80544 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Parts 218, 221, and 232 

[Docket No. FRA–2018–0093, Notice No. 2] 

RIN 2130–AC67 

Miscellaneous Amendments to Brake 

System Safety Standards and 

Codification of Waivers 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: FRA is revising its regulations 

governing brake inspections, tests, and 

equipment. The changes include the 

incorporation of relief from various 

provisions provided in long-standing 

waivers related to single car air brake 

tests, end-of-train devices, helper 

service, and brake maintenance. FRA is 

also extending the time that freight rail 

equipment can be ‘‘off-air’’ before 

requiring a new brake inspection. In 

addition, FRA is making various 

modifications to the existing brakerelated regulations to improve clarity 

and remove outdated or unnecessary 

provisions. FRA expects the revisions 

will benefit railroads and the public by 

reducing unnecessary costs, creating 

consistency between U.S. and Canadian 

regulations, and incorporating the use of 

newer technologies demonstrated to 

maintain or increase safety. The rule 

will reduce the overall regulatory 

burden on railroads. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

December 11, 2020. 

Justification for Immediate Effective 

Date. FRA finds that this rule relieves 

current regulatory restrictions, thus in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), FRA 

has determined it is appropriate to make 

the rule effective upon publication. 

Incorporation by Reference. The 

incorporation by reference of certain 

publications listed in the rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of December 11, 2020. The 

incorporation by reference of certain 

other publications listed in the rule was 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of December 15, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Zuiderveen, Senior Safety 

Specialist, Motive & Power Equipment 

Division, Office of Technical Oversight, 

Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590 (telephone: 202–493–6337); Jason 

Schlosberg, Senior Attorney, Office of 

the Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 

(telephone: 202–493–6032). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Supplementary 

Information 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the 

Regulatory Action 

C. Costs and Benefits of the Regulatory 

Action 

II. Background 

A. Existing Regulations 

B. FRA Waiver Authority and Process 

C. Petition for Rulemaking and Review of 

Existing Waivers 

D. Identified Waivers 

E. Incorporation by Reference New and 

Updated Standards Under 1 CFR 51.5 

F. Railroad Safety Advisory Committee 

(RSAC) Advice and Input 

G. Comments Filed 

III. Section-by-Section Analysis 

IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. E.O. 12866 and 13771, Congressional 

Review Act, and DOT Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and E.O. 

13272 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

D. Environmental Impact 

E. Federalism Implications 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

G. Energy Impact 

V. The Rule 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

In a letter dated July 12, 2018, which 

is included in the public docket to this 

rulemaking proceeding, the Association 

of American Railroads (AAR) submitted 

a petition for rulemaking (Petition) 

requesting FRA relax the requirement to 

conduct a Class I brake test prior to 

operation if a train is off-air for a period 

of more than four hours, by extending 

the off-air period to twenty-four hours. 

On January 15, 2020, FRA issued a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

responding to AAR’s petition, proposing 

codification of existing waivers related 

to brake systems, and making technical 

amendments to reduce regulatory 

burdens while maintaining or 

improving safety. 85 FR 2494, Jan. 15, 

2020. This rulemaking is a result of 

FRA’s effort to streamline and update its 

regulations to reflect technological 

advances and lessons learned through 

feedback from all stakeholders. AAR 

submitted a separate rulemaking 

petition in March 2019 proposing 

amendments to part 232 related to the 

industry’s development of a rail car 

electronic air brake slip (eABS) system. 

FRA will address the recommendations 

in that petition in a separate rulemaking 

proceeding in Docket No. FRA–2019– 

0072 (the ‘‘eABS Rule’’). 

B. Summary of the Major Provisions of 

the Regulatory Action 

In this final rule, FRA is incorporating 

into the regulations various longstanding waivers providing conditional 

exceptions to existing rules concerning 

air brake testing, end-of-train (EOT) 

devices, and helper service. FRA is also 

extending to 24 hours the time that 

freight rail equipment can be ‘‘off-air’’ 

before requiring a new brake inspection 

and is making various modifications to 

the existing brake-related regulations for 

clarity and is removing outdated or 

unnecessary provisions. 

C. Costs and Benefits of the Regulatory 

Action 

FRA analyzed the economic impacts 

of this final rule over a 10-year period, 

and estimated its costs, cost savings, 

and benefits. For the final rule, FRA 

estimates net cost savings of $503.0 

million (using a 7% discount rate), and 

$594.6 million (using a 3% discount 

rate). The results of this analysis are 

displayed in the table below. 

TABLE E–1—TOTAL COSTS AND COST SAVINGS OVER 10 YEARS

[2017 Dollars in millions] 

Section Present value 

7% 

Present value 

3% 

Annualized 

7% 

Annualized 

3% 

Costs: Training ................................................................................. (*) (*) (*) (*) 

Cost Savings: 

Helper Link ............................................................................... $3.9 $4.5 $0.6 $0.5 

26–C Brake Valve .................................................................... 0.4 0.5 0.06 0.06 

D–22 Brake Valve .................................................................... 1.0 1.1 0.1 0.1 

24 Hours Off-air ........................................................................ 325.6 386.2 46.4 45.3 

90 CFM ..................................................................................... 1.8 2.1 0.3 0.2 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 80545 

1When a car’s brakes are applied, a piston in the 

brake cylinder travels (i.e., moves), causing the 

brake shoe to push against the wheel to create the 

braking action. Piston travel must be within 

specified limits to be capable of producing its 

designed retarding force in order for FRA to 

consider a car’s brakes to be effective. 

TABLE E–1—TOTAL COSTS AND COST SAVINGS OVER 10 YEARS—Continued 

[2017 Dollars in millions] 

Section Present value 

7% 

Present value 

3% 

Annualized 

7% 

Annualized 

3% 

Single Car Air Brake Test (SCT) 24 month ............................. 150.7 176.1 21.5 20.6 

SCT 48 month .......................................................................... 19.5 23.8 2.8 2.8 

Waiver Cost Savings ................................................................ 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01 

Government Administrative Cost Savings ................................ 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01 

Total Cost Savings ............................................................ 503.0 594.6 71.6 69.7 

Net Cost Savings .............................................................. 503.0 594.6 71.6 69.7 

Note: Figures may not sum in this and subsequent tables due to rounding. Net Cost Savings = Cost Savings¥Costs. 

* De minimis. 

This final rule generally increases 

flexibility for the regulated entities by 

codifying waivers. It does not impose 

any new substantive requirements. This 

final rule will not negatively impact 

safety in any aspect of railroad 

operations and FRA does not expect any 

increase in end-of-train device or brake 

failures as a result of this rule. As noted 

in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) 

accompanying this rule, safety may be 

improved due to railroad employees 

experiencing less risk of common 

injuries such as slips, trips, and falls by 

having to perform fewer physical 

inspections, which would produce 

positive safety benefits, though these 

have not been quantified. 

II. Background 

A. Existing Regulations 

FRA regulations require the air brake 

systems of trains, and the air brakes of 

individual freight cars, to be inspected 

and tested in certain circumstances. The 

regulations provide for five primary 

types of brake system inspections: Class 

I (initial terminal inspection), Class IA 

(1,000-mile inspection), Class II 

(intermediate inspection), Class III 

(trainline continuity inspection), and 

the SCT. 

A Class I air brake test, also referred 

to as an initial terminal inspection, is a 

comprehensive inspection of the brake 

equipment on each car in an assembled 

train that is required to be performed at 

the location where a train is originally 

assembled, when the consist is changed 

pursuant to 49 CFR 232.205(a)(2) (e.g., 

other than by adding or removing a 

single car or solid block of cars, 

removing a defective car, or picking up 

multiple blocks of cars under the space 

or trackage constraints referenced by 

paragraph (b)(2)), and when a train is 

off-air for a defined number of hours. 

Class I brake tests help ensure that a 

train is in proper working condition and 

capable of traveling to its destination 

with minimal problems en route. A 

Class I brake test requires the 

performance of a leakage test and indepth inspection of the brake equipment 

(on both sides of the freight car) to 

ensure that each car’s brake system is 

properly secure, does not bind or foul, 

and responds by applying or releasing 

in accordance with a specified brake 

pipe pressure signal. Piston travel must 

also be inspected and adjusted to a 

specified length if found not to be 

within a certain range of movement.1

A Class IA brake test—required every 

1,000 miles—includes all the same 

elements of a Class I test, but with less 

stringent piston travel requirements. 

The most restrictive car or block of cars 

in a train determines the location where 

Class IA tests must be performed. For 

example, if a train travels 500 miles 

from its point of origination to a 

location where it picks up a block of 

cars that has travelled 800 miles since 

its last Class I brake test, and the crew 

does not perform a Class I brake test 

when adding the cars, then the entire 

train must receive a Class IA brake test 

within 200 miles, even though that 

location is only 700 miles from the 

train’s origination. 

Class II brake tests are less detailed 

inspections used for cars that do not 

have a compliant Class I inspection 

record that are picked up by a train at 

locations other than the initial terminal 

of the train, and where a Class I test 

cannot be performed. A railroad may 

utilize a Class II brake test where it is 

physically impossible to perform safely 

all of the requirements of the Class I 

brake tests; for example, where there is 

insufficient room to walk along both 

sides of the train. The Class II brake test 

includes a test for excessive brake pipe 

leakage, charging the air brakes to 

within 15 pounds per square inch (psi) 

of working pressure, making a 20-psi 

reduction in the brake pipe to actuate 

the brake, restoring pressure to working 

psi, releasing all brakes, and restoring 

full brake pipe pressure to the rear of 

the train. While a railroad may perform 

a Class II brake test, the rule requires a 

Class I brake test to be performed at the 

next available location in the car’s line 

of travel in order to continue operating 

past that point. Due to the inefficiencies 

of this procedure, railroads generally 

perform the Class I brake tests in most 

instances where a Class II would be 

permitted as an alternative. 

A Class III brake test must be 

performed any time the brake pipe is 

opened on an operating train. The test 

includes charging the air brakes to 

working pressure (no less than 60 psi at 

rear of train), making a 20-psi reduction 

in the brake pipe to actuate the brake on 

the rear car of the train, releasing the 

brake, and ensuring that pressure at the 

rear of the train is restored. 

In addition to the types of air brake 

tests noted above, the regulations 

require the brakes of individual cars to 

be maintained periodically and tested in 

certain circumstances. This test is 

known as an SCT and is used to validate 

individual air brake effectiveness. An 

SCT is required: At least every 8 years 

for new or rebuilt freight cars, at least 

every 5 years for all other freight cars, 

and any time a freight car is on a shop 

track or repair track, if the car has not 

had an SCT in the previous 12 months. 

A more in-depth summary, history, 

and analysis of the regulations affecting 

Class I, Class IA, Class II, and Class III 

brake tests, SCTs, and the operation and 

testing of end-of-train devices, are 

provided in the FRA final rule ‘‘Freight 

and other non-passenger trains and 

equipment; brake system safety 

standards; end-of-train devices,’’ 66 FR 

4104, Jan. 17, 2001; and two subsequent 

modifications to that final rule that FRA 

promulgated in response to petitions for 

reconsideration, 66 FR 39683, Aug. 1, 

2001, and 67 FR 17555, Apr. 10, 2002. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
80546 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

B. FRA Waiver Authority and Process 

When the existing rules do not 

adequately address or apply to the use 

of new and novel transportation 

technologies, industry stakeholders 

have often sought waiver of those rules 

through FRA’s authorized process under 

subpart C to 49 CFR part 211. 49 U.S.C. 

20103 (‘‘The Secretary [of 

Transportation] may waive compliance 

with any parts of a regulation prescribed 

or order issued under this chapter if the 

waiver is in the public interest and 

consistent with railroad safety.’’); 49 

CFR 1.89(a). Each properly filed petition 

for a permanent or temporary waiver of 

a safety rule, regulation, or standard is 

referred to the Safety Board for decision. 

49 CFR 211.41(a). The FRA Railroad 

Safety Board’s (Safety Board) decision is 

typically rendered after a notice is 

published in the Federal Register and 

an opportunity for public comment is 

provided. 49 CFR 211.41(b). If a waiver 

petition is granted, the Safety Board 

may impose conditions on the grant of 

relief to ensure the decision is in the 

public interest and consistent with 

railroad safety. 49 CFR 211.41(c). 

Activity under a waiver of regulatory 

compliance may generate sufficient data 

and experience to support an expansion 

of its scope, applicability, and duration. 

For instance, in many cases FRA has 

expanded the scope of certain waivers 

or issued the same or similar waivers to 

additional applicants. FRA has also 

extended various waivers’ expiration 

dates. A waiver’s success and its 

continued expansion warrant 

consideration of regulatory codification. 

Codifying a waiver, and thereby making 

its exemptions and requirements 

universally applicable, allows the entire 

industry to benefit from the regulatory 

relief the waiver provides without 

incurring the costs associated with 

seeking a waiver. 

C. Petition for Rulemaking and Review 

of Existing Waivers 

In December 2017, AAR filed a 

petition for waiver, on behalf of its 

members, from FRA’s regulation 

requiring a Class I brake test prior to 

operation if a train is off-air for a period 

of more than four hours, contending it 

is too restrictive. Docket No. FRA–2017– 

0130. The Safety Board denied the 

waiver petition, finding that there was 

a lack of supporting data submitted with 

the waiver request, and that with the 

appropriate data, the relief requested 

was more appropriately addressed 

through the rulemaking process. 

Subsequently, in a letter dated July 12, 

2018—included in the public docket to 

this rulemaking proceeding—AAR 

submitted a petition for rulemaking 

(Petition) requesting that FRA relax the 

requirement to conduct a Class I brake 

test prior to operation if a train is offair for a period of more than four hours, 

by extending the off-air period to 

twenty-four hours. On January 15, 2020, 

FRA issued an NPRM responding to 

AAR’s petition, proposing codification 

of existing waivers related to brake 

systems, and making technical 

amendments to reduce regulatory 

burdens while maintaining or 

improving safety. This rulemaking is a 

result of FRA’s effort to streamline and 

update its regulations to reflect 

technological advances and lessons 

learned through feedback from all 

stakeholders. 

In this final rule, FRA is also 

codifying waivers of compliance from 

rules affecting motive power and 

equipment (MP&E), including the 

aforementioned brake inspection 

requirements. Specifically, FRA is 

implementing changes to the regulations 

affecting: The use of EOT devices and 

Helper Link devices or similar 

technologies; higher air-flow on 

distributed powered (DP) trains; and the 

performance of Class I air brake tests 

and SCTs. FRA is also making technical 

corrections to existing regulations. 

The waiver subject matters considered 

for codification are explained further 

below. FRA attempted to capture and 

identify the dockets for all substantially 

similar waivers affected by this 

rulemaking. 

There may be some substantially 

similar waivers not identified in the 

NPRM and this final rule, but still 

affected by this rulemaking. Each 

affected waiver, whether specifically 

referenced or not, remains in force for 

the time being unless it expires without 

extension or a direct beneficiary 

explicitly requests and receives 

termination of the waiver in accordance 

with part 211. FRA does not intend to 

terminate any waivers upon the 

effective date of a final rule, as it is 

possible that there are exceptions or 

conditions in some existing waivers that 

are not specifically codified in the final 

rule. Terminating waivers immediately 

upon the effective date of a final rule 

may unnecessarily complicate matters, 

especially considering many of the 

waivers will simply expire soon 

thereafter. If a regulated entity wishes to 

continue a waiver’s provision not 

captured by this final rule beyond the 

expiration date of that waiver, that 

entity can petition the Safety Board for 

an extension of that provision. 

D. Identified Waivers 

Below is a list of waiver petition 

dockets, organized by subject matter, 

which FRA has identified as potentially 

being affected by this final rule. The 

public docket for each listed waiver may 

be accessed at www.regulations.gov. 

Air Flow Method 

• Extending air flow limits (49 CFR 

232.205(c)(1)(ii)) 

Æ BNSF Railway (BNSF), Canadian 

National Railway (CN), Canadian 

Pacific Railway (CP), and Union 

Pacific Railroad (UP) Docket No. 

FRA–2012–0091 

End-of-Train (EOT) Device 

• Power source (49 CFR 232.403(f)(2)) 

Æ Wabtec Corporation (Wabtec), 

Docket No. FRA–2001–9270 

Æ Quantum Engineering, Inc 

(Quantum) (now known as Siemens 

Industry, Inc. (Siemens)), Docket 

No. FRA–2006–25794 

• Calibration (49 CFR 232.409(d)) 

Æ Wabtec, Docket No. FRA–2004– 

18895 

Æ Ritron, Inc. (Ritron), Docket No. 

FRA–2009–0015 

Æ DPS Electronics, Inc. (DPS), Docket 

No. FRA–2012–0096 

Æ Siemens, Docket No. FRA–2015– 

0044 

• Helper service (49 CFR 232.219(c)) 

Æ BNSF, Docket No. FRA–2006– 

26435 

Æ Montana Rail Link (MRL), Docket 

No. FRA–2014–0013 

• Marker lamp height (49 CFR 

221.13(d)) 

Æ DPS, Docket No. FRA–2015–0023 

Æ Siemens, Docket No. FRA–2017– 

0093 

• Utility employee duties (49 CFR 

218.22(c)(5)) 

Æ BNSF, Docket No. FRA–2001– 

10660 

Æ Canadian Pacific Railway (CP), 

Docket No. FRA–2004–17989 

Single Car Test 

• Update to AAR Standard S–486–18 

(49 CFR 232.305(a)) 

Æ AAR, Docket No. FRA–2018–0011 

• Add AAR Standard S–4027–18 (49 

CFR 232.305(a)) 

Æ BNSF and Union Pacific Railroad 

(UP), Docket No. FRA–2013–0030 

Automated Single Car Test 

• Testing periodicity (49 CFR 

232.305(b)(2)) 

Æ BNSF and UP, Docket No. FRA– 

2013–0030 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 80547 

Brake Systems for Covered Non-Freight 

Operations 

• Add AAR Standard S–4045–13 (49 

CFR 232.717(b)(2), formerly appx B, I, 

§ 232.17(b)(2)) 

Æ AAR, Docket No. FRA–2013–0063 

E. Incorporating by Reference New and 

Updated Standards Under 1 CFR 51.5 

As required by 1 CFR 51.5, FRA has 

summarized the standards it is 

incorporating by reference in the 

section-by-section analysis to this 

preamble. The AAR standards 

summarized herein, and listed in the 

table directly below for convenience, are 

reasonably available to all interested 

parties for inspection. The standards 

can be obtained from the Association of 

American Railroads, 425 Third Street 

SW, Washington, DC 20024, telephone: 

(202) 639–2345, email: publications@

aar.com, website: https://

aarpublications.com. 

AAR STANDARDS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN 49 CFR PART 232 

Identification 

No. Title Year or edition Section affected in 49 CFR 

S–469–01 ....... Performance Specification for Freight Brakes .................................................................... 2006 § 232.103(l). 

S–486–18 ....... Code of Air Brake System Tests for Freight Equipment .................................................... 2018 § 232.305(a). 

S–4027–18 ..... Automated Single-Car Test Equipment, Conventional Brake Equipment-Design and Performance Requirements.2018 § 232.305(a). 

S–4045–13 ..... Passenger Equipment Maintenance Requirements ............................................................ 2013 § 232.717(e)(1). 

S–4200 ........... Electronically Controlled Pneumatic (ECP) Cable-Based Brake Systems—Performance 

Requirements.

2014 § 232.603(f)(1). 

S–4210 ........... ECP Cable-Based Brake System Cable, Connectors, and Junction Boxes—Performance Specifications.2014 § 232.603(f)(1). 

S–4230 ........... Intratrain Communication (ITC) Specification for Cable-Based Freight Train Control System.2014 § 232.603(f)(1). 

S–4250 ........... Performance Requirements for ITC Controlled Cable-Based Distributed Power Systems 2014 § 232.603(f)(1). 

S–4260 ........... ECP Brake and Wire Distributed Power Interoperability Test Procedures ........................ 2008 § 232.603(f)(1). 

N/A ................. 2020 Field Manual of the AAR Interchange Rules ............................................................. 2020 § 232.717(e)(1). 

The rule text already incorporates by 

reference the latest versions of the 

following AAR standards, so no updates 

are currently necessary: S–4220, ECP 

Cable-Based Brake DC Power Supply— 

Performance Specification (2002); S– 

4240, ECP Brake Equipment—Approval 

Procedure (2007); and S–4270, ECP 

Brake System Configuration 

Management (2008). 

F. Railroad Safety Advisory Committee 

(RSAC) Advice and Input 

FRA received substantial advice and 

feedback from the RSAC on the contents 

of this rule prior to its initiation. FRA 

first established the RSAC in March 

1996 under Section 10(a)(2) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. 

L. 92–463) to provide a forum for 

stakeholder groups to provide advice 

and recommendations to the FRA on 

railroad safety matters. In April 1996, 

the RSAC formed the Tourist and 

Historic Railroads and Private Passenger 

Car Working Group (THRWG). Since 

that time, the THRWG had considered 

numerous issues affecting tourist and 

historic rail operations and in August 

2013, the THRWG accepted Task No. 

13–01 to consider the applicability of 

FRA’s regulations to historical or 

antiquated equipment that is used only 

for excursion, educational, recreational, 

or private transportation purposes. The 

THRWG met in Washington, DC on 

April 9–10, 2014, and reviewed, among 

other things, the safety glazing 

standards (49 CFR part 223) regarding 

the treatment of certain equipment; 

regulatory treatment under the freight 

car safety standards (49 CFR part 215) 

of non-commercial freight cars over 50 

years old; and the scope and application 

of appendix B of 49 CFR part 232 

(freight power brake standards). The 

THRWG also identified other issues 

involving FRA’s regulatory treatment of 

tourist, scenic, historic, excursion, 

educational or recreational rail 

operations or private passenger rail car 

operations and equipment in other 

chapters of title 49, which FRA 

anticipates will be addressed in 

subsequent rulemakings. On December 

4, 2014, the full RSAC accepted the 

THRWG’s report. See RSAC Meeting 

Minutes, p. 12, https://rsac.fra.dot.gov/ 

radcms.rsac/File/DownloadFile?id=44. 

Subsequently, in a July 24, 2019, 

meeting the THRWG reviewed and 

concurred with the proposed appendix 

B updates, which FRA is adopting, with 

minor revision, as new subpart H in this 

final rule. 

G. Comments Filed 

In response to the NPRM, comments 

were filed by: AAR and the American 

Short Line and Regional Railroad 

Association (ASLRRA) (collectively, the 

‘‘Railroads’’); the American Train 

Dispatchers Association, the 

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers 

and Trainmen (BLET), the Brotherhood 

of Railroad Signalmen, the Brotherhood 

Railway Carmen Division TCU/IAM, 

and the International Association of 

Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and 

Transportation Workers— 

Transportation Division (collectively, 

‘‘Labor’’); the Transport Workers Union 

of America (TWU); Wabtec and New 

York Air Brake (collectively, the 

‘‘Suppliers’’); the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB); 

and various individuals. 

Comments related to specific 

proposals in the NPRM are addressed in 

the section-by-section analysis below 

(see part III of this preamble). FRA 

addresses the more general comments 

received directly below. 

An anonymous commenter generally 

contests the proposal, stating that safety 

regulation seems to be needed and that 

equipment should be placed out of 

service until brought up to ‘‘these 

standards.’’ TWU states the proposed 

changes would reduce the current safety 

standards for single car air brake tests, 

EOT devices, helper service, and brake 

maintenance and inspections. While 

there could be significant value in 

creating consistency between U.S. and 

Canadian regulations, and in 

incorporating newer safety technologies, 

TWU said the proposals downplay the 

cumulative magnitude of the changes 

and exclusively benefit the railroads’ 

profit margins at the expense of safety. 

Labor alleged that FRA is ‘‘cherry 

picking’’ Canadian regulations to adopt. 

Labor further notes that, while FRA 

acknowledges its obligation to regulate 

‘‘in the public interest and consistent 

with railroad safety,’’ the NPRM appears 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
80548 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

2 ‘‘3-point protection’’ is a railroad operating rule 

that provides protection for workers who are not 

required to use blue signal when fouling 

equipment. Exact language varies by railroad (some 

refer to the procedure as ‘‘set and centered’’); 

however, the most common steps are (1) placing the 

locomotive generator field switch in ‘‘off’’ position, 

(2) centering the reverser (i.e., placing the forward/ 

reverse control in neutral), and (3) fully applying 

locomotive and train brakes. 

(according to Labor) ‘‘in the economic 

interests of the railroad and consistent 

with carrier convenience and higher 

profits.’’ 

While there are many similarities 

between the Canadian and U.S. railroad 

regulations, and further harmonization 

could benefit seamless international 

operations, it is not necessarily optimal 

for the two sets of regulations to mirror 

each other precisely. Each country’s 

regulators have ample opportunity to 

observe and study one another’s 

experiences, and take regulatory action 

to implement lessons learned. This 

measured approach allows for greater 

harmonization when appropriate. While 

there is merit in TWU’s general position 

that any changes should be considered 

in the context of related regulations, 

TWU did not identify any particular 

related regulation for consideration. 

Similarly, the anonymous commenter 

generally critiques the safety measures 

proposed in the NPRM, but does not 

identify any specific measures and does 

not explain how any of the proposals 

would result in less safe rail operations. 

In response to the Labor concern that 

the proposed rule is in railroads’ 

economic interest, FRA’s first priority is 

safety. Further, this rule is based on 

safety data from U.S. and Canadian 

operations performed under regulations 

and longstanding FRA waivers. Labor 

has had multiple opportunities to 

provide input on these waivers and this 

rulemaking, has been an active 

participant on all test waivers, and has 

provided comments considered by FRA 

during those proceedings. 

Labor also commented and requested 

clarification on the applicability of 

waivers after issuance of this final rule, 

questioning what relief the rule would 

provide if railroads are still governed by 

the existing waivers as indicated in the 

NPRM and discussed above. As noted 

above, the purpose of this rulemaking is 

to extend the relief provided by the 

identified waivers to the entire railroad 

industry. While each waiver applies 

only to the petitioning entity or entities 

in defined situations, and only for a 

limited duration of time, this rule 

applies universally and eliminates the 

inefficiencies and uncertainties that 

result from having to periodically 

review and renew individual existing 

waivers. This final rule does not 

supersede the associated and affected 

waivers. While the final rule may have 

provisions mirroring and redundant of 

certain waivers, the waivers are still 

active and applicable. Unless this final 

rule differs from a particular waiver, 

very little should change for each entity 

benefiting from that waiver. However, 

any relief or condition remaining in an 

existing waiver that has not been 

codified by this final rule remains in 

force. For instance, there may be certain 

local conditions or extra information in 

the waiver not captured by this rule. It 

is up to each railroad or other waiver 

holder to decide whether it still wants 

or requires a waiver (or a modification 

to a waiver) after the final rule becomes 

effective. 

III. Section-by-Section Analysis 

Unless otherwise noted, all section 

references below refer to sections in title 

49 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR). 

Amendments to 49 CFR Part 218 

Section 218.22 Utility Employee 

As stated in the 1993 final rule 

initially adopting § 218.22, ‘‘Protection 

of Utility Employees,’’ this section 

defines the circumstances under which 

a utility employee may be permitted to 

function as a member of a train or yard 

crew without the benefit of blue signal 

protection. 58 FR 43287, 43290, Aug. 

16, 1993 (1993 final rule). FRA’s blue 

signal regulations (found at 49 CFR part 

218, subpart B) generally require that 

when ‘‘workers’’ are on, under, or 

between rolling equipment: (1) Blue 

signals be displayed in accordance with 

the requirements of part 218; and (2) the 

rolling equipment may not be coupled 

to, moved, or have equipment placed to 

obscure the blue signal protecting the 

protected track. 49 CFR 218.23. The 

regulations define a ‘‘worker’’ as ‘‘any 

railroad employee assigned to inspect, 

test, repair, or service railroad rolling 

equipment, or their components, 

including brake systems,’’ but 

specifically exclude members of train 

and yard crews, except when they are 

assigned to inspect, test, repair, or 

service ‘‘railroad rolling equipment that 

is not part of the train or yard movement 

they have been called to operate.’’ 49 

CFR 218.5. 

