total EEU 

value equal to the larger of the CXF or 

the UXP. 

Although the basic approach to 

establishing egress requirements based 

on car configuration and occupant 

capacity was widely accepted, during 

development of the APTA standard 

several organizations raised issues 

regarding the methodology for assigning 

EEU values to exits. For instance, Volpe 

Center staff suggested that point values 

for windows be reduced to numbers that 

are approximately in proportion to 

estimated passenger flow rates as 

compared with low-platform doors 

without steps, and that upper-level 

windows receive no credit toward the 

minimum EEU criterion but still be 

required to provide exit paths for certain 

rare accident scenarios. It was also 

questioned whether egress rates through 

windows could be half as great as 

through single-leaf doors, as implied by 

the standard. 

The Emergency Preparedness Task 

Force reviewed the APTA standard and 

recommended the continuation of 

evacuation tests and research to 

establish relative exit flow rates using 

different types of exits at distinct 

locations in the car, prior to considering 

adoption of the APTA standard into 

FRA’s standards. To this end, the Volpe 

Center is conducting a series of 

evacuations tests. FRA does note that 

the emergency evacuation approach 

underlying the proposals in this NPRM 

is consistent with the basic approach 

taken in developing APTA’s standard, 

as FRA proposals do take into 

consideration car configuration and 

occupant capacity. 

IV. General Overview of Proposed 

Requirements 

A. Emergency Window Exits and Rescue 

Access Windows 

Among the most prominent issues 

identified for consideration by the 

Working Group were those involving 

emergency window exits and rescue 

access windows and how these 

windows relate to the emergency 

systems requirements overall. 

Emergency window exits are intended 

to supplement door exits, which serve 

as the preferred means of egress in an 

emergency situation, and provide an 

alternative means of emergency egress 

in life-threatening situations, should 

doors be rendered inaccessible or 

inoperable. Existing regulations require 

that each single-level car and each main 

level of a multi-level passenger car have 

a minimum of four emergency window 

exits, either in a staggered configuration 

where practical or with one exit located 

in each side of each end, on each level. 

These windows must be designed to 

permit rapid and easy removal during 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
50282 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

an emergency without the use of a tool 

or other implement. Conspicuous photoluminescent marking of the windows, as 

well as instructions for their use, are 

also required. Windows intended for 

rescue access must be marked with 

retroreflective material, and instructions 

for their use must also be provided. 

However, FRA’s regulations currently 

do not require any minimum number of 

rescue access windows for passenger 

cars. 

One of the basic principles underlying 

the proposed requirements for both 

emergency window exits and rescue 

access windows has been to locate these 

windows in such a manner that 

passengers would be able to exit from, 

and emergency responders would be 

able to gain direct access to, each 

passenger compartment without 

requiring that they first go to another 

level of a car or through an interior 

door. Optimally, there would be a 

sufficient number of windows for 

passengers to exit from, and for 

emergency responders to get access to, 

the following: (i) Every level with 

passenger seating of a multiple-level 

passenger railcar; (ii) both sides of the 

car, in the event of a derailment where 

the exits on one side are compromised; 

and (iii) each end (half) of the car, in the 

event that one end is crushed or the 

exits on that end are otherwise rendered 

inaccessible or inoperable. A constraint 

for both new and existing intermediate 

levels of multi-level passenger car 

designs is that there is limited space for 

side windows due to the presence of 

bathrooms, equipment closets, and side 

door exits. Thus, the Task Force agreed 

to make the proposed requirements 

flexible and consistent with existing car 

designs and, in certain cases, provide 

for exceptions. The exceptions for new 

equipment are limited to situations that 

arise from the need to provide 

accessible accommodations under the 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

in compartments where there are no 

more than four seats and a suitable 

alternative is provided. The Task Force 

recommended greater flexibility for 

existing equipment to avoid costly 

window installations where none had 

previously existed (e.g., relocating an 

electrical closet so that a space large 

enough to accommodate a new window 

could be cut into the side of the car). 

During Task Force discussions, it 

became apparent that the phrase ‘‘rapid 

and easy’’ in the emergency window 

exit regulation was being interpreted in 

different ways by commuter railroads 

and car manufacturers. Some believed 

that only the removal of the gasket had 

to be rapid and easy; however, FRA 

clarified that while FRA may have cited 

examples of gaskets that were becoming 

stuck and were therefore not removable 

in a rapid and easy fashion, the central 

goal of this provision was to create an 

opening that could be used for egress, 

which necessarily includes removal of 

the window panel as well. If the 

removal of the gasket is rapid and easy, 

but the removal of the window panel is 

not, the opening becomes less useful in 

an emergency situation, or in some 

cases, effectively non-existent. Several 

members of the Task Force also 

expressed their concern that the phrase 

‘‘rapid and easy’’ was too subjective and 

not quantifiable. They requested that 

FRA adopt a more measurable 

performance-based standard instead. 

Yet, various proposals to do so based on 

a specific allotment of time to open the 

window were not adopted, as consensus 

was not reached on how that time 

would be determined. Variables such as 

height, weight, strength, and awareness 

of emergency exit operation and 

procedures all could affect the ease of 

opening a window. For example, a 

railroad maintenance employee who 

installs emergency window exits or is 

otherwise trained on their use should be 

able to open a window more quickly 

than many passengers would be able to 

do. While there was general agreement 

that a time-performance standard 

should be based on the time taken by a 

representative sample of people to open 

the window, the Task Force was not in 

a position to specify that sample. 

Although unsuccessful at reaching 

consensus on an actual measure of 

‘‘rapid and easy,’’ the Task Force was 

able to agree that promoting ‘‘rapid and 

easy’’ removal of emergency windows is 

desirable. A combination of fixtures, 

such as headrests and luggage racks, as 

well as larger and heavier windows, can 

create a situation where the most 

effective and efficient method for 

removing a window is not immediately 

apparent. As a step towards promoting 

rapid and easy removal of the window 

and to address the situation of particular 

concern, the Task Force recommended 

requiring that instructions specifically 

take into account potential hindrances. 

The instructions may be in written or 

pictorial format, since including 

pictorials depicting the window 

removal method as part of the 

instructions can be extremely helpful. 

As for rescue access windows, the 

Task Force generally recommended 

requiring two windows on each level of 

a passenger car for rescue access (versus 

four as is required for emergency exit). 

The principal reason for requiring only 

two windows for rescue access is that 

rescue access windows are the third 

means of egress in the overall 

emergency evacuation approach, in 

which door exits serve as the first 

(preferred) means of egress and 

emergency window exits serve as the 

second. Rescue access windows have 

this tertiary role because they would be 

used as a means of last resort when 

passengers cannot evacuate themselves 

and require aid from emergency 

responders. The design of window 

gaskets also affects how many rescue 

access windows can be placed in a car, 

especially on levels where there is 

limited space for windows. For 

instance, on certain types of cars, zipstrips installed to facilitate rapid and 

easy removal of a window can be 

installed either on the interior or the 

exterior of the car, but not on both. In 

this case, if FRA were to require four 

rescue access windows, then a railroad 

that has cars with additional emergency 

window exits (i.e., beyond the 

minimum of four per main level) would 

likely just replace some of its emergency 

window exits with rescue access 

windows, resulting in fewer emergency 

window exits, and thereby limiting the 

more preferred means of egress. For the 

above reasons, as well as for the cost of 

retrofitting existing equipment, 

flexibility for locating rescue access 

windows in side doors was added for 

existing equipment. 

FRA is not proposing changes to 

existing requirements for emergency 

window exits in sleeping compartments 

or similar private compartments. Yet, 

FRA is proposing rescue access window 

requirements for such compartments. 

Although this proposal would establish 

new requirements, the proposal reflects 

current practice. 

B. Emergency Communication 

Systems—Public Address and Intercom 

Systems 

As discussed above, while the 

Passenger Equipment Safety Standards 

issued in 1999 by FRA contain 

requirements for two-way emergency 

communication systems for Tier II 

passenger equipment, there are 

currently no requirements that Tier I 

passenger cars be equipped with any 

emergency communication system. 

Nevertheless, today most existing 

passenger cars are equipped with PA 

systems, and after discussing the 

benefits of PA systems in light of the 

challenge and expense of retrofitting 

older, existing passenger equipment 

with limited service life, the Task Force 

agreed that all passenger cars should, at 

a minimum, have functioning PA 

systems. The PA system would allow 

the train crew to keep their passengers 

informed in an emergency situation and 

provide guidance to all passengers in a 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 50283 

timely manner, thereby reducing the 

likelihood that passengers would take 

an action that could place them in any 

greater danger. 

The Task Force also agreed that 

emergency communication systems in 

all new passenger cars should include 

intercom systems that would enable 

passengers to quickly communicate in 

emergency situations with the train 

crew. During the discussions concerning 

whether to require intercom systems on 

Tier I passenger equipment, some Task 

Force members expressed concern that 

if intercom systems were added at each 

end of a car, were conspicuously 

marked, and had instructions provided 

for their use, passengers may use them 

in non-emergency situations. Amtrak 

and various commuter railroads that 

operate cars with intercom systems 

indicated that they have successfully 

implemented measures to deter misuse, 

however, such as by placing the 

intercom transmission button under a 

protective covering (which also prevents 

accidental operation by a passenger 

leaning against it) and by marking it 

‘‘FOR EMERGENCY USE ONLY.’’

The recommended emergency 

communication system requirements 

developed by the Task Force generally 

reflect current practice for Tier I 

passenger equipment operating with 

intercom systems and existing 

requirements for Tier II passenger 

equipment. FRA understands that those 

Tier I passenger cars that currently do 

not have PA systems are scheduled to be 

retired from service before the proposed 

requirement to have PA systems on 

existing Tier I passenger equipment 

would become effective. 

C. Emergency Roof Access Locations 

Emergency roof access locations (roof 

hatches or structural weak points) can 

be especially useful in emergency 

situations where passenger cars have 

rolled onto their sides following certain 

collision and derailment scenarios. In 

such situations, doors, which are the 

preferred means of egress and access 

under normal circumstances, may be 

rendered inoperable due to structural 

damage to the door or the door pocket, 

or extremely difficult to use because the 

car is no longer upright. Moreover, 

although emergency responders may be 

able to enter a car that is on its side via 

a rescue access window, the removal of 

an injured occupant through a side 

window in such circumstances would 

likewise be difficult or complicated, 

especially depending upon the 

condition of the occupant. 

Existing FRA regulations require 

emergency roof access locations for Tier 

II passenger equipment, but not for Tier 

I passenger equipment. The Task Force 

examined these requirements and APTA 

PRESS recommended practice RP–C&S–

001–98, ‘‘Recommended Practice for 

Passenger Equipment Roof Emergency 

Access,’’ in recommending that 

emergency roof access requirements be 

applied to Tier I passenger equipment. 

FRA adopted the Task Force’s 

recommendation and, in general, is 

proposing that each new passenger car 

(both Tier I and Tier II) have a minimum 

of two emergency roof access locations. 

Existing Tier I passenger cars would not 

be subject to the proposed requirements, 

while existing Tier II passenger cars 

would continue to be subject to existing 

requirements. For further discussion 

and explanation of the proposed 

requirements, please see the Section-bySection Analysis of this preamble at 

Section V. 

D. Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance 

FRA is proposing to modify §§ 238.17, 

238.303, and 238.305 (which contain 

standards for movement of passenger 

equipment with other than power brake 

defects, for inspection of passenger 

equipment, and for repair of passenger 

equipment) to include requirements for 

the inspection, testing, maintenance and 

repair of emergency communication 

systems, emergency roof access points, 

and rescue access markings. To allow 

railroads sufficient time to repair the 

equipment with minimal disruption to 

normal operations, flexibility would be 

provided for operating equipment in 

passenger service with certain noncompliant conditions. In affording this 

flexibility, the rule would require the 

railroad to adhere to specified 

procedures for the safe operation of the 

equipment. 

V. Section-by-Section Analysis 

Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part 

223, Safety Glazing Standards— 

Locomotives, Passenger Cars and 

Cabooses 

Subpart A—General 

Section 223.5 Definitions 

This section, which contains a set of 

definitions relevant to the regulations 

contained in part 223, would be 

modified to clarify a definition, and to 

delete two definitions that would no 

longer be relevant due to proposed 

modifications of this part, specifically, 

the deletion of § 223.9(d)(2). 

The definition of ‘‘emergency 

window’’ would be revised to clarify 

that the purpose of an emergency 

window is for egress, and thus needs to 

be removable only from the inside of a 

passenger car. Accordingly, FRA 

proposes to revise the definition of 

‘‘emergency window’’ to mean that 

segment of a side-facing glazing panel 

which has been designed to permit 

rapid and easy removal from inside a 

passenger car in an emergency situation. 

FRA is also proposing that the terms 

‘‘emergency responder’’ and ‘‘passenger 

train service’’ be deleted in accordance 

with the proposal to delete § 223.9(d)(2), 

the only section in part 223 that 

references these terms. The term 

‘‘emergency responder’’ would be 

moved to part 238. 

Subpart B—Specific Requirements 

Section 223.9 Requirements for new or 

rebuilt equipment 

In the discussion of § 223.5, FRA 

noted that the definition of ‘‘emergency 

window’’ would be amended to clarify 

that the purpose of the windows is for 

egress, and thus would need to be 

removable only from the inside of a 

passenger car. Section 223.9(c) currently 

requires ‘‘at least four emergency 

opening windows.’’ As the term 

‘‘emergency opening window’’ is not 

specifically defined—but has been 

understood to mean ‘‘emergency 

window’’—FRA believed that it would 

be best to modify the rule text in 

§ 223.9(c) to require ‘‘at least four 

emergency windows’’ in order to 

provide more clarity. 

FRA is proposing to delete the 

requirements in § 223.9(d) and merge 

them into §§ 238.113 and 238.114 of 

part 238. The requirements in § 223.9(d) 

were added by FRA’s May 4, 1998 final 

rule on Passenger Train Emergency 

Preparedness. See 63 FR 24629, 24643. 

The Passenger Train Emergency 

Preparedness final rule required the 

marking of both emergency window 

exits and windows intended for rescue 

access, and also required that 

instructions be provided their use. 

However, the requirements applied only 

to ‘‘each railroad providing passenger 

train service,’’ a class of train service 

purposefully narrower than the general 

application section in part 223. See 

§ 223.3. Because FRA is proposing to 

address marking and instruction 

requirements for such windows in this 

train service in part 238, and because 

the requirements of § 223.9(d) do not 

apply to other equipment covered by 

part 223, they may be removed from 

part 223, along with the corresponding 

definition of ‘‘emergency responder’’

and ‘‘passenger train service.’’ Further, 

deletion of § 223.9(d) would avoid 

creating any confusion due to 

duplication of the marking and 

instruction requirements in two 

different parts of the CFR, especially 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
50284 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

since the proposed marking 

requirements in part 238 that were 

adopted by the full RSAC vary 

somewhat from the ones currently 

found in § 223.9(d). Nevertheless, 

§ 223.8 will continue to alert the reader 

to additional requirements for 

emergency window exits for ‘‘passenger 

equipment’’ in part 238, as defined in 

that part. 

However, because the general 

application section of part 223 is 

broader than that in part 238, FRA has 

been mindful not to alter the application 

of those requirements unaffected by the 

May 4, 1998 amendments. Part 238 does 

not apply to ‘‘tourist, scenic, historic, or 

excursion operations, whether on or off 

the general railroad system of 

transportation,’’ see § 238.3(c)(3); 

whereas, part 223 does not apply to 

‘‘locomotives, passenger cars and 

cabooses that are historical or 

antiquated equipment’’ and are also 

‘‘used only for excursion, educational, 

recreational purposes or private 

transportation purposes,’’ see 

§ 223.3(b)(3). As a result, to the extent 

tourist equipment is covered by part 223 

because the equipment is not historical 

or antiquated and is required to be 

equipped with certified glazing in all 

windows pursuant to §§ 223.9(c) or 

223.15(c), such equipment would still 

be required to have four emergency 

windows (emergency window exits), 

despite its exclusion from the part 238 

requirements. 

Appendix B to Part 223—Schedule of 

Civil Penalties 

This appendix contains a schedule of 

civil penalties to be used in connection 

with this part. Because such penalty 

schedules are statements of agency 

policy, notice and comment are not 

required prior to their issuance. See 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Nevertheless, as 

discussed above, FRA is proposing that 

the requirements of § 223.9(d) be 

merged into §§ 238.113 and 238.114 of 

part 238. Thus, FRA is proposing that 

the schedule of civil penalties in 

appendix B to part 223 be modified 

accordingly, by deleting the entries for 

paragraphs (d)(1)(i), (d)(1)(ii), (d)(2)(i), 

and (d)(2)(ii) and the associated 

penalties. 

Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part 

238, Passenger Equipment Safety 

Standards 

Subpart A—General 

Section 238.5 Definitions 

This section, which contains a set of 

definitions relevant to the regulations 

contained in part 238, would be 

modified to include new definitions 

relevant to the proposed modifications 

to part 238. 

FRA proposes to add the definition of 

‘‘dual-function window’’ to mean a 

window that is intended to serve as both 

an emergency window exit and a rescue 

access window. This term generally 

refers to a window that has a zip-strip, 

which is a strip in a window gasket that 

can be pulled from end to end to unlock 

the gasket and thus release the glazing, 

on both faces so that it can be opened 

from both the inside of the car and the 

outside. (This definition would also 

cover other methods of opening the 

same window from both the inside of 

the car and the outside.) The term is 

being added because it is referenced in 

§ 238.114(a)(5) as an exception to the 

requirements on the location of rescue 

access windows set forth in § 238.114. 

Dual-function windows installed to 

meet the minimum requirements 

proposed in § 238.113 would not be 

required to meet the § 238.114 location 

requirements, in order to recognize that 

a railroad that installs four compliant 

emergency window exits that are the 

dual-function type has also installed 

twice the number of rescue access 

windows that would be required. 

FRA proposes to revise the definition 

of ‘‘emergency window’’ to clarify that 

the purpose of an emergency window is 

for egress, and thus only needs to be 

removable from the inside of a 

passenger car. Accordingly, FRA 

proposes to revise the definition to 

mean that segment of a side-facing 

glazing panel which has been designed 

to permit rapid and easy removal from 

inside a passenger car in an emergency 

situation. FRA is also proposing to 

revise the definition of this term in 

§ 223.5 for consistency and clarity. 

