50820 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Parts 229, 232, and 238 

[Docket No. FRA–2006–26175, Notice No. 

1] 

RIN 2130–AB84 

Electronically Controlled Pneumatic 

Brake Systems 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: FRA proposes revisions to the 

regulations governing freight power 

brakes and equipment by adding a new 

subpart addressing electronically 

controlled pneumatic (ECP) brake 

systems. The proposed regulations are 

designed to provide for and encourage 

the safe implementation and use of ECP 

brake system technologies. The proposal 

contains specific requirements relating 

to design, interoperability, training, 

inspection, testing, handling defective 

equipment, and periodic maintenance 

related to ECP brake systems. The 

document also identifies provisions of 

the existing regulations and statutes 

where FRA is proposing to provide 

flexibility to facilitate the introduction 

of this advanced brake system 

technology. 

DATES: (1) Written comments must be 

received by November 5, 2007. 

Comments received after that date will 

be considered to the extent possible 

without incurring additional expenses 

or delays. 

(2) FRA will hold an oral public 

hearing on a date to be announced in a 

forthcoming notice. 

ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments 

related to Docket No. FRA–2006–26175, 

may be submitted by any of the 

following methods: 

• Web site: Until September 28, 2007, 

comments should be filed at http:// 

dms.dot.gov. After September 28, 2007, 

comments should be filed at the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal, http:// 

www.regulations.gov. At each site, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Room W12–140 on 

the Ground level of the West Building, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m. Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

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 until September 28, 2007, 

to http://www.regulations.gov after 

September 28, 2007, or to Room W12– 

140 on the Ground level of the West 

Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m. Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Wilson, Office of Safety 

Assurance and Compliance, Motive 

Power and Equipment Division, RRS– 

14, Mail Stop 25, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 

202–493–6259); or Jason Schlosberg, 

Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, 

Mail Stop 10, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 

202–493–6032). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Supplementary 

Information 

I. Background 

II. Conventional Brake Operations 

III. ECP Brake Operations 

IV. Interoperability 

V. Advantages of ECP Brakes Over 

Conventional Pneumatic Brakes 

A. Simultaneous Brake Application 

B. Continuous Brake Pipe Charging 

C. Graduated Brake Application and 

Release 

D. Train Management 

E. Improved Performance 

VI. Standards, Approval, and Testing 

A. AAR Standards and Approval Process 

B. FMECA 

VII. Market Maturity and Implementation 

VIII. Related Proceeding 

IX. Legal Impediments and Proposed Relief 

X. Additional Issues 

A. Part 229 

B. Dynamic Brake Requirements 

C. Single Car Air Brake Test Approval 

Procedures and Single Car Air Brake 

Tests 

D. Train Handling Information 

E. Piston Travel Limits 

F. Extended Haul Trains 

G. Part 238 

XI. Section-by-Section Analysis 

XII. 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 Reform Act of 1995 

G. Energy Impact 

H. Privacy Act 

I. Background 

Since the inception of automatic air 

brakes by George Westinghouse in the 

1870s, brake signal propagation has 

been limited by the nature of air and the 

speed of sound. Other adjustments have 

sought to alleviate this deficiency, but 

have left the basic system unaltered. As 

early as 1990, the Association of 

American Railroads (AAR) has 

investigated more advanced braking 

concepts for freight railroads, including 

ECP brake systems, which promise to 

radically improve brake propagation by 

using electrical transmissions of the 

braking signal through the train while 

still using air pressure in the cylinder to 

apply the force of the brake shoe. During 

the past 15 years, ECP brake technology 

has progressed rapidly and has been 

field tested and used on various 

railroads’ revenue trains. 

FRA has been an active and consistent 

advocate of ECP brake system 

implementation. In 1997, FRA 

participated in an AAR initiative to 

develop ECP brake standards and in 

1999, FRA funded, through 

Transportation Technology Center, Inc., 

a Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality 

Analysis (FMECA) of ECP brake systems 

based on the AAR standards. FRA also 

took part in programs to develop and 

enhance advanced components for ECP 

brake systems. 

To assess the benefits and costs of 

ECP brakes for the U.S. rail freight 

industry, FRA contracted Booz Allen 

Hamilton (BAH) in 2005 to conduct a 

study. BAH engaged an expert panel 

consisting of principle stakeholders in 

ECP brake technology conversion to 

participate in the study. The expert 

panel made various conclusions relating 

to technological standards, safety, and 

efficiency. In addition, the final BAH 

report provided a comprehensive 

analysis and comparison of ECP and 

conventional air brake systems. On 

August 17, 2006, FRA announced in a 

press release its intention to issue a 

notice of proposed rulemaking to revise 

the federal brake safety standards to 

encourage railroads to invest in and 

deploy ECP brake technology. In the 

press release, FRA encouraged railroads 

to submit ECP brake plans before the 

proposed rule changes are completed. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 50821 

In a petition dated November 15, 

2006, and filed November 21, 2006, two 

railroads—the BNSF Railway Company 

(BNSF) and the Norfolk Southern 

Corporation (NS)—jointly requested that 

FRA waive various sections in parts 229 

and 232 as it relates to those railroads’

operation of ECP brake pilot trains. See 

Docket No. FRA–2006–26435. FRA held 

a fact-finding hearing on this matter on 

January 16, 2007, featuring testimony 

from representatives of the petitioners, 

air brake manufacturers, and labor 

unions and issued a conditional waiver 

on March 21, 2007. See id. In drafting 

this proceeding’s proposed rules, FRA 

has considered information filed and 

decisions made in the related, but 

separate, proceeding concerning the 

petition for waiver filed by BNSF and 

NS. 

II. Conventional Brake Operations 

While the basic operational concept of 

the automatic air brake system, 

originally conceived by George 

Westinghouse in the 1870s, remains the 

same, it has seen continuous 

improvement in practice. An air 

compressor in the locomotive charges a 

main reservoir to about 140 pounds per 

square inch (psi). With controls located 

in the locomotive, the locomotive 

engineer uses the main reservoir to 

charge the brake pipe—a 11⁄4 inch 

diameter pipe—that runs the length of 

the train and is connected between cars 

with hoses. The brake pipe’s 

compressed air—used as the 

communication medium to signal brake 

operations and the power source for 

braking action—then charges each car’s 

two-compartment reservoir to a pressure 

of 90 psi. Braking occurs through a 

reduction of air pressure in the brake 

pipe, which signals the valves on each 

car to direct compressed air from the 

reservoir on each car to its respective 

brake cylinder for an application of 

brakes. When air pressure is supplied to 

the brake cylinder—which is connected 

to a series of rods and levers that apply 

and release the brakes—the resulting 

force presses the brake shoes against the 

wheel, slowing the car’s speed. 

While brake applications were 

initially directed by George 

Westinghouse’s triple valve, modern 

applications direct a control valve, 

which directs air from the brake pipe 

into the air reservoir when air pressure 

is rising in the brake pipe in order to 

charge the auxiliary and emergency 

reservoir and be ready for a brake 

application. To perform a brake 

application, the locomotive automatic 

brake valve reduces pressure in the 

brake pipe by exhausting air, causing 

the car’s control valve to direct air from 

the auxiliary reservoir into the brake 

cylinder. The increase in pressure to the 

brake cylinder is approximately 

proportional to the drop in brake pipe 

pressure. A 26 psi reduction in brake 

pipe pressure is equal to a full service 

brake application on a fully charged 

brake pipe, and should result in a brake 

cylinder pressure adequate to achieve a 

full service braking effort (brake force). 

While the control valve is directing air 

into the brake cylinder, or holding air in 

the brake cylinder, it is unable to 

recharge the auxiliary reservoir on each 

car. The engineer can apply the brakes 

in increments, at few psi at a time, go 

directly to a full service application of 

26 psi reduction, or initiate an 

emergency application of the brakes, as 

explained below. 

Unlike a brake application, the 

incremental release of brakes on a 

freight train cannot be accomplished. 

Brakes can only be fully released, called 

a direct release, and the auxiliary 

reservoirs then begin to charge. Brake 

applications are possible, but are more 

complicated, from undercharged brake 

pipe and reservoirs. Recharging takes 

more time for a longer train, because the 

air has to be sent down the length of the 

train’s brake pipe—which can be up to 

a mile and a half. In addition, on 

extremely long trains, the brake pipe 

pressure on the last car may not reach 

90 psi due to small leaks throughout the 

brake pipe, and there may be problems 

getting enough brake pipe pressure to 

fully release the brakes during cold 

weather. 

Brake pipe pressure is measured by an 

end-of-train (EOT) device, which is 

electrically and pneumatically 

connected to the rear of a train equipped 

with conventional pneumatic brakes 

and sends signals (EOT Beacon) via 

radio indicating the brake pipe pressure 

to the lead locomotive. Current Federal 

regulations specify the design and 

performance standards for both one-way 

and two-way EOT devices. See Part 232, 

subpart E. Both EOT device designs 

comprise of a rear unit pneumatically 

connected to the rear of the train’s last 

car that an EOT Beacon to a Head End 

Unit (HEU)—a brake system control 

device mounted within the locomotive 

and used to control the ECP brake 

system by the locomotive engineer and 

containing the fail-safe software for 

certain undesirable conditions. One-way 

EOT devices can transmit information 

from the rear unit to the HEU. At a 

minimum, the one-way device must 

transmit the brake pipe pressure to the 

HEU and display the reading to the 

locomotive engineer. Two-way EOT 

devices transmit and receive 

information from both the rear end unit 

and the HEU. 

An emergency brake application can 

be initiated in several ways. The 

locomotive engineer can initiate the 

application by moving the brake handle 

to the emergency position, which 

exhausts air from the locomotive end at 

a faster rate than the service application. 

Emergency brake applications can also 

be initiated by opening the conductor’s 

valve, located in the cab of the 

locomotive, or by a break-in-two, where 

the train separates between cars and the 

brake pipe hoses separate, exhausting 

brake pipe pressure. While performing 

an emergency brake application from 

the locomotive, a locomotive engineer 

can also use a two-way EOT to initiate 

an emergency brake application at the 

rear of the train. This permits the 

emergency application to be 

simultaneously initiated from both the 

front and rear of the trains and ensures 

that the brakes on the cars at the rear of 

the train apply in the event a brake pipe 

blockage occurs. 

III. ECP Brake Operations 

As early as 1990, AAR began 

investigating a more advanced braking 

concept for freight railroads, the ECP 

brake system. The ECP brake system 

radically improves the operation of the 

automatic air brake by using electrical 

transmissions to signal the application 

and release of brakes on each car in a 

train while still using compressed air to 

apply the force of the brake shoe against 

the wheel. ECP brakes also greatly 

simplify the brake system by 

eliminating multiple pneumatic valves 

used by conventional brakes and 

replacing them with a printed circuit 

board with microprocessor, one 

electrically activated application valve, 

and one electrically activated release 

valve, with feedback on brake cylinder 

pressure for control. 

ECP brake technology requires 

equipping locomotives and cars with 

special valves and equipment that are 

unique to the operation of ECP brakes. 

While this system still requires a brake 

pipe to supply compressed air from the 

locomotive to each car’s reservoir in a 

train, there are currently two known 

methods to send the electronic signal for 

ECP brake operations from the 

locomotive to each car in the train. 

These methods include using a hard 

wire electrical cable running the length 

of the train or a radio-based technology 

requiring a transmitter and a receiver 

installed on the cars and locomotives. 

At this time, it appears that the railroad 

industry has chosen to use a cable-based 

system for ECP brake operation. 

Therefore, the proposed rules will be 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4
50822 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

limited to operations involving cablebased ECP brake systems. 

ECP brake systems still employ the 

automatic air brake system’s basic 

concept where the locomotive supplies 

compressed air to each car’s reservoir 

via the conventional brake pipe. Each 

car’s brake valve reacts to a signal to 

apply the brakes by directing 

compressed air from the reservoir to the 

brake cylinder or to release the brakes 

by releasing air from the brake cylinder. 

The similarities between the 

conventional pneumatic and ECP brake 

systems end here. Instead of utilizing 

reductions and increases of the brake 

pipe pressure to convey application and 

release signals to each car in the train, 

ECP brake technology uses electronic 

signals, resulting in an almost 

instantaneous application and release of 

brakes on each car in the entire train. 

Since the brake pipe pressure no longer 

serves as the communication medium in 

ECP braked trains, the brake pipe is 

constantly supplied or charged with 

compressed air from the locomotive 

regardless of whether the brakes are 

applied or released. In addition, ECP 

brake equipped trains offer graduated 

release, where a partial brake release 

command provides a partial, 

proportional brake release. 

The basic ECP brake system is 

controlled from the HEU and each car 

is equipped with a Car Control Device 

(CCD), an electronic control device that 

replaces the function of the 

conventional pneumatic service and 

emergency portions during electronic 

braking. The CCD acknowledges and 

interprets the electronic signals from the 

HEU and controls the car’s service and 

emergency braking functions and brake 

releases. The CCD also controls 

reservoir charging and sends a warning 

signal to the locomotive in the event any 

component fails to appropriately 

respond to a braking command. Each 

CCD has a unique electronic address 

located in the Car ID Module, which is 

keyed to a car’s reporting mark and 

number. 

Each car connects to the locomotive 

via special connectors and junction 

boxes. More specifically, an ECP brake 

equipped train’s train line cable—a twoconductor electric cable (#8 A–WG and 

a shield)—connects the locomotive and 

cars and carries train line power to 

operate all CCDs and ECP brake 

system’s end-of-train (ECP–EOT) device 

and communicates network signals via 

the power voltage. A Power Supply 

Controller (PSC)—mounted within the 

locomotive and providing 230 VDC of 

electricity—interfaces with the train line 

cable’s communication network, 

provides power to all connected CCDs 

and ECP–EOT devices, and controls the 

train line power supply as commanded 

by the HEU. Under the AAR standards, 

a single power supply shall be capable 

of supplying power to an ECP brake 

equipped train consisting of at least 160 

CCDs and an ECP–EOT device. 

Under the existing regulations, the 

conventional pneumatic brake system’s 

EOT device can lose communication for 

16 minutes and 30 seconds before the 

locomotive engineer is alerted. See 49 

CFR 232.407(g). After the message is 

displayed, the engineer must restrict the 

speed of the train to 30 mph or stop the 

train if a defined heavy grade is 

involved. Per the regulations, railroads 

must calibrate each conventional twoway EOT devices every 365 days and 

would likely incur additional 

maintenance and cost expenses while 

replacing its batteries. Further, a 

conventional EOT device is heavy and 

presents a potential for personal injury 

when applied to the rear of the train. 

By contrast, an ECP–EOT device 

uniquely monitors both brake pipe 

pressure and operating voltages and 

sends an EOT Beacon every second from 

its rear unit to its HEU on the 

controlling locomotive. The HEU will 

initiate a full service brake application 

should brake pipe pressure fall below 50 

psi or an emergency brake application 

should a communication loss occur for 

five consecutive seconds or the 

electrical connection break. An ECP–

EOT device may not require calibration 

and its battery, only a back-up for the 

computer, is charged by the train line 

cable and is much lighter in weight than 

the conventional EOT device battery. 

Physically the last network node in the 

train, the ECP–EOT device also contains 

an electronic train line cable circuit—a 

50 ohm resistor in series with 0.47 

micro-farad capacitor—and must be 

connected to the network and transmit 

status messages to the HEU before the 

train line cable can be powered 

continuously. 

ECP brake systems have a great 

advantage of real-time monitoring the 

brake system’s health. In normal 

operation, the HEU transmits a message/ 

status down the train line cable to each 

car. If an individual car’s brakes do not 

respond properly to the HEU’s brake 

command, or if air pressures are not 

within the specified limits for operation, 

a message indicating the problem and 

the applicable car number is sent back 

to the HEU, which in turn notifies the 

locomotive engineer. The ECP brake 

system can identify various faults, 

including, but not limited to: low brake 

pipe pressure; low reservoir pressure; 

low train line cable voltage; low battery 

charge; incorrect brake cylinder 

pressure; and offline or cut out CCDs. 

Emergency or full service brake 

applications—enabled by compressed 

air propagating pneumatic pressure 

signals through the brake pipe—

automatically occur when the ECP brake 

system software detects certain faults. 

For instance, if the HEU detects that the 

percentage of operative brakes falls 

below 85 percent, a full service brake 

application will automatically occur. In 

addition, the brakes will automatically 

apply when the following occurs: (1) 

Two CCDs or the ECP–EOT report a 

‘‘Critical Loss’’ within 5 seconds; (2) the 

train line cable indicates low voltage 

with less than 90 percent operative 

brakes; (3) the ECP–EOT reports a low 

battery charge; (4) the train moves 

during set-up; (5) the train line cable 

becomes disconnected; or (6) the train 

exceeds 20 mph in Switch Mode. Under 

the AAR standards, the ECP brake 

system shall also have a pneumatic 

back-up system on each car for an 

emergency brake application in the 

event of a vented brake pipe or a train 

separation. These features preserve the 

fail safe feature of conventional 

pneumatic brake systems. 

IV. Interoperability 

Due to control methodology 

differences, ECP brake systems are not 

functionally compatible with 

conventional pneumatic air brake 

systems. For instance, while 

conventional pneumatic air brake 

systems command a brake application 

by reducing the air pressure in the brake 

pipe, ECP brake systems command a 

brake application through a digital 

communications link transmitted on the 

electrical train line cable. Further, 

conventional freight cars are not 

equipped with an electrical train line 

cable and must depend on the 

pneumatic brake pipe for the brake 

command. 

Manufacturers have developed 

application strategies to address issues 

relating to car and locomotive fleet 

interchangeability. In particular, they 

have proposed three major schemes of 

ECP brake design: stand-alone systems 

using only ECP brakes; overlay (dual 

mode) systems capable of operating in 

either conventional or ECP brake mode; 

and emulation systems, also capable of 

operating in either conventional or ECP 

brake mode. 

Since cars with stand-alone ECP brake 

systems do not include a fully 

pneumatic brake control valve, they are 

incompatible with conventionally 

braked cars and must be operated in 

complete ECP brake equipped train sets. 

Stand-alone ECP brake systems cannot 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 50823 

intermix in the same train with 

conventional pneumatic braked cars 

unless those cars are transported as cars 

with inoperative brakes. While the 

stand-alone ECP brake system is the 

least expensive alternative of the three 

design types, its incompatibility with 

conventional pneumatic brake systems 

requires train segregation, potentially 

posing significant operational problems 

until the entire car fleet is converted to 

ECP brakes. 

Overlay configurations—cars 

equipped with both ECP CCDs and 

conventional pneumatic control valve 

portions—allow cars to operate with 

either ECP or conventional pneumatic 

air brakes. To operate in ECP brake 

mode, compatible ECP equipment must 

be installed on the locomotive as well 

as on the freight car. While an overlay 

system’s dual mode capability provides 

significant flexibility, railroad operators 

must purchase, install, and maintain 

equipment to support both types of 

brake systems for as long as dual mode 

capability is required. 

Emulation configurations use a CCD 

capable of operating in either ECP or 

conventional mode without requiring 

conventional pneumatic controls. One 

manufacturer has provided an 

emulation ECP brake valve that 

monitors both the digital 

communications cable and the brake 

pipe for a brake command. If an 

electrical signal is present, the ECP 

brake valve operates in ECP brake mode. 

If the electrical brake command signal is 

not present, then the valve will monitor 

the changes in the brake pipe pressure 

like a conventional pneumatic control 

valve and the CCD will use a software 

program to emulate the function and 

response of a conventional pneumatic 

valve. This mode is called limited 

emulation and is meant to be used for 

small cuts of cars hauled short distances 

at slow speeds with a non-ECP brake 

equipped locomotive. An emulation 

ECP brake system can be operated in 

any train with any mix of emulation 

ECP and conventional brake systems. In 

a mixed train, the emulation ECP brake 

system will monitor the brake pipe for 

pressure changes and set up brake 

cylinder pressure like a conventional 

pneumatic valve. Currently, FRA does 

not propose any rules uniquely 

regulating trains or cars equipped with 

emulation ECP brake systems. However, 

FRA seeks comments on whether or 

how it should regulate such systems 

differently than what is proposed 

herein. 

Manufacturers have also addressed 

ECP brake compatibility with 

conventional pneumatic brake equipped 

locomotives, which must be equipped 

with a HEU unit to operate the brakes 

on ECP brake equipped cars. For 

instance, one manufacturer has 

developed a portable unit that will 

allow a non-ECP brake equipped 

locomotive to operate an ECP brake 

equipped train by converting the air 

pressure changes in the brake pipe to 

digital command signals that are 

transmitted to the freight cars through 

the electrical train line cable. The 

locomotive engineer operates the brakes 

with the conventional automatic brake 

valve in the control cab. The brakes, 

however, will respond instantaneously 

and provide all of the benefits of an ECP 

brake system. 

V. Advantages of ECP Brakes Over 

Conventional Pneumatic Brakes 

ECP brake technology overcomes 

many of the physical limitations 

inherent in conventional pneumatic 

brake technology. Field testing of AAR 

compliant ECP brake systems over the 

past decade has not revealed any 

indication of a catastrophic event that 

could be caused by an ECP brake system 

malfunctioning. With a high level of 

confidence, the ECP brake stake holders 

support the implementation of ECP 

brake systems on the Nation’s railroads. 

FRA concludes that the advantages of 

ECP brake technology will significantly 

improve the safety and the performance 

of train operations. Examples of such 

benefits include better train handling 

through simultaneous brake 

applications, continuous brake pipe 

charging, and graduated brake 

operation. ECP brake benefits also 

include electronic train management 

and improved performance. 

A. Simultaneous Brake Application 

The conventional pneumatic brake 

system uses compressed air as the 

source for braking power and as the 

medium for communicating brake 

application and release commands and 

communicates brake commands by 

changing brake pipe pressure through 

the use of the locomotive automatic 

brake control valve. These commands 

begin at the front of the train and 

propagate to the rear of the train at the 

speed of the air pressure moving from 

car to car. This slow propagation of the 

brake command contributes to uneven 

braking, excessive in-train and run-in 

forces, train handling challenges, longer 

stopping distances, safety risks of 

prematurely depleting air brake 

reservoirs, and a corresponding low 

brake rate until all cars in the train 

receive and fully respond to the brake 

command. FRA recognizes that the slow 

application and release of brakes in a 

train causes excessive in-train forces, 

which have the potential to cause 

derailments when they occur in curves, 

cross-overs, or when heavier cars are 

placed at the rear of the train. When the 

brakes on the rear of the train release 

much more slowly than the brakes on 

the front of the train, the potential for 

a ‘‘string-line’’ derailment—where the 

train stretches out until one or more 

wheels are lifted off the inside of a 

curve—increases. 

The ECP brake system reduces these 

problems by enabling cars to brake 

simultaneously at the command of an 

electronic signal. The electronic signal’s 

speed ensures an instantaneous, 

simultaneous, and even activation of 

each car’s brake valves, significantly 

reducing braking distances—40 to 60 

percent for the longest trains—and 

minimizing the consequences of 

collisions or derailments by reducing 

the collision speed and slowing the nonderailed portion of the train. 

B. Continuous Brake Pipe Charging 

Propagating a brake command signal 

through the induction or reduction of 

air pressure in the brake pipe represents 

a significant limitation of conventional 

pneumatic brakes. The same brake pipe 

air used to propagate brake commands 

also charges reservoirs on each freight 

car. As a result, the brake pipe must be 

fully charged to restore full braking 

capacity to depleted reservoirs. Partially 

depleted air from the brake pipe, which 

occurs during the initial stage of 

braking, prohibits repeat applications of 

brakes until the brake pipe can be 

recharged. A brake pipe can only be 

recharged once the brakes have been 

fully released. This characteristic of 

conventional pneumatic brakes 

contributes to the risk of run-away 

trains caused by prematurely depleted 

brake pipe pressure, particularly on 

steep grades. 