In the NPRM, FRA proposed two 

modifications to § 218.22 related to blue 

signal protection. First, FRA proposed 

to replace the incorrect reference to 

‘‘subpart D’’ in paragraph (c) to reflect 

the correct reference to the blue signal 

regulations in subpart B. Second, to 

incorporate longstanding waivers, FRA 

proposed to amend the list of functions 

in paragraph (c)(5) that a utility 

employee properly attached to a train or 

yard crew could perform without 

establishing blue signal protection to 

include the changing of a battery on a 

rear-end marking or EOT device, 

provided the battery can be changed 

‘‘without the use of tools.’’ In the 

NPRM, FRA also invited commenters to 

identify other tasks that may justify 

being added to the list of exceptions 

from the blue signal requirements in the 

paragraph and to address the utility and 

feasibility of establishing a performancebased requirement as an alternative to 

listing specific tasks excluded from the 

blue signal requirements. 

FRA received no comments 

responding to its proposal to correct the 

erroneous reference to subpart D in 

paragraph (c). Accordingly, in this final 

rule, FRA is adopting this proposed 

amendment. 

In response to FRA’s request for 

comments on the proposed revised list 

of functions in paragraph (c)(5), TWU 

commented that ‘‘utility employees’’ are 

often ‘‘different employees each day or 

each hour, creating confusion and 

raising safety concerns.’’ TWU suggests 

that this final rule permit designation of 

only one utility employee ‘‘per shift/per 

day’’ provided they are working under 

the 3-point protection 2 of the train crew 

(currently § 218.22 permits up to three 

utility employees to be attached to one 

train or yard crew at any given time). 

Labor generally asserts that exempting 

utility employees from blue-flag 

protection when replacing an EOT 

device’s battery would create an 

unnecessary risk because ‘‘[i]f the 

switch behind the train isn’t locked and 

another crew is free to line the switch, 

they could inadvertently line a switch 

into the train being worked upon, 

exposing the utility employee to 

unnecessary risk.’’ Labor did not, 

however, explain why the alleged risk 

associated with a utility employee 

replacing an EOT device’s battery is any 

different from the risks associated with 

a utility employee performing any of the 

existing functions listed in paragraph 

(c)(5). In addition, Labor provided no 

comment on the feasibility of 

establishing a performance-based 

requirement. 

The Railroads support FRA’s proposal 

to codify the longstanding waivers 

permitting utility employees to replace 

batteries on EOT devices under 

§ 218.22. Further, the Railroads suggest 

that FRA delete the ‘‘prescriptive list’’ of 

functions applicable to utility 

employees and revise the rule instead to 

state that a properly attached utility 

employee working as a train crew 

member can perform all functions that 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 80549 

3See Docket No. FRA–2001–10660; Docket No. 

FRA–2004–17989. 

4See DPS, ‘‘FRA Waiver Request—49 CFR 

232.221.13(d)—Marking Device Display, p. 2, 

Docket No. FRA–2015–0023, dated Mar. 9, 2015 

(posted Mar. 12, 2015) (‘‘A 15 lb or less End of 

Train Device will enhance railroad safety for all 

North American Railways by reducing the risk of 

injuries.’’); DPS, ‘‘Incoming Waiver ExtensionDPS—Marking Light Centroid 2020,’’ p. 2, Docket 

No. FRA–2015–0023, dated April 14, 2020 (posted 

April 24, 2020) (‘‘A smaller lighter End of Train 

Device will enhance railroad safety for all North 

American railroads by reducing the risk of 

injuries.’’). 

a train or yard crew member can 

perform. Referencing the preamble of 

the 1993 final rule, the Railroads assert 

that the list represents FRA’s 

understanding at that time ‘‘of all the 

functions train or yard crew members 

typically performed without blue signal 

protection.’’ Railroads Comments at p. 

2. The Railroads state that the ‘‘use of 

a utility employee who is a member of 

a train crew is now ubiquitous across 

the entire industry’’ and that after a 

utility employee properly attaches to a 

train or yard crew, he or she becomes 

a member of that train crew, functions 

in the same manner as a train crew 

member, and is a part of the constant 

communication that occurs between 

members of the train crew working as a 

team. The Railroads also assert that 

allowing a properly attached utility 

employee working as a train crew 

member to perform all functions that 

members of the train or yard crew can 

perform will ‘‘likely improve safety by 

reducing unnecessary accident/incident 

injury exposure to railroad employees 

caused by the physical act of 

establishing blue signal protection for 

utility employee activities that are not 

on the list.’’ 

FRA finds that the Railroads’ 

comments may have merit and more 

substantial updates to § 218.22 may be 

justified because the section has not 

been updated since its initial 

implementation almost 30 years ago. 

Accordingly, FRA concludes that 

although a more substantial update to 

§ 218.22 may be justified, to allow 

appropriate notice and comment on any 

such update, FRA will address both the 

Railroads’ comments and TWU’s 

comments on § 218.22 in a subsequent 

rulemaking. 

FRA is, however, adopting the 

revision to paragraph (c)(5) as proposed 

in the NPRM by amending the list of 

functions provided in that paragraph 

that do not require blue signal 

protection to include battery change-out 

on rear-end marking devices or end-oftrain devices without tools. As noted in 

the NPRM, this revision effectively 

incorporates two longstanding waivers 

granted by FRA over a decade ago and 

under which each Class I railroad has 

operated successfully, with no reports of 

related injuries or incidents. This 

successful record demonstrates that the 

relief provided by waiver and adopted 

in this final rule is safe.3

Amendments to 49 CFR part 221 

Section 221.13 Marking Device 

Display 

Section 221.13 includes EOT marking 

device display requirements. Paragraph 

(d) requires each marking device’s 

centroid to be located at a minimum of 

48 inches above the top of the rail. In 

the NPRM, FRA proposed to revise this 

requirement to 40 inches above the top 

of the rail based on two longstanding 

waivers that allowed the marker height 

measurement to be reduced to 41 and 42 

inches, respectively. See Docket No. 

FRA–2015–0023; Docket No. FRA– 

2017–0093. 

Since FRA granted the waiver 

petitions, no accidents attributed to the 

lowered marker lamp height permitted 

have been reported through the FRA 

accident reporting system. As discussed 

in the NPRM, FRA proposed the change 

to allow the use of lighter weight and 

newer types of EOT devices that do not 

use heavy batteries. FRA expects the use 

of these devices, which can be mounted 

lower than the larger devices with heavy 

batteries, will improve safety by 

lowering the risk of injury to personnel 

handling the devices.4 FRA proposed a 

minimum height of 40 inches above the 

top of the rail, so as not to interfere with 

the top of couplers (which are typically 

38′′ from the top of the rail) or other 

safety appliances, such as end sill 

handholds. FRA also proposed a 

minimum height of 40 inches above the 

top of the rail to ensure that the 

ergonomic advantages of the newer 

types of EOT devices are consistently 

realized (i.e., to avoid employees 

installing or maintaining the devices 

having to reach high or stoop low to 

access the devices). In proposing this 

change, FRA noted that the parties to 

the waivers had provided data showing 

no discernable visibility difference up to 

one mile away. 

TWU, Labor, and the Railroads filed 

comments. TWU states the change in 

permissible height is unnecessary and 

should be rejected because it is not 

based on any safety metric. Labor has 

‘‘no quarrel’’ with any EOT weight or 

height, but questions the viewing 

distance metrics of 0.5–1.0 mile. Labor 

asserts that FRA should measure from at 

least 1.5 miles away, given the increased 

train lengths and the additional space 

need to come to a safe stop without 

incident. The Railroads propose 

allowing centroids to be as low as 36′′ 

from the top of the rail to allow for 

design flexibility. According to the 

Railroads, the testing performed in 

support of the waivers at 36′′ , with LEDequipped lamps, provides for adequate 

visibility from varying angles. 

FRA notes that under its waiver, DPS 

performed visibility field testing of 

marker lights placed at heights of 48 

inches and 36 inches up to 2 miles away 

on flat, tangent track. In addition, FRA 

used its own experience and testing 

over distances up to a mile away to test 

and review the visibility of marker 

lights. Based on this testing, the data 

developed through the waivers, and 

FRA’s experience, the previous 

threshold height of 48 inches and the 

new threshold height of 40 inches each 

permit EOT device marker light 

visibility from over one mile away if 

there are no obstructing curves or hills. 

In other words, on flat, tangent track, 

EOT marker lights at 48 inches and 40 

inches are visible from 1.5 miles away. 

The range of 0.5–1.0 miles was cited by 

FRA as, oftentimes, there can to be some 

vertical undulation in the track or 

curves that could reduce the visibility 

below 1.5 miles. Due to the variability 

of light visibility, and without any 

comments proposing a specific safety 

metric, FRA was unable to develop a 

more reliable methodology. 

FRA notes that in its requests for 

waivers, the manufacturers requested 

that the marking device’s centroid be 

permitted to measure 41.3′′ to 44.3′′ from 

the top of rail. FRA also notes that 

although data submitted in the course of 

the waiver proceedings generally 

supported a 36′′ marker light height, 

only a 40′′ height has actually been 

tested under the waivers. In addition, a 

minimum marker light height of 36′′ 

would potentially expose the device to 

damage from a neighboring coupler and 

risks fouling other safety appliances, 

including end sill handholds compliant 

with § 231.1(i)(3)(ii). Also, the lower a 

marker’s height, the more susceptible it 

is to mud spray from the track bed or 

to damage caused by low flying ballast 

rock, which may adversely affect the 

visibility of the marker light. 

In addition to changes to permissible 

marker light height, FRA also sought 

comment on the effects of using LED 

bulbs and the utility and feasibility of 

establishing a performance-based 

standard in lieu of the specific height 

requirements of this section. While FRA 

received no comments on bulb types or 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
80550 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

the effects of using LED bulbs, the 

Railroads expressed support for 

replacing the technical height 

requirement with a performance-based 

standard addressing minimum distance 

and visibility requirements, claiming 

markers may become obsolete as train 

separation technologies continue to 

advance. The Railroads, however, 

provided no meaningful suggestion for 

such a standard. 

After considering all available waiver 

and testing data, and all comments 

received in response to the NPRM’s 

proposal to revise paragraph (d) of 

§ 221.13, FRA concluded that additional 

flexibility in marker height could be 

allowed without adversely affecting 

marker visibility. Accordingly, in this 

final rule, FRA is revising paragraph (d) 

to require the centroid of any marking 

device to be located above the coupler, 

where its visibility is not obscured and 

it does not interfere with an employee’s 

access to, or use of, any other safety 

appliance on the car. 

Appendix A to Part 221 Procedures for 

Approval of Rear End Marking Devices 

As proposed in the NPRM, to correct 

typographical errors, FRA is modifying 

‘‘perscribed’’ to ‘‘prescribed’’ in 

paragraph (a)(1)(2)(ii) and ‘‘peformed’’ 

to ‘‘performed’’ in paragraph (b)(3)(ii). 

Amendments to 49 CFR Part 232 

Section 232.1 Scope 

Paragraph (b) of § 232.1 describes how 

the scope of Part 232 would change in 

phases after the January 2001 

publication of the final rule that created 

Part 232. Paragraph (c) and the final 

phrase of paragraph (d) include 

similarly antiquated instructions. 

Because the dates in these paragraphs 

have passed and are no longer relevant, 

as proposed in the NPRM, FRA is 

removing paragraph (b)’s historical 

schedule, paragraph (c) in its entirety, 

and the final phrase in paragraph (d) 

providing for earlier optional 

compliance. FRA is also moving 

paragraph (d) to paragraph (c). 

Section 232.5 Definitions 

Section 232.5 defines certain terms as 

they are used in Part 232. The existing 

rule text refers to certain provisions of 

§ 232.1 to account for varying effective 

dates and its inapplicability to appendix 

B. Since those dates have passed, and 

appendix B is being moved to Subpart 

H, these cross-references are no longer 

necessary and are therefore being 

deleted from the introductory paragraph 

of § 232.5. 

In the NPRM, FRA proposed to 

update the definition of ‘‘Air flow 

method indicator, AFM’’ to clarify that 

the definition includes digital, as well 

as analog, AFM indicators, and to 

specify that a digital version must have 

markings of equivalent or finer 

resolution to that specified by FRA for 

an analog device. 

FRA also proposed to add definitions 

for the terms ‘‘Air repeater unit, ARU’’ 

and ‘‘APTA.’’ FRA’s proposed definition 

of ARU recognized that a specialized 

car, other rolling equipment, or 

containers in well cars could be used as 

an ARU by providing an additional 

brake pipe source responding to air 

control instructions from a controlling 

locomotive using a communication 

system such as a distributed power 

system. For an item to be considered an 

ARU under this definition, the 

communications must be akin to a 

distributed power system to ensure 

accurate and sufficient responses. The 

purpose and use of the technology, not 

its physical description, determines 

whether an item is an ARU. FRA 

purposefully recognizes this distinction 

to avoid limiting innovation and future 

options. 

Commenters concurred with FRA’s 

proposal to update the ‘‘Air flow 

method indicator, AFM’’ definition and 

add the new definitions for the terms 

‘‘Air repeater unit, ARU’’ and ‘‘APTA.’’ 

Accordingly, FRA is adopting the 

revisions to this section as proposed. 

In this final rule FRA is also adding 

a definition of the term ‘‘brake pipe 

gradient.’’ In the existing rules (e.g., 

§§ 232.103(m) and 232.205(c)) and as 

discussed in the NPRM, FRA often 

describes the readily measured change 

in psi of air pressure between the front 

and rear of the train. This differential is 

often referred to as a ‘‘brake pipe 

gradient’’ or ‘‘taper’’ due to the shape of 

the graph line of the pressure as it 

reduces from source of air to rear of 

train. In certain circumstances, the 

brake pipe gradient also measures the 

pressure between additional air sources 

such as an ARU or distributed power 

unit (DPU). To ensure a common 

understanding of this term, FRA is 

defining ‘‘Gradient, brake pipe’’ in this 

final rule. 

Section 232.11 Penalties 

This section contains provisions 

regarding penalties. As noted in the 

NPRM, the section contains references 

to specific penalty amounts that change 

over time as a result of the statutory 

requirement to periodically update 

penalties for inflation. Accordingly, in 

the NPRM, FRA proposed to replace the 

references to specific penalty amounts 

with general references to the minimum 

civil monetary penalty, ordinary 

maximum civil monetary penalty, and 

aggravated maximum civil monetary 

penalty. FRA also proposed additional 

language referring readers to 49 CFR 

part 209, appendix A, where FRA 

specifies statutorily provided civil 

penalty amounts updated for inflation 

and to FRA’s website (www.fra.dot.gov) 

which contains a schedule of civil 

penalty amounts used in connection 

with this part. 

As the Railroads note in their 

comments, the www.fra.dot.gov website 

address now defaults to FRA’s new 

website address at 

www.railroads.dot.gov. FRA has 

updated the regulatory text accordingly. 

Interested parties may check FRA’s 

website for any future changes to its 

civil penalty schedules. 

Section 232.17 Special Approval 

Procedure 

In comments responding to proposed 

§ 232.407, the Railroads asked for 

language permitting the use of new and 

innovative technologies that could 

enhance or replace EOT devices or their 

capabilities. While § 232.407 already 

provides for the use of an alternative 

technology to perform the same 

function, this concern is best addressed 

and clarified by including an 

opportunity for interested parties to 

seek and potentially receive special 

approval of such alternatives under 

§ 232.17. Accordingly, FRA has 

included § 232.407 in the list of sections 

affected by § 232.17. 

Section 232.103 General Requirements 

for All Train Brake Systems 

This section sets forth general 

requirements for brake systems of trains 

and incorporates the 1999 version of 

AAR’s ‘‘Performance Specification for 

Freight Brakes’’ (AAR Standard S–469– 

47) at § 232.103(l). In the NPRM, FRA 

provided a regulatory history of the 

applicable regulations, orders, and 

standards (see 85 FR 2494, 2499, Jan. 17, 

2020) and proposed to update this 

reference to incorporate the presentlyavailable version of this AAR standard. 

AAR Standard S–469–01 defines and 

prescribes requirements for power 

brakes and appliances for operating 

power brake systems. Accordingly, FRA 

is updating the citation to the presently 

available S–469, and to reflect AAR’s 

correct address. 

The Railroads submitted comments 

concurring with FRA’s proposal to 

update the incorporation by reference, 

but encouraged amendments to the 

incorporation by reference regulations 

to provide for more timely codifications 

of updated industry standards. The 

incorporation by reference regulations, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 80551 

found at 1 CFR part 51, are under the 

purview of the Director of the Federal 

Register. Because FRA has no authority 

to amend those regulations, we cannot 

address the Railroads’ concerns. 

Labor expressed concern under this 

section regarding high air flow rates and 

the reduction of 8 psi regarding pressure 

taper limits. FRA discusses those 

concerns below in the section-bysection discussion of § 232.205—Class I 

brake test-initial terminal inspection. 

Although not proposed in the NPRM, 

in reviewing comments to this section, 

FRA determined a need to revise 

§ 232.103(m) to make clear that if a train 

experiences a brake pipe gradient 

greater than 15 psi, it must be stopped 

at the next available location and 

inspected for leaks. This is not a 

substantive revision, but merely 

conforms paragraph (m) of this section 

to paragraph (c) of § 232.205 to remove 

any confusion. As currently written, the 

‘‘15-psi gradient for trains en route’’ 

provision in that paragraph could be 

read to apply only to trains tested with 

an AFM indicator. Such a reading, 

however, is incorrect and directly 

conflicts with § 232.205(c), which 

requires a train’s gradient to be no more 

than 15 psi, regardless of whether brake 

pipe pressure is measured using the 

leakage test or with an AFM indicator. 

See also 66 FR 4104, 4169, Jan. 17, 2001 

(‘‘[T]he AFM should be permitted as an 

alternative on any train provided the 15- 

psi gradient is maintained on the train 

. . . The brake-pipe gradient of 15 psi 

has been retained for both the leakage 

and air flow method of train brake 

testing.’’). Accordingly, FRA is revising 

§ 232.103(m) to conform the ‘‘15-psi 

gradient for trains en route’’ provision to 

the corresponding provision in 

§ 232.205(c). 

Section 232.203 Training 

Requirements 

Section 232.203 contains training 

requirements for operators, and for 

employees who perform brake system 

inspections, tests, or maintenance. 

Specifically, paragraph (c) requires 

railroads to adopt and comply with a 

training program specifically addressing 

the testing, operation, and maintenance 

of two-way EOT devices for employees 

who are responsible for testing, 

operation, and maintenance of the 

devices. In the NPRM, FRA expressed 

concern with the safety risks associated 

with the loss of communication events 

between the controlling locomotive and 

the EOT device. As discussed in the 

NPRM, radio communication between 

the controlling locomotive and the EOT 

device is critical to proper brake 

functioning. If communications are 

interrupted, an EOT device will not be 

able to initiate emergency braking when 

requested. Under existing § 232.407(g), 

communication between the EOT device 

and the controlling locomotive can be 

lost for up to 16 minutes and 30 seconds 

before the engineer is notified. If an 

engineer encounters a situation 

necessitating an emergency brake 

application during a loss of 

communication, the engineer may have 

to request an emergency brake 

application multiple times before the 

system responds. 

Accordingly, in the NPRM, FRA 

sought comments on the frequency and 

duration of communication losses; what 

operational and technological solutions 

for communication loss the industry has 

considered and implemented; what 

should be done to ensure an emergency 

signal is sent and received by the system 

when needed even in the event of a 

temporary communications loss; and 

what has and should be done to alert the 

locomotive engineer that a loss of 

communication has occurred. 

The Railroads’ response listed factors 

that may affect the frequency and 

duration of communication losses and 

some ‘‘comprehensive solutions’’ they 

have implemented and will continue to 

implement—including repeaters; highgain EOT antennas; event, fault, and 

data-logging technologies; and the 

design and installation of multicast 

repeating capabilities and more robust 

hardware—to help mitigate such losses. 

The Railroads are also looking at the 

next generation of EOT devices 

currently under development, which are 

expected to utilize advanced 

communications strategies and more 

robust hardware design. The Railroads, 

however, offered no truly 

comprehensive solutions to address the 

risk of extended losses of 

communications in the interim. 

The NTSB filed public comments 

suggesting that FRA revise § 232.405 to 

require a shorter duration between 

failed communication checks before the 

engineer is notified. Until the EOT 

device receives a head-end confirmation 

of having received a message regarding 

a communication loss, NTSB 

recommends that FRA require each 

telemetry system (i.e., the 

communication system between an EOT 

device and the controlling locomotive) 

to initiate continuously an emergency 

brake command transmission until a 

confirmation message or a decrease in 

brake pipe pressure message is received. 

Labor similarly recommended that FRA 

require telemetry systems to 

continuously initiate an emergency 

brake until the subject train comes to a 

complete stop. In addition, Labor 

recommended that telemetry systems 

enforce a complete safe stop upon loss 

of communications lasting longer than 4 

minutes and 59 seconds. 

FRA appreciates the Railroads’ 

explanation of technologies and efforts 

it uses, or plans to use, to mitigate 

concerns relating to telemetry 

communications loss. While most of 

those identified have yet to materialize, 

FRA looks forward to considering them 

in the future. 

FRA agrees in principle with the 

desire of NTSB and Labor to minimize 

the potential impact of communication 

losses. However, neither NTSB nor 

Labor provided any evaluation of the 

anticipated impacts of the 

recommended actions (that FRA require 

each telemetry system to initiate 

continuously an emergency brake 

command transmission until a 

confirmation message or a decrease in 

brake pipe pressure message is received, 

or that FRA require that telemetry 

systems enforce a complete safe stop 

upon loss of communications lasting 

longer than 4 minutes and 59 seconds), 

estimate of the resulting costs to the 

railroads and the public, or quantified 

the safety benefits of the recommended 

actions. Given that there are thousands 

of telemetry systems in use throughout 

the railroad industry today, FRA finds 

that the costs of requiring such a change 

would be significant and FRA does not 

currently have sufficient data to 

determine the likely resulting benefits. 

Accordingly, it is premature at this time 

to adopt either of the recommended 

solutions because the potential impacts 

of the recommended solutions are not 

yet understood. 

Instead, to address the safety risks 

involved with potential losses of 

communication, FRA is revising the 

training requirements at § 232.203(c) to 

ensure that employees who operate EOT 

equipment are trained in the limitations 

and proper use of the equipment’s 

emergency application signal and loss of 

communications indicator. 

Section 232.205 Class I Brake TestInitial Terminal Inspection 

Section 232.205 contains the 

requirements for conducting Class I 

brake tests-initial terminal inspections. 

Pursuant to § 232.205, a Class I brake 

test must be performed when a train is 

initially assembled, the consist is 

changed in certain ways (by adding or 

removing cars), or a train is off-air for 

more than four hours. Section 232.205 

provides two methods for conducting 

Class I brake tests on standard pressuremaintaining brake valves: (1) A leakage 

test; or (2) an air flow test method. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
80552 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

5See also amendments to §§ 232.209, 232.211 and 

232.217 in this final rule. 

6Environmental issues, like those referenced by 

the comments summarized in this paragraph, are 

considered in section IV.D, infra, and in this final 

rule’s Regulatory Impact Analysis. 

Based on data submitted by AAR in 

support of their Petition, including data 

garnered from Canadian rail operations, 

FRA (in the NPRM) proposed extending 

the duration of the off-air limitation.5

FRA also proposed revisions to the 

brake pipe leakage requirements during 

certain Class I air brake tests, and 

requirements associated with the 

calibration of AFM indicators used to 

conduct Class I brake tests using the air 

flow test method. 

In the NPRM, FRA also sought 

comments on its analysis leading to the 

proposal, including the accuracy and 

sufficiency of the data on which it based 

the NPRM. FRA requested comment on 

the reasons underlying Canada’s lower 

rates of air-brake-related failures that 

would better inform FRA of the off-air 

requirement’s impact. In addition, FRA 

requested comment on whether a time 

off-air tracking system is necessary or if 

there are other means for FRA to 

determine the amount of time 

equipment is left off a source of 

compressed air. FRA also requested 

comment on potential regulatory 

alternatives to a time off-air limit that 

would address the same safety risks and 

ensure that, despite equipment being 

off-air for any length of time, the 

equipment’s air brakes are in proper 

working order. 

Generally, the Railroads, Suppliers, 

and at least two individual commenters, 

submitted comments in support of the 

proposed revisions, while Labor and 

other commenters expressed concern 

about the proposed revisions. For the 

reasons explained below, in this final 

rule FRA is adopting revisions to this 

section as proposed and, in response to 

comments received, FRA is clarifying 

certain requirements related to the use 

of ARUs. 

Off-Air Requirement 

As noted above, and as discussed in 

more detail in the preamble to the 

NPRM (see 85 FR 2499), under the 

existing regulation, if a train or other 

equipment (e.g., individual cars) is left 

unattached to any air source (e.g., 

locomotive, yard air) for more than four 

hours, it must receive a Class I brake test 

prior to further operation of the train. 49 

CFR 232.205(a)(3). Moreover, to ensure 

that an air brake system did not degrade, 

and to allow a railroad to delay a fulltrain Class I test in many circumstances, 

under the existing regulation equipment 

off-air for more than four hours may 

require a Class I or II test prior to being 

added to an en route train, and will 

require a Class III brake test prior to 

being operated in revenue service. 49 

CFR 232.209(a)(1) and 232.211(a)(3)– 

(a)(5). This requirement also affects yard 

air applications. 49 CFR 232.217(c)(1). 

For a more detailed discussion of 

requirements related to Class I brake 

tests and a substantial history and 

analysis of the off-air requirement, see 

66 FR 4103, 4122, Jan. 17, 2001. 

In the NPRM, FRA proposed to extend 

the four-hour off-air requirement to 24 

hours. The Railroads and Suppliers 

submitted comments supporting FRA’s 

proposal to increase the off-air 

requirement from 4 to 24 hours. The 

Railroads assert that the data provided 

by AAR cited in the NPRM shows that 

‘‘time off-air is now not relevant to safe 

air brake functioning’’ and that 

improvements in air brake components 

have ‘‘greatly reduced’’ brake pipe 

leakage. Citing Canada’s experience, and 

supplying TTCI test data as further 

support, the Railroads state that there is 

no safety detriment to cars being off-air 

for 24 or 48 hours or more. Further, the 

Railroads assert that although FRA 

revised the air brake regulations in 

2001, those revisions did not reflect the 

safety enhancements that had been 

gained since the 1950’s and that further 

brake system improvements have been 

made since 2001 concerning brake pipe 

leakage-mitigation and moisture and 

contaminate removal. In response to 

FRA’s request for comment on the data 

on which the NPRM was based, the 

Railroads expressed their confidence in 

the accuracy and sufficiency of the data. 

The Railroads also contend that 

extending the amount of time that 

equipment may be left off-air without 

requiring another Class I brake 

inspection would result in positive 

financial, environmental, and 

operational benefits. A larger time 

window for equipment to remain off-air 

would reduce the amount of time 

locomotives would stand idling, which 

may disturb communities with noise, 

vibration, and emissions. In addition, 

the larger time window could result in 

trains clearing highway-rail grade 

crossings more expeditiously in certain 

circumstances by allowing trains to be 

cut at crossings while awaiting a crew 

change. According to the Railroads, 

permitting 24-hours off-air would 

reduce idling that results in an annual 

$2 million in fuel savings and a 3,600- 

ton reduction of carbon dioxide 

emissions. 

A separate comment filed by an 

individual asserted that a primary 

benefit of the proposal would be to help 

decrease each railroad’s fuel 

consumption and carbon footprints. 

This commenter notes that extending 

the time off-air limitation would allow 

railroads to shut down locomotives 

rather than leave them idling to keep air 

in cars’ brake lines.6

In its comments, TWU contends 

AAR’s supporting factors for this 

proposal—the ‘‘alleged’’ technological 

advancements and the interest in 

aligning U.S. and Canadian 

regulations—were the same used by 

AAR, and rejected by FRA, in the final 

rule published January 17, 2001. 

Quoting extensively from that rule, 

TWU posits that ‘‘while some 

technology has progressed, none of [that 

final rule’s] logic has been 

undermined.’’ Specifically, TWU states 

that although air dryers or other 

moisture-mitigating systems may 

indicate progress, not all locomotives 

are equipped with these systems and 

these systems do not eliminate the 

freeze-up problems caused by moisture. 