FRA proposes to add the definition of 

‘‘intercom’’ to mean a device through 

which voice communication can be 

transmitted and received. A 

transmission unit normally has a button, 

which has to be depressed to begin 

transmission or notify the crew on the 

receiving end of the intention to 

communicate using the system. An 

intercom may be a telephone apparatus. 

FRA is also proposing to add the 

definition of ‘‘intercom system’’ (or 

‘‘intercommunication system’’) to mean 

a two-way, voice communication 

system. This system allows a passenger 

to communicate with a crew member, 

typically by depressing a button, or 

lifting a telephone handset, or both. 

FRA proposes to add the definition of 

‘‘intermediate level’’ to mean a level of 

a multi-level passenger car that is used 

for passenger seating and is normally 

located between two main levels. An 

intermediate level normally contains 

two, separate seating areas, one at each 

end of the car, and is normally 

connected to each main level by stairs. 

The term ‘‘intermediate level’’ is 

intended to distinguish a level used for 

passenger seating of a multi-level 

passenger car from a ‘‘main level’’ of 

such as car, as FRA is proposing to 

apply different requirements to the 

different passenger seating levels. Please 

see the discussion of ‘‘main level.’’

Currently, the regulatory text of part 

238 does not define the term ‘‘main 

level,’’ as used in § 238.113. However, 

in the preamble to the April 23, 2002 

final rule, FRA explained that the term 

‘‘main level’’ was intended to exclude a 

level of a car that is ‘‘principally used 

for passage between the door exits and 

passenger seating areas, or between 

seating areas,’’ and noted that such an 

area is not ‘‘principally used for 

seating’’ and includes a stairwell 

landing. See 67 FR 19973. This 

distinction raised some concerns with 

respect to intermediate levels because 

their designation as main levels would 

hinge upon an interpretation of 

‘‘principally used’’ for passenger 

seating. Some Task Force members 

believed that these levels were 

principally used for passenger seating 

because passengers who are seated there 

are spending more time on that level 

than the passengers who simply use that 

level to reach the upper level (or lower 

level). Others believed that the 

intermediate level was principally used 

for passage between levels because there 

was a greater volume of passengers 

passing through that level to reach the 

upper level (or passing through to reach 

the lower level, or both) than there were 

passengers seated on that level. In light 

of the concern raised, FRA is proposing 

to define ‘‘intermediate level,’’ as 

discussed above, and is also proposing 

to define ‘‘main level’’ as a level of a 

passenger car that contains a passenger 

compartment whose length is equal to 

or greater than half the length of the car. 

This definition would establish a more 

direct relationship between the number 

of occupants on a level of a car and the 

number of emergency window exits 

required on that level. The longer a level 

is, the more seats and exterior side 

windows it is able to accommodate. 

Since passenger cars are normally about 

85 to 90 feet in length, a main level in 

such a car would be a level that contains 

a passenger compartment whose length 

is approximately 42.5 feet or more. 

Accordingly, there should be sufficient 

space for the required number of 

emergency window exits on a main 

level of a passenger car, whether or not 

there is a bathroom, kitchen, or 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 50285 

equipment closet located on the same 

level. 

FRA proposes to add the definition 

‘‘passenger compartment’’ to mean an 

area of a passenger car that consists of 

a seating area and any vestibule that is 

connected to the seating area by an open 

passageway. If a door separates the 

seating area from the vestibule, the 

vestibule is not part of the passenger 

compartment. See Figure 1c to subpart 

B. This definition was necessary to 

solidify the concept that passengers 

should not have to go through an 

interior door, which could get jammed, 

or to another level in order to reach an 

emergency window exit, and likewise, 

emergency responders should be able to 

directly access passengers in need of aid 

in each such compartment. 

FRA proposes to add the definition 

‘‘PA system’’ or ‘‘public address 

system’’ to mean a one-way, voice 

communication system. Such a system 

is used by train crew members to make 

announcements to passengers in both 

normal and emergency situations. On 

some railroads, crew members use the 

PA system to make station 

announcements. Other railroads limit its 

use to communicate information 

regarding unusual occurrences, such as 

unexpected delays and emergencies. 

Some PA systems have speakers located 

on the exterior of cars that are used to 

make announcements to persons in the 

vicinity of the train (e.g., passengers on 

a station platform). 

Consistent with the proposed 

amendments to part 223, discussed 

above, FRA proposes to define ‘‘rescue 

access window’’ as a side-facing exterior 

window intended for use by emergency 

responders to gain access to passengers 

in an emergency situation. In some 

passenger cars, all windows may be 

capable of serving as both emergency 

window exits and rescue access 

windows. However, a railroad may 

choose not to designate one or more of 

these windows for rescue access for 

various reasons, including the presence 

of a third-rail shoe that could pose an 

electrocution hazard, or a high seat back 

next to the window that may pose a 

potential hindrance to window removal 

for windows that are designed to open 

by being pushed into the car. 

Some rescue access windows are 

designed with a zip-strip to release the 

window panel from its frame. In some 

cars, side-facing glazing systems are 

designed so that there is a zip-strip on 

only one side of the window panel. It is 

common for railroads to install such 

systems with a zip-strip on the exterior 

of the car for rescue access use, and also 

have one in the interior of the car for 

emergency egress use. However, to the 

extent that there may be only one zipstrip for a single glazing system, the 

railroad must decide whether to place 

the zip-strip on the exterior of the car 

for use in rescue access, or in the 

interior of the car for use in emergency 

egress. 

Although use of zip-strips in rescue 

access windows is common, FRA makes 

clear that they would not be required. 

The proposed definition is a 

performance standard, and a rescue 

access window may be opened by other 

means, such as by shattering the 

window (if glass) or popping the 

window out by applying force at one 

corner. 

Throughout the discussion of rescue 

access windows, Task Force members 

repeatedly emphasized, as the definition 

reflects, that these windows are 

intended for use by emergency 

responders to gain access to passengers 

in an emergency situation. In the 

process of reviewing the definitions in 

parts 223, 238, and 239 in composing 

this NPRM, FRA noted that the term 

‘‘emergency responder’’ is defined in 

parts 223 and 239, but not in part 238. 

As the proposed part 238 definition of 

‘‘rescue access window’’ includes the 

term ‘‘emergency responder,’’ FRA 

believes it is appropriate to add 

‘‘emergency responder’’ to part 238. The 

term would be defined to mean a 

member of a police or fire department, 

or other organization involved with 

public safety charged with providing or 

coordinating emergency services, who 

responds to a passenger train 

emergency. 

FRA proposes to add a definition of 

‘‘seating area’’ to mean an area of a 

passenger car that normally contains 

passenger seating. An area with no 

actual seats but with anchors for 

securing wheel chairs would be 

considered a seating area. 

FRA notes that the term ‘‘vestibule’’ is 

currently defined in part 238 to mean an 

area of a passenger car that normally 

does not contain seating and is used in 

passing from the seating area to the side 

exit doors. Although FRA is not revising 

the definition of ‘‘vestibule,’’ FRA 

makes clear that for purposes of part 

238, a vestibule may be located 

anywhere along a car. The location of a 

vestibule is not restricted to the far ends 

of a car but may be elsewhere, such as 

in the middle of the car. As a result, 

what some in the passenger rail industry 

commonly refer to as an entranceway, 

by virtue of where its located in a car, 

is considered a vestibule for purposes of 

this part. 

Section 238.17 Movement of Passenger 

Equipment With Other Than Power 

Brake Defects 

This section contains the 

requirements related to the movement of 

passenger equipment with a condition 

not in compliance with part 238, 

excluding a power brake defect, without 

civil penalty liability under this part. 

FRA proposes to modify paragraphs (b) 

and (c) of this section to include a 

reference to the specific provisions 

being added to the exterior, calendar 

day mechanical inspection in proposed 

§ 238.303(e)(18) regarding rescue-accessrelated markings, signage, and 

instructions. Proposed § 238.303(e)(18) 

would require that all rescue-accessrelated exterior markings, signage, and 

instructions required by proposed 

§ 238.114 (rescue access windows) and 

§ 239.107(a)(2) be in place and, as 

applicable, conspicuous, and/or legible, 

and that certain conditions be met for 

continued use of the cars with defective 

markings, signage, or instructions. As 

these proposed provisions contain 

specific requirements related to the 

continued use in passenger service of 

passenger cars found with defective 

rescue access signs, markings, or 

instructions, recognition of these 

specific limitations needs to be included 

in both paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 

section. The proposed requirements in 

§ 238.303(e)(18) and the proposed 

conditions for continued use of 

passenger equipment with noncomplying conditions are discussed in 

detail below. 

FRA notes that it is considering 

moving the emergency exit marking 

requirements contained in § 239.107(a) 

into part 238. Since § 239.107(a) 

contains door exit marking, signage, and 

operating instruction requirements, the 

requirements of this section may more 

logically be situated in the very sections 

containing requirements for doors in 

part 238, namely, §§ 238.235 and 

238.439. If the requirements in 

§ 239.107(a) are moved into part 238, 

FRA would make any necessary 

conforming changes to part 238, and 

modify this proposed section in 

publishing the final rule. FRA invites 

comment whether the requirements of 

§ 239.107(a) should be moved into part 

238. 

Subpart B—Safety Planning and 

General Requirements 

Section 238.113 Emergency Window 

Exits 

This section currently contains 

requirements for emergency window 

exits in single-level passenger cars and 

main levels of multi-level passenger 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
50286 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

cars. Emergency window exits are 

intended to supplement door exits, 

which are normally the preferred means 

of egress in an emergency situation. 

Emergency windows provide an 

alternative means of emergency egress 

should doors be rendered inoperable or 

inaccessible. They also provide an 

additional means of egress in lifethreatening situations requiring very 

rapid exit, such as a fire on board or 

submergence of the car in a body of 

water. 

To ensure that emergency window 

exit requirements apply to every level 

with passenger seating, FRA is 

proposing to revise this section to 

expressly include emergency window 

exit requirements for any level with 

passenger seating in a multi-level 

passenger car. FRA is also proposing to 

revise this section to require that 

emergency window exit operating 

instructions specifically address the 

presence of interior fixtures that may 

hinder the removal of the window 

panel, to facilitate its rapid and easy 

removal. 

Paragraph (a), which applies to both 

new and existing passenger cars, would 

be modified to specify requirements for 

the number and location of emergency 

window exits on any level with 

passenger seating in a passenger car. 

The requirements for single-level 

passenger cars in proposed paragraph 

(a)(1), and for main levels of multi-level 

passenger cars in proposed paragraph 

(a)(2), would effectively remain 

unchanged. The current requirements 

for single-level passenger cars require a 

minimum of four emergency window 

exits, located ‘‘either in a staggered 

configuration where practical or with 

one located in each end of each side of 

each level.’’ FRA is proposing to slightly 

modify this language by replacing the 

word ‘‘end’’ with ‘‘end (half)’’ to clarify 

that the term ‘‘end’’ does not refer to the 

extreme forward and rear ends of a car, 

but merely the front half and rear halves 

of the car. See Figure 1 to subpart B. 

Additionally, the text would be 

reorganized to emphasize that a window 

would be required in each end (half) of 

each side of the car and that, if practical, 

the windows would also be in a 

staggered configuration. This 

clarification would remove any 

ambiguity in the current rule text that 

wrongly suggests that one could choose 

to simply stagger the windows without 

regard to having one window in each 

side of each end. To illustrate the 

requirements of paragraph (a)(2), FRA is 

proposing to add Figure 1 to subpart B, 

as referenced above. FRA invites 

comment on whether this and other 

figures proposed in this NPRM for 

inclusion in part 238 would be helpful 

in understanding the requirements of 

this part, and, if so, whether any 

additional figures should be included. 

FRA also notes that the proposed 

figures, which are not drawn to scale, 

represent possible ways of complying 

with the proposed requirements and 

should not be construed as depicting the 

only way to comply. 

Paragraph (a)(3) would contain the 

requirements for emergency window 

exits on non-main levels with seating 

areas of multi-level passenger cars, 

including intermediate (or mezzanine) 

seating levels. The general intent of the 

proposal is to have at least one 

emergency window exit that is 

accessible to passengers in each side of 

a passenger seating area without 

requiring the passengers to move to 

another level of the car or pass through 

a door. This would help ensure that, if 

a car rolled onto its side or if there was 

a hazard on one side of the train, an 

emergency window exit on the opposite 

side would be available to passengers 

and crew members for emergency 

egress. Nevertheless, as further 

discussed below, a constraint for 

intermediate levels of both new and 

existing multi-level passenger car 

designs is limited space due to the 

presence of bathrooms, equipment 

closets, and side door exits. 

Accordingly, the requirements proposed 

for the number and location of 

emergency window exits in paragraph 

(a)(3) provide flexibility for, and are 

consistent with, existing passenger car 

designs. 

FRA notes that in light of the 

proposed definition of ‘‘main level,’’

some passenger cars would no longer 

have main levels. Such cars would thus 

be subject to the proposed requirements 

for other levels with seating areas 

contained in paragraph (a)(3). For 

instance, none of the levels in a gallerystyle car (a multi-level passenger car 

with a full-height, enclosed vestibule in 

the center) would meet the proposed 

definition of a ‘‘main level.’’ Yet, each 

of the four, separate seating areas in 

such a car would be subject to the 

emergency window exit number and 

location requirements proposed in 

paragraph (a)(3). Further, the proposed 

requirements are consistent with the 

number and location of emergency 

windows on existing gallery-style 

passenger cars, would not impact 

current operations, and would not 

diminish the effect of FRA’s existing 

requirements. 

Paragraph (a)(3)(i) would require that 

non-main levels that are used for 

passenger seating have at least two 

emergency window exits that are 

accessible to passengers in each seating 

area without requiring the passengers to 

move to another level of the car or pass 

through an interior door. This proposal 

is intended to address situations in 

which stairways could become 

structurally deformed and interior doors 

could be rendered inoperable as a result 

of a collision, derailment, or other 

accident, obstructing access to an 

emergency window exit or a side door 

exit on another level or in a vestibule 

area that is separated from the seating 

area by an interior door. Similarly, the 

proposal is intended to address 

situations in which a passenger car has 

rolled onto its side as a result of a 

collision, derailment, or other accident, 

by providing that at least one of these 

emergency window exits would be 

required in each side of the passenger 

car, except as provided below. See 

Figures 2, 2a, and 2b to subpart B. 

The proposed rule provides flexibility 

for locating an emergency window exit 

within an exterior side door in the 

passenger compartment of a non-main 

level, if it is not ‘‘practical’’ to place the 

window exit in the side of the seating 

area. It should be noted that, by 

definition, a side door would not be 

considered located within the 

‘‘passenger compartment’’ if an interior 

door separates the seating area from the 

area where the side doors are located. 

The provision would require that there 

be an open passageway between the 

seating area and the vestibule, in such 

a circumstance. Use of the word 

‘‘practical’’ would allow railroads and 

car builders some discretion regarding 

the location of an emergency window 

exit in a non-main level of a car. For 

instance, this provision could be used to 

address situations where a window in a 

door in the same passenger 

compartment may be better suited for 

emergency egress than one in the 

seating area. In some cars, removal of 

the windows in the seating area may be 

hindered by seat backs or other fixtures, 

while windows in the exterior side 

doors could be more easily and rapidly 

removed. Since there would still be two 

accessible side windows in a passenger 

compartment, one on each side, there 

would be no limitation on the number 

of seats that may be in the compartment. 

Moreover, the door itself is a means of 

emergency egress that, if operable, 

would allow more rapid and safe egress 

than exiting through a window. 

Nevertheless, because having two 

emergency exits at the very same 

location could result in both exits being 

rendered inoperable (as by car crush) or 

inaccessible (as by fire), FRA is not 

proposing to allow the unrestricted 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 50287 

placement of emergency window exits 

in side doors. FRA makes clear that, all 

things being equal, emergency window 

exits should be placed in a separate 

location from side door exits. See Figure 

2b to subpart B; compare to Figure 2a 

to subpart B. 

In determining the appropriate 

applicability date for the proposed 

requirement to have emergency window 

exits in non-main levels of multi-level 

passenger cars, it was noted that, while 

some passenger cars already have 

windows in each side of an intermediate 

level seating area, these windows are 

not necessarily emergency window 

exits. Consequently, some time would 

be needed to change out the existing 

windows with emergency window exits 

or otherwise retrofit the windows with 

pull-handles and make any other 

modification necessary so that the 

windows would meet the requirements 

for emergency window exits. The 

proposal takes this into account, and 

otherwise would afford railroads 

sufficient time to come into compliance 

regardless of the state of the existing 

windows, by phasing the requirement in 

over an 18-month period from the date 

of publication of the final rule. 

Paragraph (a)(3)(ii) contains a 

proposed exception for non-main levels 

of multi-level passenger cars that would 

require only one emergency window 

exit in a seating area in a passenger 

compartment with no more than four 

seats, if it would not be practical to 

place an emergency window exit in a 

side of the passenger compartment due 

to the need to provide accessible 

accommodations under the ADA and a 

suitable, alternate arrangement for 

emergency egress is provided. This 

proposed exception would address 

concerns involving multi-level 

passenger cars serving passenger 

stations with high-platforms, such as on 

the Northeast Corridor. Because all 

passengers enter the cars on the 

intermediate level, and disabled 

passengers would not be able to access 

accommodations on another level of the 

cars, any accommodations provided to 

passengers would have to be located on 

the intermediate level. The proposal 

recognizes this need, and the proposed 

exception would apply to both existing 

and new passenger cars but would be 

limited to situations that arise from the 

need to provide accessible 

accommodations under the ADA and 

limited to passenger compartments 

where there are no more than four seats 

and a suitable alternative for egress is 

provided. FRA makes clear that use of 

the word ‘‘practical’’ in paragraph 

(a)(3)(ii) would extend flexibility to car 

builders to locate an electrical locker or 

other equipment closet in a side of an 

intermediate level at one end of a 

passenger car without being required to 

place an emergency window exit in the 

same side at that location, provided the 

placement of the locker or closet is 

related to placement of ADA-accessible 

accommodations in the intermediate 

level at the other end of the car. The 

limitation concerning the maximum 

number of seats in the passenger 

compartment is consistent with the 

maximum number of seats in existing 

designs for cars that are being 

manufactured with emergency window 

exits in only one side of each passenger 

compartment in an intermediate level. 