The ECP brake system reduces this 

risk by continuously charging the brake 

pipe. Since ECP brakes do not use the 

brake pipe as a brake command 

medium, the brake pipe is constantly 

being charged, allowing the locomotive 

engineer to operate the brake system 

more aggressively. With ECP brake 

systems, it is unnecessary to apply hand 

brakes on steep grades to recharge the 

brake pipe after the train stops on the 

grade. 

C. Graduated Brake Application and 

Release 

The conventional pneumatic brake 

system’s inability to operate freight 

trains in graduated release has long 

hampered train operations and has 

increased fuel consumption. The 

conventional pneumatic brake system 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4
50824 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

can only operate in direct release, 

preventing locomotive engineers from 

reducing the braking effort without 

completely releasing and resetting the 

brakes. In other words, after a direct 

release brake application with a 

conventional pneumatic brake system, 

braking effort can be increased but not 

decreased without fully releasing the 

brakes. In many cases, direct release 

leads to unnecessary train stops and 

insufficient initial brake applications. 

ECP brake systems overcome this 

deficiency by operating in graduated 

release, which enables the operator to 

reduce braking effort to a lower level 

after making an initial brake application 

without fully releasing the brakes. As a 

result, the operator can accurately adjust 

the braking level as each situation 

requires, eliminating the stops required 

to recharge and reset the brakes after 

excessive brake applications and prior 

to negotiating hills and valleys. 

D. Train Management 

The use of a train line cable allows 

real-time self-diagnostic functions to be 

incorporated in the brake system. The 

initial check of brake system conditions 

on each car and continuous monitoring 

of each car’s braking functions provides 

immediate communication to the 

locomotive engineer of certain brake 

failures. The continuous monitoring of 

each car’s braking functions and realtime diagnostics of the train’s brake 

system is a significant advantage to the 

locomotive engineer for the operation of 

the train and provides justification to 

eliminate the need for some of the 

required physical inspections of the 

train and supports regulatory change to 

operate cars with non-functioning 

brakes out of the initial terminal. When 

the ECP brake system diagnostics detect 

a serious problem, including when the 

brake pipe pressure falls below 50 psi, 

the ECP brake system will automatically 

command a penalty brake application. 

ECP brake systems also eliminate the 

conventional pneumatic brake system’s 

inability to apply all brakes in the train 

when there is a blockage in a brake pipe, 

which is handled through the use of a 

two-way EOT telemetry device not 

required by all trains. This failure will 

not affect brake applications in ECP 

brake systems, because each car is 

provided a braking command through a 

train line cable, not solely through the 

reduction of brake pipe pressure, which 

would not be propagated through the 

consist if the brake pipe is blocked. 

Therefore, ECP brake systems 

incorporate features that make them 

inherently safer than conventional 

pneumatic brakes. Using sensor-based 

technology to maintain a continuous 

feedback loop on train conditions for 

the crew and any centralized 

monitoring, the electrical 

communication cable network can also 

serve as a platform for the gradual 

addition of other train performance 

monitoring and management controls, 

including distributed power locomotive 

control, automatic activation of hand 

brakes, hot bearing detection, and truck 

oscillation and vibration. These and 

other train management features will 

increase the reliability and overall safety 

of train operations. 

E. Improved Performance 

Ultimately, ECP brake technology also 

provides improved performance, which 

will contribute to safer train operations 

and significant cost savings over time. 

Since ECP brake operated trains can 

operate in graduated release, instead of 

direct release, of the brakes, fuel will 

not be wasted while dragging trains 

against a brake application. Further, 

because all of the cars’ ECP brakes 

release instantaneously, fuel will not be 

wasted on initial start-ups and powerups after a brake application. 

Operations utilizing ECP brake 

systems also promise increased average 

train speeds and decreased trip times. 

ECP brake systems allow the locomotive 

engineer to modulate the brake 

applications in territories with 

descending grades, thus increasing 

overall trip average speeds and reaching 

destinations sooner. While the slow 

release of the rear cars’ brakes on 

conventional pneumatic braked trains 

cause drag, the brakes on ECP brake 

equipped trains release simultaneously, 

improving start-up and acceleration 

times. Further, due to its shorter 

stopping distances, trains equipped 

solely with ECP brake systems may 

potentially permit higher train speeds 

within existing signal spacing, which 

will increase average system velocity, or 

permit use of shorter ‘‘blocks’’ between 

signals, facilitating greater system 

capacity. 

The instantaneous application and 

release of ECP brakes will result in more 

uniform braking, thus improving wheel 

wear and lengthening brake shoe life. In 

a conventional pneumatically braked 

train, the brake pipe gradient and slower 

response time causes the first third of 

the train’s cars to provide the majority 

of the braking action, thus applying 

additional pressure and heat on those 

cars’ wheels. Since ECP brake systems 

provide instantaneous braking on all 

cars, such pressure will be more 

uniformly distributed along the train, 

thus eliminating the uneven braking 

force on the wheels of those leading 

cars. The ECP brake system also selfmonitors each car’s brake cylinder 

pressure and maintains the prescribed 

pressure, thus reducing the potential for 

creating shelling and flat spots on 

wheels. 

Due to minimized wheel defects, and 

their accompanying vibrations, freight 

cars and brake components will enjoy 

increased life. Further, instantaneous 

braking will also prevent draft gear 

assemblies from receiving the constant 

pressure caused by trains equipped with 

conventional pneumatic brake systems 

and will reduce lading damage by 

eliminating slack action and in-train 

forces caused by uneven braking. ECP 

brake systems will also reduce the 

number of brake parts and rubber 

diaphragms required by conventional 

pneumatic brake systems. 

VI. Standards, Approval, and Testing 

During the past 17 years, FRA has 

monitored the progression of ECP brake 

technology and has observed field 

testing on various revenue trains, both 

freight and passenger. In 1997, FRA 

participated in an AAR initiative to 

develop ECP brake standards and in 

1999, FRA funded, through the 

Transportation Technology Center, Inc., 

an FMECA of the ECP brake system 

based on AAR’s Standards and 

Recommended Practices, S–4200 Series. 

FRA also participated in programs to 

develop and enhance advanced 

components for ECP brake systems. 

After all of these efforts, FRA has 

decided that the AAR S–4200 Series of 

standards is appropriate substantively 

and legally for adoption by reference in 

this rule and that the AAR Air Brake 

Systems Committee is an appropriate 

vehicle to rely upon in the 

implementation of ECP brake 

technology and this rule. 

FRA acknowledges that ECP brakes 

are an attractive, viable, and enabling 

technology with the potential to 

substantially improve the operational 

efficiency of trains and that by 

complying with AAR Standard S–4200, 

ECP-braked trains offer significant safety 

and efficiency benefits in freight train 

handling, car maintenance, fuel savings, 

network capacity, self-monitoring, and 

fail-safe operation. FRA proposes that 

all suppliers obtain AAR approval for 

ECP brake-equipped-trains intended for 

use on U.S. railroads. 

AAR administers the existing industry 

ECP brake standards through its Air 

Brake Systems Committee—consisting 

of representatives from the major 

railroads, brake manufacturers, and 

FRA—which requires demonstrated 

proof of compatibility, safety, and 

reliability of air brake systems to receive 

AAR approval. FRA is satisfied that the 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 50825 

existing AAR S–4200 specifications, 

AAR approval procedures, and 

continuing oversight by the AAR Air 

Brake Systems Committee will best 

ensure the safety and reliability of ECP 

brake systems. An ECP brake monitoring 

system complying with AAR Standard 

S–4200 Series increases safety by 

communicating information on the 

location and quantity of defective 

equipment and by providing for the safe 

movement of equipment over longer 

distances and periods of time. 

A. AAR Standards and Approval 

Process 

In order to assure the safety and the 

interoperability of ECP brake system 

designs, AAR developed the S–4200 

Series of standards. The first five 

standards (S–4200, S–4210, S–4220, S–

4230, and S–4250)—issued in 1999 and 

updated in 2002 and 2004—specify the 

functional, operational, and interface 

requirements for cable-based ECP brake 

systems. AAR issued two additional 

standards in January 2007, specifying 

ECP brake equipment approval 

procedures (S–4240) and 

interoperability testing requirements (S–

4260). AAR has not completed 

specifications for radio-based ECP 

brakes, which it considers technically 

immature and unsuitable. The purposes 

of the standards are to ensure that AARapproved electronic brake systems are 

interoperable between different 

manufacturers and meet high standards 

of safety and reliability. The analysis of 

the S–4200 Series of standards indicates 

that the performance specifications for 

the cable-based ECP brake concept are 

complete. 

The AAR Manual of Standards and 

Recommended Practices (MSRP) 

contains the following standards for 

cable-based ECP brake systems: 

• S–4200, ECP Cable-Based Brake 

Systems—Performance Requirements; 

• S–4210, ECP Cable-Based Brake 

System Cable, Connectors, and 

Junctions Boxes—Performance 

Specifications; 

• S–4220, ECP Cable-Based Brake DC 

Power Supply—Performance 

Specification; 

• S–4230, Intratrain Communication 

Specification for Cable-Based Freight 

Train Control System; 

• S–4240, ECP Brake Equipment—

Approval Procedure; 

• S–4250, Performance Requirements 

for ITC Controlled Cable-Based 

Distributed Power Systems; and 

• S–4260, ECP Brake and Wire 

Distributed Power Interoperability Test 

Procedures. 

The main standard, S–4200, ensures 

that the functionality and performance 

of freight ECP brake systems are uniform 

and consistent among equipment from 

different manufacturers, that cars 

equipped with AAR-approved ECP 

brake systems from different 

manufacturers are interoperable, and 

that AAR-approved electronic brake 

systems meet a high standard of safety 

and reliability. This standard defines 

ECP brake system elements, specifies 

their functionality in different 

implementation schemes—such as 

stand-alone, overlays, and emulators—

and sets the requirements for all system 

functions. It covers all primary 

functions of ECP brakes, including 

graduated brake application and 

releases, continuous reservoir charging, 

adjustment of braking level to car load, 

continuous fault detection, equipment 

status monitoring, and pneumatic 

backup. It also specifies requirements 

for all modes of train operation and 

provides an extensive description of 

fault response and recovery functions 

for all possible faults of the system 

components. The standard also 

establishes environmental requirements 

for the designed systems, in-service 

testing, and rigorous approval 

procedures for certification process of 

new ECP brake equipment. 

Other standards in the AAR S–4200 

Series (S–4210, S–4220, S–4230, S–

4250, and S–4260) contain requirements 

for critical ECP brake system 

components and communication 

protocols. Standard S–4210 contains the 

performance specifications and 

qualification test procedures for ECP 

brake system cables, connectors, and 

end-of-car junction boxes. The required 

testing verifies that the designed 

components have high reliability, will 

withstand harsh environmental 

conditions, and will have at least an 8- 

year operating life. 

Standard S–4220 contains 

performance specifications for the DC 

power supply system through the hardwired train line cable for ECP brake 

controllers and other electronic freight 

car components. Since a DC power 

supply conductor will also send 

communication control commands 

between a locomotive and its attached 

cars, the standard requires reliable 

separation and absence of interference 

between the DC power supply and the 

communication circuits. 

Standard S–4230 contains the 

requirements related to intra-train 

communication systems on freight 

equipment used in revenue interchange 

service. The standard facilitates 

interoperability between freight cars and 

locomotives without limiting the 

proprietary design approaches used by 

individual suppliers. The 

communication protocol was developed 

for control of ECP brakes and multiple 

remote units, including distributed 

power locomotives, and for safety 

reporting of various car and locomotive 

components. 

Standard S–4250 contains the 

methodology and communication flow 

requirements for controlling the 

operation of multiple locomotives in a 

freight consist through the intra-train 

communication network that is shared 

with the ECP brake system. The 

locomotive control through the intratrain communication line is an 

alternative method of locomotive 

control, which was not available before 

the introduction of ECP brake system 

technology. The controlled locomotives 

can either trail a lead locomotive or be 

remotely located (i.e., separated by cars) 

in a train. The standard establishes 

protocols for different types of 

locomotive controls through the intratrain line cable, depending on the 

location of the consist’s multiple 

locomotives. 

Standard S–4260 contains the test 

procedures that must be completed by 

ECP brake suppliers to establish 

interoperability baselines among ECP 

brake and wire distributed power (WDP) 

systems in compliance with the S–4200 

standards series. The test procedures 

validate the functional interoperability 

of ECP brake and WDP systems 

developed by different manufacturers. 

The AAR approval process and the 

work of the Air Brake Systems 

Committee has been the primary 

method of ensuring the safety and 

reliability of railroad brake systems and 

components for decades. FRA proposes 

that meeting all the requirements of the 

AAR ECP brake standards and obtaining 

AAR approval will be a prerequisite for 

any new ECP brake system to be 

employed on U.S. railroads. Through its 

participation on the Air Brake Systems 

Committee, FRA can monitor any safety 

or reliability issues that may develop 

with ECP brake systems. In the event of 

a serious safety issue with a supplier’s 

ECP brake system, FRA can 

appropriately respond by invoking its 

authority to intervene with additional 

rulemaking or an emergency order. FRA 

does not expect to use this authority, 

because the AAR Air Brake Systems 

Committee already has the authority to 

rescind AAR approval for brake systems 

that do not perform safely or reliably. 

Standard S–4240 contains the 

acceptance procedure for seeking AAR 

approval of ECP brake equipment. The 

standard requires a manufacturer to 

apply for approval by submitting certain 

information under Administrative 

Standard S–060. Following review and 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4
50826 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

approval of the initial application data 

and test plan by the AAR Air Brake 

Systems Committee, a manufacturer 

maintains the burden of establishing 

compliance with Standards S–4200, S–

4210, S–4220, S–4230, S–4250, and S–

4260 to obtain conditional approval. 

For laboratory testing, an AAR 

representative will select 150 CCDs from 

a lot of 200 and will select HEUs, train 

power supplying units (TPSs), and ECP–

EOTs from lots of four each. The testing 

will be performed on a 150–car test rack 

configured in accordance with AAR 

specifications. The manufacturer will 

provide for AAR evaluation of the test 

results, which shall include a 

requirements traceability and 

compliance matrix for each AAR 

standard and all necessary test reports, 

and then conduct interoperability 

laboratory testing between new ECP 

brake equipment and AAR-approved 

ECP brake equipment in accordance 

with standard S–4260. 

Upon satisfactory completion of the 

aforementioned laboratory tests, AAR 

will consider conditional approval for 

field testing of ECP brake equipment. If 

conditional approval is granted, 150 

ECP brake CCDs shall be selected from 

a production lot of 200 test-approved 

CCDs, and 100 of those selected, plus at 

least two ECP brake equipped 

locomotives and one ECP–EOT device, 

must be placed in railroad service for 24 

months. Under conditional approval, at 

least 1,000 cars must be allotted for use. 

Within those 24 months, all in-service 

tests must be conducted. After those 24 

months, the Air Brake Systems 

Committee continues to monitor the 

product for reliability and safety 

concerns. If a problem with any brake 

component is discovered, the 

Committee will discuss the issue and 

may either demand further tests or 

withdraw AAR approval. 

Full AAR approval shall be provided 

after 4 years if during that time a 

manufacturer furnishes AAR at 

specified intervals various service 

reports, which must include accurate 

ECP brake equipment malfunction 

records. FRA agrees with AAR’s 

assessment that 4 years are needed to 

collect a history of reliable data with 

minimum failures. In addition, the 

manufacturer must provide to AAR a 

semiannual report containing any repair 

material for the test ECP brake 

equipment. Under the draft standard, 

AAR reserves the right to withdraw 

conditional test approval if it 

determines that safety is impaired, 

reliability degrades, or incompatibility 

of ECP brake operation develops, and 

may require any additional testing or 

performance evaluations it deems 

necessary. Standard S–4240 also 

contains specific procedures that must 

be followed when a manufacturer 

intends to change certain ECP brake 

equipment physical characteristics, 

software, or electronics. 

FRA supports this effort as a timely 

measure for AAR to strengthen the 

regulatory package for ECP brake 

systems. Overall, FRA considers AAR 

approval a valuable step to ensure the 

reliability and safety of ECP brake 

systems and a minimum requirement for 

initial application of ECP brake systems 

on the Nation’s railroads. However, FRA 

fully intends to monitor the application 

and safety of ECP and may, at its 

discretion, require additional safety 

analysis to be performed to confirm the 

safety of ECP brake systems installed 

and operating in revenue service. FRA 

reserves the right to witness the AAR 

approval testing of the product. 

B. FMECA 

AAR Standard S–4200 Series was 

developed to support the design of a 

safer, more reliable ECP braking system 

when compared with conventional air 

brakes. Once the standard was created, 

the railroad industry identified the need 

to perform a safety and reliability 

assessment of an ECP brake system built 

in accordance with this standard. Since 

actual S–4200 ECP brake systems did 

not yet exist, the industry decided to 

conduct a FMECA for a hypothetical 

ECP brake system that satisfied all the 

requirements of the standard. At FRA’s 

insistence, the FMECA on AAR 

Standard S–4200 was performed in 1999 

by DEL Engineering with participation 

of AAR, FRA and a number of experts 

with significant experience in the 

development and application of ECP 

brake systems. 

The FMECA team began the analysis 

by identifying all major ECP brake 

system components and their intended 

functions. The analysis examined each 

component and function and identified 

associated failure modes and effects. 

The failure modes were analyzed to 

determine severity, frequency of 

occurrence, and effectiveness of 

detection. The FMECA team created a 

numeric ranking criterion and 

determined and prioritized the level of 

risk posed by each failure mode. High 

risk failure modes were identified and 

appropriate mitigation strategies were 

developed to decrease the risk. 

The FMECA team analyzed the failure 

modes of all ECP brake components, 

including: CCDs with the battery; HEUs 

on the head locomotive; ECP–EOT 

devices; train line cables, 

communication and power supplies; 

power supply controllers; head end line 

terminators; car ID modules; locomotive 

ID modules; and operative brakes. The 

analysis included different types of ECP 

brake systems, including stand alone, 

overlay (dual mode), and emulator and 

all system functional requirements and 

operating modes, including 

Initialization, Switch, Run, and Cut-out. 

The FMECA failure log contained about 

1,500 failure modes. For each high-risk 

failure mode, the FMECA team 

identified action items and offered 

recommendations on how to mitigate 

the consequences of component failures 

or system functional failures. The team 

primarily examined single-point failures 

but also identified and evaluated some 

cases of combined failures that had 

significant safety consequences. 

The FMECA results confirmed that 

the ECP brake concept offers the 

potential for improved performance, 

reliability, and safety over that of 

conventional pneumatic brake systems. 

The FMECA concluded that no failure 

mode of an AAR-compliant ECP brake 

system exists that can cause a 

catastrophic accident due to singlepoint failure of the system itself. The 

AAR standards, as written, eliminate or 

mitigate critical outcomes of singlepoint failure of ECP brake systems. 

The FMECA team encouraged 

manufacturers to pursue ECP brake 

technology, because the potential safety 

and efficiency benefits will far outweigh 

any disadvantages. If designed and 

maintained properly, ECP brakes will be 

substantially safer and more reliable 

than the conventional pneumatic brake 

system they are intended to replace. 

AAR and the brake manufacturers 

indicated that they were completely 

satisfied that ECP brake systems are 

significantly safer than conventional 

pneumatic systems. They accepted the 

results of the FMECA and concluded 

that no modifications were necessary to 

the AAR standards related to ECP brake 

systems. 

VII. Market Maturity and 

Implementation 

The U.S. market for ECP brake 

systems is mature enough to begin 

implementation of ECP brake 

technology. The equipment 

manufacturers have made a significant 

investment in the technology and have 

completed the preliminary design work 

and field testing of ECP brakes. For 

instance, they have provided technical 

solutions for different ECP brake 

implementation strategies, enabling 

non-ECP and ECP brake equipped cars 

to run in combined trains and, in some 

cases, allowing ECP-equipped freight 

cars to run in ECP brake mode using 

locomotives with conventional 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 50827 

pneumatic brake systems. In addition, 

they are ready to supply fully 

operational stand-alone ECP brake 

systems, overlays, and emulators for the 

U.S. market, easing the industry’s 

migration process. A commitment by 

the railroad industry to change over to 

ECP brakes is necessary to inspire 

additional technological initiatives by 

the manufacturers. 

ECP brake systems from three U.S. 

manufacturers—all in different stages of 

AAR approval and testing in revenue 

service—have been built with the 

intention of complying with the AAR S–

4200 Series of standards, proven safe 

through field testing, designed using 

fail-safe principles, and accommodated 

the industry’s need for a different 

implementation scheme. The AAR S–

4200 Series standards are intended to 

assure the necessary level of safety, 

reliability, interoperability, and, 

ultimately, the applicability of this 

equipment in the U.S. market. The 

equipment of all three suppliers relies 

on the conventional pneumatic 

emergency brake system as a backup in 

case of failure of the ECP brake control. 

In most cases, ECP brake systems will 

support enhanced safety even if the 

electronics fail, because continuous 

recharging of the brake pipe will ensure 

availability of an emergency 

application. Therefore, the ECP brake 

system reduces the risk caused by 

depleted air in the case of an 

emergency. There is no instance of a 

malfunctioning ECP brake system that 

resulted in a catastrophic or critical 

event. 

To assess the benefits and costs of 

ECP brakes for the U.S. rail freight 

industry, FRA contracted BAH in 2005 

to conduct a study. An ECP brake expert 

panel of principal stakeholders in the 

conversion of the U.S. freight car fleet 

to ECP brake technology, including 

suppliers, railroads, private car owners, 

AAR, and FRA was assembled to 

participate in the study. The expert 

panel supports the conclusion that the 

AAR standards are sufficient for the ECP 

brake system designer to achieve a 

system safety level adequate for a safetycritical system. In particular, an AARcompliant system, while providing a 

significant increase in safety and 

efficiency, does not introduce extra risks 

associated with single-point failure of 

the ECP system itself. 

The final BAH report provided a 

comprehensive analysis and comparison 

of ECP and conventional air brake 

systems. BAH acknowledged that while 

trains with ECP brake systems have 

been run in North America, South 

America, and Australia, U.S. 

implementation has been stalled due to 

the absence of an acceptable 

implementation plan for conversion and 

hard data to support a sound economic 

analysis, limited interoperability with 

traditionally braked trains, and 

insufficient capital investment required 

for conversion. It concluded that 

although the barriers to implementation 

are formidable, ECP brake systems are 

economically and technically ripe for 

adoption and should be implemented in 

phases over the course of 2 to 4 years 

to collect hard data supporting further 

implementation. BAH posits that 

implementing ECP brakes on 2,800 

locomotives and 80,000 cars in the 

Powder River Basin (PRB) would cost 

the industry approximately $432 

million. However, according to BAH, 

the annual $157 million in anticipated 

benefits—resulting from saved fuel, 

improved wheel and brake shoe life, 

and a reduction in necessary brake 

inspections—will allow railroads to 

recover those costs in less than three 

years. To justify the investment, the 

BAH report says, conversion must be 

focused first on the high-mileage, unittrain-type services that would most 

benefit from its use. 

FRA acknowledges that BAH’s fuel 

cost estimates are substantially 

underestimated due to subsequently 

rising prices and that the benefits from 

improved wheel life require reevaluation since BAH was privy to 

insufficient hard data. It is notable that 

BAH did not attempt to quantify 

potential savings relating to capacity 

increases or emissions decreases due to 

the difficulty in arriving at acceptable 

values. Accordingly, the report’s 

estimated internal rate of return should 

be viewed as conservative. 

VIII. Related Proceeding 

In a petition dated November 15, 

2006, and filed November 21, 2006, 

BNSF and NS jointly requested that 

FRA waive various sections in parts 229 

and 232 as it relates to those railroads’

operation of ECP brake pilot trains. See 

Docket No. FRA–2006–26435. The FRA 

Safety Board held a fact-finding hearing 

on this matter on January 16, 2007, 

featuring testimony from representatives 

of the petitioners, air brake 

manufacturers, and labor unions. On 

March 21, 2007, the Safety Board 

granted the petitioners’ request, in part, 

subject to various conditions designed 

to ensure that trains subject to the 

waiver will be as safe as trains operated 

without benefit of the waiver. See Id. 