Moreover, noting that AAR’s tests with 

these technologies were performed on a 

consist of only 20 hopper and gondola 

cars, TWU asserts that the testing 

conditions fell ‘‘well short’’ of 

replicating actual conditions in the 

industry and do not consider trains 

consisting of 80 to 100 or more cars, 

each car’s age and condition, extreme 

climates, or old and water-saturated 

yard air plants. 

TWU also contends that aligning U.S. 

regulations with the off-air hours 

permitted by Canada ignores each 

country’s differing safety structures and 

other factors. Labor also objects to FRA’s 

attempt to harmonize with Canadian 

regulations, alleging that FRA is ‘‘cherry 

picking’’ Canadian standards without 

holistically considering Canada’s much 

more stringent standards. Neither TWU 

or Labor provide any substantive 

information or comment on Canada’s 

alleged differing safety structure or more 

stringent standards. 

In addition, Labor commented that 

extensions to the off-air requirement 

should be handled collaboratively 

through the RSAC process. Labor asserts 

that in 2001, FRA supported a four-hour 

off-air requirement partially out of 

concern about the potential for 

vandalism to affect braking systems 

negatively. Labor contends there is no 

data suggesting anything has changed. 

Labor also asserts that, instead of 

extending the off-air requirement, and 

thus reducing the number of inspections 

performed, FRA should require better 

walking conditions at inspection 

locations to mitigate employee risk. 

Labor argues AAR’s position describing 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 80553 

7Labor also objects to AAR’s request (in its 

separate eABS rulemaking petition) to consider 

increasing the allowed mileage between brake 

inspections when railroads use an eABS system. 

Labor’s comments are outside the scope of this 

rulemaking and FRA will address Labor’s 

comments on this issue in the appropriate 

rulemaking proceeding (i.e., the eABS rule). 

8The commenter also questions why FRA 

restricts block swapping and seeks clarification on 

Class I test requirements for cars added to trains en 

route. Because those issues appear to be beyond the 

scope of this rulemaking, FRA declines to discuss 

them here. For an explanation of the block 

swapping limitations under § 232.205, please refer 

to the preamble of the 2001 final rule. See, e.g., 66 

FR 4104, 4119 and 4168, Jan. 17, 2001. 

9Examples of operational factors may include the 

use of power braking, train length, time taken to 

inspect equipment, and quality of compressed air 

from locomotives or yard air plants. 

10See, e.g., Docket Nos. FRA–2005–21613, FRA– 

2016–0018, FRA–2018–0049, FRA–2019–0072. 

the four-hour off-air limit as ‘‘too 

restrictive’’ is merely subjective. 

According to Labor, the four-hour off-air 

rule should remain because four hours 

is necessary in cold weather conditions 

where freeze-ups can occur and 

vandalism continues to exist. Labor also 

contends that the time and costs 

associated with brake tests are less than 

any potential damages resulting from a 

defect. Like TWU, Labor believes that 

FRA should develop its own data, and 

not rely on AAR data, regarding the 

number of slips, trips, and falls.7

One individual commenter—an 

employee and mechanical officer of 

multiple freight and passenger 

railroads—expressed support for the 

proposal to extend the off-air limitation 

to 24 hours. This commenter asserted 

that reinspection of cars adds significant 

risk to employees, citing the 

requirements for employees to establish 

blue signal protection, setting necessary 

switches and derails, and walking the 

train two complete times to observe the 

set and release. 

Another individual commenter, a 

freight conductor, suggests that FRA 

analyze the impact of the proposed 

extension of the off-air requirement on 

brake cylinder piston extension timing, 

rather than on the rate of line-of-road 

failures (expressed as emergency brake 

applications), for which a specific 

mechanical cause was not found. The 

commenter states that in his experience 

he has found that typically between 

2%–5% of the car brakes will not 

initially apply during a test of a fully 

charged system.8

After consideration of all comments 

submitted to the docket and all available 

data, FRA concludes that extending the 

existing 4-hour off-air limitation to 24- 

hours is justified. The technological 

improvements to the air brake systems, 

introduced and proliferated both before 

and subsequent to FRA’s 2001 rule, 

have been beneficial in improving the 

overall health of brake systems. 

Moreover, the supporting information 

comparing Canadian and U.S. 

operations provided in Appendix 7 to 

AAR’s Petition clearly demonstrates the 

safety of extending the permitted off-air 

limit to 24 hours. In favor of the 

reliability of these data is the fact that 

they include same-railroad results 

(based on CN and CP data) showing 

fewer undesired and unintended 

emergency brake applications occurring 

in Canada than in the U.S. See AAR 

Petition for Rulemaking, July 12, 2018, 

Appendix 7, Slide 4. While the TTCI 

technology test data submitted by AAR 

are based on a sound premise, FRA did 

not rely on the TTCI technical test data 

alone to support this rule given the 

small sample size (i.e., 20 cars tested 

over the course of 5 days) and the much 

more relevant safety information from 

the Canadian railroads’ operational data 

that spanned a full year. 

FRA expects that a reduced number of 

brake inspections based on a 24-hour 

off-air limit will lead to a reduced 

number of injuries that can occur during 

those inspections (e.g., slips, trips, and 

falls), though FRA does not have 

sufficient data to determine quantifiable 

safety benefits. FRA finds Labor’s 

argument that the data AAR submitted 

quantifying slips, trips, and falls 

incurred during brake tests to be 

misplaced because the data is based on 

data submitted by Labor’s own 

constituents to their employing 

railroads. The railroads, in turn, 

compile and submit the data each 

month to FRA as required by FRA’s 

accident/incident reporting regulations 

(49 CFR part 225). FRA then aggregates 

the submitted data and such aggregated 

data is then available on FRA’s public 

database located at https://

safetydata.fra.dot.gov. Thus, FRA 

considers these data to be of the type the 

agency routinely relies upon to inform 

its rulemakings, as is done here. 

FRA does not share Labor’s concerns 

about vandalism of air brakes. FRA’s 

accident database contains no 

information indicating that vandalism of 

air brakes has had any significant 

relationship to air brake-caused 

accidents. Labor has not submitted any 

data to support its concerns and no 

other commenters provided any 

information on vandalism. 

FRA further notes that Labor provided 

no data to support its belief that the 

costs of more frequent Class I brake 

tests, as presently performed, are 

significantly less than the costs resulting 

from accidents that could have been 

avoided by the performance of such 

tests. Regarding Labor’s 

recommendation that FRA mandate 

‘‘better walking conditions,’’ FRA notes 

this is outside of the scope of this rule. 

Finally, despite Labor’s desire to 

involve the RSAC process, FRA does not 

anticipate that asking RSAC to address 

this matter would provide any 

additional meaningful insight into the 

technical validity of extending the offair limitation period. 

With regard to the individual 

commenter’s concern that he has to 

apply brakes a second time for 2–5% of 

the freight cars he inspects, he does not 

correlate this experience with the length 

of time the affected cars have been offair. FRA notes that regardless of 

whether equipment is off-air for four or 

24 hours, 100% of the brakes must 

apply for a Class I brake test to be 

successful. 

A multitude of variables affect brake 

system integrity (e.g., environmental 

factors such as temperature and 

humidity, operational factors,9 age, and 

overall condition of the equipment). The 

longer equipment remains off air, the 

greater opportunity these factors have to 

affect brake system integrity. Moreover, 

despite the many technical 

advancements in air brake technology, 

the structure of conventional air brake 

systems on rail equipment involves 

many car-to-car connections, which by 

nature cause the systems to experience 

gradual leaks once removed from an air 

source. For example, as noted in the 

NPRM, in its 2013 report on the LacMe ́gantic, Quebec accident, the 

Transportation Safety Board of Canada 

(TSB) cited two previous instances of air 

brake failures concerning rail equipment 

that, when left off-air, leaked and 

unintentionally released. Accordingly, 

absent universal installation, use, and 

regulatory oversight of acceptable brake 

health effectiveness and monitoring 

technologies (e.g., wheel temperature 

detectors, electronic brake valves, 

eABS),10 besides triggers such as 

mileage or reclassification, time off air 

remains the only metric for ensuring 

brake system integrity. While FRA 

intends to address some of these 

technologies in future proceedings, no 

commenter has identified an alternative 

to a time off-air limit that would address 

the same safety risks. 

The Railroads commented that FRA’s 

discussion of the TSB report ‘‘does not 

promote public confidence in the 

agency’s objective and fact-based 

approach to rulemaking.’’ However, 

FRA believes that considering an 

objective, fact-based report, from 

Canada’s equivalent of the NTSB, to be 

the exact type of action that would 

inspire public confidence in the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
80554 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

11See Railway Freight and Passenger Train Brake 

Inspection and Safety Rule (‘‘Canadian Rule’’), 

section 11.2(b), Transport Canada, Oct. 27, 2014, 

available at https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/ 

rules-tco0184-139.htm#section11 (‘‘A No.1 brake 

test is not required on: A block swap of cars that 

have been off-air for no more than 24 hours or 48 

hours after notifying the department.’’). A copy of 

this rule is included in Appendix 3 of AAR’s 

Petition. 

transparency and thoroughness of the 

agency’s rulemaking process. 

Recognizing that Canada permits 

equipment to remain off-air without a 

brake inspection for up to 48 hours 

upon notification to Transport Canada 

(TC),11 as noted in the NPRM, FRA 

requested comment on potentially 

extending the off-air limit to 48 hours in 

certain circumstances. FRA also sought 

comment on how often this provision is 

utilized in Canada and under what 

circumstances it is used. FRA received 

no comments or information in response 

to the extent of this provision’s use in 

Canada. Citing the technological 

improvements in air brakes discussed 

above, the Railroads, however, suggest 

that FRA should universally extend the 

off-air limitation to 48 hours. The 

Railroads assert that equipment is 

‘‘routinely permitted to be off-air for 48 

hours’’ without approval from TC. 

Alternatively, if FRA chooses to adopt a 

universal 24-hour off-air rule, with a 48- 

hour limit only applicable in certain 

circumstances, the Railroads state they 

should be permitted to designate a list 

of ‘‘extended off-air locations’’ where 

equipment may remain off-air for up to 

48 hours without requiring a new Class 

I air brake test. 

The Suppliers fully support allowing 

a 48-hour off-air restriction, believing it 

is appropriate to align these regulations 

with the Canadian Rule that 

demonstrates the successful 

implementation of increased off-air 

time. 

While the Railroads and Suppliers 

expressed support for allowing a 48- 

hour off-air restriction, FRA received no 

comments in response to requests for 

comment on the Canadian experience 

with such an allowance, nor any 

comments on the potential applicability 

of the notification procedures in 

§§ 232.207(c)(2) and 232.213(a)(1). FRA 

understands TC receives only a small 

number of 48-hour off-air notifications 

per year (no more than 12), primarily 

from two locations during three-day 

holiday weekends or special situations 

such as labor strikes. Such sparse use of 

Canada’s 48-hour provision does not 

make it routine, as the Railroads 

suggest. 

Because there is not sufficient data 

demonstrating the safety impact of 

extending the off-air limit beyond 24 

hours, in this final rule, FRA is not 

extending the limit beyond 24 hours. 

As noted in the NPRM, FRA remains 

concerned with its ability to provide 

oversight concerning cars left off-air for 

extended periods of time. While FRA 

has historically used train and car 

movement records, the presence of any 

ground air sources, and witness 

interviews to verify equipment’s time 

off-air, those tools will likely prove 

insufficient over 24 hours. In the NPRM, 

FRA did not propose a specific solution 

to this concern, but sought comment on 

whether a requirement for tracking offair time is necessary or whether there 

are other means by which FRA could 

determine the amount of time 

equipment is left off a source of 

compressed air. FRA asked for comment 

on what types of tracking systems are 

available and how tracking data should 

be maintained. FRA also sought 

comment on the potential burden or 

benefit of a tracking requirement. 

In their comments, the Railroads do 

not support an off-air time tracking 

requirement, claiming that railroads 

already track off-air time and there is no 

one-size-fits all solution. The Railroads, 

however, do not explain or provide any 

information as to how industry 

currently tracks each equipment’s timeoff-air. The Railroads also do not 

provide any insight into how, if the offair limit is extended to 24 hours, FRA 

could determine the amount of time 

specific equipment is left off-air. 

Instead, the Railroads point to FRA’s 

rule allowing the use of ECP brakes 

(§ 232.607(b)(4)(i)). The ECP brake rule 

permits trains operating in ECP brake 

mode to remain off-air for 24 hours 

between Class I brake tests and also 

does not include any method for 

tracking equipment’s time off-air. 

ECP brakes are fundamentally 

different than traditional air brakes. ECP 

brake systems have self-diagnostic 

capabilities (i.e., ECP brake systems selfreport system health in real time to the 

operator). Therefore, § 232.607’s 

allowance for freight trains operating in 

ECP brake mode to remain off-air for 24 

hours is not an appropriate indicator of 

whether a time off-air tracking system is 

needed for traditional freight 

equipment. 

Despite the above concerns, FRA is 

not establishing a time-tracking 

requirement in this final rule. Such a 

requirement is more appropriately 

considered in the eABS Rule. FRA 

notes, however, that railroads remain 

legally obligated to comply with the offair requirement adopted in this final 

rule. As such, railroads will need to 

adopt and comply with a methodology 

to determine that the equipment in its 

trains comply with the new off-air rule. 

FRA will continue to monitor each 

railroad’s implementation of the off-air 

requirement and appropriately utilize 

its available oversight and enforcement 

tools (including civil penalties) to 

enforce its compliance. 

Brake Pipe Leakage Limit 

As explained in the NPRM, § 232.205, 

as currently written, provides two 

methods for conducting Class I brake 

tests on pressure-maintaining brake 

valves such as the standard 26–L brake 

valve: (1) A leakage test; or (2) an air 

flow method test. See § 232.205(c)(1)(i), 

(ii). It is physically impossible to 

prevent all leakage from a train’s brake 

pipe given the mechanical connections 

between cars’ air hoses (i.e., a certain 

amount of air will always leak through 

the mechanical connections) and each 

method of testing measures the pressure 

drop in a train’s brake pipe in different 

ways. The leakage test measures the 

amount of compressed air that leaks 

from the brake pipe, while the air flow 

test method measures the amount of 

compressed air the pressure maintaining 

valve puts back into the brake pipe to 

maintain the line’s pressure. Regardless 

of the test method employed, § 232.205 

requires the pressure at the rear of the 

train to be within 15 psi of the pressure 

that the train will be operated at (known 

as the ‘‘gradient’’ or ‘‘pressure taper’’). 

When conducting a Class I test using 

the air flow method, paragraph 

(c)(1)(ii)(B) prohibits brake pipe leakage 

from exceeding 60 cubic feet per minute 

(CFM). In the NPRM, FRA proposed 

increasing the limit to 90 CFM when a 

DPU or an ARU is utilized. 

The traditional air flow test is 

measured from a single point of air flow, 

at the controlling locomotive of the 

train. In other words, the traditional air 

flow test measures the amount of air the 

controlling locomotive’s brake system is 

putting back into the train’s brake pipe. 

Because the air originates at a single 

source (the controlling locomotive) and 

travels sequentially through each car’s 

air brake system, each connected via a 

mechanical air hose, gradually the 

pressure in the train’s brake pipe tapers 

off. DP trains have locomotives located 

at two or more locations in the train, 

providing a more uniform distribution 

of power to reduce in-train forces and 

provide multiple supplies of air brake 

pressure and control. Similarly, air 

brake repeater boxcars or containers 

mounted in well cars, and other 

equipment serving the same purpose as 

these ARUs, have been used to provide 

multiple sources of air brake pressure 

and control. Because use of DP 

locomotives and ARUs provide multiple 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 80555 

12Labor noted its comments regarding the 

proposed allowance for higher air flow under 

Section 232.103–General requirements for all train 

brake systems, but FRA is discussing them in the 

context of § 232.205 as this is where FRA proposed 

to codify the requirements. 

13On a DPU-equipped train, the gradient can be 

a ‘‘sag,’’ as the graph line of the pressure will 

assume a catenary curve between the air sources. 

The depth of the sag is not readily measured 

(without ECP or similar technology) and is not 

presently regulated. In this particular example, the 

8-psi pressure was rounded up from 7.5 psi, 

representing the nadir midpoint of a 15-psi pressure 

taper. 

14According to the test report, the relevant 

unintentional release resulted from a mechanical 

problem concerning the mid-train DPU’s main 

reservoir compressor governor, which caused the 

main reservoir’s air pressure to fluctuate outside its 

normal range. More specifically, the affected 

equipment included an 8,902 foot, 12,248-ton 

manifest train operated January 8, 2015. The DPU 

was in 2x1x0 configuration (mid-train unit), and the 

train was operating at temperatures between ¥2 °F 

and ¥8 °F. The engineer reported that ‘‘DP main 

reservoir would drop when standing and lower 

brake pipe below equalizing reservoir pressure. [He] 

would have to take deeper sets greater than 15 psi 

to hold the train due to fluctuation in main 

reservoir pressure on the DP.’’ The railroad 

commented that brake pipe flow on the lead 

locomotive remained in the low 20 CFMs, but 

acknowledged the engineer was having issues with 

the main reservoir pressure on the DPU. The 

railroad concluded that the main reservoir problems 

could have resulted in the reported unintentional 

release. The test committee concurred with the 

railroad’s findings. The problem with the main 

reservoir of the DP unit was mechanical, and not 

related to the subject study of the test. 

sources of air, the total leakage from the 

brake pipe can be greater than 60 CFM, 

as long as each individual source of air 

is controlling a portion of the brake pipe 

that leaks less than 60 CFM, causing the 

overall average brake pipe pressure to be 

better controlled than it would be with 

a single source of air. 

As explained in more detail in the 

NPRM, since 2011, Canadian railroads 

have operated with the higher air flow 

limit of 90 CFM on DP trains. Under a 

waiver issued by FRA in Docket No. 

FRA–2012–0091 (test waiver), several 

Class 1 railroads in the U.S. have tested 

and operated with air flow limits of 90 

CFM on DP trains. With the exception 

of one unintentional brake release that 

occurred during testing, all trains tested 

in the U.S. were operated safely and 

without incident. Of the one train that 

experienced an unintentional brake 

release, the test committee overseeing 

the operations concluded that the 

occurrence was an anomaly and not 

related to the test. 

In the NPRM, FRA proposed to revise 

§ 232.205(c)(ii)(B) to allow the use of a 

combined 90 CFM air flow limit on DP 

and ARU-equipped trains, provided 

railroads implement operating rules to 

ensure compliant operation of a train if 

air flow exceeds these parameters after 

the Class I brake test is completed. The 

combined air flow is derived by the sum 

of the air flow from all air sources in the 

train. Comments were filed by the 

Railroads, Labor, and an individual 

commenter. 

The Railroads concur with FRA’s 

proposal to permit the use of 90 CFM 

and a requirement to update each 

railroad’s operating rules to address its 

use. An individual commenter 

expressed a high level of confidence in 

the safe use of 90 CFM during a leakage 

test with additional air sources. 

According to the commenter, adding air 

sources, especially during cold weather 

conditions, could mitigate risk and even 

allow the safe use of a 160 CFM limit. 

Labor expressed concern regarding 

high air flow rates and the reduction of 

8 psi regarding pressure taper limits.12

Labor believes 90 CFM is too high a 

limit, because ‘‘greater air compressor 

power should mean need less effort 

expended and less overall airflow due to 

having more compressors working to 

maintain pressure [sic].’’ Labor seeks 

additional information on the 

unintentional release that occurred 

during the test waiver in the U.S. Labor 

also notes that the NPRM is silent 

regarding how an ARU, as defined, will 

be inspected, tested and maintained. 

According to Labor, an ARU is a 

locomotive appurtenance and its 

operation should comply with part 229, 

including the daily inspection 

requirements, because it functions as a 

part of the controls of a train’s air brake 

system. 

It appears that Labor misinterprets the 

effect of the 8-psi reduction in brake 

pipe pressure. FRA notes that a 

conventional end-of-train brake pipe 

supply is permitted a pressure taper of 

up to 15 psi. See § 232.103(m). In the 

test waiver issued by FRA in Docket No. 

FRA–2012–0091, the test committee 

found that the amount of leakage that 

would cause a 15-psi pressure taper on 

a conventional end-of-train air source 

(i.e., where brake pipe gradient is 

measured from the rear of the train) only 

creates an 8-psi pressure ‘‘sag’’ between 

two DP locomotives.13 This condition 

not only provides more available 

braking power than a compliant 

conventional train with a permitted 15- 

psi pressure taper, but provides a train 

that responds to brake control signals in 

approximately one-half the time, 

arguably resulting in a safer train. 

Labor further states concerns that its 

crews are being required to operate 

trains with AFM indicator readings over 

‘‘100 psi.’’ This is a misunderstanding of 

the AFM indicator. The AFM indicator 

tells the engineer the leakage of his 

brake pipe in CFM, not in psi. 

Nonetheless, if Labor is concerned that 

railroads are instructing employees to 

operate trains in non-compliance with 

these regulations, FRA encourages Labor 

to contact an appropriate representative 

of FRA’s Office of Railroad Safety to 

investigate the specific matter. 

In response to Labor’s comment 

seeking information about the 

unintentional release during the test 

waiver, FRA notes that Labor was fully 

involved in the test waiver on which 

FRA based its proposal. See Docket No. 

FRA–2012–0091. Individual engineers 

completed test reports for each train 

operated and three BLET members were 

part of the test committee where they 

ultimately supported a 90 CFM limit. 

Each test report required the operating 

engineer to report information related to 

the train’s operations (e.g., equipment 

identification, route, temperature, air 

flow at origination and en-route, brake 

system performance and whether any 

unintentional release occurred). 

Ultimately, the entire test committee 

came to a consensus that the single 

unintentional brake release was an 

anomaly and insignificant to the test.14

With regard to Labor’s assertion that 

use of 90 CFM is unsafe, FRA notes that 

Labor’s comment does not consider the 

use of additional air sources such as a 

DP or ARU, which is the fundamental 

basis of FRA’s proposal. As FRA 

explained above, the additional air 

sources provided by a DPU or ARU 

reduces the gradient within the brake 

pipe, maintains a higher overall 

pressure, and provides a quicker 

response to air brake reductions; 

resulting in faster brake applications. 

Each additional compressor from a DP 

locomotive or an ARU reduces the stress 

on any one compressor, likely making 

the system more safe. FRA does not 

agree with Labor’s characterization of an 

ARU as an appurtenance automatically 

subject to the requirements of part 229. 

Under the Locomotive Inspection Act 

(the ‘‘Act,’’ 49 U.S.C. 20701), a 

locomotive and its ‘‘appurtenances’’ 

must be ‘‘in proper condition and safe 

to operate’’ before it can be placed in 

service. FRA’s Locomotive Safety 

Standards (49 CFR part 229) implement 

the Act. Under the Act, if a locomotive 

or appurtenance of a locomotive does 

not meet the ‘‘in proper condition and 

safe to operate’’ standard, it may not be 

placed in service. See 49 CFR 229.7. 

Because the use of an ARU is optional 

and not necessary for a locomotive to be 

‘‘in proper condition and safe to 

operate,’’ an ARU is not an 

appurtenance to the locomotive under 

the Act. While Labor argues an ARU is 

an appurtenance, ‘‘because it functions 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
80556 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

15 If a railroad believes certain waiver conditions, 

including quarterly reports, are no longer necessary, 

then the railroad is welcome to request revision or 

rescission of that waiver. 

as a part of the controls of a train’s air 

brake system,’’ it is more akin to an EOT 

device in its relationship to a 

locomotive; it receives commands but is 

not a component of a locomotive. 

Moreover, an ARU differs from a 

locomotive in that it does not have 

motive traction power. Without a 

propelling motor or control stand, an 

ARU cannot be considered a locomotive 

per §§ 229.5 or 232.5. Accordingly, an 

ARU is not automatically subject to part 

229. 

With respect to Labor’s concern about 

the inspection, safety, and maintenance 

of each ARU, FRA notes that ARUs are 

subject to the applicable requirements 

in parts 215 and 232. Indeed, an ARU 

shares many features and operations of 

a locomotive that is subject to part 229. 

For example, an ARU may contain a 

locomotive air brake system (automatic 

function, but not independent), a diesel 

generator, an air compressor, and a DP 

control unit. Most ARUs also likely 

include electrical wiring, internal 

walkways, rotating equipment, and 

main reservoir pressure air tanks, which 

could expose employees to the same 

hazards as a locomotive, if poorly 

maintained. 

In the NPRM, FRA proposed a 

definition for, and considered the use 

of, ARUs. In response to Labor’s 

comments on that proposed definition, 

FRA is clarifying how, under the 

existing regulations, each ARU must be 

properly maintained and functional for 

its safe operation. Because each ARU 

shares features with both locomotives 

and freight cars, each such element 

must comply with the appropriate 

regulatory requirement. 

The components of an ARU that are 

the same as those for a freight car must 

continue to be inspected in compliance 

with parts 215 and 232 and the 

components that are similar to a 

locomotive must be inspected in 

accordance with part 229. Accordingly, 

in paragraph (c)(9), FRA is specifying 

that each ARU operating in accordance 

with part 232 must comply with parts 

215 and 232, and, as appropriate, the 

relevant sections of part 229. While an 

ARU may share many features of a 

locomotive, it does not have a 

propelling motor, or a control stand for 

employees. See § 229.5 for the definition 

of ‘‘locomotive.’’ Thus, an ARU is not a 

locomotive. FRA recognizes, however, 

that certain elements of ARUs provide 

the same functionality as locomotives 

(e.g., they compress air, modulate the 

brake pipe, or otherwise control the 

train’s movement). Accordingly, to help 

ensure those features are functioning 

properly (as Labor notes in their 

comments), they must be inspected. 

New paragraph (c)(9) specifies that an 

ARU’s locomotive-like features must 

receive a pre-trip inspection in 

accordance with § 229.21 each time the 

train receives a Class I air brake test at 

its initial terminal. For example, 

depending on the construction and 

functionality of specific ARUs, 

applicable part 229 rules may include 

those concerning periodic air brake 

maintenance (§§ 229.29–33), general 

requirements (§§ 229.41–45), brake 

systems (§§ 229.46, 229.49–53, 229.59), 

electrical systems (§§ 229.83–87, 

229.91), internal combustion equipment 

(§§ 229.95–97, 229.101), and cabs, 

floors, and passageways (§ 229.119(c)). 

Similar to how FRA treats passenger 

equipment (see § 238.309(f)), because an 

ARU is not a locomotive, FRA is not 

requiring the inspection to be 

documented on form FRA F 6180–49A. 

Instead, FRA is requiring the inspection 

to be recorded on a form with 

substantially the same information and 

that otherwise complies with § 229.21. 

In light of the proven safety and 

efficacy of the test waiver, and after 

consideration of the comments filed in 

this rulemaking, FRA is adopting the 

proposed new § 232.205(c)(1)(ii)(B), 

which permits the use of a 90 CFM air 

flow limit on each train equipped with 

a DPU or ARU. To ensure the same level 

of safety intended by FRA during the 

waiver, but to allow for continued 

flexibility, FRA is requiring each 

railroad to implement operating rules 

intended to ensure compliant operation 

of a train if air flow exceeds the required 

parameters after the Class I brake test is 

completed. A railroad may consider 

using the test waiver’s conditions as a 

template or starting point when drafting 

their operating rules on this subject. 

While FRA appreciates the Railroads’ 

and the individual commenter’s 

comments in support of a higher CFM 

limit and notes that additional research 

is being performed to look at longer 

trains and higher air flow, currently, 

FRA’s experience and data only 

supports a 90 CFM limit with additional 

air sources. 

AFM Indicator Calibration 

Current § 232.205(c)(1)(iii) requires air 

flow indicator calibration at least every 

92 days and prohibits the calibration of 

air flow test orifices at temperatures 

below 20 °F. As noted in the NPRM, to 

calibrate each device accurately, the 

entire AFM system—not just the test 

orifices—must be calibrated at not less 

than 20 °F. In the NPRM, FRA proposed 

clarifying within the regulation that the 

temperature of the AFM indicator and 

the test orifices must be considered 

during calibration to ensure accuracy. 