The proposal would also require that 

a suitable, alternative arrangement for 

emergency egress be provided. Such an 

arrangement should not require the use 

of a tool or implement to operate, and 

should be comparable to an emergency 

window exit in terms of being rapid and 

easy to use. As part of the Task Force’s 

discussion during the development of 

the proposed rule, Kawasaki presented 

a car design with a seating area 

separated from a vestibule by an interior 

door and an alternative arrangement for 

emergency egress. The interior door 

would be designed with a removable 

window panel (with pull-handles on 

both sides) to allow passengers access to 

the vestibule, if the door itself were 

inoperable. Further, in the vestibule the 

exterior side door located on the same 

side as the one in the seating area 

without the emergency window exit 

would itself contain an emergency 

window exit. As a result, a means of 

exiting the car from that side would be 

available to passengers. FRA notes that 

a combination of several factors would 

render this arrangement a suitable, 

alternate means of emergency egress. 

First, the alternate emergency exit 

location would provide a measure of 

redundancy, i.e., a safety factor, in that 

there would both be an exterior side 

door and an emergency window exit in 

the same door. The door, if operable, 

should allow passengers and crew 

members to exit more expeditiously 

than through a window. In the event 

that this door would be rendered 

inoperable, a window meeting the 

minimum dimension requirements in 

proposed paragraph (c) would then be 

available. To the extent both the door 

and its window were rendered 

inoperable, the exterior side door exits 

in the adjacent car’s vestibule would 

then be next in sequence for use since 

this car design has no end-frame doors 

separating adjoining cars. Should the 

end of the car become uncoupled from 

the adjacent car, the vestibule would be 

open at the end, allowing passengers 

direct access to the outside. Further, the 

panel in the interior door leading to the 

vestibule would not be glass but a 

polycarbonate, which is significantly 

lighter than glass and thus easier to 

remove, and the opening in the interior 

door would be large enough for a person 

to pass through it relatively quickly. 

Paragraph (a)(3)(iii) would require 

passenger cars ordered both prior to 14 

months after the publication of the final 

rule and placed in service prior to 38 

months after the publication of the final 

rule to have a minimum of only one 

emergency window exit in a non-main 

level seating area in a passenger 

compartment with no more than eight 

seats, if it is not ‘‘practicable’’ to place 

a window exit in a side of the passenger 

compartment (due to the presence of 

such structures as a bathroom, electrical 

locker, or kitchen). This exception 

would be broader than the one in 

paragraph (a)(3)(ii) as it would apply to 

non-main levels with more seats and 

would not be dependent on providing 

accessible accommodations under the 

ADA. However, it would not apply to 

new cars. New car designs should take 

into consideration the need to provide 

an emergency window exit in each side 

of a passenger compartment. 

Use of the word ‘‘practicable’’ would 

limit railroad discretion so that a car 

would be required to have an emergency 

window exit in a side of a seating area, 

if a window were already located there. 

Nevertheless, FRA notes that a railroad 

would be under no obligation to install 

a window in a side of a passenger 

compartment for purposes of providing 

an emergency window exit, if an 

emergency window exit were located in 

either (i) the other side of the same 

compartment or (ii) an exterior side 

door located in the same side of the 

compartment. Cutting through a side 

panel in an existing passenger car to 

install an emergency window exit 

would not be required. 

Requirements for cars with sleeping 

compartments or similar private 

compartments would be clarified and 

moved from existing paragraph (a)(2) to 

proposed paragraph (a)(4). Each level of 

a passenger car with a sleeping 

compartment or a similar private 

compartment intended to be occupied 

by a passenger or train crew member 

would continue to be required to have 

at least one emergency window exit in 

each such compartment. A private 

seating area (such as one found on 

certain European trains or on some 

antiquated American trains) is a private 

compartment. FRA notes that, in a 

passenger car with only sleeping 

compartments, if all the sleeping 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
50288 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

compartment doors are locked, 

passengers in a compartment without an 

egress window would not be able to get 

into another compartment to use an 

emergency window exit. The rule would 

clarify that, for purposes of this 

paragraph, a kitchen, locomotive cab, or 

bathroom—whether public or private—

is not considered a ‘‘private 

compartment,’’ however. In particular, 

bathrooms are distinguishable from 

sleeping compartments because a 

passenger could leave a private 

bathroom to access an emergency 

window exit in the sleeping 

compartment, and a passenger can leave 

a public bathroom to access an 

emergency window exit in the 

passenger compartment. 

As part of the proposed revision and 

reorganization of this section, paragraph 

(b) would contain the same 

requirements for ease of operability of 

emergency window exits that are 

currently stated in paragraph (a)(3) of 

the existing regulation. The only 

modification would be that the 

applicability date of November 8, 1999, 

which is currently stated in the 

introductory text of paragraph (a), be 

added directly to this paragraph. FRA 

notes that the Task Force considered 

alternatives to the existing standard for 

the ease of operating emergency 

window exits—one that would be 

capable of more objective quantification. 

One such alternative that was 

considered involved specifying a 

maximum pull-force for removing 

window gaskets and glazing, but the 

Task Force found it difficult to specify 

a uniform standard that would account 

for varying operating environments and 

weather conditions. Further discussion 

relating to the requirements of proposed 

paragraph (b) is found below in the 

paragraph discussing proposed 

requirements for marking emergency 

window exits. 

Consistent with the proposed 

reorganization and revision of this 

section, FRA is proposing to move 

existing requirements for the 

dimensions of emergency window exits 

from paragraph (b) to paragraph (c). The 

applicability date of the dimension 

requirements is unchanged from current 

paragraph (b); thus the requirements 

continue to apply to each passenger car 

ordered on or after September 8, 2000, 

or first placed in service on or after 

September 9, 2002. FRA is proposing a 

slight modification to the requirements 

to allow an emergency window exit 

with an unobstructed opening of at least 

24 inches horizontally by 26 inches 

vertically to be located within an 

exterior side door, in accordance with 

the proposed requirements of paragraph 

(a)(3)(i) of this section. FRA makes clear 

that, for purposes of determining 

compliance with the emergency 

window exit dimension requirements, 

the dimensions of the unobstructed 

opening are measured after the 

emergency window exit has been 

opened. The transparent area of the 

window for viewing use by passengers 

may be several inches smaller than the 

opening created once the window is 

removed, and that would be acceptable. 

FRA notes that a window exit in a 

passenger car ordered on or after 

September 8, 2000, or placed in service 

for the first time on or after September 

9, 2002, that does not create an 

unobstructed opening meeting the 

minimum dimension requirements of 

this paragraph may not be considered an 

‘‘emergency window exit’’ for purposes 

of this section and may not be marked 

as an ‘‘emergency window exit.’’

Nevertheless, FRA is not seeking to 

require that such a window exit be 

modified or removed, provided the 

passenger car is otherwise in 

compliance with all applicable 

emergency window exit requirements. 

For example, FRA is aware of window 

exits that do not create openings of the 

required dimensions because of the 

presence of seat backs that do not 

manually recline, and may therefore 

obstruct passage through the window of 

a stretcher or an emergency responder 

with a self-contained breathing 

apparatus but not a passenger or 

crewmember. It is not FRA’s intent to 

discourage a railroad from retaining 

these additional window exits in its 

passenger cars, for circumstances such 

as those present in the derailment of an 

Amtrak train near Mobile, Alabama in 

1993. There, six passenger cars fell into 

a bayou and submerged, drowning 42 

passengers and two crewmembers in 

those cars, and killing all three 

crewmembers in the locomotive. In 

what has been the U.S.’s deadliest 

passenger train accident in over 50 

years, train occupants needed to 

evacuate the cars as quickly as possible, 

potentially making the number of 

window exits more critical than their 

precise dimensions. (FRA is not 

suggesting that the cars lacked a 

sufficient number of exits, or that their 

dimensions were too small.) 

Nevertheless, FRA is inviting 

comment on window exits in passenger 

cars ordered on or after September 8, 

2000, or placed in service for the first 

time on or after September 9, 2002, that 

have unobstructed openings not meeting 

the minimum dimension requirements 

of this paragraph. As FRA has noted, 

these window exits are not ‘‘emergency 

window exits,’’ and may not be 

identified as emergency window exits. 

However, FRA is not seeking to have 

these window exits removed, and is 

instead considering that pull-handles on 

these window exits may state or retain 

instructional markings such as ‘‘pull to 

open.’’ FRA invites comment on 

whether these window exits should or 

should not be removed, and, to the 

extent that they should not be removed, 

whether any instructional marking on 

these windows should be permitted. 

Since these windows could be used for 

emergency egress, if they are not 

removed, FRA also invites comment as 

to whether they should have to be tested 

periodically to ensure that they operate 

properly. Railroads are currently 

required to test emergency window exits 

no less frequently than every 180 days 

using commonly accepted sampling 

techniques to determine how many 

windows to test. In general, these 

principles require that the greater the 

percentage of window exits that a 

railroad finds defective, the greater the 

percentage of windows that the railroad 

will have to test. Specifically, sampling 

must be conducted to meet a 95-percent 

confidence level that no defective units 

remain and be in accord with either 

Military Standard MIL–STD–105(D), 

‘‘Sampling for Attributes,’’ or American 

National Standards Institute ANSI–

ASQC Z1.4–1993, ‘‘Sampling 

Procedures for Inspections by 

Attributes.’’ Although testing these 

window exits would appear desirable, a 

testing requirement may discourage 

railroads from retaining these windows 

at all. 

As the final part of the proposed 

reorganization and revision of this 

section, paragraph (d) would contain the 

requirements for marking emergency 

window exits, as well as providing 

operating instructions for their use. 

Marking and operating instruction 

requirements for emergency window 

exits are currently contained in 

§ 223.9(d)(1) of this chapter, and are 

currently referenced in paragraph (c) of 

this section. The requirements in 

§ 223.9(d)(1) would be moved to 

proposed paragraph (d) of this section 

and be modified. This paragraph would 

require that each emergency window 

exit be conspicuously marked with 

luminescent material on the inside of 

each car, and that legible and 

understandable operating instructions, 

including instructions for removing the 

window panel, be posted at or near each 

such window exit. 

Notably, proposed paragraph (d) 

would specifically require that 

emergency window exit operating 

instructions address potential 

hindrances to removal of the window 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 50289 

panel due to the presence of fixtures in 

the car. As discussed above, FRA 

became aware that the phrase ‘‘rapid 

and easy’’ in the requirement for 

emergency window exit ease of 

operability was not being interpreted 

uniformly. Central to the issue was the 

actual removal of the window panel in 

light of the weight of the window panel 

and the presence of interior fixtures 

near the window. It is not uncommon 

for a seatback to be located adjacent to 

an emergency window exit and for a 

luggage rack to be located above the 

exit. Even if the seat back does not affect 

compliance with the dimensions 

required for an unobstructed opening 

(especially in the case of a large window 

panel), it could, together with the 

presence of the luggage rack, hinder 

removal of the window. This 

combination of fixtures could create a 

situation where the most effective and 

efficient method for operating an 

emergency window exit would not be 

immediately apparent to a passenger, 

especially if the window were large and 

heavy. As a result, to promote the rapid 

and easy removal of the window panel, 

the Task Force recommended requiring 

that emergency window exit operating 

instructions specifically take into 

account such potential hindrances. 

Accordingly, if window removal may be 

hindered by the presence of a seatback, 

headrest, luggage rack, or other fixture, 

the instructions would be required to 

state the method for allowing rapid and 

easy removal of the window panel, 

taking into account the fixture(s). This 

particular portion of the instructions 

would be allowed to be in written or 

pictorial format to provide railroads the 

flexibility to convey the appropriate 

information to passengers, especially 

since a picture (pictogram) or pictures 

(pictograms) may potentially convey the 

information more readily than written 

instructions. 

FRA also notes that § 223.9(d)(1) 

currently requires that the operating 

instructions for emergency window 

exits be ‘‘clear and legible.’’ FRA 

proposes to modify this requirement by 

replacing the word ‘‘clear’’ with the 

word ‘‘understandable,’’ so that 

railroads would be required to post 

‘‘legible and understandable’’ operating 

instructions. Use of the word ‘‘clear’’ in 

§ 223.9(d) has created some confusion 

since it can have more than one 

meaning, and FRA believes the proposal 

would eliminate any further confusion. 

Finally, FRA notes that existing 

requirements in parts 223 and 239 for 

the marking of emergency exits, as well 

as existing requirements in part 238 for 

the marking of emergency 

communications transmission points, 

specify the use of luminescent 

materials. (Door exits intended for 

emergency egress may also be lighted, in 

accordance with § 239.107(a)(1).) Part 

238 defines ‘‘luminescent material’’ as 

material that absorbs light energy when 

ambient levels of light are high and 

emits this stored energy when ambient 

levels of light are low, making the 

material appear to glow in the dark. See 

§ 238.5. Proposed paragraph (d) would 

continue to require that luminescent 

material be used to mark emergency 

window exits. However, as further 

discussed below, the Task Force has 

been considering incorporating an 

APTA standard that would establish 

specific criteria for this material, 

including how bright the material must 

be and how long the material must stay 

luminescent. 

FRA’s requirements to mark 

emergency window exits and other 

emergency exits originated with FRA 

Emergency Order No. 20. See 61 FR 

6876, Feb. 22, 1996; and 61 FR 8703, 

Mar. 5, 1996. Among its provisions, the 

Emergency Order required that ‘‘no later 

than April 20, 1996, commuter and 

intercity passenger railroads ensure that 

each emergency exit location is marked 

inside the car for passenger and crew 

information.’’ In an effort to respond to 

this requirement as effectively as 

possible within the short timeframe 

required, affected railroads began to 

install photo-luminescent emergency 

exit markings that were available at the 

time. Many railroads installed signs 

made of zinc-sulfide, which were 

capable of providing luminance for a 

period of less than 10 minutes only in 

many cases. Following this, photoluminescent sign technology evolved, 

and materials, such as strontiumaluminate, which is capable of 

providing high levels of luminance for 

much longer periods, began to be used. 

Prices for such signage also decreased, 

making the cost of such ‘‘highperformance, photo-luminescent’’

(HPPL) signs comparable to that of the 

signs installed initially. Thus, in 1999, 

APTA issued APTA SS–PS–002–98, 

‘‘Standard for Emergency Signage for 

Egress/Access of Passenger Rail 

Equipment,’’ requiring the use of HPPL 

materials for all newly installed passive 

emergency exit signs and for the retrofit 

of existing cars at their remanufacture. 

According to Revision 2 of this APTA 

standard, issued in 2003, following a 

charge of five foot-candles for one hour, 

photo-luminescent markings that are 

installed must emit a minimum of not 

less than 7.5 milli-candela per square 

meter (7.5 mcd/m2) for 90 minutes after 

removal of the charging source. The 

duration period of 90 minutes 

corresponds with the 90-minute 

duration requirement for emergency 

lighting contained in § 238.115 for new 

passenger cars and is based on a 

reasonable amount of time for 

passengers and crew members to wait 

for the arrival of emergency responders 

to remote accident sites. Depending on 

the circumstances, it could take more 

than an hour for crewmembers to 

evaluate an emergency situation, 

coordinate with the control center and 

emergency responders, notify 

passengers on the appropriate action(s) 

to take, and if necessary, begin to 

evacuate the train. It is also possible for 

a seemingly minor emergency situation 

to evolve into a more significant one 

requiring evacuation. In conditions of 

darkness, a brighter sign is more easily 

recognizable and facilitates 

identification of emergency exits. These 

points have been discussed within the 

Task Force, and the Task Force has been 

focusing on revisions to the APTA 

standard for purposes of incorporating it 

into FRA’s regulations. FRA is 

considering incorporating elements of 

this APTA standard into the final rule 

arising from this NPRM so that 

emergency exit signs in passenger cars 

would be required to be made of HPPL 

material, and FRA invites comment on 

doing so. FRA will evaluate the 

comments received in considering what 

standard should be established in the 

final rule. 

Section 238.114 Rescue Access 

Windows 

FRA is proposing to establish a new 

section that would contain requirements 

for rescue access windows for both new 

and existing passenger cars. As 

discussed in detail, above, this proposed 

section was prompted in part by the 

April 23, 2002 collision involving a 

Metrolink passenger train near 

Placentia, CA, and the ensuing NTSB 

Safety Recommendation (R–03–21) to 

FRA, which illustrated the potential 

importance of having rescue access 

windows on each level of a passenger 

car. The general intent of the proposal 

is to provide a means of rescue access 

by emergency responders through a 

window directly into every passenger 

compartment on every level of a 

passenger car, in the event that a 

stairway or interior door is 

compromised and exterior doors are 

blocked. 

Paragraph (a) would contain 

requirements specifying the minimum 

number and location of rescue access 

windows. These requirements would 

apply on or after the effective date of the 

final rule to all passenger cars, except 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
50290 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

for certain, existing single-level cars. As 

noted above, FRA’s current regulations 

do not specifically require any 

minimum number of rescue access 

windows for passenger cars; however, 

they do require that windows that are 

intended for rescue access be marked 

and that instructions be provided for 

their operation. See § 223.9(d)(2). 

Paragraph (a)(1) would contain the 

number and location requirements for 

rescue access windows in single-level 

passenger cars. FRA is proposing that 

each single-level passenger car be 

required to have a minimum of two 

rescue access windows. At least one 

rescue access window would have to be 

located in each side of the car, entirely 

within 15 feet of the centerline of the 

car, or entirely within 71⁄2 feet of the 

centerline if the car does not exceed 45 

feet in length. As discussed above, the 

Task Force recommended requiring two 

windows for rescue access (versus four, 

as is required for emergency exit) 

mainly because rescue access windows 

are the third means of egress in the 

overall emergency systems approach, 

with doors and emergency windows 

being the first and second means of 

emergency exit. 

Rescue access windows in a singlelevel passenger car would be required to 

be located ‘‘as close to the center of the 

car as possible,’’ unlike emergency 

window exits which should be in a 

staggered configuration to the extent 

practical. See Figure 1a to subpart B; see 

also Figures 1b and 1c to subpart B. 

Staggering the location of emergency 

window exits is intended to: (i) Ensure 

that a window exit is available for egress 

in the event of crush at one end of the 

car by making available window exits 

throughout the rest of the car; (ii) 

optimize the rate of egress, as 

passengers have less distance to walk to 

reach a window exit; and (iii) avoid 

congestion that could occur if the 

window exits were all located adjacent 

to or directly opposite one another. 

Since, in general, a minimum of only 

one rescue access window per side, per 

level of a single-level passenger car 

would be required, the best way to 

ensure that a window would be 

available for access in the event that one 

end of a car is crushed would be to 

locate the window in the center portion 

of the car, which is generally less 

vulnerable to crush in the event of a 

collision. Congestion should likely not 

be an issue for rescue access window 

usage as car occupants should have 

likely begun to self-evacuate through 

doors and emergency window exits to 

the extent possible prior to the arrival of 

emergency responders. 