FRA will closely monitor compliance 

with the waiver and verify brake system 

and component performance 

characteristics using unannounced 

inspections of trains subject to the 

waiver. 

IX. Legal Impediments and Proposed 

Relief 

ECP brake operation provides for 

continuous electronic monitoring of air 

brake system components condition and 

brake pipe pressure, potentially limiting 

the need for certain physical brake 

inspections currently required under 

part 232. Accordingly, FRA proposes 

modifying, relaxing, or removing certain 

requirements, including intermediate 

terminal inspections (§ 232.209), singlecar air brake tests (§ 232.305), and the 

required percent of operable brakes at 

initial terminal departure (§ 232.103(d)), 

as they apply to trains operating in ECP 

brake mode. 

The rail industry’s implementation of 

ECP brakes is frustrated by such 

inapplicable and inefficient statutory 

and regulatory requirements. Without a 

large-scale proliferation and 

implementation of ECP brake 

technologies, the industry will not be 

able to enjoy economies of scale and to 

overcome the industry-wide limits 

caused by interoperability problems. 

FRA seeks to improve market efficiency 

by providing reliable and suitable 

standards and procedures that will 

support investments in ECP brake 

technology. 

The current statutory and regulatory 

requirements, however—including 

those concerning brake inspections and 

the operation of trains with defective 

equipment—may reduce or eliminate 

incentives for railroads to implement 

new ECP brake technology and take 

advantage of its operational and safety 

benefits. For example, 49 U.S.C. 20303 

presents an obstacle to cost-saving, safe, 

and efficient long hauls promised by 

ECP brakes. To avoid incurring civil 

penalties, operators are required under 

49 U.S.C. 20303 to transport rail 

vehicles with defective or insecure 

equipment ‘‘from the place at which the 

defect or insecurity was first discovered 

to the nearest available place at which 

the repairs can be made.’’

When the defective equipment is an 

ECP brake, stopping for a physical 

inspection is not necessary, as it does 

not increase the safe operation of the 

train. If more than 15 percent of the 

train’s AAR approved ECP brakes 

become inoperable, the train 

automatically stops. A train with 85 

percent operative ECP brakes will have 

15 percent less overall braking capacity 

than a conventional pneumatic train 

with 100 percent operative brakes—an 

important concern when operating on 

long grades. However, a train with 85 

percent operative ECP brakes will still 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4
50828 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

have shorter stopping distances than a 

conventional pneumatic braked train 

with 100 percent operative brakes. 

Considering the technology’s 

continuous self-monitoring and constant 

communication with the engineer, it is 

highly unlikely that a train will ever 

reach such a level of inoperability. 

Further, FRA believes that an ECP brake 

operated freight train may travel nonstop to its destination, not to exceed 

3,500 miles, because foundation brake 

rigging and brake shoes will safely 

operate over this distance and 

redundant intermediate brake 

inspections for an ECP brake operated 

train moving that distance do not 

increase ECP brake system safety. As an 

added benefit, the increased mileage 

allowance would provide for coast-tocoast travel. In the related proceeding, 

Docket No. FRA–2006–26435, FRA’s 

Safety Board granted the request of 

BNSF and NS to allow the non-stop 

movement of an ECP brake operated 

train to its destination, each not to 

exceed 3,500 miles. FRA believes that 

the proposed rule should codify this 

regulatory relief so that it applies 

universally. 

Nevertheless, 49 U.S.C. 20303 

requires trains with defective 

equipment, including brakes, to travel to 

the nearest repair location. If the nearest 

available repair location is in a direction 

other than that in which the train is 

traveling, the train with defective 

equipment must switch the defective car 

out of the train and add it to another 

train traveling in the direction of the 

repair location, sometimes requiring a 

‘‘backhaul.’’ ECP brake implementation 

has been complicated by the ECP brakes 

system’s technological incompatibility 

with conventional pneumatic brake 

systems. To switch a car equipped with 

ECP brakes into a technologically 

incompatible train operating with 

conventional pneumatic brakes, 

however, will create additional safety 

hazards for that train. 

The potential risks involved in 

combining cars with incompatible 

braking systems coupled with the 

hazards normally associated with 

switching cars in the field, likely 

outweigh the potential harm of keeping 

the defective car in its existing ECP 

braked train and traveling to a repair 

location that is further away. In 

circumstances where the defective 

safety appliance is a non-brake defect, it 

may be safer and more efficient to allow 

ECP brake equipped trains with nonbrake defective equipment to travel to 

the nearest forward repair station. 

Moreover, due to the ability of ECP 

brake systems to continuously monitor 

the brakes on each car in a train and to 

provide specific information to the 

locomotive engineer regarding the 

location of any car with inoperative 

brakes and the inherent design of such 

systems to prohibit operation with less 

than 85 percent operative brakes, the 

need to immediately set-out and handle 

cars with defective brakes for repair is 

unnecessary. There is also no safety 

need to require a railroad to incur the 

expense and delay involved with 

cutting the defective car out of the train. 

Currently, freight cars with defective 

mechanical conditions are permitted to 

be hauled long-distances for repair. See 

49 CFR 215.9. In light of the 

technological advances provided by ECP 

brake systems, it appears logical and 

necessary to permit more flexibility in 

moving equipment with defective 

brakes when equipped with ECP brakes 

and hauled in a train operating in ECP 

brake mode. However, the language of 

49 U.S.C. 20303, prevents FRA from 

providing this flexibility. 

The aforementioned requirements 

governing conventional pneumatic 

braked trains may offset the increased 

safety and efficiency benefits afforded 

by ECP brakes, thus eliminating the 

incentives for rail operators to 

implement ECP brake technologies. To 

encourage implementation without 

hindering safety, FRA proposes to 

invoke its discretionary authority under 

49 U.S.C. 20306 to exempt ECP brake 

equipped trains from the specific 

statutory requirements contained in 49 

U.S.C. 20303. The requirements for 

moving defective equipment were 

created over a century ago, during the 

infancy of pneumatic brakes and before 

all cars were equipped with power 

brakes. With many more reasons to stop 

train operation along tracks with 

frequent repair shops and exponentially 

more employees, the legislative drafters 

of that time could not have envisioned 

the type of safer and more efficient 

technologies available today. 

Recognizing the importance of 

upgrading rail technologies, Congress in 

1980 passed the Rock Island Railroad 

Transition and Employee Assistance Act 

(the ‘‘Rock Island Act’’), which, inter 

alia, provides statutory relief for the 

implementation of new technologies. 

More specifically, when certain 

statutory requirements preclude the 

development or implementation of more 

efficient railroad transportation 

equipment or other transportation 

innovations, the applicable section of 

the Rock Island Act, currently codified 

at 49 U.S.C. 20306, provides the 

Secretary of Transportation with the 

authority to grant an exemption to those 

requirements based on evidence 

received and findings developed at a 

hearing. 

According to Senate Report No. 96–

614, ‘‘This section fosters rail 

technological improvements by giving 

the Federal Railroad Administration 

discretionary authority to grant 

exemptions from the Safety Appliances 

Acts’ mandatory requirements when 

those requirements preclude the 

development or implementation of new 

rail technology.’’ Senate Comm. on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

S. Rep. No. 96–614, at 8–9 (Mar. 4, 

1980) (emphases added). The House 

version of the bill includes no similar 

provision, but the Conference substitute 

adds that the authority granted FRA in 

this section must be exercised after a 

hearing, absent an agreement between 

labor representatives and the developers 

or operators of the new equipment or 

technology. Joint Explanatory Statement 

of the Committee of Conference, H. 

Conf. Rep. No. 96–1041, § 117, at 30 

(May 20, 1980). 

Under 49 CFR 1.49(v), the Federal 

Railroad Administrator is delegated 

authority to carry out the functions 

vested in the Secretary by the Rock 

Island Act. Under this authority, FRA 

intends to schedule a hearing to be set 

at a date established in a forthcoming 

notice, at which the Administrator or 

his delegated representative may 

preside, to receive evidence and 

develop findings to determine whether 

FRA should invoke 49 U.S.C. 20306. 

The scope of the hearing will include 

the following questions: 

• Will allowing an ECP braked train 

with defective brakes to travel to its 

destination, not to exceed 3,500 miles, 

decrease, maintain, or exceed the level 

of safety provided for a conventional 

pneumatic braked train receiving a Class 

1A brake inspections every 1,000 miles? 

• What safety hazards, if any, will be 

caused by switching an ECP braked car 

into a technologically incompatible 

train equipped with conventional 

pneumatic brakes? 

• What is safer for an ECP braked car 

with defective non-brake parts: 

Switching it into a train equipped with 

conventional pneumatic brakes—

rendering the switched car’s ECP brakes 

ineffective—for backhauling to the 

nearest repair station or allowing it to 

continue to the nearest forward repair 

location in the ECP brake equipped train 

with more than 85 percent effective and 

operative brakes? 

• Does 49 U.S.C. 20303 provide a 

disincentive sufficient to preclude 

implementation of ECP brake 

technology? 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 50829 

X. Additional Issues 

A. Part 229 

In the related proceeding, Docket No. 

FRA–2006–26435, BNSF and NS seek 

relief from various provisions of parts 

229 and 232. In relation to part 229, 

BNSF and NS seek relief from the 

requirements relating to daily 

locomotive inspections and electronic 

record keeping. At this point in time, 

FRA believes that there is insufficient 

information available to consider any 

exceptions to part 229 for operations 

using ECP brake systems. In any event, 

FRA seeks comments and information 

relating to this issue. 

B. Dynamic Brake Requirements 

At the public hearing conducted in 

the related proceeding, BNSF requested 

relief from some of the dynamic brake 

requirements contained in 49 CFR part 

232. FRA is unclear of what specific 

relief is requested regarding dynamic 

brakes. Section 232.109 provides for the 

continued operation of a locomotive 

found with inoperative dynamic brakes 

for a period of up to 30 calendar days. 

FRA does not see how more flexibility 

in this area is necessary. However, FRA 

invites interested parties to comment on 

the requested relief or clarify the 

necessity of such relief. 

C. Single Car Air Brake Test Approval 

Procedures and Single Car Air Brake 

Tests 

The proposed rules include a 

provision requiring the submission and 

approval of single car air brake test 

procedures for cars with ECP brake 

systems in accordance with the special 

approval procedures in § 232.17. At this 

time, the proposed rules do not modify 

§ 232.17. However, FRA reserves the 

right to modify § 232.17 to make clear 

the applicability of proposed subpart G, 

including, but not limited to, adding 

cross-references. 

Section 232.305(a) provides that a 

single car air brake test may be 

performed partially in accordance with 

‘‘Section 4.0, ‘Special Tests,’ of the 

Association of American Railroads 

Standard S–486–01, ‘Code of Air Brake 

System Tests for Freight Equipment,’

contained in the AAR Manual of 

Standards and Recommended Practices, 

Section E (January 1, 2001).’’ That 

standard has since been amended and 

FRA has approved the use of the new 

Standard S–486–04 as the procedure to 

use when performing a single car air 

brake test. Accordingly, FRA proposes 

to amend § 232.305(a) by replacing the 

directly preceding quoted text with the 

following: ‘‘Section 4.0, ‘Special Tests,’

of the Association of American 

Railroads Standard S–486–04, ‘Code of 

Air Brake System Tests for Freight 

Equipment,’ contained in the AAR 

Manual of Standards and Recommended 

Practices, Section E (January 1, 2004).’’

D. Train Handling Information 

Section 232.111 requires railroads to 

adopt and comply with written 

procedures ensuring that railroad train 

crews receiving trains are provided 

accurate information concerning the 

train’s condition. The continuous 

monitoring capabilities of ECP brake 

systems provide information regarding 

the location of equipment with 

inoperative or cut out brakes. At this 

time, however, FRA does not see any 

reason for excepting any portion of or 

provision contained in § 232.111. FRA 

believes that, if anything, ECP brake 

systems’ continuous monitoring 

capabilities will assist railroads in 

complying with the train handling 

information rules in § 232.111 by 

monitoring defects and potentially 

allowing for the manual input of defects 

not monitored electronically and then 

electronically providing such 

information to subsequent train crews. 

FRA seeks comments and information 

on this issue. 

E. Piston Travel Limits 

For cars equipped with 81⁄2-inch or 

10-inch diameter brake cylinders 

receiving either a Class I brake test or a 

periodic inspection while on a shop or 

repair track, §§ 232.205(c)(5) and 

232.303(c) currently limit piston travel 

to 7 to 9 inches. An industry-wide 

waiver currently in effect, however, 

permits piston travel limits to range 

from 6 to 9 inches. FRA proposes to 

incorporate that waiver into the rules by 

amending §§ 232.205(c)(5) and 

232.303(c) accordingly. FRA seeks 

comments and information on this 

issue. 

F. Extended Haul Trains 

Section 232.213(a)(6) requires 

inbound inspections for extended haul 

trains and states that, ‘‘After April 1, 

2007, the inbound inspection described 

in this paragraph shall not be required 

unless FRA provides notification to the 

industry extending the requirement to 

perform inbound inspections on 

extended haul trains.’’ Section 

232.213(a)(7) requires railroads to 

maintain a record of all defective, 

inoperative, or ineffective brakes and all 

conditions not in compliance with parts 

215 and 231 of discovered during train 

movement. In addition, that section says 

that, ‘‘After April 1, 2007, the records 

described in this paragraph need not be 

maintained unless FRA provides the 

notification required in paragraph (a)(6) 

of this section extending the 

requirement to conduct inbound 

inspections on extended haul trains.’’

FRA proposes to amend Part 232 by 

deleting §§ 232.213(a)(6) and (a)(7) from 

the regulations. These regulations 

‘‘sunsetted’’ on April 1, 2007, without 

further FRA action. Accordingly, they 

serve no purpose remaining in the CFR. 

FRA seeks comments on this proposal. 

G. Part 238 

Amtrak has informally expressed 

interest in potentially using ECP brake 

system technology for its Auto Train 

that runs from Lorton, Virginia to 

Sanford, Florida. Amtrak has previously 

employed overlay ECP braking on that 

train, and presumably would benefit 

from some additional flexibility with 

respect to the conduct of intermediate 

inspections. However, since FRA does 

not currently have sufficient 

information regarding the use of ECP 

brake systems on passenger trains and 

passenger equipment, FRA does not 

propose in this rulemaking to amend 49 

CFR part 238. The functions of freight 

and passenger trains and cars, 

evidenced by the varied rules applicable 

to each, are too disparate to provide a 

one-size-fits-all solution for ECP brake 

integration and use. FRA may consider 

Part 238’s applicability to ECP brake 

systems in another rulemaking or in 

other proceedings. If comments 

appropriate to this rulemaking are 

submitted, FRA reserves the right to 

include provisions addressing those 

issues at the final rule stage. Further, 

FRA would consider requests for 

waivers relating to the regulation of 

freight trains and freight cars equipped 

with ECP brake systems for passenger 

trains on a case-by-case basis. 

XI. Section-by-Section Analysis 

Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part 

232 

Unless otherwise noted, all section 

references below refer to sections in title 

49 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR). FRA seeks comments on all 

proposals made in this NPRM. 

Subpart A—General 

This subpart of the proposal contains 

amendments to the definitions listed in 

subpart A of part 232. 

Section 232.5 Definitions 

FRA proposes to amend § 232.5 by 

adding an extensive set of definitions to 

introduce the regulatory relief and 

regulations applicable to ECP brake 

systems. FRA has worded these 

definitions to mirror, to the extent 

possible, the definitions provided in 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4
50830 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

existing AAR standards. FRA intends 

these definitions to clarify the meaning 

of important terms that are used in the 

text of the proposed rule. The proposed 

definitions are carefully worded in an 

attempt to minimize the potential for 

misinterpretation of the rule. Some of 

the definitions introduce new concepts 

or new technologies which require 

further discussion. 

The proposed definitions 

acknowledge the two general types of 

ECP brake systems—dual mode and 

stand-alone. The definition of a dual 

mode ECP brake system, which means 

a brake system that can work either as 

a conventional pneumatic brake system 

or an ECP brake system, intends to cover 

both an overlay ECP brake system and 

an ECP brake system equipped with an 

emulator CCD. The definition of CCD is 

intended to describe an important and 

necessary part of ECP brake system 

technology. 

Subpart G—Electronically Controlled 

Pneumatic (ECP) Braking Systems 

FRA proposes to add a new subpart G 

to Part 232. This proposed subpart 

contains the design and operational 

requirements that will provide 

regulatory relief and modifications to 

allow implementation of ECP brake 

systems on the Nation’s railroads and to 

ensure the safety of such operations. 

Section 232.601 Scope 

This section contains a formal 

statement of the proposed rules’

purpose and scope. The proposed rules 

contain specific requirements relating to 

the operation of freight trains and 

freight cars equipped with ECP brake 

systems and operating in ECP brake 

mode. The proposed provisions also 

intend to provide specific exceptions 

from various requirements contained in 

part 232 for ECP brake equipped freight 

trains and freight cars. 

Section 232.602 Applicability 

As a general matter, this section 

proposes that these rules apply to all 

railroads that operate ECP brake 

equipped freight trains or freight cars on 

track which is part of the general 

railroad system of transportation. The 

proposed rules will apply to freight 

trains operating in ECP brake mode, 

freight cars equipped with ECP brake 

systems, and conventionally braked 

freight trains and freight cars when 

operated in conjunction with ECP brake 

equipment. 

The regulatory relief contemplated by 

this NPRM and the need to ensure the 

safe operation of trains and vehicles 

equipped with this advanced 

technology requires that exception of 

certain existing Part 232 provisions be 

afforded. Many of the provisions for 

which FRA proposes an exception 

either apply awkwardly or should 

otherwise not apply to ECP brake 

systems due to the new technology’s 

design or additional safety benefits. 

Similarly, the addition of various 

requirements directly related to ECP 

brake systems is necessary to ensure 

that the equipment is properly 

inspected, tested, maintained, and safe 

to operate. 

To fulfill these goals and to avoid an 

excess of confusing cross-references, 

FRA proposes to except specific 

provisions and an entire subpart of Part 

232 from application to ECP brake 

systems. Each section of this proposed 

subpart contains specific exceptions 

from various provisions contained in 

other portions of Part 232 or contain 

appropriately rewritten provisions 

directly applicable to ECP brake 

systems. Those portions and sections of 

Part 232 not specifically excepted by the 

provisions proposed in this NPRM 

remain applicable to ECP brake 

equipped freight trains and freight cars. 

Section 232.603 Design, 

Interoperability, and Configuration 

Management Requirements 

In order to ensure the safety and 

interoperability of ECP brake systems, 

this section proposes to incorporate by 

reference the existing AAR standards 

and approval procedures for ECP brake 

systems. The AAR, its member 

railroads, and various brake 

manufacturers have invested 

considerable time and effort in 

developing industry standards 

addressing the design, performance, and 

interoperability of ECP brake systems. 

FRA has reviewed the industry 

standards it proposes to incorporate in 

this rule and has determined that the 

standards effectively address and ensure 

the safe and proper operation of the 

brake system technology. As noted in 

the preamble, FRA funded a FMECA, 

which validated the safety and 

applicability of AAR’s ECP brake system 

standards for freight railroads. 

FRA believes that compliance with 

the AAR standards identified in 

proposed paragraph (a) will ensure the 

safety and efficiency of ECP brake 

equipped freight trains and freight cars. 

Implementation of ECP braking systems 

complying with these standards will 

bring benefits and efficiencies 

encompassing train handling, car 

maintenance, fuel savings, network 

capacity, self-monitoring, fail-safe 

operation, accurate and instantaneous 

brake commands throughout the train, 

and continuous, real-time selfdiagnostics. Paragraph (a) proposes to 

require all suppliers to meet existing 

AAR standards when developing and 

installing ECP brake systems. 

Paragraph (a) proposes the 

incorporation of the most recent AAR 

standards related to ECP brake systems. 

FRA recognizes that ECP brake systems 

are a growing technology and realizes 

that the existing AAR standards may 

need to change as the technology 

advances. Accordingly, FRA proposes 

two methods the incorporated industry 

standards may be changed. Proposed 

paragraph (a) permits the submission of 

an alternate standard under the special 

approval procedures contained in 

§ 232.17. In addition, proposed 

paragraph (f) permits the AAR or other 

authorized representative of the railroad 

industry to seek modification of the 

incorporated industry standards through 

the modification procedures contained 

in § 232.307. The modification 

procedures in § 232.307 were developed 

to permit modification of the 

incorporated AAR single car test 

standard and FRA believes that the 

procedures are equally applicable to 

these proposed regulations. The 

industry has successfully utilized both 

these methods to change or modify 

other industry standards incorporated in 

part 232 and FRA believes it is 

appropriate and necessary to provide 

this latitude for the standards related to 

ECP brake systems and components. 

Paragraph (b) proposes that all ECP 

brake systems receive conditional or 

final approval under AAR’s recently 

adopted Standard S–4240 prior to use 

and that they maintain such approval 

while in use. In this paragraph, FRA 

intends to prohibit the use of ECP brake 

systems that do not receive conditional 

or final AAR approval or that cease to 

comply with the incorporated AAR 

standards relating to ECP brake systems. 

FRA has reviewed the approval 

procedures contained in AAR Standard 

S–4240 and believes that they provide 

an appropriate review process to ensure 

the safe and proper operation of ECP 

brake systems. FRA believes that AAR is 

in the best position to approve those 

ECP brake systems that will be used by 

its member railroads and, over time, 

other non-member railroads 

interchanging traffic on the general rail 

system. 

In paragraph (c), FRA proposes that 

all ECP brake systems meet the 

configuration management requirements 

contained in an FRA-recognized 

industry approved standard. FRA 

believes that configuration management 

of ECP brake system hardware and 

software components is an absolute 

requirement to ensure the 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 50831 

interchangeability, interoperability, 

compatibility and continued proper and 

safe operation of ECP brake systems. 

Compatibility of ECP hardware and 

software will have a direct effect on the 

safety and reliability of ECP brake 

systems running on the Nation’s 

railroads. 

The AAR approval process and Air 

Brake Systems Committee requires 

various procedures to ensure the 

interoperability and interchangeability 

of AAR approved ECP brake systems 

and their components. These same 

requirements and procedures have been 

used for many years to successfully 

manage the configuration of 

conventional pneumatic AAR approved 

air brake valves. Therefore, FRA 

believes that responsibility for the 

configuration management of AAR 

approved brake systems and their 

components should continue to reside 

with AAR and its Air Brake Systems 

Committee. 

AAR standards, including its S–4200 

Series of standards for ECP brake 

systems, however, do not provide 

requirements for hardware and software 

configuration management plans. AAR 

is in the process of developing 

standards related to ECP brake system 

configuration management, as 

evidenced by, among other things, 

standards S–4240, §§ 5.1 and 5.2, which 

require ECP brake manufacturers to 

obtain AAR approval for changes to 

approved hardware and software. 

If a configuration management 

standard is completed and issued prior 

to the publication of this notice, FRA 

seeks comments during this proposed 

rule’s comment period on the 

incorporation of the respective standard 

into the rules by reference. If it is 

published subsequent to the publication 

of this notice, FRA still seeks comments 

during this proposed rule’s comment 

period and FRA will also consider other 

forums for receiving comments, 

including, but not limited to, the public 

hearing that will be held in connection 

with this proposal or by issuance of a 

supplemental notice informing 

interested parties of the standard’s 

availability. In anticipation of AAR 

issuing such a standard in the near 

future, FRA proposes to incorporate that 

standard by reference in the final rule; 

provided FRA’s review of the standard 

determines it is acceptable. 

Although FRA prefers that the 

industry develop, adopt, and comply 

with a recognized industry 

configuration management standard, 

FRA recognizes that such a standard 

does not yet exist. Accordingly, 

paragraph (c) proposes that, in lieu of 

compliance with an AAR software 

configuration management standard, 

railroads may submit to FRA an 

alternate configuration management 

plan for approval. FRA seeks comments 

and information on what minimum 

requirements or guidelines should be 

considered for such submitted plans. 