The Railroads concur that AFM 

indicator temperature should be 

considered during calibration. In 

addition, the railroads state that the 

quarterly reports required under the 

waiver referenced in the NPRM are no 

longer necessary. Further, while the 

Railroads support codification of FRA 

guidance regarding the handling of an 

inoperative or out-of-calibration AFM 

indicator, they urge FRA to adopt the 

184-day periodic maintenance schedule 

for certain systems. 

In their comments, Labor did not 

contest the proposal, but raised related 

concerns. Labor states that, ‘‘a 

traditional form of leakage test method 

should also be used in temperatures less 

than 20 °F. Moreover, if an AFM cannot 

be calibrated without taking 

temperature into account, temperature 

also should be taken into account to 

verify the instrument’s readings.’’ Labor 

also believes that AFM indicators are 

appurtenances that should be regulated 

under part 229, because once installed 

they are no longer optional. 

The Railroads’ comment regarding 

adopting the 184-day periodic 

maintenance schedule is outside the 

scope of this rulemaking. In addition, 

while quarterly reports are required as 

part of the ongoing test waiver’s 

conditions, FRA did not propose to 

codify that requirement.15 Moreover, 

that particular test waiver remains 

under consideration. Any conclusions 

based on its early findings would be 

premature. FRA’s purpose of referring to 

this waiver in the NPRM was solely to 

identify the AFM indicator temperature 

issue in support of the proposed 

requirement that the AFM indicator 

temperature must also be considered. 

If the AFM indicator is calibrated at 

a temperature above 20 °F, its use will 

still be acceptable at lower 

temperatures. Using ideal gas law 

calculations, the permitted variation of 

±3 CFM can be expressed as a variation 

of approximately 100 °F. Therefore, if an 

AFM indicator is precisely calibrated at 

70 °F, its calibration should be in 

tolerance from 20° to 120 °F. 

Theoretically (by calculation), at 20 °F, 

an AFM reading of 60 CFM would be an 

air flow of 57.2 CFM. Where V = 

volumetric flow in CFM, and T = 

temperature of air into the AFM 

(absolute units in °R), with V1 = 60 

CFM, T1 = 70 °F, T2 = 20 °F we calculate 

V2 from equation 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5ER11DE20.015</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 80557 

16On March 1, 2019, AAR submitted a petition 

for rulemaking that, if granted, would allow rail 

cars with a valid eABS record to travel up to 2,500 

miles between brake tests and inspections. In this 

proceeding, FRA is addressing only foundational 

requirements, such as the 24-hour off-air proposal, 

that could support the full implementation of eABS. 

However, FRA expects to address this issue in the 

eABS Rule. 

17FRA notes that paragraph (a)(1)(iv), which is 

being redesignated as paragraph (a)(1)(iii), requires 

each railroad to provide to FRA ‘‘the locations 

where all train brake and mechanical inspections 

and tests will be performed’’ for each designated 

extended haul train. See 49 CFR 232.213(a)(1)(iv). 

In other words, the submission must include the 

location of every expected brake and mechanical 

inspection, not only the Class I inspections 

performed by a qualified mechanical inspector, on 

the designated train. 

18 In its comments, TWU purports to offer 

alternative rule text, but merely restates the existing 

text of § 232.213(a)(6). Accordingly, FRA was 

unable to consider any particular revisions to the 

rule text that TWU may have contemplated. 

(Note T1 = 460 + 70 = 530): V2 = 57.2 

CFM. Because this error is on the ‘‘safe’’ 

side of the air flow rule (i.e., in colder 

temperatures the AFM indicator will 

display more air leakage than is actually 

occurring), FRA is confident in the safe 

use of an AFM indicator at lower 

temperatures. 

In response to the Labor comment that 

an AFM indicator is an appurtenance to 

the locomotive, FRA disagrees because 

its use is optional under § 232.205(c) 

and unnecessary for a locomotive to be 

‘‘in proper condition and safe to 

operate.’’ Accordingly, the daily 

inspection requirements of part 229 do 

not apply to an AFM indicator. 

However, as proposed in the NPRM, 

FRA is adopting new paragraph 

(c)(1)(iv) which requires the recording of 

the last date of calibration on Form FRA 

F6180–49A (locomotive ‘‘blue card’’). 

While that Form applies to locomotives, 

the field provided for AFM indicator 

calibration has been included as a 

matter of convenience for compliance 

with and enforcement of new 

§ 232.205(c)(1)(iv) instead of requiring a 

second form for non-appurtenances. 

To clarify the rules applicable to 

noncompliant or out-of-calibration AFM 

indicators, as proposed, FRA is adding 

a new paragraph (c)(1)(v). This new 

paragraph prohibits the use of an AFM 

indicator not in compliance with part 

232 and requires tagging a 

noncompliant AFM indicator in 

accordance with § 232.15(b), with the 

tag to be placed in a conspicuous 

location of the controlling locomotive 

cab. 

Section 232.207 Class IA Brake Tests— 

1,000-Mile Inspection 

Although not proposed in the NPRM, 

due to an internal agency 

reorganization, FRA is removing 

references to the FRA Regional 

Administrator in § 232.207(c)(2). 

Section 232.209 Class II Brake Tests— 

Intermediate Inspection 

FRA is amending the off-air 

requirements of this section without 

change from the NPRM. Please refer to 

the off-air requirements analysis 

provided for § 232.205. 

Section 232.211 Class III Brake TestsTrainline Continuity Inspection 

FRA is amending the off-air 

requirements of this section without 

change from the NPRM. Please refer to 

the off-air requirements analysis 

provided for § 232.205. 

Section 232.213 Extended Haul Trains 

Under existing § 232.213, a railroad 

may be permitted to move a train up to, 

but not exceeding, 1,500 miles between 

brake tests and inspections if the 

railroad designates a train as an 

extended haul train and the train meets 

certain requirements.16 For a train to 

qualify as an extended haul train, 

paragraph (a)(1) requires the railroad to, 

in writing, designate the train as an 

extended haul train and provide certain 

information to FRA, including ‘‘[t]he 

type or types of equipment the train will 

haul.’’ See 49 CFR 232.213(a)(1)(iii). 

Railroads have complied with 

§ 232.213(a)(1)(iii) by periodically 

supplying FRA with spreadsheets 

identifying their extended haul trains 

and providing the required information. 

In the NPRM, FRA reminded railroads 

of the need to identify, with sufficient 

clarity, the type of equipment being 

hauled in extended haul trains. FRA 

also sought comments and information 

on how to achieve such clarity, what 

level of description FRA should expect, 

and how to otherwise differentiate 

extended haul trains for oversight 

purposes. Noting that § 232.213 no 

longer provides for an inbound 

inspection of all extended haul trains, 

and paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6) contain 

certain requirements related to that 

previous inbound inspection 

requirement, FRA proposed to modify 

those paragraphs to remove the outdated 

references to inbound inspections. 

In response to FRA’s request for 

comments on types of equipment, the 

Railroads expressed the view that the 

type of equipment used in an extended 

haul train has no bearing on the safe 

operation of that train or its brakes and 

that the requirement to report the 

information to FRA is outdated. 

Accordingly, the Railroads 

recommended that § 232.213(a)(1)(iii) be 

deleted. 

While the information required under 

§ 232.213(a)(1)(iii) is useful to FRA for 

focusing inspection resources, FRA 

agrees with the Railroads comments that 

it is not otherwise necessary. 

Accordingly, in this final rule, FRA is 

deleting paragraph (a)(1)(iii) and 

redesignating paragraph (a)(1)(iv) as 

paragraph (a)(1)(iii).17

In the NPRM, FRA proposed to add a 

new paragraph (8) to this section that 

would provide railroads the flexibility 

to designate different inspection and 

test locations for extended haul trains in 

certain circumstances. FRA mirrored 

proposed new paragraph (8) on the 

notification procedures of 

§ 232.207(c)(2), which allow railroads to 

change the location of Class IA brake 

tests without prior notice to FRA in 

certain emergency situations. 

Codification of this practice would 

provide the railroads a flexible reporting 

procedure, and ultimately regulatory 

certainty, to address emergency 

circumstances involving extended haul 

operations. Due to an internal 

reorganization, FRA is also removing 

the reference to the Regional 

Administrator in paragraph (8). 

While the Railroads concur with 

FRA’s proposed new paragraph (8), 

TWU objects to the paragraph, asserting 

that § 232.213 should not be altered in 

any way. TWU states that sufficient 

flexibility already exists and that the 

proposal would allow railroads ‘‘more 

latitude to close more yards and further 

reduce the number of Carmen available 

to perform’’ Class I inspections.18 TWU 

also notes that, if FRA did not codify the 

proposed flexibility, a railroad could 

still modify its designated inspection 

locations by submitting an updated 

extended haul train list complying with 

§ 232.213(a). 

However, requiring such a process 

could frustrate railroads’ ability to 

respond to emergency situations and the 

process would provide no safety benefit. 

Accordingly, FRA is adopting new 

paragraph (a)(8) as proposed in the 

NPRM. 

With respect to paragraphs (a)(5) and 

(6), the Railroads concurred with FRA’s 

proposed removal of the outdated 

references to inbound inspections in 

those paragraphs and there were no 

other comments. FRA is, therefore, 

adopting the revisions to paragraphs 

(a)(5) and (a)(6) as proposed. 

In the NPRM, FRA also requested 

comments on potential regulatory 

alternatives to the existing extended 

haul provisions of § 232.213, potential 

improvements that could be made to the 

section to clarify or expand the 

provision, or whether this provision 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
80558 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

19FRA notes that in the NPRM’s preamble, FRA 

erroneously referred to Sections 4 and 5 of AAR 

Standard S–486, when the appropriate references 

were Sections 3 and 4. 85 FR at 2503. 

could be eliminated by the adoption of 

certain alternative standards or 

requirements. For example, the section 

currently distinguishes between an 

inspection conducted by a qualified 

mechanical inspector (QMI) and a 

qualified person (QP) (both of which are 

defined in § 232.5). FRA requested 

comments and data on whether this 

distinction is still justified and 

necessary. 

In response to this request for 

comment, the Railroads assert that the 

distinction between QMIs and QPs is no 

longer justified. According to the 

Railroads, ‘‘there is no difference 

between the safety of trains that receive 

a QMI test as compared to those tested 

by a QP.’’ However, the Railroads did 

not provide any data to support this 

assertion. Although the issue of 

distinguishing between QMI and QP 

inspections is relevant to any discussion 

of extending the mileage trains may 

travel between brake inspections, 

without sufficient data, FRA is unable to 

eliminate the distinction between QMIs 

and QPs at this time. However, FRA 

intends to consider this issue further in 

the eABS Rule. FRA encourages 

railroads to provide any data relevant to 

the safety distinctions and synergies 

between QMI and QP inspections in that 

rulemaking proceeding. 

In its comments, the Railroads also 

recommended that FRA permit all trains 

receiving an initial terminal Class I 

brake test by a: (1) QP to operate up to 

1,500 miles, and (2) by a QMI to operate 

up to 2,000 miles, without requiring an 

intermediate (e.g., Class IA) brake test 

and with an unrestricted number of 

pick-ups and set-offs. To have the 

benefit of public comment on this 

recommendation, FRA expects to fully 

consider this recommendation in the 

eABS Rule. 

Section 232.217 Train Brake Tests 

Conducted Using Yard Air 

FRA is amending the off-air 

requirements of this section without 

change from the NPRM. Please refer to 

the off-air requirements analysis 

provided for § 232.205. 

Section 232.219 Double-Heading and 

Helper Service 

Section 232.219 provides regulations 

for the operation of double-headed and 

helper locomotives in a train including 

when Helper Link or a similar 

technology is used to control the 

emergency brake function on helper 

locomotive consists. As explained in the 

NPRM, the section, as written, is 

appropriate for a train with an EOT 

device; however, the section is 

incompatible with trains that are not 

equipped with traditional EOT devices, 

including ECP-brake operated trains and 

trains with DP units in lieu of an EOT 

device. To address this issue, in 

response to requests from two railroads, 

FRA issued waivers from this 

requirement for ECP brake-configured 

train consists and DP consists with one 

or more DP (non-helper) locomotives on 

the rear. See Docket Nos. FRA–2006– 

26435 and FRA–2014–0013. Since 

granting these waivers, there has been 

no known negative impact on safety 

involving these operations. 

In the NPRM, FRA proposed to codify 

these waivers by adding a new 

paragraph (d) to § 232.219 to permit the 

use of a properly installed and tested 

EOT device on the helper locomotive 

that is cut-in to the train line air supply, 

provided railroads develop and 

implement associated operating rules 

consistent with parts 221 (concerning 

marker light display) and 232 

(concerning EOT device installation and 

testing) and the conditions established 

in the waivers discussed above. 

Both the Railroads and Labor support 

codifying these waivers, but Labor urges 

FRA not to eliminate paragraph (c)(3). In 

response to Labor’s comment, FRA 

notes that it did not intend to eliminate 

paragraph (c)(3), which includes a 

maintenance requirement for Helper 

Link devices used on DP- or ECPequipped trains. To enhance clarity in 

light of Labor’s comment, FRA is 

adopting the substance of proposed 

paragraph (d) as new paragraph (c)(3) 

and existing paragraph (c)(3), which 

requires periodic testing and calibration 

of devices subject to § 232.219, is being 

redesignated as paragraph (c)(4). 

A usage under new (c)(3) must still 

meet the requirements of (c)(1) and 

(c)(2). All usages must meet the 

requirements of the new (c)(4). 

Section 232.305 Single Car Air Brake 

Tests 

Section 232.305(a) requires each SCT 

to be performed in accordance with the 

Sections 3.0 (‘‘Tests-Standard Freight 

Brake Equipment’’) and 4.0 (‘‘Special 

Tests’’) of AAR Standard S–486–04 

(2004) (‘‘Code of Air Brake System Tests 

for Freight Equipment’’), Section E of 

the AAR Manual of Standards and 

Recommended Practices (Jan. 1, 2004), 

or an alternative standard approved by 

FRA in accordance with § 232.307. 

Under the processes outlined in 

§ 232.307, which allows the industry to 

request FRA approval of modifications 

to a currently acceptable SCT 

procedure, FRA approved the use of 

AAR Standard S–486–18 in May 2018. 

See Docket No. FRA–2018–0011. The 

purpose of S–486 is to provide a means 

of making a general check on the 

condition of the brake equipment on 

cars as called for in the Filed Manual of 

the AAR Interchange Rules. Only 

Sections 4 and 5 are codified, as these 

are the tests that ensure safe operation 

of individual freight car brakes to 

comply with the Safety Appliance Act. 

Other sections of the Standard contain 

supplemental information that are not 

codified to provide flexibility to be 

updated without meeting Federal 

requirements. These include 

troubleshooting guidance and 

information on the maintenance and 

construction of the physical testing 

devices. Accordingly, in the NPRM, 

FRA proposed to update AAR Standard 

S–486–04 to AAR Standard S–486–18.19

FRA received no comments in response 

to its proposal to incorporate the 

updated AAR Standard S–486 and is 

incorporating the updated standard as 

proposed. 

FRA also proposed to incorporate in 

paragraph (a), AAR Standard S–4027, 

which provides an automated process to 

perform a SCT with an automated single 

car test device (ASCTD). As explained 

in the NPRM, AAR Standard S–4027 

provides for two types of automated 

single cars tests: (1) An automated test 

using an ASCTD connected to the end 

of a freight car; and (2) an automated 

test performed from the side of a car 

using the four-pressure manifold. FRA 

had conditionally approved a test 

waiver permitting BNSF and UP to 

perform SCTs with an ASCTD using 

AAR Standard S–4027 in lieu of AAR 

Standard S–486–4. See Docket No. 

FRA–2013–0030. In the NPRM, FRA 

detailed the test committee consensus 

process and its positive results and 

findings under that test waiver for 

800,000 SCTs performed on freight cars 

over 4.5 years. No opposing comments 

were filed on the process, results, 

findings, or the standard itself and FRA 

is incorporating the standard as 

proposed. 

Paragraph (b) identifies the events 

triggering a required single car air brake 

test. For instance, under paragraph 

(b)(2), ‘‘a railroad shall perform a single 

car air brake test on a car 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.’’ Based on the results 

performed by the tests under Docket No. 

FRA–2013–0030, and the ability of the 

subject technology to provide a more 

comprehensive testing of the braking 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 80559 

system, FRA proposed requiring a SCT 

on each car on a shop or repair track for 

any reason that has not received a SCT 

with an end-of-car ASCTD within the 

previous 24-month period or with a 

four-pressure ASCTD within the 

previous 48-month period. 

As FRA noted in the preamble to the 

NPRM, FRA based this proposal on the 

test waiver’s findings that, after 4.5 

years, cars tested with end-of-car 

ASCTDs experienced an 18% reduction 

in the rate of repeat brake failures, while 

a four-pressure test experienced a 58% 

reduction. ASCTDs generally identify 

more air brake system defects than other 

tests in the categories of air components, 

control valves and pipe brackets, valves 

and subsystems. Data from the test 

waiver has also shown that a car tested 

with an end-of-car ASCTD is 26% less 

likely to have an AAR-condemnable 

wheel impact load detector indication, 

and ASCTD tests with four-pressure 

showed a 70% reduction. 

TWU opposes lengthening the 

minimum testing requirement from 12- 

months to 24–48 months, arguing that 

carriers ‘‘could be missing deficiencies 

that will turn into a major incident or 

derailment.’’ Noting FRA’s assertion in 

the NPRM’s preamble that, on a daily 

basis, thousands of individual freight 

cars are overdue for their SCT, TWU 

notes that there is an ‘‘overabundance’’ 

of furloughed mechanical employees. 

As such, TWU suggests that, ‘‘[r]ather 

than lowering the standards,’’ FRA 

should penalize railroads for 

‘‘intentionally undermining safety.’’ 

Labor states that FRA should enforce the 

existing requirements on the thousands 

of overdue cars rather than ‘‘move the 

goalposts.’’ TWU and Labor also object 

to removing the ‘‘repair yard provision’’ 

for SCTs. 

The Railroads support the ASCTD 

rules as proposed, but contest FRA’s 

concern regarding the number cars 

overdue their SCTs. 

In response to TWU and Labor’s 

comments, FRA notes that it did not 

propose to change the rules as they 

concern application of a conventional 

SCT. To the contrary, FRA continues to 

require a SCT on each car appearing on 

a repair track at more than 12 months 

since its previous test using 

conventional testing equipment and 

would not remove the repair yard 

provision as it currently exists for any 

tests. 

Instead, FRA’s proposal would only 

extend the time allowed between each 

SCT conducted using an ASCTD under 

AAR Standard S–4027. Because AAR 

Standard S–4027 provides a highly 

repeatable test methodology with more 

accurate results, railroads can make 

more effective repairs, which may help 

reduce the backlog referenced in TWU’s 

concerns. 

In addition to the repair track 

provision of paragraph (b)(2), 

paragraphs (c) and (d) require a SCT on 

each car no less than 8 years after it was 

built or rebuilt, and no less than every 

5 years thereafter. In the NPRM, FRA 

requested comments on the need to 

maintain these requirements. 

In response, the Railroads urge FRA to 

delete any time-based test cycles and to 

instead adopt ‘‘performance-based 

triggers (e.g., identified via the study of 

data on actual line-of-road issues).’’ 

While FRA understands the Railroads’ 

request to replace the time-based test 

triggers required under paragraphs 

(b)(2), (c), and (d) with a performance 

standard relying on ‘‘line-of-road’’ 

capabilities, the request is unsupported 

by any specific performance standard, 

analysis, or data. Accordingly, FRA 

cannot implement the Railroad’s request 

at this time. 

For the reasons outlined above, in this 

final rule FRA is adopting the changes 

proposed to paragraph (b)(2), but not 

paragraphs (c) and (d). 

Section 232.307 Modification of the 

Single Car Air Brake Test Procedures 

Existing § 232.307 provides a 

procedure for industry to seek 

modification of the single car air brake 

test procedures in § 232.305(e). As 

discussed in the section-by section 

analysis for § 232.603 below, in 

response to FRA’s NPRM proposal to 

modify § 232.603, the Railroads 

commented that proposed paragraph (g) 

of that section was confusing because it 

referred to the existing procedures in 

§ 232.307, which in turn only referred to 

§ 232.305(a). In this final rule, FRA is 

revising § 232.307, so that incorporated 

industry standards for air brake 

maintenance and testing may be 

updated utilizing the procedures of that 

section. When utilizing § 232.307, a 

petitioner will be required to specify the 

part, section, and paragraph for which 

modification is requested. Presently, 

§§ 232.305 and 232.603 refer to 

§ 232.307. This final rule adds 

references to §§ 232.717 (addressing 

tourist, scenic, historic, and excursion 

operations braking systems) and 232.409 

(addressing inspection and testing of 

EOT devices). Consistent with these 

revisions, FRA is also updating the title 

of § 232.307 to eliminate the specific 

reference to single car air brake test 

procedures and to refer more generally 

to ‘‘brake test procedures.’’ 

Section 232.403 Design Standards for 

One-Way End-of-Train Devices 

Section 232.403 includes design 

standards for one-way EOT devices. In 

the NPRM, FRA proposed to modify 

paragraphs (d)(6) and (f)(4), which 

include shock requirements for rear and 

front units, referring to a 0.1 second 

window. In the NPRM, FRA indicated 

that the 0.1 second interval in 

paragraphs (d)(6) and (f)(4) is too large 

for maintaining a peak shock threshold 

and is likely a typographical or other 

error from a previous rulemaking. 

Accordingly, FRA proposed to make the 

shock requirements in these paragraphs 

the same as the 0.01 second peak shock 

threshold in AAR Standards S–9152 and 

S–9401. The only comment received 

supported correcting this typographical 

error, and therefore, FRA is adopting the 

proposed revisions to paragraphs (d)(6) 

and (f)(4). 

Paragraph (g)(2) currently requires a 

minimum EOT device battery life of 36 

hours at 0 °C. As noted in the NPRM, 

manufacturers have developed EOT 

devices that rely less on batteries and 

more on an internal, air-powered 

generator, which converts mechanical 

energy—created by the brake pipe air 

pressure—into electricity used to power 

the EOT device. 

In the NPRM, FRA proposed 

codifying two long-standing waivers 

providing relief from this requirement 

for EOT devices using an air-powered 

generator as a power source. See Docket 

Nos. FRA–2006–25794 and FRA–2001– 

9270. In these waivers, FRA required 

each subject EOT device to include a 

back-up battery with a minimum 

operating life of 12 hours at 0 °C and the 

railroads to submit reports on the 

devices’ usage and performance. 

As noted in the NPRM, to date, FRA 

has not received any reports of 

accidents due to EOT device operations 

under these waivers. Accordingly, FRA 

proposed a new paragraph (g)(3) to 

provide for use of an air-powered 

generator as a primary power source as 

long as it operates with a backup battery 

with a minimum of 12 hours of 

continuous power at 0 °C. This change 

will improve efficiency and is 

consistent with railroad safety. 

The Railroads agree with FRA’s 

proposal to require that each back-up 

battery to an EOT device’s air-powered 

generator be capable of providing 12 

hours of continuous power at 0 °C. The 

Railroads also suggest FRA adopt a 

flexible, performance-based provision 

addressing EOTs generally and provide 

alternative language to accommodate 

future developments, such as the use of 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
80560 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

other power sources or EOT devices 

becoming obsolete. 

Labor supports requiring a back-up 

battery to each EOT device’s airpowered generator, but believes it 

should include more than 12 hours of 

energy and provide subsequent crews 

with power-level notifications. 

Various manufacturers and railroads 

have already, under the waivers, built 

and installed 12-hour back-up batteries. 

Labor has not provided any data, 

examples, or other information showing 

why 12 hours would be insufficient. To 

require a number higher than 12 hours 

would create a potentially unnecessary 

yet substantial burden on manufacturers 

and railroads to remove existing 

batteries and purchase and install new 

batteries. While a longer back-up battery 

life may provide a convenience to users, 

it would result in no new safety 

benefits. Moreover, current 

manufactured units may not be able to 

accept batteries with different 

specifications. Similarly, to require 

power notifications such as a percentage 

or other spectrum of available power 

would require modification of all 

affected EOT systems and batteries. 

With approximately 27,000 EOT devices 

registered in Umler, Labor has provided 

no data on the impact on the railroads 

and the public of such a requirement. 

Although FRA is open to a 

performance-based approach to 

powering EOT devices, no performance 

standard was proposed or otherwise 

offered in this proceeding. FRA notes 

the Railroads’ prediction that EOT 

devices may be rendered obsolete, but 

the Railroads provided no evidence, 

alternatives, or timelines showing such 

a possibility. While a suitable 

performance standard is not currently 

feasible, FRA is modifying the language 

of §§ 232.17(a) and (b), and 232.407(c) to 

provide special approval procedure 

consideration for the introduction of 

new and novel alternative technologies 

that serve the same or similar purposes 

as EOT devices in the interest of 

maintaining regulatory flexibility for 

future innovation. 

For the reasons discussed above, in 

this final rule FRA is modifying 

paragraph (g)(2) and adding new 

paragraph (g)(3) as proposed. 

Section 232.407 Operations Requiring 

Use of Two-Way End-of-Train Devices; 

Prohibition on Purchase of 

Nonconforming Devices 

Section 232.407 addresses operations 

requiring the use of two-way EOT 

devices. 

Although not specifically proposed in 

the NPRM, FRA is modifying paragraph 

(e)(1) to clarify that because an ARU (as 

defined in this final rule) is equipped 

with telemetry as defined for EOT 

devices in existing subpart E, an ARU 

may be used under the (e)(1) exception 

for the requirement for the use of a twoway EOT device. At least one Class I 

railroad operating in Canada uses an 

ARU in this manner and as long as an 

ARU performs the same function as an 

EOT device or DPU, and is operated and 

regulated in the same manner, such an 

allowance is warranted. As discussed in 

more detail in the analysis of the new 

definition of ‘‘ARU’’ in § 232.5 above, 

similar to the use of a DP locomotive 

currently contemplated under (e)(1), an 

ARU may communicate with, and 

receive wireless commands from a 

controlling locomotive to help regulate 

the brake system’s air supply and 

pressure. 

In the NPRM, FRA proposed to 

modify paragraph (f)(2), which 

addresses battery charging requirements 

for two-way EOT devices. Specifically, 

FRA proposed adding language to the 

end of the paragraph to require the 

testing of air-powered, generatorequipped devices to determine the 

‘‘residual charge’’ of the back-up battery 

before initiating operation. As FRA 

explained in the NPRM, this 

requirement is ‘‘meant to ensure that the 

generator back-up battery has a minimal 

residual charge, which will ensure that 

it is working properly and is capable of 

temporarily powering the EOT device 

should the air-powered generator fail.’’ 

85 FR 2505. 

In their comments, Labor supports 

mandatory testing of each EOT device’s 

back-up batteries, but asserts that FRA 

should use the term ‘‘sufficient charge.’’ 

The Railroads concur with FRA’s 

proposed language in paragraph (f)(2) 

requiring the testing of air-poweredgenerator-equipped devices to 

determine the charge of the back-up 

battery before initiating operation. 

However, the Railroads urge FRA to 

adopt language to accommodate power 

sources other than batteries. 

While FRA requires a primary battery 

to be sufficiently charged under 

paragraph (f)(2), under the waiver 

allowing the use of an air-powered 

generator, FRA prohibited the use of a 

dead battery. To comply with that 

condition, the suppliers manufactured 

EOT devices with a ‘‘minimum charge’’ 

indication showing that the battery has 

enough residual charge to accept 

charging from the air-powered 

generator. Labor has not provided any 

data or information showing why either 

a ‘‘residual charge’’ or ‘‘minimum 

charge’’ indication is insufficient and 

FRA is reluctant to require 

manufacturers to incur costs to change 

the indication without a sufficient safety 

justification. 

Thus, in this final rule, FRA is using 

the term ‘‘minimum charge.’’ FRA 

understands a minimal charge of a backup power source to mean it has a 

sufficient residual charge to accept 

charging from the air-powered 

generator. Passing the initiation test is 

evidence that the back-up power source 

has the required minimum charge. 

While FRA agrees that other power 

sources may be considered, existing 

paragraphs (b) and (c) already provide 

for ‘‘alternative technology to perform 

the same function.’’ In response to the 

Railroads’ comment, FRA is clarifying 

these paragraphs and providing for the 

consideration of such alternative 

technologies under the special approval 

procedure defined under § 232.17. See 

also the discussion of §§ 232.17 above. 