To ensure that railroads have 

sufficient flexibility to select those 

window locations best suited for rescue 

access, a 30-foot section along the center 

of a typical 85- to 90-foot-long passenger 

car would be designated for their 

location. This flexibility would allow 

railroads to take into consideration the 

location of external hazards (such as 

third-rail shoes); potential hindrances 

created by interior fixtures for those 

rescue access windows intended to be 

opened by being pushed inward into the 

passenger compartment; the location of 

emergency window exits in passenger 

cars without dual-function windows; 

and other factors that a railroad may 

deem relevant. For passenger cars not 

longer than 45 feet, approximately half 

the length of a standard passenger car, 

railroads would have the flexibility to 

select a rescue access window from 

among approximately three windows 

along a 15-foot section in the center of 

the car. 

If the seating level is obstructed by an 

interior door or otherwise partitioned 

into separate seating areas, the proposal 

would require that each separate seating 

area have at least one rescue access 

window in each side of the seating area, 

located as near to the center of the car 

as practical. This proposed requirement 

is consistent with the general objective 

of having at least one rescue access 

window on each side of a passenger 

seating area or passenger compartment. 

Nevertheless, FRA is not aware of any 

such single-level car in current 

operation in the United States to which 

this proposed requirement would apply. 

FRA notes that on some single level 

passenger cars, polycarbonate windows 

are installed in a channel in the window 

mask, which is itself installed in the car 

body with the frame compressed over 

the window to secure it. Removal of the 

window would require removal of the 

frame, which would be very difficult in 

an emergency situation. In addition, it 

would be costly for these cars to be 

retrofitted with glass windows (so that 

they could be shattered) or with zipstrip systems to literally un-zip the 

window panel from its frame and 

gasketing. On this type of equipment, 

the location requirement would be met 

by having a rescue access window 

available on each side of each end of the 

same passenger compartment, including 

in exterior side doors. An exception was 

crafted that would permit the location of 

the rescue access windows in four 

exterior side doors, and it was approved 

by the Task Force, Working Group, and 

the full RSAC. Although the 

recommended text was silent as to 

whether the windows were required to 

be located within 15 feet of the car’s 

centerline, FRA makes clear that no 

such restriction was intended to apply. 

As a result, FRA is expressly proposing 

that these windows could be located 

farther than 15 feet from the car’s 

centerline, provided that there would be 

at least one such window in each side 

of each end (half) of the same passenger 

compartment—a minimum of four 

rescue access windows, overall. FRA 

believes that effectively requiring a 

minimum of four rescue access 

windows, instead of two, would be 

appropriate for granting flexibility for 

installing rescue access windows on 

existing equipment in side doors. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ii) would 

address the number and location 

requirements for rescue access windows 

for single-level passenger cars that were 

ordered prior to September 8, 2000, and 

placed in service prior to September 9, 

2002, if equipped with manual door 

releases for at least two exterior side 

doors (or door leaves) in diagonally 

opposite quadrants of the cars. The 

manual door release would have to be 

capable of releasing the door (or door 

leaf) to permit it to be opened without 

power from outside the car, be located 

adjacent to the door (or door leaf) which 

it controls, and be designed and 

maintained so that an emergency 

responder could access the release from 

outside the car without requiring the 

use of a tool or other implement. The 

requirements of proposed paragraph 

(a)(1)(ii) would become effective 18 

months after publication of the final 

rule. FRA decided to propose to allow 

this additional time to install rescue 

access windows at least in part because 

these passenger cars are equipped with 

manual releases capable of opening side 

doors from outside of the car, as 

provided in § 238.235(b), even though 

such releases are not required for such 

older passenger cars by that section. 

This proposed paragraph would also 

address those passenger cars equipped 

with compressed frame window systems 

in which rescue access windows would 

need to be retrofitted in the four side 

doors by replacing the polycarbonate 

glazing with glass that could be broken 

to gain access into the car. The 18- 

month implementation period would 

allow for the time necessary to plan and 

carry out the retrofit without disrupting 

train service. In the interim, emergency 

responders would continue to rely on 

the manual door releases to open the 

side doors for rescue access purposes 

should the need arise. 

In paragraph (a)(2) FRA is proposing 

minimum requirements for the number 

and location of rescue access windows 

in main levels of multi-level passenger 

cars. Each main level in a multi-level 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 50291 

passenger car would be subject to the 

same, minimum requirements proposed 

for single-level passenger cars in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section. 

In paragraph (a)(3) FRA is proposing 

minimum requirements for the number 

and location of rescue access windows 

in non-main levels of multi-level 

passenger cars with seating areas. These 

proposed requirements and exceptions 

for non-main levels with passenger 

seating would also be the same as those 

for emergency window exits on nonmain levels with passenger seating. 

Specifically, paragraph (a)(3)(i) would 

require that any other level used for 

passenger seating in a multi-level 

passenger car have at least two rescue 

access windows in each seating area to 

permit emergency responders to reach 

occupants without requiring movement 

through an interior door or to another 

level of the car. At least one rescue 

access window would have to be 

located in each side of the seating area. 

A rescue access window could be 

located within an exterior side door in 

the passenger compartment if it is not 

practical to place the rescue access 

window in the side of the seating area. 

See Figure 2a to subpart B; compare to 

Figure 2b to subpart B. 

Paragraph (a)(3)(ii) would require 

only one rescue access window in a 

seating area in a passenger compartment 

of a non-main level if it is not practical 

to place a rescue access window in a 

side of the passenger compartment due 

to the need to provide accessible 

accommodations under the ADA; there 

are no more than four seats in the 

seating area; and a suitable, alternate 

arrangement for rescue access is 

provided. The rationale for this 

exception is the same as the one for 

emergency window exits in non-main 

levels of multi-level passenger cars in 

proposed § 238.113(a)(3)(ii), as 

discussed above. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(iii) would 

provide that passenger cars both ordered 

prior to 14 months after publication of 

the final rule and placed in service prior 

to 38 months after publication of the 

final rule be required to have only one 

rescue access window in a seating area 

in a passenger compartment of a nonmain level if it is not practicable to 

place a rescue access window in a side 

of the passenger compartment (due to 

the presence of such structures as a 

bathroom, electrical locker, or kitchen) 

and there are no more than eight seats 

in the seating area. For more 

background on this proposal, please see 

the related discussion above for 

emergency window exits in such seating 

areas. 

In paragraph (a)(4) FRA is proposing 

minimum requirements for the number 

and location of rescue access windows 

for passengers cars with a sleeping 

compartment or similar private 

compartment. Each level of a passenger 

car with a sleeping compartment or a 

similar private compartment intended to 

be occupied by passengers or train 

crewmembers would be required to 

have a minimum of one rescue access 

window in each such compartment. For 

purposes of this paragraph, a bathroom, 

kitchen, and locomotive cab are not 

considered a ‘‘compartment.’’ These 

proposed requirements reflect current 

practice. Amtrak cars with sleeping 

compartments are already equipped 

with a window in each such 

compartment that is capable of being 

used for both emergency egress and 

rescue access. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(5) would 

address the use of dual-function 

windows as rescue access windows. If 

on any level of a passenger car the 

emergency window exits installed to 

meet the minimum requirements of 

§ 238.113 are intended to function as 

rescue access windows, the 

requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (a)(4) of this section for the 

number and location of rescue access 

windows would be met for that level. 

Under this provision, four rescue access 

windows would be required for cars 

with dual-function windows that do not 

have at least one rescue access window 

in each side within 15 feet of the 

centerline of the car. 

Proposed paragraph (b) would contain 

the requirements for the ease of 

operability of rescue access windows. 

The requirements would apply on or 

after the effective date of the final rule, 

and would require that each rescue 

access window be capable of being 

removed without undue delay by an 

emergency responder using either a 

provided external mechanism, or tools 

or implements that are commonly 

available to the responder in a passenger 

train emergency, such as a sledge 

hammer or a pry bar. FRA notes that the 

proposed performance requirement for 

removing windows ‘‘without undue 

delay’’ is intended to be less stringent 

than the performance requirement of 

‘‘rapid and easy’’ for emergency window 

exits. For example, using a sledge 

hammer to shatter a glass window 

would be considered removal without 

undue delay. Windows that are not 

made of glass may also be designed to 

be removed without undue delay by an 

emergency responder, through use of an 

axe, sledge hammer or similar large 

impact tool to strike the window at an 

appropriate point so that the window 

panel will push inward. 

Proposed paragraph (c) would contain 

the requirements for the dimensions of 

rescue access windows. Each rescue 

access window in a passenger car, 

including a sleeping car, ordered on or 

after 14 months after publication of the 

final rule, or placed in service for the 

first time on or after 38 months after 

publication of the final rule, would be 

required to have an unobstructed 

opening with minimum dimensions of 

26 inches horizontally by 24 inches 

vertically. A rescue access window 

located within an exterior side door, in 

accordance with the requirements of 

proposed paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this 

section, would be permitted to have an 

unobstructed opening with minimum 

dimensions of 24 inches horizontally by 

26 inches vertically. A seatback would 

not be considered an obstruction if it 

could be moved away from the window 

opening without requiring the use of a 

tool or other implement. The proposed 

dimensions for rescue access window 

unobstructed openings would be the 

same as those for emergency window 

exit unobstructed openings. 

Accordingly, FRA’s reasoning for 

proposing these minimum dimensions 

for emergency window exits applies 

here. These minimum dimensions 

should allow an emergency responder 

equipped with a self-contained 

breathing apparatus to pass through the 

window, as well as allow a person to be 

carried through the window on a 

stretcher of common size. 

As discussed above, FRA is proposing 

that existing rescue access window 

marking and operating instruction 

requirements, which are contained in 

§ 223.9(d)(2), be modified and moved to 

paragraph (d) of § 238.114. Each rescue 

access window is currently required to 

be ‘‘marked with a retroreflective, 

unique, and easily recognizable symbol 

or other clear’’ marking. FRA is 

proposing to restate these requirements 

to make clear that rescue access 

windows must be marked with 

retroreflective material. Second, FRA is 

making clear that a unique and easily 

recognizable symbol, sign, or other 

conspicuous marking must be used to 

identify each rescue access window. 

FRA would replace the word ‘‘clear’’ in 

the existing requirements with the word 

‘‘conspicuous’’ and add the word ‘‘sign’’

as another example of a conspicuous 

marking. This revision would make 

clear that use of retroreflective material 

to mark a rescue access window is a 

distinct requirement in itself, to enable 

emergency responders to quickly 

identify rescue access windows under 

conditions of darkness by shining a 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
50292 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

flashlight on a car. Second, the revision 

would make clear that the window must 

also be marked by a unique and easily 

recognized symbol, a sign (such as 

‘‘RESCUE ACCESS’’), or other 

conspicuous marking (such as 

delineation of the window by means of 

a contrasting color). Both requirements 

could be met by the same marking. 

Current regulations also require that 

each railroad post ‘‘clear and 

understandable’’ window access 

instructions either at each rescue access 

window or at each end of the car. FRA 

is proposing that the word ‘‘clear’’ be 

replaced with the word ‘‘legible,’’ so 

that railroads would be required to post 

‘‘legible and understandable’’ operating 

instructions. Use of the word ‘‘clear’’ in 

§ 223.9(d) has created some confusion 

since it can have more than one 

meaning, and FRA believes the proposal 

would eliminate any further confusion. 

As noted above in the discussion of 

emergency window exits, the Task 

Force has been focusing on draft 

revisions to APTA SS–PS–002–98, Rev. 

2, ‘‘Standard for Emergency Signage for 

Egress/Access of Passenger Rail 

Equipment,’’ in order to recommend 

whether some or all of its contents 

should be incorporated into FRA’s 

regulations. This APTA Standard also 

contains detailed criteria for marking 

rescue access windows, including the 

use of retroreflective material. FRA 

invites comment on whether the criteria 

in the APTA Standard or in draft 

revisions to this Standard for marking 

rescue access windows are appropriate 

for use in the final rule. 

FRA is also proposing to modify 

current requirements so that it would no 

longer be permissible to have window 

access instructions solely at the end of 

the car. Instead, legible and 

understandable rescue access window 

instructions, including instructions for 

removing the window, would be 

required to be posted at or near each 

rescue access window. The Task Force 

agreed that rescue access efforts could 

be unduly delayed by posting rescue 

access window operating instructions at 

the end of a car, potentially more than 

40 feet away from the rescue access 

window to which the instructions 

apply. 

Section 238.117 Emergency 

Communications 

Currently, § 238.117 contains 

requirements for ‘‘protection against 

personal injury,’’ e.g., installing guards 

on moving parts of passenger 

equipment. FRA is proposing to 

redesignate this § 238.117 as § 238.121. 

In its place, FRA is proposing that this 

section contain the requirements for 

systems that may be used for passenger 

and crew communication in the event of 

an emergency. This would keep the 

emergency system requirements 

together in section numbering sequence 

for benefit of the reader. This proposed 

section would establish emergency 

communication requirements for Tier I 

passenger equipment and replace the 

current emergency communication’s 

requirements in § 238.437 for Tier II 

passenger equipment. Overall, the 

proposed requirements generally reflect 

current practice for Tier I passenger 

equipment and existing requirements 

for Tier II passenger equipment. 

Paragraph (a) contains proposed 

requirements for public address (PA) 

systems for both existing and new Tier 

I and Tier II passenger cars. Most 

passenger cars used in commuter and 

intercity service are equipped with PA 

systems that train crews often use to 

notify passengers of the nature and 

expected duration of delays. If a person 

requires immediate medical attention, 

the crew may also use the PA to request 

assistance from someone onboard with 

medical training. Railroad 

representatives on the Task Force noted 

that PA systems are particularly 

beneficial in the immediate aftermath of 

an accident to provide instructions for 

appropriate passenger action. In light of 

a security threat or other emergency 

situation requiring rapid evacuation of 

an area, crews may also use the PA 

system to instruct passengers to deboard 

as quickly as possible. If there is a 

hazard on one end of the train or one 

side of the train, crews may use the PA 

system to notify passengers of the 

hazard and direct them to use the 

appropriate exit route(s) that would 

avoid or minimize their exposure to the 

hazard. Of course, all things being 

equal, the safest place for passengers is 

to remain onboard the train. Deboarding 

could aggravate an emergency situation, 

particularly if passengers step onto the 

right-of-way. Accordingly, the crew 

must have the means to provide 

passengers with appropriate 

instructions as soon as possible. 

Paragraph (a)(1) would require that on 

or after January 1, 2012, each Tier I 

passenger car be equipped with a PA 

system that provides a means for a 

crewmember to communicate to all train 

passengers in an emergency situation. 

FRA understands that existing Tier I 

passenger cars that currently do not 

have PA systems are scheduled to be 

retired before 2012 and thus would be 

removed from service before the 

requirement would apply. 

FRA notes that APTA’s PRESS Task 

Force is currently evaluating the 

feasibility of a wireless, two-way 

communication system that would 

function independently of the train line, 

i.e., not rely on the train line for power. 

The wireless system is intended to 

provide a means of two-way 

communication in the event that the 

train line is broken, as may occur as a 

result of certain collisions or 

derailments. However, FRA makes clear 

that it is not currently proposing to 

require in this section that the 

communication system be wireless; 

communication through use of a train 

line would be permitted. 

Paragraph (a)(2) contains proposed 

requirements for new Tier I and all Tier 

II passenger cars. As is stated for 

existing Tier I passenger cars in 

proposed paragraph (a)(1), this 

paragraph would require that each Tier 

I passenger car ordered on or after 60 

days after publication of the final rule, 

or placed in service for the first time on 

or after 26 months after publication of 

the final rule, and all Tier II passenger 

cars be equipped with a PA system that 

provides a means for a crewmember to 

communicate to all train passengers in 

an emergency situation. In addition, PA 

systems in new Tier I and all Tier II 

passenger cars would be required to 

provide a means for a crewmember to 

communicate in an emergency situation 

to persons in the immediate vicinity of 

the train (e.g., on the station platform). 

These proposed requirements include 

the basic features of PA systems 

installed in most recently-manufactured 

Tier I passenger cars and in all existing 

Tier II passenger trains. 

Finally, it should be noted that the PA 

system may be part of the same system 

as the intercom system. A shared 

configuration is quite common on cars 

equipped with both PA and intercom 

systems. 

Paragraph (b) contains the proposed 

requirements for intercom systems. 

Traditionally, conductors and assistant 

conductors have been relied upon to 

relay information to passengers in both 

normal and emergency situations 

through face-to-face interaction or by 

use of a PA system. However, with 

smaller crew sizes, such face-to-face 

communication may not be possible for 

passengers to quickly communicate to 

the crew a medical emergency, safety 

concern, or security threat requiring 

immediate attention. For instance, a 

passenger in the last car of a train who 

needs to communicate a safety or 

security threat to a crewmember could 

potentially have to walk the entire 

length of the train to do so (assuming 

the crew is composed of an engineer 

and one conductor, who in this 

circumstance would be in the first car 

at the time). Furthermore, if the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 50293 

conductor were incapacitated, 

passengers would need to communicate 

with the engineer. The Task Force 

therefore recommended that emergency 

communication systems in new 

passenger cars should include intercom 

systems to enable passengers to quickly 

communicate emergency situations to 

the train crew. These proposed 

requirements reflect common intercom 

system configurations for new passenger 

cars. 