FRA believes that configuration plans 

must be submitted for approval under 

§ 232.17 and must be structured in 

accordance with accepted configuration 

management standards such as IEEE Std 

28–1990, IEEE Standard for Software 

Configuration Management Plans, 

American National Standards Institute, 

1990; or IEEE Std 1042–1987, IEEE 

Guide to Software Configuration 

Management, American National 

Standards Institute, 1987. FRA seeks 

comments on these suggested structures 

or any other standard structures. FRA 

intends that no train shall be operated 

in ECP brake mode in revenue service 

unless it is using an ECP brake system 

that complies with a configuration 

management plan incorporated into the 

final rule or another configuration 

management plan otherwise approved 

by FRA. 

FRA believes that any ECP brake 

configuration standards should consider 

issues beyond initial approval. For 

instance, use of improper or out-of-date 

software versions for microprocessor 

controlled systems has been an issue in 

a variety of industries. Therefore, FRA 

cautions that more robust configuration 

management processes beyond those 

already included in AAR standard S–

4200 may be needed to adequately 

control ECP brake system components, 

especially as more manufacturers apply 

for AAR approval of ECP brake systems. 

Further, safety or reliability issues may 

dictate that hardware or software 

configurations be changed once ECP 

brake systems are put in service on a 

large scale in the U.S. FRA encourages 

AAR, railroads, and manufacturers to 

ensure their ability to continually 

monitor and respond to hardware and 

software issues affecting ECP brake 

systems after initial approval. 

FRA believes that AAR is capable of 

setting appropriate configuration 

management standards and related 

approval procedures. FRA intends to 

rely on AAR to monitor ECP brake 

component approval, configuration and 

compatibility. However, FRA, in its 

federal oversight role will monitor the 

activities of the Air Brake Systems 

Committee and the AAR ECP brake 

approval process to ensure that any 

safety or reliability issues that may 

emerge are addressed promptly and 

comprehensively. FRA will also issue 

additional configuration management 

requirements for the operation of ECP 

brake systems if, in the sole opinion of 

the FRA, the oversight of the AAR and 

the AAR Air Brake Systems Committee 

proves inadequate for the continued safe 

operation of ECP brake systems. In this 

case, FRA may take a variety of 

approaches including requiring 

railroads and car owners to develop 

their own configuration management 

plans for monitoring ECP brake system 

interchangeability, interoperability and 

compatibility. FRA seeks comments on 

how the rules can ensure continued 

monitoring of hardware and software 

issues affecting ECP brake systems after 

initial approval. 

Paragraph (d) of this section proposes 

to except a freight car or freight train 

equipped with ECP brakes from certain 

existing provisions contained in Part 

232. FRA recognizes that Part 232 

requires compliance with other AAR 

standards not applicable to ECP brake 

systems. For instance, section 232.103(l) 

requires compliance with AAR Standard 

S–469–47 (‘‘Performance Specification 

for Freight Brakes’’), which specifies a 

train’s air brakes must respond to the 

decrease and increase of brake pipe 

pressure. However, ECP brake systems 

respond to an electronic signal, not 

brake pipe pressure, rendering S–469–

47 inapplicable to ECP brake systems. 

Accordingly, paragraph (d) proposes to 

except ECP brake systems from the 

requirements of AAR Standard S–469–

47. 

Subpart F of part 232 contains general 

requirements for introducing new brake 

system technologies. More specifically, 

it requires, inter alia, a pre-revenue 

acceptance testing plan. As FRA views 

existing ECP brake system technology to 

be a fully mature and well tested 

technology, FRA does not believe the 

provisions contained in subpart F are 

applicable to this existing technology. 

When subpart F was originally added to 

part 232, ECP brake technology was just 

beginning to gain prominence. Since 

that time, experience with the 

technology is far more developed and 

the technology is being used on many 

different trains around the world. 

Moreover, FRA believes that its 

proposal to require ECP brake systems 

to initially and continually comply with 

AAR standards and to be approved in 

accordance with AAR’s approval 

procedures prior to being placed in 

service obviates the need for existing 

ECP brake system technology to comply 

with the requirements under subpart F. 

Accordingly, paragraph (d)(2) proposes 

an exception from the requirements 

contained in subpart F freight trains and 

freight cars equipped with existing ECP 

brake system technology that has been 

conditionally or finally approved by 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4
50832 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

AAR in accordance with its approval 

procedures prior to the effective date of 

the final rule in this proceeding. FRA 

has limited the exception to ECP brake 

system technologies approved by AAR 

as of the effective date of a final rule to 

provide an incentive to the industry to 

move the introduction of the technology 

along in a timely fashion. 

In anticipation of future ECP brake 

technologies not currently contemplated 

within the scope of the incorporated 

AAR standards or not approved by AAR 

prior to the effective date of a final rule 

in this proceeding, FRA proposes 

paragraph (e), which provides a 

procedure for introducing such 

technologies without going through the 

pre-revenue testing procedures 

contained in subpart F. Paragraph (e) 

permits a party interested in using new 

ECP brake system technologies or using 

an ECP brake system technology not 

approved by AAR prior to the effective 

date of a final rule in this matter to file 

a written request with the FRA seeking 

an exception from subpart F. FRA 

would expect any such request to 

include a comprehensive narrative 

statement and any evidence or facts 

justifying the exception of the new ECP 

brake technology from the testing and 

demonstration requirements of subpart 

F. The material should fully explain the 

testing or demonstration that will be 

conducted pursuant to an FRArecognized industry standard and 

ensure that FRA is able to monitor such 

testing or demonstration. FRA’s 

Associate Administrator may revoke the 

exception in writing for any reason after 

providing an opportunity for the 

affected party or parties to respond. 

Section 232.605 Training 

Requirements 

The general training requirements for 

railroad and contractor employees for 

performing the inspection, testing, and 

maintenance on brake systems are 

contained in § 232.203. FRA proposes 

paragraph (a) of this section to make 

clear that the training requirements 

contained in § 232.203 are applicable to 

ECP brake system operations and to 

ensure that railroads update their 

training, qualification, and designation 

programs to include provisions for these 

operations. Thus, FRA proposes to 

require that railroad and contract 

personnel responsible for performing 

brake system inspections, tests, and 

maintenance on ECP brake systems be 

trained, tested, and designated in 

accordance with the requirements 

contained in § 232.203 on the ECP brake 

systems they will be required to inspect, 

test, and maintain. 

FRA continues to believe that 

railroads and contractors are in the best 

position to determine the precise 

method of training that is required for 

the personnel they use to conduct 

required brake system inspections, tests, 

and maintenance. Although FRA 

provides railroads and contractors with 

broad discretion to develop training 

programs specifically tailored to their 

operations and personnel, FRA will 

expect railroads and contractors to fully 

comply with the training and 

qualification plans they adopt as they 

apply to ECP brake operations. A critical 

component of this training requires 

ensuring that employees have 

knowledge of the specific Federal 

requirements that govern their work. 

Accordingly, FRA proposes to require 

the training and qualification plans 

mandated under § 232.203 to include 

provisions applicable to the inspection, 

testing, and maintenance of ECP brake 

systems. 

Section 232.203(c) contains general 

requirements or elements which must 

be part of any training and qualification 

plan adopted by a railroad or contractor. 

FRA continues to believe that the 

elements contained in this section are 

specific enough to ensure high quality 

training and broad enough to permit a 

railroad or contractor to adopt a training 

plan that is best suited to its particular 

operation. FRA continues to believe that 

the required training must provide 

employees with the necessary 

knowledge, skills, and abilities to 

perform the tasks required for the 

various types of brake systems the 

individual employee will be required to 

inspect, test, or maintain. Since FRA 

expects only a limited number of 

employees will be involved with ECP 

brake operations, a railroad or 

contractor may tailor its training 

programs only for those individuals 

involved with ECP brake systems, based 

on the tasks that employee will be 

required to perform on those specific 

systems. 

Section 232.203(e) contains record 

keeping requirements, the cornerstone 

of the training requirements. FRA 

continues to believe that such records 

should be kept for employees 

inspecting, testing, and maintaining ECP 

brake equipped freight cars and freight 

trains. Because § 232.203 and proposed 

§ 232.605 allow each railroad and 

contractor the flexibility to develop a 

training program that best fits its 

operation and does not impose specific 

curriculum or experience requirements, 

FRA continues to believe it is vital for 

railroads and contractors to maintain 

detailed records on the training they 

provide. Such documentation will allow 

FRA to judge the effectiveness of the 

training provided and will provide FRA 

with the ability to independently assess 

whether the training provided to a 

specific individual adequately addresses 

the skills and knowledge required to 

perform the tasks that the person is 

deemed qualified to perform. Moreover, 

requiring these records will deter 

railroads and contractors from 

circumventing the training requirements 

and discourage them from attempting to 

utilize insufficiently trained personnel 

to perform the inspections and tests 

required by this rule. FRA also intends 

to make clear that the required records 

may be maintained either electronically 

or on paper in the same manner as 

required under § 232.203. 

Paragraph (a) also proposes continued 

compliance with § 232.203(f), which 

requires that each railroad or contractor 

adopt and comply with a plan to 

periodically assess the effectiveness of 

its training program. Although FRA 

agrees that a formal audit process may 

not be necessary, FRA also continues to 

believe that railroads and contractors 

should periodically assess the 

effectiveness of their training programs 

that would include an assessment of the 

training related to ECP brake systems. 

FRA continues to believe that periodic 

assessments may be conducted through 

a number of different means and each 

railroad or contractor may have a need 

to conduct the assessment in a different 

manner. Paragraph (a) proposes that a 

railroad or contractor institute a plan to 

periodically assess its training program 

regarding ECP brake systems and permit 

the use of efficiency tests or periodic 

review of employee performance as 

methods for conducting such review. 

FRA continues to believe that many 

railroads, due to their small size, are 

capable of assessing the quality of the 

training their employees receive by 

conducting periodic supervisory spot 

checks or efficiency tests of their 

employees’ performance. However, FRA 

also continues to believe that on larger 

railroads the periodic assessment of a 

training program should involve all 

segments of the workforce involved in 

the training. FRA believes it is vital that 

labor be intrinsically involved in the 

assessment process, from beginning to 

end. For example, evaluation of training 

techniques might best be approached 

through a ‘‘team’’ method, where several 

observers, including labor 

representatives, periodically evaluate 

course or ‘‘hands-on’’ training content 

and presentation. 

Paragraph (b) proposes to require each 

railroad to appropriately amend or 

modify its operating rules to include 

safe train handling procedures when 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 50833 

utilizing ECP braking systems. The 

developed operating rules should 

address the equipment and territory 

operated by the railroad. FRA continues 

to believe that training on proper train 

handling procedures is essential to 

ensuring that locomotive engineers can 

properly handle their trains with or 

without ECP braking systems. 

FRA also continues to believe that it 

should not specify the specific 

knowledge, skill, and ability criteria that 

a railroad must adopt into its 

locomotive engineer training program. 

FRA believes that each railroad is in the 

best position to determine what these 

criteria should be and what training is 

necessary to provide that knowledge, 

skill, and ability to its employees 

operating ECP brake equipped trains. 

However, to ensure that the railroads 

and contractors provide and complete 

training, paragraph (c) proposes to 

require each to adopt and comply with 

such criteria and training procedures 

and to incorporate them into its 

locomotive engineer certification 

program required by 49 CFR part 240. 

Section 232.607 Inspection and 

Testing Requirements 

Except for transfer trains, the existing 

Part 232 regulations require that a train 

receive a Class I brake test at its initial 

terminal and when certain events occur 

en route, a Class IA brake test every 

1,000 miles and Class III brake tests 

when the train line cable continuity is 

interrupted. When operating as an 

extended haul train, the existing 

regulations require that a Class I brake 

test be performed at the train’s initial 

terminal and at the train’s 1,500-mile 

location consist, if operating further 

than 1,500 miles. In addition, under 

certain circumstances, cars and solid 

blocks of cars are required to receive 

either a Class I or a Class II brake test 

when they are added to a train. Each of 

these inspections is expensive and timeconsuming. 

An ECP brake system’s selfmonitoring capabilities, fail-safe 

operation, and enhanced safety and 

performance provide railroads the 

ability to reduce the number of physical 

inspections on a train and will reduce 

the number of repairs to the brake 

system. In a letter dated January 26, 

2007, filed in the related waiver 

proceeding, BNSF and NS assert that 

‘‘This performance-based technology 

supercedes [sic] the need for a 

scheduled inspection based on the 

amount of mileage that can be 

accumulated within the boundaries of 

the U.S. rail system.’’ Docket No. FRA–

2006–26435. Similarly, in the same 

docket, two ECP brake manufacturers, 

Wabtec and New York Air Brake, state 

that when a ECP brake system enters 

‘‘Run’’ mode, it provides diagnostics, 

continuous monitoring, and fault 

reporting to the locomotive display. 

According to the manufacturers, ECP 

brakes provide to the locomotive 

monitoring and feedback of the most 

important brake data and ‘‘while it is 

not economically practical to monitor 

for all potential brake system failures, 

the increased level of monitoring and 

data reporting should allow safely 

extending the distance between 

inspection points, coupled with revised 

railroad procedures.’’ Letter dated 

January 29, 2007 in Docket No. FRA–

2006–26435. 

FRA continues to believe that if a 

train is properly and thoroughly 

inspected, with as many defective 

conditions being eliminated as possible, 

then the train is capable of traveling 

distances much greater than 1,000 miles 

between brake inspections. FRA’s 

experience with extended haul trains 

over the last three years has established 

that trains with conventional pneumatic 

brake systems that are inspected by 

highly qualified individuals can safely 

operate up to 1,500 miles between brake 

inspections. FRA is not aware of any 

significant incident or derailment 

related to a brake or mechanical 

component on an extended haul train. 

Accordingly, in paragraph (g), FRA 

proposes to except trains operating 

exclusively in ECP brake mode from the 

Class IA and Class II brake inspections 

currently required under §§ 232.207 and 

232.209. FRA also proposes to except 

such trains from en route Class I 

inspections under § 232.205(a) and (b). 

Paragraph (g) also proposes to except 

§ 232.211(a), which governs the 

locations where Class III brake 

inspections must be performed. For 

clarity, FRA proposes to include the 

events requiring the performance of a 

Class III brake test for trains operating 

in ECP brake mode in this section of the 

regulation. Accordingly, FRA proposes 

to except that section and instead 

include paragraph (e), which is 

analyzed below. 

Paragraph (a) proposes continued 

compliance with § 232.205(c)—which 

describes the tasks and requirements of 

a Class I brake test—for an ECP brake 

equipped train at its initial terminal. To 

offset safety concerns regarding the 

proposed exceptions to intermediate 

inspections, FRA proposes that Class I 

brake tests at initial terminals be 

performed by a qualified mechanical 

inspector. FRA continues to believe that 

a Class I brake test performed on a train 

at its initial terminal needs to be as indepth and comprehensive as possible 

and, thus, should be performed by an 

individual possessing the knowledge 

not only to identify and detect a 

defective condition in all of the brake 

equipment required to be inspected, but 

also to recognize the interrelated 

workings of the equipment and the 

ability to trouble-shoot and repair the 

equipment. Similarly, FRA proposes 

that all of the mechanical inspections 

required to be performed on a train at 

its initial terminal be conducted by an 

inspector designated pursuant to 49 CFR 

215.11 in order to ensure that all 

mechanical components are in proper 

condition prior to the train’s departure. 

FRA believes that the regulatory relief 

proposed by paragraph (g) is justified by 

the increased safety level provided by 

ECP brake technologies and the 

proposed requirement under paragraph 

(a) that a Class I brake test of an ECP 

brake equipped car be performed by a 

qualified mechanical inspector at its 

initial terminal. The exceptions 

proposed in paragraph (g), in 

conjunction with the requirements of 

paragraph (a), would allow most ECP 

brake equipped and operated trains to 

travel to their destinations without 

stopping for any required intermediate 

inspections. The regulatory relief 

provided by the proposed elimination of 

intermediate brake tests would 

significantly reduce operating and train 

delay costs. 

In paragraph (b), FRA proposes to 

permit a train operating in ECP brake 

mode to travel up to 3,500 miles or to 

its destination, whichever is less, 

without an additional Class I brake 

inspection. FRA believes that 3,500 

miles allows virtually all ECP brake 

operated trains to travel to their 

respective destinations and provides for 

coast-to-coast travel. FRA also bases this 

mileage amount on the facts that 

foundation brake rigging and brake 

shoes will safety operate this distance 

and redundant intermediate inspections 

would not increase ECP brake system 

safety. Because many unit or cycle 

trains operate in a continuous loop with 

multiple loading and unloading 

locations, FRA has not included the 

destination of the train as a limiting 

factor for them. FRA is specifically 

making this distinction in order to 

prevent misinterpretation of the 

proposal as it relates to unit or cycle 

trains. As these trains may have 

multiple destinations, a strict 

application of destination could result 

in Class I brake tests being performed 

more frequently than intended by this 

proposed rule. Thus, in paragraph (b)(2), 

FRA proposes to treat unit and cycle 

trains differently by only requiring them 

to receive Class I brake inspections by 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4
50834 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

qualified mechanical inspectors at least 

once every 3,500 miles. To be clear, 

under the proposed rules, no ECP brake 

equipped freight car or freight train 

would be allowed to travel more than 

3,500 miles without receiving a Class I 

brake inspection by a qualified 

mechanical inspector. 

Currently, no extended haul train is 

permitted to travel more than 1,500 

miles without receiving a brake 

inspection. For ECP brake equipped 

trains, FRA proposes to more than 

double the currently allowed distance to 

3,500 miles. FRA acknowledges that in 

the related proceeding, Docket No. 

FRA–2006–26435, the Safety Board has 

provided for the movement of ECP brake 

equipped trains up to 3,500 miles. FRA 

proposes to codify this relief so that it 

would apply universally. Accordingly, 

during the pendency of this rulemaking, 

FRA will closely monitor those trains’

operations and will collect information 

on the equipment operated in those 

trains. FRA reserves the right to make 

appropriate modifications in the final 

rule based on any further data then 

available. 

FRA acknowledges, however, that 

notwithstanding the proposed 

allowance of an ECP brake equipped 

and operated train to travel up to 3,500 

miles without an additional brake 

inspection, instances exist where certain 

trains would require the performance of 

a Class I brake inspection en route. For 

instance, the current regulations require 

that certain tests be performed when a 

car is off a source of compressed air for 

more than 4 hours. FRA acknowledges 

that an ECP brake equipped train’s on 

board diagnostics reduce concerns 

relating to cars remaining off air for too 

long a period. Accordingly, FRA 

believes that an expansion of the time 

allowed off air is justified and proposes 

to modify this requirement for ECP 

brake equipped cars. For trains 

operating in ECP brake mode, FRA 

proposes in paragraph (c) to require a 

Class I brake test by a qualified person 

if that train is off air for more than 24 

hours. FRA continues to believe that 

dangers, although reduced, remain 

when an ECP brake equipped train 

remains off air for too long. FRA 

proposes to limit off-air time to 24 hours 

since cars moving in service generally 

have a dwell time of 24 hours or less 

and to provide sufficient flexibility 

while allowing the industry to move 

equipment without impacting timely 

inspections and maintaining an 

acceptable level of safety. FRA also 

proposes that, for trains operating in 

ECP brake mode and off air for more 

than 24 hours, the Class I brake 

inspection be performed by a qualified 

person. FRA acknowledges that while a 

qualified mechanical inspector may be 

stationed at each route’s initial terminal 

and destination, it may not be favorable 

at this time to require one at each 

location a train operating in ECP brake 

mode is off air for more than 24 hours. 

Requiring a qualified mechanical 

inspector at each point such a train is 

off air for more than 24 hours may 

provide a significant disincentive for a 

railroad to equip its trains with ECP 

brake systems. 

FRA intends this requirement to also 

apply to trains operating in ECP brake 

mode, located at its initial terminal, and 

off air for more than 24 hours. In other 

words, under proposed paragraph (c), if 

at an initial terminal a qualified 

mechanical inspector performs a Class I 

brake test on a train operating in ECP 

brake mode and that train then goes off 

air for more than 24 hours before 

departing from the initial terminal, a 

qualified person must perform another 

Class I brake test prior to departure. 

FRA believes that requiring a qualified 

mechanical inspector at an initial 

terminal to perform a Class I brake test 

twice on the same train would be 

unnecessary, since the second testing 

would merely be a verification of the 

previous inspection, and possibly too 

onerous. FRA does not expect this 

situation to occur often, since trains 

rarely sit off air for more than 24 hours 

at its initial terminal after receiving a 

Class I brake test. 

FRA’s intent in proposing this narrow 

expansion of the 4-hour rule is not to 

alter the basic tenet that equipment 

should be retested when it is removed 

from a source of compressed air for any 

lengthy period of time. The proposed 24 

hour off-air requirement would apply 

equally to any ECP brake equipped 

train, regardless of whether it is a unit 

or cycle train, and would replace the 4 

hour off-air requirement under 

§ 232.205(a), which would be excepted 

under proposed paragraph (g), as 

discussed above. 

This proposed 24-hour allowance 

gives railroads flexibility to perform 

switching operations while ECP brake 

equipped trains are en route and 

provides flexibility to efficiently move 

cars from one ECP brake equipped train 

to another when necessary, yet retains 

the concept that such be retested when 

left disconnected from a source of 

compressed air for longer periods of 

time. The 24-hour time frame is also 

consistent with the general dwell time 

that cars experience while en route. 

FRA further believes that a limitation on 

the amount of time that such equipment 

may be off air is necessary for ensuring 

that such equipment is inspected in a 

timely and predictable manner. If no 

time limit were imposed or if too much 

time was permitted, an ECP brake 

equipped car could lawfully sit for days 

at various locations while en route to its 

destination and be switched in and out 

of numerous trains without ever being 

reinspected. Such an approach would 

drastically reduce the number of times 

that the brake systems on such 

equipment would ever be given a visual 

inspection from what is currently 

required and, in FRA’s view, would 

seriously degrade the safety of the trains 

operating with such equipment in its 

consist. 

Furthermore, if an ECP brake 

equipped train was allowed to be off-air 

for an excessive amount of time, it 

would be virtually impossible for FRA 

to ensure that equipment is being 

properly retested as it would be 

extremely difficult for FRA to determine 

how long a particular piece of 

equipment was disconnected from a 

source of compressed air. In order to 

make such a determination, FRA would 

have to maintain observation of the 

equipment for days at a time. 

Consequently, the proposed rule 

proposes a 24-hour limit on the amount 

of time equipment can be disconnected 

from a source of compressed air as it 

maintains current levels of safety and 

provides an enforceable and verifiable 

time limit that FRA believes provides 

the railroads some additional benefit 

over what is currently required both in 

terms of operational efficiency and cost 

savings. 

In paragraph (d), FRA proposes to 

require that a Class I brake test be 

performed by a qualified person on ECP 

brake equipped cars added en route to 

a train operating in ECP brake mode. 

However, FRA believes that this 

requirement may not be necessary if 

other safety precautions are taken. Thus, 

FRA also proposes to allow such cars to 

not receive a Class I brake test when 

being added to a train operating in ECP 

brake mode if the car had previously 

received a Class I brake test, the train 

crew is provided documentation of that 

test, the car has not been off air for more 

than 24 hours, and a proper visual 

inspection is performed prior to use or 

departure. 

Except in limited circumstances, the 

current regulations require a Class I 

brake test on each car added to a train 

at the location it is added to a train. See 

49 CFR 232.205(b). Although FRA 

proposes to except ECP brake equipped 

trains and cars from § 232.205(b), as 

discussed above, FRA also proposes to 

retain the basic requirement that all cars 

added en route shall receive a Class I 

test by a qualified person unless they 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 50835 

have previously received a Class I brake 

test by a qualified mechanical inspector. 