Paragraph (f)(2) also requires that each 

EOT device’s battery be sufficiently 

charged at its initial terminal or other 

installation point and throughout the 

train’s trip to ensure that it will remain 

operative until the train reaches its 

destination. Although this is not a new 

requirement, the Railroads also request 

that FRA clarify the meaning of the 

phrase ‘‘until the train reaches its 

destination.’’ 

FRA addressed this issue in the 

preamble of the 1997 final rule. See 62 

FR 278, 289, 294–95, Jan. 2, 1997. FRA 

recognizes that the amount of a battery’s 

charge differs based on several 

variables, including the trip length. The 

railroad has the initial responsibility for 

determining how to comply with this 

performance standard, which can be 

based on manufacturer 

recommendations, scientific or 

mathematical studies, or experience. If 

an EOT device’s battery dies before 

destination, that is evidence that the 

railroad did not comply with this 

requirement. This requirement, 

however, would not necessarily apply to 

air-power generators or back-up power 

sources. Air-powered generators are not 

expected to hold a full trip’s worth of 

energy at the initial terminal of a train, 

because they are designed to charge 

continually during the train’s operation. 

FRA has set a different charge standard 

for back-up power sources. 

Section 232.409 Inspection and 

Testing of End-of-Train Devices 

Section 232.409 includes 

requirements for EOT device inspection 

and testing. More specifically, existing 

paragraph (d) requires each EOT 

device’s telemetry equipment be tested 

at least every 368 days for accuracy and 

calibrated, if necessary, in accordance 

with the manufacturer’s specifications 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 80561 

and procedures. In the NPRM, FRA 

proposed instead to require telemetry 

equipment be tested and calibrated in 

accordance with its manufacturer’s 

specifications and procedures, without 

requiring a maximum time interval 

between tests. FRA also proposed to add 

a new paragraph (e) to address 

comparison testing requirements for 

EOT device air pressure sensors. 

FRA based its proposed revision to 

paragraph (d) on the reduced need for 

periodic telemetric equipment 

calibration due to technological 

advances that include continuous 

feedback such as phase-lock loop (PLL). 

A PLL feedback system consists 

generally of a reference oscillator in 

addition to radio telemetry components. 

The reference oscillator sets the 

communications frequency for the radio 

telemetry components. If the radio 

telemetry components are not able to 

achieve the communications frequency 

set by the reference oscillator, then the 

radio will go into a fail-safe mode and 

will not operate. 

As explained in the NPRM, for EOT 

devices using PLL or a similar feedback 

loop technology, FRA granted multiple 

waivers from the 368-day calibration 

requirement for the radio portion only 

under the conditions that vendors apply 

a weather-resistant label on each 

applicable EOT device and 

manufacturers file annual reports on the 

rate of inoperable devices. See, e.g., 

Docket Nos. FRA–2015–0044; FRA– 

2012–0096; FRA–2009–0015; and FRA– 

2004–18895. FRA required 

manufacturers to file annual reports on 

the rate of inoperable devices to ensure 

the devices continued to operate safely 

over time without a calibration 

requirement. Based on the relatively 

long-term experience under the abovenoted waivers, and the data supplied in 

the annual reports, the continuous selfcheck circuitry of PLL technology 

ensures better overall safety given the 

potential for human error during 

periodic calibration. FRA’s proposed 

revision to paragraph (d) was based on 

data garnered from the required annual 

reporting on these waivers, summarized 

in the renewal applications contained in 

the applicable waiver dockets. However, 

this does not include the pressure 

sensor components of EOT devices. 

The Railroads agree with the 

proposed revision to paragraph (d). 

However, TWU believes FRA should 

continue to require calibration every 

368 days for all non-PLL units. 

According to TWU, not providing for 

FRA verification of EOT device 

calibration would incentivize carriers to 

underreport communication losses. 

Labor concurs that PLL technology 

reduces the need for telemetry 

calibration and supports continued 

application of the maximum calibration 

period under § 232.409 to EOT devices 

not yet PLL-equipped. 

FRA understands TWU’s concern. 

However, FRA expects that 

manufacturers will continue to set 

appropriate calibration intervals for 

non-PLL radios. Given the level of safety 

attained with calibrations performed at 

least every 368-days and that any 

change could create operational or legal 

exposure on a technology the industry 

no longer produces, FRA does not 

expect manufacturers to change such 

intervals significantly. In addition, as 

proposed in the NPRM and adopted in 

this final rule, if a manufacturer does 

not set a periodic calibration interval for 

any unit (including legacy non-PLL 

units), the manufacturer will be 

required to report under paragraph 

(f)(2). 

While TWU states that incorporating 

this allowance into regulations may 

incentivize underreporting of 

communications losses, it provides no 

analysis or data to support that 

prediction. Nevertheless, as further 

discussed below, under new paragraph 

(f) a manufacturer must describe in its 

annual report to FRA each time it 

repairs or reconditions a radio for an 

EOT device if it does not establish a 

calibration period for the device. Any 

underreporting would be a violation of 

this requirement. Accordingly, in this 

final rule, FRA is adopting its proposed 

revision to paragraph (d). 

Despite the waivers, and their 

codification in paragraph (d), each EOT 

device and its operation still must 

comply with the applicable 

requirements of part 229. Specifically, 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of § 229.27 

require comparison testing at least every 

368 days with a test gauge, or self-test 

designed for this purpose, for each 

device that: (1) Engineers use to aid in 

the control or braking of a train or 

locomotive; and (2) provides an 

indication of air pressure electronically. 

Because the air pressure sensor in the 

EOT device is used by the locomotive 

engineer to control the train, it is similar 

to the gauges in the cab and must 

comply with parts 229 and 232. 

Although § 229.27 applies to the air 

pressure sensor in an EOT device, 

because the air pressure reading at the 

EOT device is used to control the train, 

FRA proposed a cross-reference to 

§ 229.27 in proposed new paragraph (e) 

of § 232.409 for clarification purposes. 

Under existing § 229.27, an annual 

test must be performed on each device 

used by the engineer to aid in the 

control or braking of the train or 

locomotive that provides an indication 

of air pressure electronically (pressure 

sensors). For instance, each EOT-deviceequipped train relies on the pressure 

sensor to ensure compliant train 

handling, and in accordance with the 

pressure gradient requirements of 

§§ 232.103(m) and 232.205(c) and the 

Class III brake test performance 

requirements of § 232.211(c). Unlike the 

PLL radio portion of each EOT device, 

a pressure sensor does not self-test and 

react to pressure calibration drift. 

Labor submitted comments agreeing 

that all EOT devices must comply with 

§ 229.27. On the other hand, the 

Railroads commented that proposed 

paragraph (e) is not necessary. Instead, 

the Railroads recommended that FRA 

adopt alternative language requiring 

comparison testing in accordance with 

manufacturer’s specifications similar to 

that proposed in § 232.403. 

Although commenters provided no 

data, technology, or other specific riskmitigating alternative that would justify 

modifying the generally-applicable 

requirements related to comparison 

testing of EOT device pressure sensors, 

FRA finds that device manufacturers 

should have the required expertise to 

evaluate their own devices and 

determine if such devices could be 

successfully comparison tested on an 

alternative schedule or by an alternative 

process. Accordingly, to allow 

manufacturers the flexibility to develop 

alternative comparison testing standards 

for EOT device pressure sensors, FRA is 

revising proposed paragraph (e) to 

specify that the air pressure sensor 

contained in the EOT device must be 

tested by the processes and frequency 

identified in § 229.27 or by 

manufacturer specifications approved 

under § 232.307. If approved under 

§ 232.307, railroads using the applicable 

EOT device may apply the testing 

standard accordingly. 

Despite the positive experience under 

the waivers and FRA’s confidence in 

PLL technology, the frequency of the 

reference oscillator in an EOT device 

may, over time, ‘‘drift’’ outside of its 

accepted frequency range, which may 

affect a device remaining in 

communication with the front- or headof-train device. In electrical engineering, 

and particularly in telecommunications, 

‘‘frequency drift’’ is the unintended and 

generally arbitrary offset of an oscillator 

from its nominal frequency. Frequency 

drift that is not recognized during 

device initiation or otherwise by the 

EOT device’s self-check circuitry, may 

prevent the device from failing in a safe 

manner, and can only be corrected 

during calibration. Until recently, FRA 

had not received any reports of PLLVerDate Sep<11>2014 01:54 Dec 11, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11DER5.SGM 11DER5

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
80562 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

20See section-by-section analysis of § 232.203 

above. 

21On May 31, 2001, FRA issued an update to part 

232. Some of the prior rule text was preserved in 

section I of appendix B to part 232, which remained 

applicable to tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion 

railroads on the general system of transportation, 

who have not been required to operate under 

present parts 232 or 238. See §§ 232.1(d) and 

232.3(c)(5); 66 FR 4104, 4145–46, 4214, Jan. 17, 

2001. 

22FRA notes that this final rule incorporates by 

reference the January 1, 2020, version of AAR Rules 

3 and 4. Prior to publication of this final rule, 

however, AAR issued updated versions of each of 

these Rules and FRA anticipates incorporating the 

updated AAR rules in a future rulemaking 

proceeding. 

equipped radios experiencing frequency 

drift. However, since publication of the 

NPRM, FRA has been made aware of 

potential frequency drift in a very small 

percentage (less than 0.1%) of PLL 

transceivers covered under waiver FRA– 

2009–0015. Given this new information, 

FRA seeks to ensure this problem does 

not become more widespread, and is 

therefore codifying the waiver’s annual 

reporting requirement for devices 

without calibration intervals specified 

by the manufacturer. This additional 

requirement will enable FRA and radio 

manufacturers to track any potential 

increase in frequency drift occurrences 

and ensure proper calibration intervals. 

These reports could also provide 

information that is useful to formulate a 

future performance standard. Paragraph 

(f) requires manufacturers to submit 

annual reports regarding certain 

transceivers to provide a means for FRA 

to monitor transceiver performance 

periodically, if they choose not to set a 

calibration period. If a manufacturer of 

telemetry transceiver equipment has 

multiple transceiver model types 

without recommended finite calibration 

periods, then the information required 

must be provided by model type in their 

reporting. This will not be a new burden 

to the manufacturers as they have 

already been providing this information 

to FRA pursuant to the waivers. 

As noted in the NPRM, and in the 

discussion of § 232.203 above, FRA 

remains concerned with the safety risks 

associated with the reported and 

unreported loss of communications 

events between the controlling 

locomotive and the EOT device. As 

noted above, FRA understands that 

railroads are working to develop and 

implement solutions, but it does not 

appear that a feasible technological 

solution is yet available. Accordingly, as 

noted above, to address the safety risks 

involved with potential losses of 

communication, FRA is revising the 

training requirements at § 232.203(c) to 

ensure that employees that operate EOT 

equipment are trained in the limitations 

and proper use of the emergency 

application signal and the loss of 

communications indicator of the 

equipment to enable them to take 

effective action in the event of a 

communications loss.20

Section 232.603 Design, 

Interoperability, and Configuration 

Management Requirements 

Section 232.603 contains the design, 

interoperability, and configuration 

management requirements for ECP 

brakes. In the NPRM, FRA proposed to 

revise paragraphs (a) and (d), move 

paragraph (f) to (g), and add a new 

paragraph (f) to meet the formatting and 

structure requirements for incorporation 

by reference under 1 CFR part 51. FRA 

also proposed to update the standards 

incorporated by reference in in 

paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(6), 

and (a)(7). For a discussion of the 

purposes of these standards, please see 

the NPRM. 

FRA did not receive comments on the 

revisions and updates to paragraphs (a), 

(d), and (f). The purposes of the 

standards are as follows: S–4200 

ensures uniform and consistent 

functionality and performance of ECP 

freight brake systems from different 

manufacturers; S–4210 provides the 

qualification test procedure to verify 

that the designed components have high 

reliability, will withstand harsh 

environmental conditions, and have a 

minimum 8-year operating life; S–4230 

facilitates freight car and locomotive 

interoperability without limiting the 

proprietary design approaches used by 

individual suppliers and defines the 

requirements for an intratrain 

communications (ITC) system for freight 

equipment in revenue interchange 

service; S–4250 ensures uniform, 

consistent, and interoperable 

functionality and performance between 

devices developed by different 

manufacturers, by defining the highlevel performance requirements to 

operate multiple locomotives via an ITC 

network; and S–4260 identifies the test 

procedure that individual suppliers 

would complete to establish the 

interoperability baseline among ECP/ 

WDP (wire distributed power) systems 

that comply with the AAR S–4200 series 

of standards. Accordingly, FRA adopts 

those changes as proposed. 

The Railroads commented that 

proposed paragraph (g) is confusing, 

because it refers to existing procedures 

to update an incorporated by reference 

standard in § 232.307, which in turn 

references § 232.305(a). In this final 

rule, FRA is clarifying § 232.307, so that 

incorporated industry standards for air 

brake maintenance may be updated in a 

consistent and efficient manner. When 

utilizing § 232.307, a petitioner will be 

required to specify the part, section, and 

paragraph for which modification is 

requested. Presently, §§ 232.305, 

232.603, and 232.717 refer to § 232.307. 

Subpart H Tourist, Scenic, Historic, 

and Excursion Operations Braking 

Systems 

Appendix B was created to preserve 

part 232 as it existed prior to the 2001 

final rule, and was intended to apply to 

tourist, scenic, historic, and excursion 

operations.21 As proposed in the NPRM, 

this final rule is moving appendix B, 

with some revisions, to a new subpart 

H (§§ 232.700–232.719). FRA is only 

discussing those provisions of new 

subpart H that received public 

comments or have changed from the 

NPRM. The remaining provisions are 

being finalized as proposed, and not 

discussed here again. 

In § 232.717 of the NPRM, FRA 

proposed to reference Rule 4 of the 

‘‘2020 Field Manual of the AAR 

Interchange Rules’’ (‘‘AAR Field 

Manual’’). However, FRA has since 

realized that AAR Standard S–4045–13, 

which was referenced in proposed 

paragraph 232.717(b)(2), makes clear 

that the use of Rule 3 of the AAR Field 

Manual is also required for the 

maintenance of freight valves used on 

passenger equipment. Thus, to pinpoint 

the applicable rules more accurately for 

the convenience of the reader, all 

references to the AAR Field Manual in 

§ 232.717 will include both Rules 3 and 

4, which are concerned with the testing 

of railroad air brakes and with the 

maintenance of air brake valves and 

parts, respectively.22

In the NPRM, FRA indicated it was 

adding a paragraph (b)(2) to § 232.717. 

However, FRA notes that § 232.17 in 

appendix B, which became § 232.717 in 

proposed subpart H, already included a 

paragraph (b)(2). Accordingly, FRA 

notes that it is not ‘‘adding’’ a paragraph 

(b)(2), but rather just revising the 

paragraph as it existed previously in 

appendix B. 

Labor commented about the proposed 

‘‘significant relaxation’’ of current 

maintenance practices and operating 

requirements in 232.717(b), including 

the ‘‘cleaned, repaired, lubricated, and 

tested’’ periodic inspection 

requirements for 26–C and D–22 brake 

valves. According to Labor, while a 

relaxed periodicity of these practices 

may be appropriate to apply to the stateof-the-art locomotives used in pilot 

programs by the Class I railroads, 

extending the same relief to the ‘‘motive 

power fleet that is the oldest in the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 80563 

23Labor appears to believe incorrectly that the D– 

22 and 26–C brake valves are locomotive brake 

valves. As explained further below, there is a 25- 

year waiver history of extending these passenger car 

valves by 12 months. 

24The waiver issued in Docket No. FRA–2013– 

0063 allowed railroads to utilize AAR Standard S– 

4045–13 in lieu of the obsolete AAR S–045. That 

waiver was the third waiver FRA issued related to 

inspection and testing frequency of passenger air 

brake control valves. See also Docket Nos. PB 94– 

3 (July 26, 1995) and FRA–2011–0070. The 1995 

waiver was replaced by § 238.309, established by 

the final rule published at 64 FR 25660, May 12, 

1999. The 2011 and 2013 waivers extended the 

flexibility afforded by § 238.309 to certain passenger 

equipment cars. 

25The D–22 valve has been in use since the mid1930s and the 26–C valve has been in use since the 

early 1950s. 

26FRA notes that many of the former AAR 

Standards are presently available within Annex A— 

Equipment-Dependent Instructions of APTA 

Standard PR–M–S–005–98, Rev.4—Code of Tests 

for Passenger Car Equipment Using Single Car 

Testing, which is incorporated by reference in part 

238. See Docket No. FRA–2018–0097. A copy of 

Annex A is also available in the docket of this 

rulemaking for review. 

nation’’ is not justified.23 TWU’s 

comments were similar to Labor’s. 

As proposed, paragraph (b)(2) 

changed brake inspection requirements 

from referencing AAR Standard S–045 

to referencing AAR Standard S–4045– 

13, which establishes, for passenger 

equipment cars operating in the U.S. 

and Canada, standard maintenance 

practices and operating requirements, 

including the periodic inspection 

requirements for air brake cleaning, 

repairing, lubricating, and testing 

(known in the industry as ‘‘clean, oil, 

test, and stencil’’ or ‘‘COT&S’’). AAR 

Standard S–4045–13, would extend the 

timeline related to periodic brake valve 

inspections, and is based upon the 

safety experience of the waiver at 

Docket No. FRA–2013–0063 24 and 

experience with the extended period for 

inspections at 49 CFR 238.309(d)(2) and 

(3) for conventional passenger 

equipment. As a result, railroads using 

26–C type valves would now be 

required to test those valves every 48 

months (instead of 36 months). 

Similarly, railroads using D–22 type 

valves would now be required to test 

those valves every 36 months (instead of 

24 months). 

Labor appears to incorrectly believe 

the relief provided in the waiver was the 

same as that provided under Docket No. 

FRA–2005–21613, which extended the 

service life of locomotive electronic 

brake valves (EBVs). This is the only 

recent docket that meets the description 

of Labor’s concern. FRA notes that 

Amtrak has operated 26–C passenger car 

control valves for 48 months between 

inspections under the PB–94–3 waiver 

since July 1995 (codified at § 238.309 in 

May 1999), while railroads not subject 

to part 238 have operated under the 

subsequent waivers since April 2012. 

Passenger railroads have operated D–22 

passenger car control valves for 1,104 

days between inspections under 

§ 238.309(d)(3) since 1999. In all cases, 

these waivers extended the periodic 

inspection interval for only 12 months 

and were based on over fifty years of 

operating experience,25 plus confirming 

testing performed as part of the waiver 

investigations. The railroads have not 

reported any safety problems while 

under those waivers. By contrast, the 

locomotive EBV waiver that extended 

periodic inspection intervals for up to 5 

years involves novel designs, requiring 

continuous product upgrades during the 

course of the waiver, and required a test 

committee to witness inspection and 

tear-down of several brake unit types on 

a biannual basis. Passenger car control 

valves with a long and successful 

service history do not require the same 

scrutiny and oversight. 

The safety case provided, and the lack 

of negative safety data arising from the 

aforementioned control valve waivers, 

justifies the 12-month extension for 

each periodic inspection of a 26–C or D– 

22 valve provided by updated AAR 

Standard S–4045–13. Such an extension 

also aligns the inspection periods for 

26–C and D–22 control valves on all 

railroads, thus reducing confusion. 

Accordingly, this final rule updates 

paragraph (b)(2) to reference AAR 

Standard S–4045–13. 

Currently, appendix B does not 

require tourist, scenic, historic, and 

excursion railroads to develop a plan for 

servicing obsolete brake equipment. 

Accordingly, in the NPRM, FRA 

proposed § 232.717(c) within the new 

subpart H to allow tourist, scenic, 

historic, and excursion railroads to 

develop a compliant plan for servicing 

obsolete brake equipment. Under 

paragraph (c), these railroads—when 

utilizing equipment not covered by an 

applicable, available, and incorporated 

AAR standard—would have to maintain 

the equipment in a safe and suitable 

condition for service according to a 

railroad’s written maintenance plan. A 

compliant maintenance plan, including 

its COT&S component and a periodic 

attention schedule, must be based upon 

a standard appropriate to the 

equipment. For example, a compliant 

plan might utilize a recognized industry 

standard or a former AAR interchange 

standard, to the extent it is modified to 

account for the unique operating 

conditions of the particular tourist 

railroad operation. The railroad must 

make its written maintenance plan 

available to FRA upon request. 

While FRA expects some individual 

railroads may develop their own written 

maintenance plans, FRA understands 

that an industry organization 

(HeritageRail Alliance) may develop a 

consensus standard for the periodic 

maintenance of this brake equipment. 

FRA did not propose a formal approval 

process for each tourist, scenic, historic, 

and excursion railroad plan, as this 

would not be feasible from a regulatory 

standpoint, for both the railroads and 

FRA, and such a requirement would not 

enhance safety under subpart H. 

However, when evaluating maintenance 

plans during the course of regular 

inspections, FRA will consider the 

appropriate AAR-published valve 

standard in the last version (e.g., 1992 

for the ‘‘AB’’ control valve) of the AAR 

Code of Rules or the AAR Field Manual 

before a valve type was made obsolete, 

the usage of the equipment, and the 

railroad’s voluntarily scheduled SCTs.26

Labor and TWU object to proposed 

paragraph (c), claiming it releases FRA 

from its regulatory responsibilities and 

allows affected railroads to self-regulate 

with their own inspection plans. 

According to Labor, paragraph (c) 

attempts to fix a problem that does not 

exist and would place a burden on those 

railroads with few resources. 

In discussions between FRA and 

various tourist and historic railway 

industry associations, the railroads 

governed under former appendix B, now 

subpart H, have requested regulatory 

guidance on the applicability of those 

rules on discontinued brake valves. 

Moreover, under Section 415 of the Rail 

Safety Improvement Act of 2008, 

Congress directed FRA to study air 

brake maintenance regulatory 

compliance on diesel locomotives for 

tourist and historic railroads. The 

NPRM proposed changes consistent 

with Congress’ direction and the 

railroads’ requests to provide regulatory 

certainty and to reduce their compliance 

burdens. For instance, under the 

previous language of § 232.17 of 

appendix B, affected railroads were left 

without compliance guidance or 

regulatory protection each time AAR 

removed a brake type (e.g., the ‘‘AB’’ 

brake) from the AAR Field Manual. FRA 

recognizes these ‘‘obsolete’’ brake valves 

may continue to be operated on older 

equipment while remaining compliant 

with § 232.103(l) (formerly § 232.3 of 

appendix B), and finds that each 

railroad is in a better position to 

determine how to maintain its 

(generally non-interchanged) equipment 

for its own operating environment. The 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
80564 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

27Since 2010, tourist, historic, and excursion 

railroads have had no brake-caused train fatalities 

and 21 motive power and equipment-related 

accidents. 

purpose of the new § 232.717(c) is to 

provide those railroads with a 

regulatory path going forward. Given the 

increasing quantity of obsolete 

equipment, and that the current rules in 

subparts A–G of part 232 reflect more 

modern technologies, these railroads 

require some level of flexibility to 

address their own equipment and 

operations. Without this change, 

railroads will be left to determine, at 

their own discretion, what rules apply 

to brake valves once they are no longer 

addressed in the applicable industry 

standard. 

The new § 232.717(c) provides 

flexibility, while ensuring that railroads 

subject to § 232.717 remain under FRA 

oversight. Given these railroads’ low 

accident or incident rate,27 their limited 

(seasonal) operations, and FRA’s 

experienced inspectors familiar with 

local conditions performing oversight, 

FRA is confident that paragraph (c) will 

provide regulatory clarity and improve 

safety. 

FRA sought comments on how to 

manage future changes to industry 

standards while ensuring future 

compliance with 1 CFR part 51 

(incorporation by reference). FRA did 

not receive comments on how to better 

manage this process. However, the 

Railroads encourage amendments to 

Federal Register incorporation by 

reference regulations to generally allow 

for more timely regulatory updates to 

standards incorporated by reference. 

FRA notes that the Railroads’ comments 

regarding the incorporation by reference 

of standards under 1 CFR 51 is an issue 

under the authority of the Office of the 

Federal Register, not FRA. 

IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. E.O. 12866 and 13771, Congressional 

Review Act, and DOT Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures 

This final rule is a significant 

regulatory action within the meaning of 

Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866) and 

DOT’s Administrative Rulemaking, 

Guidance, and Enforcement Procedures 

in 49 CFR part 5. Pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 

et seq.), the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs designated this rule 

as not a ‘major rule’, as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). In addition, this rule is 

considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory 

action. Details on the estimated cost 

savings of this rule can be found in the 

rule’s Regulatory Impact Analysis, 

which FRA has prepared and placed in 

the docket (docket number FRA–2018– 

0093). The analysis details estimated 

costs and cost savings that those 

regulated by the rule are likely to see 

over a 10-year period. 

In this final rule, FRA is codifying 

several motive power and equipment 

waivers providing conditional 

exceptions to existing rules concerning 

air brake testing (including Class I air 

brake tests and SCTs), EOT devices, 

brake valves, and helper service. In 

particular, FRA is extending the time 

freight rail equipment can be off-air 

before requiring a new brake inspection. 

Furthermore, FRA is making technical 

corrections to existing brake-related 

regulations. 

FRA estimated the impacts of this 

final rule. The results of this analysis 

are presented in the table below. 

TOTAL COSTS AND COST SAVINGS OVER 10 YEARS

[2017 Dollars in millions] 

Section Present value 

7% 

Present value 

3% 

Annualized 

7% 

Annualized 

3% 

Costs: Training ................................................................................. (*) (*) (*) (*) 

Cost Savings: 

Helper Link ............................................................................... $3.9 $4.5 $0.6 $0.5 

26–C Brake Valve .................................................................... 0.4 0.5 0.06 0.06 

D–22 Brake Valve .................................................................... 1.0 1.1 0.1 0.1 

24 Hours Off-air ........................................................................ 325.6 386.2 46.4 45.3 

90 CFM ..................................................................................... 1.8 2.1 0.3 0.2 

SCT 24 month .......................................................................... 150.7 176.1 21.5 20.6 

SCT 48 month .......................................................................... 19.5 23.8 2.8 2.8 

Waiver Cost Savings ................................................................ 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01 

Government Administrative Cost Savings ................................ 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01 

Total Cost Savings ............................................................ 503.0 594.6 71.6 69.7 

Net Cost Savings .............................................................. 503.0 594.6 71.6 69.7 

Net Cost Savings = Cost Savings¥Costs. 

* De minimis. 

Over a 10-year period of analysis, the 

present value of net cost savings are 

$503.0 million (using a 7% discount 

rate), and $594.6 million (using a 3% 

discount rate). The annualized cost 

savings are $71.6 million (using a 7% 

discount rate) and $69.7 million (using 

a 3% discount rate). 

By way of explaining the above table, 

in response to comments from the NTSB 

and labor organizations, FRA is adding 

a requirement for railroads to train 

employees on loss of communication 

and limitations of the emergency brake 

signal. This provision is a new 

requirement and will add slightly to the 

training employees receive already on 

using EOT devices. FRA estimates the 

cost at $1,566 primarily for the railroads 

using two-way end-of-train devices to 

update their existing training plans. 

Turning to cost savings, among the 

EOT device waivers incorporated into 

the final rule, the waiver allowing a 

train equipped with Helper Link (or 

similar technology) to use an alternative 

air brake test procedure will benefit 

railroads using this system. The Helper 

Link technology reduces employees’ 

time in uncoupling the helper 

locomotive from the train so that it may 

be turned around to help other trains 

ascend steep grades. FRA bases its 

estimate of cost savings on this reduced 

labor time. For the 26–C and D–22 type 

brake valves, FRA is extending the time 

before these types of valves need to be 

inspected and cleaned, resulting in 

fewer tests and labor savings. FRA is 

also extending, from 4 hours to 24 

hours, the time before a Class I brake 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 80565 

28See U.S. Small Business Office of Advocacy, A 

Guide for Government Agencies: How to Comply 

with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, p. 25, August 

2017, available at https://advocacy.sba.gov/ 

resources/the-regulatory-flexibility-act/a-guide-forgovernment-agencies-how-to-comply-with-theregulatory-flexibility-act/. 

test must be conducted on rail 

equipment that is not connected to a 

source of compressed air prior to being 

operated in a train again. FRA estimates 

railroads will accrue savings from 

performing fewer brake tests, less 

locomotive idling time to keep rail cars 

on compressed air (including reduced 

fuel consumption), and less use of yard 

air sources. This provision will result in 

annualized cost savings of $46 million 

(using a 7% discount rate), the largest 

category of cost savings. Furthermore, in 

an EPA comment to the NPRM, it was 

noted that reduced locomotive idling 

time will also reduce emissions and 

pollutants therein. FRA has estimated 

these potential benefits will total 

approximately $14.2 million 

(annualized using a 7% discount rate), 

and $16.8 million (annualized using a 

3% discount rate). However, due to 

uncertainty regarding these benefits, 

FRA has not accounted for them in the 

primary analysis. 