Specifically, paragraph (b)(1) contains 

the proposed intercom system 

requirements for new Tier I and all Tier 

II passenger cars. Each Tier I passenger 

car ordered on or after 60 days after 

publication of the final rule, or placed 

in service for the first time on or after 

26 months after publication of the final 

rule, and all Tier II passenger cars 

would be required to be equipped with 

an intercom system that provides a 

means for passengers and crewmembers 

to communicate with each other in an 

emergency situation. Passenger cars that 

are at least 45 feet in length would be 

required to have a minimum of one 

intercom in each end (half) of each car 

that is accessible to passengers without 

requiring the use of a tool or other 

implement. Although some passenger 

cars currently equipped with intercom 

systems have one located in each end, 

others have only one per car. An 

intercom in each half of a car is 

proposed so that passengers would have 

access to an intercom within half a car 

length, which is normally 42 to 45 feet, 

and would not have to pass into an 

adjoining car. As long as intercoms are 

accessible to passengers, they may be 

placed anywhere in each end (half) of 

the car and not necessarily in the far 

ends. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would 

continue the logic of existing § 238.437 

by requiring only one intercom for a 

passenger car that does not exceed 45 

feet in length, such as the Talgo 

passenger cars operated by Amtrak. As 

the length of a conventional passenger 

is typically between 85 and 90 feet, FRA 

believes it appropriate to require a car 

not more than half that length to have 

only one intercom location. This 

proposed paragraph would also 

continue to require, as § 238.437 

currently does, that a Tier II passenger 

car ordered prior to May 12, 1999, be 

equipped with only one intercom. This 

exception corresponds to the current 

requirements for Tier II passenger 

equipment, as discussed in the April 23, 

2002, final rule. See 67 FR 19986. The 

preamble to that rule explained that 

after FRA had proposed that intercoms 

be located at each end of a Tier II 

passenger car, Amtrak indicated that not 

all passenger cars in its high-speed 

trainsets had intercom transmission 

locations at each end of the cars, and 

further noted that the intercoms would 

be difficult to install at the nonvestibule ends of the cars. As these 

trainsets were in development in 

advance of both the then-proposed and 

final rules, FRA made an exception for 

all cars ordered prior to May 12, 1999. 

Some Task Force members were 

concerned that making the intercoms 

accessible to passengers without 

requiring the use of a tool or other 

implement could lead to misuse that 

could unnecessarily distract the train 

operator. However, representatives from 

Amtrak and various commuter railroads 

that operate cars with intercom systems 

indicated that they have successfully 

implemented measures to deter misuse. 

For instance, on some passenger cars, 

the intercom transmission device is 

located in a safety compartment 

designated and marked for emergency 

communications only. FRA invites 

comment on whether passenger misuse 

of intercom systems has been identified 

as a problem, and, if so, FRA invites 

suggestions for measures that could curb 

such misuse without rendering the 

systems inaccessible to passengers in an 

emergency. FRA makes clear that 

intercoms would need to be accessible 

to passengers with disabilities to the 

extent required by the ADA and its 

implementing regulations. 

Paragraph (b)(2) would require that 

the location of each intercom intended 

for passenger use be clearly marked 

with luminescent material and that 

legible and understandable operating 

instructions be posted at or near each 

such intercom to facilitate passenger 

use. These requirements would apply to 

each Tier I passenger car on or after 26 

months after publication of the final 

rule, and continue to apply to each Tier 

II passenger car. Some railroad 

representatives noted that although 

instructions are currently posted at the 

intercom locations on their cars, there 

are no luminescent markings. Thus, 

luminescent marking of each intercom 

location is proposed to ensure that the 

intercom can be easily identified for use 

in the event that both normal and 

emergency lighting are not functioning. 

The posted operating instructions, 

however, would not need to be 

luminescent under the proposal, as 

some Task Force members have 

indicated that the instructions may be 

easier to read when not luminescent. 

As noted in the discussion concerning 

emergency window exit signage, above, 

APTA SS–PS–002–98, Rev. 2, ‘‘Standard 

for Emergency Signage for Egress/ 

Access of Passenger Rail Equipment,’’

contains specific criteria for 

luminescent markings. The Task Force 

has been focusing on additional 

revisions to this APTA Standard in 

order to recommend whether to 

incorporate some or all of its contents 

into part 238 by reference and thereby 

require that luminescent markings for 

intercoms comply with the Standard as 

it relates to luminescent markings. 

APTA PRESS has also indicated that 

they will revise APTA SS–PS–001–98, 

‘‘Standard for Passenger Railroad 

Emergency Communications,’’ to 

include more specific requirements for 

marking emergency communication 

systems. In the meantime, FRA invites 

comment whether the luminescent 

material that would be required by this 

proposed paragraph should be HPPL 

material. FRA will evaluate any 

comments received in considering 

whether a requirement for use of HPPL 

material should be established in the 

final rule. 

Paragraph (c) would continue to 

require that PA and intercom systems 

on Tier II passenger trains have back-up 

power for a minimum period of 90 

minutes. See § 238.437(d). An example 

of a back-up power source is a passenger 

car battery. The Task Force approved a 

recommendation for a back-up power 

requirement for new Tier I passenger 

cars, similar to the requirements 

contained in § 238.115(b)(4) for 

emergency lighting back-up power 

systems. That is, the back-up power 

system would have to be capable of 

operating in: all equipment orientations 

within 45 degrees of vertical; after the 

initial shock of a collision or derailment 

resulting in individually applied 

accelerations of 8g longitudinally, 4g 

laterally, and 4g vertically; and for at 

least 90 minutes. Yet, this 

recommendation was not forwarded to 

the Working Group, due to an oversight. 

Given that backup power to the PA and 

intercom systems could be supplied by 

the same source as that for the 

emergency lighting system, and that the 

amount of power required would likely 

be only a fraction of that required for the 

emergency lighting system, FRA has no 

reason to believe that this 

recommendation would not have 

received the full support of the Working 

Group or full RSAC. As a result, FRA is 

considering inserting in the final rule a 

back-up power system requirement 

containing the provisions recommended 

by the Task Force, and FRA invites 

comment on doing so. In particular, 

FRA seeks comment whether the system 

needs to be capable of providing 

continuous communication over the 90- 

minute period, or only intermittent 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
50294 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

communication, which would draw less 

battery power. Providing the means to 

communicate continually for a 90- 

minute period may not be necessary, 

and FRA invites comment as to how 

many minutes of intermittent 

communication would need to be 

provided. 

Section 238.118 Emergency Roof 

Access 

This section, which is being proposed 

for addition to part 238, contains 

emergency roof access requirements for 

Tier I and Tier II passenger cars ordered 

on or after 14 months after publication 

of the final rule, or placed in service for 

the first time on or after 38 months after 

publication of the final rule. 

Requirements for Tier II power cars and 

existing Tier II passenger cars remain in 

§ 238.441, as discussed below. The 

emergency roof access requirements for 

Tier II passenger equipment contained 

in § 238.441 and APTA PRESS 

recommended practice RP–C&S–001–

98, ‘‘Recommended Practice for 

Passenger Equipment Roof Emergency 

Access,’’ served as the basis for the 

proposed requirements in this section. 

Emergency roof access locations (roof 

hatches or structural weak points) can 

be especially useful in emergency 

situations where passenger cars have 

rolled onto their sides following certain 

collision and derailment scenarios. All 

things being equal, car rollover or tilt 

should result in more severe injuries 

than when a car remains upright, as 

occupants may be thrown greater 

distances inside the car. This increases 

the potential need for rescue access of 

the car’s occupants by correspondingly 

reducing the likelihood that the 

occupants can evacuate the car on their 

own. In such a situation, doors, which 

are the preferred means of access under 

normal circumstances, may be rendered 

inoperable due to structural damage to 

the door or the door pocket, as a result 

of the incident. In particular, end doors, 

which due to the direction they face 

would normally be better suited for use 

than side doors when a car has tilted or 

rolled onto its side, may also be 

blocked, jammed, or otherwise 

unavailable for use. Moreover, although 

emergency responders may be able to 

enter a car that is on its side via a rescue 

access window, the removal of an 

injured occupant through a side 

window in such circumstances can be 

difficult or complicated, especially 

depending upon the condition of the 

occupant. 

Paragraph (a) contains proposed 

requirements for the number and 

dimensions of emergency roof access 

locations. Each passenger car ordered on 

or after 14 months after publication of 

the final rule, or placed in service for 

the first time on or after 38 months after 

publication of the final rule, must have 

a minimum of two emergency roof 

access locations. Although Tier II 

passenger cars and power cars are 

currently required to have at least one 

roof hatch for emergency roof entry or 

at least one structural weak point for 

properly equipped emergency personnel 

to quickly access a car, many new Tier 

I multi-level passenger cars are 

currently being manufactured with up 

to four structural weak points in the 

roof. In determining the minimum 

number of access points needed for new 

Tier I and Tier II passenger cars, the 

Emergency Preparedness Task Force 

agreed it would be useful to protect the 

emergency roof access location against 

crush at either end of the car. To do so 

would require placement of the location 

away from the far ends of the car or, at 

a minimum, placement not in the same 

end (half) of the car in the event that the 

end with the access points becomes 

crushed. Second, the Task Force 

thought it prudent to facilitate rescue 

access by having the access points 

located within the bottom half of the 

car’s roof, so that the bottom of the 

opening would be closer (lower) to the 

ground and thus, presumably, more 

easily accessible when the car is on its 

side. This would require having one 

access point on either side of the roof’s 

longitudinal centerline. To accomplish 

both goals, the Task Force 

recommended having two access points 

located at diagonally opposite quadrants 

of the roof. See Figure 3 to subpart B. 

Under the proposal, each roof access 

location would be required to have a 

minimum opening of 26 inches 

longitudinally (i.e., parallel to the 

longitudinal axis of the car) by 24 

inches laterally. These dimensions are 

consistent with the minimum 

dimension requirements for emergency 

window exits specified for new 

passenger cars in the 1999 Passenger 

Equipment Safety Standards final rule, 

see 64 FR 25673, and were based on 

specifying opening requirements 

necessary to allow passage of an 

emergency responder equipped with a 

self-contained breathing apparatus or 

fire gear, as well as to allow passage of 

a person being carried on a backboard 

or basket stretcher, see 64 FR 25595–

25596. 

In discussing the issue of appropriate 

dimensions for emergency roof access 

locations, Task Force members noted 

that in order to gain access to a car via 

a structural weak point, a responder 

would normally have to cut through the 

roof skin, which is usually steel, and 

then through the lining. In some cases, 

a responder may have to cut through 

additional non-rigid structures. If the 

outside dimensions are only 26 inches 

longitudinally by 24 inches laterally, 

and multiple cuts through car structures 

are required to gain access to the 

passenger compartment, this could 

present a problem for emergency 

responders, since each subsequent cut 

made using a saw would potentially 

result in a smaller opening. 

Consequently, railroads and car builders 

would need to take this into account 

when designing structural weak points 

and ensure that the dimensions of the 

final cut in such circumstances would 

still result in an opening meeting the 

minimum dimension requirements. 

Paragraph (b) would provide that 

permissible means of emergency roof 

access include either a hatch, or a 

clearly marked structural weak point in 

the roof for access by properly equipped 

emergency response personnel. 

Structural weak points, commonly 

known as ‘‘soft spots,’’ are usually 

created by routing cables, wiring, and 

piping in the roof of the car around the 

location designated for roof access. The 

proposal would afford railroads the 

flexibility of installing either roof 

hatches or providing structural weak 

points in the roof, as each individual 

railroad would be in the best position to 

decide which one is preferable taking 

into consideration such factors as the 

car’s intended use and the safety 

hazards presented by one versus the 

other. For example, although roof 

hatches could provide a means of selfevacuation in addition to a means of 

access, placing them in the roofs of 

multiple-unit (MU) locomotives which 

rely on overhead catenary systems for 

power could create an electrocution 

hazard for occupants attempting to selfevacuate in an emergency. 

Paragraph (c) would require that 

emergency roof access points be located, 

insofar as practical, in such a manner 

that when a car is on its side: (i) One 

emergency roof access location is 

wholly within each half of the roof as 

divided top from bottom; and (ii) one 

emergency roof access location is 

wholly within each half of the roof as 

divided left from right. See Figure 3 to 

subpart B. Use of the word ‘‘practical’’

would allow railroads and car builders 

some discretion regarding the location 

of the access points and would be 

necessary to accommodate particular 

equipment types. For instance, some 

electric MU equipment has pantographs 

that take up a significant portion of one 

end of the rooftop, making it difficult to 

place one emergency access location 

wholly within each half of the car’s roof. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 50295 

Additionally, on some passenger cars 

that have luggage racks, it may be more 

practical to place the emergency access 

location so that it is not wholly within 

the bottom half of the car’s roof (when 

the car is on its side) if doing so would 

facilitate rescue access by eliminating 

the need for emergency responders to 

cut through or maneuver around the 

luggage racks to get to passengers. 

Paragraph (d) contains proposed 

requirements related to obstructions and 

would require that the ceiling space 

below each emergency roof access 

location be free from wire, cabling, 

conduit, and piping. Additionally, 

paragraph (d) would require that, where 

practicable, this space also be free of 

rigid secondary structure(s) (e.g., 

diffusers and diffuser support, lighting 

back fixtures, mounted PA equipment, 

and luggage racks). In determining the 

placement of the emergency roof access 

locations, railroads and manufacturers 

would need to consider the 

requirements of § 238.118 as a whole. 

Use of the word ‘‘practical’’ in 

paragraph (c) is intended to allow more 

discretion than use of the word 

‘‘practicable’’ in this paragraph (d). For 

example, in a situation where placement 

of an emergency roof access location 

wholly within the bottom half of a car’s 

roof (when the car is on its side) would 

result in obstruction by a rigid 

secondary structure, a railroad would be 

required to place the roof access 

location elsewhere so as to avoid the 

obstruction, even though this may result 

in its placement partially in both sides 

of the roof, or otherwise not wholly 

within each half of the roof. In such a 

situation, the rule would recognize that 

avoidance of the rigid secondary 

structure would be more critical than 

the exact location of the emergency roof 

access location. 

If emergency roof access is provided 

by means of a hatch, it must be possible 

to push interior panels or liners out of 

their retention devices and into the 

interior of the vehicle after removing the 

hatch. For example, for car interior 

aesthetics, it would not be uncommon 

to cover the area below the hatch with 

lining and use velcro to secure the 

lining in place. This type of cover and 

securement would make it possible for 

emergency responders to reach the 

interior of the vehicle by pushing in the 

lining after removing the hatch. This is 

just one example, and other types of 

covers and means of securement would 

be permissible provided emergency 

responders would be able to push 

through them to reach the interior of the 

vehicle after removing the hatch. 

If emergency roof access is provided 

by means of a structural weak point, the 

proposal states that it shall be 

permissible to cut through interior 

panels, liners, or other non-rigid 

secondary structures after making the 

cutout hole in the roof. However, any 

such additional cutting that would be 

required must permit a minimum 

opening of the dimensions specified in 

paragraph (a) to be maintained. In this 

regard, having to make additional cuts 

could affect the size of the markings 

indicating the structural weak points, as 

proposed to be required in paragraph 

(e). 

Paragraph (e) contains proposed 

requirements for providing markings of, 

and instructions for, emergency roof 

access locations. Each emergency roof 

access location would be required to be 

clearly marked with retroreflective 

material of contrasting color. The 

retroreflective material is intended to 

enable emergency responders to quickly 

identify the access locations by shining 

a light on the roof. FRA notes that APTA 

is in the process of revising APTA SS–

PS–002–98, Rev. 2, ‘‘Standard for 

Emergency Signage for Egress/Access of 

Passenger Rail Equipment,’’ which 

contains more specific requirements for 

retroreflectivity than provided for in 

this NPRM. The Task Force has been 

reviewing draft revisions to this 

standard and intends to make a 

recommendation concerning its 

incorporation into part 238, once the 

standard is revised. As a result, the final 

rule may incorporate more detailed 

APTA retroreflectivity criteria for 

marking emergency roof access 

locations. 

Paragraph (e) also proposes to require 

that legible and understandable 

instructions be posted at or near each 

emergency roof access location. These 

instructions would not need to be 

retroreflective for two principal reasons: 

it can be difficult to read writing on 

certain grades of retroreflective 

materials while shining light on them, 

and light used to identify the emergency 

rescue access locations would likely be 

available for reading the instructions as 

well. This proposal is consistent with 

the existing and proposed requirements 

for marking rescue access windows. As 

an additional requirement, paragraph (e) 

proposes that if emergency roof access 

is provided by means of a structural 

weak point, the line along which the 

roof skin would be cut would be 

required to be clearly marked with 

retroreflective material. The size of the 

border marking may have to be larger 

than 24 inches laterally by 26 inches 

longitudinally to ensure that any cuts in 

addition to the cut through the roof skin 

would retain the minimum dimensions 

required for the opening. Structural 

weak points would also be required to 

have a sign plate with a retroreflective 

border that states as follows: 

CAUTION—DO NOT USE FLAMECUTTING DEVICES. 

CAUTION—WARN PASSENGERS 

BEFORE CUTTING. 

CUT ALONG DASHED LINE TO 

GAIN ACCESS. 

ROOF CONSTRUCTION—[STATE 

RELEVANT DETAILS]. 

In particular, the proposal would 

require providing a warning against use 

of a flame-cutting device during a rescue 

access attempt to avoid creation of a fire 

hazard. This is especially important 

since rescue access is usually a last 

resort for those who cannot selfevacuate due to being injured or 

disabled, as well as due to the lack of 

a viable exit. Emergency responders 

usually have a variety of tools available 

to them at the scene of an emergency, 

including a specialized saw which can 

be used to cut through steel, and do not 

have to rely on flame-cutting devices. 

Section 238.121 Protection Against 

Personal Injury 

As discussed above, FRA is proposing 

to redesignate current § 238.117 

(‘‘Protection against personal injury’’) as 

§ 238.121 with no substantive change to 

the section’s requirements. 

Subpart D—Inspection, Testing, and 

Maintenance Requirements for Tier I 

Passenger Equipment. 

Section 238.303 Exterior Calendar Day 

Mechanical Inspection of Passenger 

Equipment 

This section contains the proposed 

requirements related to the performance 

of exterior mechanical inspections of 

passenger cars (e.g., passenger coaches, 

MU locomotives, and cab cars) and 

unpowered vehicles used in a passenger 

train each calendar day that the 

equipment is used in service. Paragraph 

(e) of this section identifies the various 

components that are required to be 

inspected as part of the exterior 

calendar day mechanical inspection. 

FRA proposes to insert a new 

paragraph (e)(18) that would require 

that all rescue-access-related exterior 

markings, signage, and instructions 

required by proposed § 238.114 (rescue 

access windows) and existing § 239.107 

(emergency exits) be in place and, as 

applicable, conspicuous, and/or legible. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(18)(i) would 

allow passenger cars with any required 

rescue-access-related exterior markings, 

signage, or instructions that are missing, 

illegible, or inconspicuous, as 

applicable, to remain in passenger 

service until the equipment’s fourth 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
50296 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

exterior calendar day mechanical 

inspection or next periodic mechanical 

inspection required under § 238.307, 

whichever occurs first, after the noncomplying condition is discovered, 

where it would have to be repaired or 

removed from service. 