A proper Class I brake test ensures that 

a car is in proper working condition and 

is capable of traveling to its destination 

with minimal problems en route. 

Accordingly, if a ECP brake equipped 

car has received a Class I brake test by 

a qualified mechanical inspector within 

the last 3,500 miles, documentation of 

that test is provided to the train crew, 

the car has not been off air for more than 

24 hours, and a proper visual inspection 

is conducted when the car is added to 

the train, FRA proposes with paragraph 

(d) that it would be unnecessary to 

require an additional Class I brake test 

when that car is added to an en route 

train operating in ECP brake mode. 

However, to account for those cars that 

have not received a Class I brake test by 

a qualified mechanical inspector within 

the last 3,500 miles and that will be 

added to a train operating in ECP brake 

mode, FRA proposes paragraph (d), 

which would require a Class I brake test 

under those circumstances. Paragraph 

(d) would be necessary in light of 

proposed paragraph (g) excepting 

compliance with section 232.205(b). 

FRA contemplates that this requirement 

would likely only apply to cars with 

overlay ECP brake equipment that had 

been operating in pneumatic mode. 

Unless a car operating in ECP brake 

mode is off air for more than 24 hours, 

it would not require a Class I brake test 

when it is added to a new train, since 

the proposed rules contemplate that the 

car would have already received a Class 

I brake test within the previous 3,500 

miles or at its initial terminal. The 

documentation would be required to 

ensure that a Class I brake test by a 

qualified mechanical inspector will be 

performed every 3,500 miles. Under 

paragraph (d), any ECP brake equipped 

car being added to a train operating in 

ECP brake mode would require a Class 

I brake test when the car has been off 

air for more than 24 hours for the same 

reasons stated above concerning 

proposed paragraph (c). 

FRA believes that a visual inspection 

of the car’s brake components is a 

suitable replacement for an additional 

Class I brake test when the car or cars 

added in these circumstances have 

received a Class I brake test by a 

qualified mechanical inspector within 

the last 3,500 miles. The visual 

inspection proposed in this paragraph 

could be performed while the car is off 

air and could be conducted in 

conjunction with the mechanical 

inspection required under part 215 

whenever a car is added to a train. Thus, 

FRA believes that the visual inspection 

proposed in this paragraph would not 

impose any significant burden on the 

railroads as they are already required to 

visually inspect the mechanical 

components on any car added to a train 

under part 215. FRA also acknowledges 

that the brake systems on cars not 

equipped with ECP brakes would be 

inoperative after being added to a train 

operating in ECP brake mode. To ensure 

the safe operation of such equipment 

and trains, FRA proposes that the 

transfer of cars equipped solely with 

conventional brake systems into trains 

operating in ECP brake mode also be 

given a visual inspection to ensure their 

safe operation and to ensure compliance 

with § 232.15. 

FRA anticipates that placing a car 

equipped with conventional pneumatic 

brakes into an ECP brake equipped train 

may be awkward at best, requiring use 

of an electrical ‘‘run around cable’’ and 

manual inputs into the locomotive 

control system. In a letter dated 

February 5, 2007, AAR provided a list 

of recommended ‘‘enhancements and 

modifications’’ to Part 232 to facilitate 

the use of ECP brakes. A copy of this 

document has been placed in the docket 

of this rulemaking. In that 

communication, the AAR stated that 

railroads ‘‘do not plan to commingle 

non-ECP equipment in stand-alone ECP 

trains.’’ However, FRA believes that 

foreseeable—though rare—

circumstances should be considered in 

this rulemaking to the extent possible. 

Accordingly, FRA seeks comments and 

information on what requirements may 

be necessary to safely allow the addition 

of cars equipped with conventional 

pneumatic brakes into an ECP brake 

equipped train, including, but not 

limited to, the placement and 

securement of cables along cars 

equipped with conventional pneumatic 

brakes to preserve their continuity 

between non-consecutive cars equipped 

with ECP brakes and the appropriate 

placement in the consist of cars 

equipped with conventional pneumatic 

brakes. 

In the event that a car would be 

required to receive a Class I brake test 

when added to an en route train, FRA 

proposes that the Class I brake test be 

performed by a qualified person for the 

same reasons stated in the above 

analysis. To be clear, although any car 

added to a train en route may receive a 

Class I inspection by a qualified person, 

the entire train’s travel distance is 

limited to its destination or the distance 

remaining until the train or any 

individual car picked up en route has 

traveled 3,500 miles since its last Class 

I brake inspection performed by a 

qualified mechanical inspector, 

whichever is less. A Class I brake 

inspection by a qualified person does 

not reset the mileage clock for the entire 

train. 

FRA intends to continue to require 

Class III brake tests for trains operating 

in ECP brake mode. However, due to the 

changes related to adding cars en route 

and for purposes of clarity, FRA is 

including the triggering events for when 

a Class III brake test would be required 

in paragraph (e) of this section. As 

previously mentioned, for trains 

operating in ECP brake mode, FRA 

proposes in paragraph (g) to except 

§ 232.211(a), which governs the 

locations where Class III brake 

inspections must be performed. 

Through paragraph (e), FRA intends to 

require Class III tests on trains operating 

in ECP brake mode where a locomotive 

or caboose is changed, a car or block of 

cars is added to or removed from the 

train, and whenever the ECP brake 

system’s continuity is compromised 

when the train consist has not changed. 

FRA acknowledges that there has been 

confusion in unique circumstances 

where a Class III brake test may or may 

not be required. For instance, a Class III 

brake test would not be required when 

a consist is cut in half, but otherwise 

may remain unchanged, such as when 

blocking a crossing. Further, a block of 

cars could be added to the rear of a train 

without breaking the train line cable’s 

continuity. Accordingly, to avoid any 

misunderstanding, FRA proposes to 

specifically detail when a Class III brake 

inspection will be required on trains 

operating in ECP brake mode. All other 

trains, including ECP brake equipped 

trains operating in conventional 

pneumatic mode, would remain subject 

to the provisions contained in 

§ 232.211(a). 

Paragraph (f) proposes to modify 

certain elements of the brake tests 

applicable to ECP brake equipped cars 

and trains operating in ECP brake mode. 

Under the current regulations, tests and 

inspections include brake pipe service 

reductions and designate specific psi 

specifications. FRA believes that 

modifications to the brake pipe 

reduction standard are appropriate to 

reflect the differences between ECP 

brakes and conventional pneumatic 

brakes. For instance, control of ECP 

brakes is not dependent on brake pipe 

pressure and ECP brake equipped trains 

have a nominal brake pipe pressure of 

90 psi. Further, since brakes need only 

remain applied until the release signal 

is received and the ECP brake system 

communicates through an immediate 

electronic control signal, the 

requirement to keep the brakes applied 

for a period of three minutes is 

unnecessary. Since the ECP brake tests 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4
50836 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

include an equivalent electronic full 

service reduction with immediately 

provided results, the time consuming 

20-psi brake pipe reduction required in 

the Class I and Class III brake tests and 

15-psi brake pipe reduction required in 

the transfer train brake test and yard air 

test may no longer be necessary. In 

addition, the ECP brake system’s 

electronic equivalent to a full service 

reduction may increase safety and 

testing efficiency. 

In any event, brake pipe pressure 

remains important, since ECP brake 

equipped trains rely on the pneumatic 

backup system for safety purposes. 

Accordingly, for trains equipped with 

ECP brake systems, FRA proposes in 

paragraph (f)(1) to replace the existing 

brake pipe service reductions and 

increases with an alternative 

requirement for an electronic signal that 

provides an equivalent application or 

release of the brakes. FRA believes that 

any alternative test procedures must 

include, at a minimum, either the 

electronic equivalent to each existing 

test’s brake pipe reduction requirements 

or the equivalent of a full service brake 

pipe reduction initiated by an electronic 

signal. 

FRA seeks comments on this 

proposal, including the appropriate type 

of alternative test. In light of how the 

brake pipe’s use in an ECP brake train 

will be limited to charging brake air 

reservoirs, FRA seeks comments on how 

the existing regulatory brake pipe 

leakage limits should be modified, if at 

all, for ECP brakes and whether changes 

in the leakage requirements will affect 

the pneumatic backup capability of the 

ECP brake system. In addition, 

comments should address the need to 

include the specific electronic reduction 

that is to be made on ECP equipped 

trains during the required brake tests 

and what type of electronic signals 

would be suitable equivalents to the 

currently mandated 20-psi and 15-psi 

brake reduction. 

Paragraph (f)(2) proposes to modify 

certain regulatory requirements related 

to piston travel limits and adjustments 

during Class I brake inspections. For 

instance, under § 232.205(c)(5) a person 

performing a Class I brake test must 

ensure that piston travel be adjusted to 

specific distances. Although FRA 

believes that ECP brake operations 

require specific piston travel limits, 

FRA recognizes that the minimum 

piston travel limits contained in 

§ 232.205(c)(5) may not be fully 

applicable to ECP brake systems. Since 

the ECP brake system precisely 

measures the amount of brake cylinder 

pressure for each specified application 

and maintains that pressure, piston 

travel tolerances for ECP brakes may not 

require the level of specificity as those 

for conventional pneumatic brake 

operations. Further, FRA acknowledges 

that a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ requirement for 

ECP brake system piston travel may not 

be ideal or applicable. 

Accordingly, paragraph (f)(2) 

proposes to except the minimum piston 

travel limits in § 232.205(c)(5) as they 

apply to ECP brake systems. In place of 

the minimum piston travel limits 

required by § 232.205(c), paragraph 

(f)(2) proposes to require railroads, 

while performing Class I brake tests, to 

adhere to the minimum piston travel 

limits or distances recommended by the 

applicable manufacturer. FRA 

anticipates that a recommended 

minimum piston travel limit for each 

ECP brake system will be determined by 

the car’s design, weight, and engineered 

brake ratio. FRA’s basis for evaluation of 

manufacturer recommendations for the 

minimum piston travel limits will be 

based on the equivalent brake shoe force 

on the wheel as shown in the 

appropriate calculations or tests. At this 

time, FRA intends to retain the standard 

nominal adjustment of 71⁄2 inches and 

the maximum piston travel limit of 9 

inches in accordance with of 

§ 232.205(c)(5). In any event, FRA seeks 

comments on whether and how the 

nominal piston travel adjustment limit 

should be flexible. 

FRA proposes to require such limits 

be stenciled or marked on the car or 

badge plate in the same fashion FRA 

requires for systems and equipment 

subject to § 232.103(g). FRA believes 

that requiring the affixation of a legible 

decal, stencil, or sticker or the 

equipping of a badge plate displaying 

the permissible brake cylinder pistol 

travel range will effectively 

communicate the acceptable range to 

train crew members and will ensure the 

proper operation of a car’s brakes after 

being inspected. FRA believes that this 

information is essential in order for a 

person to properly perform the required 

brake inspections. FRA believes that all 

vehicles equipped with ECP brake 

systems require marking in order to 

avoid confusion by those individuals 

responsible for inspecting and 

maintaining the equipment. 

Section 232.609 Handling of Defective 

Equipment With ECP Brake Systems 

In § 232.609, FRA proposes to modify 

certain part 232 requirements as they 

apply to freight cars and freight trains 

equipped with ECP brake systems and 

hauling defective equipment. In 

particular, for such trains and cars, FRA 

proposes in paragraph (k) to except 

certain existing requirements and in 

paragraphs (a) through (j) to provide 

alternative requirements. 

Under § 232.15 and 49 U.S.C. 20303, 

railroads may be immune to civil 

penalty liability if a car or train with 

certain inoperative or defective 

equipment is hauled under certain 

conditions. Section 232.15(a) contains 

various parameters which must exist in 

order for a railroad to be deemed to be 

hauling a piece of equipment with 

defective brakes for repairs without civil 

penalty liability. The vast majority of 

the requirements contained in 

§ 232.15(a) are a codification of the 

existing statutory requirements 

contained in 49 U.S.C. 20403 and are 

based on the voluminous case law 

interpreting those provisions. The 

statutory provisions require hauling 

defective equipment only to the nearest 

place where necessary repairs can be 

made and require 100 percent operative 

brakes from any location where such 

repairs can be effectuated. Thus, 

because many locations where trains are 

initiated with any frequency are also 

locations where brake system repairs 

can be effectuated, the statutory 

provisions essentially require 100 

percent operative brakes from a train’s 

initial terminal. FRA continues to 

believe that the proposed requirements 

relating to the movement of equipment 

with defective ECP brakes are generally 

consistent with the statutory 

requirements, ensure the safe and 

proper movement of defective 

equipment, and clarify the duties 

imposed on a railroad when moving 

such equipment. 

In light of the increased safety levels 

produced by ECP brake systems, FRA 

proposes to use its discretionary 

authority under 49 U.S.C. 20306 to 

provide an exception from the rigid 

statutory provisions and modify the 

regulations concomitant to 49 U.S.C. 

20303 governing the movement of 

defective equipment. Under certain 

circumstances, the statute and related 

regulations provide immunity from civil 

penalty when a train with defective 

equipment is hauled to the nearest 

location where the necessary repairs can 

be made, regardless of direction. Since 

a train equipped with an ECP brake 

system and operating in ECP brake 

mode with a minimum percentage of 

cars with defective ECP brakes is 

capable of traveling safely for long 

distances, FRA proposes to permit the 

operation of such a train and any cars 

with defective ECP brakes to its 

destination, not to exceed 3,500 miles, 

for repair without civil penalty. 

While FRA believes that a train 

operating in ECP brake mode with some 

ineffective or inoperative ECP brakes 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 50837 

may continue to travel safely, concerns 

remain if such a train includes cars with 

defective non-brake or conventional 

pneumatic brake equipment. ECP brake 

systems do not reduce the danger of 

traveling with such defects. However, as 

previously noted, the switching and 

potential backhauling of ECP equipped 

cars into incompatible trains for the 

purposes of complying with 49 U.S.C. 

20303 and 49 CFR 232.15 outweigh the 

danger of hauling such cars to the 

nearest repair location. FRA is also 

cognizant of the need for logistical 

flexibility to efficiently accomplish 

repairs during the transition from 

conventional pneumatic to ECP brake 

operations. Furthermore, requiring strict 

adherence to the statutory requirements 

related to moving defective equipment 

ignores the safety features provided by 

ECP brake system technology and could 

potentially stifle the industry’s ability 

and desire to implement the technology. 

Accordingly, FRA will hold a public 

hearing to determine whether it can and 

should invoke its discretionary 

authority under 49 U.S.C. 20306 to 

except certain operations involving 

freight cars and trains equipped with 

ECP brake systems from the stringent 

statutory movement-for-repair 

provision. The hearing will also address 

FRA’s exception of trains operating in 

ECP brake mode from the de facto 

statutory requirement for 100 percent 

operative brakes at an initial terminal as 

discussed above. At this time, FRA 

proposes to invoke such statutory and 

regulatory relief in paragraph (k) of this 

document, including exceptions from 

§§ 232.15(a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), 

(a)(8), and 232.103(d)-(e). 

Under § 232.103(d), no train may 

depart a location where a Class I brake 

test is required to be performed on the 

entire train with any inoperative or 

ineffective brakes. Since trains equipped 

with ECP brakes and operating in ECP 

brake mode provide higher levels of 

safety, including shorter stopping 

distances and constant real-time 

monitoring of the brake system, than 

trains operating with conventional 

pneumatic brakes, FRA believes that 

some leeway needs to be provided for 

trains operating in ECP brake mode. 

However, FRA also acknowledges 

allowing a car to depart an initial 

terminal with inoperative or ineffective 

brakes may permit such equipment to 

move indefinitely without receiving the 

proper repairs. Accordingly, FRA 

proposes to limit the types and number 

of cars that may depart in a train 

operating in ECP brake mode from a 

location where the train is required to 

receive a Class I brake test. 

Paragraph (a) proposes to allow a train 

operating in ECP brake mode to depart 

from its initial terminal with ninety-five 

percent effective and operative brakes 

under certain circumstances. Per 

paragraph (k), a train operating in ECP 

brake mode is excepted from 

§ 232.103(d), which requires that onehundred percent of the brakes on a train 

shall be effective and operative prior to 

use or departure from any location 

where a Class I brake test is required to 

be performed on the train pursuant to 

§ 232.205. For ECP brake equipped 

trains, this requirement is replaced by 

the ninety-five percent effective and 

operative brake requirement proposed 

in paragraph (a). FRA believes that this 

requirement provides flexibility from 

the rules governing conventional 

pneumatic braking systems while 

rendering a sufficient brake failure 

buffer between departing an initial 

terminal with ninety-five percent 

effective and operative brakes and 

experiencing a penalty stop upon 

reaching eighty-five percent effective 

and operative brakes, as proposed by 

paragraph (d). 

The one-hundred percent effective 

and operative brake requirement under 

§ 232.103(d) is based on FRA’s longstanding interpretation and application 

of AAR’s inspection and testing 

standards as they existed in 1958 as 

well as the statutory provisions related 

to the use of power brakes and the 

movement of equipment with defective 

safety appliances. See 66 FR 4104, 4124, 

4128 (Jan. 7, 2001). However, the 

design, operation, and safety benefits 

derived from the use of ECP brake 

systems dictate a need to modify this 

long-standing requirement. Under the 

AAR standards, if at any time the ECP 

brakes on a train become less than eightfive percent operative, the train will 

automatically stop via a penalty brake 

application. In addition, it has been 

determined that a train with eight-five 

percent operative ECP brakes will have 

better stopping distances than a 

conventional pneumatic braked train 

with one-hundred percent operative 

brakes. Moreover, ECP brake system 

technology provides the ability to 

continuously monitor the real-time 

status of the braking system on each car 

in a train. This allows a locomotive 

engineer to always know the exact 

status of his train’s braking system. In 

light of this increased level of safety, 

FRA believes a partial reduction in the 

percentage of operative brakes is 

justified. FRA proposes modifying the 

requirement to 95 percent effective and 

operative brakes, which it believes 

strikes a balance between the current 

regulation and the need to allow for intransit failures that could compromise 

the operation of the train or otherwise 

automatically shut it down when it 

reaches 85 percent effective or operative 

brakes. 

Under paragraph (a), a train could 

only leave its initial terminal if a Class 

I brake test is performed by a qualified 

mechanical inspector and all ECP 

braked cars that are known to have 

arrived at the location with ineffective 

or inoperative brakes are repaired or 

handled accordingly. The proposed rule 

intends to ensure that at least 95 percent 

of the ECP brake equipped cars have 

effective and operative brakes prior to 

departure from an initial terminal and 

that cars are repaired in a timely 

fashion. The purpose of the ninety-five 

percent threshold is to prevent the delay 

or disassembly of a train for the removal 

or repair of a very small percentage of 

cars that are discovered to be defective 

for the first time while the railroad is 

conducting its in-depth inspections 

required at a train’s initial terminal. 

The 95 percent requirement also 

acknowledges that some initial 

terminals may not initially have the 

capabilities of repairing ineffective or 

inoperative ECP braking systems. 

Accordingly, paragraph (b) proposes to 

allow the movement of cars with such 

defects known to exist upon arrival at 

its destination to be moved only to the 

nearest forward location where repairs 

may be performed and restricts the car 

from being loaded or unloaded while 

being so moved. However, to ensure the 

safe operation of trains operating in ECP 

brake mode, operators are reminded 

that, under the proposal, the inclusion 

of such defective cars cannot make the 

train have less than ninety-five percent 

effective or operative brakes. 

Paragraph (b) also proposes that a car 

with ineffective or inoperative ECP 

brakes shall be tagged in accordance 

with § 232.15(b). FRA believes that 

§ 232.15(b) should equally apply to 

trains operating in ECP brake mode and 

should be a prerequisite for the 

movement from the initial terminal of 

any car with defective brakes. Section 

232.15(b) contains the specific 

requirements regarding the tagging of 

equipment found with defective brake 

components and recognizes that the 

industry may attempt to develop some 

type of automated tracking system 

capable of retaining the information 

required by that section and tracking 

defective equipment electronically. 

Thus, paragraph (b), through 

§ 232.15(b), proposes to permit the use 

of an automated tracking system in lieu 

of directly tagging the equipment if the 

automated system is approved for use 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4
50838 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

by FRA. FRA continues to believe that 

these provisions are necessary to ensure 

the agency’s ability to monitor such 

systems and potentially prohibit the use 

of the system if it is found deficient. The 

proposed rule makes clear that, by 

ensuring application of section 

232.15(b) to ECP brake systems, an 

automated tracking system approved for 

use by FRA be capable of being 

reviewed and monitored by FRA at any 

time. This paragraph also notifies the 

railroads that FRA reserves the right to 

prohibit the use of a previously 

approved automated tracking system if 

FRA subsequently finds it to be 

insecure, inaccessible, or inadequate. 

Such a determination would have to be 

in writing and include the basis for 

taking such action. 

Paragraph (c) proposes permitting, 

with certain limitations, trains operating 

in ECP brake mode to move cars 

equipped with conventional pneumatic 

brakes. If a freight car equipped with 

only conventional pneumatic brakes 

would have effective and operable 

brakes in a train equipped with a 

‘‘stand-alone’’ conventional pneumatic 

brake system, FRA proposes to permit a 

freight train operating in ECP brake 

mode to move such a car. If a car has 

defective conventional pneumatic 

brakes—which would be ineffective or 

inoperative in a train with a ‘‘standalone’’ conventional pneumatic brake 

system—FRA also proposes to permit its 

movement by a freight train operating in 

ECP brake mode, but only if the 

movement is made in accordance with 

§ 232.15. By referring to § 232.15, 

paragraph (c) intends to, amongst other 

things, include the exceptions 

delineated in paragraph (k) and limit the 

movement of such cars to the nearest 

location where repairs can be made. 

Paragraph (c) also reminds regulated 

parties to comply with the tagging 

requirements of § 232.15(b) for the same 

reasons as paragraph (b). FRA notes that 

the inclusion of cars with defective or 

non-defective conventional pneumatic 

brakes into a train operating in ECP 

brake mode shall not cause the train to 

have less than ninety-five percent 

effective and operative brakes in 

accordance with paragraph (a). FRA 

believes that permitting a limited 

inclusion of cars equipped with 

conventional pneumatic brakes will 

provide some flexibility as operators 

transition their fleets from conventional 

pneumatic to ECP brake systems while 

ensuring a satisfactory level of safety. 

Once an ECP brake system detects 

that the train has less than eight-five 

percent operative brakes, AAR standard 

S–4200 requires an automatic and 

immediate full service brake 

application. Paragraph (d) mirrors S–

4200 by requiring a train operating in 

ECP brake mode to cease moving once 

less than eight-five percent of the train’s 

cars have effective and operative brakes. 

In other words, under paragraph (d), no 

train shall move with more than fifteen 

percent of its brakes being defective or 

otherwise inoperative or ineffective. 

Recognizing, however, that foundation 

brake rigging defects may not be 

detected by the electronic system, and 

that calculation of the percentage may 

require an accurate manual entry of the 

total cars in the train by the train crew, 

FRA proposes paragraph (d) to 

continually ensure the safe operation of 

trains operating in ECP brake mode with 

ineffective or inoperative brakes. 

Although there is no explicit statutory 

limit regarding the number of cars with 

inoperative brake equipment that may 

be hauled in a train, the fifteen percent 

limitation is a longstanding industry 

and agency interpretation of the 

hauling-for-repair provision currently 

codified at 49 U.S.C. 20303, and has 

withstood the test of time. This 

interpretation is extrapolated from 

another statutory requirement which 

permits a railroad to use a train only if 

‘‘at least 50 percent of the vehicles in 

the train are equipped with power or 

train brakes and the engineer is using 

the power or train brakes on those 

vehicles and on all other vehicles 

equipped with them that are associated 

with those vehicles in a train.’’ 49 

U.S.C. 20302(a)(5)(B). As originally 

enacted in 1903, section 20302, also 

granted the Interstate Commerce 

Commission (ICC) the authority to 

increase this percentage, and in 1910 

the ICC issued an order increasing the 

minimum percentage to 85 percent. See 

49 CFR 232.103(e), which codifies the 

ICC order. FRA believes that if the rule 

is read in its entirety there should be no 

confusion as to the movement of 

defective equipment, and that this 

provision merely sets an outside limit 

on the percentage of cars that may be 

hauled in any train with inoperative 

brakes. Consequently, FRA will 

continue to require that equipment with 

inoperative air brakes make up no more 

than 15 percent of any train. 