Similar to the flexibility provided by 

other waivers, permitting an increase in 

brake pipe leakage to 90 CFM under 

certain conditions will allow railroads 

to conduct air brake tests without 

having to wait for additional crews (to 

test in higher daytime temperatures), or 

run shorter trains. The efficiencies 

gained through codifying the 90 CFM 

waiver are monetized in the table above. 

FRA found the maintenance 

requirements for air repeater units are 

already standard industry practice. In 

addition, for situations where a railroad 

can substitute an air repeater unit for a 

DP locomotive or EOT device, the 

railroad will save the opportunity cost 

of that equipment by employing it 

elsewhere. Finally, FRA expects large 

cost savings by increasing the time 

between single car air brake tests from 

12 to 24 months for automated tests, and 

to 48 months for automated tests using 

a four-pressure receiver. FRA estimates 

the longer interval between tests for rail 

cars using automated tests (about 1.1 

million freight cars out of 1.6 million 

freight cars in service) will result in the 

monetized time savings shown in the 

table. 

Separately, FRA expects the regulated 

community to submit fewer waiver 

requests, and requests for waiver 

extensions, to FRA for the regulatory 

parts subject to this final rule. FRA 

generally approves waivers for five 

years and may extend them upon 

request. Given the final rule codifies 

these waivers, railroads and suppliers 

will save the cost of applying and reapplying for these waivers. These 

collective savings are represented in the 

Waiver Cost Savings category in the 

table, with a comparable savings in 

terms of government time to review 

these waivers and renewals. 

FRA estimates this final rule will only 

impose minimal costs on the industry. 

This final rule generally increases 

flexibility for the regulated entities by 

codifying waivers and in certain 

circumstances, providing additional 

flexibility in meeting some regulatory 

requirements. The rule does not impose 

any new substantive requirements. 

Railroads and suppliers may choose 

voluntarily to take advantage of the 

flexibilities under this final rule. 

However, under proposed § 232.409(e), 

FRA is providing EOT device 

manufacturers additional flexibility in 

conducting the required testing by 

reiterating the existing requirement that 

EOT device air pressure sensors need to 

be tested annually, or in accordance 

with alternative test procedures 

developed by the EOT device 

manufacturer and approved by FRA. 

FRA is not accounting for these costs in 

the overall analysis for this rulemaking, 

but acknowledges railroads may incur a 

burden to calibrate the air pressure 

sensor on the EOT device, as they do 

under the existing regulation. The 

burdens are further described in the 

regulatory evaluation accompanying 

this final rule. 

As is discussed in the preamble 

above, FRA does not believe that these 

provisions will have a negative impact 

on the safety of railroad operations. In 

fact, codifying several of the waivers 

may result in positive safety benefits for 

railroad employees. In general, the EOT 

device waivers, appendix B updates, 24- 

hour off-air, and automated single car 

tests will all reduce the frequency of air 

brake tests and inspections. Fewer brake 

tests and inspections will reduce the 

time employees are walking on 

potentially uneven ground such as track 

ballast (typically crushed stone), and 

reduce their chances of slipping, 

tripping, or falling. Also, railroad 

employees may reduce their chances of 

injury because they would spend less 

time moving in and around rail cars 

while connecting and disconnecting 

equipment for the brake test and 

checking equipment such as the brake 

pipe. For air brake tests conducted in 

yards, less frequent brake tests would 

likely result in employees reducing their 

exposure to adjacent train traffic. FRA 

has not quantified these safety benefits 

because it does not have injury data 

specifically from conducting brake tests, 

but has described the parameters that 

may reasonably reduce the risk of 

injury. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and E.O. 

13272 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

((RFA) 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and 

Executive Order 13272 (67 FR 53461, 

Aug. 16, 2002) require agency review of 

proposed and final rules to assess their 

impacts on small entities. Regulations 

issued by the U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA) generally require 

agencies to prepare an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (IRFA) describing the 

impact of the proposed rule on small 

entities when issuing a proposed rule. (5 

U.S.C. 603(a)). Section 605 of the RFA 

allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu 

of preparing an analysis, if the proposed 

rulemaking is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities.’’ 28

To help the public comment on the 

potential small business impacts of the 

rulemaking, FRA prepared an IRFA to 

accompany the NPRM. 

In this final rule, FRA is codifying 

various long-standing waivers that 

provide conditional exceptions to the 

existing rules concerning air brake 

testing and inspection, end-of-train 

(EOT) devices, brake valves, and helper 

service (i.e., Helper Link devices or 

similar technologies). In addition, FRA 

is extending the length of time freight 

rail equipment can be disconnected 

from a source of compressed air, or ‘‘offair,’’ before needing a new brake 

inspection to be placed back in 

operation. FRA is also using this 

opportunity to clarify certain provisions 

of the brake regulations and to remove 

outdated or unnecessary provisions. 

FRA estimates this final rule provides 

the opportunity for small entities to use 

their employees and railroad equipment 

more efficiently, resulting in cost 

savings. 

FRA did not receive any comments 

directly related to the IRFA. In 

consideration of comments received to 

the rulemaking, FRA made changes to 

the final rule that will affect small 

entities, but not to a significant degree. 

FRA is requiring manufacturers of 

telemetry equipment installed in the 

EOT device to continue to file an annual 

report to FRA if they do not specify a 

calibration period for their devices. This 

provision will enable FRA to monitor 

instances of frequency drift in a small 

percentage of this equipment. This 

report is a continuation of a report filed 

as a condition of a previous waiver. FRA 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
80566 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

29These suppliers would also be considered 

small entities under SBA size standards based on 

NAICS codes. FRA determined that these firms can 

be categorized under NAICS code 336999 All other 

transportation equipment manufacturing, with a 

corresponding size standard of 1,000 employees. 

See 13 CFR 121.201. 

30Cost = 1 manufacturer * 12 hours * $66.51 per 

hour = $798. Wage rate sourced from the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics pay for Electrical and Electronics 

Engineers at https://www.bls.gov/ooh/architectureand-engineering/electrical-and-electronicsengineers.htm as accessed April 28, 2020. The base 

wage was adjusted for 2017 dollars using the BLS 

Inflation Calculator, and burdened for benefits 

(30% of compensation per BLS Guidance). See 

primary analysis in the RIA for detailed 

explanation. 

31Calculation: About $1,000 in annualized report 

cost/$16,000,000 annual revenues = 0.0000625 ≈ 

0.006% 

32Cost = Cost to revise training = 69 Class III 

railroads * (15 minutes/60 minutes) * $72.01 per 

hour (STB Professional and Administrative rate) = 

$1,242.22. Cost per affected railroad = $1,242/69 

railroads = $18.00 per railroad. 

33ASLRRA, Short Line and Regional Railroad 

Facts and Figures, p. 10 (2014 pamphlet) 

[hereinafter Facts and Figures]. 

34Totals may not add due to rounding. 

35The dollar equivalent cost is derived from the 

Surface Transportation Board’s Full Year Wage A&B 

data series using the appropriate employee group 

hourly wage rate that includes 75 percent overhead 

charges. 

is also adding a requirement for 

employee training to reduce possible 

accidents from communication loss 

from the front of the train to the rear of 

the train, applicable to railroads that use 

two-way EOT devices. 

Description of Small Entities Impacted 

by the Final Rule 

In consultation with the SBA, FRA 

has published a final statement of 

agency policy that formally establishes 

‘‘small entities’’ or ‘‘small businesses’’ 

as railroads, contractors, and hazardous 

materials shippers that meet the revenue 

requirements of a Class III railroad as set 

forth in 49 CFR 1201.1–1, which is $20 

million or less in inflation-adjusted 

annual revenues, and commuter 

railroads or small governmental 

jurisdictions that serve populations of 

50,000 or less. See 68 FR 24891, May 9, 

2003 (codified at Appendix C to 49 CFR 

part 209). FRA is using this definition 

for the final rule. For other entities, the 

same dollar limit in revenues governs 

whether a railroad, contractor, rail 

equipment supplier, or other respondent 

is a small entity. 

This final rule will be applicable to all 

railroads, although not all changes will 

be relevant to all railroads. Based on the 

railroads required to report accident/ 

incidents to FRA under 49 CFR part 

225, out of 751 railroads (excluding 

passenger service railroads that are 

subject to their own brake standards), 

FRA estimates there are approximately 

735 Class III railroads; with 692 of them 

operating on the general system. These 

are of varying size, with some a part of 

larger holding companies. Therefore, 

this rule will impact a substantial 

number of small railroads. 

FRA is aware of four firms 

manufacturing EOT devices for sale in 

the United States, and a firm that 

supplies the radio used for telemetry in 

EOT devices. Of the EOT device 

manufacturers, only DPS Electronics, 

Inc. is a small entity with about $5 

million to $10 million in annual 

revenues and about 15 employees. The 

other firms, Siemens Industry Inc., 

Wabtec Railway Electronics, and 

Progressive Rail are larger companies 

with access to their larger parent 

companies’ resources. Ritron, Inc. 

manufacturers the radio used in many 

firms’ EOT devices and is a small entity 

with about $16 million in annual 

revenue and 90 employees.29 Therefore, 

this rule will impact a substantial 

percentage of suppliers (40 percent). 

Economic Impacts on Small Entities 

FRA has determined that the impact 

on small entities will not be significant. 

In particular, the extension of time that 

freight rail equipment can be off-air 

before requiring a new brake test and 

inspection will result in significant cost 

savings from conducting fewer tests. 

FRA expects another important benefit 

will be better crew management. On a 

small railroad, employees often ‘‘wear 

several hats,’’ that is, perform several 

types of jobs, ranging from office work 

to train operations. Under the final rule, 

these railroads will be able to make 

available for other railroad jobs the time 

an employee would have spent 

conducting a brake test. The provision 

will likely increase the efficiency of 

labor resources, to some degree. Small 

railroads that do not operate newer 

types of equipment, such as EOT 

devices with air powered generators, 

can continue to perform tests in 

substantially the same manner as before 

this final rule. 

In a change from the NPRM, Ritron 

may choose to continue to file an annual 

report to FRA if it does not specify a 

calibration period. If Ritron chooses the 

report option, FRA estimates this report 

will take 12 hours to do and cost about 

$800 per year, or $854 when annualized 

using a 7 percent discount rate.30 FRA 

estimates this cost, or reduction in cost 

savings, as a percent of Ritron’s annual 

revenues (about $16 million) to be 

minimal at 0.006 percent.31 The safety 

reason for these reports is to enable FRA 

to ascertain the performance of the PLL 

radios (i.e., transceivers) over time. 

FRA estimates the new training 

requirement will affect about 10 percent 

of Class III railroads that operate trains 

with the two-way EOT devices subject 

to this requirement, or 69 small 

railroads. Analogous to estimating these 

costs in the primary RIA analysis for all 

railroads, the cost for Class III railroads 

is estimated as primarily the cost for 

railroads to modify their training plans. 

Specifically, FRA estimates 15 minutes 

to revise training plans (done at the 

same time when training plans are 

reviewed generally). Railroads already 

train their train crews how to initiate an 

emergency brake application in a 

locomotive, so the marginal time to add 

this requirement will be minimal. FRA 

estimates this total cost is $1,242, or 

only $18 per railroad.32 FRA determines 

this cost is not significant. Furthermore, 

this cost is only accounted for in the 

first year of the rule. (ASLRRA reports 

the average freight revenue per Class III 

railroad is $4.8 million per year.33) 

In addition, suppliers that make 

railroad EOT devices will be positively 

affected. In the past, they have applied 

to FRA for waivers for technological 

improvements to their devices, and their 

waivers are incorporated in this final 

rule, saving the cost to file a waiver 

renewal. 

Certification 

Consistent with the findings of FRA’s 

IRFA, and the lack of any comments 

received on it, I certify that this rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

FRA is submitting the information 

collection requirements in this final rule 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 

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

contain the new and current 

information collection requirements and 

the estimated time to fulfill each 

requirement are as follows: 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 80567 

CFR section Respondent universe Total annual 

responses 

Average time per 

responses 

Total annual burden 

hours 34

Total cost 

equivalent 35

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

232.3—Applicability—Export, industrial, & other 

cars not owned by railroads-identification.

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

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

232.15—Movement of Defective Equipment 

-Tags/Records.

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

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

232.17—Special Approval Procedure—Petitions 

for special approval of safety-critical revision.

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

—Petitions for special approval of pre-revenue service acceptance plan.708 railroads ............... 1 petition ..................... 100 hours ................... 100 hours ................... 7,200 

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

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

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

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

brake systems—stickers.

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

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

or circumstances where equipment may 

be left unattended.

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

—Notification to FRA when RR develops 

and has plan in place or modifies existing 

plan.

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

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

232.107—Air source requirements and cold 

weather operations—Monitoring Plan (Subsequent Years).

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

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

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

232.109—Dynamic brake requirements—status/ 

record.

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

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

—Tag bearing words ‘‘inoperative dynamic 

brakes’’.

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

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

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

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

—Requests to increase 5 mph overspeed 

restriction.

708 railroads ............... 5 requests ................... 30 min. + 20 hours ..... 103 hours ................... 7,416 

—Knowledge criteria—locomotive engineers—Subsequent Years.5 new .......................... 5 amendments ............ 16 hours ..................... 80 hours ..................... 5,760 

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

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

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

232.203—Training requirements—Tr. Prog.—Sub 

Yr..

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

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

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

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

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

232.205—Initial terminal inspection: Class I 

brake tests and notifications/records (Revised 

requirement).

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

records.

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

(c)(1)(ii)(B)—RR Development/implementation of operating rules to ensure compliant 

operation of train if air flow exceeds stipulated section parameters after Class I 

brake test is completed (New Requirement).

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

rules.

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

232.207—Class 1A brake tests—Designation 

Lists Where Performed.

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

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

232.209—Class II brake tests-intermediate ‘‘Rollby inspection—Results to train driver.708 railroads ............... 159,740 comments ..... 3 seconds ................... 133 hours ................... 9,576 

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

—Notification to FRA Associate Administrator for Safety of a change in the location where an extended haul brake test is 

performed (New Requirement).

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

232.219—Double heading and helper service: 

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

232.219(c)(3)).

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

232.303—General requirements—single car test: 

Tagging of Moved Equipment.

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

—Last repair track brake test/single car 

test—Stenciled on Side of Equipment.

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

232.307—Modification of single car air brake test 

procedures: Requests (includes 232.409(e)).

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

—Affirmation Statement on Mod. Req. To 

Employee Representatives.

railroads/AAR ............. 1 statement + 4 copies 30 minutes + 5 minutes.1 hour ......................... 72 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
80568 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

CFR section Respondent universe Total annual 

responses 

Average time per 

responses 

Total annual burden 

hours 34

Total cost 

equivalent 35

232.309—Repair track brake test equipment and 

devices used to perform single car air brake 

tests—Periodic calibration of devices.

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

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

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

tests.

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

—(d)–(e) Telemetry equipment—Testing/ 

Calibration/Rcds/—Documentations of 

testing (paragraph (d) is a revised requirement; paragraph (e) clarifies the use of 

§ 229.27).

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

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

found with frequency drift (New requirement).

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

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

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

232.505—Pre-revenue service acceptance test 

plan—Submission of maintenance procedure.

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

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

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

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

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

232.717(c)—Freight and passenger train car 

brakes—Written maintenance plan (formerly 

under appendix B, recodified subpart H).

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

Total ............................................................... 708 railroads ............... 5,345,581 responses .. N/A .............................. 333,682 hours ............ 24,025,104 

All estimates include the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering or 

maintaining the needed data, and 

reviewing the information. For 

information or a copy of the paperwork 

package submitted to OMB, contact Ms. 

Hodan Wells, Information Collection 

Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad 

Safety, Federal Railroad Administration, 

at 202–493–0440. 

Organizations and individuals 

desiring to submit comments on the 

collection of information requirements 

should direct them to Ms. Hodan Wells 

via email at Hodan.Wells@dot.gov. 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the collection of information 

requirements contained in this rule 

between 30 and 60 days after 

publication of this document in the 

Federal Register. Therefore, a comment 

to OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it within 30 days 

of publication. FRA is not authorized to 

impose a penalty on persons for 

violating information collection 

requirements that do not display a 

current OMB control number, if 

required. The current OMB control 

number for 49 CFR 229 is 2130–0008. 

D. Environmental Impact 

FRA has evaluated this final rule 

consistent with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council of 

Environmental Quality’s NEPA 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR 

parts 1500–1508, and FRA’s NEPA 

implementing regulations at 23 CFR part 

771 and determined that it is 

categorically excluded from 

environmental review and therefore 

does not require the preparation of an 

environmental assessment (EA) or 

environmental impact statement (EIS). 

Categorical exclusions (CEs) are actions 

identified in an agency’s NEPA 

implementing regulations that do not 

normally have a significant impact on 

the environment and therefore do not 

require either an EA or EIS. See 40 CFR 

1508.4. Specifically, FRA has 

determined that this final rule is 

categorically excluded from detailed 

environmental review pursuant to 23 

CFR 771.116(c)(15), ‘‘[p]romulgation of 

rules, the issuance of policy statements, 

the waiver or modification of existing 

regulatory requirements, or 

discretionary approvals that do not 

result in significantly increased 

emissions of air or water pollutants or 

noise.’’ 

The purpose of this rulemaking is to 

revise FRA’s regulations governing 

brake inspections, tests, and equipment 

to reduce unnecessary costs and 

incentivize innovation, while improving 

or maintaining rail safety. This rule does 

not directly or indirectly impact any 

environmental resources and will not 

result in significantly increased 

emissions of air or water pollutants or 

noise. Instead, the final rule is likely to 

result in safety benefits. In analyzing the 

applicability of a CE, FRA must also 

consider whether unusual 

circumstances are present that would 

warrant a more detailed environmental 

review. See 23 CFR 771.116(b). FRA 

calculated quantifiable reductions in air 

emissions related to reduced idling in 

the cost-benefit analysis for this 

rulemaking. However, these reductions 

are likely to result in environmental 

benefits and do not necessitate further 

environmental documentation. FRA has 

concluded that no such unusual 

circumstances exist with respect to this 

final regulation and it meets the 

requirements for categorical exclusion 

under 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). 

Pursuant to Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act and 

its implementing regulations, FRA has 

determined this undertaking has no 

potential to affect historic properties. 

See 16 U.S.C. 470. FRA has also 

determined that this rulemaking does 

not approve a project resulting in a use 

of a resource protected by Section 4(f). 

See Department of Transportation Act of 

1966, as amended (Pub. L. 89–670, 80 

Stat. 931); 49 U.S.C. 303. 

Executive Order 12898, Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, and DOT 

Order 5610.2(a) (91 FR 27534 May 10, 

2012) require DOT agencies to achieve 

environmental justice as part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects, including 

interrelated social and economic effects, 

of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations and 

low-income populations. The DOT 

Order instructs DOT agencies to address 

compliance with Executive Order 12898 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 80569 

and requirements within the DOT Order 

in rulemaking activities, as appropriate. 

FRA has evaluated this final rule under 

Executive Order 12898 and the DOT 

Order and has determined it would not 

cause disproportionately high and 

adverse human health and 

environmental effects on minority 

populations or low-income populations. 

E. Federalism Implications 

E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 

43255, Aug. 10, 1999), requires FRA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies 

that have federalism implications’’ are 

defined in 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 E.O. 

13132, the agency may not issue a 

regulation with federalism implications 

that imposes substantial direct 

compliance costs and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments or the agency consults 

with State and local government 

officials early in the process of 

developing the regulation. Where a 

regulation has federalism implications 

and preempts State law, the agency 

seeks to consult with State and local 

officials in the process of developing the 

regulation. 

FRA has analyzed this final rule in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in E.O. 13132. This 

final rule generally codifies existing 

waivers or makes technical amendments 

to existing FRA regulations. FRA has 

determined that this final rule has no 

federalism implications, other than the 

possible preemption of state laws under 

49 U.S.C. 20106. Therefore, the 

consultation and funding requirements 

of E.O. 13132 do not apply, and 

preparation of a federalism summary 

impact statement for the proposed rule 

is not required. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Pursuant to section 201 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each 

Federal agency shall, unless otherwise 

prohibited by law, assess the effects of 

Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and tribal governments, and the 

private sector (other than to the extent 

that such regulations incorporate 

requirements specifically set forth in 

law). Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 

1532) further requires that before 

promulgating any general notice of 

proposed rulemaking that is likely to 

result in the promulgation of any rule 

that includes any Federal mandate that 

may result in expenditure by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100,000,000 or more (adjusted 

annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and 

before promulgating any final rule for 

which a general notice of proposed 

rulemaking was published, the agency 

shall prepare a written statement 

detailing the effect on State, local, and 

tribal governments and the private 

sector. This final rule would not result 

in such an expenditure, and thus 

preparation of such a statement is not 

required. 

G. Energy Impact 

E.O. 13211 requires Federal agencies 

to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects 

for any ‘‘significant energy action.’’ 66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001. FRA evaluated 

this final rule in accordance with E.O. 

13211 and determined that this 

regulatory action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ within the meaning of 

the E.O. 

E.O. 13783, ‘‘Promoting Energy 

Independence and Economic Growth,’’ 

requires Federal agencies to review 

regulations to determine whether they 

potentially burden the development or 

use of domestically produced energy 

resources, with particular attention to 

oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy 

resources. See 82 FR 16093, March 31, 

2017. FRA determined this final rule 

would not burden the development or 

use of domestically produced energy 

resources. 

List of Subjects 

49 CFR Part 218 

Occupational safety and health, 

Penalties, Railroad employees, Railroad 

safety, and Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

49 CFR Part 221 

Railroad safety. 

49 CFR Part 232 

Incorporation by reference, Power 

brakes, Railroad safety, Securement, 

Two-way end-of-train devices. 

V. The Rule 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, FRA amends parts 218, 221, 

and 232 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 

49, Code of Federal Regulations as 

follows: 

PART 218—RAILROAD OPERATING 

PRACTICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 218 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20131, 

20138, 20144, 20168, 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; 

and 49 CFR 1.89. 

■ 2. Amend § 218.22 by revising 

paragraphs (c) introductory text and 

(c)(5) to read as follows: 

§ 218.22 Utility employee. 

* * * * * 

(c) A utility employee may be 

assigned to and serve as a member of a 

train or yard crew without the 

protection otherwise required by 

subpart B of part 218 of this chapter 

only under the following conditions: 

* * * * * 

(5) The utility employee is performing 

one or more of the following functions: 

Set or release handbrakes; couple or 

uncouple air hoses and other electrical 

or mechanical connections; prepare rail 

cars for coupling; set wheel blocks or 

wheel chains; conduct air brake test to 

include cutting air brake components in 

or out and position retaining valves; 

inspect, test, install, remove or replace 

a rear end marking device or end of 

train device; or change batteries on the 

rear end marking device or the end of 

train device if the change may be 

accomplished without the use of tools. 

Under all other circumstances, a utility 

employee working on, under, or 

between railroad rolling equipment 

must be provided with blue signal 

protection in accordance with §§ 218.23 

through 218.30 of this part. 

* * * * * 

PART 221—REAR END MARKING 

DEVICE—PASSENGER, COMMUTER 

AND FREIGHT TRAINS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 221 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107; 28 

U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89. 

■ 4. Amend § 221.13 by revising 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 221.13 Marking device display. 

* * * * * 

(d) The centroid of the marking device 

must be located above the coupler, 

where its visibility is not obscured and 

it does not interfere with an employee’s 

access to, or use of, any other safety 

appliance on the car. 

■ 5. Amend appendix A to part 221 by 

revising paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) and 

(b)(3)(ii) to read as follows: 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
80570 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

Appendix A to Part 221—Procedures 

for Approval of Rear End Marking 

Devices 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) The results of the tests performed under 

paragraph (i) of this subsection demonstrate 

marking device performance in compliance 

with the standard prescribed in 49 CFR 

221.15; 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) The results of the tests performed under 

paragraph (i) of this subsection demonstrate 

marking device performance in compliance 

with the standard prescribed in 49 CFR 

221.15; 

* * * * * 

PART 232—BRAKE SYSTEM SAFETY 

STANDARDS FOR FREIGHT AND 

OTHER NON–PASSENGER TRAINS 

AND EQUIPMENT; END–OF–TRAIN 

DEVICES 

■ 6. The authority citation for part 232 

is revised to read as follows: 

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

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

20302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 

CFR 1.89. 

■ 7. Amend § 232.1 by revising 

paragraphs (b) and (c) and removing 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 232.1 Scope. 

* * * * * 

(b) Except as otherwise specifically 

provided in this paragraph or in this 

part, railroads to which this part applies 

must comply with all the requirements 

contained in this part. 

(c) Except for operations identified in 

§ 232.3(c)(1), (4), and (6) through (8), all 

railroads part of the general railroad 

system of transportation must operate 

pursuant to the requirements in subpart 

H of this part (which contains the 

requirements in this part 232 as they 

existed on May 31, 2001), until they are 

either required to operate pursuant to 

the requirements contained in subparts 

A through G of this part or the 

requirements contained in part 238 of 

this chapter. 

■ 8. Amend § 232.3 by revising 

paragraph (c) introductory text to read 

as follows: 

§ 232.3 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(c) Except as provided in § 232.1(c) 

and paragraph (b) of this section, this 

part does not apply to: 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Amend § 232.5 by revising the 

introductory text and removing the 

definition of ‘‘Air Flow Indicator, AFM’’ 

and adding definitions for ‘‘Air flow 

method indicator, AFM,’’ ‘‘Air repeater 

unit, ARU,’’ ‘‘APTA,’’ and ‘‘Gradient, 

brake pipe’’ in alphabetical order to read 

as follows: 

§ 232.5 Definitions. 

The definitions in this section are 

intended to clarify the meaning of terms 

used in this part. 

* * * * * 

Air flow method indicator, AFM 

means a calibrated air flow measuring 

device used as required by the air flow 

method (AFM) of qualifying train air 

brakes and with information clearly and 

legibly displayed in analog or digital 

format and visible in daylight and 

darkness from the engineer’s normal 

operating position. Each AFM indicator 

includes: 

(1) Markings from 10 to 80 cubic feet 

per minute (CFM), in increments of 10 

CFM or less; and 

(2) Numerals indicating 20, 40, 60, 

and 80 CFM for continuous monitoring 

of air flow. 

Air repeater unit, ARU means a car, 

container, or similar device that 

provides an additional brake pipe air 

source by responding to air control 

instructions from a controlling 

locomotive using a communication 

system such as a distributed power 

system. 

APTA means the American Public 

Transportation Association. 

* * * * * 

Gradient, brake pipe means the 

difference in brake pipe pressure, 

usually measured in pounds per square 

inch (psi), between each air supply 

source (e.g., locomotive, distributed 

power unit, or ARU) or between an air 

supply source and the rear car of the 

train when the brake system is fully 

charged under existing leakage and 

temperature conditions. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Amend § 232.11 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 232.11 Penalties. 

(a) Any person (including but not 

limited to a railroad; any manager, 

supervisor, official, or other employee 

or agent of a railroad; any owner, 

manufacturer, lessor, or lessee of 

railroad equipment, track, or facilities; 

any employee of such owner, 

manufacturer, lessor, lessee, or 

independent contractor) who violates 

any requirement of this part or causes 

the violation of any such requirement is 

subject to a civil penalty of at least the 

minimum civil monetary penalty and 

not more than the ordinary maximum 

civil monetary penalty per violation, 

except that: Penalties may be assessed 

against individuals only for willful 

violations, and, where a grossly 

negligent violation or a pattern of 

repeated violations has created an 

imminent hazard of death or injury to 

individuals, or has caused death or 

injury, a penalty not to exceed the 

aggravated maximum civil monetary 

penalty per violation may be assessed. 