The four-day repair flexibility is 

proposed to allow railroads to schedule 

repairs at locations where they can be 

performed safely and in a manner that 

would avoid disrupting normal 

operations. Railroad representatives on 

the Task Force noted that not all yards 

are properly equipped for personnel to 

safely, effectively, or efficiently remove 

and replace signage on the exterior of 

cars. For example, work on the upper 

levels of cars can be more safely 

performed at maintenance facilities that 

have platform ladders. In addition, 

various vendors noted that signs and 

markings must be applied on a dry, 

clean surface at temperatures of 

approximately 65 degrees Fahrenheit 

and must be allowed to set for up to two 

hours. Graffiti may render a sign, 

marking, or instruction illegible and 

thus in need of replacement. Proper 

removal of a sign can be a long and 

tedious process because the adhesives 

used are difficult to remove. This 

coupled with the conditions necessary 

for application of a sign may make it an 

unfeasible task for some railroads to 

perform during an exterior calendar day 

mechanical inspection. Furthermore, 

some long-distance intercity train trips 

take three or four days to complete and 

many of the en-route repair locations 

may not be appropriate places to make 

the repairs to signage. Removing a car 

from service for missing rescue access 

signage before it reaches its final 

destination could result in stranding 

passengers on platforms or require that 

the same number of passengers ride in 

a fewer number of cars, with fewer 

emergency exits available to them as a 

whole. Thus, the safety of both railroad 

employees and railroad passengers 

necessitates that some flexibility be 

provided that would allow equipment to 

continue to operate in service for a 

sufficient amount of time to reach a 

suitable repair location or the train’s 

final destination. 

In paragraph (e)(18)(ii), FRA proposes 

to provide even greater flexibility for 

use of passenger cars with required 

rescue-access-related exterior markings, 

signage, or instructions that are missing, 

illegible, or inconspicuous on a side of 

a level of a car that has more than 50 

percent of the windows designated and 

properly marked for rescue access. Such 

a car would be permitted to remain in 

passenger service until no later than the 

car’s next periodic mechanical 

inspection required under § 238.307, 

where it would have to be repaired or 

removed from service. FRA agrees with 

the Task Force recommendation that 

this added flexibility for these types of 

cars recognizes the extra effort that a 

railroad undertakes by designating and 

identifying a greater number of rescueaccess windows than would be required 

under proposed § 238.114. A single act 

of vandalism may destroy multiple 

signs, markings, and instructions or 

render them illegible or inconspicuous. 

Placement or replacement of several 

signs could take more time than may be 

scheduled for maintenance of the car 

prior to the periodic mechanical 

inspection. FRA believes it would make 

little sense to require immediate repair 

of the damaged markings when more 

than a sufficient number meeting the 

requirements of proposed § 238.114 are 

still present on the equipment. 

Moreover, without such flexibility, 

railroads would likely be discouraged 

from designating more rescue-access 

windows than are proposed to be 

required by § 238.114. 

Similarly, proposed paragraph 

(e)(18)(iii) would provide flexibility for 

the continued use of a sleeping car that 

has more than two consecutive 

windows with any required rescueaccess-related exterior markings, 

signage, or instructions at or near their 

locations that are missing, illegible, or 

inconspicuous. Such a car may be 

operated in passenger service until the 

car’s next periodic mechanical 

inspection required under § 238.307, 

where it would have to be repaired or 

removed from service. FRA believes this 

flexibility is necessary because each 

sleeping compartment intended to be 

occupied by passengers or train 

crewmembers would be required to 

have a minimum of one rescue access 

window in the compartment under 

proposed § 238.114 and most sleeping 

compartments have only one window. If 

two consecutive windows were missing 

exterior markings, signage, or 

instructions, an emergency responder 

would still be readily able to gain access 

via the window by relying on the 

signage, markings, or instructions 

posted at a nearby window. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(18)(iv) 

requires that a record of any noncomplying marking, signage, or 

instruction described in paragraphs 

(e)(18)(i) through (iii) be maintained. 

The record would have to contain the 

date and time that the defective 

condition was first discovered and be 

retained until all necessary repairs were 

completed. These records are necessary 

for purposes of tracking when the defect 

was first discovered and would be 

utilized in determining when repairs 

would have to be made on cars that 

remain in passenger service. Most 

commuter and intercity railroads 

already keep these type of records 

electronically. 

Section 238.305 Interior Calendar Day 

Mechanical Inspection of Passenger Cars 

This section contains the 

requirements related to the performance 

of interior calendar day mechanical 

inspections of passenger cars (e.g., 

passenger coaches, MU locomotives, 

and cab cars) each calendar day that the 

equipment is used in service. Paragraph 

(c) identifies the various components 

that are required to be inspected as part 

of the interior calendar day mechanical 

inspection. Under the current rule, all 

en route-defects and all noncomplying 

conditions under this section must be 

repaired at the time of the daily interior 

inspection or the equipment is required 

to be locked-out and empty in order to 

be placed or remain in passenger 

service, with the exception of noncomplying conditions related to 

paragraphs (c)(5) through (c)(10). 

FRA is proposing to slightly modify 

existing paragraph (c)(10) in order to 

add a condition under which a car with 

non-compliant end doors and side doors 

may continue in passenger service 

pursuant to paragraph (d) of this 

section. The current conditions for such 

operation are: If at least one operative 

and accessible door is available on each 

side of the car; and a notice is 

prominently displayed directly on the 

defective door indicating that the door 

is defective. In addition to those 

conditions, FRA proposes to require that 

the train crew be provided written 

notification of the non-complying 

condition. This additional condition 

would ensure that crewmembers are 

aware of a door that may not be 

available for use in an emergency 

situation that requires the off-loading of 

passengers. Under the existing 

regulation, train crews may not realize 

a door is defective until they actually try 

to use it. If an emergency requiring the 

rapid off-loading of passengers should 

occur before the crew notices that the 

door is inoperative, then the crew might 

direct passengers to that door, which 

could unnecessarily delay the 

evacuation of the train. 

FRA is also proposing to add new 

paragraph (c)(12) to cover the inspection 

of PA and intercom systems. Paragraph 

(c)(12) contains proposed requirements 

for ensuring that, on passenger cars so 

equipped, PA and intercom systems are 

operative and function as intended as 

part of the interior calendar day 

mechanical inspection. This paragraph 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 50297 

also proposes flexibility for handling 

non-complying equipment, provided the 

train crew is given written notification 

of the defect and a record of the time 

and date the defect was discovered is 

maintained. Thus, a passenger car with 

an inoperative or non-functioning PA or 

intercom system would be permitted to 

remain in passenger service until no 

later than the car’s fourth interior 

calendar day mechanical inspection or 

next periodic mechanical inspection 

required under § 238.307, whichever 

occurs first, or for a passenger car used 

in long-distance intercity train service 

until the eighth interior calendar day 

mechanical inspection or next periodic 

mechanical inspection required under 

§ 238.307, whichever occurs first, after 

the non-complying condition is 

discovered. At that time, the PA or 

intercom system, or both, would have to 

be repaired, or the car would have to be 

removed from service. 

Railroad representatives on the Task 

Force noted that PA systems are 

currently inspected on a daily basis and 

any necessary repairs are made at the 

first convenient opportunity. The 

provision requiring that the train crew 

be given written notification of any noncompliant PA or intercom is proposed 

to ensure that the crew is aware of any 

non-functioning system(s) and will not 

rely upon any such system for 

communication in the event of an 

emergency situation. Without such 

notification, the train crew could 

mistakenly rely on a system that is 

inoperative, which could potentially 

hinder resolution of an emergency 

situation where the crew relies on using 

the PA or intercom system to 

communicate instructions or warnings 

of hazards to passengers. 

In proposing to modify paragraph (c), 

FRA is reserving paragraph (c)(11) for a 

contemplated requirement that all lowlocation emergency exit path markings 

required by § 238.116 be in place and 

conspicuous as part of the interior 

calendar day mechanical inspection. 

Low-location emergency exit path 

markings provide a visual means for 

passenger car occupants to locate 

emergency door exits under conditions 

of limited visibility due to darkness or 

the presence of smoke, or both. FRA 

intends to propose minimum standards 

for low-location emergency exit path 

markings by a separate NPRM as new 

§ 238.116, and this document proposes 

to reserve § 238.116 for inclusion of 

these minimum standards at a later 

time. 

Finally, FRA notes that it is 

considering clarifying paragraph (c)(7), 

the interior calendar day inspection 

requirement that ‘‘[a]ll safety-related 

signage is in place and legible.’’ FRA is 

considering including in paragraph 

(c)(7) express references to signage, as 

well as markings and instructions, 

required by parts 238 and 239. FRA 

invites comment on whether such 

clarification should be provided in the 

final rule. 

Section 238.307 Periodic Mechanical 

Inspection of Passenger Cars and 

Unpowered Vehicles Used in Passenger 

Trains 

This section contains the 

requirements for performing periodic 

mechanical inspections on all passenger 

cars and all unpowered vehicles used in 

passenger trains. Paragraph (c) identifies 

the various components that are 

required to be inspected as part of the 

periodic mechanical inspection that is 

required to be conducted no less 

frequently than every 184 days. FRA 

proposes to modify paragraph (c)(5), 

which currently requires that emergency 

lighting systems be operational, to 

include other emergency systems such 

as emergency roof access markings and 

instructions. Specifically, paragraph 

(c)(5)(i) would continue to require that 

emergency lighting systems required 

under § 238.115 are in place and 

operational, and paragraph (c)(5)(iii) 

would require that emergency roof 

access markings and instructions 

required under proposed § 238.118(e) 

are in place and, as applicable, 

conspicuous, and/or legible. FRA does 

note that if emergency lighting is found 

to be defective at any time other than 

the periodic mechanical inspection, it 

must be brought into compliance 

pursuant to the provisions contained in 

§ 238.17 related to non-running-gear 

defects. 

In proposing the modification, FRA is 

reserving paragraph (c)(5)(ii) for a 

contemplated requirement that 

electrical low-location emergency exit 

path markings required by § 238.116 be 

in place and operational. As discussed 

above, FRA intends to propose 

minimum standards for low-location 

emergency exit path markings by a 

separate NPRM as new § 238.116. 

Subpart E—Specific Requirements for 

Tier II Passenger Equipment 

Section 238.437 [Reserved] 

This section formerly contained the 

emergency communication 

requirements for Tier II passenger 

equipment. These requirements would 

be moved to new § 238.117 (‘‘Emergency 

communications’’) to be integrated with 

the new emergency communication 

requirements for Tier I passenger 

equipment, as stated above. This is 

consistent with FRA’s desire to 

prescribe, to the extent possible, the 

same emergency system requirements 

for all passenger trains, regardless of 

train speed. Section 238.437 is therefore 

being removed and reserved. Please see 

§ 238.117 for a discussion of the 

emergency communication 

requirements for Tier II passenger 

equipment. 

Section 238.441 Emergency Roof 

Access 

In issuing the Passenger Equipment 

Safety Standards, FRA required that 

Tier II passenger equipment have either 

a roof hatch or a clearly marked 

structural weak point in the roof to 

provide quick access for properly 

equipped emergency response 

personnel. See 64 FR 25689. FRA stated 

that the final rule did not contain such 

requirements for Tier I passenger 

equipment and that there was no 

consensus within the Passenger 

Equipment Safety Standards Working 

Group to do so. See 64 FR 25642. 

Nevertheless, FRA noted that it believed 

that APTA PRESS Task Force efforts 

would address requirements for Tier I 

passenger equipment and that FRA 

intended to reexamine the requirements 

of this section in future rulemaking with 

a view to applying emergency roof 

access requirements to Tier I passenger 

equipment. Id. 

As discussed above, FRA is proposing 

in § 238.118 to apply emergency roof 

access requirements to Tier I passenger 

equipment and to make the 

requirements the same for new Tier I 

and Tier II passenger cars. In doing so, 

FRA is proposing to revise § 238.441, 

including the section heading, to 

reconcile the requirements of these 

sections and thereby limit the 

application of these separate 

requirements in § 238.441 to existing 

Tier II passenger cars and to any Tier II 

power car (whether existing or new). At 

the same time, FRA is proposing to 

increase the required dimensions of 

emergency roof access locations for 

existing Tier II passenger equipment 

and for any power car, and to provide 

general marking and instruction 

requirements for such equipment. FRA 

believes that existing Tier II passenger 

equipment would be in compliance 

with the proposed revisions to this 

section and that these revisions would 

more closely approximate the 

requirements proposed for new 

passenger equipment. 

Specifically, paragraph (a) would be 

revised to limit its applicability to Tier 

II passenger cars both ordered prior to 

14 months after publication of the final 

rule and placed in service for the first 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
50298 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

time prior to 38 months after 

publication of the final rule, and to Tier 

II power cars. As specified in proposed 

paragraph (b), new Tier II passenger cars 

would be required to comply with the 

standards contained in proposed 

§ 238.118, which were developed 

exclusively for passenger cars. 

Paragraph (a) would also be modified to 

revise the dimensions of the required 

opening from 18 inches by 24 inches, to 

24 inches by 26 inches to be consistent 

with the proposed requirements for Tier 

I passenger equipment. In addition, 

paragraph (a) would be revised to 

require that each emergency roof access 

location be conspicuously marked, and 

that legible and understandable 

operating instructions be posted at or 

near each such location. 

The fundamental differences between 

the requirements proposed in § 238.118 

for new passenger cars and those 

proposed in revised paragraph (a) of 

§ 238.441 for existing Tier I passenger 

cars and for Tier II power cars are as 

follows: the number of required 

emergency roof access locations—two in 

proposed § 238.118, and one in existing 

§ 238.441—and the specifications for 

their location—detailed specifications 

are proposed in § 238.118, while more 

general requirements would be in 

§ 238.441. These differences reflect the 

consideration given to existing 

equipment built in compliance with 

§ 238.441 of the 1999 final rule, and also 

recognize that a requirement for two 

emergency roof access locations on a 

Tier II power car would not be 

reasonable given that the only normally 

occupied area in such a car is the cab 

compartment, in which only one 

emergency roof access location can be 

placed. 

Paragraph (b) would be revised to 

make clear that each passenger car 

ordered on or after 14 months after 

publication of the final rule, or placed 

in service for the first time on or after 

38 months after publication of the final 

rule, would be required to comply with 

the emergency roof access requirements 

specified in § 238.118. Section 238.118 

proposes to subject new Tier I and Tier 

II passenger cars to the same emergency 

roof access requirements, and this 

revision to paragraph (b) is intended to 

conform with that proposal. 

Appendix A to Part 238—Schedule of 

Civil Penalties 

Appendix A to part 238 contains a 

schedule of civil penalties for use in 

connection with this part. FRA intends 

to revise the schedule of civil penalties 

in issuing the final rule to reflect 

revisions made to part 238. Because 

such penalty schedules are statements 

of agency policy, notice and comment 

are not required prior to their issuance. 

See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Nevertheless, 

commenters are invited to submit 

suggestions to FRA describing the types 

of actions or omissions for each 

proposed regulatory section that would 

subject a person to the assessment of a 

civil penalty. Commenters are also 

invited to recommend what penalties 

may be appropriate, based upon the 

relative seriousness of each type of 

violation. 

VI. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This proposed rule has been 

evaluated in accordance with existing 

policies and procedures, and 

determined to be significant under both 

Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

policies and procedures (44 FR 11034; 

Feb. 26, 1979). FRA has prepared and 

placed in the docket a regulatory 

evaluation addressing the economic 

impact of this proposed rule. Document 

inspection and copying facilities are 

available at the DOT Central Docket 

Management Facility located in Room 

PL–401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif 

Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20590. Access to the 

docket may also be obtained 

electronically through the Web site for 

the DOT Docket Management System at 

http://dms.dot.gov. Photocopies may 

also be obtained by submitting a written 

request to the FRA Docket Clerk at 

Office of Chief Counsel, Stop 10, 

Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 

Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 

20590; please refer to Docket No. FRA–

2006–25273. FRA invites comments on 

the regulatory evaluation. 

Certain of the proposed requirements 

reflect current industry practice, or 

restate existing regulations, or both. As 

a result, in calculating the costs of this 

proposed rule, FRA has neither 

included the costs of those actions that 

would be performed voluntarily in the 

absence of a regulation, nor has FRA 

included the costs of those actions that 

would be required by an existing 

regulation. 

As presented in the following table, 

FRA estimates that the present value 

(PV) of the total 20-year costs which the 

industry would be expected to incur to 

comply with the requirements proposed 

in this rule is $15.4 million: 

20-YEAR PV COSTS INCURRED

Description 20-year PV 

total 

Costs: 

(238.113) Emergency Window Exits 

—Installation of pull handles/gaskets in two intermediate level windows ................................................................................ $4,050 

—Replacement of instructions for window removal to ensure that potential hindrances are addressed ................................ 10,880 

—Installation of pull handles/gaskets in four intermediate level windows ................................................................................ 1,440 

(238.114) Rescue Access Windows 

—Installation of two windows per car ....................................................................................................................................... 163,880 

—Marking and instructions ........................................................................................................................................................ 11,640 

(238.117) Emergency Communications 

—Addition of second intercom transmission location ............................................................................................................... 213,675 

—Addition of outside speaker for public address system ........................................................................................................ 101,526 

(238.118) Emergency Roof Access 

—Structural weak points—engineering redesign ...................................................................................................................... 80,000 

—Structural weak points—additional materials ........................................................................................................................ 117,250 

(238.303, 238.305, and 238.307) Exterior, Interior, and Periodic Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance ...................................... 14,717,246 

Total Costs ......................................................................................................................................................................... 15,421,507 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 50299 

If over the 20-year period covered by 

the regulatory evaluation the equivalent 

of 7.7 lives would be saved as a result 

of implementing the proposed 

requirements (from a combination of 

fatalities prevented, and injuries 

avoided or minimized), the proposed 

rule would be cost-justified by the safety 

benefits alone. FRA believes it is 

reasonable to expect that the safety 

benefits would exceed the costs of the 

proposed requirements. Although 

passenger railroads offer the traveling 

public one of the safest forms of 

transportation available, the potential 

for injuries and loss of life in certain 

situations is very high. Nevertheless, 

FRA cannot predict with reasonable 

confidence the actual numbers of lives 

that would be saved. The number and 

severity of each future passenger train 

accident or incident would determine 

the ultimate effectiveness of the 

proposed requirements; these cannot be 

forecasted with a level of precision that 

would allow us to predict the actual 

need for the measures proposed in the 

rule. Yet, FRA believes that the 

proposed requirements would protect 

passengers and crew members against 

known safety concerns in a costeffective manner. These safety concerns 

are discussed in detail, above, in the 

preamble to this proposed rule. 