FRA acknowledges that § 232.103(e) 

already prevents a train’s movement ‘‘if 

less than 85 percent of the cars in that 

train have effective and operative 

brakes.’’ However, FRA has also stated 

that § 232.103(e) ‘‘contains a clear and 

absolute prohibition on train movement 

if more than 15 percent of the cars in a 

train have their brakes cut out or have 

otherwise inoperative brakes.’’ Because 

ECP brake systems are designed to 

automatically stop the train whenever 

and wherever the brake system has less 

than 15 percent operative brakes, FRA 

recognizes that some flexibility is 

needed to ensure that such trains are not 

stranded on the main track. To provide 

flexibility in those rare instances where 

a train experiences a penalty brake 

application as a result of having less 

than 85 percent operative brakes, 

paragraph (d) proposes to include 

requirements to ensure the safe 

movement of such trains. FRA 

recognizes the need for some trains 

operating in ECP brake mode to 

continue to an appropriate repair 

facility or nearest siding after 

experiencing a penalty brake 

application. Since ECP brake 

implementation is in its infant stages, 

FRA acknowledges that a railroad may 

not initially have a significant number 

of repair facilities beyond the initial 

terminals of ECP equipped cars. 

Accordingly, paragraph (d) proposes to 

permit limited movement of such trains 

for repair or consist modification 

purposes. In any event, in light of the 

Class I inspection required under 

proposed § 232.607 and an ECP brake 

system’s continuous monitoring and 

diagnostics functions, FRA believes that 

trains operating in ECP brake mode will 

rarely, if ever, reach fifteen percent 

inoperative or ineffective brakes. 

However, FRA believes that paragraph 

(d)—in an abundance of caution and in 

anticipation of such a possibility 

occurring—ensures safe and efficient 

operations. In order to move a train 

operating in ECP brake mode that 

experiences a penalty brake application 

(i.e., an automatic and immediate 

emergency or full brake application 

made by the ECP brake system in 

accordance with the current AAR 

standards) due to having less than 85 

percent effective and operative brakes, 

proposed paragraph (d) would require 

the train crew to perform a visual 

inspection of the entire train, ensure the 

safe operation of the train, and 

determine that it is safe to move the 

train. 

Under the current regulations, visual 

inspections are generally performed 

when moving defective equipment since 

a ‘‘qualified person’’ must determine 

that the car is safe to move. It is FRA’s 

understanding that most, if not all, 

railroads require a crew member to 

make a visual inspection of a car when 

a problem occurs en route. A proper 

visual inspection ensures that the brakes 

are cut out and eliminates the 

possibility of dragging or stuck brakes. 

A dragging or loose part or piece of 

equipment can find its way under a 

wheel, causing a derailment. A brake 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 50839 

that will not release—due to bent or 

fouled brake rigging or a problematic 

control valve—will cause the wheel to 

slide. A sliding wheel will not properly 

traverse a switch or cross-over, setting 

up a potential derailment. A sliding 

wheel may also cause a severe flat spot 

to occur on the wheel, which can also 

lead to a derailment. By requiring that 

the train crew ensure the safe operation 

of the train and determine that it is safe 

to move the train, FRA intends to make 

clear that it is the railroad’s 

responsibility, through its crew, to do 

whatever is necessary to ensure safe 

train operation under the flexibility 

provided by paragraph (d). Any 

deviation from the requirements under 

paragraph (d) while moving a train with 

less than eight-five effective or 

ineffective brakes would pose a 

significant safety hazard and violate the 

rule. 

In addition, under paragraph (d), the 

train’s subsequent movement must be 

made in a restricted ECP brake Switch 

Mode to the nearest forward location 

where necessary repairs or changes to 

the consist can be made. Under AAR 

Standard S–4200 § 4.2.6.2.2, the speed 

of an ECP brake equipped train in 

Switch Mode shall not exceed 20 mph. 

The purpose of the 20 mph restriction, 

among Switch Mode’s other restrictions, 

is to ensure the safe movement of the 

train with less than ideal brake 

operations while allowing the train to 

operate to a location where defective 

braking systems can be repaired or 

where cars can be added or removed 

from the train so that it will have at least 

eighty-five percent effective and 

operative brakes. 

Paragraph (e) proposes to permit 

trains operating in ECP brake mode with 

defective ECP brakes to be used or 

hauled without civil penalty liability 

under part 232 to its destination, not to 

exceed 3,500 miles. Such defects must 

be found for the first time during a Class 

I brake test or en route. As previously 

mentioned, FRA believes that a train 

operating in ECP brake mode can safely 

continue to its destination with some 

ineffective or inoperative brakes. 

Accordingly, paragraph (e) proposes 

that all such trains be permitted to 

travel to its destination, not to exceed 

3,500 miles, without incurring civil 

penalty liability in relation to the use of 

those brakes. Paragraph (e) also 

proposes that this civil penalty 

immunity be extended to such trains 

with ECP brake defects found at the 

initial terminal. If such defects are 

found after a train is put together in 

preparation for its next departure, it 

may be overly burdensome to require 

that the train be taken apart for repair. 

If a brake repair may be performed 

without taking the train apart, FRA 

acknowledges that the repair may cause 

undue delay. If the ECP brake defect is 

found at the location where a Class I 

inspection is performed, FRA believes 

that such burdens and delays may be 

avoided in light of the increased safety 

afforded by ECP brake systems. 

FRA believes that this flexibility 

needs to be afforded differently to 

defects that are known to exist upon a 

car’s arrival at its destination or at a 

location where a Class I brake test will 

be required on the train than to defects 

found for the first time at the location 

where a Class I brake test is performed. 

If a freight car equipped with an ECP 

brake system is known to have arrived 

with ineffective or inoperative brakes at 

the location of a train’s initial terminal 

or at a location where a Class I brake test 

is required under § 232.607(b), that car 

is subject to the limitations in paragraph 

(b), not paragraph (e). Paragraph (b) 

intends to ensure that known defects be 

repaired before continued use and to 

prevent trains operating in ECP brake 

mode from traveling indefinitely 

without repairing their defective ECP 

brakes. On the other hand, by proposing 

paragraph (e), FRA recognizes the 

burden placed on operators to comply 

with such a rule when it discovers the 

defect when it is in the process of 

putting a train together or after a train 

is already put together and inspected. 

Paragraph (e) intends to recognize that 

burden by treating the train similarly to 

a train that detects a defective ECP brake 

while it is en route. 

Paragraph (f) proposes providing 

limited flexibility for trains operating in 

ECP brake mode with a non-brake safety 

appliance defect on an ECP brake 

equipped car. To enjoy such flexibility 

under paragraph (f), the car may only be 

used or hauled to the nearest forward 

location for repairs. As noted above, in 

light of the increased safety levels 

afforded by ECP brake system 

technologies, FRA proposes to allow 

trains operating in ECP brake mode with 

defective ECP brakes to travel to its 

destination, not to exceed 3,500 miles. 

FRA does not believe it prudent to 

provide the same level of flexibility to 

cars operating in ECP equipped trains 

with non-brake safety appliance defects, 

since an ECP brake system’s increased 

safety level does not reduce the dangers 

of such defects. However, FRA does 

believe that flexibility should be 

afforded to such equipment hauled 

directly to the nearest forward repair 

location. To require the hauling of ECP 

brake equipment to the nearest location 

where necessary repairs can be 

effectuated, rather than the nearest 

forward location, could create 

unnecessary safety hazards. As there 

will only be a limited number of ECP 

brake equipped trains in operation at 

any given time, the ability to switch cars 

from one ECP train to another, merely 

for the purposes of getting the car to a 

closer repair facility, will be severely 

limited. Rather than requiring ECP brake 

equipped cars to be hauled in non-ECP 

brake trains, where their brakes will be 

inoperative, FRA believes it is safer to 

permit the car to continue in the ECP 

brake equipped train with operative 

brakes to the next forward location 

where the necessary non-brake safety 

appliance repairs can be made. 

In the event trains must include cars 

equipped with brake systems not 

compatible with the train’s brake 

system, FRA proposes requirements to 

ensure the safe operation of such trains. 

FRA proposes to allow a train operating 

with a conventional pneumatic brake 

system—regardless of whether it is a 

train with ‘‘stand-alone’’ conventional 

pneumatic brakes or an ECP brake 

equipped train operating in 

conventional pneumatic brake mode—to 

include cars with stand-alone ECP brake 

systems. To maintain an acceptable 

level of safety, however, FRA proposes 

that such trains must have at least 95 

percent effective and operative brakes at 

the conclusion of a Class I brake test, 

inclusive of all cars regardless of 

braking systems. Further, to meet the 

same level of safety intended by 49 CFR 

232.103(d), FRA proposes to continue to 

require that the train have 100 percent 

effective and operative conventional 

pneumatic brakes at the Class I brake 

test site when operating in conventional 

pneumatic mode. 

Accordingly, paragraph (g) proposes 

to allow trains equipped with a 

conventional pneumatic brake system—

or with ECP brake systems and 

operating in conventional pneumatic 

brake mode—to operate with freight cars 

equipped with stand-alone ECP brake 

systems under limited circumstances. 

Under paragraph (g), any such train not 

in compliance with those circumstances 

shall not be operated. The purpose of 

these limitations is to ensure the safe 

operation of such trains that contain 

cars with incompatible stand-alone ECP 

brake systems. FRA understands that 

some trains operating with conventional 

pneumatic brakes may need to carry 

cars with incompatible stand-alone ECP 

brake systems, especially when the 

implementation of ECP brake system 

technology is in its infant stages. For 

instance, FRA anticipates that a need 

may arise to move a new ECP brake 

equipped car in a train operating with 

conventional pneumatic brakes from the 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4
50840 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

car building facility or a repair shop to 

a location where the railroad operates 

ECP brake equipped trains. FRA also 

anticipates that a dual mode ECP brake 

system operating in ECP brake mode 

may incur a malfunction—such as a 

broken train line cable or locomotive 

controller—forcing the operator to 

switch the train’s operation to 

conventional pneumatic brake mode. As 

long as the train’s total number of cars 

with ineffective or inoperative brakes 

does not fall below the threshold 

percentage proposed by paragraph (g)—

via reference to paragraph (d)—FRA 

believes that the train may safely 

include cars with incompatible standalone ECP brake systems. 

Paragraph (g) includes requirements 

for the subject train and each of its 

stand-alone ECP brake equipped cars. 

For such a train to operate, it must 

comply with the minimum percentage 

of operative brakes required by 

paragraph (h) when at an initial 

terminal—which will be discussed 

below—or paragraph (d) when en route 

for the same reasons discussed in 

paragraph (d). Under paragraph (g), a 

stand-alone ECP brake equipped car in 

a train operating with conventional 

pneumatic brakes can only be moved for 

delivery to a railroad receiving the 

equipment or to a location where the car 

may be added to a train operating in 

ECP brake mode. Otherwise, the 

movement of the car is restricted to the 

nearest available location where 

necessary repairs can be effectuated. In 

addition, such cars must be tagged in 

accordance with § 232.15(b) for the 

same reasons as stated for the analysis 

of paragraph (b) and placed in the train 

in accordance with § 232.15(e). Section 

232.15(e) contains the requirements 

regarding the placement of cars in a 

train that have inoperative brakes. The 

requirements contained in that 

paragraph are consistent with the 

current industry practice and are part of 

almost every major railroad’s operating 

rules. By incorporating § 232.15(e) by 

reference, paragraph (g) proposes to 

prohibit the placing of a vehicle with 

inoperative brakes at the rear of the train 

and the consecutive placing of more 

than two vehicles with inoperative 

brakes, as test track demonstrations 

have indicated that when three 

consecutive cars in a train operating 

with conventional pneumatic brakes 

have their brakes cut-out, it is not 

always possible to obtain an emergency 

brake application on trailing cars. To 

remain consistent with existing industry 

practice, paragraph (g) proposes, by 

referencing § 232.15(e), to require that 

such equipment shall not be placed in 

a train if it has more than two 

consecutive individual control valves 

cut out or if the brakes controlled by the 

valve are inoperative. 

Paragraph (h) proposes additional 

requirements for freight trains equipped 

and operating with conventional 

pneumatic brakes when departing an 

initial terminal with freight cars 

equipped with stand-alone ECP brake 

systems. On such trains, paragraph (h) 

proposes to require that each car 

equipped with conventional pneumatic 

brake systems have effective and 

operative brakes. Paragraph (h) proposes 

to allow the train to depart its initial 

terminal with ninety-five percent 

effective and operative brakes. The five 

percent of cars with potentially 

defective brakes may only be cars 

equipped with stand-alone ECP brake 

systems. All cars equipped with dual 

mode ECP brake systems must operate 

in conventional pneumatic brake mode 

and have effective and operative 

conventional pneumatic brakes. 

Various paragraphs of proposed 

§ 232.609 require the tagging of 

defective equipment. Paragraph (i) 

proposes to provide for the electronic 

tagging of defective ECP brake 

equipment when being moved in a train 

operating in ECP brake mode. FRA 

recognizes that § 232.15(b) already 

provides requirements for electronic 

tagging of defective equipment. 

However, in view of the ECP brake 

system’s unique characteristics, it is not 

entirely clear how § 232.15(b) would 

appropriately apply to electronic 

records developed, retained, and 

maintained by ECP brake systems. 

Accordingly, paragraph (i) contains the 

proposed criteria for determining 

whether an ECP brake system complies 

with § 232.15(b). In order for an ECP 

brake system to provide electronic 

tagging of equipment with defective 

safety appliances, the ECP brake system 

must provide appropriate, constant, and 

accurate information to the crew via a 

display in the cab of the lead 

locomotive, and ensure that the 

information is securely stored and is 

accessible to FRA and appropriate 

operating and inspection personnel. 

To allow electronic tagging of 

defective ECP brake equipment, 

paragraph (i) proposes to ensure that the 

train crew be notified of such defects. 

FRA believes that the most logical and 

efficient communications medium is the 

ECP brake system’s display monitor in 

the lead locomotive cab. FRA also 

believes that any such notification 

should include descriptive information 

suitable to identify the defect and its 

location in the train consist. FRA 

acknowledges that locomotive engineers 

may be distracted or subjected to 

information overload by multiple 

monitors or displays in the locomotive 

cab, thus potentially endangering the 

safe operation of the train. At this time, 

FRA does not have sufficient 

information to propose rules concerning 

display or monitor placement or the 

merging of various data into a smaller 

number of displays. In any event, FRA 

seeks comments on this issue. 

To ensure the integrity of electronic 

tagging, the ECP brake system must 

securely store the information. FRA 

seeks comment on how secure a system 

must be. While the information must be 

secure, it must also be accessible for 

safety and oversight purposes. 

Paragraph (i) makes clear that an 

automated tracking system approved for 

use by FRA and its secured information 

must be capable of being reviewed and 

monitored by FRA at any time. The 

information should also be accessible to 

subsequent train crews that require 

notification of defects. FRA 

acknowledges that some railroads may 

also desire to use the ECP brake system 

to electronically tag defective non-ECP 

brake equipment. FRA anticipates that 

such electronic tagging must be 

manually entered into the system. FRA 

seeks comments on whether the 

proposed rules should include 

provisions allowing for the manual 

input of non-ECP brake defects into ECP 

brake systems for electronic tagging 

purposes. FRA also seeks comments on 

what requirements and allowances 

should be made in consideration of that 

interest, including means to associate or 

merge ECP brake system information 

with information not monitored 

electronically by the ECP brake system. 

Paragraph (j) proposes that railroads 

adopt and comply with written 

procedures governing the movement of 

defective equipment. The procedures 

must comply with the related regulatory 

requirements, including those proposed 

in these rules. FRA intends for each 

railroad to develop appropriate 

procedures regarding its handling and 

repair of defective equipment 

containing ECP brake systems or hauled 

in trains operating in ECP brake mode. 

FRA acknowledges that many railroads 

may already have such procedures in 

place. FRA believes that the 

establishment of these procedures is the 

most effective means by which to 

minimize the possibility of future 

accidents caused by the movement of 

defective equipment on cars and trains 

equipped with ECP brake systems or 

operating in ECP brake mode. Given the 

introduction of new technology and its 

partial incompatibility with existing 

systems, FRA believes the need for 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 50841 

adoption and compliance with such 

procedures is critical for continued 

safety in the rail industry. 

To ensure compliance with the 

proposed requirements concerning the 

performance of ECP brake system 

repairs, paragraph (j) proposes to require 

railroads to submit to FRA a list 

identifying locations where such repairs 

may be made. FRA believes that the list 

should encompass a sufficient number 

of locations to ensure that Class I brake 

tests are performed at appropriate 

intervals and that trains equipped with 

ECP brake systems do not travel further 

than their destination or 3,500 miles 

without being inspected and repaired in 

Class I inspection and repair facilities. 

If a railroad adds or removes any repair 

facility from its system, paragraph (j) 

proposes that the railroad amend or 

modify that list by timely notifying FRA 

of those changes. 

Paragraph (k) proposes explicit 

exceptions to other portions of part 232. 

Paragraph (k) proposes that 

§§ 232.15(a)(2) and (a)(5) through (a)(7) 

not apply to freight cars and freight 

trains with ECP brake systems. These 

sections generally require that 

equipment with defective safety 

appliances be repaired at the location 

where they are first discovered to be 

defective or that they be moved only to 

the nearest available location where 

necessary repairs can be performed. As 

noted above, FRA believes that freight 

cars equipped with ECP brakes and 

freight trains operating in ECP brake 

mode need to be provided some 

flexibility in being handled for repair 

and when moving equipment with 

defective safety appliances. The 

provisions contained in § 232.15(a) for 

which FRA is proposing an exception 

would, in many circumstances, frustrate 

the purpose of FRA’s proposal and 

ignore the safety advances provided by 

ECP braking systems. 

Paragraph (k) also proposes to except 

§ 232.15(a)(8), which prohibits the 

movement of a defective car or 

locomotive in a train required to receive 

a Class I brake test at that location. As 

discussed in detail above, FRA proposes 

to allow a leave its initial terminal with 

only ninety-five percent operative 

brakes after a Class I brake test. 

Similarly, § 232.103(d) prohibits a train 

from departing from its initial terminal 

with any inoperative or ineffective 

brakes, but paragraph (a) proposes to 

allow a train operating in ECP brake 

mode to depart from its initial terminal 

with ninety-five percent effective and 

operative brakes under certain 

circumstances. Paragraph (a) implicitly 

excepts trains operating in ECP brake 

mode from § 232.103(d). Paragraph (k) 

intends to clearly and explicitly except 

§ 232.103(d). An explicit exception in 

this rule does not imply that there are 

no independent and implicit 

exceptions. Finally, § 232.103(e) 

‘‘contains a clear and absolute 

prohibition on train movement if more 

than 15 percent of the cars in a train 

have their brakes cut out or have 

otherwise inoperative brakes,’’ thus 

preventing a train’s movement ‘‘if less 

than 85 percent of the cars in that train 

have effective and operative brakes.’’

Due to relief proposed by this section, 

however, the strict limits imposed by 

§ 232.103(e) would no longer be 

applicable to trains regulated under 

these proposed rules. Accordingly, 

paragraph (k) proposes excepting 

§ 232.103(e). 

Section 232.611 Periodic Maintenance 

FRA intends that all unexcepted rules 

under part 232 apply to ECP brake 

operations. For the purposes of further 

clarity, however, paragraph (a) reminds 

the operators of equipment with ECP 

brake systems to comply with the 

maintenance requirements contained in 

§ 232.303(b) through (d), which require 

the performance of certain tests and 

inspections whenever a car is on a shop 

or repair track. FRA continues to believe 

that a repair or shop track provides an 

ideal setting for railroads to conduct an 

individualized inspection on a car’s 

brake system to ensure its proper 

operation. FRA also continues to believe 

that such inspections are necessary to 

reduce the potential of overlooking cars 

with excessive piston travel during the 

performance of ordinary brake 

inspections. If any problems are 

detected at that location, the personnel 

needed to make any necessary 

corrections are already present. 

Furthermore, performing these 

inspections at this time ensures proper 

operation of the cars’ brakes and 

eliminates the potential of having to cut 

cars out of an assembled train and, thus, 

should reduce inspection times and 

make for more efficient operations. 

FRA continues to believe that 

§§ 232.303(b) and (c) should apply to all 

operations, including those with ECP 

brake systems. Section 232.303(b) 

requires testing of each car on a shop or 

repair track to determine that its air 

brakes apply and remain applied until 

a release is initiated. If the brakes fail to 

apply or remained applied until a 

release is initiated, the car must be 

repaired and retested. Section 

232.303(c) requires piston travel to be 

inspected and, if necessary, adjusted. 

FRA intends for this to be accomplished 

in accordance with the stencil or badge 

plate on cars equipped with ECP brakes. 

FRA also continues to believe that 

§ 232.303(d) should apply to all 

operations, including those with ECP 

brake systems. Section 232.303(d) lists 

brake system components requiring 

inspection prior to releasing a car from 

a shop or repair track. This section 

requires inspection of a car’s hand 

brakes, angle cocks to ensure proper 

positioning to allow maximum air flow, 

and brake indicators, if equipped, to 

ensure their accuracy and proper 

operation. A periodic inspection is an 

ideal time for the railroad to inspect 

these items while imposing the least 

burden on the railroad’s inspection and 

repair forces. 

In addition to requiring continued 

compliance with §§ 232.303(b) through 

(d), paragraph (a) proposes to require 

further inspections of freight cars 

equipped with ECP brake systems prior 

to release from a shop or repair track. 

These additional inspections afford the 

inspector the opportunity to look at 

each car more thoroughly and take into 

consideration ECP brake systems’

unique characteristics. For instance, 

while § 232.303(d) requires inspectors to 

ensure that brake pipes are securely 

clamped, paragraph (a) proposes the 

equivalent for ECP brake systems by 

requiring the secured clamping of ECP 

brake system wires. Accordingly, 

paragraph (a) proposes requiring 

inspectors to check the ECP brake 

system’s wiring and brackets, electrical 

connections, electrical grounds and 

impedance, and any car mounted ECP 

brake system component. During such 

inspections, inspectors are expected to 

look for problems such as frayed wiring, 

loose or damaged brackets, and wires 

that have become loose due to a fallen 

bracket. FRA believes that a missing 

bracket may not cause concern during a 

regular train yard inspection or Class I 

brake test and FRA has proposed 

requiring shop or repair track 

inspections of such ECP brake related 

components to ensure their safe 

operation. 

Paragraph (b) proposes requiring 

railroads to submit periodic single car 

air brake test procedures to FRA for 

approval and paragraph (c) proposes 

that railroads comply with such 

submitted and approved procedures 

whenever they perform a single car air 

brake test. FRA must be given an 

opportunity to review and comment on 

any revision of the procedures by which 

these tests are performed to ensure that 

there is no degradation in safety 

resulting from any such modification 

and to ensure consistency in how the 

tests are performed. FRA notes that the 

review and approval proposed by 

paragraph (b) are necessary to prevent 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4
50842 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

railroads from making unilateral 

changes to the test procedures. 

Paragraph (b) proposes to require the 

industry to follow the special approval 

process contained in § 232.17 in order to 

initially submit the procedures to FRA 

for approval. FRA understands that 

AAR and ECP brake manufacturers are 

currently in the process of developing 

single car air brake test procedures for 

ECP brake equipped freight cars. Should 

such procedures be formalized in an 

AAR approved and published standard 

prior to issuance of a final rule in this 

proceeding, FRA will consider 

incorporating that standard into the 

final rule. Paragraph (c) proposes to 

require that single car air brake tests be 

performed upon the occurrence of any 

of the events identified in § 232.305, 

except for § 232.305(b)(2). Section 

232.305(b)(2) requires railroads to 

perform a single car air brake test when 

a car is on a shop or repair track for any 

reason and has not received a single car 

air brake test within the previous 12- 

month period. The single car air brake 

test is critical to ensuring the safe and 

proper operation of the brake equipment 

on the Nation’s fleet of freight cars. 