See 49 CFR part 209, appendix A. Each 

day a violation continues shall 

constitute a separate offense. FRA’s 

website at https://railroads.dot.gov/ 

contains a schedule of civil penalty 

amounts used in connection with this 

part. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Amend § 232.17 by revising 

paragraph (a), and revising and 

republishing paragraph (b) to read as 

follows: 

§ 232.17 Special approval procedure. 

(a) General. The following procedures 

govern consideration and action upon 

requests for special approval of a plan 

under § 232.15(g); an alternative 

standard under § 232.305 or § 232.603; 

an alternative technology under 

§ 232.407(b) or (c); or a single car test 

procedure under § 232.611; and prerevenue service acceptance testing plans 

under subpart F of this part. 

(b) Petitions for special approval of an 

alternative standard or test procedure. 

Each petition for special approval of a 

plan under § 232.15(g); an alternative 

standard under § 232.305 or § 232.603; 

an alternative technology under 

§ 232.407(b) or (c); or a single car test 

procedure under § 232.611 shall 

contain: 

(1) The name, title, address, and 

telephone number of the primary person 

to be contacted with regard to review of 

the petition; 

(2) The plan, alternative standard, 

alternative technology, or test procedure 

proposed, in detail, to be submitted for 

or to meet the particular requirement of 

this part; 

(3) Appropriate data or analysis, or 

both, for FRA to consider in 

determining whether the plan, 

alternative standard, alternative 

technology, or test procedure, will be 

consistent with the guidance under 

§ 232.15(f), if applicable, and will 

provide at least an equivalent level of 

safety or otherwise meet the 

requirements contained in this part; and 

(4) A statement affirming that the 

railroad has served a copy of the 

petition on designated representatives of 

its employees, together with a list of the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 80571 

names and addresses of the persons 

served. 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Amend § 232.103 by revising 

paragraphs (l) and (m) to read as 

follows: 

§ 232.103 General requirements for all 

train brake systems. 

* * * * * 

(l) Except as otherwise provided in 

this part, all equipment used in freight 

or other non-passenger trains must, at a 

minimum, meet the Association of 

American Railroads (AAR) Standard S– 

469, ‘‘Freight Brakes- Performance 

Specification,’’ Revised 2006 (contained 

in AAR Manual of Standards and 

Recommended Practices, Brakes and 

Brake Equipment), also referred to as 

AAR Standard S–469–01. The Director 

of the Federal Register approves this 

incorporation by reference in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy 

from the Association of American 

Railroads, 425 Third Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20024, telephone: (202) 

639–2345, email: publications@aar.com, 

website: https://aarpublications.com. 

You may inspect a copy of the 

document at the Federal Railroad 

Administration, Docket Clerk, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590 (telephone: (855) 368–4200) or at 

the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, email fedreg.legal@

nara.gov, or go to: www.archives.gov/ 

federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. 

(m) An en route train shall be stopped 

at the next available location, inspected 

for leaks in the brake system, and 

provided with corrective action, if the 

train experiences: 

(1) A brake pipe gradient of greater 

than 15 psi; or 

(2) A brake pipe air flow of greater 

than that permitted by this part, when 

the air flow has been qualified by the 

Air Flow Method as provided for in 

subpart C of this part and the indication 

does not return to within the limits in 

a reasonable time. 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Amend § 232.203 by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 232.203 Training requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) A railroad that operates trains 

required to be equipped with a two-way 

end-of-train telemetry device pursuant 

to subpart E of this part, and each 

contractor that maintains such devices, 

shall adopt and comply with a training 

program that specifically addresses: 

(1) The testing, operation, and 

maintenance of two-way end-of-train 

devices for employees who are 

responsible for the testing, operation, 

and maintenance of the devices; and 

(2) For operating employees the 

limitations and proper use of the 

emergency application signal and the 

loss of communication indication 

between front-of-train and rear-of-train 

devices. 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Amend § 232.205 by revising 

paragraph (a)(3), revising and 

republishing paragraphs (b) and (c)(1), 

adding paragraph (c)(9), and revising 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 232.205 Class I brake test-initial terminal 

inspection. 

(a) * * * 

(3) A location where the train is offair for a period of more than 24 hours. 

(b) Except as provided in § 232.209, 

each car and each solid block of cars 

added to a train shall receive a Class I 

brake test as described in paragraph (c) 

of this section at the location where it 

is added to a train unless: 

(1) The solid block of cars is 

comprised of cars from a single previous 

train, the cars of which have previously 

received a Class I brake test and have 

remained continuously and 

consecutively coupled together with the 

train line remaining connected, other 

than for removing defective equipment, 

since being removed from its previous 

train and have not been off-air for more 

than 24 hours; or 

(2) The solid block of cars is 

comprised of cars from a single previous 

train, the cars of which were required to 

be separated into multiple solid blocks 

of cars due to space or trackage 

constraints at a particular location when 

removed from the previous train, 

provided the cars have previously 

received a Class I brake test, have not 

been off-air more than 24 hours, and the 

cars in each of the multiple blocks of 

cars have remained continuously and 

consecutively coupled together with the 

train line remaining connected, except 

for the removal of defective equipment. 

Furthermore, these multiple solid 

blocks of cars shall be added to a train 

in the same relative order (no 

reclassification) as when removed from 

the previous train, except for the 

removal of defective equipment. 

(c) A Class I brake test of a train shall 

consist of the following tasks and 

requirements: 

(1) Brake pipe leakage shall not 

exceed 5 psi per minute or air flow shall 

not exceed 60 cubic feet per minute 

(CFM). 

(i) Leakage Test. The brake pipe 

leakage test shall be conducted as 

follows: 

(A) Charge the air brake system to the 

pressure at which the train will be 

operated, and the pressure at the rear of 

the train shall be within 15 psi of the 

pressure at which the train will be 

operated, but not less than 75 psi, as 

indicated by an accurate gauge or endof-train device at the rear end of train; 

(B) Upon receiving the signal to apply 

brakes for test, make a 20-psi brake pipe 

service reduction; 

(C) If the locomotive used to perform 

the leakage test is equipped with a 

means for maintaining brake pipe 

pressure at a constant level during a 20- 

psi brake pipe service reduction, this 

feature shall be cut out during the 

leakage test; and 

(D) With the brake valve lapped and 

the pressure maintaining feature cut out 

(if so equipped) and after waiting 45–60 

seconds, note the brake pipe leakage as 

indicated by the brake-pipe gauge in the 

locomotive, which shall not exceed 5 

psi per minute. 

(ii) Air Flow Method Test. When a 

locomotive is equipped with a 26–L 

brake valve or equivalent pressure 

maintaining locomotive brake valve, a 

railroad may use the Air Flow Method 

Test as an alternate to the brake pipe 

leakage test. The Air Flow Method 

(AFM) Test shall be performed as 

follows: 

(A) Charge the air brake system to the 

pressure at which the train will be 

operated, and the pressure at the rear of 

the train shall be within 15 psi of the 

pressure at which the train will be 

operated, but not less than 75 psi, as 

indicated by an accurate gauge or endof-train device at the rear end of train; 

and 

(B) Use a calibrated AFM indicator to 

measure air flow. A train equipped with 

at least one distributed power unit or an 

air repeater unit providing a source of 

brake pipe control air from two or more 

locations must not exceed a combined 

flow of 90 cubic feet per minute (CFM). 

Otherwise, the air flow must not exceed 

60 CFM. Railroads must develop and 

implement operating rules to ensure 

compliant operation of a train if air flow 

exceeds these parameters after the Class 

I brake test is completed. 

(iii) The AFM indicator must be 

calibrated for accuracy at periodic 

intervals not to exceed 92 days. The 

AFM indicator and all test orifices must 

be calibrated at temperatures of not less 

than 20 °F. AFM indicators must be 

accurate to within ±3 standard cubic 

feet per minute (CFM) at 60 CFM air 

flow. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
80572 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

(iv) For each AFM indicator, its last 

date of calibration must be recorded and 

certified on Form F6180–49A. 

(v) An AFM indicator not 

incompliance with this part must: 

(A) Not be used, including in the 

performance of a leakage test or to aid 

in the control or braking of the train; 

(B) Be tagged in accordance with 

§ 232.15(b) and include text that it is 

‘‘inoperative’’ or ‘‘overdue’’; and 

(C) Be placed with its tag in a 

conspicuous location of the controlling 

locomotive cab. 

* * * * * 

(9) Although an air repeater unit is 

not a locomotive or appurtenance under 

part 229, an air repeater unit operated 

in accordance with this part must: 

(i) Receive an inspection in 

accordance with § 229.21 where and 

when an inspection is required in 

accordance with § 232.205(a)(1); and 

(ii) Otherwise comply with part 229 

as applicable to those parts that provide 

compressed air, modulate the brake 

pipe, and otherwise control the 

movement of the train. All remaining 

parts are subject to the inspection 

requirements of parts 215 and 232. 

* * * * * 

(e) A railroad must notify the 

locomotive engineer that the Class I 

brake test was satisfactorily performed, 

whether the equipment to be hauled in 

his train has been off-air for a period of 

more than 24 hours, and provide the 

information required in this paragraph 

to the locomotive engineer or place the 

information in the cab of the controlling 

locomotive following the test. The 

information required by this paragraph 

may be provided to the locomotive 

engineer by any means determined 

appropriate by the railroad; however, a 

written or electronic record of the 

information must be retained in the cab 

of the controlling locomotive until the 

train reaches its destination. The written 

or electronic record must contain the 

date, time, number of freight cars 

inspected, and identify the qualified 

person(s) performing the test and the 

location where the Class I brake test was 

performed. 

* * * * * 

■ 15. Amend § 232.207 by revising 

paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows: 

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

inspection. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) In the event of an emergency that 

alters normal train operations, such as a 

derailment or other unusual 

circumstance that adversely affects the 

safe operation of the train, the railroad 

is not required to provide prior written 

notification of a change in the location 

where a Class IA brake test is performed 

to a location not on the railroad’s list of 

designated locations for performing 

Class IA brake tests, provided that the 

railroad notifies FRA’s Associate 

Administrator for Safety within 24 

hours after the designation has been 

changed and the reason for that change. 

■ 16. Amend § 232.209 by revising and 

republishing paragraph (a) to read as 

follows: 

§ 232.209 Class II brake tests— 

intermediate inspection. 

(a) At a location other than the initial 

terminal of a train, a Class II brake test 

must be performed by a qualified 

person, as defined in § 232.5, on the 

following equipment when added to a 

train: 

(1) Each car or solid block of cars, as 

defined in § 232.5, that has not 

previously received a Class I brake test 

or that has been off-air for more than 24 

hours; 

(2) Each solid block of cars, as defined 

in § 232.5, that is comprised of cars from 

more than one previous train; and 

(3) Except as provided in paragraph 

(a)(4) of this section, each solid block of 

cars that is comprised of cars from only 

one previous train, the cars of which 

have not remained continuously and 

consecutively coupled together with the 

train line remaining connected since 

being removed from the previous train. 

A solid block of cars is considered to 

have remained continuously and 

consecutively coupled together with the 

train line remaining connected since 

being removed from the previous train 

if it has been changed only by removing 

defective equipment. 

(4) Each solid block of cars that is 

comprised of cars from a single previous 

train, the cars of which were required to 

be separated into multiple solid blocks 

of cars due to space or trackage 

constraints at a particular location when 

removed from the previous train, if they 

are not added in the same relative order 

as when removed from the previous 

train or if the cars in each of the 

multiple blocks of cars have not 

remained continuously and 

consecutively coupled together with the 

train line remaining connected, except 

for the removal of defective equipment. 

* * * * * 

■ 17. Amend § 232.211 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(3) through (5) to read as 

follows: 

§ 232.211 Class III brake tests-trainline 

continuity inspection. 

(a) * * * 

(3) At a point, other than the initial 

terminal for the train, where a car or a 

solid block of cars that is comprised of 

cars from only one previous train the 

cars of which: 

(i) Have remained continuously and 

consecutively coupled together with the 

trainline remaining connected, other 

than for removing defective equipment, 

since being removed from its previous 

train that has previously received a 

Class I brake test; and 

(ii) That has not been off-air for more 

than 24 hours is added to a train; 

(4) At a point, other than the initial 

terminal for the train, where a solid 

block of cars that is comprised of cars 

from a single previous train is added to 

a train, provided: 

(i) The solid block of cars was 

required to be separated into multiple 

solid blocks of cars due to space or 

trackage constraints at a particular 

location when removed from the 

previous train; 

(ii) The cars have previously received 

a Class I brake test; 

(iii) Have not been off-air more than 

24 hours; and 

(iv) The cars in each of the multiple 

blocks of cars have remained 

continuously and consecutively coupled 

together with the train line remaining 

connected, except for the removal of 

defective equipment. Furthermore, these 

multiple solid blocks of cars must be 

added to the train in the same relative 

order (no reclassification) as when 

removed from the previous train, except 

for the removal of defective equipment; 

or 

(5) At a point, other than the initial 

terminal for the train, where a car or a 

solid block of cars that has received a 

Class I or Class II brake test at that 

location, prior to being added to the 

train, and that has not been off-air for 

more than 24 hours, is added to a train. 

* * * * * 

■ 18. Amend § 232.213 by: 

■ a. Removing paragraph (a)(1)(iii); 

■ b. Redesignating paragraph (a)(1)(iv) 

as (a)(1)(iii); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (a)(5); 

■ d. Revising and republishing 

paragraph (a)(6); and 

■ e. Adding paragraph (a)(8). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 232.213 Extended haul trains. 

(a) * * * 

(5) The train must have no more than 

one pick-up and one set-out en route, 

except for the set-out of defective 

equipment pursuant to the requirements 

of this chapter. Cars added to the train 

en route must be inspected pursuant to 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 80573 

the requirements contained in 

paragraphs (a)(2) through (5) of this 

section at the location where they are 

added to the train. 

(6) In order for an extended haul train 

to proceed beyond 1,500 miles, the 

following requirements shall be met: 

(i) If the train will move 1,000 miles 

or less from that location before 

receiving a Class IA brake test or 

reaching destination, a Class I brake test 

must be conducted pursuant to 

§ 232.205 to ensure 100 percent effective 

and operative brakes. 

(ii) If the train will move greater than 

1,000 miles from that location without 

another brake inspection, the train must 

be identified as an extended haul train 

for that movement and must meet all the 

requirements contained in paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (5) of this section. Such 

trains must receive a Class I brake test 

pursuant to § 232.205 by a qualified 

mechanical inspector to ensure 100 

percent effective and operative brakes, a 

freight car inspection pursuant to part 

215 of this chapter by an inspector 

designated under § 215.11 of this 

chapter, and all cars containing noncomplying conditions under part 215 of 

this chapter must either be repaired or 

removed from the train. 

* * * * * 

(8) In the event of an emergency that 

alters normal train operations, such as a 

derailment or other unusual 

circumstance that adversely affects the 

safe operation of the train, the railroad 

is not required to provide prior written 

notification of a change in the location 

where an extended haul brake test is 

performed to a location not on the 

railroad’s list of designated locations for 

performing extended haul brake tests, 

provided that the railroad notifies FRA’s 

Associate Administrator for Safety 

within 24 hours after the designation 

has been changed and the reason for 

that change. 

* * * * * 

■ 19. Amend § 232.217 by revising 

paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 232.217 Train brake tests conducted 

using yard air. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) If the cars are off-air for more than 

24 hours, the cars must be retested in 

accordance with § 232.205(c) through 

(f). 

* * * * * 

■ 20. Amend § 232.219 by revising the 

section heading and revising and 

republishing paragraph (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 232.219 Double-heading and helper 

service. 

* * * * * 

(c) If a helper locomotive utilizes a 

Helper Link device or a similar 

technology, the locomotive and device 

shall be equipped, designed, and 

maintained as follows: 

(1) The locomotive engineer shall be 

notified by a distinctive alarm of any 

loss of communication between the 

device and the two-way end-of-train 

device of more than 25 seconds; 

(2) A method to reset the device shall 

be provided in the cab of the helper 

locomotive that can be operated from 

the engineer’s usual position during 

operation of the locomotive. 

Alternatively, the helper locomotive or 

the device shall be equipped with a 

means to automatically reset the device, 

provided that the automatic reset occurs 

within the period time permitted for 

manual reset of the device; and 

(3) When helping trains equipped 

with distributed power or ECP brakes on 

the rear of the train, and utilizing a 

Helper Link device or a similar 

technology, a properly installed and 

tested end-of-train device may be 

utilized on the helper locomotive. 

Railroads must adopt and comply with 

an operating rule consistent with this 

chapter to ensure the safe use of this 

alternative procedure. 

(4) The device shall be tested for 

accuracy and calibrated if necessary 

according to the manufacturer’s 

specifications and procedures every 365 

days. This shall include testing radio 

frequencies and modulation of the 

device. A legible record of the date and 

location of the last test or calibration 

shall be maintained with the device. 

■ 21. Amend § 232.305 by revising 

paragraphs (a) and (b)(2) and adding 

paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 232.305 Single car air brake tests. 

(a) Single car air brake tests must be 

performed by a qualified person in 

accordance with either Section 3.0, 

‘‘Tests-Standard Freight Brake 

Equipment,’’ and Section 4.0, ‘‘Special 

Tests,’’ AAR Standard S–486–18; 

Section 3.0, ‘‘Single-Car Test 

Requirements,’’ Section 4.0, ‘‘Special 

Tests,’’ and Section 13.0 ‘‘4-Pressure 

Single-Car Test Requirements,’’ AAR 

Standard S–4027–18; an alternative 

procedure approved by FRA pursuant to 

§ 232.17; or a modified procedure 

approved in accordance with the 

provisions contained in § 232.307. 

(b) * * * 

(2) A car is on a shop or repair track, 

as defined in § 232.303(a), for any 

reason and has not received either: 

(i) A manual single car air brake test 

(AAR Standard S–486) within the 

previous 12-month period; 

(ii) An automated single car air brake 

test (AAR Standard S–4027 §§ 3.0 and 

4.0) within the previous 24-month 

period; 

(iii) Or a 4-pressure single car air 

brake test (AAR Standard S–4027 § 13.0) 

within the previous 48-month period; 

* * * * * 

(f) The Director of the Federal Register 

approves the incorporation by reference 

of the standards required in this section 

into this section in accordance with 5 

U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You 

may inspect a copy of the material at the 

Federal Railroad Administration, Docket 

Clerk, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 855– 

368–4200). You may also inspect the 

material at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, email fedreg.legal@

nara.gov, or go to: www.archives.gov/ 

federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. 

You may obtain the material from the 

following source(s): 

(1) Association of American Railroads 

(AAR), 425 Third Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20024, telephone: (202) 

639–2345, email: publications@aar.com, 

website: https://aarpublications.com. 

(i) AAR Standard S–486, ‘‘Code of Air 

Brake System Tests for Freight 

Equipment—Single Car Test,’’ Revised 

2018 (contained in AAR Manual of 

Standards and Recommended Practices, 

Brakes and Brake Equipment), also 

referred to as AAR Standard S–486–18. 

(ii) AAR Standard S–4027, 

‘‘Automated Single-Car Test Equipment, 

Conventional Brake Equipment—Design 

and Performance Requirements,’’ 

Revised 2018 (contained in AAR 

Manual of Standards and Recommended 

Practices, Brakes and Brake Equipment), 

also referred to as AAR Standard S– 

4027–18. 

(2) [Reserved] 

■ 22. Amend § 232.307 by revising the 

section heading and revising and 

republishing paragraph (a) to read as 

follows: 

§ 232.307 Modification of brake test 

procedures. 

(a) Request. The AAR or other 

authorized representative of the railroad 

industry may seek modification of brake 

test procedures prescribed in this 

chapter. The request for modification 

shall be submitted to the Associate 

Administrator for Safety, Federal 

Railroad Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590 and shall contain: 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
80574 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

(1) The name, title, address, and 

telephone number of the primary person 

to be contacted with regard to review of 

the modification; 

(2) The section and paragraph at 

issue, and the modification, in detail, to 

be substituted for a particular procedure 

prescribed in this chapter; 

(3) Appropriate data or analysis, or 

both, for FRA to consider in 

determining whether the modification 

will provide at least an equivalent level 

of safety; and 

(4) A statement affirming that the 

railroad industry has served a copy of 

the request on the designated 

representatives of the employees 

responsible for the equipment’s 

operation, inspection, testing, and 

maintenance under this part, together 

with a list of the names and addresses 

of the persons served. 

* * * * * 

■ 23. Amend § 232.403 by revising 

paragraph (d)(6) and revising and 

republishing paragraphs (f)(4) and (g) to 

read as follows: 

§ 232.403 Design standards for one-way 

end-of-train devices. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(6) During a shock of 10 g. peak for 

0.01 seconds in any axis. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(4) The front unit shall be designed to 

meet the requirements of paragraphs 

(d)(2), (3), (4), and (5) of this section. It 

shall also be designed to meet the 

performance requirements in this 

paragraph under the following 

environmental conditions: 

(i) At temperatures from 0 °C to 60 °C; 

(ii) During a shock of 10 g. peak for 

0.01 seconds in any axis. 

(g) Radio equipment. (1) The radio 

transmitter in the rear unit and the radio 

receiver in the front unit shall comply 

with the applicable regulatory 

requirements of the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) 

and use of a transmission format 

acceptable to the FCC. 

(2) If power is supplied by one or 

more batteries only, the operating life 

must be a minimum of 36 hours at 0 °C. 

(3) If power is supplied by a 

generator—an air turbine or alternative 

technology—a backup battery or similar 

energy storage device is required with a 

minimum of 12 hours continuous power 

at 0 °C in the event the generator stops 

functioning as intended. 

■ 24. Amend § 232.407 by revising 

paragraphs (b), (c), (e)(1), and (f)(2) to 

read as follows: 

§ 232.407 Operations requiring use of twoway end-of-train devices; prohibition on 

purchase of nonconforming devices. 

* * * * * 

(b) General. All trains not specifically 

excepted in paragraph (e) of this section 

shall be equipped with and shall use 

either a two-way end-of-train device 

meeting the design and performance 

requirements contained in § 232.405 or 

a device using an alternative technology 

approved by FRA pursuant to § 232.17 

to perform the same function. 

(c) New devices. Each newly 

manufactured end-of-train device 

purchased by a railroad shall be a twoway end-of-train device meeting the 

design and performance requirements 

contained in § 232.405 or a device using 

an alternative technology approved by 

FRA pursuant to § 232.17 to perform the 

same function. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) Trains with a locomotive, 

locomotive consist, or air repeater unit 

located at the rear of the train that is 

capable of making an emergency brake 

application, through a command 

effected by telemetry or by a crew 

member in radio contact with the 

controlling locomotive. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(2) The rear unit batteries must be 

sufficiently charged at the initial 

terminal or other point where the device 

is installed and throughout the train’s 

trip to ensure that the end-of-train 

device will remain operative until the 

train reaches its destination. Airpowered generator equipped devices 

must be tested for a minimum charge at 

installation before initiating generator 

operation. 

* * * * * 

■ 25. Amend § 232.409 by revising 

paragraph (d) and adding paragraphs (e) 

and (f) to read as follows: 

§ 232.409 Inspection and testing of end-oftrain devices. 

* * * * * 

(d) The telemetry equipment must be 

tested for accuracy and calibrated if 

necessary according to the 

manufacturer’s specifications and 

procedures. If the manufacturer’s 

specifications requires periodic 

calibration of the telemetry equipment, 

the date and location of the last 

calibration or test and the name or 

unique employee identifier of the 

person performing the calibration or test 

must be legibly displayed on a weatherresistant sticker affixed to the outside of 

both the front unit and the rear unit; 

however, if the front unit is an integral 

part of the locomotive or is inaccessible, 

then the information may be recorded 

on Form FRA F6180–49A instead, 

provided that the serial number of the 

unit is recorded. 

(e) The air pressure sensor contained 

in the end-of-train device must be tested 

by the processes and frequency 

identified in § 229.27 or by 

manufacturer specifications approved 

under § 232.307. The date and location 

of the test and the name or unique 

employee identifier of the person 

performing the test must be legibly 

displayed on a weather-resistant 

marking device affixed to the outside of 

the unit. 

(f) Each manufacturer of telemetry 

transceiver equipment must either: 

(1) Establish and communicate 

publicly to its customers a reasonable 

recommended calibration period; or 

(2) Submit to FRA an annual report 

including: 

(i) The total number of transceivers— 

itemized by model name, number, or 

type—sold to date; 

(ii) The number of transceivers that 

have been reported as inoperative or 

otherwise malfunctioning or returned 

for servicing; and 

(iii) The number of transceivers 

reported or returned for service with 

frequency modulation or transmit power 

outside of either manufacturer’s 

specifications or FCC-approved 

specifications. 

■ 26. Amend § 232.603 by revising 

paragraphs (a) introductory text, (d), and 

(f) and adding paragraph (g) to read as 

follows: 

§ 232.603 Design, interoperability, and 

configuration management requirements. 

(a) General. A freight car or freight 

train equipped with an ECP brake 

system must, 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 in paragraph (g) of this section; an 

alternate standard approved by FRA 

pursuant to § 232.17; or a modified 

standard approved in accordance with 

the provisions contained in paragraph 

(g) of this section. 

* * * * * 

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

freight train equipped with a standalone 

ECP brake system is excepted from the 

requirement in § 232.103(l) referencing 

AAR Standard S–469–01, ‘‘Freight 

Brakes—Performance Specification.’’ 

* * * * * 

(f) Modification of standards. The 

AAR or other authorized representative 

of the railroad industry may seek 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 80575 

modification of the industry standards 

identified in or approved pursuant to 

paragraph (g) of this section. The 

request for modification will be handled 

and shall be submitted in accordance 

with the modification procedures 

contained in § 232.307. 

(g) Incorporation by reference. The 

Director of the Federal Register 

approves the incorporation by reference 

of the standards required in this section 

into this section in accordance with 5 

U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You 

may inspect a copy at the Federal 

Railroad Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, 

202–493–6300 or at the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA). For information on the 

availability of this material at NARA, 

email fedreg.legal@nara.gov, or go to: 

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ 

ibr-locations.html. You may obtain the 

material from the following source(s): 

(1) Association of American 

Railroads, 425 Third Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20024, telephone: (202) 

639–2345, email: publications@aar.com, 

website: https://aarpublications.com. 

(i) AAR S–4200, ‘‘Electronically 

Controlled Pneumatic (ECP) CableBased Brake Systems—Performance 

Requirements,’’ Revised 2014, 

(contained in AAR Manual of Standards 

and Recommended Practices, Brakes 

and Brake Equipment). 

(ii) AAR S–4210, ‘‘ECP Cable-Based 

Brake System Cable, Connectors, and 

Junction Boxes—Performance 

Specifications,’’ Revised 2014, 

(contained in AAR Manual of Standards 

and Recommended Practices, Brakes 

and Brake Equipment). 

(iii) AAR S–4220, ‘‘ECP Cable-Based 

Brake DC Power Supply—Performance 

Specification,’’ Version 2.0, Revised 

2002, (contained in AAR Manual of 

Standards and Recommended Practices, 

Electronically Controlled Brake 

Systems). 

(iv) AAR S–4230, ‘‘Intratrain 

Communication Specification for CableBased Freight Train Control System,’’ 

Version 4.1, Revised 2014, (contained in 

AAR Manual of Standards and 

Recommended Practices, Brakes and 

Brake Equipment). 

(v) AAR S–4240, ‘‘ECP Brake 

Equipment—Approval Procedure,’’ 

Adopted 2007, (contained in AAR 

Manual of Standards and Recommended 

Practices, Electronically Controlled 

Brake Systems). 

(vi) AAR S–4250, ‘‘Performance 

Requirements for ITC Controlled CableBased Distributed Power Systems,’’ 

Version 3.0, Revised 2014, (contained in 

AAR Manual of Standards and 

Recommended Practices, Brakes and 

Brake Equipment). 

(vii) AAR S–4260, ‘‘ECP Brake and 

Wire Distributed Power Interoperability 

Test Procedures,’’ Revised 2008 

(contained in AAR Manual of Standards 

and Recommended Practices, Brakes 

and Brake Equipment). 