In particular, as discussed in Section 

III.C., the proposed requirement for an 

intercom system on Tier I passenger 

trains is intended to allow passengers to 

communicate to the crew a medical 

emergency, report a fire onboard the 

train, or provide notification of other 

emergency situations as quickly as may 

be necessary. In fact, some passenger 

lives may have already been saved at 

least in part due to the availability of an 

intercom system because fellow 

passengers were able to use the 

intercom to alert a crew member that a 

passenger onboard their car was 

experiencing a medical emergency. This 

led the crew to call the dispatcher to 

arrange for prompt medical attention at 

a nearby station. FRA believes that over 

the next 20 years the availability of an 

intercom system to passengers may save 

the life of one or more passengers 

experiencing a medical emergency. 

The availability of an intercom system 

to passengers may also save the life of 

one or more passengers in other 

emergency situations. For example, on 

December 7, 1993, a gunman opened 

fire onboard a LIRR commuter train 

traveling between New Hyde Park and 

Garden City, NY, killing 6 people and 

injuring 19 others before he was 

overpowered by passengers. No 

intercom system was available to the 

passengers, and the train crew was not 

aware of the situation until the train 

arrived at the next station where police 

happened to be present on the platform. 

The availability of an intercom system 

to passengers in such a situation could 

allow passengers to provide notification 

to the crew in a timely manner so that 

the crew could contact the appropriate 

authorities to obtain emergency 

assistance and take other necessary 

action. This may include providing a 

direct warning over the train’s public 

address system both to passengers on 

the train as well as to passengers in the 

immediate vicinity of the train on the 

station platform. FRA is, of course, 

proposing to require that Tier I 

passenger trains be equipped with 

public address systems. 

Further, over the past 20 years, other 

accidents and incidents have occurred 

where, if they were to recur, the 

availability of the safety features 

proposed in this rule may save lives or 

prevent or minimize injuries. For 

instance, eleven lives were lost in a 

February 16, 1996 collision between a 

Maryland Rail Commuter (MARC) train 

and an Amtrak passenger train in Silver 

Spring, Maryland. The collision 

breached a fuel tank of an Amtrak 

locomotive, spraying fuel into the lead 

vehicle of the MARC train, which 

erupted in fire. The fire and collision 

trapped a number of people in the lead 

vehicle. Having rescue access windows 

available to emergency responders on 

the scene of such a situation may 

facilitate the rescue of one or more 

passengers. 

FRA notes that similar accidents and 

incidents have unique circumstances 

which ultimately determine their 

severity in terms of casualties, and again 

emphasizes that actual future events 

cannot be predicted with certainty. 

Nonetheless, it is possible that over the 

next 20 years the safety features 

proposed to be required by this rule 

would preserve life in a single event in 

an amount that exceeds the entire 

estimated costs of the rule. 

FRA seeks comments and input from 

all interested parties regarding the 

estimates and statements contained in 

the regulatory evaluation developed in 

connection with this NPRM. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and 

Executive Order 13272 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and Executive Order 

13272 require a review of proposed and 

final rules to assess their impact on 

small entities. FRA has prepared and 

placed in the docket an Analysis of 

Impact on Small Entities (AISE) that 

assesses the small entity impact of this 

proposal. Document inspection and 

copying facilities are available at the 

DOT’s Central Docket Management 

Facility located in Room PL–401 on the 

Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590. Docket material is also available 

for inspection on the Internet at 

http://dms.dot.gov. Photocopies may 

also be obtained by submitting a written 

request to the FRA Docket Clerk at 

Office of Chief Counsel, Stop 10, 

Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 

Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 

20590; please refer to Docket No. FRA–

2005–23080. 

The AISE developed in connection 

with this NPRM concludes that this 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The principal entities impacted by the 

rule would be governmental 

jurisdictions or transit authorities-none 

of which is small for purposes of the 

United States Small Business 

Administration (i.e., no entity serves a 

locality with a population less than 

50,000). These entities also receive 

Federal transportation funds. Although 

these entities are not small, the level of 

costs incurred by each entity should 

generally vary in proportion to either 

the size of the entity, or the extent to 

which the entity purchases newly 

manufactured passenger equipment, or 

both. Tourist, scenic, excursion, and 

historic passenger railroad operations 

would be exempt from the rule, and, 

therefore, these smaller operations 

would not incur any costs. 

The rule would impact passenger car 

manufacturers. However, these entities 

are principally large international 

corporations that would not be 

considered small entities. Some 

manufacturers and suppliers of 

emergency signage and communication 

systems may be impacted by the rule, 

and these may be small entities. Yet, 

FRA believes that any impact on these 

entities would neither be significant nor 

negative, to the extent demand for 

products and services they provide 

actually increases. 

Having made these determinations, 

FRA certifies that this proposed rule is 

not expected to have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act or Executive 

Order 13272. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 

been submitted for approval to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 

accordance with the Paperwork 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
50300 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). The sections that contain the 

new information collection 

requirements and the estimated time to 

fulfill each requirement are as follows: 

CFR Section—49 CFR 

Respondent 

universe 

(railroads) 

Total annual responses 

Average time 

per response 

(minutes) 

Total annual 

burden hours 

Total annual 

burden cost 

238.113—Emergency Window Exits: Marking 

and Instructions.

22 482 markings ................ 60/90/120 694 $27,760 

238.114—Rescue Access Windows: Marking and 

Instructions.

22 964 markings ................ 45 723 10 

238.117—Emergency Communications: Intercom 

System—Marking and Instructions.

22 116 markings ................ 5 10 400 

238.118—Emergency Roof Access: Marking and 

Instructions.

22 234 marked locations ... 30 117 4,680 

238.303—Exterior Calendar Day Mechanical Inspection of Passenger Equipment: 

—Repair/Replacement of Non-complying 

Rescue Access Window Markings.

22 150 replacement markings.20 50 2,000 

—Records of Non-complying Rescue Access Window Markings.22 150 records .................. 2 5 200 

238.305—Interior Calendar Day Mechanical Inspection of Passenger Cars: 

—Non-complying Conditions of End Doors 

and Side Doors.

22 260 notifications +260 

notices.

1 9 360 

—Written Notification to Train Crew of Inoperative/Non-functioning Public Address 

and Intercom Systems.

22 300 notifications ........... 1 5 200 

238.307—Periodic Mechanical Inspection of Passenger Cars: Replacement of Non-complying 

Emergency Roof Access Marking and Instructions.

22 260 replacement markings.20 87 3,480 

1 Incl. in RIA. 

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 the following 

issues: whether these information 

collection requirements are necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of FRA, including whether the 

information has practical utility; the 

accuracy of FRA’s estimates of the 

burden of the information collection 

requirements; the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and whether the burden of 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology, may be minimized. For 

information or a copy of the paperwork 

package submitted to OMB, contact Mr. 

Robert Brogan at (202) 493–6292. 

Organizations and individuals 

desiring to submit comments on the 

collection of information requirements 

should direct them to Mr. Robert 

Brogan, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, 

NW., Mail Stop 17, Washington, DC 

20590. 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the collection of information 

requirements contained in this NPRM 

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. 

FRA is not authorized to impose a 

penalty on persons for violating 

information collection requirements 

which do not display a current OMB 

control number, if required. FRA 

intends to obtain current OMB control 

numbers for any new information 

collection requirements resulting from 

this rulemaking action prior to the 

effective date of a final rule. The OMB 

control number, when assigned, will be 

announced by separate notice in the 

Federal Register. 

D. Federalism Implications 

FRA has analyzed this proposed rule 

in accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132, issued on August 4, 1999, which 

directs Federal agencies to exercise great 

care in establishing policies that have 

federalism implications. See 64 FR 

43255. This proposed rule will not have 

a substantial direct effect on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among various levels of 

government. 

One of the fundamental federalism 

principles, as stated in Section 2(a) of 

Executive Order 13132, is that 

‘‘[f]ederalism is rooted in the belief that 

issues that are not national in scope or 

significance are most appropriately 

addressed by the level of government 

closest to the people.’’ Congress 

expressed its intent that there be 

national uniformity of regulation 

concerning railroad safety matters when 

it issued 49 U.S.C. 20106, which 

provides that all regulations prescribed 

by the Secretary relating to railroad 

safety preempt any State law, 

regulation, or order covering the same 

subject matter, except a provision 

necessary to eliminate or reduce an 

essentially local safety hazard that is not 

incompatible with a Federal law, 

regulation, or order and that does not 

unreasonably burden interstate 

commerce. This intent was expressed 

even more specifically in 49 U.S.C. 

20133, which mandated that the 

Secretary of Transportation prescribe 

‘‘regulations establishing minimum 

standards for the safety of cars used by 

railroad carriers to transport 

passengers’’ and consider such things as 

‘‘emergency response procedures and 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 50301 

equipment’’ before prescribing such 

regulations. This proposed rule is 

intended to add to and enhance the 

regulations issued pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

20133. 

FRA notes that the above factors have 

been considered throughout the 

development of this NPRM both 

internally and through consultation 

within the RSAC forum, as described in 

Section II of this preamble. The full 

RSAC, which reached consensus on the 

proposed rule text before recommending 

the proposal to FRA, has as permanent 

voting members two organizations 

representing State and local interests: 

AASHTO and ASRSM. As such, these 

State organizations concurred with the 

proposed requirements. The RSAC 

regularly provides recommendations to 

the FRA Administrator for solutions to 

regulatory issues that reflect significant 

input from its State members. To date, 

FRA has received no indication of 

concerns about the Federalism 

implications of this rulemaking from 

these representatives or from any other 

representative. 

For the foregoing reasons, FRA 

believes that this proposed rule is in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132. 

E. Environmental Impact 

FRA has evaluated this proposed 

regulation in accordance with its 

‘‘Procedures for Considering 

Environmental Impacts’’ (FRA’s 

Procedures) (64 FR 28545, May 26, 

1999) as required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), other environmental 

statutes, Executive Orders, and related 

regulatory requirements. FRA has 

determined that this proposed 

regulation is not a major FRA action 

(requiring the preparation of an 

environmental impact statement or 

environmental assessment) because it is 

categorically excluded from detailed 

environmental review pursuant to 

section 4(c)(20) of FRA’s Procedures. 64 

FR 28547, May 26, 1999. In accordance 

with section 4(c) and (e) of FRA’s 

Procedures, the agency has further 

concluded that no extraordinary 

circumstances exist with respect to this 

regulation that might trigger the need for 

a more detailed environmental review. 

As a result, FRA finds that this 

proposed regulation is not a major 

Federal action significantly affecting the 

quality of the human environment. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Pursuant to Section 201 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each 

Federal agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise 

prohibited by law, assess the effects of 

Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and tribal governments, and the 

private sector (other than to the extent 

that such regulations incorporate 

requirements specifically set forth in 

law).’’ Section 202 of the Act (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) [currently 

$120,700,000] in any 1 year, and before 

promulgating any final rule for which a 

general notice of proposed rulemaking 

was published, the agency shall prepare 

a written statement’’ detailing the effect 

on State, local, and tribal governments 

and the private sector. The proposed 

rule would not result in the 

expenditure, in the aggregate, of 

$120,700,000 or more in any one year, 

and thus preparation of such a 

statement is not required. 

G. Energy Impact 

Executive Order 13211 requires 

Federal agencies to prepare a Statement 

of Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant 

energy action.’’ 66 FR 28355 ( May 22, 

2001). Under the Executive Order, a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency (normally 

published in the Federal Register) that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to the 

promulgation of a final rule or 

regulation, including notices of inquiry, 

advance notices of proposed 

rulemaking, and notices of proposed 

rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy; or (2) that is designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

significant energy action. FRA has 

evaluated this NPRM in accordance 

with Executive Order 13211. FRA has 

determined that this NPRM is not likely 

to have a significant adverse effect on 

the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. Consequently, FRA has 

determined that this regulatory action is 

not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ within 

the meaning of Executive Order 13211. 

H. Privacy Act 

FRA wishes to inform all potential 

commenters that anyone is able to 

search the electronic form of all 

comments received into any agency 

docket by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–

78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov. 

List of Subjects 

49 CFR Part 223 

Glazing standards, Penalties, Railroad 

safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

49 CFR Part 238 

Passenger equipment, Penalties, 

Railroad safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

The Proposed Rule 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, FRA proposes to amend parts 

223 and 238 of chapter II, subtitle B of 

Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as 

follows: 

PART 223—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 223 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–03, 20133, 

20701–02, 21301–02, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, 

note; and 49 CFR 1.49. 

Subpart A—General 

2. Section 223.5 is amended by 

removing the definitions ‘‘Emergency 

responder’’ and ‘‘Passenger train 

service’’; and by revising the definition 

‘‘Emergency window’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 223.5 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Emergency window means that 

segment of a side-facing glazing panel 

which has been designed to permit 

rapid and easy removal from inside a 

passenger car in an emergency situation. 

* * * * * 

Subpart B—Specific Requirements 

3. Section 223.9 is amended by 

removing paragraph (d); and by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 223.9 Requirements for new or rebuilt 

equipment. 

* * * * * 

(c) Passenger cars, including selfpropelled passenger cars, built or rebuilt 

after June 30, 1980, must be equipped 

with certified glazing in all windows 

and at least four emergency windows. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
50302 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

PART 238—[AMENDED] 

4. The authority citation for part 238 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20133, 

20141, 20302–20303, 20306, 20701–20702, 

21301–21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; 

and 49 CFR 1.49. 

Subpart A—General 

5. Section 238.5 is amended by 

revising the definition ‘‘Emergency 

window’’ and by adding the definitions 

‘‘Emergency responder,’’ ‘‘Dual-function 

window,’’ ‘‘Intercom,’’ ‘‘Intercom 

system,’’ ‘‘Intermediate level,’’ ‘‘Main 

level,’’ ‘‘Passenger compartment,’’ ‘‘PA 

System,’’ ‘‘Rescue access window,’’ and 

‘‘Seating area’’ to read as follows: 

§ 238.5 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Dual-function window means a 

window that is intended to serve as both 

an emergency window exit and a rescue 

access window and that meets the 

applicable requirements set forth in 

both §§ 238.113 and 238.114. 

* * * * * 

Emergency responder means a 

member of a police or fire department, 

or other organization involved with 

public safety charged with providing or 

coordinating emergency services, who 

responds to a passenger train 

emergency. 

Emergency window means that 

segment of a side-facing glazing panel 

which has been designed to permit 

rapid and easy removal from inside a 

passenger car in an emergency situation. 

* * * * * 

Intercom means a device through 

which voice communication is 

transmitted and received. 

Intercom system means a two-way, 

voice communication system. 

* * * * * 

Intermediate level means a level of a 

multi-level passenger car that is used for 

passenger seating and is normally 

located between two main levels. An 

intermediate level normally contains 

two, separate seating areas, one at each 

end of the car, and is normally 

connected to each main level by stairs. 

* * * * * 

Main level means a level of a 

passenger car that contains a passenger 

compartment whose length is equal to 

or greater than half the length of the car. 

* * * * * 

PA system (or public address system) 

means a one-way, voice communication 

system. 

* * * * * 

Passenger compartment means an 

area of a passenger car that consists of 

a seating area and any vestibule that is 

connected to the seating area by an open 

passageway. 

Rescue access window means a sidefacing exterior window intended for use 

by emergency responders to gain access 

to passengers in an emergency situation. 

* * * * * 

Seating area means an area of a 

passenger car that normally contains 

passenger seating. 

* * * * * 

6. Section 238.17 is amended by 

revising the introductory text of 

paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows: 

§ 238.17 Movement of passenger 

equipment with other than power brake 

defects. 

* * * * * 

(b) Limitations on movement of 

passenger equipment containing defects 

found at time of calendar day 

inspection. Except as provided in 

§§ 238.303(e)(15), (e)(17) and (e)(18), 

238.305(c) and (d), and 238.307(c)(1), 

passenger equipment containing a 

condition not in conformity with this 

part at the time of its calendar day 

mechanical inspection may be moved 

from that location for repair if all of the 

following conditions are satisfied: 

* * * * * 

(c) Limitations on movement of 

passenger equipment that develops 

defects en route. Except as provided in 

§§ 238.303(e)(15), (e)(17) and (e)(18), 

238.305(c), 238.307(c)(1), and 

238.503(f), passenger equipment that 

develops en route to its destination, 

after its calendar day mechanical 

inspection is performed and before its 

next calendar day mechanical 

inspection is performed, any condition 

not in compliance with this part, other 

than a power brake defect, may be 

moved only if the railroad complies 

with all of the following requirements 

or, if applicable, the special 

requirements in paragraph (e) of this 

section: 

* * * * * 

Subpart B—Safety Planning and 

General Requirements 

7. Section 238.113 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 238.113 Emergency window exits. 

(a) Number and location. Except as 

provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section, the following requirements 

apply on or after [DATE 60 DAYS 

AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 

THE FINAL RULE IN FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. 

(1) Single-level passenger cars. Each 

single-level passenger car shall have a 

minimum of four emergency window 

exits. At least one emergency window 

exit shall be located in each side of each 

end (half) of the car, in a staggered 

configuration where practical. (See 

Figure 1 to this subpart; see also Figures 

1b and 1c to this subpart.) 

(2) Multi-level passenger cars—main 

levels. Each main level in a multi-level 

passenger car is subject to the same 

requirements specified for single-level 

passenger cars in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section. 

(3) Multi-level passenger cars—levels 

with seating areas other than main 

levels. (i) Except as provided below, on 

or after [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER 

DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER] any level other than a main 

level used for passenger seating in a 

multi-level passenger car, such as an 

intermediate level, shall have a 

minimum of two emergency window 

exits in each seating area. The 

emergency window exits shall be 

accessible to passengers in the seating 

area without requiring movement 

through an interior door or to another 

level of the car. At least one emergency 

window exit shall be located in each 

side of the seating area. An emergency 

window exit may be located within an 

exterior side door in the passenger 

compartment if it is not practical to 

place the window exit in the side of the 

seating area. (See Figures 2 and 2a to 

this subpart; compare to Figure 2b of 

this subpart.) 

(ii) Only one emergency window exit 

is required in a seating area in a 

passenger compartment if: 

(A) It is not practical to place an 

emergency window exit in a side of the 

passenger compartment due to the need 

to provide accessible accommodations 

under the Americans with Disabilities 

Act of 1990; 

(B) There are no more than four seats 

in the seating area; and 

(C) A suitable, alternate arrangement 

for emergency egress is provided. 

(iii) For passenger cars ordered prior 

to [DATE 14 MONTHS AFTER DATE 

OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 

and placed in service prior to [DATE 38 

MONTHS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], only one 

emergency window exit is required in a 

seating area in a passenger compartment 

if it is not practicable to place a window 

exit in a side of the passenger 

compartment (due to the presence of 

such structures as a bathroom, electrical 

locker, or kitchen) and there are no 

more than eight seats in the seating area. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 50303 

(4) Cars with a sleeping compartment 

or similar private compartment. Each 

level of a passenger car with a sleeping 

compartment or a similar private 

compartment intended to be occupied 

by a passengers or train crewmember 

shall have at least one emergency 

window exit in each such compartment. 

For purposes of this paragraph (a)(4), a 

bathroom, kitchen, or locomotive cab is 

not considered a ‘‘compartment.’’

(b) Ease of operability. On or after 

November 8, 1999, each emergency 

window exit shall be designed to permit 

rapid and easy removal from the inside 

of the car during an emergency situation 

without requiring the use of a tool or 

other implement. 

(c) Dimensions. Each emergency 

window exit in a passenger car, 

including a sleeping car, ordered on or 

after September 8, 2000, or placed in 

service for the first time on or after 

September 9, 2002, shall have an 

unobstructed opening with minimum 

dimensions of 26 inches horizontally by 

24 inches vertically. An emergency 

window exit located within an exterior 

side door, in accordance with the 

requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(i) of 

this section, may have an unobstructed 

opening with minimum dimensions of 

24 inches horizontally by 26 inches 

vertically. A seatback is not an 

obstruction if it can be moved away 

from the window opening without 

requiring the use of a tool or other 

implement. 

(d) Marking and instructions. (1) Each 

emergency window exit shall be 

conspicuously and legibly marked with 

luminescent material on the inside of 

each car to facilitate passenger egress. 

(2) Legible and understandable 

operating instructions, including 

instructions for removing the window, 

shall be posted at or near each such 

window exit. If window removal may be 

hindered by the presence of a seatback, 

headrest, luggage rack, or other fixture, 

the instructions shall state the method 

for allowing rapid and easy removal of 

the window, taking into account the 

fixture(s), and this portion of the 

instructions may be in written or 

pictorial format. 

8. Section 238.114 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 238.114 Rescue access windows. 

(a) Number and location. Except as 

provided in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this 

section, the following requirements 

apply on or after [DATE 60 DAYS 

AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 

THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. 

(1) Single-level passenger cars. Except 

as provided in this paragraph (a)(1) and 

in paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), and 

(a)(5) of this section, each single-level 

passenger car shall have a minimum of 

two rescue access windows. At least one 

rescue access window shall be located 

in each side of the car entirely within 

15 feet of the car’s centerline, or entirely 

within 71⁄2 feet of the centerline if the 

car does not exceed 45 feet in length. 

(See Figure 1a to this subpart; see also 

Figures 1b and 1c to this subpart.) If the 

seating level is obstructed by an interior 

door or otherwise partitioned into 

separate seating areas, each separate 

seating area shall have a minimum of 

one rescue access window in each side 

of the seating area, located as near to the 

center of the car as practical. 

(i) For a single-level passenger car 

ordered prior to [DATE 14 MONTHS 

AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 

THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], and placed in service prior 

to [DATE 38 MONTHS AFTER DATE 

OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 

rescue access windows may be located 

farther than the above prescribed 

distances from the car’s centerline, or 

located within exterior side doors, or 

both, if at least one rescue access 

window is located within each side of 

each end (half) of the same passenger 

compartment. 

(ii) For a single-level passenger car 

ordered prior to September 8, 2000, and 

placed in service prior to September 9, 

2002, the requirements of paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section apply on or after 

[DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] if the car 

has at least two exterior side doors (or 

door leaves), each with a manual 

override device, and such doors (or door 

leaves) are located one on each side of 

the car, in opposite ends (halves) of the 

car (i.e., in diagonally opposite 

quadrants). The manual override device 

shall be: 

(A) Capable of releasing the door (or 

door leaf) to permit it to be opened 

without power from outside the car; 

(B) Located adjacent to the door (or 

door leaf) which it controls; and 

(C) Designed and maintained so that 

a person may access the override device 

from outside the car without requiring 

the use of a tool or other implement. 

(2) Multi-level passenger cars—main 

levels. Each main level in a multi-level 

passenger car is subject to the same 

requirements specified for single-level 

passenger cars in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section, with the exception of paragraph 

(a)(1)(ii), which is not applicable. 

(3) Multi-level passenger cars—levels 

with seating areas other than main 

levels. (i) Except as provided below, any 

level other than a main level used for 

passenger seating in a multi-level 

passenger car, such as an intermediate 

level, shall have a minimum of two 

rescue access windows in each seating 

area. The rescue access windows shall 

permit emergency responders to gain 

access to passengers in the seating area 

without requiring movement through an 

interior door or to another level of the 

car. At least one rescue access window 

shall be located in each side of the 

seating area. A rescue access window 

may be located within an exterior side 

door in the passenger compartment if it 

is not practical to place the access 

window in the side of the seating area. 

(See Figures 2 and 2a of this subpart; 

compare to Figure 2b of this subpart.) 

(ii) Only one rescue access window is 

required in a seating area in a passenger 

compartment if: 

(A) It is not practical to place a rescue 

access window in a side of the 

passenger compartment due to the need 

to provide accessible accommodations 

under the Americans with Disabilities 

Act of 1990; 

(B) There are no more than four seats 

in the seating area; and 

(C) A suitable, alternate arrangement 

for rescue access is provided. 

(iii) For passenger cars ordered prior 

to [DATE 14 MONTHS AFTER DATE 

OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 

and placed in service prior to [DATE 38 

MONTHS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], only one 

rescue access window is required in a 

seating area in a passenger compartment 

if it is not practicable to place an access 

window in a side of the passenger 

compartment (due to the presence of 

such structures as a bathroom, electrical 

locker, or kitchen) and there are no 

more than eight seats in the seating area. 

(4) Cars with a sleeping compartment 

or similar private compartment. Each 

level of a passenger car with a sleeping 

compartment or a similar private 

compartment intended to be occupied 

by a passenger or train crewmember 

shall have a minimum of one rescue 

access window in each such 

compartment. For purposes of this 

paragraph, a bathroom, kitchen, or 

locomotive cab is not considered a 

‘‘compartment.’’

(5) Dual-function windows. If, on any 

level of a passenger car, the emergency 

window exits installed to meet the 

minimum requirements of § 238.113 of 

this part are also intended to function as 

rescue access windows, the minimum 

requirements for the number and 

location of rescue access windows in 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
50304 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this 

section are also met for that level. 

(b) Ease of operability. On or after 

[DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], each 

rescue access window must be capable 

of being removed without undue delay 

by an emergency responder using either: 

(1) A provided external mechanism; 

or 

(2) Tools or implements that are 

commonly available to the responder in 

a passenger train emergency. 

(c) Dimensions. Each rescue access 

window in a passenger car, including a 

sleeping car, ordered on or after [DATE 

14 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or 

placed in service for the first time on or 

after [DATE 38 MONTHS AFTER DATE 

OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 

shall have an unobstructed opening 

with minimum dimensions of 26 inches 

horizontally by 24 inches vertically. A 

rescue access window located within an 

exterior side door, in accordance with 

the requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(i) of 

this section, may have an unobstructed 

opening with minimum dimensions of 

24 inches horizontally by 26 inches 

vertically. A seatback is not an 

obstruction if it can be moved away 

from the window opening without 

requiring the use of a tool or other 

implement. 

(d) Marking and instructions. Each 

rescue access window shall be marked 

with retroreflective material. A unique 

and easily recognizable symbol, sign, or 

other conspicuous marking shall also be 

used to identify each such window. 

Legible and understandable windowaccess instructions, including 

instructions for removing the window, 

shall be posted at or near each rescue 

access window. 

§ 238.117 [Redesignated as § 238.121] 

9. Redesignate § 238.117 as § 238.121. 

10. Add new § 238.117 to read as 

follows: 

§ 238.117 Emergency communications. 

(a) PA system (public address 

system)—(1) Existing Tier I passenger 

cars. On or after January 1, 2012, each 

Tier I passenger car shall be equipped 

with a PA system that provides a means 

for a crewmember to communicate to all 

train passengers in an emergency 

situation. 

(2) New Tier I and all Tier II 

passenger cars. Each Tier I passenger 

car ordered on or after [DATE 60 DAYS 

AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 

THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], or placed in service for the 

first time [DATE 26 MONTHS AFTER 

DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], and all Tier II passenger 

cars shall be equipped with a PA system 

that provides a means for a crewmember 

to communicate to all train passengers 

in an emergency situation. The PA 

system shall also provide a means for a 

crewmember to communicate in an 

emergency situation to persons in the 

immediate vicinity of the train (e.g., on 

the station platform). The PA system 

may be part of the same system as the 

intercom system. 

(b) Intercom system.—(1) New Tier I 

and all Tier II passenger cars. Each Tier 

I passenger car ordered on or after 

[DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or 

placed in service for the first time on or 

after [DATE 26 MONTHS AFTER DATE 

OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 

and all Tier II passenger cars shall be 

equipped with an intercom system that 

provides a means for passengers and 

crewmembers to communicate with 

each other in an emergency situation. 

Except as further specified, at least one 

intercom that is accessible to passengers 

without requiring the use of a tool or 

other implement shall be located in 

each end (half) of each car. If any 

passenger car does not exceed 45 feet in 

length, or if a Tier II passenger car was 

ordered prior to May 12, 1999, only one 

such intercom is required. The intercom 

system may be part of the same system 

as the PA system. 

(2) Marking and instructions. The 

following requirements to apply to each 

Tier I passenger car on or after [DATE 

26 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and to 

all Tier II passenger cars: 

(i) The location of each intercom 

intended for passenger use shall be 

clearly marked with luminescent 

material; and 

(ii) Legible and understandable 

operating instructions shall be posted at 

or near each such intercom. 

(c) Back-up power. PA and intercom 

systems on Tier II passenger trains shall 

have back-up power for a minimum 

period of 90 minutes. 

11. Section 238.118 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 238.118 Emergency roof access. 

Except as provided in § 238.441—

(a) Number and dimensions. Each 

passenger car ordered on or after [DATE 

14 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or 

placed in service for the first time on or 

after [DATE 38 MONTHS AFTER DATE 

OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 

shall have a minimum of two emergency 

roof access locations, each with a 

minimum opening of 26 inches 

longitudinally (i.e., parallel to the 

longitudinal axis of the car) by 24 

inches laterally. 

(b) Means of access. Emergency roof 

access shall be provided by means of a 

hatch, or a clearly marked structural 

weak point in the roof for access by 

properly equipped emergency response 

personnel. 

(c) Location. Emergency roof access 

locations shall be situated as practical 

so that when a car is on its side: 

(1) One emergency access location is 

wholly within each half of the roof as 

divided top from bottom; and 

(2) One emergency access location is 

wholly within each half of the roof as 

divided left from right. (See Figure 3 to 

this subpart.) 

(d) Obstructions. The ceiling space 

below each emergency roof access 

location shall be free from wire, cabling, 

conduit, and piping. This space shall 

also be free of any rigid secondary 

structure (e.g., a diffuser or diffuser 

support, lighting back fixture, mounted 

PA equipment, luggage rack) where 

practicable. If emergency roof access is 

provided by means of a hatch, it shall 

be possible to push interior panels or 

liners out of their retention devices and 

into the interior of the vehicle after 

removing the hatch. If emergency roof 

access is provided by means of a 

structural weak point, it shall be 

permissible to cut through interior 

panels, liners, or other non-rigid 

secondary structures after making the 

cutout hole in the roof, provided any 

such additional cutting necessary to 

access the interior of the vehicle permits 

a minimum opening of the dimensions 

specified in paragraph (a) of this section 

to be maintained. 

(e) Marking and instructions. Each 

emergency roof access location shall be 

conspicuously marked with 

retroreflective material of contrasting 

color. As further specified, legible and 

understandable instructions shall be 

posted at or near each such location. If 

emergency roof access is provided by 

means of a structural weak point: 

(1) The retroreflective material shall 

conspicuously mark the line along 

which the roof skin shall be cut; and 

(2) A sign plate with a retroreflective 

border shall also state: 

CAUTION—DO NOT USE FLAME 

CUTTING DEVICES. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 50305 

CAUTION—WARN PASSENGERS 

BEFORE CUTTING. 

CUT ALONG DASHED LINE TO 

GAIN ACCESS. 

ROOF CONSTRUCTION—[STATE 

RELEVANT DETAILS] 

Subpart D—Inspection, Testing, and 

Maintenance Requirements for Tier I 

Passenger Equipment 

12. Section 238.303 is amended by 

adding paragraph (e)(18) to read as 

follows: 

§ 238.303 Exterior calendar day 

mechanical inspection of passenger 

equipment. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(18) All rescue-access-related exterior 

markings, signage, and instructions 

required by § 238.114 and § 239.107(a) 

of this chapter shall be in place and, as 

applicable, conspicuous, or legible, or 

both. 

(i) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(e)(18)(ii) and (iii) of this section, 

passenger equipment that has any 

required rescue-access-related exterior 

marking, signage, or instruction that is 

missing, illegible, or inconspicuous may 

remain in passenger service until no 

later than the equipment’s fourth 

exterior calendar day mechanical 

inspection or next periodic mechanical 

inspection required under § 238.307, 

whichever occurs first, after the noncomplying condition is discovered, 

where it shall be repaired or removed 

from service. 

(ii) A passenger car having more than 

50 percent of the windows on a side of 

a level of the car designated and 

properly marked for rescue access that 

has any required rescue-access-related 

exterior marking, signage, or instruction 

that is missing, illegible, or 

inconspicuous on any of the other 

windows on that side and level of the 

car may remain in passenger service 

until no later than the car’s next 

periodic mechanical inspection required 

under § 238.307, where it shall be 

repaired or removed from service. 

(iii) A passenger car that is a sleeping 

car that has more than two consecutive 

windows with any required rescueaccess-related exterior marking, signage, 

or instruction at or near their locations 

that is missing, illegible, or 

inconspicuous may remain in passenger 

service until no later than the car’s next 

periodic mechanical inspection required 

under § 238.307, where it shall be 

repaired or removed from service. 

(iv) A record shall be maintained of 

any non-complying marking, signage, or 

instruction described in paragraphs 

(e)(18)(i) through (iii) of this section that 

contains the date and time that the 

defective condition was first discovered. 

This record shall be retained until all 

necessary repairs are completed. 

* * * * * 

13. Section 238.305 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c) introductory text 

and (c)(10), and adding paragraphs 

(c)(11) and (c)(12) to read as follows: 

§ 238.305 Interior calendar day mechanical 

inspection of passenger cars. 

* * * * * 

(c) As part of the interior calendar day 

interior mechanical inspection, the 

railroad shall verify conformity with the 

following conditions, and 

nonconformity with any such condition 

renders the car defective whenever 

discovered in service, except as 

provided in paragraphs (c)(5) through 

(c)(12), and paragraph (d) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(10) All end doors and side doors 

operate safely and as intended. A noncomplying car may continue in 

passenger service pursuant to paragraph 

(d) of this section if at least one 

operative and accessible door is 

available on each side of the car; the 

train crew is provided written 

notification of the non-complying 

condition; and a notice is prominently 

displayed directly on the defective door 

indicating that the door is defective. 

(11) [Reserved] 

(12) On passenger cars so equipped, 

public address and intercom systems 

shall be operative and function as 

intended. A passenger car with an 

inoperative or non-functioning public 

address or intercom system may remain 

in passenger service until no later than 

the car’s fourth interior calendar day 

mechanical inspection or next periodic 

mechanical inspection required under 

§ 238.307, whichever occurs first, or for 

a passenger car used in long-distance 

intercity train service until the eighth 

interior calendar day mechanical 

inspection or next periodic mechanical 

inspection required under § 238.307, 

whichever occurs first, after the noncomplying condition is discovered, 

where it shall be repaired or removed 

from service; provided, the train crew is 

given written notification of the noncomplying condition, and all of the 

requirements contained in paragraph 

(d)(3) of this section are met. 

* * * * * 

14. Section 238.307 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c) introductory text 

and (c)(5) to read as follows: 

§ 238.307 Periodic mechanical inspection 

of passenger cars and unpowered vehicles 

used in passenger trains. 

* * * * * 

(c) The periodic mechanical 

inspection shall specifically include the 

following interior and exterior 

mechanical components, which shall be 

inspected not less frequently than every 

184 days. At a minimum, this 

inspection shall determine that: 

* * * * * 

(5) With regard to the following 

emergency systems: 

(i) Emergency lighting systems 

required under § 238.115 are in place 

and operational; and 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(iii) Emergency roof access markings 

and instructions required under 

§ 238.118 (e) are in place and, as 

applicable, conspicuous, or legible, or 

both. 

* * * * * 

Subpart E—Specific Requirements for 

Tier II Passenger Equipment 

§ 238.437 [Removed and Reserved] 

15. Section 238.437 is removed and 

reserved. 

16. Section 238.441 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 238.441 Emergency roof access. 

(a) Each passenger car ordered prior to 

[DATE 14 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and 

placed in service for the first time prior 

to [DATE 38 MONTHS AFTER DATE 

OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 

and each power car shall have a 

minimum of one roof hatch emergency 

access location with a minimum 

opening of 26 inches by 24 inches, or at 

least one structural weak point in the 

roof providing a minimum opening of 

the same dimensions, to provide access 

for properly equipped emergency 

response personnel. Each emergency 

roof access location shall be 

conspicuously marked, and legible and 

understandable operating instructions 

shall be posted at or near each such 

location. 

(b) Each passenger car ordered on or 

after [DATE 14 MONTHS AFTER DATE 

OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or 

placed in service for the first time on or 

after [DATE 38 MONTHS AFTER DATE 

OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER,] 

shall comply with the emergency roof 

access requirements specified in 

§ 238.118. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 17, 

2006. 

Joseph H. Boardman, 

Federal Railroad Administrator. 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
50306 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP24AU06.014</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 50307 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP24AU06.015</GPH>
50308 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP24AU06.016</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 50309 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP24AU06.017</GPH>
50310 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP24AU06.018</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 50311 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP24AU06.019</GPH>
50312 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP24AU06.020</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 50313 

[FR Doc. 06–7099 Filed 8–23–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–C 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP24AU06.021</GPH>