When FRA issued § 232.305(b)(2), the 

single car air brake test was the sole 

method by which air brake equipment 

on freight cars is periodically tested to 

identify potential problems before they 

result in the brake’s becoming 

inoperative. Due to the ECP brake 

system’s ability to continuously monitor 

the condition of a car’s air brakes, FRA 

believes that less frequent single car air 

brake tests are justified on such 

equipment. 

FRA acknowledges that railroads may 

retrofit ECP brake systems on existing 

cars equipped with conventional 

pneumatic brake systems. While 

§ 232.305(e) requires a single car air 

brake test on each new or rebuilt car 

prior to placing or using it in revenue 

service, it is unclear whether this rule 

applies to cars retrofitted with ECP 

brake systems. Accordingly, to ensure 

the proper and safe operation of cars 

with newly installed ECP brake systems, 

paragraph (d) proposes to require the 

performance of a single car air brake test 

prior to returning the car to revenue 

service. FRA believes that it is essential 

for retrofitted cars to receive this test 

prior to returning to revenue service in 

order to ensure the proper operation of 

the vehicle’s new brake system. Most 

railroads already require this attention 

when installing a new brake system; 

thus the cost of this requirement is 

minimal and merely incorporates the 

industry’s current best practices. 

FRA acknowledges that, after 

receiving approval of the single car air 

brake test standard from FRA in 

accordance with paragraph (b), a 

railroad or an industry representative 

may—through its experience—

subsequently determine better 

procedures applicable to single car air 

brake tests of cars equipped with ECP 

brake systems. Accordingly, FRA 

recognizes that the industry may find it 

necessary to modify the single car air 

brake test procedures from time to time. 

Section 232.307 provides regulatory 

procedures for those seeking 

modification of an approved single car 

air brake test procedure. Paragraph (b) 

proposes extending the application of 

§ 232.307 to single car air brake test 

procedures for cars equipped with ECP 

brake systems. 

FRA believes that § 232.307 provides 

the industry with a quick and efficient 

procedure to seek modification of an 

incorporated or approved testing 

procedure and provides both FRA and 

other interested parties an opportunity 

to review potential changes prior to 

their becoming effective. The process 

under § 232.307 permits the industry to 

modify the single car air brake test 

procedures and permits those 

modifications to become effective 75 

days from the date that FRA publishes 

the requested modification in the 

Federal Register, if no objection to the 

requested modification is raised by 

either FRA or any other interested party. 

The process allows FRA and other 

interested parties 60 days to review and 

raise objections to any proposed 

modification requested by the industry 

and submitted to FRA. FRA believes the 

process established in § 232.307 will 

meet the needs of AAR and the industry 

to expeditiously modify the single car 

air brake test procedures required by 

and approved under paragraph (b). 

FRA continues to believe that, for the 

process to work at optimum efficiency, 

the AAR and the industry would be best 

served if they ensure that there is open 

communication regarding any 

modifications with both FRA and the 

representatives of affected employees 

prior to requesting any modification of 

the procedures. This will ensure that 

interested parties are fully informed of 

any potential modification and their 

concerns are addressed or allayed before 

a request for modification is submitted 

to FRA. This information and dialogue 

will eliminate the potential for 

objections being submitted when the 

requested modification is officially 

sought. 

FRA acknowledges that the selfmonitoring capabilities of ECP brake 

systems may eliminate the need to 

perform single car air brake tests on a 

time-specific basis. Accordingly, 

paragraph (f) proposes to except 

§ 232.305(b)(2) as it applies to single car 

air brake tests for cars with stand-alone 

ECP brake systems. Since cars with dual 

mode ECP brake systems include all of 

the components of a conventional 

pneumatic brake system and may be 

operated in conventional pneumatic 

brake mode at any time, FRA does not 

intend paragraph (f) to provide those 

cars relief from section 232.305(b)(2). At 

this time, FRA does not believe 

sufficient information exists to 

completely eliminate the need to 

conduct periodic single car air brake 

tests on ECP brake equipped cars. 

Paragraph (f) also proposes to except 

the application of § 232.305(f) to cars 

equipped with stand-alone ECP brake 

systems. Section 232.305(f) concerns 

cars that had received their last single 

car air brake tests prior to January 1, 

2001. Section 232.305(e), incorporated 

by reference from paragraph (c), requires 

that all new or rebuilt ECP brake 

equipped cars receive a single car air 

brake test prior to being placed or used 

in revenue service. Proposed paragraph 

(d) requires a single car air brake test be 

performed on all cars retrofitted with 

ECP brake systems prior to being placed 

or used in revenue service. Thus, the 

last time a stand-alone ECP brake 

equipped car would have received a 

single car air brake test would have been 

after it was built, rebuilt, or retrofitted. 

Accordingly, § 232.305(f) would no 

longer be applicable. For similar 

reasons, FRA also seeks comments and 

information on whether § 232.305(f) 

should be eliminated altogether. 

Section 232.613 End-of-Train Devices 

Current FRA regulations specify 

design and performance standards for 

one-way and two-way EOT telemetry 

devices, which, at a minimum, have the 

capability of determining rear-of-train 

brake pipe pressure and of transmitting 

this information by radio to a receiving 

unit in the controlling locomotive. Most 

rear units in service are battery operated 

and also incorporate a rear end marker 

required under 49 CFR part 221. 

Optional features include transmission 

of information regarding rear end 

motion and battery status. Most units 

operate on the same ultra high 

frequency (UHF), but each rear unit has 

a discrete identification code which 

must be recognized by the HEU before 

the message is acknowledged. The more 

modern two-way EOT device, in 

addition to the features of the one-way 

EOT device, has the ability of activating 

the emergency air valve at the rear of the 

train upon receiving an emergency 

brake application command from the 

HEU. This is a desirable feature in event 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 50843 

of a blockage in the brake pipe that 

would prevent the pneumatic 

transmission of the emergency brake 

application throughout the entire train. 

Provisions governing the use of oneway EOT telemetry devices were 

initially incorporated into the power 

brake regulations in 1986. Pursuant to 

the Rail Safety Enforcement and Review 

Act, Pub. Law No. 102–365 (Sept. 3, 

1992), which amends the Federal Rail 

Safety Act (FRSA) of 1970 (45 U.S.C. 

421, 431 et seq.), FRA held rulemakings 

to amend the power brake regulations, 

including those concerning one-way 

and two-way EOTs. 62 FR 278 (Jan. 2, 

1997); 66 FR 4104 (Jan. 17, 2001). The 

resulting regulations, contained in 

subpart E of part 232, specify the 

requirements related to the 

performance, operation, and testing of 

EOT devices for conventional 

pneumatic braking. 

The new ECP–EOT devices—which 

must comply with AAR standards such 

as S–4200 and S–4220—will provide 

more and more varied functions than 

the EOT devices used on trains with 

conventional pneumatic brakes. In 

addition to serving as the final node on 

the ECP brake system’s train line cable 

termination circuit and as the system’s 

‘‘heart beat’’ monitoring and confirming 

train, brake pipe, power supply line, 

and digital communications cable 

continuity, the ECP–EOT device 

transmits to the HEU a status message 

that includes the brake pipe pressure, 

the train line cable’s voltage, and the 

ECP–EOT device’s battery power level. 

Since the ECP–EOT device—unlike a 

conventional EOT device—will 

communicate with the HEU exclusively 

through the digital communications 

cable and not via a radio signal, it does 

not need to perform the function of 

venting the brake pipe to atmospheric 

pressure to engage an emergency brake 

application. However, ECP–EOT devices 

do verify the integrity of the train line 

cable and provide a means of 

monitoring the pressure and gradient, 

providing the basis for an automatic—

rather than engineer-commanded—

response if the system is not adequately 

charged. In the case of ECP brakes, the 

brake pipe becomes a redundant—rather 

than primary—path for sending 

emergency brake application 

commands. Under certain 

communication breakdowns between 

the ECP–EOT device, the HEU, and any 

number of CCDs, the system will selfinitiate an emergency brake application. 

FRA acknowledges that ECP–EOT 

devices, with their additional and 

changed features, may not comply with 

the rules under subpart E. FRA, 

however, is unclear what additional 

unique and varied features 

manufacturers of ECP–EOT devices may 

want to include beyond the functions 

specified in the AAR standard. 

Accordingly, FRA proposes in 

paragraph (a) that a railroad or a duly 

authorized representative of the railroad 

industry submit to FRA proposed 

design, testing, and calibration 

standards related to ECP–EOT devices 

used on freight trains operating in ECP 

brake mode. Paragraph (a) proposes that 

the submission comport with the special 

approval procedures contained in 

§ 232.17 and be subject to FRA 

approval. FRA acknowledges that ECP–

EOT devices may not require 

calibration. FRA seeks comments and 

information on this proposal and issue. 

Once FRA approves those standards, 

paragraph (b) requires that each railroad 

operating trains in ECP brake mode 

adopt and comply with those standards. 

A railroad shall not operate a train in 

ECP brake mode until after FRA 

approves those standards. Paragraph (c) 

further ensures that ECP brake equipped 

trains properly connect and use an ECP–

EOT device approved and complying 

with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 

section. 

Because paragraph (a) proposes 

requirements for ECP–EOT device 

design, testing, and calibration 

standards applicable only to ECP brake 

systems and because subpart E of part 

232 contains requirements not 

necessarily applicable to ECP–EOT 

devices, paragraph (d) proposes to 

except trains operating in ECP brake 

mode from having to comply with 

subpart E of part 232. 

XII. 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 

Analysis 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 

W12–140 on the ground level of the 

West Building, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

Access to the docket may also be 

obtained electronically through the DOT 

Docket Management System Web site at 

http://dms.dot.gov until September 28, 

2007, and the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal at http://www.regulations.gov 

after September 28, 2007. 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–

2006–26175. 

The Regulatory Analysis prepared by 

the FRA in conjunction with this NPRM 

contains many assumptions and 

analyses on which we specifically 

request comments from interested 

parties. These specific questions can be 

found throughout that document, 

particularly in sections II.B., V.D., V.E., 

V.F., and VI.A. Anyone who wishes to 

examine the analysis and provide 

relevant data or arguments may request 

a copy of the Regulatory Analysis 

through the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above. 

FRA invites comments on the 

Regulatory Analysis. 

For purposes of analysis, FRA has 

assumed that the proposed rule, if 

adopted, would support business 

decisions by Class I railroads to convert 

unit train service, such as coal and 

intermodal, to ECP brake operations 

over a 10-year period. This type of 

service is characterized by intensive 

utilization of assets and is reasonably 

discrete in terms of operational 

requirements. Although carload service 

is dispersed over the national rail 

network, unit train service tends to be 

concentrated in certain corridors. 

Locomotives are or could be dedicated 

to this service (e.g., as in the extensive 

use of high traction alternating current 

(AC) locomotives in coal service). FRA 

believes that, as costs and benefits are 

validated and the technology’s market 

enjoys economies of scale, additional 

markets will benefit from ECP brake 

technology. However, based on 

available information, FRA is not able to 

determine whether or under what 

circumstances that may occur. 

If the industry was to take advantage 

of the proposed relief to the extent 

estimated, it would cost it 

approximately $1.5 billion (discounted 

at 7%). The largest portion of these 

costs, $1 billion, is the cost to convert 

freight cars to ECP brakes and the 

remaining costs relate to locomotive 

conversion and training. The total 

benefits of the proposed rule are 

approximately $3.2 billion (discounted 

at 7%). Of those benefits, the $1.1 

billion in regulatory relief or the $1.2 

billion in fuel savings almost 

individually pay the costs or together 

substantially exceed the costs. The 

remaining benefits include wheel 

replacement savings and safety benefits. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4
50844 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

The information currently available 

suggests that additional substantial 

benefits not included in the $3.2 billion 

referenced above may be realized. The 

most significant benefit of conversion of 

mainline corridors to all-ECP brake 

service is enhanced capacity, without 

the need for major new equipment or 

infrastructure investment. Although the 

FRA cannot predict the specific effect 

that ECP brakes will have in increasing 

velocity across the national rail 

network, the FRA believes that the 

adoption of ECP brake technology will 

increase train speed and this hypothesis 

is supported by the BAH analysis. Given 

sharply growing demand for rail freight 

service, and based on the enhanced 

features that ECP brake systems offer, 

including (1) reduced stopping 

distances, (2) shorter start times, (3) 

reduction of undesired emergencies, (4) 

continuous brake pipe charging, (5) 

graduated brake application and release, 

(6) self-diagnostic train management, 

and (7) potential increase in the total 

number of cars per train, an increase in 

average train velocity will likely result. 

For instance, the BAH report cites a 

Union Pacific Railroad (UP) estimate 

that, for each 1 mph (or 5 percent) 

improvement in its overall system 

average velocity, UP saves 250 

locomotives and 5,000 freight cars that 

would otherwise be required. At a cost 

of $2 million per locomotive and an 

average of $50,000 per freight car, this 

savings represents $750 million for UP 

alone. The UP fleet is representative of 

the industry’s Class I railroads and 

comprises approximately one-third of 

all Class I railroad owned locomotives 

and one-fourth of all Class I railroad 

owned freight cars. Assuming that other 

Class I railroads have similar equipment 

utilization rates, it could be possible to 

extrapolate the $750 million in UP 

savings to the other Class I railroads, 

which could realize $2.5 billion in 

savings from a 1 mph increase in 

network velocity. Any savings realized 

would increase accordingly if there are 

speed gains of greater than 1 mph. 

However, the unit and unit-like trains 

covered by this analysis only cover a 

portion of the industry-wide train total. 

Given that unit coal trains, which are 

among the slowest moving trains on any 

given network, could experience 

velocity gains significantly greater than 

1 mph and that all Class I railroads 

transport a significant amount of coal on 

their main lines, this estimate is likely 

a lower bound estimate. Thus, due to 

the number and variability of factors 

that would determine the actual level of 

savings realized due to network velocity 

improvements, such benefits are not 

included in the total benefits. The 

expected benefits of ECP braking 

technology appear to justify the 

investment, provided that the 

conversion is focused first on the highmileage, unit and unit-like train services 

that would most benefit from its use. 

As presented in the following tables, 

FRA estimates that the present value 

(PV) of the total 20-year benefits and 

costs which the industry would be 

expected to incur if it elected to comply 

with the alternative requirements 

proposed in this rule is $3.2 billion and 

$1.5 billion, respectively: 

TOTAL TWENTY-YEAR BENEFITS AND DISCOUNTED BENEFITS

Benefits 3% Discount 7% Discount 

Regulatory Relief ....................................................................................................... $2,485,337,443 $1,726,315,620 $1,112,844,715 

Rail Accident Risk Reduction .................................................................................... 228,105,462 158,224,002 101,783,196 

Highway-Rail Accident Risk Reduction ..................................................................... 14,036,032 9,736,101 6,263,034 

Fuel Savings ....................................................................................................... 2,745,000,000 1,904,052,986 1,224,849,552 

Wheel Replacement Savings .................................................................................... 1,601,250,000 714,495,572 714,495,572 

Total Benefits ...................................................................................................... 7,073,728,937 4,909,026,194 3,160,236,069 

TOTAL TWENTY-YEAR COSTS AND DISCOUNTED COSTS

Costs 3% Discount 7% Discount 

Freight Car Costs ...................................................................................................... $1,455,272,000 $1,241,376,534 $1,022,122,156 

Locomotive Costs ...................................................................................................... 485,520,000 414,158,408 341,008,931 

Employee Training ..................................................................................................... 196,425,710 161,710,759 96,152,211 

Total Costs ......................................................................................................... 2,137,217,710 1,817,245,701 1,459,283,298 

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 

proposed rule. Document inspection 

and copying facilities are available at 

the Department of Transportation 

Central Docket Management Facility 

located in Room W12–140 on the 

ground level of the West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. Docket material is also 

available on the DOT Docket 

Management System Web site at 

http://dms.dot.gov until September 28, 

2007, and the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal at http://www.regulations.gov 

after September 28, 2007. 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–

2006–26175. 

‘‘Small entity’’ is defined in 5 U.S.C. 

601 as a small business concern that is 

independently owned and operated, and 

is not dominant in its field of operation. 

The U.S. Small Business Administration 

(SBA) has authority to regulate issues 

related to small businesses, and 

stipulates in its size standards that a 

‘‘small entity’’ in the railroad industry is 

a railroad business ‘‘line-haul 

operation’’ that has fewer than 1,500 

employees and a ‘‘switching and 

terminal’’ establishment with fewer than 

500 employees. SBA’s ‘‘size standards’’

may be altered by Federal agencies, in 

consultation with SBA and in 

conjunction with public comment. 

Pursuant to that authority FRA has 

published a final statement of agency 

policy that formally establishes ‘‘small 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 50845 

entities’’ as being railroads that meet the 

line-haulage revenue requirements of a 

Class III railroad. See 68 FR 24891 (May 

9, 2003). Currently, the revenue 

requirements are $20 million or less in 

annual operating revenue. The $20 

million limit is based on the Surface 

Transportation Board’s threshold of a 

Class III railroad carrier, which is 

adjusted by applying the railroad 

revenue deflator adjustment (49 CFR 

part 1201). The same dollar limit on 

revenues is established to determine 

whether a railroad, shipper, or 

contractor is a small entity. FRA uses 

this alternative definition of ‘‘small 

entity’’ for this rulemaking. 

Implementation and use of ECP brake 

technology under the proposed rules is 

voluntary. In addition, the impacts for 

those who may choose to implement 

and use ECP brake technology and 

comply with the proposed rules are 

primarily a result of the conversion to 

ECP brake technology. These costs 

include locomotive crew and inspector 

training, freight car conversion costs, 

and locomotive conversion costs. The 

AISE developed in connection with this 

NPRM concludes that this NPRM will 

only impact four Class I railroads and 

therefore should not have any economic 

impact on small entities. Smaller 

railroads that carry unit and unit-like 

commodities often operate and transport 

trains owned by other parties over 

relatively short distances and turn them 

over to larger systems that, in turn, 

transport those trains relatively long 

distances to their ultimate destination or 

to another small railroad for final 

delivery. The FRA recognizes that small 

entities may, in some cases, be involved 

in specific route segments for trains that 

originate or terminate on a Class I 

railroad. In these cases, the cars 

involved are more likely to be owned or 

provided by shippers or a Class I 

railroad. Mutual support arrangements 

and shared power practices are likely to 

ensure that the smaller railroad will not 

require ECP brake equipped trains for 

this service. Further, FRA anticipates 

that ECP brake equipped train 

operations will be limited to long hauls 

of commodities such as intermodal, 

coal, ore, non-metallic minerals, motor 

vehicle parts, and grain. Since small 

railroads do not handle such 

commodities, they will not likely 

receive large blocks of cars equipped 

with ECP brakes from Class I railroads. 

Since FRA does not expect small 

railroads to convert to ECP brake 

technology within the period of the 

analysis, this proposal is not anticipated 

to affect any small entities. Thus, FRA 

certifies that this NPRM 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 

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: 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4
50846 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4EP04SE07.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 50847 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4EP04SE07.008</GPH>
50848 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–C 

All estimates include the time for 

reviewing instructions; searching 

existing data sources; gathering or 

maintaining the needed data; and 

reviewing the information. Pursuant to 

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

comments concerning: Whether these 

information collection requirements are 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of FRA, including whether 

the information has practical utility; the 

accuracy of FRA’s estimates of the 

burden of the information collection 

requirements; the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and whether the burden of 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology, may be minimized. For 

information or a copy of the paperwork 

package submitted to OMB, contact Mr. 

Robert Brogan at 202–493–6292 or Ms. 

Gina Christodoulou at 202–493–6139. 

Organizations and individuals 

desiring to submit comments on the 

collection of information requirements 

should direct them to: Mr. Robert 

Brogan, Office of Safety, Planning and 

Evaluation Division, RRS–21, Federal 

Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont 

Ave., NW., Mail Stop 17, Washington, 

DC 20590, or Ms. Gina Christodoulou, 

Office of Support Systems Staff, RAD–

43, Federal Railroad Administration, 

1120 Vermont Ave., NW., Mail Stop 35, 

Washington, DC 20590. Alternatively, 

comments may be transmitted via 

facsimile to (202) 493–6230 or (202) 

493–6170, or via e-mail to Mr. Brogan at 

robert.brogan@dot.gov, or to Ms. 

Christodoulou at 

gina.christodoulou@dot.gov. 

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 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’

(64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), requires 

FRA to develop an accountable process 

to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input 

by State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies 

that have federalism implications’’ are 

defined in the Executive Order to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ Under Executive 

Order 13132, the agency may not issue 

a regulation with Federalism 

implications that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or the agency consults 

with State and local government 

officials early in the process of 

developing the proposed regulation. 

Where a regulation has Federalism 

implications and preempts State law, 

the agency seeks to consult with State 

and local officials in the process of 

developing the regulation. 

This proposed rule has preemptive 

effect. Subject to a limited exception for 

essentially local safety or security 

hazards, its requirements will establish 

a uniform Federal safety standard that 

must be met, and state requirements 

covering the same subject are displaced, 

whether those standards are in the form 

of state statutes, regulations, local 

ordinances, or other forms of state law, 

including state common law. Section 

20106 of Title 49 of the United States 

Code provides that all regulations 

prescribed by the Secretary related to 

railroad safety preempt any State law, 

regulation, or order covering the same 

subject matter, except a provision 

necessary to eliminate or reduce an 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4EP04SE07.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 50849 

essentially local safety hazard that is not 

incompatible with a Federal law, 

regulation, or order and that does not 

unreasonably burden interstate 

commerce. This is consistent with past 

practice at FRA, and within the 

Department of Transportation. 

FRA has analyzed this final rule in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132. This proposed rule will not have 

a substantial 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. FRA concludes that this 

proposed rule will not impose any 

direct compliance costs on State and 

local governments and has no 

federalism implications, other than the 

preemption of state laws covering the 

subject matter of this final rule, which 

occurs by operation of law under 49 

U.S.C. 20106 whenever FRA issues a 

rule or order. Elements of the final rule 

dealing with safety appliances affect an 

area of safety that has been pervasively 

regulated at the Federal level for over a 

century. Accordingly, the final rule 

amendments in that area will involve no 

impacts on Federal relationships. 

E. Environmental Impact 

FRA has evaluated this final rule 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 rule 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. 

See 64 FR 28547, May 26, 1999. Section 

4(c)(20) reads as follows: (c) Actions 

categorically excluded. Certain classes 

of FRA actions have been determined to 

be categorically excluded from the 

requirements of these Procedures as 

they do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. * * * The 

following classes of FRA actions are 

categorically excluded: * * * (20) 

Promulgation of railroad safety rules 

and policy statements that do not result 

in significantly increased emissions or 

air or water pollutants or noise or 

increased traffic congestion in any mode 

of transportation. 

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 rule 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 

$120,700,000 or more (adjusted 

annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and 

before promulgating any final rule for 

which a general notice of proposed 

rulemaking was published, the agency 

shall prepare a written statement’’

detailing the effect on State, local, and 

tribal governments and the private 

sector. The proposed rule, if enacted, 

may result in the expenditure, in the 

aggregate, of $120,700,000 or more in 

any one year. However, those expenses 

are not mandated and would only be 

incurred by the private sector if it 

wishes to take advantage of the 

regulatory relief provided by the 

proposed rule. Although the preparation 

of such a statement is not required, the 

analytical requirements under Executive 

Order 12866 are similar to the analytical 

requirements under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 and, thus, 

the same analysis complies with both 

analytical requirements. 