(viii) AAR S–4270, ‘‘ECP Brake 

System Configuration Management,’’ 

Adopted 2008, (contained in AAR 

Manual of Standards and Recommended 

Practices, Electronically Controlled 

Brake Systems). 

(2) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

■ 27. Add Subpart H to read as follows: 

Subpart H—Tourist, Scenic, Historic, 

and Excursion Operations Braking 

Systems 

Sec. 

232.700 Applicability. 

232.701 Power brakes; minimum 

percentage. 

232.702 Drawbars; standard height. 

232.703 Power brakes and appliances for 

operating power-brake systems. 

232.710 General rules; locomotives. 

232.711 Train air brake system tests. 

232.712 Initial terminal road train airbrake 

tests. 

232.713 Road train and intermediate 

terminal train air brake tests. 

232.714 Inbound brake equipment 

inspection. 

232.715 Double heading and helper service. 

232.716 Running tests. 

232.717 Freight and passenger train car 

brakes. 

232.719 End-of-train device. 

§ 232.700 Applicability. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, this subpart applies 

to standard gage railroads. 

(b) This subpart does not apply to: 

(1) A railroad that operates only on 

track inside an installation which is not 

part of the general railroad system of 

transportation; or 

(2) Rapid transit operations in an 

urban area that are not connected with 

the general railroad system of 

transportation. 

(c) As used in this subpart, carrier 

means ‘‘railroad,’’ as that term is 

defined by 49 CFR 232.5 

§ 232.701 Power brakes; minimum 

percentage. 

On and after September 1, 1910, on all 

railroads used in interstate commerce, 

whenever, as required by the Safety 

Appliance Act as amended March 2, 

1903, any train is operated with power 

or train brakes, not less than 85 percent 

of the cars of such train shall have their 

brakes used and operated by the 

engineer of the locomotive drawing 

such train, and all power-brake cars in 

every such train which are associated 

together with the 85 percent shall have 

their brakes so used and operated. 

§ 232.702 Drawbars; standard height. 

Not included in this subpart. Moved 

to 49 CFR part 231. 

§ 232.703 Power brakes and appliances for 

operating power-brake systems. 

Requirements are contained in 49 CFR 

232.103(l). 

§ 232.710 General rules; locomotives. 

(a) Air brake and hand brake 

equipment on locomotives including 

tender must be inspected and 

maintained in accordance with the 

requirements of the Locomotive 

Inspection and United States Safety 

Appliance Acts and related orders and 

regulations of the Federal Railroad 

Administrator (FRA). 

(b) It must be known that air brake 

equipment on locomotives is in a safe 

and suitable condition for service. 

(c) Compressor or compressors must 

be tested for capacity by orifice test as 

often as conditions require but not less 

frequently than required by law and 

orders of the FRA. 

(d) Main reservoirs shall be subjected 

to tests periodically as required by law 

and orders of the FRA. 

(e) Air gauges must be tested 

periodically as required by law and 

orders of the FRA, and whenever any 

irregularity is reported. They shall be 

compared with an accurate deadweight 

tester, or test gauge. Gauges found 

inaccurate or defective must be repaired 

or replaced. 

(f)(1) All operating portions of air 

brake equipment together with dirt 

collectors and filters must be cleaned, 

repaired and tested as often as 

conditions require to maintain them in 

a safe and suitable condition for service, 

and not less frequently than required by 

law and orders of the FRA. 

(2) On locomotives so equipped, hand 

brakes, parts, and connections must be 

inspected, and necessary repairs made 

as often as the service requires, with 

date being suitably stenciled or tagged. 

(g) The date of testing or cleaning of 

air brake equipment and the initials of 

the shop or station at which the work 

was done shall be placed on a card 

displayed under transparent covering in 

the cab of each locomotive unit. 

(h)(1) Minimum brake cylinder piston 

travel must be sufficient to provide 

proper brake shoe clearance when 

brakes are released. 

(2) Maximum brake cylinder piston 

travel when locomotive is standing must 

not exceed the following: 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
80576 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

Inches 

(i) Steam locomotives: 

(A) Cam type of driving wheel brake ................................................................................................................................................. 31⁄2

(B) Other types of driving wheel brakes ............................................................................................................................................ 6 

(C) Engine truck brake ....................................................................................................................................................................... 8 

(D) Engine trailer truck brake ............................................................................................................................................................. 8 

(E) Tender brake (truck mounted and tender bed mounted) ............................................................................................................. 8 

(F) Tender brake (body mounted) ...................................................................................................................................................... 9 

(ii) Locomotives other than steam: 

(A) Driving wheel brake ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6 

(B) Swivel type truck brake with brakes on more than one truck operated by one brake cylinder .................................................. 7 

(C) Swivel type truck brake equipped with one brake cylinder ......................................................................................................... 8 

(D) Swivel type truck brake equipped with two or more brake cylinders .......................................................................................... 6 

(i)(1) Foundation brake rigging, and 

safety supports, where used, must be 

maintained in a safe and suitable 

condition for service. Levers, rods, brake 

beams, hangars and pins must be of 

ample strength and must not bind or 

foul in any way that will affect proper 

operation of brakes. All pins must be 

properly applied and secured in place 

with suitable locking devices. Brake 

shoes must be properly applied and 

kept approximately in line with treads 

of wheels or other braking surfaces. 

(2) No part of the foundation brake 

rigging and safety supports shall be 

closer to the rails than specified by law 

and orders of the FRA. 

(j)(1) Main reservoir leakage: Leakage 

from main air reservoir and related 

piping shall not exceed an average of 3 

pounds per minute in a test of three 

minutes’ duration, made after the 

pressure has been reduced 40 percent 

below maximum pressure. 

(2) Brake pipe leakage: Brake pipe 

leakage must not exceed 5 pounds per 

minute after a reduction of 10 pounds 

has been made from brake pipe air 

pressure of not less than 70 pounds. 

(3) Brake cylinder leakage: With a full 

service application of brakes, and with 

communication to the brake cylinders 

closed, brakes must remain applied not 

less than five minutes. 

(4) The main reservoir system of each 

unit shall be equipped with at least one 

safety valve, the capacity of which shall 

be sufficient to prevent an accumulation 

of pressure of more than 10 pounds per 

square inch above the maximum setting 

of the compressor governor fixed by the 

chief mechanical officer of the carrier 

operating the locomotive. 

(5) A suitable governor shall be 

provided that will stop and start the air 

compressor within 5 pounds above or 

below the pressures fixed. 

(6) Compressor governor when used 

in connection with the automatic air 

brake system shall be so adjusted that 

the compressor will start when the main 

reservoir pressure is not less than 15 

pounds above the maximum brake-pipe 

pressure fixed by the rules of the carrier 

and will not stop the compressor until 

the reservoir pressure has increased not 

less than 10 pounds. 

(k) The communicating signal system 

on locomotives when used in passenger 

service must be tested and known to be 

in a safe and suitable condition for 

service before each trip. 

(l) Enginemen when taking charge of 

locomotives must know that the brakes 

are in operative condition. 

(m) In freezing weather drain cocks on 

air compressors of steam locomotives 

must be left open while compressors are 

shut off. 

(n) Air pressure regulating devices 

must be adjusted for the following 

pressures: 

Pounds 

(1) Locomotives: 

(i) Minimum brake pipe air pressure: 

(A) Road Service ......................................................................................................................................................................... 70 

(B) Switch Service ....................................................................................................................................................................... 60 

(ii) Minimum differential between brake pipe and main reservoir air pressures, with brake valve in running position .................... 15 

(iii) Safety valve for straight air brake ................................................................................................................................................ 30–55 

30–68 

(iv) Safety valve for LT, ET, No. 8–EL, No. 14 El, No. 6–DS, No. 6–BL and No. 6–SL equipment ................................................ 30–75 

(v) Safety valve for HSC and No. 24–RL equipment ......................................................................................................................... 30–50 

(vi) Reducing valve for independent or straight air brake .................................................................................................................. 50 

(vii) Self-lapping portion for electro-pneumatic brake (minimum full application pressure) ............................................................... 30–50 

(viii) Self-lapping portion for independent air brake (full application pressure) ................................................................................. 40–60 

(viiii) Reducing valve for air signal ..................................................................................................................................................... 50 

(x) Reducing valve for high-speed brake (minimum).

(2) Cars: 

(i) Reducing valve for high-speed brake ............................................................................................................................................ 58–62 

(ii) Safety valve for PS, LN, UC, AML, AMU and AB–1–B air brakes ............................................................................................... 58–62 

(iii) Safety valve for HSC air brake .................................................................................................................................................... 58–77 

(iv) Governor valve for water raising system ..................................................................................................................................... 60 

(v) Reducing valve for water raising system ...................................................................................................................................... 20–30 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 80577 

§ 232.711 Train air brake system tests. 

(a) Supervisors are jointly responsible 

with inspectors, enginemen and 

trainmen for condition of train air brake 

and air signal equipment on motive 

power and cars to the extent that it is 

possible to detect defective equipment 

by required air tests. 

(b) Communicating signal system on 

passenger equipment trains must be 

tested and known to be in a suitable 

condition for service before leaving 

terminal. 

(c) Each train must have the air brakes 

in effective operating condition, and at 

no time shall the number and location 

of operative air brakes be less than 

permitted by Federal requirements. 

When piston travel is in excess of 101⁄2

inches, the air brakes cannot be 

considered in effective operating 

condition. 

(d) Condensation must be blown from 

the pipe from which air is taken before 

connecting yard line or motive power to 

train. 

§ 232.712 Initial terminal road train 

airbrake tests. 

(a)(1) Each train must be inspected 

and tested as specified in this section by 

a qualified person at points— 

(i) Where the train is originally made 

up (initial terminal); 

(ii) Where train consist is changed, 

other than by adding or removing a 

solid block of cars, and the train brake 

system remains charged; and 

(iii) Where the train is received in 

interchange if the train consist is 

changed other than by: 

(A) Removing a solid block of cars 

from the head end or rear end of train; 

(B) Changing motive power; 

(C) Removing or changing the 

caboose; or 

(D) Any combination of the changes 

listed in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(A), (B), 

and (C) of this section. Where a carman 

is to perform the inspection and test 

under existing or future collective 

bargaining agreement, in those 

circumstances a carman alone will be 

considered a qualified person. 

(2) A qualified person participating in 

the test and inspection or who has 

knowledge that it was made shall notify 

the engineer that the initial terminal 

road train air brake test has been 

satisfactorily performed. The qualified 

person shall provide the notification in 

writing if the road crew will report for 

duty after the qualified person goes off 

duty. The qualified person also shall 

provide the notification in writing if the 

train that has been inspected is to be 

moved in excess of 500 miles without 

being subjected to another test pursuant 

to either this section or § 232.713 of this 

part. 

(b) Each carrier shall designate 

additional inspection points not more 

than 1,000 miles apart where 

intermediate inspection will be made to 

determine that: 

(1) Brake pipe pressure leakage does 

not exceed five pounds per minute; 

(2) Brakes apply on each car in 

response to a 20-pound service brake 

pipe pressure reduction; and 

(3) Brake rigging is properly secured 

and does not bind or foul. 

(c) Train airbrake system must be 

charged to required air pressure, angle 

cocks and cutout cocks must be 

properly positioned, air hose must be 

properly coupled and must be in 

condition for service. An examination 

must be made for leaks and necessary 

repairs made to reduce leakage to a 

minimum. Retaining valves and 

retaining valve pipes must be inspected 

and known to be in condition for 

service. If train is to be operated in 

electro-pneumatic brake operation, 

brake circuit cables must be properly 

connected. 

(d)(1) After the airbrake system on a 

freight train is charged to within 15 

pounds of the setting of the feed valve 

on the locomotive, but to not less than 

60 pounds, as indicated by an accurate 

gauge at rear end of train, and on a 

passenger train when charged to not less 

than 70 pounds, and upon receiving the 

signal to apply brakes for test, a 15- 

pound brake pipe service reduction 

must be made in automatic brake 

operations, the brake valve lapped, and 

the number of pounds of brake pipe 

leakage per minute noted as indicated 

by brake pipe gauge, after which brake 

pipe reduction must be increased to full 

service. Inspection of the train brakes 

must be made to determine that angle 

cocks are properly positioned, that the 

brakes are applied on each car, that 

piston travel is correct, that brake 

rigging does not bind or foul, and that 

all parts of the brake equipment are 

properly secured. When this inspection 

has been completed, the release signal 

must be given and brakes released and 

each brake inspected to see that all have 

released. 

(2) When a passenger train is to be 

operated in electro-pneumatic brake 

operation and after completion of test of 

brakes as prescribed by paragraph (d)(1) 

of this section the brake system must be 

recharged to not less than 90 pounds air 

pressure, and upon receiving the signal 

to apply brakes for test, a minimum 20 

pounds electro-pneumatic brake 

application must be made as indicated 

by the brake cylinder gage. Inspection of 

the train brakes must then be made to 

determine if brakes are applied on each 

car. When this inspection has been 

completed, the release signal must be 

given and brakes released and each 

brake inspected to see that all have 

released. 

(3) When the locomotive used to haul 

the train is provided with means for 

maintaining brake pipe pressure at a 

constant level during service 

application of the train brakes, this 

feature must be cut out during train 

airbrake tests. 

(e) Brake pipe leakage must not 

exceed 5 pounds per minute. 

(f)(1) At initial terminal piston travel 

of body-mounted brake cylinders which 

is less than 7 inches or more than 9 

inches must be adjusted to nominally 7 

inches. 

(2) Minimum brake cylinder piston 

travel of truck-mounted brake cylinders 

must be sufficient to provide proper 

brake shoe clearance when brakes are 

released. Maximum piston travel must 

not exceed 6 inches. 

(3) Piston travel of brake cylinders on 

freight cars equipped with other than 

standard single capacity brake, must be 

adjusted as indicated on badge plate or 

stenciling on car located in a 

conspicuous place near the brake 

cylinder. 

(g) When test of airbrakes has been 

completed the engineman and 

conductor must be advised that train is 

in proper condition to proceed. 

(h) During standing test, brakes must 

not be applied or released until proper 

signal is given. 

(i)(1) When train airbrake system is 

tested from a yard test plant, an 

engineer’s brake valve or an appropriate 

test device shall be used to provide 

increase and reduction of brake pipe air 

pressure or electro-pneumatic brake 

application and release at the same or a 

slower rate as with engineer’s brake 

valve and yard test plant must be 

connected to the end which will be 

nearest to the hauling road locomotive. 

(2) When yard test plant is used, the 

train airbrakes system must be charged 

and tested as prescribed by paragraphs 

(c) to (g) of this section inclusive, and 

when practicable should be kept 

charged until road motive power is 

coupled to train, after which, an 

automatic brake application and release 

test of airbrakes on rear car must be 

made. If train is to be operated in 

electro-pneumatic brake operation, this 

test must also be made in electropneumatic brake operation before 

proceeding. 

(3) If after testing the brakes as 

prescribed in paragraph (i)(2) of this 

section the train is not kept charged 

until road motive power is attached, the 

brakes must be tested as prescribed by 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section and if 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
80578 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

train is to be operated in electropneumatic brake operation as prescribed 

by paragraph (d)(2) of this section. 

(j) Before adjusting piston travel or 

working on brake rigging, cutout cock in 

brake pipe branch must be closed and 

air reservoirs must be drained. When 

cutout cocks are provided in brake 

cylinder pipes, these cutout cocks only 

may be closed and air reservoirs need 

not be drained. 

§ 232.713 Road train and intermediate 

terminal train air brake tests. 

(a) Passenger trains. Before motive 

power is detached or angle cocks are 

closed on a passenger train operated in 

either automatic or electro-pneumatic 

brake operation, except when closing 

angle cocks for cutting off one or more 

cars from the rear end of train, 

automatic air brake must be applied. 

After recouping, brake system must be 

recharged to required air pressure and 

before proceeding and upon receipt of 

proper request or signal, application and 

release tests of brakes on rear car must 

be made from locomotive in automatic 

brake operation. If train is to be operated 

in electro-pneumatic brake operation, 

this test must also be made in electropneumatic brake operation before 

proceeding. Inspector or trainman must 

determine if brakes on rear car of train 

properly apply and release. 

(b) Freight trains. Before motive 

power is detached or angle cocks are 

closed on a freight train, brakes must be 

applied with not less than a 20-pound 

brake pipe reduction. After recoupling, 

and after angle cocks are opened, it 

must be known that brake pipe air 

pressure is being restored as indicated 

by a rear car gauge or device. In the 

absence of a rear car gauge or device, an 

air brake test must be made to determine 

that the brakes on the rear car apply and 

release. 

(c)(1) At a point other than an initial 

terminal where a locomotive or caboose 

is changed, or where one or more 

consecutive cars are cut off from the rear 

end or head end of a train with the 

consist otherwise remaining intact, after 

the train brake system is charged to 

within 15 pounds of the feed valve 

setting on the locomotive, but not less 

than 60 pounds as indicated at the rear 

of a freight train and 70 pounds on a 

passenger train, a 20-pound brake pipe 

reduction must be made and it must be 

determined that the brakes on the rear 

car apply and release. As an alternative 

to the rear car brake application and 

release test, it shall be determined that 

brake pipe pressure of the train is being 

reduced as indicated by a rear car gauge 

or device and then that brake pipe 

pressure of the train is being restored as 

indicated by a rear car gauge or device. 

(2) Before proceeding it must be 

known that brake pipe pressure as 

indicated at rear of freight train is being 

restored. 

(3) On trains operating with electropneumatic brakes, with brake system 

charged to not less than 70 pounds, test 

must be made to determine that rear 

brakes apply and release properly from 

a minimum 20 pounds electropneumatic brake application as 

indicated by brake cylinder gauge. 

(d)(1) At a point other than a terminal 

where one or more cars are added to a 

train, after the train brake system is 

charged to not less than 60 pounds as 

indicated by a gauge or device at the 

rear of a freight train and 70 pounds on 

a passenger train. A brake test must be 

made by a designated person as 

described in § 232.712(a)(1) to 

determine that brake pipe leakage does 

not exceed five (5) pounds per minute 

as indicated by the brake pipe gauge 

after a 20-pound brake pipe reduction 

has been made. After the test is 

completed, it must be determined that 

piston travel is correct, and the train 

airbrakes of these cars and on the rear 

car of the train apply and remain 

applied, until the release signal is given. 

As an alternative to the rear car brake 

application and release portion of the 

test, it shall be determined that brake 

pipe pressure of the train is being 

reduced as indicated by a rear car gauge 

or device and then that brake pipe 

pressure of the train is being restored as 

indicated by a rear car gauge or device. 

Cars added to a train that have not been 

inspected in accordance with § 232.712 

(c) through (j) must be so inspected and 

tested at the next terminal where 

facilities are available for such attention. 

(2)(i) At a terminal where a solid 

block of cars, which has been previously 

charged and tested as prescribed by 

§ 232.712 (c) through (j), is added to a 

train, it must be determined that the 

brakes on the rear car of the train apply 

and release. As an alternative to the rear 

car application and release test, it shall 

be determined that brake pipe pressure 

of the train is being reduced as 

indicated by a rear car gauge or device 

and then that brake pipe pressure of the 

train is being restored as indicated by a 

rear car gauge or device. 

(ii) When cars which have not been 

previously charged and tested as 

prescribed by § 232.712 (c) through (j) 

are added to a train, such cars may 

either be given inspection and tests in 

accordance with § 232.712 (c) through 

(j), or tested as prescribed by paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section prior to departure 

in which case these cars must be 

inspected and tested in accordance with 

§ 232.712 (c) through (j) at next 

terminal. 

(3) Before proceeding it must be 

known that the brake pipe pressure at 

the rear of freight train is being restored. 

(e)(1) Transfer train and yard train 

movements not exceeding 20 miles, 

must have the air brake hose coupled 

between all cars, and after the brake 

system is charged to not less than 60 

pounds, a 15-pound service brake pipe 

reduction must be made to determine 

that the brakes are applied on each car 

before releasing and proceeding. 

(2) Transfer train and yard train 

movements exceeding 20 miles must 

have brake inspection in accordance 

with § 232.712 (c)–(j). 

(f) The automatic air brake must not 

be depended upon to hold a locomotive, 

cars or train, when standing on a grade, 

whether locomotive is attached or 

detached from cars or train. When 

required, a sufficient number of hand 

brakes must be applied to hold train, 

before air brakes are released. When 

ready to start, hand brakes must not be 

released until it is known that the air 

brake system is properly charged. 

(g) As used in this section, device 

means a system of components designed 

and inspected in accordance with 

§ 232.719. 

(h) When a device is used to comply 

with any test requirement in this 

section, the phrase brake pipe pressure 

of the train is being reduced means a 

pressure reduction of at least five 

pounds and the phrase brake pipe 

pressure of the train is being restored 

means a pressure increase of at least five 

(5) pounds. 

§ 232.714 Inbound brake equipment 

inspection. 

(a) At points where inspectors are 

employed to make a general inspection 

of trains upon arrival at terminals, 

visual inspection must be made of 

retaining valves and retaining valve 

pipes, release valves and rods, brake 

rigging, safety supports, hand brakes, 

hose and position of angle cocks and 

make necessary repairs or mark for 

repair tracks any cars to which yard 

repairs cannot be promptly made. 

(b) Freight trains arriving at terminals 

where facilities are available and at 

which special instructions provide for 

immediate brake inspection and repairs, 

trains shall be left with air brakes 

applied by a service brake pipe 

reduction of 20 pounds so that 

inspectors can obtain a proper check of 

the piston travel. Trainmen will not 

close any angle cock or cut the 

locomotive off until the 20-pound 

service reduction has been made. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 80579 

Inspection of the brakes and needed 

repairs should be made as soon 

thereafter as practicable. 

§ 232.715 Double heading and helper 

service. 

(a) When more than one locomotive is 

attached to a train, the engineman of the 

leading locomotive shall operate the 

brakes. On all other motive power units 

in the train the brake pipe cutout cock 

to the brake valve must be closed, the 

maximum main reservoir pressure 

maintained and brake valve handles 

kept in the prescribed position. In case 

it becomes necessary for the leading 

locomotive to give up control of the 

train short of the destination of the 

train, a test of the brakes must be made 

to see that the brakes are operative from 

the automatic brake valve of the 

locomotive taking control of the train. 

(b) The electro-pneumatic brake valve 

on all motive power units other than 

that which is handling the train must be 

cut out, handle of brake valve kept in 

the prescribed position, and air 

compressors kept running if practicable. 

§ 232.716 Running tests. 

When motive power, engine crew or 

train crew has been changed, angle 

cocks have been closed except for 

cutting off one or more cars from the 

rear end of train or electro-pneumatic 

brake circuit cables between power 

units and/or cars have been 

disconnected, running test of train air 

brakes on passenger train must be made, 

as soon as speed of train permits, by use 

of automatic brake if operating in 

automatic brake operation or by use of 

electro-pneumatic brake if operating in 

electro-pneumatic brake operation. 

Steam or power must not be shut off 

unless required and running test must 

be made by applying train air brakes 

with sufficient force to ascertain 

whether or not brakes are operating 

properly. If air brakes do not properly 

operate, train must be stopped, cause of 

failure ascertained and corrected and 

running test repeated. 

§ 232.717 Freight and passenger train car 

brakes. 

(a) Testing and repairing brakes on 

cars while on shop or repair tracks. 

(1) When a freight car having brake 

equipment due for periodic attention is 

on shop or repair tracks where facilities 

are available for making air brake 

repairs, brake equipment must be given 

attention in accordance with the 

requirements of Rules 3 and 4 of the 

2020 Field Manual of the AAR 

Interchange Rules (AAR Field Manual); 

or an alternative procedure approved by 

FRA under paragraph (d) of this section. 

Brake equipment shall then be tested by 

use of a single car testing device as 

prescribed by § 232.305. 

(2)(i) When a freight car having an air 

brake defect is on a shop or repair track, 

brake equipment must be tested by use 

of a single car testing device as 

prescribed by § 232.305. 

(ii) All freight cars on shop or repair 

tracks shall be tested to determine that 

the air brakes apply and release. Piston 

travel on a standard body mounted 

brake cylinder which is less than 7 

inches or more than 9 inches must be 

adjusted to nominally 7 inches. Piston 

travel of brake cylinders on all freight 

cars equipped with other than standard 

single capacity brake, must be adjusted 

as indicated on badge plate or stenciling 

on car located in a conspicuous place 

near brake cylinder. After piston travel 

has been adjusted and with brakes 

released, sufficient brake shoe clearance 

must be provided. 

(iii) When a car equipped for use in 

passenger train service not due for 

periodical air brake repairs, as indicated 

by stenciled or recorded cleaning dates, 

is on shop or repair tracks, brake 

equipment must be tested by use of 

single car testing device as prescribed 

by the applicable standards referenced 

in § 232.305 or by the American Public 

Transportation Association (APTA) 

standard referenced in § 238.311(a) of 

this chapter. Piston travel of brake 

cylinders must be adjusted if required, 

to the standard travel for that type of 

brake cylinder. After piston travel has 

been adjusted and with brakes released, 

sufficient brake shoe clearance must be 

provided. 

(iv) Before a car is released from a 

shop or repair track, it must be known 

that brake pipe is securely clamped, 

angle cocks in proper position with 

suitable clearance, valves, reservoirs 

and cylinders tight on supports and 

supports securely attached to car. 

(b) Clean, repair, lubricate and test 

(COT&S). (1) Brake equipment on cars 

other than passenger cars must be 

cleaned, repaired, lubricated and tested 

(‘‘COT&S’’) as often as required to 

maintain it in a safe and suitable 

condition for service but not less 

frequently than as required by Rules 3 

and 4 of the AAR Field Manual. 

(2) Brake equipment on passenger cars 

must be cleaned, repaired, lubricated 

and tested (‘‘COT&S’’) as often as 

necessary to maintain it in a safe and 

suitable condition for service but not 

less frequently than as required in 

Standard S–4045–13 in the Manual of 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

of the AAR or an alternative procedure 

approved by FRA pursuant to 

§ 232.717(d). 

(c) Discontinued brake systems. For a 

brake system once, but no longer, 

included in AAR’s current Code of 

Rules or Code of Tests (presently known 

as the Field Manual of the AAR 

Interchange Rules or the Manual of 

Standards and Recommended 

Practices), the brake system must be 

maintained in a safe and suitable 

condition for service according to a 

railroad’s written maintenance plan. 

The maintenance plan, including its 

COT&S component and a periodic 

attention schedule, must be based upon 

a standard appropriate to the 

equipment. The railroad must comply 

with and make its written maintenance 

plan available to FRA upon request. 

(d) Modification of standards. The 

AAR or other authorized representative 

of the railroad industry may seek 

modification of the industry standards 

identified in or approved pursuant to 

paragraph (a) of this section. The 

request for modification will be handled 

and must be submitted in accordance 

with the modification procedures 

contained in § 232.307 of this part. 

(e) Incorporation by Reference. The 

Director of the Federal Register 

approves the incorporation by reference 

of the standards required in this section 

into this section in accordance with 5 

U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You 

may inspect a copy of the material at the 

Federal Railroad Administration, Docket 

Clerk, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 855– 

368–4200). You may also inspect the 

material at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, email fedreg.legal@

nara.gov, or go to: www.archives.gov/ 

federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. 

You may obtain the material from the 

following source(s): 

(1) Association of American Railroads 

(AAR), 425 Third Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20024, telephone: (202) 

639–2345, email: publications@aar.com, 

website: https://aarpublications.com. 

(i) 2020 Field Manual of the AAR 

Interchange Rules, Rule 3—Testing of 

Air Brakes and Rule 4—Air Brake 

Valves and Parts, effective January 1, 

2020. 

(ii) AAR Standard S–4045, ‘‘Passenger 

Equipment Maintenance 

Requirements,’’ Revised 2013 

(contained in AAR Manual of Standards 

and Recommended Practices, Brakes 

and Brake Equipment), also referred to 

as AAR Standard S–4045–13. 

(2) [Reserved] 

§ 232.719 End-of-train devices. 

Requirements are contained in 

subpart E of this part. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5
80580 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

APPENDICES A AND B TO PART 232— 

[REMOVED] 

■ 28. Remove appendices A and B to 

part 232. 

Issued in Washington, DC. 

Quintin C. Kendall, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2020–25817 Filed 12–10–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5