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 final rule in accordance 

with Executive Order 13211. FRA has 

determined that this final rule 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 in 49 CFR Part 232 

Electronically controlled pneumatic 

brakes, Incorporation by reference, 

Penalties, Railroad power brakes, 

Railroad safety, Two-way end-of-train 

devices. 

The Proposal 

In consideration of the foregoing, FRA 

proposes to amend chapter II, subtitle B 

of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations 

as follows: 

1. The authority citation for Part 232 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

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

CFR 1.49. 

2. Section 232.5 is amended by 

adding definitions for ‘‘car control 

device (CCD)’’, ‘‘dual mode ECP brake 

system’’, ‘‘ECP’’, ‘‘ ECP brake mode’’, 

‘‘ECP brake system’’, ‘‘ECP–EOT 

device’’, ‘‘emulator CCD’’, ‘‘overlay ECP 

brake system’’, ‘‘stand-alone CCD’’, 

‘‘stand-alone ECP brake system’’, 

‘‘switch mode’’, and ‘‘train line cable’’; 

and by revising the definitions for 

‘‘train, unit or train, cycle’’ and ‘‘yard 

limits’’ as follows in alphabetical order: 

§ 232.5 Definitions. 

* * * * * 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4
50850 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Car control device (CCD) means an 

electronic control device that replaces 

the function of the conventional 

pneumatic service and emergency 

portions of a car’s air brake control 

valve during electronic braking and 

provides for electronically controlled 

service and emergency brake 

applications. 

Dual mode ECP brake system means 

an ECP brake system that is equipped 

with either an emulator CCD or an 

overlay ECP brake system on each car 

which can be operated in either ECP 

brake mode or conventional pneumatic 

brake mode. 

ECP means ‘‘electronically controlled 

pneumatic’’ when applied to a brake or 

brakes. 

ECP brake mode means the power 

braking system on a car or an entire 

train that is actuated by compressed air, 

controlled by electronic signals 

originating at the locomotive or an ECP–

EOT for service and emergency 

applications, and whose brake pipe is 

used to provide a constant supply of 

compressed air to the reservoirs on each 

car but does not convey service braking 

signals to the car. 

ECP brake system means a train 

power braking system actuated by 

compressed air and controlled by 

electronic signals from the locomotive 

or an ECP–EOT to the cars in the consist 

for service and emergency applications 

in which the brake pipe is used to 

provide a constant supply of air to the 

reservoirs on each car but does not 

convey braking signals to the car. ECP 

brake systems include dual mode and 

stand-alone ECP brake systems. 

ECP–EOT device means the end-oftrain device for ECP brake systems that 

is physically the last network node in 

the train, pneumatically and electrically 

connected at the end of the train to the 

train line cable operating with an ECP 

brake system. It shall transmit a status 

message (EOT Beacon) at least once per 

second and contain a means of 

communicating with the HEU, a brake 

pipe pressure transducer, and a battery 

that charges off the train line cable. 

* * * * * 

Emulator CCD means a CCD that is 

capable of optionally emulating the 

function of the pneumatic control valve 

while in a conventionally braked train. 

* * * * * 

Overlay ECP brake system means a 

brake system that has both conventional 

pneumatic brake valves and ECP brake 

components, making it capable of 

operating as either a conventional 

pneumatic brake system or an ECP brake 

system, which can continue to operate 

as a conventional pneumatic brake 

system using conventional control 

valves when its ECP brake functions fail 

or are placed in cutout mode. 

* * * * * 

Stand-alone CCD means a CCD that 

can operate properly only in a train 

operating in ECP brake mode and 

cannot operate in a conventional 

pneumatically braked train. 

Stand-alone ECP brake system means 

a brake system equipped with a CCD 

that can only operate the brakes on the 

car properly in ECP brake mode. 

* * * * * 

Switch Mode means a mode of a train 

equipped with an ECP brake system that 

provides a means to allow operation of 

that train when the train’s ECP—EOT 

device is not communicating with the 

lead locomotive’s HEU or when the 

train is separated during road switching 

operations. Many of the ECP brake 

system’s fault detection/response 

procedures are suspended during 

Switch Mode. A train operating in 

Switch Mode shall not exceed 20 miles 

per hour. 

* * * * * 

Train line cable is a two-conductor 

electric wire spanning the train and 

carrying both electrical power to operate 

all CCDs and ECP—EOT devices and 

communications network signals. 

Train, unit or train, cycle means a 

train that, except for the changing of 

locomotive power ore for the removal or 

replacement of defective equipment, 

remains coupled as a consist and 

operates in a continuous loop or 

continuous loops without a destination. 

* * * * * 

Yard limits means a system of tracks, 

not including main tracks and sidings, 

used for classifying cars, making-up and 

inspecting trains, or storing cars and 

equipment. 

* * * * * 

3. Part 232 is amended by adding a 

new subpart G to read as follows: 

Subpart G—Electronically Controlled 

Pneumatic (ECP) Braking Systems 

Sec. 

232.601 Scope. 

232.602 Applicability. 

232.603 Design, interoperability, and 

configuration management requirements. 

232.605 Training requirements. 

232.607 Inspection and testing 

requirements. 

232.609 Handling of defective equipment 

with ECP brake systems. 

232.611 Periodic maintenance. 

232.613 End-of-train devices. 

Subpart G—Electronically Controlled 

Pneumatic (ECP) Braking Systems 

§ 232.601 Scope. 

This subpart contains specific 

requirements applicable to freight trains 

and freight cars equipped with ECP 

brake systems. This subpart also 

contains specific exceptions from 

various requirements contained in this 

part for freight trains and freight cars 

equipped with ECP brake systems. 

§ 232.602 Applicability. 

This subpart applies to all railroads 

that operate a freight car or freight train 

governed by this part and equipped 

with an ECP brake system. Unless 

specifically excepted or modified in this 

section, all of the other requirements 

contained in this part are applicable to 

a freight car or freight train equipped 

with an ECP brake system. 

§ 232.603 Design, interoperability, and 

configuration management requirements. 

(a) General. A freight car or freight 

train equipped with an ECP brake 

system shall, at a minimum, meet the 

Association of American Railroads 

(AAR) standards contained in the AAR 

Manual of Standards and Recommended 

Practices related to ECP brake systems 

listed below; an alternate standard 

approved by FRA pursuant to § 232.17; 

or a modified standard approved in 

accordance with the provisions 

contained in paragraph (f) of this 

section. Copies of the standards 

identified in this section may be 

obtained from the Association of 

American Railroads, 50 F Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20001. The applicable 

standards, which are incorporated into 

this regulation by reference, include the 

following: 

(1) AAR S–4200, ‘‘ECP Cable-Based 

Brake Systems—Performance 

Requirements’’ (2004); 

(2) AAR S–4210, ‘‘ECP Cable-Based 

Brake System Cable, Connectors, and 

Junction Boxes—Performance 

Specifications’’ (2002); 

(3) AAR S–4220, ‘‘ECP Cable-Based 

Brake DC Power Supply—Performance 

Specification’’ (2002); 

(4) AAR S–4230, ‘‘Intratrain 

Communication (ITC) Specification for 

Cable-Based Freight Train Control 

System’’ (2004); 

(5) AAR S–4250, ‘‘Performance 

Requirements for ITC Controlled CableBased Distributed Power Systems’’

(2004); and 

(6) AAR S–4260, ‘‘ECP Brake and 

Wire Distributed Power Interoperability 

Test Procedures’’ (2007); 

(b) Approval. A freight train or freight 

car equipped with an ECP brake system 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 50851 

and equipment covered by the AAR 

standards incorporated by reference in 

this section shall not be used without 

conditional or final approval by AAR in 

accordance with AAR Standard S–4240, 

‘‘ECP Brake Equipment—Approval 

Procedures’’ (2007). 

(c) Configuration management. 

(1) ECP brake systems shall meet the 

configuration management plan 

requirements contained in: 

(i) An industry recognized standard 

approved by FRA, or 

(ii) A configuration management plan 

submitted to and approved by FRA. 

(2) To receive approval in accordance 

with paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, 

a configuration management plan must: 

(i) Be submitted in accordance with * 

232.17; 

(ii) Be structured in accordance with 

accepted configuration management 

standards; and 

(iii) Define all of the purposes, 

procedures, organizational 

responsibilities, and tools to be used for 

ECP brake system hardware and 

software configuration management 

including: The purpose and scope of the 

application; control activities to be 

performed; responsibilities and 

authorities for accomplishing the 

activities; implementation schedules; 

tools and resources for executing the 

plan; and periodic updating of the plan 

to maintain currency. 

(3) A railroad operating a freight train 

or freight car equipped with ECP brake 

systems shall adopt and comply with 

the configuration management plan 

required under paragraphs (c)(1) and 

(c)(2) of this section. 

(d) Exceptions. (1) A freight car or 

freight train equipped with a standalone ECP brake system shall be 

excepted from the requirement in 

§ 232.103(l) referencing AAR Standard 

S–469–47, ‘‘Performance Specification 

for Freight Brakes.’’

(2) The provisions addressing the 

introduction of new brake system 

technology contained in subpart F of 

this part are not applicable to a freight 

car or freight train equipped with an 

ECP brake system approved by AAR in 

accordance with paragraph (b) of this 

section, conditionally or otherwise, as of 

the effective date of this rule. 

(e) New technology. Upon written 

request supported by suitable 

justification, the Associate 

Administrator may except from the 

requirements of subpart F of this part 

the testing of new ECP brake 

technology, demonstration of new ECP 

brake technology, or both, where testing 

or demonstration, or both, will be 

conducted pursuant to an FRArecognized industry standard and FRA 

is invited to monitor the testing or 

demonstration, or both. FRA’s Associate 

Administrator may revoke any such 

exception in writing after providing an 

opportunity for response by the affected 

parties. 

(f) Modification of standards. The 

AAR or other authorized representative 

of the railroad industry may seek 

modification of the industry standards 

identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section. The request for 

modification will be handled and shall 

be submitted in accordance with the 

modification procedures contained in 

§ 232.307. 

§ 232.605 Training requirements. 

(a) Inspection, testing and 

maintenance. A railroad that operates a 

freight car or freight train equipped with 

an ECP brake system and each 

contractor that performs inspection, 

testing, or maintenance on a freight car 

or freight train equipped with an ECP 

brake system shall adopt and comply 

with a training, qualification, and 

designation program for its employees 

that perform inspection, testing or 

maintenance of ECP brake systems. The 

training program required by this 

section shall meet the requirements in 

*§ 232.203(a), (b), (e), and (f). 

(b) Operating rules. A railroad 

operating a freight train or freight car 

equipped with an ECP brake system 

shall amend its operating rules to 

govern safe train handling procedures 

related to ECP brake systems and 

equipment under all operating 

conditions, which shall be tailored to 

the specific equipment and territory of 

the railroad. 

(c) Locomotive engineers. A railroad 

operating a freight car or freight train 

equipped with an ECP brake system 

shall adopt and comply with specific 

knowledge, skill, and ability criteria to 

ensure that its locomotive engineers are 

fully trained with the operating rules 

governing safe train handling 

procedures related to ECP brake systems 

and equipment under all operating 

conditions, which shall be tailored to 

the specific equipment and territory of 

the railroad. The railroad shall 

incorporate the specific knowledge, 

skill, and ability criteria into its 

locomotive engineer certification 

program pursuant to part 240 of this 

chapter. 

§ 232.607 Inspection and testing 

requirements. 

(a) Initial terminal. A freight train 

operating in ECP brake mode shall 

receive a Class I brake test as described 

in § 232.205(c) by a qualified 

mechanical inspector (QMI) and shall 

receive a pre-departure freight 

inspection pursuant to part 215 of this 

chapter by an inspector designated 

under § 215.11 of this chapter at its 

point of origin (initial terminal). 

(b) Distance. (1) Except for a unit or 

cycle train, a train operating in ECP 

brake mode shall not operate a distance 

that exceeds its destination or 3,500 

miles, whichever is less, unless another 

inspection meeting the requirements of 

paragraph (a) of this section is 

performed on the train. 

(2) A unit or cycle train operating in 

ECP brake mode shall receive the 

inspections required in paragraph (a) of 

this section at least every 3,500 miles. 

(3) The distance that any car in a train 

has traveled since receiving a Class I 

brake test by a qualified mechanical 

inspector will determine the distance 

that the train has traveled. 

(c) Trains off air. A freight train 

operating in ECP brake mode shall 

receive a Class I brake test as described 

in § 232.205(c) by a qualified person at 

a location where the train is off air for 

a period of more than 24 hours. 

(d) Cars added en route. (1) Each car 

equipped with an ECP brake system that 

is added to a train operating in ECP 

brake mode shall receive a Class I brake 

test as described in § 232.205(c) by a 

qualified person, unless all of the 

following are met: 

(i) The car has received a Class I brake 

test by a qualified mechanical inspector 

within the last 3,500 miles; 

(ii) Information identified in 

§ 232.205(e) relating to the performance 

of the previously received Class I brake 

test is provided to the train crew; 

(iii) The car has not been off air for 

more than 24 hours; and 

(iv) A visual inspection of the car’s 

brake systems is conducted to ensure 

that the brake equipment is intact and 

properly secured. This may be 

accomplished as part of the inspection 

required under § 215.13 of this chapter 

and may be conducted while the car is 

off air. 

(2) Each car and each solid block of 

cars not equipped with an ECP brake 

system that is added to a train operating 

in ECP brake mode shall receive a visual 

inspection to ensure it is properly 

placed in the train and safe to operate 

and shall be moved and tagged in 

accordance with the provisions 

contained in § 232.15. 

(e) Class III brake tests. A freight train 

operating in ECP brake mode shall 

receive a Class III brake test as described 

in § 232.211(b), (c), and (d) at the 

location where the configuration of the 

train is changed, including: 

(1) Where a locomotive or caboose is 

changed; 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4
50852 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Where a car or solid block of cars 

is added to the train; 

(3) Where a car or solid block of cars 

is removed from the train; and 

(4) Whenever the continuity of the 

brake pipe or electrical connections is 

broken or interrupted with the train 

consist otherwise remaining unchanged. 

(f) Modification to existing brake tests. 

(1) In lieu of the specific brake pipe 

service reductions and increases 

required in subpart C of this part, an 

electronic signal that provides an 

equivalent application and release of the 

brakes shall be utilized when 

conducting any required inspection or 

test on a freight car or freight train 

equipped with an ECP brake system and 

operating in ECP brake mode. 

(2) In lieu of the specific minimum 

piston travel ranges contained in 

§ 232.205(c)(5), the piston travel on 

freight cars equipped with ECP brake 

systems shall be within the piston travel 

limits stenciled or marked on the car or 

badge plate consistent with the 

manufacturers recommended limits, if 

so stenciled or marked. 

(g) Exceptions. A freight car or a 

freight train shall be exempt from the 

requirements contained in §§ 232.205(a) 

and (b), 232.207, 232.209, and 

232.211(a) when it is equipped with an 

ECP brake system and operating in ECP 

brake mode. 

§ 232.609 Handling of defective equipment 

with ECP brake systems. 

(a) Ninety-five percent of the cars in 

a train operating in ECP brake mode 

shall have effective and operative brakes 

prior to use or departure from the train’s 

initial terminal or any location where a 

Class I brake test is required to be 

performed on the entire train by a 

qualified mechanical inspector pursuant 

to § 232.607. 

(b) A freight car equipped with an 

ECP brake system that is known to have 

arrived with ineffective or inoperative 

brakes at the location of a train’s initial 

terminal or at a location where a Class 

I brake test is required under 

§ 232.607(b) shall not depart that 

location with ineffective or inoperative 

brakes in a train operating in ECP brake 

mode unless: 

(i) The location does not have the 

ability to conduct the necessary repairs; 

(ii) The car is hauled only for the 

purpose of repair to the nearest forward 

location where the necessary repairs can 

be performed consistent with the 

guidance contained in § 232.15(f); 

(iii) The car is not being placed for 

loading or unloading while being moved 

for repair unless unloading is necessary 

for the safe repair of the car; and 

(iv) The car is properly tagged in 

accordance with § 232.15(b). 

(c) A freight car equipped with only 

conventional pneumatic brakes shall not 

move in a freight train operating in ECP 

brake mode unless it would otherwise 

have effective and operative brakes if it 

were part of a conventional pneumatic 

brake equipped train or could be moved 

from the location in defective condition 

under the provisions contained in 

§ 232.15 and is tagged in accordance 

with § 232.15(b). 

(d) A freight train operating in ECP 

brake mode shall not move if less than 

85 percent of the cars in the train have 

operative and effective brakes. However, 

after experiencing a penalty stop for 

having less than 85 percent operative 

and effective brakes, a freight train 

operating in ECP brake mode may be 

moved if all of the following are met: 

(1) The train is visually inspected; 

(2) Appropriate measures are taken to 

ensure that the train is safely operated 

to the location where necessary repairs 

or changes to the consist can be made; 

(3) A qualified person determines that 

it is safe to move the train; and 

(4) The train is moved in ECP brake 

Switch Mode to the nearest forward 

location where necessary repairs or 

changes to the consist can be made. 

(e) A freight car or locomotive 

equipped with an ECP brake system that 

is found with inoperative or ineffective 

brakes for the first time during the 

performance of a Class I brake test or 

while en route may be used or hauled 

without civil penalty liability under this 

part to its destination, not to exceed 

3,500 miles; provided, all applicable 

provisions of this section are met and 

the defective car or locomotive is hauled 

in a train operating in ECP brake mode. 

(f) A freight car equipped with an ECP 

brake system that is part of a train 

operating in ECP brake mode that is 

found with a defective non-brake safety 

appliance may be used or hauled 

without civil penalty under this part to 

the nearest forward location where the 

necessary repairs can be performed 

consistent with the guidance contained 

in § 232.15(f). 

(g) A train operating with 

conventional pneumatic brakes shall not 

operate with freight cars equipped with 

stand-alone ECP brake systems unless: 

(1) The train has at least the minimum 

percentage of operative brakes required 

by paragraph (h) of this section when at 

an initial terminal or paragraph (d) of 

this section when en route; and 

(2) The stand-alone ECP brake 

equipped cars are: 

(i) Moved for the purpose of delivery 

to a railroad receiving the equipment or 

to a location for placement in a train 

operating in ECP brake mode or being 

moved for repair to the nearest available 

location where the necessary repairs can 

be made in accordance with 

§§ 232.15(a)(7) and (f); 

(ii) Tagged in accordance with 

§ 232.15(b); and 

(iii) Placed in the train in accordance 

with § 232.15(e). 

(h) A train equipped and operated 

with conventional pneumatic brakes 

may depart an initial terminal with 

freight cars that are equipped with 

stand-alone ECP brake systems provided 

all of the following are met: 

(1) The train has 100 percent effective 

and operative brakes on all cars 

equipped with conventional pneumatic 

brake systems; 

(2) The train has at least 95 percent 

effective and operative brakes when 

including the freight cars equipped with 

stand-alone ECP brake systems; and 

(3) The requirements contained in 

paragraph (g) of this section are met. 

(i) Tagging of defective equipment. A 

freight car equipped with an ECP brake 

system that is found with ineffective or 

inoperative brakes will be considered 

electronically tagged under 

§ 232.15(b)(1) and (b)(5) if the car is 

used or hauled in a train operating in 

ECP brake mode and the ECP brake 

system meets the following: 

(1) The ECP brake system is able to 

display information in the cab of the 

lead locomotive regarding the location 

and identification of the car with 

defective brakes; 

(2) The information is stored or 

downloaded, is secure, and is accessible 

to FRA and appropriate operating and 

inspection personnel; and 

(3) An electronic or written record of 

the stored or downloaded information is 

retained and maintained in accordance 

with § 232.15(b)(3). 

(j) Procedures for handling ECP brake 

system repairs and designation of repair 

locations. (1) Each railroad operating 

freight cars equipped with ECP brake 

systems shall adopt and comply with 

specific procedures developed in 

accordance with the requirements 

related to the movement of defective 

equipment contained in this subpart. 

These procedures shall be made 

available to FRA upon request. 

(2) Each railroad operating freight 

trains in ECP brake mode shall submit 

to FRA’s Associate Administrator for 

Safety a list of locations on its system 

where ECP brake system repairs will be 

performed. A railroad shall notify FRA’s 

Associate Administrator for Safety in 

writing 30 days prior to any change in 

the locations designated for such 

repairs. A sufficient number of locations 

shall be identified to ensure compliance 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules 50853 

with the requirements related to the 

handling of defective equipment 

contained in this part. 

(k) Exceptions: All freight cars and 

trains that are specifically identified, 

operated, and handled in accordance 

with this section are excepted from the 

movement of defective equipment 

requirements contained in 

§ 232.15(a)(2), (a)(5) through (a)(8), and 

232.103(d) and (e). 

§ 232.611 Periodic maintenance. 

(a) In addition to the maintenance 

requirements contained in § 232.303(b) 

through (d), a freight car equipped with 

an ECP brake system shall be inspected 

before being released from a shop or 

repair track to ensure the proper and 

safe condition of the following: 

(1) ECP brake system wiring and 

brackets; 

(2) ECP brake system electrical 

connections; 

(3) Electrical grounds and impedance; 

and 

(4) Car mounted ECP brake system 

components. 

(b) Prior to placing a freight car 

equipped with an ECP brake system in 

revenue service, a railroad or a duly 

authorized representative of the railroad 

industry shall submit a procedure for 

conducting periodic single car tests to 

FRA for its approval pursuant to the 

special approval procedures contained 

in § 232.17. 

(c) Except as provided in § 232.303(e), 

a single car air brake test conducted in 

accordance with the procedure 

submitted and approved in accordance 

with paragraph (b) of this section shall 

be performed on a freight car equipped 

with an ECP brake system whenever any 

of the events identified in § 232.305(e) 

occur, except for those paragraphs 

identified in paragraph (f) of this 

section. 

(d) A single car air brake test 

conducted in accordance with the 

procedure submitted and approved in 

accordance with paragraph (b) of this 

section shall be performed on each 

freight car retrofitted with a newly 

installed ECP brake system prior to 

placing or using the car in revenue 

service. 

(e) Modification of single car test 

standard. A railroad or a duly 

authorized representative of the railroad 

industry may seek modification of the 

single car test standard approved in 

accordance with paragraph (b) of this 

section. The request for modification 

will be handled and shall be submitted 

in accordance with the modification 

procedures contained in § 232.307. 

(f) Exception. A freight car equipped 

with a stand-alone ECP brake system is 

excepted from the single car test 

requirements contained in 

§ 232.305(b)(2) and (f). 

§ 232.613 End-of-train devices. 

(a) Prior to operating a freight train in 

ECP brake mode, a railroad, an ECP–

EOT device manufacturer, or a duly 

authorized representative of the railroad 

industry may submit design, testing, 

and calibration standards related to 

ECP–EOT devices used on freight trains 

operating in ECP brake mode to FRA for 

its approval pursuant to the special 

approval procedures contained in 

§ 232.17. An ECP–EOT shall, at a 

minimum, serve as the final node on the 

ECP brake circuit, provide a cable 

terminal circuit, and monitor, confirm, 

and report train, brake pipe, and train 

line cable continuity, cable voltage, 

brake pipe pressure, and the status of 

the ECP–EOT device battery charge. 

(b) A railroad shall adopt and comply 

with the design, testing, and calibration 

standards approved pursuant to 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

(c) A railroad shall not move or use 

a freight train equipped with an ECP 

brake system unless that train is 

equipped with a functioning ECP–EOT 

device approved pursuant to paragraph 

(a) of this section and the railroad 

complies with paragraph (b) of this 

section. The ECP–EOT device must be 

properly connected to the network and 

to the train line cable at the end of the 

train. 

(d) Exception. A freight train 

operating in ECP brake mode is 

excepted from the end-of-train device 

requirements contained in subpart E of 

this part, provided that it is equipped 

with an ECP–EOT device complying 

with this section. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 23, 

2007. 

Joseph H. Boardman, 

Federal Railroad Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 07–4297 Filed 8–30–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS4