19730 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

1RSAC was established to provide a forum for 

considering railroad safety issues and developing 

recommendations on rulemakings and other safety 

program areas. It includes representation from all 

FRA’s major stakeholder groups, including 

railroads, labor organizations, suppliers, 

manufacturers, and other interested parties. 

2Tier I passenger equipment is permitted to travel 

up to 125 mph; Tier II passenger equipment is 

permitted to travel up to 160 mph; and Tier III 

passenger equipment is permitted to travel up to 

125 mph in a shared right-of-way and 220 mph in 

an exclusive right-of-way without highway-rail 

grade crossings. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Parts 216, 231, and 238 

[Docket No. FRA–2021–0067, Notice No. 1] 

RIN 2130–AC90 

Passenger Equipment Safety 

Standards; Standards for High-Speed 

Trainsets 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: FRA is proposing to amend its 

Passenger Equipment Safety Standards 

to modernize Tier I and Tier III safety 

appliance requirements; update the prerevenue compliance documentation and 

testing requirements; establish 

crashworthiness requirements for 

individual Tier I-compliant vehicles 

equipped with crash energy 

management (CEM); establish standards 

for Tier III inspection, testing, and 

maintenance (ITM) and movement of 

defective equipment (MODE); 

incorporate general safety requirements 

from FRA’s Railroad Locomotive Safety 

Standards for Tier III trainsets; and 

provide for periodic inspection of 

emergency lighting to ensure proper 

functioning. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by June 2, 2023. Comments 

received after that date will be 

considered to the extent practicable 

without incurring additional expense or 

delay. 

FRA anticipates it can resolve this 

rulemaking without a public, oral 

hearing. However, if FRA receives a 

specific request for a public, oral 

hearing prior to May 3, 2023, FRA will 

schedule one and will publish a 

supplemental notice in the Federal 

Register to inform interested parties of 

the date, time, and location of any such 

hearing. 

ADDRESSES: 

Comments: Comments related to 

Docket No. FRA–2021–0067, Notice No. 

1, may be submitted by going to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and following the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name, docket name, 

and docket number or Regulatory 

Identification Number (RIN) for this 

rulemaking (2130–AC90). Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Please 

see the Privacy Act heading in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document for Privacy Act 

information related to any submitted 

comments or materials. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to https://

www.regulations.gov and follow the 

online instructions for accessing the 

docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Hunter, Executive Staff 

Director, Office of Railroad Systems and 

Technology, telephone: 202–579–5508 

or email: michael.hunter@dot.gov; or 

James Mecone, Attorney Adviser, Office 

of the Chief Counsel, telephone: (202) 

380–5324 or email: james.mecone@

dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

II. Statutory Authority and Regulatory 

Development 

III. Technical Background and Overview 

A. Passenger Electronic Hardware and 

Software Safety 

B. Updates to Pre-Revenue Compliance 

Documentation and Testing 

Requirements 

C. Exterior Side Door Safety Systems—New 

Passenger Cars and Locomotives 

D. Alternative Crashworthiness 

Requirements for Evaluating Tier I 

Equipment Utilizing Crash Energy 

Management (CEM) on Individual 

Vehicles 

E. Safety Appliances for Non-Passenger 

Carrying Locomotives and Passenger 

Equipment 

F. Tier III Inspection, Testing, and 

Maintenance, and Movement of 

Defective Equipment 

G. General Tier III Safety Requirements 

H. Congressional Mandates Under the 

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis 

V. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive 

Order 13272 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

D. Federalism Implications 

E. International Trade Impact Assessment 

F. Environmental Impact 

G. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental 

Justice) 

H. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal 

Consultation) 

I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

J. Energy Impact 

K. Privacy Act 

L. Analysis Under 1 CFR Part 51 

Table of Abbreviations 

The following abbreviations are used 

in this document’s preamble: 

ATC automatic train control 

CE categorical exclusion 

CEM crash energy management 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

EA environmental assessment 

EIS environmental impact statement 

ETF Engineering Task Force 

FMECA Failure Modes, Effects, Criticality 

Analysis 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

HEP head-end power 

ICC Interstate Commerce Commission 

IIJA Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 

ITM inspection, testing, and maintenance 

LED light-emitting diode 

LIA Locomotive Inspection Act 

MCAT minimally compliant analytical 

track 

MODE movement of defective equipment 

mph miles per hour 

MCAT minimally compliant analytical 

track 

MU multiple-unit 

NPRM notice of proposed rulemaking 

OEM original equipment manufacturer 

PA public address 

PSWG Passenger Safety Working Group 

PTC positive train control 

RMS root mean squared 

RSAC Railroad Safety Advisory Committee 

U.S. United States 

I. Executive Summary 

This NPRM is based on 

recommendations from the Railroad 

Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) 1

and will complete the Tier III passenger 

equipment safety standards.2 This 

NPRM is proposing new requirements 

and revisions to two main subject areas: 

(1) requirements generally applicable to 

all passenger equipment, such as new 

passenger service pre-revenue safety 

performance demonstration, and vehicle 

design and dynamic qualification; and 

(2) requirements specific to Tier III 

passenger equipment, such as general 

safety requirements and safety 

appliances, inspection, testing, and 

maintenance, and movement of 

defective equipment. FRA estimates the 

30-year costs of this proposed rule to be 

approximately $55.5 million, 

undiscounted, with the majority of the 

costs deriving from Tier III equipment 

ITM requirements. The present value of 

these costs is approximately $21.7 

million, discounted at 7 percent, and 

$35.5 million, discounted at 3 percent; 

of note, however, the majority of the 

costs are incurred only if an operator 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19731 

3The Engineering Task Force (ETF) was 

discontinued when the charter for RSAC expired on 

May 17, 2018. The RSAC was re-chartered on 

September 10, 2018, and on February 1, 2019, the 

RSAC established the PSWG to continue the work 

of the ETF. 

4 83 FR 59182. 

5 64 FR 25591 (May 12, 1999). 

6 67 FR 19970 (Apr. 23, 2002). 

7 77 FR 21356 (Apr. 9, 2012). 

chooses to take advantage of flexibilities 

in the rule. 

The benefits of this proposed rule are 

estimated to be approximately $0.3 

million, undiscounted. The majority of 

the benefits are derived from emergency 

communication and savings to the 

Federal Government. The present value 

is approximately $0.2 million, 

discounted at 7 percent, and $0.3 

million, discounted at 3 percent. 

In 2018, FRA issued a final rule 

adopting new and modified 

requirements governing the construction 

of conventional-speed and high-speed 

passenger rail equipment. FRA notes 

that it is important to consider the costs 

and benefits of this proposed 

rulemaking in conjunction with the 

costs and benefits of the 2018 

rulemaking, as the current rulemaking is 

necessary to complete the regulatory 

framework set out in the 2018 final rule. 

Over the 30-year period of analysis for 

the 2018 final rule, FRA estimated net 

regulatory cost savings of $284.8 million 

(low range) to $541.9 million (high 

range), discounted at 7 percent. 

Annualized net regulatory cost savings 

totaled between $22.9 million and $43.7 

million when discounted at a 7-percent 

rate. 

The net costs of this proposed rule are 

estimated to be approximately $55.2 

million, undiscounted. The annualized 

net costs are approximately $1.7 

million, discounted at 7 percent. 

NET REGULATORY COSTS

Impact Present 

value 7% 

Present 

value 3% 

Costs ................. $21.67 $35.49 

Benefits ............. 0.22 0.26 

Net Costs .......... 21.45 35.23 

Annualized 

Net Costs ... 1.73 1.80 

II. Statutory Authority and Regulatory 

Development 

In September 1994, the Secretary of 

Transportation (Secretary) convened a 

meeting of representatives from all 

sectors of the rail industry with the goal 

of enhancing rail safety. As one 

initiative of this Rail Safety Summit, the 

Secretary announced that DOT would 

begin developing safety standards for 

rail passenger equipment over a fiveyear period. In November 1994, 

Congress adopted the Secretary’s 

schedule for implementing rail 

passenger equipment safety regulations 

and included it in the Federal Railroad 

Safety Authorization Act of 1994 (the 

Act), Public Law 103–440, 108 Stat. 

4619, 4623–4624 (November 2, 1994). In 

the Act, Congress also authorized the 

Secretary to consult with various 

organizations involved in passenger 

train operations for purposes of 

prescribing and amending these 

regulations and to issue orders under it. 

See section 215 of the Act (codified at 

49 U.S.C. 20133). 

Since FRA promulgated the inaugural 

set of passenger equipment safety 

standards in May 1999, satisfying the 

Congressional mandate, FRA has 

engaged in a number of rulemakings to 

amend and enhance its passenger 

equipment safety requirements. Most 

pertinent to this proposed rulemaking, 

FRA published a final rule on November 

21, 2018, adopting new and modified 

requirements governing the construction 

of conventional-speed and high-speed 

passenger rail equipment. See 83 FR 

59182. FRA added a new tier of 

passenger equipment safety standards 

(Tier III) to facilitate the safe 

implementation of nation-wide, 

interoperable passenger rail service at 

speeds up to 220 miles per hour (mph). 

FRA also established crashworthiness 

and occupant protection requirements 

in the alternative to those previously 

specified for Tier I passenger trainsets. 

Additionally, FRA increased from 150 

mph to 160 mph the maximum speed 

for passenger equipment that complies 

with FRA’s Tier II requirements. 

Due to the complexity of the Tier III 

safety requirements, FRA separated 

their establishment into two distinct 

rulemaking efforts. The 2018 final rule 

primarily established the occupant 

volume protection and other major 

structural requirements, such as brake 

and emergency systems requirements. 

This NPRM is proposing requirements 

that would complement those 

requirements and complete the Tier III 

rulemaking process. 

This proposed rule is the product of 

consensus reached by FRA’s RSAC, 

which accepted the task of reviewing 

passenger equipment safety needs and 

programs and recommending specific 

actions that could be useful to advance 

the safety of passenger service, 

including the development of standards 

for the next generation of high-speed 

trainsets. The RSAC established the 

Passenger Safety Working Group 

(PSWG) 3 to handle this task and 

develop recommendations for the full 

RSAC to consider. 

In August 2019, the PSWG convened 

to discuss the topics considered 

previously by the ETF that were not 

included in the initial, Tier III final rule 

published November 21, 2018.4 During 

this meeting, the PSWG reached 

consensus on revising or establishing, as 

appropriate, safety standards for Tier I 

and Tier III safety appliances and nonpassenger carrying locomotives. The 

PSWG also reached consensus on 

requirements for CEM for a single car or 

locomotive; Tier III inspection, testing, 

and maintenance; and movement of 

defective equipment. On November 26, 

2019, the RSAC voted to recommend the 

consensus items to FRA. 

III. Technical Background and 

Overview 

A. Passenger Electronic Hardware and 

Software Safety 

With the proliferation of 

microprocessor control technologies, the 

integration of electronic hardware and 

software on passenger rail equipment 

has grown exponentially. Softwarebased electronic systems are currently 

used to manage virtually all critical 

subsystems on board a passenger train 

ranging from primarily passenger 

comfort features such as air temperature 

and wireless networking systems, to 

safety-critical controls and monitoring 

systems, particularly for braking, 

traction and diagnostics systems. These 

systems are generally separate from 

safety-critical train control technology, 

such as positive train control (PTC) and 

automatic train control (ATC), which 

are governed by part 236. 

In the 1999 Passenger Equipment 

Safety Standards final rule,5 FRA 

established § 238.105, Train electronic 

hardware and software safety, to address 

‘‘the growing role of automated systems 

to control or monitor passenger train 

safety functions.’’ These requirements 

were revised in 2002 6 to provide more 

clarity in the applicability of the 

requirements to subsystems 

traditionally considered to perform 

safety-critical functions and therefore 

expected to be implemented based on a 

failsafe philosophy. In 2012,7 the 

section was further revised to codify the 

terms of waivers from the requirements 

then in § 238.105(d) to provide 

flexibility for systems to provide either 

a service or emergency brake 

application in the event of a hardware/ 

software failure, in lieu of a full-service 

brake application alone, as originally 

written. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19732 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

8 77 FR 21348 (Apr. 9, 2012). 

9 70 FR 11052 (Mar. 7, 2005). 

Also, in 2012, the Locomotive Safety 

Standards final rule 8 established 

subpart E of part 229, providing 

comprehensive requirements for 

locomotive electronics, and appendix F 

to part 229, providing recommended 

practices for design and safety analysis 

for locomotive electronics. With the 

publication of the first set of standards 

for microprocessor-based train control 

systems in 2005,9 and requirements for 

statutorily mandated PTC systems in 

2010, the 2012 locomotive electronics 

requirements and accompanying 

appendix F to part 229 correspondingly 

reflected many of the concepts and 

industry practices that had evolved 

since § 238.105 was first established in 

1999. In doing so, this created slightly 

overlapping requirements because 

§ 238.105 was not revised with similar 

language and passenger locomotives, 

especially cab cars and multiple-unit 

locomotives common to passenger 

operations, also qualify as locomotives 

under part 229 of this chapter and are 

therefore subject to part 229’s 

requirements. For this reason, the PSWG 

decided to address the issue by 

recommending updates to § 238.105 to 

reconcile the requirements with subpart 

E of part 229 to help clarify the 

applicability of the requirements and 

remove or modify any that may 

potentially overlap. 

These proposed updates to the 

passenger electronic hardware and 

software safety requirements in this 

NPRM would establish uniform safety 

standards applicable to all safety-critical 

electronic control systems, subsystems, 

and components on passenger 

equipment. At the same time, in 

recognition of some of the differences 

between passenger and freight 

operations, this NPRM would create 

separate electronic hardware and 

software safety requirements 

specifically for passenger operations. 

However, the proposed requirements are 

not intended to impact technology or 

software subject to other FRA 

regulations, such as 49 CFR part 236. 

B. Updates to Pre-Revenue Compliance 

Documentation and Testing 

Requirements 

FRA is updating the pre-revenue 

compliance documentation and testing 

requirements to address and clarify 

issues that have been identified by FRA 

and the industry during pre-revenue 

service testing acceptance for rolling 

stock, such as the types of testing and 

compliance validation required, the 

timing for such activities, and the 

documentation required. Additionally, 

with the establishment of Tier III, the 

additional flexibility afforded by the 

regulations that allow certain safety 

elements to be defined by the railroad 

(e.g., the functionality of a passenger 

brake alarm) necessitates establishing 

the means to capture the design and 

validate the performance of such 

attributes. Further, experience gained 

from administering the current prerevenue service acceptance testing plan 

requirements under § 238.111 since 

1999 has provided FRA the perspective 

that the industry as a whole would 

benefit from a more detailed regulation 

governing the design validation and 

dynamic acceptance process for 

passenger rolling stock. This concept 

was acknowledged by the PSWG, and 

with considerable help and input from 

participants, a new approach was 

developed by creating proposed 

§ 238.110. That section would address 

design criteria, testing, documentation, 

and approval, and would separate earlystage, design-related compliance 

validations (e.g., carbody structure and 

safety appliances) from the later-stage, 

over-the-route running tests required 

under § 238.111, prior to putting the 

equipment into revenue service. 

By separating design criteria from 

dynamic testing requirements, more 

clarity can be provided as to the 

expectations for passenger equipment 

compliance demonstration throughout 

the life cycle of a procurement. 

Proposed § 238.110 would also provide 

a means for railroads to document 

critical vehicle platform design criteria 

and operational performance 

requirements, systems integration 

requirements, and assumptions that are 

used to validate certain safety 

parameters (e.g., friction coefficient 

used to determine the minimum 

required braking distance). The 

identification of these governing 

parameters would provide a means for 

FRA and the railroad to effectively 

validate safety requirements tied to 

what would otherwise be configurable 

criteria, i.e., trainset elements that may 

differ between trainset manufacturers or 

trainset types, based on the operating 

environment, intended service, or even 

customer preference. It would also 

ensure that the limit of safe performance 

of the vehicles is clearly established and 

would require that new testing or 

validation be performed if the railroad 

intended to operate the passenger 

equipment outside of this established 

operating paradigm. For example, under 

this proposal, if a railroad has 

previously demonstrated a vehicle’s safe 

operation at speeds up to only 100 mph, 

then additional testing and validation 

would be required to operate the same 

rolling stock at speeds above 100 mph. 

Similarly, if a railroad were to acquire 

passenger equipment from another 

railroad where it is operated with a 

longer minimum safe braking distance 

than it would be on the acquiring 

railroad, then the acquiring railroad 

would need to perform additional prerevenue acceptance testing on its 

property to validate that that braking 

system is still compliant with the 

requirements of this part in the new 

operating environment. 

Much of proposed § 238.110 

formalizes and memorializes what is 

industry best practice. However, this 

proposal contains a significant addition 

above what is currently industry 

practice in the requirement for railroads 

to develop a ‘‘vehicle qualification 

plan.’’ This proposed plan would 

require the railroad to take into 

consideration the entire compliance 

demonstration process, from the early 

stages of a project through the creation 

of tools such as a compliance matrix. 

This would help ensure the railroad, 

rolling stock supplier, and FRA 

effectively work from the same ‘‘sheet of 

music,’’ by determining what regulatory 

metrics must be met to achieve 

compliance, and then what constitutes 

an effective method to demonstrate that 

compliance, either by validation testing, 

physical inspection, design review, 

analysis, calculation, computer 

modeling, or some combination thereof. 

By proposing to separate the 

requirements that were intrinsically 

considered part of the current language 

in § 238.111 into two sections 

(§§ 238.110 and 238.111), FRA would be 

able to provide more clarity as to the 

procedural and documentation 

requirements for the entire compliance 

validation process, particularly for Tier 

III where the documentation of 

configurable elements may be essential 

to establishing the expected safety 

performance which is to be 

demonstrated. In this spirit, the 

proposal would refine and expand upon 

much of the current § 238.111 language 

to reinforce expectations and process 

considerations for key documentation, 

including test plans, procedures, and 

results. Further, more explicit 

expectations and examples have been 

provided for the types of validations 

required to occur during the final 

commissioning stages before equipment 

may enter into revenue service, in 

addition to how re-built or relocated 

equipment must be treated. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19733 

10While various safety appliance standards were 

developed for different classes of equipment 

throughout the development of railroads in 

America, the publication titled, ‘‘United Sates 

Safety Appliances for All Classes of Cars and 

Locomotives,’’ M.C.B. Edition, published by 

Gibson, Pribble & Company, represents one of the 

first sets of comprehensives guidance on the matter. 

This guidance was later adopted by the ICC, and 

subsequently FRA, as regulation. 

C. Exterior Side Door Safety Systems— 

New Passenger Cars and Locomotives 

As with other components of 

passenger rail equipment, innovations 

in the design and construction of door 

safety systems have generated new 

issues for potential regulation. The 

proposed language in this rule for 

exterior side door safety systems 

incorporated in new passenger cars and 

locomotives, developed from 

recommendations by RSAC, would 

revise § 238.131 to address newer door 

designs, with a specific focus on plug 

doors (i.e., doors composed of a sliding 

panel that opens and slides along the 

side of the car, rather than retract into 

a pocket; when closed, the door 

conforms to the side of the car to seal 

out environmental noise and minimize 

aerodynamic resistance). This proposed 

language would address the additional 

function of a plug door in regard to a 

high-speed trainset and the system 

design pursuant to American Public 

Transportation Association (APTA) 

standard PR–M–S–18–10, ‘‘Standard for 

Powered Exterior Side Door System 

Design for New Passenger Cars.’’ As 

revised, § 238.131 would establish 

provisions for passenger equipment 

equipped with plug-style side doors that 

do not provide a minimum 1.5-inch gap 

at the leading edge of the door when the 

emergency release mechanism is 

activated and permit a speed interlock 

to prevent operation of the emergency 

release mechanism when the vehicle is 

moving. 

Although the proposed revisions to 

§ 238.131 could require stakeholders to 

apply or construct additional signage or 

handles, the expected efficiency 

enhancement in the equipment 

procurement and development process 

resulting from acceptance of the existing 

functionality of the plug door design 

could justify any such burden. 

D. Alternative Crashworthiness 

Requirements for Evaluating Tier I 

Equipment Utilizing Crash Energy 

Management (CEM) on Individual 

Vehicles 

The final rule published on November 

21, 2018, included crashworthiness 

requirements for certain Tier I trainsets, 

but not for individual passenger rail 

vehicles or locomotives. And although 

there is no requirement for the 

development of CEM components at the 

individual Tier I passenger rail vehicle 

or locomotive level, some railroads and 

other stakeholders have nonetheless 

demonstrated an increased interest in 

the construction and installation of CEM 

components at the individual passenger 

rail vehicle or locomotive level. To 

augment existing regulations on CEM 

and provide guidance for the 

development and use of CEM at the 

individual vehicle level, FRA proposes 

adding new requirements providing 

alternatives for evaluating 

crashworthiness and occupant 

protection of individual vehicles 

equipped with CEM based on the RSAC 

recommendations. 

The proposed alternative 

requirements would provide guidance 

and a means for evaluating individual 

locomotives or passenger rail vehicles 

that are fully compliant with existing 

Tier I structural requirements and have 

additional CEM features incorporated 

into their structure to operate within 

conventional, Tier I-compliant trains. 

These evaluation requirements would 

not apply to Tier I trainsets designed to 

alternative crashworthiness 

requirements under § 238.201 and 

appendix G to part 238 or single pieces 

of equipment with traditionally 

compliant structures outfitted with 

pushback couplers as the only CEM 

feature. 

By establishing alternative 

requirements for evaluating 

crashworthiness and occupant 

protection of Tier I equipment utilizing 

CEM on individual vehicles, FRA would 

create clarity and reduce uncertainty for 

stakeholders who pursue the 

development of CEM at the individual 

vehicle level. Such clarification could 

also reduce the burden and time 

required for FRA to evaluate compliance 

issues related to passenger equipment 

utilizing CEM on an individual vehicle. 

E. Safety Appliances for Non-Passenger 

Carrying Locomotives and Passenger 

Equipment 

Coinciding with the development of 

safety appliance requirements for Tier 

III equipment, the PSWG also looked at 

updating the safety appliance 

requirements for modern Tier I 

passenger equipment. While safety 

appliance regulations have long existed 

for passenger cars under 49 CFR part 

231, these standards are derived, in 

most cases verbatim, from the 

requirements set forth by the Interstate 

Commerce Commission (ICC) in 1910 

and guidance of the Master Car Builders 

Association around the turn of the 

twentieth century.10 While these 

requirements have proven to be 

sufficient for the types of passenger cars 

they were explicitly developed to 

address (passenger train cars with wide 

vestibules, passenger train cars with 

open end platforms, and passenger train 

cars without end platforms), they 

generally have not been updated to 

reflect modern advancements in 

passenger train equipment or human 

ergonomics in over 100 years since they 

were adopted by the ICC. Likewise, they 

are based on individual cars that were 

common on railroads at the turn of the 

twentieth century, and do not reflect 

vehicle designs that utilize some form of 

semi-permanent coupling, such as fixed 

trainset configurations, or even marriedpair, MU locomotives. The PSWG 

determined this would be a good 

opportunity to update the regulations to 

account for these modern vehicle types 

and apply more modern requirements, 

in addition to updating and reconciling 

the regulatory framework with the 

current APTA standard, APTA–PR–M– 

S–016–06, ‘‘Standard for Safety 

Appliances for Rail Passenger Cars.’’ 

Specifically, FRA is taking this 

opportunity to update some 

requirements to reflect more modern 

design requirements based on 

recommendations particularly relating 

to strength and attachment 

requirements. These new standards, 

developed by the PSWG, reflect the 

significant changes in material and 

engineering design practice that have 

occurred since the first standards were 

adopted, when timber and iron were 

still the predominant railcar building 

materials. 

As modern Tier I passenger 

equipment is functionally similar to 

Tier III high-speed trainsets in many 

ways, FRA decided that a single 

baseline set of requirements could be 

adopted for certain passenger carrying 

vehicles. It should also be noted, 

however, that while this proposed rule 

would establish and clarify 

requirements that could be used for both 

new and existing passenger equipment, 

it is not intended to replace the 

established regulations. Because 

passenger railcars tend to have long 

service lives in North America, there 

will remain a perpetual need to 

maintain the existing regulations for 

cars built to those standards, in addition 

to private cars and special car types 

(e.g., baggage) that are based on car 

types that are not addressed by 

contemporary standards. 

This proposed rule would also create 

a new regulatory section for Tier I nonpassenger carrying locomotives. The 

proposal incorporates applicable 

requirements from part 231 pertaining 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19734 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

11For the purposes of this rulemaking, ‘‘cowl 

unit’’ locomotives are locomotives with a 

traditional frame, but whose mechanical 

components and walkways are enclosed within a 

non-structural, non-load bearing element, typically 

made of steel or other metal alloy. 

12See Docket numbers FRA–2006–25040, FRA– 

2019–0066, and FRA 2019–0068. 

to passenger locomotives and various 

other car types that have historically 

been used to define the requirements for 

monocoque, semi-monocoque, and cowl 

unit 11 passenger road locomotives. 

Currently, the safety appliance 

requirements for road locomotives are 

primarily based on § 231.15 (Steam 

locomotives used in road service), and 

§ 231.17 (Specifications common to all 

steam locomotives), which are also 

virtually unchanged from the original 

ICC standards. The existing regulations 

were not developed to specifically 

address the common designs utilized by 

diesel-electric or electric locomotives in 

passenger service within North 

America. Through the adoption of these 

proposed standards, FRA would help 

provide clarity and uniformity in how 

the Safety Appliance Act (49 U.S.C. ch. 

203) is applied to all modern passenger 

road locomotives. 

Current FRA regulations for safety 

appliances are based on longstanding 

statutory requirements for individual 

railroad cars used in general service. 

These requirements are primarily 

intended to keep railroad employees 

safe while performing their essential job 

functions. Historically, these duties 

have revolved around the practice of 

building trains by switching individual 

cars or groups of cars and are not 

specifically applicable to how modern, 

high-speed passenger equipment is 

designed and operated. The application 

of such appliances would require a 

significant redesign of high-speed rail 

equipment and would create 

aerodynamic problems particularly with 

respect to associated noise emissions. 

Therefore, FRA proposes to exempt Tier 

III (and certain Tier I) equipment from 

the following requirements of 49 U.S.C. 

ch. 203: (1) couplers that couple 

automatically by impact, and are 

capable of being uncoupled, without 

individuals having to go between the 

ends of equipment; and (2) secure sill 

steps and grab irons or handholds on 

the vehicle’s ends and sides. 

Rather than apply legacy 

requirements that are inappropriate for 

the proposed equipment design and 

service environment, this proposed rule 

focuses on how to provide a safe 

environment for employees as it 

pertains to modern high-speed 

equipment and operations. In this 

respect, the proposed rule would define 

specific safety appliance performance 

requirements applicable to these 

modern trainsets subject to the rule. By 

focusing on employee job functions, 

rather than mandating specific legacy 

designs for dissimilar equipment, the 

proposed approach would likely not 

only improve safety for railroad 

employees, but also provide flexibility 

for superior designs based on modern 

ergonomics and eliminate appliances 

that might otherwise encourage their 

use even though their functionality is 

moot (e.g., riding on side sills despite an 

inability to couple/decouple cars). 

Under 49 U.S.C. 20306, FRA may 

exempt a railroad or railroads from the 

above-identified statutory requirements 

for safety appliances based on evidence 

received and findings developed at a 

hearing demonstrating that the statutory 

requirements ‘‘preclude the 

development or implementation of more 

efficient railroad transportation 

equipment or other transportation 

innovations under existing law.’’ FRA 

notes that 49 U.S.C. 20306 does not 

require a separate public hearing as 

related to Tier III (and certain Tier I) 

equipment for each new vehicle design. 

FRA conducted hearings in 2009, 2019, 

and 2020 addressing both Tier III and 

Tier I trainsets.12 Based on these 

hearings, FRA has determined that the 

equipment design regarding the 

application of safety appliances as 

proposed in this NPRM is substantially 

similar among the vehicle types. 

Accordingly, FRA believes it is 

appropriate to consider relief under the 

discretionary process established under 

49 U.S.C. 20306 and proposes to adopt 

the requirements proposed in this 

NPRM under its statutory authority as 

part of this rulemaking without holding 

an additional public hearing, as an 

additional public hearing would not 

develop any new facts. 

F. Tier III Inspection, Testing, and 

Maintenance, and Movement of 

Defective Equipment 

In developing new standards for 

modern high-speed trainsets, the PSWG 

deliberately separated later-stage design 

elements and operational-related 

requirements from those early-stage 

design issues that influence the vehicle 

platform (e.g., vehicle carbody design 

requirements). In this manner, the 2018 

final rule provided a level of regulatory 

certainty for Tier III procurements to 

move forward, while providing 

additional time for the PSWG to help 

mature the remaining standards 

governing elements that are more 

critical to the later-stage equipment 

production and operational testing 

phases of such procurements. Following 

this concept, the development of the 

inspection, testing, and maintenance 

(ITM) requirements for Tier III trainsets 

was identified as an essential part of 

this second rulemaking to help 

complete the Tier III regulatory 

framework. While many of the elements 

in the 2018 rulemaking established a 

certain level of safety from a design 

perspective, the ITM requirements are 

intended to ensure that railroads can 

maintain the expected level of safety 

throughout the life of the equipment. 

To facilitate the development of 

appropriate ITM requirements, along 

with clarifying the applicability of 

general safety requirements (see Section 

III.G, General Tier III Safety 

Requirements, below) for modern highspeed trainsets, the PSWG considered 

the inspection and maintenance needs 

of modern trainsets based on current 

global practice, in comparison to 

longstanding North American practice 

established for locomotives, passenger 

equipment, and passenger brake systems 

codified in parts 229 and 238, 

respectively. 

A guiding light for this effort has been 

the experience implementing, and 

relative success of, the ITM 

requirements established for Tier II 

equipment under subpart F of part 238. 

Unlike many of the explicit 

requirements and intervals used for 

conventional Tier I passenger 

equipment in subpart D of part 238, the 

Tier II requirements provide a broader 

approach to ITM, setting out various 

parameters the railroad must follow in 

determining the appropriate procedures 

and periodicity for inspections, tests, 

and maintenance specific to the 

equipment it operates, as approved by 

FRA. This approach utilizes the 

development of a comprehensive ITM 

program, appropriate for the equipment 

design and technology, that can then be 

enforced and managed through an FRA 

approval process that includes an 

annual review of the railroad’s program 

to monitor its effectiveness. When this 

approach was established in the 1999 

final rule, it marked a significant 

departure from conventional practice, 

but this departure was viewed as 

appropriate given the nature of highspeed trainset technology, and the fact 

that the equipment’s operational limits 

would be more closely defined and 

overseen than for conventional 

equipment. Since this parallels the need 

and operational considerations for Tier 

III trainsets, the approach was viewed as 

a logical starting point for the PSWG. 

This rule, as proposed, reflects the 

desire of the PSWG to continue the 

success of the Tier II ITM approach, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19735 

while incorporating lessons learned by 

FRA through applying subpart F of part 

238 to the National Railroad Passenger 

Corporation’s (Amtrak) Acela fleet. 

In particular, the proposed rule 

maintains the approach of subpart F of 

part 238 and the concept that an ITM 

program for Tier III trainsets should 

have the flexibility to be modified and 

updated based on verifiable data and the 

evolution of technology integrated into 

these high-performance trainsets. The 

requirements, as proposed, effectively 

perform two regulatory functions. First, 

they would require the railroad to 

establish the safety-critical maintenance 

needs for the trainset and its 

components, the appropriate periods for 

inspections, and the means by which 

inspections or maintenance must be 

performed (i.e., tools and methods). 

Second, they would establish the 

qualification requirements of the 

personnel designated to perform such 

activities. 

Additionally, this proposed rule 

would establish requirements for the 

movement of defective Tier III 

equipment, should a non-compliant 

condition arise where efficient repairs 

cannot be performed (e.g., such as an 

en-route failure of a safety-critical 

component). The requirements are 

intended to complement the ITM 

program, which would effectively 

establish the safe operating conditions 

required for the intended service of the 

trainsets and therefore be integrated into 

the same proposed subpart I. Together, 

these would require the railroad to 

establish the conditions under which 

defective equipment can be moved, the 

conditions movements may occur when 

defects are discovered during revenue 

service (e.g., en-route failures), the 

associated procedures that must be 

followed, including identifying who 

may determine that the movement is 

safe to make, and documentation 

requirements. 

G. General Tier III Safety Requirements 

This proposed rule includes a number 

of provisions that would adopt certain 

relevant general safety requirements of 

part 229 and apply them to Tier III 

trainsets. As with most of the proposals 

in this NPRM, these provisions were 

developed from consensus 

recommendations by the RSAC. 

Overall, the proposals cross-reference 

relevant sections of part 229 for Tier III 

trainsets aiming to distinguish legacy 

locomotive requirements of part 229 

from those requirements more 

appropriate for modern high-speed 

passenger equipment. Additionally, the 

proposal would provide consistency 

between the general safety standards for 

Tier III trainsets and those standards 

applicable to trainsets qualified at other 

tiers, and to ensure that Tier III trainsets 

remain free of any condition that 

endangers the safety of the crew, 

passengers, or equipment. 

FRA notes that the proposed rule text 

to implement this initiative would make 

various sections and specific 

requirements of part 229 directly 

applicable to Tier III trainsets by crossreference, rather than simply repeat 

numerous similar or identical 

requirements in part 238. This approach 

hopefully fulfills the intent by resolving 

ambiguity about applicability of these 

part 229 requirements to Tier III 

trainsets and avoiding drafting errors in 

the future if a requirement under part 

229 changes without otherwise similarly 

changing a companion provision under 

part 238. FRA recognizes that this part 

uses some traditional terms, such as 

locomotive, when describing certain 

requirements. However, the use of the 

term locomotive, or other similar terms, 

should not be an impediment to 

compliance with the requirements of 

this proposed rule. Where appropriate, 

additional clarifying language has been 

included in the section-by-section 

analysis or rule text, or both, to help 

make the requirement and its 

application clear. FRA invites 

comments on these sections, below. 

In addition, FRA invites comment on 

whether it is more appropriate for part 

229 not to apply to Tier III equipment, 

in toto. There may be some benefit in 

wholly separating Tier III from the 

requirements of part 229 for clarity and 

ease of use of the regulation. FRA notes, 

however, that even should part 229 be 

made not applicable to Tier III 

equipment, the requirements of the 

Locomotive Inspection Act codified at 

49 U.S.C. ch. 207, would still apply 

independently. In inviting comment on 

this approach and its validity, FRA also 

seeks comment on whether it is more 

appropriate to make only certain 

sections under part 229 inapplicable to 

Tier III equipment, and if so, which 

sections specifically. 

H. Congressional Mandates Under the 

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 

On November 15, 2021, President 

Biden signed into law the Infrastructure 

Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), Public 

Law 117–58, 135 Stat. 429. As part of 

the IIJA, Congress directed FRA, as the 

Secretary’s delegate, to promulgate 

regulations concerning periodic 

inspection plans for emergency lighting 

and pre-revenue service safety 

validation plans. Secs. 22406 and 

22416. Congress also directed FRA, as 

the Secretary’s delegate, to promulgate 

regulations ‘‘as may be necessary for 

high-speed rail services[.]’’ Sec. 22419 

(codified at 49 U.S.C. 26103). Through 

this rulemaking, FRA is addressing both 

these substantive mandates while 

promulgating regulations that are 

necessary for the implementation of 

high-speed rail services in the United 

States. 

Under Sec. 22406 of the IIJA, FRA 

must initiate a rulemaking to require 

that all rail carriers providing intercity 

passenger rail transportation or 

commuter rail passenger transportation 

develop and implement periodic 

inspection plans to ensure that 

passenger equipment offered for 

revenue service complies with the 

requirements of this part. This includes 

ensuring that, in the event of a loss of 

power, there is adequate emergency 

lighting available to allow passengers, 

crewmembers, and first responders to 

orient themselves to identify obstacles 

and to safely move through and 

evacuate from a rail car. This proposed 

rule would satisfy this requirement. 

Under Sec. 22416 of the IIJA, any 

railroad providing new, regularly 

scheduled, intercity or commuter rail 

passenger transportation, an extension 

of existing service, or renewal of service 

discontinued for more than 180 days to 

develop and submit for review a 

comprehensive pre-revenue safety 

validation plan to FRA no less than 60 

days prior to the start of revenue 

service. Once submitted, the railroad 

must adopt and comply with the plan. 

This section of the IIJA also requires 

FRA to develop conforming regulations 

to implement this section, which are 

proposed under § 238.108. 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis 

Part 216—Special Notice and 

Emergency Order Procedures: Railroad 

Track, Locomotive and Equipment 

Section 216.14 Special Notice for 

Repairs—Passenger Equipment 

FRA proposes to revise § 216.14(c) to 

add a cross-reference to § 238.1003, 

which would contain the requirements 

for movement of defective equipment 

for Tier III trainsets. This change would 

harmonize part 216 with the proposed 

changes to part 238 contained in this 

rulemaking applicable to Tier III 

equipment. 

Part 231—Railroad Safety Appliance 

Standards 

Section 231.0 Applicability and 

Penalties 

FRA is proposing to add paragraph 

(b)(6) to this section to harmonize part 

231 with the changes proposed to part 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19736 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

13 64 FR 25540, 25587–25588. 

238 in this NPRM. As FRA is proposing 

standalone and comprehensive safety 

appliance requirements for Tier III 

trainsets under proposed § 238.791, this 

rule would make part 231 not applicable 

to Tier III trainsets. 

Part 238—Passenger Equipment Safety 

Standards 

Subpart A—General 

Section 238.5 Definitions 

FRA is proposing to revise existing 

definitions and add new definitions to 

this part to clarify the meaning of 

important terms and minimize potential 

for misinterpretation of the rule. FRA 

requests public comment regarding the 

proposed terms to be defined in this 

section and whether definition of other 

terms is necessary. 

FRA proposes to revise paragraph 

(2)(i), the definition of ‘‘in service,’’ to 

include a reference to the movement of 

defective equipment provisions of 

§ 238.1003 for Tier III equipment. 

FRA proposes to add a definition of 

‘‘clear length,’’ as applied to handholds 

and handrails, to mean the distance 

about which a minimum 2-inch hand 

clearance exists in all directions around 

the handhold or handrail, with 

intermediate supports on handrails 

considered part of the clear length. FRA 

proposes to add this definition to clarify 

the appropriate measurement for 

determining compliance with part 238’s 

requirements. 

FRA proposes to add a definition of 

‘‘crew access side steps’’ to mean a step 

or stirrup, or a series of steps or stirrups, 

located on the carbody side to assist an 

employee boarding the equipment or 

exiting from the equipment to ground 

level through an exterior side door 

dedicated for train crew use. FRA 

proposes to add this definition to clarify 

the safety measures necessary for 

crewmembers operating passenger 

equipment with no provisions for 

platform-level boarding. 

FRA proposes to add a definition of 

‘‘representative segment of the route’’ to 

mean either a continuous track section 

or a compilation of track no less than 

fifty miles in length that consists of a 

curvature distribution that is within two 

percent of the curvature distribution of 

the complete line segment (as evaluated 

using the root mean squared (RMS) of 

the differences between the two 

distributions), a segment or segments of 

tangent track over which the intended 

maximum operating speed can be 

sustained, and any bridges and special 

trackwork that are within the track 

section(s). Depending on the size of the 

railroad, a ‘‘representative segment of 

the route’’ could include the entire 

system in order for the ‘‘representative 

segment of the route’’ to consist of a 

segment of tangent track over which the 

intended maximum operating speed can 

be sustained, any bridges and special 

trackwork, and have a curvature 

distribution that is within two percent 

of the curvature distribution of the 

complete line segment (as evaluated 

using the RMS of the differences 

between the two distributions). FRA 

proposes to add this definition to clarify 

the appropriate methods of qualification 

testing for passenger equipment to 

determine compliance with 

requirements addressing vehicle/track 

interaction. 

FRA proposes to define ‘‘Tier IV 

system’’ to mean any railroad that 

provides or is available to provide 

passenger service using noninteroperable technology that operates 

on an exclusive right-of-way without 

grade crossings, not comingled with 

Tier I, II, or III passenger equipment or 

freight equipment, and not physically 

connected to the general railroad 

system. FRA proposes to add this 

definition to establish a classification 

and foundation applicable to passenger 

equipment that is subject to FRA 

regulation but falls outside the scope of 

the existing tier classifications. Unlike 

what was recommended by the RSAC to 

FRA, FRA is not proposing to include 

language in the definition that 

references a particular type of regulatory 

framework. FRA notes that the type of 

regulatory mechanism FRA employs to 

ensure effective safety oversight would 

not be consequential to whether a 

particular technology is considered a 

‘‘Tier IV system.’’ FRA welcomes 

comment on the use of the term ‘‘Tier 

IV,’’ or an alternative categorization, to 

identify the type of system described in 

this paragraph. 

Section 238.19 Reporting and Tracking 

of Repairs to Defective Passenger 

Equipment 

FRA is proposing to amend this 

section to harmonize the existing 

requirements with proposed new 

requirements applicable to Tier III 

passenger equipment. As part of the 

RSAC consensus recommendations, 

RSAC recommended that FRA issue 

regulations specific to Tier III 

equipment with respect to reporting and 

tracking of repairs made to defective 

Tier III equipment, so that these 

requirements would be included as part 

of the Tier III ITM requirements under 

proposed § 238.903. The recommended 

approach was based on the existing 

requirements codified under this section 

(§ 238.19). Yet, after further 

consideration, FRA is proposing to 

simply amend this section rather than 

add these requirements to subpart I, for 

clarity. 

Specifically, FRA is proposing to 

amend paragraphs (a), (b), and (d). In 

proposed paragraphs (a)(4) and (5), FRA 

would add the term qualified individual 

to account for the nomenclature’s use 

under subpart H and proposed subpart 

I for Tier III equipment. 

In the proposed revision to paragraph 

(b), FRA would redesignate paragraph 

(b) as paragraph (b)(1) and add new 

paragraph (b)(2). In proposed paragraph 

(b)(2), FRA would add record retention 

requirements for reporting and tracking 

system records for Tier III equipment 

regarding the information in paragraph 

(a). FRA is also proposing that for Tier 

III equipment, the records be retained 

for at least one year. 

In FRA’s proposed revision to 

paragraph (d), FRA would revise the 

paragraph heading, redesignate 

paragraph (d) as paragraph (d)(1), and 

add new paragraph (d)(2). Under 

proposed paragraph (d)(2), FRA would 

add the requirement that operators of 

Tier III equipment designate locations 

where repairs to safety-critical systems 

on Tier III equipment can be made, 

including repairs to Tier III brake 

systems. This requirement would follow 

the requirements in existing paragraph 

(d)(4) that such designations be made in 

writing, that the written designations be 

provided to FRA and made available for 

inspection and copying, and that the list 

of repair points could not be changed 

without at least 30 days’ advance notice 

provided to FRA.13 Further, FRA would 

require that Tier III trainsets not leave 

designated brake repair points with 

anything less than the required 

operational braking capability. This 

means that a trainset could leave the 

designated brake repair point with less 

than its maximum designed braking 

capability, still retaining its required 

operational braking capability, but 

could not do so for a period exceeding 

5 consecutive calendar days under 

proposed § 238.1003(d)(1). This 

proposal is based on international, 

service-proven practice and FRA’s 

approach to inspection, testing, and 

maintenance. 

FRA notes that it has introduced two 

new terms under proposed paragraph 

(d)(2), exclusive to Tier III equipment: 

required operational braking capability 

and maximum designed braking 

capability. As further discussed below 

under proposed §§ 238.903(a)(8) and 

238.1003(d), the required operational 

braking capability with respect to Tier 

III equipment would be the capability of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19737 

the trainset to stop from its maximum 

operating speed within the signal 

spacing existing on the track over which 

the trainset is operating under the 

worst-case adhesion conditions defined 

by the railroad. This would also be 

consistent with § 238.731(b). Maximum 

designed braking capability would be 

the maximum braking capability of the 

Tier III trainset as designed—a 

performance element of a Tier III 

trainset that must be specified by the 

railroad under proposed 

§ 238.110(d)(2)(ii). 

Subpart B—Safety Planning and General 

Requirements 

Section 238.105 Passenger Electronic 

Hardware and Software Safety 

FRA is proposing to revise this 

section to clarify the requirements of 

this section and to reconcile 

overlapping requirements with subpart 

E of part 229 of this chapter. It has been 

FRA’s experience over the last decade 

that much ambiguity exists with the 

correct application of part 238 

requirements and similar requirements 

under part 229. In FRA’s view, the 

requirements that are being proposed 

have been applicable to the passenger 

industry, consistent with the 

applicability dates listed in the 

introductory text of this section. FRA is 

also making clear that it is not 

expanding the applicability dates. 

Under paragraph (a), FRA is 

proposing to make editorial changes and 

is also proposing to permit railroads to 

maintain the hardware and software 

safety program in either a written or an 

electronic format. 

Additionally, FRA is proposing to 

swap current paragraphs (b) and (c) with 

each other, redesignating current 

paragraph (b) as paragraph (c) and 

current paragraph (c) as paragraph (b) 

for clarity and organizational purposes. 

Further, FRA is proposing to add a new 

requirement under proposed paragraph 

(b)(8). Proposed paragraph (b)(8) would 

make explicit that the safety analysis 

outlined in proposed paragraph (c) is a 

required part of the hardware and 

software safety program required under 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

Under proposed paragraph (c), FRA is 

providing additional detail on how to 

perform the safety analysis that is being 

proposed under paragraph (b)(8). FRA is 

proposing to use the term ‘‘safety 

analysis’’ rather than the legacy term 

‘‘safety program,’’ to make clear that this 

is an analysis to be conducted as part of 

the broader safety program rather than 

a standalone program. Additionally, 

FRA is proposing that the safety 

analysis establish and document the 

minimum requirements governing the 

development and implementation of all 

products subject to this section. Further, 

the safety analysis, as proposed, would 

be based on good engineering practice 

and should be consistent with the 

guidance contained in appendix F to 

part 229 of this chapter in order to 

establish that a product’s safety-critical 

functions operate with a high degree of 

confidence in a fail-safe manner. As 

proposed, the safety analysis would be 

based on a formal safety methodology, 

to include a Failure Modes, Effects, 

Criticality Analysis (FMECA), 

verification and validation testing for all 

hardware and software components and 

their interfaces, and comprehensive 

hardware and software integration 

testing to ensure that the hardware and 

software system functions as intended. 

FRA is proposing to revise paragraphs 

(d) and (e) simply by adding paragraph 

headings. 

FRA is also proposing to add 

paragraph (f) to this section to make 

explicit which specific requirements 

from subpart E of part 229 are being 

made applicable to passenger 

equipment. Consistent with the 

discussion above regarding the 

applicability of this section, FRA is 

proposing to reference the applicability 

dates set forth in § 229.303(a)(1) and (2), 

to make clear that FRA is not intending 

to expand the applicability of these 

requirements. In proposed paragraphs 

(f)(1) through (6), FRA has listed each 

provision of subpart E of part 229 being 

made applicable to passenger 

equipment. Accordingly, if a provision 

in subpart E of part 229 is not listed in 

this paragraph (f), then that requirement 

would not be applicable to passenger 

equipment under this part. 

Additionally, FRA is proposing to add 

paragraph (g) to this section. Proposed 

paragraph (g) would add a requirement 

that railroads prepare a Vehicle 

Communication and Control System 

Vulnerability Assessment identifying 

potential system vulnerabilities, 

associated risk (including exploit 

likelihood and consequences), 

countermeasures applied, and resulting 

risk mitigation. 

Further, FRA is proposing to add 

paragraph (h) to this section, which 

would add a requirement that suppliers 

of safety-critical railroad products notify 

FRA of any safety-critical product 

failures. By requiring this notice to FRA, 

FRA may in turn help ensure that notice 

of the faulty product is provided to 

other possible users of the equipment. 

Section 238.108 New Passenger 

Service Pre-Revenue Safety Performance 

Demonstration 

Pursuant to Section 22416 of the IIJA, 

FRA is proposing to add requirements 

for new passenger service pre-revenue 

safety performance demonstration. This 

proposal incorporates the requirements 

of the IIJA and provides additional 

direction for railroads to assist them 

with the development and execution of 

pre-revenue safety and operational 

readiness demonstration. These 

proposed requirements would apply to 

any new passenger rail service subject to 

FRA safety jurisdiction, including line 

extensions and the resumption of 

service if passenger rail service has not 

been present on a line for more than 180 

days. This proposed section would not 

apply to the temporary re-routing of 

existing passenger service due to 

weather events, emergency scenarios, or 

planned PTC maintenance under 

§ 236.1005(g). 

Through this proposed section, FRA 

would require railroads and project 

stakeholders to use safety and 

operational readiness as the deciding 

factors as to when revenue passenger 

service should begin over a line, rather 

than an earlier date influenced by other 

factors. As an example, FRA is aware of 

an instance where the use of emergency 

phones located in a railroad’s stations 

knocked out the signal system of the 

railroad as the two systems were using 

the same support infrastructure (a 

router). However, this problem was only 

discovered through happenstance, and 

not part of an overall system safety and 

operational readiness evaluation before 

the rail service began. This example is 

provided to illustrate the scope of the 

intended safety performance 

demonstration and the critical 

evaluation necessary to accomplish the 

goals of this proposed section. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(1) establishes 

who must submit a pre-revenue safety 

validation plan. The requirements 

would apply to any railroad subject to 

the requirements of part 238 regardless 

of tier of service, or any other 

responsible entity providing new, 

regularly scheduled, intercity or 

commuter passenger service, an 

extension of existing service, or the restart of service that has been suspended 

or otherwise discontinued for more than 

180 days. These requirements would 

apply regardless of whether the railroad 

is already operating similar service. For 

example, an existing commuter railroad 

that is already providing commuter 

service would still need to comply with 

the proposed requirements of this 

section for any new commuter rail line 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19738 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

or physical extension of its existing 

network. A plan would not be required 

for changes in service frequency or other 

modifications to existing services, such 

as changes to contract operators (or 

other contracted activities), or the 

addition of in-fill stations. However, a 

railroad proposing to operate new 

passenger service over a line that 

already provides passenger service 

would still be required to develop a 

plan under this section. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(2) outlines the 

content requirements for the proposed 

pre-revenue safety validation plan and 

would require that it be submitted to 

FRA for review no less than 60 days 

prior to the start of the service’s safety 

demonstration period, the requirements 

of which are outlined further in this 

section. Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i) 

would require that the railroad provide 

the status of all appliable safety plans or 

regulatory programs, and any associated 

certifications, qualifications, and 

employee training required for the start 

of revenue service, that are enumerated 

in proposed paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(A) 

through (K). The railroad must be able 

to demonstrate that these programs, 

plans, certifications, qualifications, and 

employee training would be not only 

substantially complete and/or in place 

to support the service, but that it would 

also adequately execute the programs or 

plans as intended. FRA may look to 

validate this with field inspections 

during the service demonstration 

period. For example, if an employee (or 

contractor) is required to comply with 

the railroad’s on-track safety program 

for the duties being performed, FRA 

would expect that field inspections 

would validate that the employee has 

received training and is knowledgeable 

on the requirements of the railroad’s ontrack safety program. In providing its 

pre-revenue safety validation plan, the 

railroad should pay particular attention 

to the completion of required activities, 

testing and certification (especially 

engineer and conductor certification), 

the adequacy of its training programs, 

and appropriate close-out or mitigation 

of any identified hazards as part of its 

system safety planning efforts. 

Additionally, the railroad would be 

required to provide data indicating 

which safety-related employees are 

required to receive training, 

qualifications or other certifications, 

and the status of those programs (the 

number who have completed each step) 

as identified in proposed paragraphs 

(a)(2)(i)(H) and (I). Completion of FRA’s 

‘‘new starts’’ process may satisfy this 

requirement. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(ii) would 

require the railroad to provide a 

description of how it would measure 

‘‘substantial completion’’ of the system. 

This must include items such as any 

tests or validations to be performed by 

contractors for facilities, structures, 

systems, or other major construction 

activities that must be performed before 

they can be accepted by the railroad, or 

before testing or revenue service can 

begin. Because system level testing and 

integration testing often require the 

availability of substantially complete 

infrastructure and supporting systems to 

conduct testing, the railroad must be 

able to demonstrate that it would have 

adequate access to these facilities to 

properly perform required testing under 

FRA’s regulations. The availability of 

core infrastructure and systems is also 

necessary for the service demonstration 

period and FRA would require that the 

safety and acceptance of these core 

elements be addressed on their own 

merit, and that such activities would not 

conflict with required tests or other 

activities identified in this section due 

to schedule compression. 

Further, should there be a host-tenant 

relationship, and the railroad submitting 

the pre-revenue safety validation plan is 

not the host railroad, then the host 

railroad and the railroad submitting the 

pre-revenue safety validation plan must 

coordinate. Specifically, FRA is 

concerned about host railroads 

scheduling construction activities 

unbeknownst to the railroad submitting 

the pre-revenue safety validation plan 

that could potentially interfere with the 

safety performance demonstration 

period (simulated service). To help 

resolve this concern, FRA is proposing 

to require that host railroads share 

pertinent information with the railroad 

submitting the pre-revenue safety 

validation plan (when not the host 

railroad). 

Proposed paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and 

(iv) would require the railroad to 

provide details on its proposed 

operations over the line, and its 

expectations and plans for its safety 

performance demonstration and 

simulated service required under this 

section. In each of these paragraphs, 

FRA has listed specific information 

requirements. These lists are not 

intended to be exhaustive. Specifically, 

under proposed paragraph (a)(2)(iv), the 

railroad would be required to provide 

its plans for simulated service (e.g., the 

minimum number or days or successful 

runs), and its criteria for determining if 

the simulated service has been 

successful. 

Proposed paragraph (b) outlines the 

requirements for the railroad’s safety 

performance demonstration period 

(simulated service) to be performed to 

demonstrate operational readiness. The 

safety performance demonstration 

period would provide the railroad an 

opportunity to demonstrate operational 

readiness in a dynamic real-world 

environment, with all major elements 

and systems in place. The period may 

also be used by FRA to conduct 

inspections to validate that the railroad 

has effectively trained employees and 

executed its critical plans and programs. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(1) specifies 

that a minimum period of simulated 

service must be successfully performed 

prior to the start of revenue service (to 

be expressed in days or number of runs 

as required under proposed paragraph 

(a)(2)(iv)). Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(i) 

provides requirements for new 

operations or physical extensions to 

existing services. These services require 

the most activities to ensure operational 

readiness and should be conducted 

using the full proposed schedule to 

ensure that the service schedule can be 

practically implemented to support safe 

operations. For example, the railroad 

must be able to demonstrate that the 

scheduled running times and turns can 

be performed reliably, even when 

factoring in common scenarios that 

might affect service, such as speed 

restrictions or mandatory directives. 

This would ensure that crews are not 

subjected to undue stress and potential 

safety concerns when revenue service 

begins, due to delays that could 

otherwise be avoided if the schedule 

and operational readiness had been 

validated. In FRA’s experience, most 

new operations that voluntarily 

conducted a period of simulated service 

prior to commencing revenue service 

have required a minimum of two to six 

weeks of simulated service to address 

issues and ensure operational readiness. 

FRA notes, however, that the process is 

not necessarily intended to be linear, 

and certain activities may also be 

completed in parallel with the 

simulated service, when appropriate. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(ii) provides 

considerations for the re-start or rerouting of existing operations. For these 

situations, the amount of simulated 

service can vary greatly depending on 

the scope of the re-started or re-routed 

service. For example, the re-start of a 

discontinued service may necessitate 

running full, scheduled operations for a 

certain number of days, whereas rerouting of a service may only require a 

certain number of ‘‘successful’’ test 

runs. The railroad may reach out to and 

work with FRA in determining the 

appropriate period based on the 

individual circumstances. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would 

require the railroad to provide a daily 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19739 

summary of the activities and results 

from the safety performance 

demonstration period, including 

discussion on any delays, system 

failures, unexpected events, close calls, 

or other safety concerns uncovered 

during simulated service. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would 

require the railroad to correct any safety 

deficiencies identified during the safety 

performance demonstration period prior 

to commencing revenue service. 

Additionally, this proposed paragraph 

would require that, if a safety deficiency 

cannot be corrected, then it must be 

addressed through mitigations or 

operational restrictions that would 

ensure the safety of the operation. 

Finally, this proposed paragraph would 

require a final report to be submitted to 

FRA addressing the complete safety 

performance demonstration period, 

specifically detailing the deficiencies 

uncovered and the associated 

corrections, mitigations, or operational 

restrictions imposed. FRA notes that it 

would reserve the right to require 

additional corrections, mitigations, or 

operational restrictions should it 

determine that those imposed by the 

railroad would not be sufficient to 

ensure the safety of the operation. 

Proposed paragraph (c) would require 

a railroad to comply with its plan before 

revenue service may begin. It would 

also prohibit a railroad from amending 

its plan without first notifying FRA, to 

prevent a railroad from effectively 

‘‘moving the goal posts’’ to commence 

revenue service by a pre-determined 

date if the requirements of the plan have 

not otherwise been met. In addition, this 

proposed paragraph would impose a 

general prohibition against commencing 

revenue service until the plan has been 

successfully completed by the railroad, 

to include the imposition of corrections, 

mitigation, or operational limitations as 

required by proposed paragraph (b)(3). 

Section 238.110 Design Criteria, 

Testing, Documentation, and Approvals 

To help clarify the compliance 

demonstration and approval process for 

passenger equipment, FRA is proposing 

new § 238.110. This proposed section is 

intended to complement § 238.111, as 

proposed to be revised in this NPRM. 

This section would require the railroad 

to establish the design criteria and 

provide the system description for the 

intended service against which the 

railroad is demonstrating safety 

compliance. This proposed section 

would also provide the ability for the 

railroad to define certain elements 

required for Tier III operations, as well 

as require the railroad to develop a 

vehicle qualification plan to establish 

how compliance would be 

demonstrated. Further, this proposal 

includes specific language for the 

demonstration of early-stage, vehicle 

design matters, such as carbody 

construction with respect to 

crashworthiness and safety appliances. 

In developing this language, FRA 

worked closely with industry subject 

matter experts through the RSAC to 

provide more detail about passenger 

vehicle compliance demonstration to 

help clarify the process. FRA welcomes 

any comments or considerations that 

might further improve the clarity of this 

section. 

Proposed paragraph (a) outlines the 

scope of this section and its relationship 

with § 238.111. Proposed paragraph 

(a)(1) would make the requirements of 

this section applicable to new passenger 

equipment designs (i.e., an equipment 

design that has not been previously 

used in revenue service in the U.S.), and 

rebuilt or modified equipment where 

the carbody structure or any safetycritical elements have been modified or 

replaced by a new design not identical 

to the original component. 

While FRA has attempted to provide 

clear language with respect to when a 

vehicle design has been altered to a 

point where an updated demonstration 

of compliance with the safety standards 

would be required, FRA recognizes that 

this can be a matter of nuance, and 

additional feedback from FRA may be 

necessary as to when a modification to 

an existing vehicle platform may have 

crossed such a threshold. For instance, 

changes to the traction control or 

braking systems, modifications to trucks 

or suspensions systems, changes to the 

carbody structure or its material, or 

alterations that change the mass or 

center-of-gravity of the vehicle (and thus 

its dynamic performance), are all 

common examples of when a new safety 

assessment and compliance 

demonstration would likely be 

appropriate. 

Under proposed paragraph (a)(2), 

previously accepted passenger vehicle 

designs would not be subject to the 

requirements of this section, except for 

the development and maintenance of a 

system description under proposed 

paragraph (d). Even though 

development of a vehicle qualification 

plan would not be required, FRA still 

would require railroads to develop a 

system description to capture the 

critical information of the operating 

environment of the equipment in case 

changes are made that would necessitate 

a new safety assessment and compliance 

demonstration. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would 

make the railroad responsible for 

maintaining any documents or evidence 

related to the design and performance of 

the vehicle that may be necessary to 

establish or demonstrate compliance 

with the safety regulations. Even if 

material is provided to FRA for review 

or approval, this would not relieve the 

railroad from the proper maintenance of 

its records in this regard. FRA would 

require that the railroad be able to 

produce relevant documentation, 

including any changes or modifications 

to one or more of the vehicles in its fleet 

should the need arise, as proposed 

under paragraph (b)(2). Proposed 

paragraph (b)(2) would also require that 

the documentation be maintained for 

the life of the equipment. If the 

equipment is leased or sold, this 

paragraph would require a copy of the 

documentation to be provided to the 

lessee or purchasing entity, respectively. 

Under paragraph (c), FRA is 

proposing to require railroads develop a 

vehicle qualification plan. This plan 

would assist railroads in demonstrating 

compliance with the requirements of 

this proposed section. As proposed, the 

vehicle qualification plan would be 

comprised of a system description 

(which includes certain vehicle design 

assumptions) and a compliance matrix. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(i) contains 

the requirement for a railroad to develop 

a system description (a description of 

the intended operational environment 

for the equipment), which would cover 

topics listed under proposed paragraph 

(d)(1), as well as a listing of assumptions 

used when designing the equipment. 

This initial portion of the proposed 

system description would be for all 

passenger equipment. Additionally, 

railroads seeking to qualify Tier III 

equipment under this section would 

need to address the required elements 

for Tier III operations, as listed in 

proposed paragraph (d)(2). 

Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(ii) 

introduces the concept of a 

comprehensive compliance matrix 

(matrix) that must be developed by the 

railroad to outline the means by which 

compliance with various safety 

requirements under FRA’s regulations 

would be demonstrated. This matrix, as 

proposed, is an extrapolation of what 

FRA has historically expected under the 

current language of § 238.111, in that 

the railroad should be able to identify 

all tests required to demonstrate 

compliance under FRA’s regulations— 

whether a carbody structural test to 

validate compliance with the occupied 

volume protection requirements, or a 

braking test performed during the final 

commissioning stages of a project. Both 

of these exemplar tests provide critical 

safety validation of the design and must 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19740 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

occur prior to the use of the equipment 

in revenue service. But as these two 

tests can occur years apart, it is not 

unusual for some to focus on the 

requirements of current § 238.111 as 

relating to only those activities that 

occur when full-scale dynamic testing 

has begun. By proposing to move this 

planning requirement into § 238.110 

and expand language to require the 

development of a comprehensive test 

matrix at the early stages of a project, 

FRA would ensure the railroad and 

rolling stock supplier clearly articulate 

the intended means by which all critical 

compliance elements of FRA’s 

regulations would be demonstrated. In 

doing so, the parties would also gain 

FRA’s perspective and feedback on 

whether the means identified are 

adequate. 

In practice, as proposed under 

paragraph (c)(1)(ii), FRA is envisioning 

the compliance matrix as being a table 

to help identify the requirements for 

which compliance must be 

demonstrated (keeping in mind that 

certain projects, such as equipment 

modifications, may only require a 

limited number of items to be assessed), 

and the means by which compliance 

would be demonstrated (e.g., testing, 

analysis, calculations, computer 

modeling, etc.). This matrix would also 

allow all stakeholders to identify critical 

milestones in which an FRA 

observation, inspection, or approval 

may be necessary, particularly when 

testing is required. By doing this early 

in the process, FRA can work with the 

parties to set expectations and can 

coordinate participation or reviews 

where appropriate, to avoid delays due 

to inadequate documentation or failure 

to notify the agency of critical 

compliance-related activities. Moreover, 

FRA is contemplating including 

guidance in an appendix to this part to 

help guide railroads in properly 

developing compliance matrices and 

plans. FRA seeks comment as to 

whether such an appendix should be 

included or whether such guidance 

should be provided in a standalone 

document. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(2) further 

outlines the process and timing by 

which a railroad’s vehicle qualification 

plan would be approved. FRA is seeking 

comment on whether there is utility in 

explicit FRA approval of this item, the 

process described, and the timeframe 

proposed. Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iii) 

would simply enforce the execution of 

the plan by the railroad. 

In paragraph (d), FRA proposes that a 

railroad provide a description of the 

environment and service in which the 

passenger equipment is intended to 

operate (system description), key design 

criteria and physical characteristics of 

the equipment, and any assumptions 

used for key calculations or analysis. 

This information would help provide a 

baseline for the configuration and 

intended operating environment of the 

equipment against which the safety of 

the vehicle is being assessed. Such 

information would be useful when 

changes or modifications to a vehicle or 

its operating environment occur, or if 

the same equipment type is acquired by 

the railroad, or leased to another 

railroad, as it would provide a means for 

the railroad and FRA to determine if any 

new or different conditions, 

configurations, or operating parameters 

might require additional compliance 

testing or analysis. 

For example, proposed § 238.791(j) 

would require an efficient handbrake or 

parking brake that is capable of holding 

a locomotive on the maximum grade 

condition identified by the operating 

railroad, or a minimum 3% grade, 

whichever is greater. If a railroad 

initially were to procure a passenger 

locomotive that operates over a network 

with a maximum grade of 1.3%, that 

railroad would be required to validate 

the sufficiency of the design and 

performance of the handbrake or 

parking brake when subjected to the 

minimum forces resulting from a 3% 

grade. If the same locomotive is leased 

to another railroad that operates over 

territory where the maximum grade is 

3.5%, the original documentation must 

indicate to the acquiring railroad that 

additional validation may be necessary 

to ensure that the parking brake design 

is adequate for the characteristics of its 

new operating environment. 

As another example, if a railroad is 

electing to follow the interior fixture 

attachment strength requirements under 

§ 238.733(a)(2), which permit an 

attachment strength sufficient to resist 

applied loads of 5g longitudinal, 3g 

lateral, and 3g vertical when applied to 

the mass of the fixture, then appropriate 

discussion and documentation must be 

provided demonstrating the trainset 

does not experience a crash pulse in 

excess of 5g. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would 

require the railroad to provide a 

description of the operational 

environment to which the railroad’s 

passenger equipment is subject. This 

would include the defining physical 

characteristics of the environment that 

all passenger equipment would operate 

within, regardless of whether the 

equipment is intended for conventional 

or high-speed operations. Paragraphs 

(d)(1)(i) through (iii), as proposed, 

would help the railroad categorize and 

describe the operating environment and 

conditions, and provides examples for 

each. 

Of these, physical infrastructure as 

proposed under paragraph (d)(1)(i), 

would require the most extensive 

description, encapsulating a number of 

physical characteristics of the 

environment that may directly affect the 

safe operation of the equipment. In this 

portion of the system description, the 

railroad should be able to articulate the 

limiting track geometry (including 

turnout geometry), maximum grade, the 

minimum required stopping distance, 

and any other safety-critical limits or 

thresholds within which the equipment 

would be expected to operate safely. It 

is critical to note that the characteristics 

or limits listed are intended to help 

establish the operating limits of the 

equipment itself and are not intended 

simply to catalog the characteristics of 

the railroad. 

For example, when identifying 

limiting track geometry conditions, if 

the equipment is not designed to 

navigate anything less than a turnout 

having a certain curvature, then that is 

a limiting track geometry condition for 

the equipment that must be identified. 

The railroad may own or have access to 

track with even more limiting geometry 

conditions, such as turnouts having 

even tighter curvatures within a yard. 

Yet, by identifying the known 

limitations of the equipment to navigate 

such trackwork, and making known the 

safe operating limits of the equipment, 

the railroad can craft operating rules or 

instructions to ensure that the 

equipment is either not operated on 

portions of the railroad where such 

geometry exists, or operated under 

appropriate limitations so that the 

equipment can safely navigate such 

geometry. 

Similarly, proposed paragraph 

(d)(1)(ii) would require the railroad to 

identify the universe of systems that the 

equipment is expected to operate over 

or interface with. This would primarily 

include track circuits, control systems, 

electric traction systems, and wayside 

detectors and devices. Of particular 

importance would be those elements 

essential to signaling, train control, and 

active grade crossing warning systems. 

Here, the railroad must also be able to 

identify the core technologies (e.g., DC, 

AC, audio frequency overlay) and 

systems utilized by any host railroads 

on the routes it is expected to operate 

over, and whether or not those systems 

themselves are operating and 

maintained within their original 

equipment manufacturer (OEM) 

specifications. This information can 

then be used to help the railroad 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19741 

determine what systems integration and 

validation testing would be necessary as 

part of its pre-revenue service 

acceptance test plan, developed 

pursuant to § 238.111. 

Systems integration has become a 

critical element in the safe introduction 

of new passenger equipment in recent 

years, particularly as it relates to 

effective track circuit shunting to ensure 

the safe operation of signal and grade 

crossing systems. Taking the time to 

identify and validate performance 

characteristics of the equipment over 

these systems within the context of 

§§ 238.110 and 238.111 would help the 

railroad ensure that both the passenger 

vehicle and wayside technologies are 

operating as designed, and assist in 

establishing special operating rules, 

maintenance procedures, or design 

changes, as necessary, to ensure safe 

interactions between the two. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(iii) would 

require the railroad to identify any 

special operating parameters or rules 

that might apply to the design and 

operation of the passenger equipment. 

At a minimum, this must include 

information on the design time and 

setup of the alerter, as this design time 

may need to account for other operating 

parameters, such as the required 

minimum stopping distance identified 

in proposed paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this 

section. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(2) is intended 

to catalog design and operational 

variables specific to Tier III equipment. 

As many of the requirements pertaining 

to Tier III equipment are more 

performance-based and technology 

neutral, it is essential that the railroad 

identify specific design and operational 

parameters where such flexibility is 

provided, so that necessary safety 

thresholds can be identified and 

maintained with proper oversight. 

Braking systems received particular 

attention in this regard, during the 

RSAC process, as there are many 

different, proven approaches to braking 

technology and operational rules used 

on high-speed trainsets throughout the 

world. To this effect, proposed 

paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (xiv) catalog 

the railroad’s approach as it relates to 

Tier III braking technology. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(ii), as 

discussed above under § 238.19, would 

require the railroad to define the 

maximum designed braking capacity of 

the Tier III trainset. 

Proposed paragraphs (d)(2)(iii) 

through (v) are of particular note, as 

these sections would define the use of 

emergency braking and its accessibility 

to crewmembers and the general public. 

Unlike most conventional operations, 

the application of an irretrievable 

emergency brake application may pose 

a safety risk to the occupants at very 

high speeds, or within certain locations 

(e.g., tunnels or bridges), particularly if 

an immediate stop is unnecessary. As 

such, many systems throughout the 

world restrict access to only qualified 

crewmembers to initiate an irretrievable 

emergency brake application and utilize 

emergency brake ‘‘alarms’’ for 

passengers. These alarms notify the 

engineer that an emergency stop has 

been requested by a passenger and 

require the engineer to take some 

immediate action, while still allowing 

the engineer to continue train 

movement if an immediate stop is 

unnecessary, or if a different location 

may offer a more appropriate 

environment to address an emergency 

(e.g., enabling a train to exit a tunnel if 

an alarm is activated due to the 

presence of smoke in a passenger cabin). 

Proposed paragraphs (d)(2)(iii) and 

(iv) would require the railroad to 

identify both irretrievable emergency 

brake locations accessible only to 

crewmembers and passenger brake 

‘‘alarm’’ locations (if used), respectively, 

within the Tier III trainset. A picture or 

diagram may be used to demonstrate 

compliance. 

If passenger brake alarm technology is 

employed by the railroad, proposed 

paragraphs (d)(2)(v) through (vii) would 

require the railroad to specify certain 

operational aspects of the technology. 

For example, proposed paragraph 

(d)(2)(v) would require defining the time 

period in which the trainset remains 

under full control of the engineer after 

an alarm is pulled. Like an alerter, this 

is intended to ensure that the engineer 

acknowledges the alarm and takes 

appropriate action promptly. As 

proposed, if no action is taken by the 

engineer in response to the passenger 

brake alarm, then the trainset’s brake 

system would be required to 

automatically initiate an irretrievable 

emergency brake to ensure the safety of 

the occupants, crew, and trainset. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(vi) would 

require the railroad to detail how the 

passenger brake alarm would function 

within station locations, as delayed 

application of the brakes would be 

unacceptable if the alarm is activated 

when a train is departing a station due 

to a passenger emergency, such as a 

passenger trapped in a door. Only once 

a train has safely cleared the station 

platform would the retrievable aspect of 

the passenger emergency brake alarm be 

allowed to engage. To this end, the 

railroad would have to identify how to 

achieve this, to ensure that both 

passengers and crew can immediately 

stop a train if a dangerous situation is 

encountered while leaving a station. 

Nonetheless, as discussed above, there 

is concern about situations when an 

engineer may decide against 

immediately stopping the train 

following activation of a passenger 

brake alarm at a station location, such 

as when in a tunnel if smoke is present. 

FRA believes that the above discussion 

provides the necessary clarity on this 

issue but invites comment. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(vii) would 

allow the railroad to further define the 

operation of a passenger brake alarm by 

detailing what steps must be taken by an 

engineer to retrieve control from a fullservice brake application in the event an 

alarm is activated, within the timeframe 

proposed by paragraph (d)(2)(v). 

Additional core braking parameters 

are defined in proposed paragraphs 

(d)(2)(viii) through (xiii). Proposed 

paragraph (d)(2)(viii) would require the 

railroad to identify and maintain a copy 

of the FRA-approved industry standard 

utilized to comply with § 238.731(f), 

which requires that main reservoirs be 

designed and tested according to a 

recognized industry standard. The 

railroad would be required to document 

the actual standard used to qualify main 

reservoirs for Tier III trainsets in its 

vehicle qualification plan. Any 

inspections or tests required by the 

standard must be incorporated into the 

railroad’s ITM plan as well. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(ix) would 

require the railroad to identify the 

preset parameters by which it would 

determine if a Tier III trainset’s wheelslide protection has failed, as required 

by § 238.731(m)(3). The railroad would 

be required to document the 

corresponding operational restrictions 

within its ITM plan. Similarly, proposed 

paragraph (d)(2)(x) would require the 

railroad to provide information on brake 

system functionality, monitoring, and 

diagnostics, and any corresponding 

safety analysis. For example, if a 

railroad were to utilize an electronic 

brake system, it must ensure compliance 

with § 238.105 if deemed-safety critical. 

Proposed paragraph (xi) would 

require the railroad to identify the 

worst-case grade condition for which 

the Tier III trainset must be secured. 

In relation to § 238.751, proposed 

paragraphs (xii) and (xiii) would require 

the railroad to outline the functionality 

of the cab alerter system, and its 

integration with the braking system. 

Specifically, paragraph (xii) proposes to 

require the railroad to establish the 

parameters and scenarios in which the 

engineer must acknowledge the alerter, 

including which actions reset the 

timing, and which actions would be 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19742 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

14Note, the specific alerter timing would be 

required under proposed § 238.110(d)(1)(iii). 

ignored so that the engineer would be 

required to take some other action or 

directly acknowledge the alerter.14

Proposed paragraph (xiii) would require 

the railroad to outline what steps must 

be followed by the engineer to recover 

control should a full-service brake 

application occur. 

The remaining items proposed under 

paragraphs (d)(2)(xiv) through (xvi) are 

for optional features that a railroad may 

elect to include on Tier III rolling stock 

based on service-proven experience. If 

the railroad elects to use a technology 

other than a standard alerter pursuant to 

§ 238.751(e), plans to utilize a feature to 

dim headlights for extended periods of 

time on Tier III dedicated rights-of-way 

pursuant to proposed § 238.767(c), or 

utilizes a flashing rate other than what 

is described in proposed 

§ 238.769(b)(2)(i), then it would be 

required to comply with the 

requirements specific to each alternate 

technology as described in proposed 

paragraphs (d)(2)(xiv), (xv), and (xvi), 

respectively. 

Proposed paragraph (e) outlines the 

means by which a railroad would be 

required to demonstrate compliance 

with the structural carbody design and 

crashworthiness requirements contained 

within parts 229 and 238, as applicable. 

This proposed paragraph would 

effectively codify FRA’s longstanding 

guidance on the matter, and what the 

RSAC considered to be industry ‘‘best 

practice.’’ Specifically, proposed 

paragraph (e)(1) would make clear that 

compliance may be demonstrated by 

any appropriate combination of fullscale testing, validated computer 

modeling (e.g., finite element analysis), 

or engineering calculations, including 

manual calculations using accepted and 

proven engineering formulas. 

Designs incorporating dynamically 

activated CEM components may require 

additional scrutiny. In practice, some 

combination of all three is typically 

provided to establish compliance with 

structural and crashworthiness 

requirements. For example, a full-scale 

test could be used to demonstrate the 

strength of a collision post, but because 

this test involves the ultimate load of 

the material it may not be desirable or 

safe to conduct a full-scale test where 

plastic deformation, or even structural 

failure, would be possible. 

Consequently, computer modeling and 

engineering calculations may be used to 

predict the physical performance of 

collision posts under certain load 

conditions, but such modeling must be 

validated. To this end, testing may also 

be performed within the elastic-plastic 

range and, if the model shows good 

correlation to real-world testing under 

the same load conditions, FRA would 

consider the validated model to serve as 

an adequate demonstration of 

compliance for loading scenarios that 

are impractical or unsafe to test at fullscale. Because testing plays such a vital 

role to compliance demonstration, FRA 

seeks to ensure close coordination with 

railroads and their suppliers when such 

testing is required, especially where 

complex computer models require 

validation. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(2) outlines the 

documentation expectations and FRA 

notification requirements when carbody 

or structural component testing would 

be necessary for new, re-built, or 

substantially modified passenger 

equipment. Because designs that utilize 

CEM components rely on the dynamicplastic deformation of structural 

components in a predictable and 

controlled manner, Tier I alternative, 

Tier II, and Tier III passenger equipment 

that incorporate such technology would 

require additional scrutiny. As these 

designs require models that are used to 

analyze loading conditions that are 

more complex than simple, quasi-static 

loads, to ensure that adequate validation 

of such models is performed, FRA 

would require that carbody and 

crashworthiness test procedures 

associated with such equipment be 

submitted to FRA prior to any test being 

conducted for compliance purposes, as 

proposed under paragraph (e)(2). Under 

this proposal, FRA would notify the 

railroad if FRA intends to witness the 

test. This would not prohibit a railroad 

or supplier from conducting preliminary 

or ‘‘proof of design’’ testing without 

submitting the test procedures to FRA, 

provided such testing is not intended 

for validation or compliance 

demonstration purposes. 

To address common interpretation 

issues related to passenger equipment 

safety appliances, FRA is proposing to 

mandate its otherwise voluntary, 

sample-equipment inspection process as 

part of proposed paragraph (f). To 

ensure consistency, the railroad would 

be required to submit designs for FRA 

review of all new passenger equipment 

or modified equipment that include 

carbody or structural modifications 

affecting the design of existing safety 

appliances, proposed to be validated as 

part of the sample-equipment inspection 

conducted in accordance with proposed 

paragraph (g)(2). 

Proposed paragraph (g)(1) outlines the 

process and procedures for submittal 

and approval of design review, testing, 

and inspection documentation. FRA 

proposes to notify the railroad whether 

the submission is approved or 

disapproved within 60 days of the 

submission to FRA. Of particular note 

are the timeframes for document 

submission, and associated approval or 

disapproval, for each type of request. 

FRA invites comments on the 

practicality of these timeframes and 

whether approval of this documentation 

is necessary in all cases or at all. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2) contains 

the procedures for the sampleequipment inspection. Though this is 

commonly known as a sample-car 

inspection, FRA is proposing to call it 

a sample-equipment inspection to 

include different types of equipment 

that might not be considered a ‘‘car,’’ 

per se (e.g., a Tier III trainset). Proposed 

paragraph (g)(2)(i) would require 

railroads to submit to FRA a request for 

such an inspection at least 45 days in 

advance of the proposed inspection 

date. As part of its request, the railroad 

would be required under proposed 

paragraph (g)(2)(i)(A) to provide FRA 

with the first available time and date 

that the sample equipment can be 

inspected. Also, under proposed 

paragraph (g)(2)(i)(B), the railroad 

would be required to submit, as part of 

its request, engineering drawings 

reflecting the design and configuration 

of the safety appliances, emergency 

systems and signage, and any other 

elements to be inspected by FRA as part 

of the sample-equipment inspection. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(ii) details 

the procedures to be followed should 

FRA take exception during the 

inspection. Proposed paragraph 

(g)(2)(iii) explains that should FRA take 

no exceptions during the inspection, 

FRA would provide the railroad with an 

inspection report stating as such. 

Section 238.111 Pre-Revenue Service 

Acceptance Testing 

With the proposed addition of 

§ 238.110, FRA is proposing to revise 

§ 238.111 to focus primarily on the 

activities associated with dynamic ‘‘ontrack’’ testing and commissioning 

procedures that occur during the later 

stages of a project. These dynamic tests 

typically occur when prototype or 

production trainsets are ready to operate 

over the general railroad system. 

Through the separation of static 

design and dynamic commissioning 

phases of rolling stock compliance with 

§§ 238.110 and 238.111, respectively, 

more clarity can be given to the process 

of assuring that passenger rolling stock 

is ready for revenue service. FRA 

envisions that initially the railroad 

would look to proposed § 238.110 to 

ensure compliance with static design 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19743 

15Such as § 213.345 or § 236.1035. 

requirements and items that can be 

examined as part of a sample-equipment 

inspection as a means to determine if 

prototype or production rolling stock is 

ready to start the dynamic and 

commissioning phase under § 238.111, 

even though some overlap may occur 

between the phases. For instance, it may 

be desirable to initiate some level of 

dynamic testing before carbody interiors 

are completed, which may necessitate 

the verification of emergency systems 

after preliminary dynamic testing has 

occurred. 

Regardless, FRA intends that the 

railroad make use of the combined, prerevenue planning process under 

§§ 238.110 and 238.111 to ensure that 

adequate testing occurs before 

production sets of equipment types 

leave the manufacturing facility, so that 

compliance and quality issues can be 

addressed by the manufacturer before 

moving too far ahead into dynamic 

testing, and thus limiting such issues to 

initial prototype units. This approach 

would allow certain elements to be 

separated so that railroads and 

manufacturers can take a more focused 

approach to compliance assurance and 

commissioning, thereby also allowing 

railroads to produce a more focused 

plan for the final stages of testing and 

commissioning of passenger rolling 

stock as part of their pre-revenue service 

acceptance test plans. 

While the individual requirements 

within this section are intended to 

capture important elements to help 

validate and document compliance, of 

equal importance is the planning aspect 

of the section. FRA would require that 

railroads use the development and 

execution of their pre-revenue service 

acceptance test plans to take a holistic 

view of their testing and commissioning 

programs so as to provide both FRA, as 

well as themselves, insight as to how 

the various tests and validations would 

be organized and executed in an 

effective manner. So, while part of the 

effort intended by this proposed 

language is to identify all of the tests 

that need to be performed before a 

vehicle can enter revenue passenger 

service, FRA also would require that the 

railroad identify how all of these tests 

relate to each other and other activities 

that must occur (required preceding 

events), and the logical order in which 

they should occur. 

Using qualification under § 213.345 as 

an example, a railroad must consider 

what core tests should be performed 

before high-speed testing begins (e.g., 

tests for proper brake system operation 

to ensure the safety of the qualification 

testing), and what tests would require 

high-speed qualification or special test 

approval to be performed (e.g., highspeed ATC/PTC tests). Identifying not 

only the universe of tests to be 

conducted, but also how those tests 

interrelate, would help the railroad, its 

suppliers, and FRA all work together 

from the same perspective in achieving 

the goal of putting the equipment safely 

in service. 

Under this proposed revision, this 

section would remain divided primarily 

between requirements for ‘‘new’’ 

equipment that has never been used in 

revenue service before within the 

United States, and requirements for 

‘‘existing’’ equipment that is, or has 

been previously, used within the United 

States. However, FRA is proposing 

significant revisions to this section to 

capture current practice for vehicle 

dynamic testing and qualification. 

The first such significant revision is 

based on an RSAC recommendation, 

preferring that the requirements for 

‘‘new’’ vehicles be outlined first, 

because they are more comprehensive. 

Thus, FRA is proposing to reorganize 

the language so that the requirements 

for ‘‘new’’ equipment are covered first, 

under paragraph (a) rather than as 

currently addressed under paragraph 

(b), and the less comprehensive 

requirements for ‘‘existing’’ equipment 

are moved to paragraph (b), rather than 

as currently addressed under paragraph 

(a). FRA notes, however, that this 

reorganization could lead to confusion 

for plans developed prior to the 

proposed publication of a final rule. 

While FRA does not foresee this as a 

problem for the execution of the intent 

of these requirements, it welcomes 

comment on whether this reorganization 

may pose any potential concerns and, if 

so, invites any potential solutions. 

The fundamental requirements of this 

section would be contained in proposed 

paragraph (a)(1), which is based on 

current paragraph (b)(1). This proposed 

language outlines the minimum content 

that a railroad would be required to 

provide as part of a pre-revenue service 

acceptance testing plan (test plan or 

testing plan). 

Proposed paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) 

would require the railroad to identify 

the physical characteristics and salient 

features that define both the equipment 

and its intended operating environment, 

respectively. The railroad should 

consider the equipment and its 

operating environment as parts of a 

whole within a systems approach to 

safety. In effect, these two proposed 

paragraphs ask the railroad to capture 

the ‘‘control’’ variables of the system 

whose configurations may have 

measurable effects on the performance 

of the passenger equipment and its 

overall safety. Items such as the wheel 

profile, axle and truck spacing, 

suspension characteristics, braking 

rates, mass, and center-of-gravity are 

just some examples (but in no way an 

exhaustive list) of the types of vehicle 

characteristics that must be identified 

under proposed paragraph (a)(1)(i) that 

can profoundly affect the safe 

performance of rolling stock. Similarly, 

the rail profile and cant, special 

trackwork geometry, maximum grade, 

effective track moduli, and signaling 

and grade crossing technology interfaces 

are just some examples of the 

characteristics of the operating 

environment for which the equipment’s 

performance is being validated against, 

which would also be appropriate to 

identify under the requirements of the 

railroad’s system description developed 

pursuant to § 238.110. 

This ‘‘systems’’ perspective is key to 

the intent of §§ 238.110 and 238.111, as 

it would not only help the railroad 

establish and document the safety of the 

equipment, but also the equipment’s 

known and proven configurations and 

operating conditions, such that a 

railroad may be able to identify any 

additional tests that may need to be 

performed if a vehicle characteristic is 

changed, or a vehicle is to be operated 

in a different environment with 

unproven characteristics (e.g., different 

track circuit technology which may 

result in different shunting 

characteristics). 

As the test plan is intended to be an 

umbrella plan to capture all of the 

necessary tests needed to demonstrate 

regulatory safety compliance for 

passenger equipment, this should 

include any waivers that are anticipated 

to be required, even if that test is part 

of a separate testing approval,15 as these 

may be predecessors to, or needed for, 

other required tests. Thus, proposed 

paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section 

would require the railroad to identify 

any approvals, qualification, or waivers 

from other regulatory requirements in 

this chapter, that would be required to 

conduct certain tests under this plan. 

For example, if tests are to occur on a 

section of track before a block signal 

system has been installed, then a waiver 

from § 236.0(c)(2) may be necessary to 

test at speeds above 60 mph until the 

signal system if fully commissioned. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iv) would 

require the railroad to identify the 

maximum speed and cant deficiency at 

which the equipment is intended to 

operate, as well as any intermediate 

qualifications it anticipates requesting 

prior to achieving the intended 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19744 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

maximum speed and cant deficiency to 

facilitate testing and qualification. For 

example, if systems integration tests 

would be required to validate grade 

crossing functionality at a speed lower 

than the intended maximum speed and 

cant deficiency, then an intermediate 

qualification at a speed and cant 

deficiency less than the intended 

maximum would be necessary in order 

to accomplish such systems integration 

testing. Accordingly, FRA would expect 

such an intermediate qualification be 

referenced in this portion of the test 

plan. 

Proposed paragraphs (a)(1)(v) through 

(vii) represent the core of the test plan. 

These proposed paragraphs are intended 

to capture the railroad’s overall testing 

and commissioning plan and tie these 

tests to the procedures and records 

associated with them. FRA would 

caution the railroad or manufacturer not 

to overthink this critical part of the 

proposed regulation, as a simple table 

may be used to fulfill the requirements 

of these three proposed paragraphs. 

What matters most would be the 

information ascertained by the railroad 

pursuant to these paragraphs, and there 

would be no need for narrative or 

explanations if a succinct format such as 

a table or matrix is used. 

More specifically, proposed paragraph 

(a)(1)(v) would require the railroad to 

provide a list of the tests to be 

conducted as part of its dynamic testing 

and commissioning phase. This list can 

be inclusive of all the tests expected to 

be performed or focused solely on those 

tests related to demonstrating 

compliance with regulatory 

requirements, as outlined in proposed 

paragraphs (a)(1)(vii)(A) through (D). 

The railroad should present these tests 

in some logical order, either 

chronologically, or by sub-system. Any 

interdependencies or predecessor 

requirements (such as waivers or 

certifications) should also be identified 

for each test. 

The identification of predecessors is 

critical, as it would help all parties 

understand the critical path to 

completion of the testing and 

commissioning process and should 

logically tie to the estimated schedule 

proposed paragraph (a)(1)(vi) would 

require. FRA notes that the schedule 

identified in proposed paragraph 

(a)(1)(vi) is intended only to be an 

approximation, such as the month in 

which a test is to occur and anticipated 

duration, so that FRA can plan for 

resource needs to observe the testing, as 

appropriate, as the test program is 

executed. These dates can be modified 

as the test program matures, particularly 

if issues or delays occur. If this 

information is managed through a table 

or matrix, as suggested, it can be easily 

updated and provided to FRA, without 

modifications to the entire test plan. 

Whereas proposed paragraphs 

(a)(1)(v) and (vi) would be used for 

planning purposes, the content of 

proposed paragraph (a)(1)(vii) is 

intended more for execution and 

recordkeeping. Proposed paragraph 

(a)(1)(vii) would require the railroad 

provide a list of all applicable test 

procedures and reports (including test 

results and post-test analysis, if 

required) associated with each test. 

Because this information may not be 

readily available at the time the initial 

plan is developed and provided to FRA, 

it would be acceptable if the 

information relevant to proposed 

paragraph (a)(1)(vii) is left blank until it 

becomes available. That is, FRA would 

expect the initial submission to include 

all information relevant to proposed 

paragraphs (a)(1)(v) and (vi), but except 

for any test procedures already 

developed, the information relevant to 

proposed paragraph (a)(1)(vii) may need 

to be supplied as the test program is 

executed. Further, because this 

document is intended to serve both for 

planning purposes and record 

documentation, it is understood that 

this would be a ‘‘working’’ document 

during the testing and commissioning 

phase. 

Proposed paragraphs (a)(1)(vii)(A) 

through (D) of this section would 

provide a list of the safety-critical 

subjects that must be addressed in the 

railroad’s test plan, and any relevant 

regulatory references. As stated 

previously, the railroad’s test plan can 

include all the tests intended to be 

performed, or it can be focused on just 

those tests relevant to the regulatory 

requirements. Regardless of which 

approach is taken, those tests and 

documents that are intended to 

demonstrate compliance with one or 

more regulatory requirements should be 

clearly identified. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would 

provide the process by which a test plan 

required under proposed paragraph 

(a)(1) would be submitted. Because 

separate approval is necessary for highspeed operations (including testing 

approval), and final approval is required 

before Tier II and III trainsets may enter 

into service, FRA is proposing that prerevenue test plans need only be 

submitted to FRA for review and 

awareness—not for approval. This 

would be consistent with how the 

process applies to Tier I passenger 

equipment today. FRA welcomes 

comments as to the necessity of this 

process and whether there is value in 

FRA explicitly approving such plans. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(3) would 

require that test procedures included in 

the railroad’s test plan contain at least 

the minimum information as further 

detailed in proposed appendix K to part 

238. 

FRA is not proposing to approve 

individual test procedures as 

recommended by the RSAC, as FRA 

does not see the utility in doing so. 

Instead, FRA is proposing that test 

procedures be made available to FRA 

upon request under proposed paragraph 

(a)(4). FRA believes this would have no 

impact on its ability to conduct audits 

of test procedures in advance of testing 

(particularly those tests that it intends to 

witness) and would, instead, likely 

remove a significant burden for both 

industry and FRA. Because current 

practice for most procurements is to 

have project documentation, such as test 

procedures, uploaded to a central, 

secure website where FRA and other 

stakeholders have access, allowing FRA 

to review test procedures when they 

become available and provide feedback 

as necessary would obviate the need for 

FRA approval. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(5) would 

make clear that a railroad must adopt 

and comply with its own test 

procedures. Because many of the 

minimum requirements for procedures 

outlined in proposed appendix K to part 

238 are intended to ensure tests are 

performed safely, and that records 

provide adequate documentation for 

showing compliance, tests that are not 

performed appropriately may 

necessitate re-testing. 

Proposed paragraphs (a)(6) through (8) 

outline the process by which FRA 

would determine if the passenger 

equipment is ready to be entered into 

revenue service. It is based on current 

§ 238.111(b)(4), (5), and (7). This process 

is intended to culminate the efforts 

resulting from §§ 238.110 and 238.111 

and consider the railroad’s and 

supplier’s efforts in demonstrating 

compliance with the passenger 

equipment safety standards. Proposed 

paragraph (a)(6)(i) would require test 

results for Tier I equipment be made 

available upon request by FRA, with 

proposed paragraph (a)(6)(ii) requiring 

test results for Tier II and Tier III 

equipment to be submitted to FRA at 

least 60 days prior to the equipment 

being placed in revenue service. FRA 

notes that this timeframe may be longer 

or different, as appropriate, should the 

railroad also need to complete new 

passenger service pre-revenue safety 

demonstration under proposed 

§ 238.108. Additionally, FRA notes that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19745 

16 64 FR 25540 and 83 FR 59182. 

17 Id. 

18 67 FR 19969, 19971 (April 23, 2002) (‘‘FRA 

recognizes that a train consisting of new passenger 

equipment that is operated for demonstration 

purposes is seemingly not conveying passengers to 

a particular destination as its principal purpose. 

However, the very usage of new passenger 

equipment, as opposed to antiquated equipment, 

and the clear business purposes of the train, 

distinguish such demonstration train operations 

from the class of train operations FRA intended to 

exclude from the requirements of the rule under 

§ 238.3(c)(3). Any person wishing to operate such 

a demonstration train that does not comply with a 

requirement of the rule must file a request for a 

waiver and obtain FRA’s approval on the waiver 

request prior to commencing the demonstration 

train’s operation.’’). 

19For example, due to the age of a passenger car, 

two cars of similar design may actually utilize two 

very different lighting designs, particularly if one 

involves a third-party retrofit to replace an older 

system. The railroad should take this into account 

when designing its sampling methodology. 

the timeframe in this proposed 

paragraph is shorter than what is 

currently in effect under § 238.111(b)(4), 

and therefore invites comments on the 

appropriateness of the timeframe. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(7) mirrors 

current § 238.111(b)(5) without 

substantive change, and FRA would 

accordingly rely on the substantive 

discussion contained in the May 1999 

and November 2018 final rules.16

Under proposed paragraph (a)(8), 

explicit approval to operate in revenue 

service would be required for only Tier 

II and Tier III equipment, as currently 

required under § 238.111(b)(7), and FRA 

would also rely on the substantive 

discussions in the May 1999 and 

November 2018 final rules in this 

regard.17 FRA is considering if there is 

value in expanding this approval to all 

tiers of equipment and invites comment 

on this question. FRA notes that this 

approval would not supersede any other 

certifications or approvals required, 

such as those under § 213.345 or 

§ 238.913 for operation of the equipment 

on the general system, but FRA approval 

under this section would be required 

before the railroad may institute 

passenger service. If a railroad seeks to 

operate the equipment for non-testing 

reasons before this approval has been 

received (e.g., demonstration runs or 

press events), the railroad would 

likewise be required to receive explicit 

FRA approval of such operations to 

ensure their safety. In this regard, the 

definition of ‘‘tourist, scenic, historic, or 

excursion operations’’ in § 238.5 makes 

clear that train movements of new 

passenger equipment for demonstration 

purposes are not tourist, scenic, historic, 

or excursion operations.18

Proposed paragraph (b) contains the 

pre-revenue testing and commissioning 

requirements for equipment that has 

been previously used within the United 

States. As discussed, these requirements 

are currently contained under 

§ 238.111(a). The RSAC recommended 

that the requirements for new and 

previously used equipment be swapped 

in order to better reflect the order in 

which these requirements would be 

applied in practice, and the fact that 

new vehicles, by nature, have more 

requirements that must be met. FRA 

invites comment on this proposed 

change. 

FRA is proposing to expand the 

requirements for vehicles that have been 

previously used in revenue service in 

the United States. Under paragraph 

(b)(1), the railroad would be required to 

verify the applicability of previous tests 

performed under paragraphs 

(a)(1)(vii)(A) through (D) of this section 

and perform such tests if previous test 

data does not exist, cannot be obtained, 

or does not support demonstration of 

safe operation within the intended 

operating environment. Additionally, 

proposed paragraph (b)(2) contains a 

record retention requirement, with 

proposed paragraph (b)(3) detailing 

what equipment would be considered 

previously used in revenue service. 

Proposed paragraph (c) outlines the 

regulatory requirements for any 

modifications, major upgrades, or 

introduction of new technology on 

passenger equipment that is currently in 

revenue service. The proposed language 

establishes the scope of any pre-revenue 

testing, which would be expanded to 

include Tier I equipment, limited to 

only those safety-critical systems, subsystems, or functionality that may be 

affected by the introduction of the 

changes or new technology. As always, 

FRA would encourage railroads and 

suppliers to reach out to FRA if there 

are any questions as to what the scope 

of this testing should include. 

Section 238.115 Emergency Lighting 

FRA is proposing to revise this 

section by adding new paragraph (c). 

Under proposed paragraph (c), FRA 

would include additional requirements 

for periodic inspection of emergency 

lighting systems pursuant to sec. 22406 

of the IIJA. For consistency, the periodic 

inspection requirements for this 

paragraph are modeled after similar 

requirements for emergency windows in 

§ 238.113. Like the requirements for 

emergency windows, FRA would expect 

the railroad to develop an inspection 

plan designed to capture a 

representative sample of the emergency 

lighting system designs used throughout 

its fleet. In this regard, cars of similar 

construction may still require unique 

sample sets, if the design and 

components are materially different.19

To comply with the proposed 

requirement, the railroad must 

determine the total number of unique 

emergency system designs within its 

railcar fleet and utilize an appropriate 

statistical test method to determine the 

required sample size for each design 

type. 

These proposed requirements, which 

would be in addition to the existing 

periodic inspection requirements 

specified under § 238.307(c)(5)(i), are 

intended to ensure that emergency 

lighting systems function as intended in 

accident scenarios, taking into 

consideration the operational conditions 

that might impact the performance of 

emergency lighting and associated 

electrical systems, particularly backup 

power supplies. An emergency lighting 

system may be compliant, by design, but 

fail if activated during revenue 

operations due to insufficient charging 

of the backup power supply. For 

example, to conserve fuel, many 

railroads turn off head-end power (HEP) 

on consists after their last revenue run. 

If the same consist is not provided 

sufficient time to charge its back-up 

power system before it is placed back in 

revenue service, the emergency lighting 

system may fail to meet the performance 

requirements of § 238.115. The railroad 

would be required to take into 

consideration these operational factors 

when determining an appropriate 

sampling method. FRA is also seeking 

comment on whether public address or 

emergency intercom systems should 

also have a similar testing requirement, 

as they are often powered by the same 

back-up power supply. 

Section 238.131 Exterior Side Door 

Safety Systems—New Passenger Cars 

and Locomotives Used in Passenger 

Service 

FRA is proposing to revise paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section, which describes 

certain requirements applicable to safety 

systems for powered exterior side doors. 

The proposed revisions address new 

door designs in high-speed trainsets, 

and specifically address trainsets 

equipped with plug-type exterior side 

doors that do not provide a minimum 

1.5-inch gap at the leading edge of the 

door when the emergency release is 

activated. These proposed revisions 

would also permit a speed interlock 

preventing operation of the emergency 

release mechanism while the vehicle is 

moving. 

For equipment with plug-type exterior 

side doors, the proposed revision to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19746 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

paragraph (a)(1) states that the 

requirements of section 2.9 (including 

section 2.9.1) of the APTA standard for 

the side door emergency release 

mechanism, identified in APTA 

standard PR–M–S–18–10, ‘‘Standard for 

Powered Exterior Side Door System 

Design for New Passenger Cars,’’ 

approved February 11, 2011, would be 

supplanted with three new regulatory 

requirements. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(i) describes 

the proposed requirements for the visual 

instructions, operation, and 

functionality of the emergency release 

mechanism for the plug-type exterior 

side door. It also proposes a requirement 

that some form of feedback must be 

provided to the passenger to alert the 

passenger that the emergency release 

mechanism has actuated. For example, 

a light activating over the door, or a 

sound played over a speaker in close 

proximity to the door, or a combination 

thereof, may satisfy the feedback 

requirement. 

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

establish requirements for the activation 

of the emergency release mechanism, 

specifying that activation must not 

require electric or pneumatic power and 

that access to the device not require the 

use of tools or other implements. This 

proposed paragraph also contains 

requirements specifying the appropriate 

amount of force necessary to activate 

interior and exterior emergency release 

mechanisms, along with requiring a 

manual resetting of the device. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iii) would 

permit a speed interlock preventing 

operation of the emergency release 

mechanism when the vehicle is moving. 

In proposing to revise paragraph 

(a)(1), FRA is considering further 

revisions regarding movements of 

locomotive consists within a yard, when 

those locomotives are not connected to 

passenger cars. There may be situations 

where traction power to the locomotives 

is inhibited by the door system as the 

door system may not be able to 

distinguish between the absence of 

passenger cars and an exterior side door 

being open. FRA invites comment on 

this issue. 

Section 238.139 Vehicle/Track System 

Qualification 

As proposed, this section would 

adopt the general structure of § 213.345 

of this chapter, which generally 

provides vehicle/track qualification 

requirements for equipment operating 

on FRA track Class 6 and above (or at 

speeds producing high cant 

deficiencies), for passenger equipment 

operating on lower-speed track classes. 

Similar to § 213.345, this new section 

would require demonstration that the 

equipment can operate safely and 

within the vehicle/track interaction 

safety limits specified in § 213.333 

either through dynamic testing only, or 

through a combination of testing and 

simulations. A major tenet of this 

proposal is to provide transferability of 

vehicle qualification through the use of 

testing and simulations so that when 

moving equipment from one part of a 

system to another, or to another 

railroad’s system, certain testing under 

§ 238.111 does not need to be repeated. 

In this regard, this proposed section 

would serve as an extension and 

clarification of pre-revenue service 

acceptance testing under § 238.111, 

helping to provide greater specificity as 

to the pre-revenue service acceptance 

testing requirements with respect to 

vehicle/track qualification. 

FRA makes clear that the proposed 

requirements of this section in no way 

modify or supplant the testing 

requirements in § 213.345; § 213.345 

applies on its own and must be 

complied with when necessary. This 

proposal is to be complementary to 

§ 213.345, filling the gaps in stability 

testing for passenger equipment not 

addressed under § 213.345. Specifically, 

and further discussed below, this 

section would address gaps in testing 

for new equipment through Class 5 track 

speeds and 6 inches of cant deficiency, 

and for previously qualified equipment 

through Class 6 track speeds and 6 

inches of cant deficiency by adding, as 

an alternative, requirements for 

demonstrating compliance through 

dynamic testing over a representative 

segment of the route and minimally 

compliant analytical track (MCAT) 

simulations. 

As discussed elsewhere, this section 

presents two paths for demonstrating 

compliance with the safety limits of 

§ 213.333, as part of the pre-revenue 

service acceptance testing process. A 

railroad could elect to measure carbody 

and truck accelerations over the entirety 

of the system the vehicle is intended to 

operate (which is what is currently 

required), or it could measure those 

same accelerations over a representative 

segment of the system coupled with 

MCAT simulations. If a railroad elects 

the former, the resultant qualification 

would be applicable only for the 

territory over which compliance was 

demonstrated. If a railroad elects the 

latter path, then that resultant 

qualification under this section would 

be transferable to a new territory so long 

it was for the same FRA track class and 

cant deficiency. With that said, 

however, should a vehicle be subject to 

high-speed qualification testing under 

§ 213.345, those requirements in 

§ 213.345 apply regardless of the path 

chosen under this section. 

FRA invites comment whether this 

section should cross-reference the 

suspension system safety requirements 

in § 238.227, whether § 238.227 requires 

any conforming changes, or whether any 

other changes are necessary in 

establishing the requirements proposed 

in this new section, including changes 

to part 213 of this chapter. FRA also 

invites comment on the nature of any 

such changes and, as appropriate, may 

provide for them in the final rule. 

Under paragraph (a), FRA proposes 

that, for qualification purposes, the 

safety of the equipment must be 

demonstrated in an overspeed condition 

not to exceed 5 mph above the 

maximum proposed operating speed as 

specified in paragraph (a)(1). Proposed 

paragraph (a)(2) would require that the 

testing be conducted on track meeting 

the track safety requirements specified 

under part 213 for the class of track over 

which the equipment would operate, 

with an allowance for qualification 

testing to be conducted at a speed 

greater than that specified for the class 

of track should the combination of the 

proposed maximum operating speed 

and overspeed testing requirement 

exceed the maximum authorized speed 

for that track class. 

Paragraph (b) would address the 

qualification of existing vehicle types 

and provide that such vehicle types 

previously qualified or permitted to 

operate be considered qualified under 

the requirements of this section for 

operation at the previously operated 

speeds and cant deficiencies over the 

previously operated track segment(s). 

FRA makes clear that this qualification 

applies only for operation over the 

previously operated track segment(s) 

and does not confer transferability of 

such qualification. To operate such 

vehicle types over new routes (even at 

the same track speeds and cant 

deficiencies), the qualification 

requirements contained in other 

paragraphs of this section must be met, 

in addition to any other applicable 

testing and qualification requirements. 

Proposed paragraph (c) would contain 

the requirements for qualifying new 

vehicle types (or vehicle types 

previously qualified according to 

paragraph (b) for operation over new 

track segments). For clarity, FRA 

intends that vehicles being qualified 

under this proposed paragraph be tested 

under the requirements of this section 

through track Class 5 speeds and 6 

inches of cant deficiency in addition to 

any testing required under part 213 of 

this chapter. This means that the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19747 

20 50 FR 16358 (Mar. 14, 2013). 

graduated method of demonstrating 

vehicle stability would start at track 

Class 2 speeds and 3 inches of cant 

deficiency, as discussed in more detail 

below. 

Paragraph (c)(1)(i) would describe the 

proposed testing procedure for new 

vehicle types at track Class 1 speeds. 

The procedure described is aligned with 

FRA Safety Advisory 2013–02: LowSpeed, Wheel-Climb Derailments of 

Passenger Equipment With ‘‘Stiff’’ 

Suspension Systems (Safety 

Advisory).20 Compliance would be 

demonstrated using computer 

simulations with a validated numerical 

model of the vehicle operating over the 

geometry conditions specified in the 

Safety Advisory at track Class 1 speeds 

plus 5 mph in the AW0 (no ‘‘added 

weight’’) and AW3 (maximum 

passenger) loading conditions. The 

simulation results must show that under 

these conditions wheel/rail forces do 

not exceed the safety limits in § 213.333. 

Paragraph (c)(1)(i) would also require 

demonstration of compliance with 

APTA PR–M–S–014–06, Rev. 1, 

‘‘Standard for Wheel Load Equalization 

of Passenger Railroad Rolling Stock,’’ 

Authorized June 1, 2017, which is 

accomplished by static testing to 

demonstrate that wheel unloading does 

not exceed the limits prescribed in the 

standard. FRA is proposing to 

incorporate by reference this APTA 

standard into this paragraph. APTA PR– 

M–S–014–06 establishes static wheel 

load equalization requirements to 

provide passenger equipment with the 

wheel unloading characteristics 

necessary to reduce the risk of lowspeed wheel climb derailments. It also 

provides the test conditions, equipment, 

and procedures necessary to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

enumerated static wheel load 

equalization requirements. APTA PR– 

M–S–014–06 is reasonably available to 

all interested parties online at 

www.apta.com. Additionally, FRA will 

maintain a copy available for review. 

FRA notes that APTA recently came 

out with a standard for evaluating lowspeed vehicle curving performance of 

railroad passenger equipment, APTA 

PR–M–S–031–22, which follows the 

intent of FRA’s Safety Advisory and 

provides additional detail on 

conducting simulations to evaluate 

curving performance. FRA therefore 

invites comment whether the final rule 

should reference APTA standard PR–M– 

S–031–22 in this section and on the 

effect it should be given. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(ii) specifies 

the testing necessary to demonstrate 

compliance with the safety limits in 

§ 213.333 at speeds from track Classes 2 

through 5 and up to 6 inches of cant 

deficiency. In order to be qualified 

under this section, a railroad must 

perform simulations, as specified in 

proposed paragraph (c)(2), in addition to 

the carbody and truck acceleration 

measurements under proposed 

paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) respectively. 

The results of simulations and dynamic 

testing must demonstrate that the safety 

limits in § 213.333 are not exceeded. 

This proposed paragraph would also 

provide a mechanism for transferability 

of the qualification under this proposed 

section to allow operation of previously 

qualified vehicles over new track 

segments at the same class of track and 

cant deficiency. This proposed 

paragraph would not provide 

transferability of any qualification 

conferred under § 213.345, however. 

Again, FRA makes clear that the 

requirements of this section are 

intended to be complementary to those 

requirements found under § 213.345. 

FRA recognizes that in some scenarios, 

there may be overlap between the 

requirement proposed under this 

section and those under § 213.345. For 

example, when attempting to qualify a 

new vehicle type for operation at Class 

4 track speeds, where up to 6 inches of 

cant deficiency would be produced, 

§ 213.345 would require the use of 

carbody accelerometers and the 

performance of a lean test. As proposed, 

when attempting to qualify the same 

new vehicle type for the same service, 

this proposed section would also 

require the use of carbody 

accelerometers, in addition to truck 

accelerometers and MCAT simulations. 

So, while there may be overlap in 

certain requirements between these 

proposed requirements and existing 

requirements under part 213 (such as 

the use of carbody accelerometers), FRA 

views any as harmonious. The new 

vehicle type being qualified in this 

scenario would be subject to the 

following requirements: a lean test, the 

use of carbody and truck 

accelerometers, and MCAT simulations, 

with the testing and simulations starting 

at Class 2 track speeds and 3 inches of 

cant deficiency. FRA does invite 

comment, however, on whether there 

are any possible scenarios where there 

could be a conflict. 

Paragraph (c)(2) describes the analysis 

procedure that is to be performed using 

an industry-recognized methodology. 

The analysis considers the vehicle 

under evaluation operating on 

analytically defined track segments 

representing minimally compliant track 

conditions as defined in appendix C to 

this part, and a track segment 

representative of the route over which 

the vehicle is to operate. These 

requirements are reflective of similar 

requirements in § 213.345 for track Class 

6 and greater, but do not replace the 

testing and analysis required under 

§ 213.345. This paragraph also requires 

a linear system analysis to identify the 

frequency and damping of the truck 

hunting modes. Damping of these 

modes must be at least 5%, up to the 

maximum intended operating speed + 5 

mph considering equivalent conicities 

starting at 0.1 up to 0.6. The conicities 

range proposed is based on conicities 

prevalent on the Northeast Corridor. 

FRA invites comments on whether this 

proposed range is appropriate. 

Proposed paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) 

would require representative route 

testing for all operations at track Class 

2 through 5 speeds and up to 6 inches 

of cant deficiency. Testing shall include 

measurements of carbody lateral and 

vertical accelerations and truck lateral 

accelerations that must not exceed the 

safety limits specified in § 213.333. 

In paragraph (d), FRA proposes to 

separate and explicitly define the 

qualification requirements for vehicle 

types previously qualified by simulation 

and testing under paragraph (c) of this 

section intended to operate on new 

track segments as defined in paragraphs 

(d)(1) through (3). FRA notes 

simulations are especially useful for 

demonstrating that, when qualified 

vehicles are intended to operate on a 

new route, the new vehicle/track system 

is adequately examined for deficiencies 

prior to revenue service operation. 

Paragraph (d)(1) addresses vehicle 

types previously qualified in accordance 

with paragraph (c). These vehicles may 

be operated on other routes with the 

same track class designation and at the 

same or lower cant deficiency without 

additional testing, simulations, or FRA 

approval. 

For vehicle types operating at speeds 

not to exceed Class 6 track speeds or at 

curving speeds producing greater than 5 

inches of cant deficiency, but not 

exceeding 6 inches, paragraph (d)(2) 

would require that qualification testing 

on a representative segment of the new 

route be performed to demonstrate that 

the carbody lateral and vertical 

acceleration limits in § 213.333 are 

respected. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(3) would 

require vehicle types that are previously 

qualified by testing alone to be subject 

to the requirements of paragraph (c) for 

new equipment. 

Paragraph (e) would provide 

requirements for the content of the 

qualification testing plan, which would 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19748 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

be submitted to FRA’s Associate 

Administrator at least 60 days prior to 

conducting the testing. This 60-day 

period is to allow FRA sufficient time to 

review and approve the plan, and to 

seek clarification from the submitter as 

necessary. In some cases, the review and 

approval may be able to be 

accomplished in less than 60 days; in 

other cases, the process may take longer, 

especially if the plan is incomplete or if 

questions are raised. FRA is mindful of 

the concern that FRA not unduly delay 

testing, and at the same time recognizes 

that safety is better and more efficiently 

served by identifying potential safety 

issues early in the qualification process. 

FRA therefore encourages those 

planning to conduct qualification 

testing to approach FRA prior to the 

submission of their test plans should 

they have any questions or concerns 

about the testing and approval process. 

As proposed, the test program would 

establish a program of tests that permit 

identification of the operating limits of 

the vehicle/track system and would 

include, as identified in the following 

proposed paragraphs: under (e)(1), a 

description of the representative 

segment of the route over which the 

vehicle is intended to be operated; 

under (e)(2), consideration of the 

operating environment during 

qualification testing, including 

operating practices and conditions, the 

signal system, highway-rail grade 

crossings, and trains on adjacent tracks; 

under (e)(3), identification of the 

maximum angle found on the gage face 

of the designed (newly profiled) wheel 

flange referenced to the axis of the 

wheelset (the wheel flange angle would 

be used to determine the Single Wheel 

L/V Ratio safety limit specified in 

§ 213.333); under (e)(4), identification of 

the target maximum testing speed in 

accordance with paragraph (a) of this 

section and the maximum testing cant 

deficiency; and under (e)(5), the results 

of vehicle/track performance 

simulations required by this section. 

Proposed paragraph (f) would contain 

the requirements for conducting the 

two-stage qualification testing upon 

FRA approval of the qualification test 

plan. The two-stage testing approach 

permits assessment of safe vehicle 

operation on tangent and curved track 

segments individually as the test speed 

is incrementally increased. 

Stage-one testing, proposed under 

paragraph (f)(1), would require that for 

testing on tangent track (proposed under 

paragraph (f)(1)(i)), test speed is 

incrementally increased from maximum 

speeds corresponding to each track class 

to the target maximum test speed. Under 

paragraph (f)(1)(ii), testing speeds for 

curved track would start at that speed 

necessary to produce 3 inches of cant 

deficiency and would be incrementally 

increased until the maximum testing 

cant deficiency is achieved. The target 

maximum test speed and maximum 

testing cant deficiency are specified in 

the test plan. Incrementally increasing 

the testing speed would allow for 

assessment of the dynamic response of 

the vehicle with respect to the vehicle/ 

track interaction safety limits specified 

in § 213.333 of this chapter and 

establish the maximum safe speed and 

cant deficiency. 

Under paragraph (f)(2), FRA proposes 

requirements for stage-two testing of the 

vehicle over the representative segment 

of the route. As proposed, stage-two 

testing can begin only when stage-one 

testing has successfully demonstrated a 

maximum safe operating speed and cant 

deficiency. Under these proposed 

requirements, two round-trips over the 

representative segment of the route are 

required: the first is at the speed for 

which the railroad is seeking FRA 

approval for service (which may be 

limited by the results of stage-one 

testing); the second is performed at 5 

mph above this speed. The orientation 

of the equipment (in the direction of 

travel) is to be reversed for each leg of 

the round-trip. 

Under proposed paragraph (f)(3), if 

during stage-one and -two testing, any of 

the monitored safety limits are exceeded 

on any segment of track, testing may 

continue provided that the track 

location(s) where any of the limits are 

exceeded be identified and test speeds 

be limited at the track location(s) until 

corrective action is taken. Corrective 

action may include making an 

adjustment in the track, in the vehicle, 

or in both of these system components. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(4) would 

require that Track Geometry 

Measurement System (TGMS) 

equipment be operated over the 

intended test route (the representative 

segment of the route) within 30 days 

prior to the start of the testing, to help 

ensure the integrity of the test results. 

Proposed paragraph (g) would contain 

the requirements for reporting to FRA’s 

Associate Administrator the results of 

the qualification testing program. The 

qualification test report must include all 

results obtained during the qualification 

test program. When simulations 

comprise a portion of the report, 

comparisons of the simulated 

accelerations to those measured during 

the testing must be submitted to 

demonstrate model validation. For 

purposes of model validation, the report 

should also include comparisons that 

demonstrate the accuracy of the model 

under various conditions, specifically: 

predicting the transfer of wheel loads 

when a vehicle is unbalanced, the 

transfer of wheel loads when the 

primary suspension is deflected to 

simulate twist or warp, and the 

frequency and damping ratio associated 

with dominant vehicle modes. FRA 

invites comment whether FRA should 

make these expectations explicit in the 

regulatory text for MCAT model 

validation under this part, and 

potentially under part 213 of this 

chapter as well. The qualification test 

report must be submitted no less than 

60 days from the date the railroad 

intends to operate the equipment in 

revenue service. 

Under paragraph (h)(1), FRA proposes 

to approve a maximum train speed and 

value of cant deficiency for revenue 

service, based on the test results and all 

other required submissions. FRA 

intends to provide an approval decision 

normally within 45 days of receipt of all 

the required information in the form of 

the qualification test report. FRA may 

impose conditions, as necessary, to help 

ensure safe operations at the maximum 

train speed and value of cant deficiency 

approved for revenue service. 

Proposed paragraph (h)(2) would 

consider vehicle types previously 

qualified in accordance with paragraph 

(c) of this section for operations at Class 

2 through 5 speeds, or at curving speeds 

producing up to 6 inches of cant 

deficiency, on one route to be approved 

for operation on another route at the 

same maximum speed and cant 

deficiency. 

Proposed paragraph (i) makes clear 

that the documents required by this 

section must be provided to FRA by 

either: (1) the track owner; or (2) a 

railroad that provides service with the 

same vehicle type over trackage of one 

or more track owner(s), with the written 

consent of each affected track owner. 

For example, Amtrak is a railroad that 

provides passenger service over trackage 

often owned by other entities, usually 

freight railroads. Under this example, 

Amtrak would need the consent of the 

freight railroad (the affected track 

owner) to conduct the testing. This is to 

ensure that the track owner is fully 

apprised as to the status of the track 

owner’s track in case any anomalies 

during testing should arise. In another 

example, Amtrak is also a track owner 

over whose trackage numerous 

passenger railroads operate, such as the 

Southeastern Pennsylvania 

Transportation Authority (SEPTA) and 

New Jersey Transit (NJT); under this 

scenario, Amtrak, as the track owner, 

would not need the consent of these 

railroads, but these railroads would 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19749 

need Amtrak’s consent when seeking 

vehicle/track system qualification under 

this section. 

Section 238.201 Scope/Alternative 

Compliance 

FRA is proposing to revise paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section to harmonize the 

language with other changes being 

proposed to part 238. Specifically, FRA 

would harmonize the language 

referencing the Safety Appliance Act (49 

U.S.C. ch. 203) in an effort to make clear 

that Tier I equipment may follow either 

the current, legacy safety appliance 

requirements (49 CFR part 231, and 

§§ 238.229 and 238.230), or the 

proposed requirements under § 238.791. 

So, while the requirements of the Safety 

Appliance Act would continue to 

remain applicable, other means would 

be provided for complying with those 

statutory requirements. 

Additionally, FRA proposes to correct 

a typographical error. Currently, this 

paragraph references § 232.2, which 

does not exist. FRA would correct that 

reference instead to § 232.3, the 

applicability section of part 232. 

Section 238.230 Safety Appliances— 

New Equipment 

FRA proposes to amend paragraph (a) 

of this section to clarify that a Tier I 

alternative passenger trainset that 

complies with the requirements of 

proposed § 238.791 is not subject to the 

requirements of this section. 

Section 238.235 Safety Appliances for 

Non-Passenger Carrying Locomotives 

Used in Passenger Service 

FRA is proposing to revise this 

section to identify the design standards 

for safety appliances on non-passenger 

carrying locomotives used in passenger 

service, in an effort to provide clarity 

and to remove the need for 

interpretation for the various 

requirements contained in 49 CFR part 

231. Specifically, paragraph (a) proposes 

to clarify that these requirements are 

intended to apply to locomotives used 

in passenger service that utilize 

monocoque, semi-monocoque, or 

carbody construction common to most 

passenger road locomotives. FRA is 

inviting comment on this paragraph 

generally and, in particular, whether 

specific implementation dates are 

necessary (and, if so, what the 

implementation dates should be). 

Because many of these proposed 

requirements were developed when the 

PSWG developed the safety appliances 

standards for Tier III trainsets 

(contained in proposed § 238.791), there 

is considerable overlap between the 

proposed requirements. Accordingly, 

FRA references proposed § 238.791 

when provisions under this section are 

identical to those under § 238.791. In 

such situations, FRA relies on the 

analysis provided under § 238.791, 

rather than repeat it here. 

Proposed paragraphs (b) through (e) of 

this section address attachment, fatigue 

life, handholds, and sill steps. The 

requirements proposed under each of 

these paragraphs are identical to the 

requirements under proposed 

§ 238.791(b) through (e). 

Proposed paragraph (f) contains the 

requirements for ground level access to 

(or egress to ground level from) the 

locomotive cab and other carbody side 

doors on a non-passenger carrying 

locomotive. This proposed paragraph 

contains the general requirement that 

exterior side locomotive cab access 

doors and other carbody side doors be 

equipped with appropriate safety 

appliances to permit safe access to the 

locomotive cab by employees and other 

authorized personnel from ground level. 

Because many passenger road 

locomotives do not utilize switching 

steps and platforms with external 

walkways, access to the locomotive cab 

or other compartments, or the 

locomotive’s B end, is usually provided 

by an external door accompanied with 

a ladder and handhold arrangement. 

Accordingly, this proposed paragraph 

would provide the requirements for how 

such arrangements should be applied 

properly, based on the governing 

elements of part 231 and contemporary 

practice on diesel-electric and electric 

locomotives. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(1) would 

provide the requirements for the 

number, location, dimension, and 

clearance for handholds at each ground 

level access location to the locomotive 

cab and other carbody side doors on a 

non-passenger carrying locomotive. 

These requirements would mirror 

similar provisions under proposed 

§ 238.791(f). Additionally, proposed 

paragraph (f)(2) would make the 

requirements of proposed 

§ 238.791(e)(2) and (3) applicable to 

steps at each of these locations. 

Under proposed paragraph (g), 

concerning couplers on non-passenger 

carrying locomotives, FRA would make 

the coupler requirements of § 238.791(g) 

applicable to these locomotives. 

Proposed paragraph (h) would 

provide requirements for uncoupling 

levers. As these requirements would 

very closely mirror similar requirements 

under proposed § 238.791(h), FRA relies 

on the same, supporting analysis. 

However, there is a notable difference 

between the two sections that should be 

highlighted. If a non-passenger carrying 

locomotive is equipped with a manual 

uncoupling lever, that lever must be 

operative from both sides of the 

locomotive, rather than just the left side 

of the equipment as proposed under 

§ 238.791(h). 

Proposed paragraph (i) would permit 

the coupler, end handholds, and 

uncoupling mechanism on the leading 

and trailing ends of a non-passenger 

carrying locomotive to be stored within 

a removable shroud to reduce 

aerodynamic effects. This mirrors the 

same requirement proposed under 

§ 238.791(i). 

Proposed paragraph (j) contains the 

requirement for a non-passenger 

carrying locomotive to be equipped with 

an efficient hand brake. This proposed 

paragraph also includes the term 

‘‘parking’’ brake, acknowledging the 

brake’s primary role on a locomotive as 

a device used to hold a locomotive or 

train at a static location, as opposed to 

a means to brake (slow or stop) the train, 

as applied to railcars before the wide 

adoption of pneumatic braking systems. 

In this respect, the proposed 

performance requirement based on a 3 

percent grade, or the railroad’s 

maximum grade (if greater), was also 

added to reflect common practice. This 

proposed requirement would mirror 

§ 238.791(j). 

Proposed paragraph (k)(1) provides 

for the arrangement of safety appliances 

on non-passenger carrying locomotives 

to facilitate certain maintenance tasks. 

Should a locomotive be equipped with 

appurtenances such as headlights, 

windshield wipers, marker lights, and 

other similar items required for the safe 

operation of the locomotive that are 

designed to be maintained or replaced 

from the exterior of the locomotive, then 

the locomotive must be equipped with 

handholds and steps meeting the 

requirements of this section to allow for 

the safe maintenance and replacement 

of these appurtenances. However, under 

proposed paragraph (k)(2), the 

requirements under proposed paragraph 

(k)(1) would not apply if railroad 

operating rules require, and actual 

practice entails, the maintenance and 

replacement of these components by 

maintenance personnel in locations that 

are protected by the requirements of 

subpart B of part 218 of this chapter and 

equipped with ladders and other tools 

to safely repair or maintain those 

appurtenances. The requirements of this 

proposed paragraph (k) mirror similar 

requirements proposed under 

§ 238.791(k). 

Paragraph (l) would require that any 

safety appliances installed at the option 

of the railroad must be approved 

pursuant to § 238.110. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19750 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

21 81 FR 88006 (Dec. 6, 2016); 83 FR 59182 (Nov. 

21, 2018). 

Subpart H—Specific Requirements for 

Tier III Passenger Equipment 

Section 238.701 Scope 

This subpart contains requirements 

for railroad passenger equipment 

operating in a shared right-of-way at 

speeds not exceeding 125 mph and in 

an exclusive right-of-way without grade 

crossings at speeds exceeding 125 mph 

but not exceeding 220 mph. FRA 

proposes to revise the scope of this 

subpart by adding a reference to 

proposed § 238.110, to help clarify the 

compliance demonstration and approval 

process for this Tier III passenger 

equipment. FRA is also proposing to 

remove the undesignated center 

headings in this subpart (‘‘Trainset 

Structure,’’ ‘‘Glazing,’’ ‘‘Brake System,’’ 

‘‘Interior Fittings and Surfaces,’’ 

‘‘Emergency Systems,’’ and ‘‘Cab 

Equipment’’) to accommodate proposed 

additions and other changes. 

Section 238.719 Trucks and 

Suspension 

In this section, FRA proposes safety 

performance standards for Tier III 

suspension systems. These performance 

standards would require a suspension 

system design that reasonably prevents 

wheel climb, wheel unloading, rail 

rollover, rail shift, and vehicle overturn 

to ensure safe, stable performance and 

ride quality. The proposed requirements 

are consistent with the general 

standards for high-speed trainsets 

adopted by the railroad industry and 

regulatory bodies around the world, and 

the overall approach is based on the 

suspension system safety provisions in 

existing §§ 238.227 and 238.427. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would 

explain the general requirements 

applicable to Tier III trucks and 

suspension systems and describe the 

different track conditions and 

characteristics that must be taken into 

account when determining compliance 

with these requirements. Proposed 

paragraph (a)(2) would clarify the 

applicability of part 213 to Tier III 

trucks and suspension systems subject 

to this section, both while in general 

operation and during the pre-revenue 

service qualification and revenue 

service operation stages of operations. 

Paragraph (b) would prohibit Tier III 

trainsets from operating under 

conditions that result in a steady-state 

lateral acceleration greater than 0.15g, as 

measured parallel to the car floor inside 

the passenger compartment. This 

paragraph would also require that Tier 

III trainsets comply with the carbody 

acceleration limits specified in 

§ 213.333. 

Paragraph (c) describes the proposed 

lateral acceleration performance 

standards, with specific reference to the 

appropriate train monitoring system 

response to the detection of truck 

hunting and explains that compliance 

with this paragraph would be subject to 

the limits defined in § 213.333. 

Paragraph (d) proposes limits for 

wheelsets based on the distances 

between wheel flanges. Notably, 

paragraph (d)(3) proposes that the backto-back distance between flanges of two 

wheels on the same axle not vary more 

than 1⁄4 inch when measured at similar 

points on each wheel. The back-to-back 

distance is measured from the inside 

face of the wheel (the portion of the 

wheel facing the inside gage of the 

track) to the inside face of the other 

wheel. As proposed, the measurements 

from a point on the flange of one wheel 

to the same point on the opposite 

wheel’s flange may not be more than 1⁄4

inch when multiple measurements are 

taken around the circumference of the 

wheel at the flange location. When this 

is done, care should be taken to ensure 

that the measurement points are the 

same distance from a common, nondeformable reference point for 

consistency and accuracy of 

measurement. 

FRA invites comments on this 

proposed section, including comment 

specifically on the appropriate track 

conditions and characteristics to be 

included in determining compliance 

with this section. 

Section 238.723 Pilots, Snowplows, 

and End Plates 

Under this section, FRA proposes 

requirements for pilots, snowplows, and 

end plates on passenger equipment, 

which aim to serve the same purposes 

as § 229.123 of this chapter, with slight 

modifications to address the unique 

characteristics of Tier III passenger 

equipment and operations. The most 

significant difference between the 

proposed requirements for pilots, 

snowplows, and end plates on Tier III 

passenger equipment and similar 

requirements in § 229.123 would be the 

increase in the maximum clearance 

from six inches to nine inches for a lead 

vehicle equipped with an obstacle 

deflector or truck (bogie)-mounted 

wheel guard. FRA is proposing this 

modification based on industry input to 

address the greater vertical movement of 

the lead vehicle during higher-speed 

passenger operations. 

Section 238.725 Overheat Sensors 

Proposed section 238.725 would make 

applicable to Tier III trainsets the same 

minimum requirements for the use and 

placement of overheat sensors currently 

applicable to Tier II trainsets under 

§ 238.428. Section 238.428 requires 

overheat sensors for each Tier II 

equipment wheelset journal bearing, 

placed either onboard the equipment or 

at reasonable intervals along the 

railroad’s right-of-way. FRA invites 

comment on this proposed application 

to Tier III trainsets to monitor wheelset 

journal overheating. 

Section 238.745 Emergency 

Communication 

FRA is proposing to add this section 

to address communication systems, to 

provide requirements for public address 

(PA) and intercom systems for Tier III 

trainsets. By adding these requirements, 

which FRA had intended to include in 

the 2018 final rule, FRA would 

harmonize the emergency 

communication requirements for Tier III 

trainsets with similar emergency system 

requirements (i.e., emergency lighting) 

already established. 

With one exception, the proposed 

emergency communication 

requirements for Tier III trainsets would 

be the same as the existing emergency 

communication requirements in 

§ 238.121 for passenger trainsets, as 

stated in proposed paragraph (a). The 

exception would be for emergency 

communication back-up power systems, 

permitting alternative crash loadings 

instead of those required in 

§ 238.121(c)(2). This proposed exception 

is detailed in paragraph (b), under 

which a railroad may seek to use the 

loading requirements defined in Section 

6.1.4, ‘‘Security of furniture, equipment 

and features,’’ of Railway Group 

Standard GM/RT2100, Issue Four, 

‘‘Requirements for Rail Vehicle 

Structures,’’ Rail Safety and Standards 

Board Ltd., December 2010, which FRA 

proposes to incorporate by reference in 

this paragraph. In particular, these 

loading requirements are the same as 

those for alternatively demonstrating 

adequate attachment strength of 

emergency lighting back-up power 

systems in Tier III trainsets discussed in 

the 2016 NPRM and 2018 final rule 

under § 238.743.21 Accordingly, both 

the interior lighting fixtures and their 

emergency back-up power systems 

would be subject to the same alternative 

loading requirements. As in § 238.743, 

use of the alternative loading 

requirements would be carried out 

consistent with any conditions 

identified by the railroad, as approved 

by FRA. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19751 

22These values are intended to correspond to 2 

kilometers per hour (kph) and 30 kph. 

Section 6.1.4 contains requirements 

for securement of furniture, on-board 

equipment, and other trainset features to 

help mitigate against injuries to 

passengers and crew from secondary 

impacts within the occupied volume. 

GM/RT2100 is available to all interested 

parties online at www.rgsonline.co.uk/ 

Railway_Group_Standards. 

Additionally, FRA would maintain a 

copy available for review. 

Section 238.747 Emergency Roof 

Access 

In this section, FRA proposes 

requirements for emergency roof access 

to the cabs of Tier III trainsets. These 

requirements aim to ensure that the 

trainset design allows for proper roof 

access for rescue access purposes for cab 

occupants in Tier III trainsets. This 

emergency roof access point would be 

required only if trainset design does not 

allow cab occupants access to 

emergency roof access locations 

otherwise required in the passenger 

compartment of the trainset. The 

proposed requirements would also 

define the dimensions for the 

emergency roof access location while 

making specifically applicable 

paragraphs (b), (d), and (e) of § 238.123 

(Emergency roof access). 

Should train crewmembers occupying 

the Tier III cab have ready access to 

emergency roof access locations in the 

passenger compartment that comply 

with § 238.123, then the railroad would 

not need to comply with the 

requirements of this section, as the 

intent of the requirement (access to the 

roof of the trainset for cab occupants in 

emergency situations to facilitate rescue 

access) would be fulfilled. FRA also 

clarifies that the location of the 

emergency roof access point under this 

proposed section would not need to be 

directly over or into the cab, and could 

be a location behind the cab, so long as 

cab occupants have access. 

Section 238.755 General Safety 

Requirements 

Proposed § 238.755 is based on 

existing §§ 229.13, 229.41, and 229.45. 

Specifically, proposed paragraph (a) 

would cross-reference the requirements 

of § 229.41 for protection from personal 

injury. Proposed paragraph (b) would 

cross-reference the requirements of 

§ 229.45, requiring that a Tier III trainset 

be free from conditions that would 

endanger the safety of the passengers, 

crew, or equipment. Moreover, FRA 

makes clear that it does not intend for 

this provision to be limited to the list of 

conditions identified under § 229.45. 

FRA would view other conditions not 

listed but still endangering the safety of 

passengers, crew, or equipment to be 

covered by this provision. Proposed 

paragraph (c) would make applicable 

the requirements of § 229.13 when 

multiple Tier III trainsets are coupled in 

remote- or multiple-control. FRA 

reiterates that although the term 

‘‘locomotive’’ is used under § 229.13, 

the substantive requirements of this 

proposed paragraph are intended to be 

applied to Tier III trainsets, and thus 

should be read as such. 

Section 238.757 Cab, Floors, and 

Passageways 

Under § 238.757, FRA is proposing 

requirements for Tier III trainset cabs, 

floors, and passageways, and is basing 

these proposed requirements on 

§ 229.119. Proposed paragraph (a), based 

on § 229.119(a) and (i), contains the 

requirements for Tier III trainset cab 

doors. This paragraph proposes that 

such trainset cab doors be equipped 

with a secure and operable device to 

lock the doors from both the inside and 

outside without impeding egress from 

the cab. 

Proposed paragraph (b), based on 

§ 229.119(b), would require that Tier III 

end-facing windows located in the 

leading end of the trainset be free of 

cracks, breaks, or other conditions that 

obscure the view of the right-of-way for 

the crew from their normal positions in 

the operating cab. 

Proposed paragraph (c) would make 

applicable to Tier III trainsets the 

requirements of § 229.119(c). 

Proposed paragraph (d), based on 

§ 229.119(g) and (h), would require that 

cabs of Tier III trainsets shall be climatecontrolled, providing both appropriate 

heating and air conditioning. This 

proposed paragraph also states that the 

inspection, testing, and maintenance 

requirements for the heating and air 

condition system be specified in the 

railroad’s ITM program. 

Section 238.759 Trainset Cab Noise 

Under § 238.759, FRA is proposing 

requirements to address trainset cab 

noise, which are based on § 229.121. 

Proposed paragraph (a), based on 

§ 229.121(a), would establish a 

maximum noise threshold that 

occupants of a Tier III trainset may be 

subjected to (85 A-weighted decibels (85 

db(A))); prohibit railroads from 

modifying the cab in a manner that 

would cause the noise to exceed the 

maximum level; and require railroads to 

follow the testing protocols, outlined 

under proposed appendix I to part 238 

(discussed further, below), to verify that 

the noise levels within the cab do not 

exceed the maximum level. Proposed 

paragraph (b) would contain the 

requirements addressing excessive noise 

reports. This paragraph is based on 

§ 229.121(b) with minor editorial 

changes. 

Section 238.761 Trainset Sanitation 

Facilities for Employees 

Under § 238.761, FRA is proposing a 

set of requirements addressing 

crewmember sanitation facilities, which 

are based on § 229.137. Proposed 

paragraph (a) would require that if a 

railroad provides a crewmember 

sanitation compartment, as that term is 

defined under § 229.5, accessible only to 

the crew onboard a Tier III trainset, that 

compartment must meet the 

requirements of § 229.137 and be 

maintained in accordance with 

§ 229.139. However, under proposed 

paragraph (b), should a railroad not 

provide such a sanitation compartment 

exclusively for crewmembers on board 

its trainset, the railroad would be 

required to provide access to sanitation 

facilities in accordance with 

§ 229.137(b)(1)(i) in that employees 

should have ready access to railroadprovided sanitation facilities external to 

the trainset or sanitation facilities 

elsewhere on the trainset. 

Again, FRA reiterates that although 

the term ‘‘locomotive’’ is used under 

§ 229.137, the substantive requirements 

of this proposed paragraph are intended 

to be applied to Tier III trainsets, and 

thus should be read as such. 

Section 238.763 Speed Indicator 

Under § 238.763, FRA is proposing 

requirements addressing speed 

indicators for Tier III trainsets. Although 

these requirements are based on 

§ 229.117, the requirements for speed 

indicators being proposed mark a 

significant departure from the 

traditional requirements under part 229. 

Proposed paragraph (a) provides that all 

Tier III trainsets be equipped with speed 

indicators, clearly readable for the 

engineer’s normal position. Notably, the 

accuracy requirements under proposed 

paragraph (a)(1) would represent the 

biggest modification of the speed 

indicator requirements. Under this 

proposal, a Tier III speed indicator 

would be required to be accurate to 

within plus or minus 1.24 mph for 

speeds not exceeding 18.6 mph.22

However, the accuracy would be 

permitted to deviate, linearly, up to plus 

or minus 5 mph for speeds not 

exceeding 220 mph. So, rather than 

specifying static accuracy based on 

whether one is above or below a certain 

speed, FRA would permit use of a 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19752 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

23For example, a change in speed of 2 mph while 

operating at 220 mph is not as significant as an 

equivalent change in speed at 20 mph. 

sliding scale performance requirement. 

Under this proposal, accuracy of the 

speed indicator would be permitted to 

change in a linear relationship to the 

speed of the trainset. And, as the 

necessity for more precise accuracy 

diminishes the faster a Tier III trainset 

operates,23 this requirement is reflective 

of the actual Tier III operating 

environment. Additionally, with the 

advances in digital technology, 

maintaining such an accuracy should 

not be as challenging. 

Proposed paragraph (b) would require 

that the speed indicator output (what 

the engineer sees) be based on a system 

of independent, onboard speed 

measurement sources to comply with 

the accuracy requirements of proposed 

paragraph (a). At a minimum, FRA 

would expect that, from whatever 

source the speed is derived, there would 

be multiple (at least two) inputs 

provided by different sensors to ensure 

the accuracy of the speed as displayed 

to the engineer. 

Proposed paragraph (c) permits the 

railroad to define the calibration 

frequency for the speed indicator in its 

ITM program. 

Section 238.765 Event Recorders 

Under this section, FRA is proposing 

a set of requirements addressing event 

recorders for Tier III trainsets. The 

requirements, as proposed, largely 

follow the event recorder requirements 

under § 229.135. However, FRA has 

made some changes to account for the 

different technology. Notably, under 

proposed paragraph (a), which would 

contain the general requirement that all 

Tier III trainsets be equipped with an inservice event recorder and is based on 

§ 229.135(a), FRA would not require 

railroads to note the mere presence of an 

event recorder on FORM FRA F6180– 

49A or other record, as all Tier III 

trainsets would require event recorders. 

Proposed paragraph (b) contains the 

specific data elements to be recorded by 

the event recorder and the level of 

recording accuracy necessary. Notably, 

proposed paragraph (b)(2) outlines the 

data elements to be recorded. This 

paragraph would cross-reference a large 

majority of data elements contained in 

§ 229.135(b)(4), specifically, 

§ 229.135(b)(4)(i) through (xv), (xvii), 

(xx) and (xxi). In addition, proposed 

paragraph (b)(2) lists several more data 

elements that are tailored toward Tier III 

trainsets, such as: the application and 

operation of the eddy current brake, if 

equipped ((b)(2)(i)); a passenger brake 

alarm request ((b)(2)(ii)); a passenger 

brake alarm override ((b)(2)(iii)); the 

activation of the bell ((b)(2)(iv)); and the 

trainset brake cylinder pressures 

((b)(2)(v)). Finally, proposed paragraph 

(b)(2) would require the recorded data to 

be retained on a certified crashworthy 

event recorder memory module that 

meets the requirements of appendix D to 

part 229 of this chapter. 

Proposed paragraph (c), which is 

based on § 229.135(c), would require 

that when an in-service event recorder 

is taken out of service, the date the 

device was removed from service would 

be annotated in the trainset’s 

maintenance records, required in 

accordance with proposed § 238.777. 

Proposed paragraph (d), which is 

based on § 229.135(d), would permit a 

Tier III trainset on which the event 

recorder has been taken out of service to 

continue in service only until the next 

pre-service inspection, as required by 

the railroad’s ITM program under 

proposed § 238.903(c)(2). 

Proposed paragraph (e) would make 

applicable to Tier III trainsets the 

requirements set forth in § 229.135(e) 

through (g). 

Proposed paragraph (f) would require 

that event recorders be tested at 

intervals not to exceed 368 days, in 

accordance with § 229.27(c). 

FRA again reiterates that although the 

term ‘‘locomotive’’ is used under 

§ 229.135, the substantive requirements 

of this proposed paragraph are intended 

to be applied to Tier III trainsets, and 

thus should be read as such. 

Section 238.767 Headlights 

Under this section, FRA is proposing 

requirements for Tier III trainset 

headlights. As proposed under 

paragraph (a), each end of a Tier III 

trainset would be required to be 

equipped with a headlight comprised of 

at least two lamps that meets the 

angular, intensity, and illumination 

requirements of § 229.125(a). 

Proposed paragraph (b) would 

prohibit Tier III trainsets from operating 

with a leading end in revenue service if 

a defective headlight is discovered 

during the pre-service inspection; under 

such circumstances, it would only be 

allowed to move in accordance with the 

requirements covering the movement of 

defective equipment under proposed 

§ 238.1003(e). However, this proposed 

paragraph would permit continued 

operation of a trainset’s leading end 

with a defective headlight if the defect 

is discovered while the trainset is in 

service in accordance with the 

requirements of proposed 

§ 238.1003(b)(1) through (3). 

Proposed paragraph (c) would permit 

the headlights of a Tier III trainset to be 

dimmed, which is consistent with 

existing § 229.125(c). However, because 

the headlight and auxiliary light 

standards are driven around the need 

for consistency and conspicuity when 

Tier III trainsets are used on a shared 

right-of-way, the performance 

requirements, themselves, would not 

directly address that it may be 

advantageous for a Tier III trainset to 

operate for extended periods of time 

with a lower candela setting. 

Specifically, whereas a conventional 

freight or passenger operation is likely 

to utilize the dim setting only when 

passing another train, idling, or as an 

alternative to marker lights, a Tier III 

trainset could operate for extended 

periods of time within a dedicated (and 

more protected) environment where the 

higher output may not be necessary or 

desired, particularly if the Tier III rightof-way is adjacent to or within a 

highway corridor. The use of this 

functionality, however, should be 

described by the railroad under 

proposed § 238.110(d)(2)(xv). 

Proposed paragraph (d) would 

provide an allowance to use alternative 

lighting technology (e.g., LED versus 

incandescent). It also would provide an 

exception to the requirement that the 

headlight consist of at least two lamps, 

as required by proposed paragraph (a). 

Further, this proposed paragraph (d) 

would require that if such alternative 

technology is used, then the railroad’s 

ITM program plan must include 

procedures for determining that such 

headlights provide the illumination 

intensity required by proposed 

paragraph (a), and that the headlights 

can achieve the minimum illumination 

intensity under snow and ice conditions 

(i.e., when there is a risk of snow and 

ice accumulation on the headlight). 

Section 238.769 Auxiliary Lights 

Under this section, FRA is proposing 

requirements addressing auxiliary lights 

for Tier III trainsets, based on similar 

requirements in § 229.125. Under 

proposed paragraph (a), FRA would 

establish the general requirement that 

Tier III trainsets operating in shared 

rights-of-way over public highway-rail 

grade crossings at speeds 20 mph or 

greater be equipped with auxiliary lights 

that conform to § 229.125(d)(1) though 

(3). FRA recognizes that § 229.125(d)(1) 

through (3) uses some traditional terms, 

such as ‘‘locomotive,’’ when describing 

the placement of auxiliary lights; 

however, the use of the term 

‘‘locomotive,’’ or other similar terms, 

should not be an impediment to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19753 

compliance with the requirements of 

this proposed paragraph. 

Proposed paragraph (b) would permit 

auxiliary lights to be arranged in any 

manner specified in § 229.125(e)(1) 

through (2), and proposed paragraph (c) 

would require compliance with 

§ 229.125(f). 

Proposed paragraphs (d)(1) through 

(3) address requirements concerning 

defective auxiliary lights, and would 

require that a lead unit with a single 

defective auxiliary light be switched to 

a trailing position (or repaired) if 

discovered during the pre-service 

inspection. Although the proposal 

would permit a unit to continue in the 

lead position if a single defective 

auxiliary light is discovered while in 

service, a lead unit discovered with two 

defective auxiliary lights while in 

service would be allowed to continue in 

service only to the next forward location 

where repairs could be made. 

Section 238.771 Marking Device 

This section proposes a set of 

requirements for rear marker devices for 

Tier III trainsets, based generally on part 

221. Proposed paragraph (a) contains 

the general requirement that Tier III 

trainsets be equipped with a rear 

marking device. Paragraph (a) would 

also require marking devices to conform 

with the characteristics of § 221.14(a)(1) 

through (a)(3), along with other 

requirements in proposed paragraphs 

(a)(1) and)(2) of this section. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would 

require that marking devices 

continuously illuminate, with proposed 

paragraph (a)(2) permitting alternative 

lighting technology so long as the 

railroad’s ITM program plan contains 

procedures for determining that the 

marker lights conform with the 

requirements of proposed paragraphs (a) 

and (a)(1). 

Proposed paragraph (b) specifies that 

the centroid of the marking device 

would be located 48 inches above the 

top of the rail. 

Proposed paragraph (c) would require 

that marking devices be illuminated 

while the trainset is in service and that 

they be inspected as part of the preservice inspection. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would 

specify that a trainset with a defective 

or inoperative marking device not be 

moved in revenue service if discovered 

as part of a pre-service inspection. 

However, proposed paragraph (d)(2) 

would permit movement to the next 

forward repair location if the marking 

device is discovered inoperative while 

the trainset in service. 

Proposed paragraph (e) would provide 

an exception to equipping trainsets with 

a marking device in conformance with 

paragraph (a) by allowing a headlight set 

on dim to serve as a rear marking 

device. 

Section 238.773 Cab Lights 

This proposed section would require 

that cab lights comply with the 

requirements of § 229.127(a). It also 

would require that cab passageways and 

compartments be adequately 

illuminated. 

FRA reiterates that although the term 

‘‘locomotive’’ is used under § 229.127, 

the substantive requirements of this 

proposed section are intended to be 

applied to Tier III trainsets, and thus 

should be read as such. 

Section 238.775 Trainset Horn 

Proposed paragraph (a) would require 

that each Tier III trainset be equipped 

and arranged with a horn that conforms 

with § 229.129(a). 

Proposed paragraph (b) provides an 

option for testing the trainset horn. 

Railroads would be able either to 

perform acceptance sampling in 

accordance with § 229.129(b)(1) or test 

each horn individually under the 

procedures of proposed paragraph (e). 

Proposed paragraph (c) would require 

that, but for the exception under 

proposed paragraph (d), replacement 

trainset horns be tested individually in 

accordance with proposed paragraph 

(e). Under proposed paragraph (d), 

replacement trainset horns need not be 

tested if the replacement horn is of the 

same model of horn being replaced that 

had been successfully tested either in 

accordance with § 229.129(b)(1) or 

proposed paragraph (e). 

Proposed paragraph (e) would require 

that trainset horns be individually 

tested in accordance with § 229.129(c), 

subject to one exception and one 

addition. The positioning of the 

microphone used for testing the trainset 

horn would be specified under 

proposed paragraph (e)(1), in lieu of 

complying with § 229.129(c)(7). 

Additionally, proposed paragraph (e)(2) 

would permit the records required 

under § 229.129(c)(10) to be kept 

electronically. 

Although § 229.129 references the 

term ‘‘locomotive,’’ this should not 

prove an impediment to compliance, as 

substantive requirements of this 

proposed section are intended to be 

applied to Tier III trainsets. 

Section 238.777 Inspection Records 

This proposed section is generally 

based on § 229.23 insofar as certain 

periodic inspections must be performed 

at certain intervals and completion 

thereof must be recorded. In addition, 

and as discussed further below, certain 

other pertinent information must also be 

recorded and made available to railroad 

employees and FRA inspectors. 

The most significant aspect of this 

proposed section is that FRA is not 

requiring use of FRA form F6180–49A 

(form 49A), or any future variants, to 

record the pertinent inspection data and 

other data that FRA necessitates under 

part 229 (such as the presence of an inservice event recorder in the remarks 

section of the form). FRA would permit 

users of Tier III equipment the option of 

using onboard technology to provide to 

the engineer the same type of 

information regarding the inspection 

state of the Tier III trainset as would be 

provided through use of form 49A under 

part 229 and its physical presence in the 

cab of a locomotive. As discussed 

below, should a railroad using Tier III 

equipment wish to use this option, the 

onboard technology would need to have 

the capability of informing the engineer 

that, at the time of use, the trainset has 

received all required periodic 

inspections. The technology would also 

need to be able to communicate the type 

of brake system used, and various other 

pieces of necessary information. On the 

other hand, should a railroad using Tier 

III equipment not elect this option, the 

railroad may still use a physical form 

under a transparent cover in the 

controlling cab of the Tier III trainset. 

Although a railroad would not be 

required to use form 49A for Tier III 

equipment specifically, this proposed 

paragraph should not be construed as 

absolving a railroad using Tier III 

equipment from complying with the 

applicable requirements for Tier I or II 

equipment it may also operate. For 

clarity, the periodic inspection 

information intended to be captured 

under this proposed section would be 

analogous to the periodic inspection 

information captured under § 229.23, 

albeit the periodic inspections would be 

conducted pursuant to a Tier III 

railroad’s approved ITM program. FRA 

also welcomes comment on whether to 

make this option available to Tier I or 

II equipment. 

Proposed paragraph (a) would 

establish a general requirement that for 

certain periodic inspections as defined 

by a Tier III railroad’s ITM program, 

certain information be captured with 

respect to those inspections. Proposed 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) would 

specify the minimum information 

required for each inspection record: the 

date the last inspection was done, the 

name of the inspector conducting the 

work, and the name of the supervisor 

certifying the work was done correctly. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19754 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

Proposed paragraph (b) would require 

that the locomotive engineer have 

access to information from the 

inspection record and summary report 

and identify digital (proposed paragraph 

(b)(1)) and physical methods (proposed 

paragraph (b)(2)) for enabling that 

access. Should a railroad using Tier III 

equipment elect to comply with 

proposed paragraph (b)(2), use of form 

49A (or any future variant) to display or 

record the particular maintenance 

information listed in this proposed 

section would not be required; the 

railroad would be free to develop its 

own form unique to its needs for its Tier 

III equipment. 

Proposed paragraph (c) would 

establish the requirements for a 

summary report. This summary report is 

similar in intent to FRA’s form 49A 

(providing pertinent information 

regarding the state of the trainset to 

those in the controlling cab), requiring 

information that is consistent with what 

is required currently under part 229. 

However, use of FRA’s form is not 

required for Tier III equipment, as 

discussed under proposed paragraph 

(b). This paragraph proposes that the 

summary report, in whatever form it 

takes, should contain certain 

information regarding the specific 

trainset such as the date(s) of the last 

periodic inspection required under the 

railroad’s ITM program plan, whether 

there are any waivers of compliance 

granted by FRA under part 211 

applicable to the trainset, the type of 

brake system used on the trainset, and 

whether the event recorder is out of 

service. 

Proposed paragraph (d) would permit 

compliance with § 229.23 as satisfying 

the requirements of this section. 

Section 238.781 Current Collectors 

This proposed section would apply 

many of the requirements for the use of 

current collectors in part 229 to 

passenger equipment and trainsets, with 

some changes. Proposed paragraphs 

(a)(1) and (b) would apply requirements 

from part 229 through cross-references, 

and proposed paragraph (a)(4) would 

impose requirements similar to those in 

part 229, with minor changes. Other 

paragraphs in this proposed section 

would contain requirements with no 

direct counterpart in part 229. 

Paragraph (a) proposes requirements 

for pantographs and other overhead 

collection systems. Paragraph (a)(1) 

proposes to apply the requirements of 

§ 229.77(a) to Tier III equipment. 

Paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) have no 

counterparts in part 229, and propose 

requirements to provide additional 

protection for engineers and other 

personnel by requiring the electrical 

grounding of insulated parts to reduce 

the risk of electric shock and by 

enabling an engineer to identify the 

position of and secure the pantograph 

without mounting the roof of the 

trainset. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(4), which is 

based on § 229.81(a), would require that, 

for pantographs used on Tier III 

trainsets, a means be provided to safely 

lower the pantograph in the event of an 

emergency, permitting the use of an 

emergency pole, subject to certain 

requirements (such as properly marking 

where the pole can be safely handled 

and keeping the pole free from moisture 

and damage when not in use). Paragraph 

(a)(4) proposes an additional 

requirement that a railroad’s ITM 

program identify an alternate means of 

securement and electrical isolation of a 

damaged pantograph when automatic 

methods are not possible. 

Paragraph (b) proposes to apply the 

requirements of §§ 229.79 and 229.81(b) 

to trainsets equipped with pantographs 

and third-rail shoes. Although the 

requirements of §§ 229.79 and 229.81(b) 

use the term ‘‘locomotive,’’ rather than 

‘‘trainset,’’ the proposed language of 

paragraph (b) would clarify the 

application of these requirements to 

Tier III trainsets. 

Section 238.783 Circuit Protection 

This section proposes requirements 

for the protection of electrical circuits 

used within a Tier III trainset. Proposed 

paragraph (a) describes the general 

requirements for circuit protection in 

Tier III passenger equipment. Proposed 

paragraphs (b) and (c) would provide 

requirements for more specific 

categories of circuit protection, with 

proposed paragraph (b) addressing 

lightning protection and proposed 

paragraph (c) addressing overload and 

ground fault protection. For purposes of 

this section, the term ‘‘lightning 

arrestor’’ includes a surge arrestor that 

also functions as a lightning arrestor. 

Section 238.785 Trainset Electrical 

System 

Under this section, FRA is proposing 

requirements addressing various aspects 

of a Tier III trainset’s electric system and 

is proposing to apply by cross-reference 

certain electrical system requirements 

for locomotives in part 229. Proposed 

paragraph (a) would address the 

insulation or grounding of metal parts 

and apply by cross-reference 

requirements of §§ 229.83 and 238.225 

to trainsets. 

Proposed paragraph (b) would address 

high voltage markings on doors, cover 

plates, or barriers, and apply by crossreference the requirements of § 229.85. 

Although in § 229.85 the words 

‘‘Danger-High Voltage’’ or ‘‘Danger’’ 

appear with just each word’s first letter 

capitalized, FRA makes clear that use of 

all capital letters (i.e., ‘‘DANGER–HIGH 

VOLTAGE’’ or ‘‘DANGER’’) would also 

be acceptable. However, font size, 

symbols, and colors must comply with 

a national or international standard 

recognized by the railroad industry, and 

labels must be retro-reflective. FRA also 

makes clear that the proposed 

requirements for marking doors, cover 

plates, or barriers under this paragraph 

would apply to the external surfaces of 

any doors, cover plates, or barriers, and 

that the marking must be conspicuous 

and legible. The purpose of these 

proposed requirements would be 

negated if the markings were hidden on 

surfaces blocked from ready view or 

were otherwise indistinguishable from 

the external surface, or if the language 

conveying the warning were illegible. 

Proposed paragraph (c) would apply 

the requirements for hand-operated 

electrical switches in § 229.87 to Tier III 

trainsets. 

Under the proposed requirements of 

paragraph (d), trainsets would be subject 

to the requirements for conductors, 

jumpers, and cable connections in 

§§ 229.89 and 238.225(a). As 

clarification, while § 229.89 refers to 

cable and jumper connections for a 

locomotive, proposed paragraph (d) 

would apply such requirements to Tier 

III trainsets. 

Paragraph (e), as proposed, describes 

requirements for energy storage systems 

(batteries and capacitors) on Tier III 

trainsets. Paragraph (e)(1), which 

addresses batteries, proposes to apply 

the requirements of § 238.225(b) and 

also proposes an additional 

requirement: battery circuits must 

include an emergency battery cut-off 

switch to completely disconnect the 

energy stored in the batteries from the 

load. 

Paragraph (e)(2), which has no 

counterpart in part 229, proposes 

requirements for the design of 

capacitors for high-energy storage on 

trainsets and would require that such 

capacitors be isolated by a fire-resistant 

barrier from passenger seating areas and 

the trainset cabs (proposed paragraph 

(e)(2)(i)) and that the capacitors be 

designed to protect against overcharging 

(proposed paragraph (e)(2)(ii)). 

Paragraph (f) proposes to apply the 

requirements for power dissipation 

resistors in § 238.225(c) to Tier III 

trainsets, with one additional proposed 

requirement: power dissipation resistor 

circuits must incorporate warning or 

protective devices for low ventilation air 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19755 

flow, over-temperature, and short circuit 

failures. 

Paragraph (g) proposes to apply the 

requirements for electromagnetic 

interference and compatibility in 

§ 238.225(d), so that the onboard 

electronic equipment, among other 

things, not produce electrical noise that 

interferes with the trainline control and 

communications or wayside signaling 

systems. In addition to applying the 

requirements of § 238.225(d), FRA is 

proposing an additional requirement: 

electrical and electronic systems of 

equipment must be capable of operation 

in the presence of external 

electromagnetic noise sources. 

In paragraph (h), FRA proposes 

requirements for motors and generators 

in use on a Tier III trainset. Proposed 

paragraph (h)(1) contains a general 

requirement that all motors and 

generators would be in proper working 

order or safely cut-out and isolated. 

Proposed paragraph (h)(2) would 

require that if motors and generators are 

equipped with support brackets, 

bearings, isolation mounts, or guards, 

those items would be present and 

function properly as defined by the 

railroad’s ITM program. 

Section 238.791 Safety Appliances 

Under this section, FRA is proposing 

a comprehensive set of requirements 

addressing safety appliances for Tier III 

trainsets. As described in paragraph (a), 

this section may also be applied to Tier 

I passenger-carrying vehicles and 

trainsets. Non-passenger-carrying 

passenger locomotives that are not part 

of an integrated trainset design would 

be covered under proposed § 238.235. A 

railroad or supplier may still utilize the 

relevant passenger rail car safety 

appliance standards contained in part 

231 of this chapter, if appropriate. The 

proposed safety appliance standards in 

this section, however, are intended to 

address modern passenger rail vehicle 

designs considerations and updated 

ergonomics from the recommendations 

provided by APTA and the international 

car builders represented in the PSWG. 

FRA notes that the application of these 

proposed requirements to Tier I 

equipment would be an all-or-none 

approach, like the alternative 

crashworthiness requirements under 

§ 238.201 and appendix G to this part. 

This means that Tier I equipment would 

either follow all the requirements, as 

proposed under this section, or comply 

with the existing safety appliance 

requirements for Tier I equipment; 

however, no mixing of the two sets of 

requirements would be permitted. 

Proposed paragraph (b) outlines the 

requirements for the attachment of 

safety appliances to the structural 

carbody of passenger rail equipment. 

These requirements are subdivided into 

two main categories: attachment by 

mechanical fasteners (e.g., rivets, bolts), 

and attachment by welding. Proposed 

paragraph (b)(1) would establish the 

minimum fastener mechanical strength 

and fatigue resistance, as provided by a 

1⁄2-inch SAE Grade 5 bolt, or equivalent, 

by means of one- or two-piece rivets, 

Huck bolts®, or threaded fasteners. To 

ensure that threaded fasteners remain 

appropriately secured, proposed 

paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) would 

provide the acceptable methods that 

must be followed to ensure that bolts or 

nuts used to secure the appliance to the 

carbody do not become loose. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(2) addresses 

the minimum requirements for 

appliances, sub-assemblies, brackets, 

and supports that are welded as a means 

of attachment to the structural carbody. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would further 

identify when brackets or supports (e.g., 

tapping blocks) can be considered part 

of the structural carbody. FRA notes that 

there is a small but important 

distinction between the intended 

treatment of brackets or supports in 

paragraphs (b)(2) and (3). Proposed 

paragraph (b)(2) would apply 

specifically to brackets and supports 

that are considered components of the 

appliance itself (e.g., to add stiffness), as 

distinguished from supports used for 

the sole purpose of attaching the 

appliance to the carbody under 

proposed paragraph (b)(3). 

Proposed paragraph (b)(4) would 

require that safety appliance designs 

facilitate the regular inspection of their 

attachment points to ensure threaded 

connections are not loose and welds 

show no signs of premature failure. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(5) would 

provide for the use of a minimum factor 

of safety of two, if the design loads in 

proposed paragraphs (d)(4)(ii) or 

(e)(4)(ii) are used as the method of 

determining appliance strength. FRA 

makes clear that this proposed 

requirement would apply only if the 

design load methodology for appliance 

strength is utilized, as a factor of safety 

would not be necessary if the traditional 

(e.g., 5⁄8-inch diameter steel, or a 

material providing an equivalent level 

of mechanical strength) approach is 

used. 

Proposed paragraph (c) would 

establish that the appliance and its 

attachment must be designed to account 

for fatigue, particularly as it relates to 

the size of welded connections. Because 

of the high-vibrational environment in 

which safety appliances are utilized, 

particularly where reciprocal engines 

are also present (e.g., diesel-electric 

locomotive, diesel multiple-unit), the 

PSWG wanted to ensure designs 

accounted for environmental service 

factors, in addition to obvious static 

loads. Traditional threaded connections 

do occasionally come loose in such 

environments when not secured 

properly, but generally remain attached, 

whereas a welded connection may fail 

completely, without warning, if such 

considerations are not taken into 

account. This was a primary concern 

raised in discussions within the PSWG 

when alternative language to §§ 238.229 

and 238.230 was being considered for 

welded appliances and components. 

Therefore, proposed paragraph (c) is 

intended to complement the other 

requirements for welded appliances 

outlined in more detail within this 

section, to help address many of these 

concerns. 

Proposed paragraphs (d) and (e) 

address the pertinent requirements for 

the design of all handholds and sill 

steps, respectively. FRA notes that the 

proposed text represents an 

organizational change from the RSAC 

recommendations. Because handholds 

and sill steps are the most common 

types of safety appliances installed on 

passenger rail equipment, and the 

requirements can vary depending on 

their location and function, FRA 

believes that by consolidating 

requirements for all handholds and sill 

steps, it can avoid repeating 

requirements that are common to all 

locations (e.g., clearance, strength) 

while more succinctly delineating the 

requirements for specific locations (e.g., 

end handholds). FRA welcomes 

comments towards the utility of this 

approach, and the value of possibly 

including accompanying drawings in a 

final rule. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would 

detail the number of handholds 

required, and any critical dimensions 

depending on the function, location and 

arrangement (i.e., horizontal or vertical) 

of each type of handhold. Proposed 

paragraph (d)(1)(i) would require 

handrails to be present at all passenger 

side door locations but note that 

internal handrails installed to comply 

with the requirements of § 38.97(a) or 

§ 38.115(a) of this title, Americans with 

Disabilities Act Accessibility 

Specifications for Transportation 

Vehicles, may be used to satisfy this 

requirement, recognizing that this 

would likely be the primary method of 

compliance. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(ii) 

addresses the minimum requirements 

for locations where external access to 

the cab of a trainset, power car, or 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19756 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

24For further discussion on FRA’s proposed use 

of its discretionary authority under 49 U.S.C. 20306, 

see section III.E, above, Safety Appliances for NonPassenger Carrying Locomotives and Passenger 

Equipment. 25 Id. 

locomotive is provided, other than for 

passenger access. These locations 

typically include one or more vertical 

handholds and sill steps stacked in 

‘‘ladder’’ arrangement for crewmembers 

to access the cab from the ground level. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(iii) 

addresses the requirements for all side 

handholds. Side handholds are required 

at any location where sill steps are 

installed, including those required by 

statute or regulation, and optional 

installations. A major goal of the PSWG 

was to address the various arrangements 

that have been developed over the years 

to provide better ergonomics. For 

example, some passenger equipment 

designs incorporate two horizontal 

handholds above side sill steps located 

at car ends, as opposed to the single 

horizontal handhold design codified 

under part 231 for most passenger cars. 

The multiple handhold arrangement 

was adopted to provide better 

ergonomics for crews riding on car ends 

performing switching moves and other 

activities, while providing a lower 

handhold for stability from the ballast 

level. Proposed paragraphs (d)(1)(iii)(A) 

through (F) provide specific dimensions 

for the different types of arrangements 

that are commonly used on modern 

passenger rail equipment. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(iv) 

provides the requirements for end 

handholds. End handholds are generally 

required at the end of any car where a 

coupler is installed that requires 

crewmembers to manually couple, 

uncouple, or make electrical or 

pneumatic connections, as detailed in 

this section. The PSWG 

recommendations added additional 

language to address position 

requirements for vehicles with tapered 

(aerodynamic noses), included in 

proposed paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(C), and 

when the use of an uncoupling lever is 

acceptable in lieu of a separate end 

handhold, as contained in proposed 

paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(E). Perhaps most 

significantly, this rule would codify the 

exception proposed in paragraph 

(d)(1)(iv)(F) that end handholds would 

not be required at the ends of vehicles 

equipped with an automatic coupling 

mechanism that can be safely operated 

from inside the appropriate cab of the 

vehicle and does not require a person to 

go between vehicle units. This approach 

has been adopted in numerous, recent 

equipment designs that incorporate 

some level of semi-permanent 

connection (e.g., trainsets, married pair 

MUs), or utilize a ‘‘fully-automated’’ 

coupling device that can couple or 

decouple and make all electrical and 

pneumatic connections without the 

need for manual intervention. Often 

these couplers (commonly referred to as 

‘‘transit type’’ couplers) can be 

monitored and controlled from the cab 

of a trainset. FRA is utilizing its 

authority under 49 U.S.C. 20306 to 

codify this exception through this 

rulemaking process.24 By doing so, FRA 

anticipates it would eliminate the need 

for additional waiver requests on the 

subject and better incorporate modern 

technology and equipment designs, as 

the statutory provision intends. 

Proposed paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) 

provide the required minimum 

handhold dimension and hand 

clearance requirements. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(4) contains 

the handhold strength and rigidity 

requirements with proposed paragraph 

(d)(4)(i) providing an option to utilize 

the traditional 5⁄8-inch wrought-iron or 

steel equivalency strength for those that 

prefer to design appliances using the 

traditional approach. In turn, proposed 

paragraph (d)(4)(ii) reflects the new, 

design strength approach, as 

recommended by the PSWG. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(5) addresses 

the use of multiple handholds when 

arranged vertically in a ‘‘ladder’’ type 

arrangement, often used by 

crewmembers to access cabs or carbody 

doors from the ground level. 

The requirements for different sill 

step arrangements are consolidated 

within proposed paragraph (e) of this 

section. Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(i) 

would specify the locations where sill 

steps must be equipped and proposed 

paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) and (iii), 

respectively, the required dimensions. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(iv) would 

provide exceptions for where side sill 

steps are not required. Specifically, 

under proposed paragraph (e)(1)(iv)(A), 

side sill steps would not be required if 

steps are provided for an exterior cab 

access door in a location where a 

crewmember can ride the equipment 

with an unobstructed view of the track 

ahead. This would reduce the need to 

have redundant safety appliances where 

the cab ladder arrangement can be 

effectively used to safely perform 

switching moves. Under proposed 

paragraph (e)(1)(iv)(B), sill steps, as with 

end handholds, would not be required 

at locations equipped with an automatic 

coupling mechanism that can be safely 

operated from inside the appropriate 

cab of the vehicle and does not require 

ground intervention from a person to go 

on, under, or between the equipment 

such as to couple air, electric, or other 

connections. As with other safety 

appliance requirements proposed in this 

section, FRA proposes to adopt these 

common exceptions from the statutory 

need to equip a vehicle with sill steps 

by the authority provided in 49 U.S.C. 

20306. Doing so would also remove the 

need for continued waiver requests 

under this authority for modern 

passenger equipment designs.25

Proposed paragraph (e)(2) provides 

the various required dimensions for 

various sill step arrangements. Proposed 

paragraph (e)(2)(i) would establish the 

minimum tread length as 10 inches, 

which is the useable length of the step 

where a person could place their foot, 

excluding any construction features 

such as bend radii where someone 

could not step onto a flush surface of 

the step. Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(ii) 

would establish the clear (unobstructed) 

distance required above the usable tread 

of a step. This dimension has 

historically been referred to as the clear 

‘‘depth’’ in part 231. The PSWG 

recommended use of the term ‘‘clear 

distance’’ in the proposal, to avoid 

historical confusion regarding the 

meaning of the term ‘‘depth,’’ which 

could also be interpreted as meaning the 

distance from the outside vertical plane 

of a step. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(A) 

would require that a Tier III trainset 

have a minimum of at least 4.7 inches 

of clear distance, whereas proposed 

paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(B) would provide 

the traditional 8-inch clear distance 

requirement for Tier I equipment. In 

discussions with the PSWG, industry 

requested that FRA adopt the serviceproven clear distance based on 

international standards (4.7 inches). The 

PSWG noted that this standard has 

proven appropriate for international 

high-speed passenger equipment as it 

reduces the potential pocket size that 

can be a major contributor to 

aerodynamic noise. Additionally, the 

PSWG noted that this standard would 

help avoid the need for potential 

modifications to the carbody 

underframe of service-proven, highspeed trainsets if manufacturers were 

required to increase the clear distance 

length to the historical 8 inches. In a 

continuing effort to harmonize FRA 

regulations with service-proven 

international standards to facilitate the 

implementation of service-proven, highspeed rail in the United States, FRA is 

proposing to adopt this 

recommendation. However, as these 

proposed regulations may also apply to 

Tier I equipment, FRA is proposing to 

retain the requirement that Tier I 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19757 

26 Id. 

equipment maintain a minimum clear 

distance of at least 8 inches. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(iii) would 

specify the required clear space from the 

outside edge of a sill step. The purpose 

of this dimension is to allow the user to 

have enough room to firmly place the 

ball of their foot on the step. The most 

common application of this requirement 

would be where a step is built directly 

into the side of a vehicle, or into the 

pocket of the carbody or side sill of a 

locomotive or passenger vehicle. The 

term ‘‘clear space’’ is being introduced 

here to avoid confusion with similar 

terms, such as clear length and depth. 

FRA welcomes comments on other 

terminology that might be considered 

for this dimension. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(iv) would 

adopt a maximum vertical rise between 

consecutive sill steps. This proposed 

requirement is intended to ensure that 

vertical spacing is ergonomic for users 

in multiple sill step arrangements, 

particularly those used in a ladder-type 

arrangement, and is derived from other 

regulations such as those for box car 

ladders outlined in § 231.1(e) of this 

chapter. Similarly, proposed paragraph 

(e)(2)(v) would require that proper 

clearance be provided behind a sill step 

and running gear or any other moving 

parts. This is intended to ensure that the 

truck or other moving part of a 

passenger vehicle does not come into 

contact with the boot (foot) of a 

crewmember riding on a sill step or cab 

access ladder. This would also 

effectively prohibit steps being installed 

directly onto such moving parts, which 

could present an unsafe condition if the 

equipment starts to move. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(3) would 

establish the requirements for sill step 

tread surfaces and provide some 

examples for acceptable methods. 

Railroad and suppliers should consider 

the appropriate anti-skid material to use 

depending on the functionality of the 

sill step. For example, if a sill step is 

also intended to function as a handhold, 

then it should utilize an anti-skid 

material that does not affect the use of 

the handhold. This proposed language 

would also require that enclosed steps, 

such as those built into the side sill or 

carbody of equipment, have at least 50 

percent of the tread area as open space 

to help prevent the minor build-up of 

snow or ice from impacting the utility 

of the anti-skid surface. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(4) provides 

the strength requirements for sill steps. 

These requirements would be similar to 

those the PSWG recommended for other 

appliances in this section, but also 

include an empirical requirement for 

sill steps constructed with a rectangular 

cross-section. 

Proposed paragraph (f) addresses the 

minimum crew access locations for new 

passenger trainsets and individual 

pieces of equipment. It is intended to 

ensure that vehicles designed to provide 

only high-level boarding for passengers 

also have a means for crewmembers to 

board a trainset or passenger car from 

ground level, or alight from one to the 

ground. Specifically, proposed 

paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iii) would 

detail when such access locations must 

be provided and when low-level 

boarding or cab access locations can be 

used to satisfy this requirement. 

Proposed paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (ii) 

provide the requirements for steps and 

handholds utilized in crew access 

locations, primarily referencing similar 

requirements proposed in this section. 

FRA is also including additional 

provisions recommended by the PSWG 

in proposed paragraphs (f)(2)(iii) and 

(iv), which would allow for crew access 

steps to be retractable, or for portable 

ladders to be utilized in lieu of 

permanently installed external steps, 

respectively. These proposed 

requirements were added to address 

concerns with aerodynamic noise 

contribution, particularly on Tier III 

trainsets. If portable ladder 

arrangements are used, they should be 

readily accessible to crewmembers, 

designed to provide strength equivalent 

to or greater than that required for sill 

step arrangements in this section, and 

be securely attached to the equipment. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(1) details 

where ‘‘automatic’’ couplers must be 

equipped, and their functionality, as 

required by 49 U.S.C. ch. 203. FRA is 

proposing to codify exemptions from 

the need to install automatic couplers 

and their associated appliances (e.g., 

uncoupling levers, end handholds) on 

passenger trainsets or equipment with 

semi-permanent connections, or at the 

ends of trainsets where couplers are 

only intended for rescue purposes, as 

detailed in proposed paragraph (g)(2). 

As described previously, FRA is 

proposing to use its authority under 49 

U.S.C. 20306 to permanently adopt 

these exclusions for which waivers are 

commonly requested for modern 

trainset and MU passenger equipment 

designs, and FRA believes this would 

help reduce the burden associated with 

such requests.26

Proposed paragraph (h) provides the 

requirements for uncoupling levers or 

devices and would require uncoupling 

levers or devices on each vehicle end 

equipped with an automatic coupler, as 

required under proposed paragraph (g) 

of this section. Proposed paragraphs 

(h)(1)(i) and (ii) would require that an 

automatic coupler be equipped with 

either a traditional, manual uncoupling 

lever or some other uncoupling 

mechanism operated by controls located 

in the appropriate cab, or other secure 

location in a trainset, respectively. 

Additionally, proposed paragraph 

(h)(1)(ii) provides that additional 

uncoupling levers or handles on the 

coupler that serve only as a backup to 

the remotely operated mechanism 

would not be subject to the 

requirements of proposed paragraph 

(h)(2). 

Proposed paragraph (h)(2) would 

require that manual uncoupling levers 

be installed so that the automatic 

coupler may be operated from the left 

side of the equipment, as determined 

when facing the end of the equipment, 

from ground level without requiring a 

person to go between cars or equipment 

units and have a clearance around the 

handle of 2, preferably 21⁄2, inches. This 

proposed performance requirement for 

manual uncoupling levers is a slight 

departure from the traditional 

requirements for such appliances under 

part 231. Yet, FRA believes that 

adherence to the more rigid, traditional 

measurement requirements from the 

coupler to the outside edge of the 

equipment is not appropriate, as it 

becomes difficult to determine the 

proper place at which to measure when 

equipment ends are tapered. 

Additionally, by setting the performance 

requirement as requiring a person to be 

able to operate the coupler without 

going between cars or equipment units, 

the requirement can be easily and 

objectively measured. 

Proposed paragraph (i) would permit 

the automatic coupler, end handholds, 

and uncoupling mechanism on the 

leading and trailing ends of a trainset 

unit to be located within a removable 

shroud to reduce aerodynamic effects. 

Proposed paragraph (j) would provide 

that trainsets, and equipment units or 

sections of trainsets that are not semipermanently coupled to an adjacent 

equipment unit or section of trainset, 

must be equipped with an efficient 

parking or hand brake capable of 

holding the trainset, equipment unit, or 

section of trainset on at least a 3-percent 

grade, or on the worst-case grade 

conditions identified by the operating 

railroad. This proposal is consistent 

with that for use of worst-case grade 

conditions under proposed § 238.110. 

Proposed paragraph (k)(1) provides 

for the arrangement of safety appliances 

on trainsets and equipment units to 

facilitate certain maintenance tasks. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19758 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

Should a trainset or equipment unit be 

equipped with appurtenances such as 

headlights, windshield wipers, marker 

lights, and other similar items required 

for the safe operation of the trainset or 

equipment unit that are designed to be 

maintained or replaced from the exterior 

of the equipment, then the equipment 

must have handholds and steps meeting 

the requirements of this section to allow 

for the safe maintenance and 

replacement of these appurtenances. 

However, under proposed paragraph 

(k)(2), the requirements under proposed 

paragraph (k)(1) would not apply if 

railroad operating rules require, and 

actual practice entails, the maintenance 

and replacement of these components 

by maintenance personnel in locations 

protected by the requirements of subpart 

B of part 218 of this chapter equipped 

with ladders and other tools to safely 

repair or maintain those appurtenances. 

Paragraph (l) would require that any 

safety appliances installed at the option 

of the railroad must be approved 

pursuant to proposed § 238.110. 

Subpart I—Trainset Inspection, Testing, 

and Maintenance Requirements for Tier 

III Passenger Equipment 

Section 238.901 Scope 

This proposed subpart would contain 

specific inspection, testing, and 

maintenance requirements. 

Section 238.903 General Requirements 

Proposed § 238.903 would provide an 

overview of the general requirements 

applicable to Tier III passenger 

equipment. Most of these requirements 

are referenced and described in more 

detail in other sections of part 238. 

Accordingly, this proposed section 

would address the ITM program for Tier 

III passenger equipment, and 

specifically the content of the program 

and the procedures and intervals for 

performance of inspection, testing, and 

maintenance activities; requirements for 

the safe operation of a Tier III trainset; 

required safety inspections; and 

requirements for the training and 

qualification program and retention of 

records. 

Proposed paragraph (a) contains the 

general requirement that railroads 

operating Tier III equipment would have 

an ITM program that contains detailed 

information regarding the inspection, 

testing, and maintenance procedures 

necessary for the railroad to safely 

maintain and operate its Tier III 

passenger equipment. 

Proposed paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(8) list specific informational 

requirements to be discussed in detail as 

part of the railroad’s ITM program. Most 

notably, proposed paragraph (b)(8) 

would require the railroad to describe 

the required operational braking 

capability for the trainset. Consistent 

with § 238.731(b), required operational 

braking capability is proposed as the 

capability of the trainset to stop from its 

maximum operating speed within the 

signal spacing existing on the track over 

which the trainset is operating under 

the worst-case adhesion conditions 

defined by the railroad. Under this 

proposed requirement, FRA would 

require railroads to detail the total 

effective braking power necessary to 

achieve this performance standard. FRA 

recognizes that this would mark a 

significant change in how the health of 

the brake system is categorized as 

further discussed under proposed 

§ 238.1003(d)(1). FRA notes that a 

railroad would need to establish and 

verify the required operational braking 

capability during the dynamic testing 

and commissioning of the trainset under 

§ 238.111. 

Proposed paragraph (c) would require 

that trainsets receive thorough 

inspections from qualified individuals. 

It would prohibit a trainset from being 

put into service with any safety-critical 

defect until that defect is repaired, 

except for defects discovered in the 

brake system during a pre-service 

inspection under proposed paragraph 

(c)(2)(i). Proposed paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (5) would list the specific safety 

inspections required in addition to any 

inspection required under subpart H of 

this part. 

A pre-departure inspection, as 

proposed under paragraph (c)(1), would 

mean trainset system verifications, 

inspections, or functional tests that 

must be performed prior to departure 

from terminal locations or when 

operating ends or crews are changed. 

Pre-service inspections, as proposed 

under paragraph (c)(2), would mean 

those inspections to be performed before 

a trainset goes into passenger service. 

They would be conducted at locations 

where such inspections can be 

performed safely and properly, typically 

in a shop location, but also at terminal 

locations provided a qualified 

individual performing the inspection 

can safely go on, under, or between the 

equipment. This inspection is proposed 

to be performed before a trainset enters 

revenue service, at an interval of no 

more than every 48 hours. As proposed, 

this inspection would ensure the 

trainset is safe to enter revenue service, 

similar to the mechanical and brake 

inspections required of Tier I trains 

under subpart D; however, the specifics 

of the pre-departure inspection 

proposed here for Tier III trainsets 

would be defined by each individual 

railroad in its ITM program. FRA is also 

proposing certain minimum 

requirements for pre-service 

inspections. 

Under proposed paragraph (c)(2)(i), 

the procedures for pre-service 

inspections would cover all the items 

required by a pre-departure inspection 

under proposed paragraph (c)(1). FRA is 

also proposing to include the specific 

exception for the brake system as 

discussed elsewhere in this NPRM in 

that, should the pre-service inspection 

uncover an issue with brake system, but 

yet the brake system still meet or exceed 

the required operational braking 

capability, the trainset may enter 

passenger service, assuming no other 

safety-critical defect is discovered. 

However, in accordance with proposed 

§ 238.1003(d)(1), this practice would be 

permitted only for up to 5 consecutive 

calendar days, at which time the trainset 

could no longer continue in service and 

would be required to have the brake 

system fully repaired. Further, should a 

pre-service inspection reveal that the 

brake system no longer meets the 

required operational braking capability, 

then the trainset would not be permitted 

to enter or continue in passenger service 

and must move immediately to a repair 

location with the trainset not being able 

to depart the repair location until all 

defects were repaired. 

Paragraph (c)(2)(ii) proposes another 

minimum requirement in that an 

interior inspection of the trainset must 

be performed of the emergency systems 

to ensure proper functionality of certain 

emergency systems (such as public 

address, intercom, and emergency 

lighting systems) and to ensure that any 

permitted tools or other implements 

necessary for emergency egress are 

present. 

Paragraph (c)(3) proposes that the 

railroad’s ITM program have one 

comprehensive section or chapter where 

the railroad would detail all the 

required brake inspections to be 

performed on the trainset, to include the 

procedures for performing those 

inspections, along with the periodicity 

of inspections. This would include 

brake system inspections performed as 

part of other inspections, such as a preservice inspection. FRA envisions this 

section or chapter of a railroad’s ITM 

program as a central repository of the 

brake system inspections for ease of 

reference and use. This discussion is 

equally applicable to proposed 

paragraph (c)(4), with respect to truck 

inspections. 

Under paragraph (c)(5), FRA is 

proposing that the railroad detail all 

other safety-critical periodic inspections 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19759 

that are required to maintain the safety 

of the trainset. Rather than attempt to 

exhaustively list all those types of 

inspections, FRA is placing the 

responsibility on the railroad to 

thoroughly evaluate and document the 

required safety-critical inspections. FRA 

would expect to see inspections of the 

electrical and train control systems, as 

examples. However, consistent with 

FRA’s overall approach to high-speed 

train inspection, testing, and 

maintenance, FRA would provide the 

railroad discretion in the development 

of its ITM program, subject to FRA’s 

review and approval, discussed below. 

To set a baseline, FRA is proposing 

under paragraph (d) that the railroad 

specify in its initial ITM program 

submission the initial scheduled 

maintenance intervals for Tier III 

equipment. Deviations from this 

baseline for safety-critical components 

could only be implemented when 

approved by FRA, and those changes 

would require justification by 

accumulated, verifiable operating data. 

Proposed paragraph (e) contains the 

training and qualification program 

requirements for individuals performing 

inspections, testing, or maintenance on 

Tier III trainsets. Proposed paragraph 

(e)(1) would require the railroad to 

identify which inspections, tests, or 

maintenance tasks require special 

training or qualification. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(2) would 

require the railroad to develop a training 

and qualification program for those 

tasks identified under proposed 

paragraph (e)(1) of this section that, at 

a minimum, addresses those items listed 

under § 238.109(b). 

Proposed paragraph (e)(3) would 

require the railroad to maintain a list of 

those individuals designated as 

qualified pursuant to the railroad’s 

training and qualification program to 

perform those tasks identified in 

proposed paragraph (e)(1). The railroad 

would be required to make those 

records available to FRA upon request. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(4) contains 

the proposed, overarching requirement 

that only those individuals qualified 

pursuant to the railroad’s training and 

qualification program can inspect, test, 

or maintain safety-critical components 

or systems on Tier III equipment. This 

approach was recommended by the 

RSAC to avoid more specifically 

defining those who can or cannot 

perform certain inspection, testing, or 

maintenance tasks under the regulation. 

Proposed paragraph (f) specifies that 

the railroad would maintain records of 

each inspection required under 

proposed paragraph (c) for at least one 

year from the date of the inspection. 

Section 238.905 Compliance 

This proposed section would require 

the railroad to adopt and comply with 

its ITM program once approved by FRA 

under proposed § 238.913. 

Section 238.907 Standard Procedures 

for Safely Performing Inspection, 

Testing, Maintenance, and Repairs 

Proposed paragraph (a) would require 

the railroad to establish standard 

procedures addressing the performance 

of inspection, testing, maintenance, and 

repair tasks, and identify the 

informational, approval, enforcement, 

and review processes that must be 

included in the procedures. Under 

proposed paragraph (a)(5), ‘‘the 

railroad’s official responsible for safety’’ 

would be the party who must approve 

the written standard procedures; 

however, FRA invites comment whether 

it would be more appropriate to 

designate the head of high-speed rail 

maintenance, the chief maintenance 

officer, some other railroad official, or a 

combination thereof, as the ‘‘railroad’s 

official responsible for safety.’’ 

Proposed paragraph (b) clarifies that 

FRA does not intend for the ITM 

program required by this subpart I to 

address employee working conditions 

related to the performance of the 

inspections, tests, and maintenance 

required by the program. Such working 

conditions are the purview of the 

Occupational Health and Safety 

Administration. 

Section 238.909 Quality Control/ 

Quality Assurance Program 

This proposed section would require 

that each railroad establish an 

inspection, testing, and maintenance 

quality control/quality assurance 

program for the purpose of ensuring that 

each railroad performs its inspections, 

testing, and maintenance in accordance 

with its approved ITM program. Either 

the railroad or its contractors would be 

able to perform compliance 

responsibilities related to the quality 

control program established under this 

proposed section. 

Section 238.911 Inspection, Testing, 

and Maintenance Program Format 

This proposed section establishes the 

format in which the ITM program would 

be submitted to FRA for review and 

approval. 

Proposed paragraph (a) would require 

that the railroad prepare a complete ITM 

program covering all components, 

systems, or sub-systems on a Tier III 

trainset, regardless of whether the 

railroad deems those components, 

systems, or sub-systems safety-critical. 

This would include all inspections, 

tests, and maintenance tasks required, 

the intervals and periodicity of those 

inspections, tests, and maintenance 

tasks, and all associated information 

and procedures required for the railroad 

and its personnel to implement the 

program. The purpose behind this 

proposed requirement is to allow FRA 

to ensure that the railroad has properly 

captured all safety-critical items. Under 

proposed paragraph (b), below, the 

railroad would be required to submit a 

condensed version of the program 

addressing only the safety-critical 

elements as deemed by the railroad. 

FRA notes that under proposed 

§ 238.913, FRA would approve the ITM 

program addressing only those safetycritical elements. Additionally, once the 

ITM program has received its initial 

approval, FRA would not expect 

submission of the complete ITM 

program with any future amendment to 

a safety-critical portion. 

Proposed paragraph (b) would require 

the railroad to submit a condensed 

version of the ITM program, with only 

the program items identified as safetycritical by the railroad. It would be this 

condensed version of the ITM program 

that FRA would approve under 

§ 238.913. Nevertheless, FRA has 

identified certain components or 

systems that are always considered 

safety-critical, such as the operation of 

emergency equipment, emergency backup systems, trainset exits, and trainset 

safety-critical hardware and software 

systems. 

FRA invites comment on the utility of 

this approach. 

Section 238.913 Inspection, Testing, 

and Maintenance Program Approval 

Procedure 

Under this section, FRA is proposing 

the procedures for the submission and 

approval of the railroad’s ITM program. 

Proposed paragraph (a) describes 

requirements for both the initial 

submission of the ITM program and the 

submission of amendments. With 

respect to the initial submission, the 

proposed language under paragraph 

(a)(1) explains that the ITM program 

must be submitted no less than 180 days 

prior to the commencement of revenue 

service. FRA makes clear though, that 

the mileage accumulated during 

dynamic qualification testing must be 

accurately recorded in the maintenance 

records of the trainsets so that prior to 

entering revenue service, the trainset is 

current on all required inspection, tests, 

and maintenance required under the 

ITM based on the mileage of the 

trainset. Thus, if a certain maintenance 

interval is specified in miles, FRA 

expects that the milage incurred during 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19760 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

dynamic pre-revenue testing would be 

used when determining whether 

maintenance of the equipment is 

necessary. FRA recognizes that for the 

dynamic testing of Tier III equipment, 

the test procedures required under 

§ 238.111 and appendix K must include 

the inspection, testing, and maintenance 

procedures to be followed to ensure 

testing is conducted safely. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would 

require that an amendment to an 

approved ITM program must be 

submitted for approval not less than 60 

days prior to the railroad’s proposed 

implementation date. FRA welcomes 

comments on the appropriate review 

period for both the initial submission 

and the submission of program 

amendments. 

Proposed paragraph (b) identifies the 

required content for the ITM program or 

program amendment submission. As 

proposed, not only must the railroad 

submit the ITM program or amendment 

itself, but it must also include the 

primary point of contact for the program 

or amendment and affirm that the 

program or amendment was provided to 

the designated representatives of 

railroad employees along with a list of 

the names and addresses of those 

persons. 

Proposed paragraph (c) would require 

the railroad to provide a copy of the 

ITM program or amendment to the 

designated representatives of railroad 

employees responsible for the 

equipment’s operation, and inspection, 

testing, and maintenance under this 

subpart. Additionally, this proposed 

paragraph would impose a deadline of 

45 days for providing comment to FRA. 

Proposed paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) 

would outline the required process for 

each comment. 

Proposed paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) 

would explain the approval process for 

the initial ITM program submission and 

amendments, the timing of FRA’s 

review and approval determination, and 

the requirement to correct a program or 

amendment if FRA discovers a 

deficiency during its review. 

Notably, under proposed paragraph 

(d)(3), at any time after its approval 

determination, FRA would retain the 

ability to review the program and 

amendments under its general 

inspection authority and to require 

further corrections to the ITM program 

or amendment. Submittal of a revised 

program or amendment made pursuant 

to this paragraph would follow the 

submittal procedures detailed in 

proposed paragraphs (d)(1) and (2). 

Proposed paragraph (e) would 

establish requirements for the annual 

review of the ITM program, addressing 

the scheduling of such review with FRA 

and the designated representatives of 

railroad employees. 

Subpart J—Movement of Defective Tier 

III Passenger Equipment 

Section 238.1001 Scope 

This proposed subpart would contain 

specific requirements for the movement 

of Tier III passenger equipment that is 

defective. 

Section 238.1003 Movement of 

Defective Tier III Passenger Equipment 

Under § 238.1003, FRA is proposing 

the procedural requirements for the 

movement of defective Tier III 

equipment. These requirements would 

address defective conditions identified 

during a pre-service inspection and 

defective conditions discovered during 

revenue service operations. 

Except as explained in proposed 

§ 238.903(c)(2)(i) and paragraph (d) of 

this section, proposed paragraph (a) 

would describe the general prohibition 

on the movement of a Tier III trainset 

with a defect identified during a preservice inspection and specify that such 

a trainset may only move pursuant 

proposed paragraph (e), as explained in 

more detail below. 

Proposed paragraph (b) would 

describe the procedural requirements 

for the movement of a Tier III trainset 

with a safety-critical defect discovered 

during revenue service operations (such 

as during a pre-departure inspection 

under proposed § 238.903(c)(1)) and 

between required pre-service 

inspections. Under these proposed 

requirements, an individual qualified 

pursuant to proposed § 238.903(e) 

would be required to make a 

determination, consistent with railroad 

operating rules, that it is safe to move 

the trainset (proposed paragraph (b)(1)). 

It would be permissible for such a 

qualified individual to make this 

determination remotely based on 

information provided by on-site 

personnel, provided that a qualified 

individual performs an on-site 

inspection of the defect when the 

trainset arrives at the first location 

where an on-site inspection by a 

qualified individual is possible. 

After determining that it is safe to 

move the defective trainset, the 

qualified individual would be required 

to notify the train crew of the authorized 

speed and destination, and any other 

operational restrictions on the 

movement of the non-compliant 

trainset, pursuant to proposed 

paragraph (b)(2). The qualified 

individual may provide this notice 

through the tagging process described in 

proposed paragraph (b)(3) or through 

the automated tracking system 

described in proposed paragraph (c), 

which would adopt the requirements of 

§ 238.15(c)(3). 

Proposed paragraph (d) addresses the 

requirements for the movement of a 

trainset that experiences an in-service 

failure of the braking system. During 

PSWG meetings, there was significant 

discussion regarding the applicability of 

these requirements to trainsets with 

advanced technology brake systems and 

automated reporting systems that 

provide the engineer with real-time 

information concerning the operative 

brakes within the trainset. Specifically, 

there was discussion that these modern 

Tier III trainsets are designed and 

equipped with a braking capability that 

most often exceeds what is necessary for 

routine operational braking. Thus, FRA 

is proposing a balanced approach that 

considers the operational capability of 

these trainsets without compromising 

safety. 

A such, under proposed paragraph 

(d)(1), a trainset may continue in service 

for no more than 5 consecutive calendar 

days (to include leaving a repair point) 

so long as the trainset meets or exceeds 

its required operational braking 

capability. As discussed above under 

proposed § 238.903(a)(8), the railroad 

would be required to describe in detail 

in its ITM program this required 

operational braking capability. 

Additionally, FRA clarifies that 

consistent with the proposal under 

§ 238.19(d)(2), after 5 consecutive 

calendar days elapse, a Tier III trainset 

may not leave a designated brake repair 

point with anything less than a brake 

system that is free from defects, 

regardless of whether the trainset meets 

or exceeds its required operational 

braking capability (i.e., with 100% 

operative brakes). This would mean a 

Tier III trainset may leave a designated 

brake repair point with less than its 

maximum designed braking capability, 

so long as it retains its required 

operational braking capability pursuant 

to § 238.731(b). FRA is proposing this 

approach based on industry’s input, 

which is consistent with international, 

service-proven operational practice. 

Under paragraph (d)(2), FRA is 

proposing requirements for a trainset 

that has in-service failure of the brake 

system bringing it below the required 

operational braking capability. FRA is 

proposing that in such a situation, a 

trainset may only move in service until 

its next pre-service inspection in 

accordance with railroad operating rules 

relating to the percentage of operative 

brakes and at a speed no greater than the 

maximum authorized speed as 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19761 

determined by § 238.731(e)(4), so long 

as the requirements of paragraph (b) of 

this section are otherwise fully met. 

Under this proposal, if a pre-service 

inspection becomes due on such a 

trainset, and the brake system has not 

been repaired, then the trainset may not 

be used in passenger service until such 

repairs are made. 

As part of the comment process for 

this proposed rulemaking, FRA 

welcomes input on the appropriateness 

of these proposed requirements for the 

movement of defective trainsets 

equipped with advanced technology 

brake systems. 

Under proposed paragraph (e), a 

railroad would be permitted to move a 

trainset with a safety-critical defect 

discovered during a pre-service 

inspection for purposes of repair 

without complying with the procedural 

requirements of proposed paragraph (b), 

provided the movement is without 

passengers, within a yard, at speeds not 

to exceed 10 mph, and for the sole 

purpose of repair. FRA is also proposing 

that, should a railroad elect to repair a 

trainset with a safety-critical defect in 

place, it would be required, at a 

minimum, to apply a tag that complies 

with proposed paragraph (b)(3) to 

provide notice that the trainset is 

defective and not in service. FRA makes 

clear that the tag is to be applied while 

the trainset is non-compliant; once the 

repair is made, the tag may be removed, 

and the trainset placed into service. 

Proposed paragraph (f), which is 

identical to § 238.17(f), makes clear that 

the movement of a defective Tier III 

trainset subject to a Special Notice for 

Repair under part 216 would continue 

to be subject to the restrictions in a 

Special Notice. 

Appendix C to Part 238—Minimally 

Compliant Analytical Track (MCAT) 

Simulations Used for Qualifying 

Passenger Vehicles To Operate on Track 

Classes 2 Through 5 and Up to 6 Inches 

of Cant Deficiency 

This proposed appendix would 

contain requirements for using 

computer simulations to comply with 

the vehicle/track system qualification 

testing requirements specified in 

§ 238.139. These simulations would be 

performed using a track model 

containing defined geometry 

perturbations at the limits that are 

permitted for a specific class of track 

and level of cant deficiency. This track 

model is known as Minimally 

Compliant Analytical Track (MCAT). 

These simulations would be used to 

identify vehicle dynamic performance 

issues prior to service or, as appropriate, 

a change in service, and demonstrate 

that a vehicle type is suitable for 

operation on the track over which it is 

intended to operate. FRA notes that, for 

the short warp (a12) MCAT segment in 

figure 1, the profile deviations for the 

inside and outside rails appear in 

reverse order from their counterparts in 

appendix D to part 213. This change 

aims to address the risk of low-speed, 

wheel-climb derailment, and FRA 

welcomes comment on the need for a 

similar change to appendix D to part 

213. 

For simulations measuring hunting 

perturbation involving tangent track 

segments, FRA proposes the use of a 

high-conicity, wheel-rail profile 

combination approved by FRA that 

produces a minimum conicity of 0.4 for 

wheelset lateral shifts up to flange 

contact. FRA has added to the docket a 

file that reflects wheel-rail profile 

combinations FRA has found acceptable 

in the past, and welcomes comment on 

this data or the incorporation of such 

combinations into the regulation. 

As noted under the discussion of 

proposed § 238.139, Vehicle/track 

system qualification, the proposed 

requirements are intended to 

complement existing requirements for 

higher speed and higher cant deficiency 

operations in part 213 of this chapter. 

Specifically, this appendix would apply 

to operations up to 6 inches of cant 

deficiency on lower-speed track classes, 

and would have no impact on part 213 

requirements for operations over 6 

inches of cant deficiency on such track 

classes. By illustration, proposed table 6 

would apply to track Classes 2 through 

5 where cant deficiency exceeds 5 

inches but is not more than 6 inches, 

while table 7 of appendix D to part 213 

currently applies to track Classes 1 

through 5 where cant deficiency 

exceeds 6 inches. Although there would 

be no direct conflict in application of 

the respective appendices, FRA notes in 

particular that the differences in 

repeated surface limits and repeated 

alinement limits between the two tables 

may not necessarily be explained by the 

differences in cant deficiency alone. 

FRA therefore welcomes comments on 

the potential impact of the proposed 

changes, will evaluate any comments 

received, and will consider revisions to 

both parts 213 and 238 in the final rule 

or a future rulemaking. 

Appendix I to Part 238—Tier III Trainset 

Cab Noise Test Protocol 

In proposed appendix I to part 238, 

which is modeled after appendix H to 

part 229 of this chapter, FRA presents 

proposed testing protocols to verify that 

the noise levels within the cab of a Tier 

III trainset comply with the 

requirements established in 

§ 238.759(a)(1). These proposed 

protocols address measurement 

instrumentation, test site requirements, 

procedures for measurement, and 

recordkeeping. In this proposal, FRA is 

intending to align these measurement 

procedures with those used in 

international practice and welcomes 

comments on any relevant international 

practice that could contribute to the 

further development of the proposed 

protocols. FRA also notes that although 

the requirements proposed in this 

appendix are very similar to those under 

appendix H to part 229, this appendix 

would also contain a separate set of 

requirements due to subtle but 

significant differences. Notably, the test 

proposed under this appendix would be 

under dynamic conditions, while the 

trainset is moving, whereas the test 

under appendix H to part 229 is under 

static conditions, not involving 

equipment movement. 

Appendix J to Part 238—Alternative 

Requirements for Evaluating the 

Crashworthiness and Occupant 

Protection Performance of a Tier I 

Passenger Trainset Equipped With 

Crash Energy Management Features 

Proposed appendix J would establish 

a framework that enables the evaluation 

of an individual piece of Tier I 

passenger equipment for compliance 

with crash energy management (CEM) 

requirements. Current regulations 

provide for the assessment of CEM 

components in the context of a complete 

trainset. Although a railroad, equipment 

manufacturer, or other party is not 

required to incorporate CEM features 

into an individual piece of Tier I 

equipment, this proposed appendix 

would provide direction for the 

development of these features for a 

single vehicle, rather than a complete 

trainset. Under the framework of this 

proposed appendix, single pieces of rail 

equipment that are fully compliant with 

existing Tier I structural requirements, 

and have additional CEM features, 

could operate within conventional, Tier 

I-compliant trains. 

Proposed appendix J would define inline and offset collision scenarios for 

locomotives, cab cars, and intermediate 

cars. As proposed, the crashworthiness 

requirements contained in proposed 

appendix J would not apply to Tier I 

alternatively designed trainsets or single 

pieces of equipment with traditionally 

compliant structures outfitted with 

pushback couplers as the only CEM 

feature. 

Current industry standards served as 

a model for the crashworthiness 

requirements proposed in this 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19762 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

appendix, and FRA welcomes 

comments addressing the consistency 

between the appendix and industry 

standards. 

Appendix K to Part 238—Minimum 

Information for Test Procedures 

FRA is proposing to add appendix K 

to part 238 to contain the minimum 

information necessary for test 

procedures associated with the required 

testing to be performed pursuant to the 

railroad’s pre-revenue service 

acceptance testing plan under § 238.111. 

This is to ensure that testing is 

performed in a safe and controlled 

manner, and that the testing captures 

information critical to the 

demonstration of compliance. FRA 

understands this level of information 

may not be available for all tests at the 

time of initial submission of a test plan; 

however, if a test procedure relied on 

for a test does not contain this minimum 

level of information, FRA may take 

exception to it and require the test be 

repeated or the test procedure updated. 

This determination may be made in 

advance of testing (e.g., if FRA 

personnel plan to witness the testing) or 

as part of a records review, and FRA 

encourages railroads and their suppliers 

to pay particular attention to the quality 

and content of their test procedures and 

records to avoid any such issues. 

V. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 

This proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action within the meaning of 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 

(‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’) 

and DOT Order 2100.6A (‘‘Rulemaking 

and Guidance Procedures’’). 

FRA has prepared and placed in the 

docket (FRA–2021–0067) a Regulatory 

Impact Analysis (RIA) addressing the 

economic impacts of this proposed rule. 

The RIA estimates the costs and benefits 

of this proposed rule over a 30-year 

period. FRA used discount rates of 7 

and 3 percent with these estimates. For 

the 30-year period analyzed, the net 

costs of this proposed rule are estimated 

to be approximately $55.2 million, 

undiscounted. The present value is 

approximately $21.4 million, 

discounted at 7 percent, and $35.2 

million, discounted at 3 percent. The 

annualized net costs are approximately 

$1.7 million and $1.8 million, 

discounted at 7 and 3 percent, 

respectively. 

The analysis of this proposed rule 

includes estimates of costs associated 

with the proposed requirement for lowspeed vehicle/track system 

qualification, emergency roof access for 

certain Tier III trainsets, as well as for 

the inspection, testing, and maintenance 

of high-speed trainsets. FRA estimates 

that the 30-year total costs of this 

proposed rule would be approximately 

$55.5 million, undiscounted. The 

present value is approximately $21.7 

million, discounted at 7 percent, and 

$35.5 million, discounted at 3 percent. 

REGULATORY COST SUMMARY

Vehicle track 

analyses 

Emergency 

roof access 

cost 

ITM costs Total costs Discounted 

7% 

Discounted 

3% 

Total ......................................................... $1,350,000 $1,650,000 $52,500,000 $55,500,000 $21,669,972 $35,489,848 

Annualized ............................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 1,746,305 1,810,666 

This analysis also estimates the 

benefits associated with: (A) railroads 

not needing to apply for a waiver for 

pilots, snowplows, and end plates 

installed on Tier III trainsets; (B) 

railroads not having to redesign Tier III 

trainsets to account for legacy 

attachment strength requirements for 

emergency communication equipment 

back-up power fixtures; (C) modernizing 

the safety appliance requirements for 

Tier III and certain Tier I passenger 

equipment, and for certain nonpassenger carrying locomotives 

(reducing the need for railroads to seek 

statutory exemptions); and (D) a 

reduction in the administrative burden 

of processing, reviewing, and 

implementing safety regulatory waivers. 

FRA estimates a 30-year total benefits of 

approximately $0.3 million, 

undiscounted, for this proposed rule. 

The present value is approximately $0.2 

million, discounted at 7 percent, and 

$0.3 million, discounted at 3 percent. 

REGULATORY BENEFITS SUMMARY

Pilots, 

snowplows, 

end plates 

Emergency 

communications 

Safety 

appliances 

Government 

benefits Total benefits Discounted 7% 

Discounted 

3% 

Total ......................... $18,576 $150,000 $55,728 $74,304 $298,608 $224,959 $256,003 

Annualized ............... ........................ ............................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 18,129 13,061 

The net costs of this proposed rule are 

estimated to be approximately $55.2 

million, undiscounted. The present 

value is approximately $21.4 million, 

discounted at 7 percent, and $35.2 

million, discounted at 3 percent. The 

annualized net costs are approximately 

$1.7 million and $1.8 million, 

discounted at 7 and 3 percent, 

respectively. 

NET REGULATORY COSTS

Impact Present value 

7% 

Present value 

3% 

Costs ........................................................................................................................................................................ $21.67 $35.49 

Benefits .................................................................................................................................................................... 0.22 0.26 

Net Costs ................................................................................................................................................................. 21.45 35.23 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19763 

27 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 

28 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002). 

29 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

30Throughout the tables in this document, the 

dollar equivalent cost is derived from the 2020 

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. 

31Totals may not add due to rounding. 

NET REGULATORY COSTS—Continued 

Impact Present value 

7% 

Present value 

3% 

Annualized Net Costs ....................................................................................................................................... 1.73 1.80 

Details on the estimated costs and 

benefits of this proposed rule can be 

found in the RIA associated with this 

docket. FRA invites comments on the 

costs and benefits associated with this 

proposed rule. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and 

Executive Order 13272 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980 27 and E.O. 13272 28 require agency 

review of proposed and final rules to 

assess their impacts on small entities. 

An agency must prepare an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis unless it 

determines and certifies that a rule, if 

promulgated, would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Administrator 

of the Federal Railroad Administration 

certifies 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 proposed 

rule to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.29

The sections that contain the new or 

revised information collection 

requirements and the estimated time to 

fulfill each requirement are as follows: 

CFR section Respondent 

universe 

Total annual 

responses 

Average 

time per 

responses 

Total annual 

burden hours Wage rate Total cost equivalent 

(A) (B) (C) = A * B (D) 30 (E) = C * D 

229.47(a)–(b)—Emergency Brake Valve—Marking brake 

pipe valve as such.

FRA anticipates zero submissions for stencils and markings. 

238.7—Waivers ....................................................................... 34 railroads .... 12.00 waivers 6 hours ........... 72.00 $77.44 $5,575.68 

238.15(b)—Movement of passenger equipment with power 

brake defects—Limitations on movement of passenger 

equipment containing a power brake defect at the time a 

Class I or IA brake test is performed—Passenger equipment tagged or information is recorded as prescribed 

under § 238.15(c)(2).

34 railroads .... 1,000.00 tags 3 minutes ....... 50.00 77.44 3,872.00 

—(c) Limitations on movement of passenger equipment in 

passenger service that becomes defective en route after a 

Class I or IA brake test—Tagging of defective equipment.

34 railroads .... 288.00 tags .... 3 minutes ....... 14.40 77.44 1,115.14 

—(c)(4) Conditional requirement—Notice between employees.The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under § 238.15(a)–(b). 

238.17—Movement of passenger equipment with other than 

power brake defects—Tagging of defective equipment.

34 railroads .... 200.00 tags .... 3 minutes ....... 10.00 77.44 774.40 

—(e) Special requisites for movement of passenger equipment with safety appliance defects.The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under § 238.17. 

—(e)(4) Crewmember notifications ......................................... The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under § 238.17. 

238.19(b)—Reporting and tracking defective passenger 

equipment—Retention or availability of records for Tier I 

and Tier III (Revised requirement).

For Tier I trainsets, FRA determined since the 1990s retention and availability of records for reporting 

and tracking defective passenger equipment are performed by the railroad industry as part of their normal business operations. For Tier III, FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR 

period. 

—(d)(1) List of repair points—Railroads operating long-distance intercity and long-distance Tier II passenger equipment.This ICR only affects Amtrak, which has submitted the necessary list of power brake repair points. 

FRA does not anticipate any changes or updates to this list over the next few years. Consequently, 

there is no burden associated with this requirement. 

—(d)(2) List of repair points—Railroads operating Tier III 

passenger trainsets (New requirement).

FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period. 

238.21(b)—Special approval procedure—Petitions for special 

approval of alternative standard.

34 railroads .... 1.00 petition ... 16 hours ......... 16.00 77.44 1,239.04 

—(c) Petitions for special approval of alternative compliance 34 railroads .... 1.00 petition ... 40 hours ......... 40.00 77.44 3,097.60 

—(f) Comments on petitions ................................................... Manufacturers 

and public.

2.00 comments 1 hour ............. 2.00 77.44 154.88 

238.103(c)—Fire safety analysis for procuring new passenger cars and locomotives.1 new railroad 1.00 analysis .. 150 hours ....... 150.00 77.44 11,616.00 

—(d) Fire safety analysis for existing passenger cars and locomotives—Revised fire safety analysis for leased or 

transferred equipment.

34 railroads .... 1.00 revised 

analysis.

10 hours ......... 10.00 77.44 774.40 

238.105(a)–(e)—Passenger electronic hardware and software safety—Safety program including safety analysis for 

new and existing railroads (Revised requirement).

2 new railroads.2.00 program 

plans.

150 hours ....... 300.00 77.44 23,232.00 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19764 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

CFR section Respondent 

universe 

Total annual 

responses 

Average 

time per 

responses 

Total annual 

burden hours Wage rate Total cost equivalent 

(A) (B) (C) = A * B (D) 30 (E) = C * D 

—(f) Additional requirements (Revised requirement) .............. FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period. 

—(g) Vehicle Communication and Control System Vulnerability Assessment—Railroad to assess and identify potential system vulnerabilities and resulting risk mitigation as 

part of the overall Railroad System Safety Plan required 

by part 270; PTC system must comply with the requirements in § 236.1033 (New requirement).

37 railroads .... 12.30 assessments.20 hours ......... 246.00 77.44 19,050.24 

—(h) Notification of product failure—Notification to FRA 

(New requirement).

20 suppliers ... 0.33 notifications.1 minute ......... 0.01 77.44 0.77 

238.107—Inspection, testing, and maintenance plan—Development of maintenance plan for new railroads.1 new railroad 1.00 maintenance plan.150 hours ....... 150.00 77.44 11,616.00 

—(d) Inspection, testing, and maintenance plan for existing 

railroads—Maintenance plan review.

34 railroads .... 34.00 maintenance plan 

reviews.

20 hours ......... 680.00 77.44 52,659.20 

238.108(a)—New passenger service pre-revenue safety performance demonstration—Pre-revenue safety validation 

plan (New requirement due to Sec. 22416 of the IIJA).

37 railroads .... 3.00 plans ...... 63 hours ......... 189.00 77.44 14,636.16 

—(b)(2) Daily summary of the activities provided to FRA by 

railroads (New requirement).

37 railroads .... 29.00 summary reports.30 minutes ..... 14.50 77.44 1,122.88 

—(b)(3) Railroad to provide a final report to FRA (New requirement).37 railroads .... 3.00 reports .... 2 hours ........... 6.00 77.44 464.64 

—(c) Compliance—Railroads to notify FRA on proposed 

amendments (New requirement).

37 railroads .... 1.00 plan 

modification.

15 hours ......... 15.00 77.44 1,161.60 

238.109(b)—Training, qualification, and designation program—Development of training program/curriculum for 

new railroads.

1 new railroad 1.00 training 

program.

160 hours ....... 160.00 77.44 12,390.40 

—(b) Training employees and supervisors ............................. The associated burdens relating to the training of employees and supervisors have been addressed 

previously when FRA calculated the economic costs of the regulation. 

—(b)(13) Recordkeeping—Employees and trainers—Training 

qualifications.

34 railroads .... 488.00 records 3 minutes ....... 24.40 77.44 1,889.54 

238.110(b)(1)—Design criteria, testing, documentation, and 

approvals—Documentation and recordkeeping (New requirement).

The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under paragraphs (b)(2) 

through (g)(2) of this section. 

—(b)(2) Recordkeeping or documentation (New requirement) 37 railroads .... 1.00 retention 

of document.

5 minutes ....... .08 77.44 6.20 

—(c)(1)(ii) Vehicle qualification plan—Compliance matrix 

(New requirement).

37 railroads .... 1.00 new or 

modified 

plan.

75 hours ......... 75.00 77.44 5,808.00 

—(c)(2) Approval of the vehicle qualification plan—Vehicle 

qualification plan disapproved in part—Resubmission (New 

requirement).

FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period. 

—(d) System description (operating environment) and design 

criteria (New requirement).

37 railroads .... 11.67 system 

descriptions.

75 hours ......... 875.25 77.44 67,779.36 

—(e)(2)(i) Structural carbody crashworthiness compliance— 

A test plan submission to FRA (New requirement).

37 railroads .... 1.00 new or 

modified test 

plan.

8 hours ........... 8.00 77.44 619.52 

—(e)(2)(ii) Structural carbody crashworthiness compliance— 

Finite element analysis results submitted to FRA (New requirement).

37 railroads .... 1.00 analysis .. 10 hours ......... 10.00 77.44 774.40 

—(f) Safety Appliances (New requirement) ............................ The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under paragraphs (g)(1) 

and (g)(2) of this section. 

—(g)(1)(i) Approval of design review documentation, tests, 

and inspections—Design review, testing, and inspection 

documentation (New requirement).

37 railroads .... 1.00 new or 

modified 

documentation.

4 hours ........... 4.00 77.44 309.76 

—(g)(1)(ii) Approval of design review documentation, tests, 

and inspections—Resubmission of revised document (New 

requirement).

37 railroads .... 1.00 revised 

document.

1 hour ............. 1.00 77.44 77.44 

—(g)(2)(i) Approval of design review documentation, tests, 

and inspections—Sample-equipment inspection—Request 

(New requirement).

37 railroads .... 1.00 request ... 1 hour ............. 1.00 77.44 77.44 

—(g)(2)(ii) Approval of design review documentation, tests, 

and inspections—Railroad to address all exceptions taken 

and then, if directed by FRA, request a reinspection pursuant to (g)(2)(i) of this section (New requirement).

37 railroads .... 1.00 re-request 1 hour ............. 1.00 77.44 77.44 

238.111(a)(1)–(2)—Pre-revenue service acceptance testing—Passenger equipment designs that have not been 

used in revenue service in the U.S.—Plan and submission 

to FRA (previously under § 238.111(b)(1)–(2)) (Revised requirement).

37 railroads .... 2.00 new and 

modified 

plans.

192 hours ....... 384.00 77.44 29,736.96 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19765 

CFR section Respondent 

universe 

Total annual 

responses 

Average 

time per 

responses 

Total annual 

burden hours Wage rate Total cost equivalent 

(A) (B) (C) = A * B (D) 30 (E) = C * D 

—(a)(3)–(4) Test procedures containing minimum information 

listed in appendix K to this part to be provided to FRA as 

part of pre-revenue service acceptance testing plan test 

procedures (previously under § 238.111(b)(3)–(4)) (Revised requirement).

The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement when it comes to the test plan development is covered under § 238.111(a). Additionally, the reporting of the test results is covered under 

§ 238.111(a)(6)(ii). 

—(a)(6)(i) Tier I passenger equipment: Test results made 

available to FRA upon request (previously under 

§ 238.111(b)(4)) (Revised requirement).

33 railroads .... 1.00 test result 4 hours ........... 4.00 77.44 309.76 

—(a)(6)(ii) Tier II & Tier III passenger equipment: Report of 

test results to FRA (previously under § 238.111(b)(4)) (Revised requirement).

4 railroads ...... 1.00 letter ....... 4 hours ........... 4.00 77.44 309.76 

—(a)(7) Correction of safety deficiencies—Railroads can petition FRA for a waiver of a safety regulation under the 

procedure specified in part 211 (previously under 

§ 238.111(b)(5)).

FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period. 

—(b) Passenger equipment that has previously been used in 

revenue service in the U.S.—Railroads to verify the applicability of previous tests performed under 

§ 238.111(a)(1)(vii)(A)–(D) (previously under 

238.111(a)(1)) (Revised requirement).

37 railroads .... 1.33 plans ...... 16 hours ......... 21.28 77.44 1,647.92 

—(c) Modifications, new technology, and major upgrades 

(Revised requirement).

The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under § 238.111(a). 

238.115(c)—Emergency lighting—Periodic inspection (New 

requirement).

The inspection time and mechanical testing are covered under the economic cost. Consequently, there 

is no PRA burden. 

238.131(a)—Exterior side door safety systems—new passenger cars and locomotives used in passenger service— 

Labels and visual guidelines (Revised requirement).

FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period. 

—(b) Exterior side door safety systems—new passenger 

cars and locomotives used in passenger service—Failure 

Modes, Effects, Criticality Analysis (FMECA).

1 new railroad 1.00 analysis .. 80 hours ......... 80.00 77.44 6,195.20 

238.133(a)—Exterior side door safety systems—Passenger 

cars and locomotives used in passenger service—By-pass 

device verification—Functional test plans.

1 new railroad 1.00 plan ........ 4 hours ........... 4.00 77.44 309.76 

—(b) Unsealed door by-pass device—Notification to railroad’s designated authority by train crewmember of unsealed door by-pass device.The associated burdens related to safety job briefings have been addressed previously when FRA calculated the economic costs of the regulation. 

—(c) En route failure—Safety briefing by train crew when 

door by-pass device is activated.

34 railroads .... 100.00 topicspecific 

briefings and 

notifications.

2 minutes ....... 3.33 77.44 257.88 

—(c) Notification to designated RR authority by train crewmember that door by-pass device has been activated.The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under § 238.133(c). 

—(c)(1) On-site qualified person (QP) description to a qualified maintenance person (QMP) off-site that equipment is 

safe to move for repairs.

The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under § 238.133(c). 

—(c)(2) QP/QMP notification to crewmember in charge that 

door by-pass has been activated and safety briefing by 

train crew.

The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under § 238.133(c). 

—(d) Records .......................................................................... 34 railroads .... 100.00 records 2 minutes ....... 3.33 77.44 257.88 

—(d) Records of unintended opening of a powered exterior 

side door.

The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under § 238.133(d). 

—(g)(2) RR record of by-pass activations found unsealed .... The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under § 238.133(d). 

238.135(a)(1)—Operating practices for exterior side door 

safety systems—Daily job briefings.

The associated burdens related to daily job briefings have been addressed previously when FRA calculated the economic costs of the regulation. 

—(c) Railroads’ request to FRA for special consideration to 

operate passenger trains with exterior side doors or trap 

doors, or both, open between stations.

The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under § 238.7 or 

§ 238.21. 

—(c)(4) Railroads’ response to FRA request for additional information concerning special consideration request.The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under § 238.7 or 

§ 238.21. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19766 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

CFR section Respondent 

universe 

Total annual 

responses 

Average 

time per 

responses 

Total annual 

burden hours Wage rate Total cost equivalent 

(A) (B) (C) = A * B (D) 30 (E) = C * D 

—(d) Operating rules on how to safely override a door summary circuit or no-motion system, or both, in the event of 

an en route exterior side door failure or malfunction on a 

passenger train (Note: Includes burden under § 238.137).

1 new railroad 1.00 operating 

rule.

8 hours ........... 8.00 77.44 619.52 

—(d) Railroads to provide a copy of written operating rules 

to train crewmembers and control center personnel.

Railroads were required to complete the requirements of this subsection by December 6, 2018, so the 

estimated paperwork burden is zero. 

—(e) Railroads’ training of train crewmembers on requirements of this section.The associated burdens relating to the training of train crewmembers have been addressed previously 

when FRA calculated the economic costs of the regulation. FRA estimates the paperwork burdens associated with training recordkeeping under § 238.109 or under the OMB control numbers 2130–0596 

or 2130–0533. 

—(e) Railroads’ training of new employees ............................ The associated burdens relating to the training of train crewmembers have been addressed previously 

when FRA calculated the economic costs of the regulation. FRA estimates the paperwork burdens associated with training recordkeeping under § 238.109 or under the OMB control numbers 2130–0596 

or 2130–0533. 

—(g) RR operational/efficiency tests of train crewmembers & 

control center employees.

The associated burdens relating to operational testing or observation of operating crewmembers and 

control center personnel have been previously addressed when FRA calculated the economic costs of 

the regulation. 

238.139(e)—Vehicle/track system qualification—New vehicle 

type qualification testing plan (New requirement).

33 railroads .... 1.00 testing 

plan.

120 hours ....... 120.00 77.44 9,292.80 

—(e) Vehicle/track system qualification—Existing vehicle 

type qualification testing plan (New requirement).

FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period. 

—(g) Vehicle/track system qualification—Qualification testing 

results (New requirement).

The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under paragraph (e) 

of this section. 

—(i)(1) Vehicle/track system qualification—Document retention (New requirement).33 railroads .... 1.00 record ..... 10 minutes ..... .17 77.44 13.16 

—(i)(2) Vehicle/track system qualification—Written consent 

of each affected track owner (New requirement).

33 railroads .... 2.00 written 

consents.

30 minutes ..... 1.00 77.44 77.44 

238.201(b)—Scope/alternative compliance—Supporting documentation demonstrating compliance.The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under § 238.21. 

—(b) Notice of tests sent to FRA 30 days prior to commencement of operations.The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under 

§ 238.111(a)(4). 

238.229(c)—Safety appliances—Welded safety appliances— 

Written lists submitted to FRA by the railroads.

1 new railroad 1.00 list ........... 1 hour ............. 1.00 77.44 77.44 

—(d) Defective welded safety appliance or welded safety appliance bracket or support—Tagging.34 railroads .... 4.00 tags ........ 3 minutes ....... .20 59.89 11.98 

—(d) Notification to crewmembers about non-compliant 

equipment.

34 railroads .... 2.00 notices .... 1 minute ......... .03 77.44 2.32 

—(g) Inspection plans ............................................................. 1 new railroad 1.00 plan ........ 16 hours ......... 16.00 77.44 1,239.04 

—(h) Inspection personnel—Training ...................................... The associated burdens relating to training of inspection personnel have been addressed previously 

when FRA calculated the economic costs of the regulation. FRA estimates the paperwork burdens associated with the retention of training records under § 238.109. 

—(j)(1)(iv) Remedial action: Defect/crack in weld—A record 

of the welded repair.

The associated burdens relating to inspections have been addressed previously when FRA calculated 

the economic costs of the regulation. FRA estimates the paperwork burdens associated with the retention of inspection records under § 238.229(k). 

—(j)(2)(iv) Petitions for special approval of alternative compliance—Impractical equipment design.The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under § 238.21. 

—(k) Records of the inspection and repair of the welded 

safety appliance brackets.

The estimated burden for this regulatory requirement is covered below under § 238.303 and under the 

OMB control number 2130–0004 (§ 229.21). 

238.230(b)(1)—Safety Appliances—New equipment—Inspection record of welded equipment by qualified employee.FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period. 

—(b)(3) Welded safety appliances: Documentation for equipment impractically designed to mechanically fasten safety 

appliance support.

FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period. 

238.231—Brake System—Inspection and repair of hand/ 

parking brake: Records (under FRA Form 6180.49A).

The estimated paperwork burden for this requirement is covered under § 238.303 and under the OMB 

control number 2130–0004. 

—(h) Procedures verifying hold of hand/parking brakes ........ 1 new railroad 1.00 procedure 2 hours ........... 2.00 77.44 154.88 

238.237(a)–(b)—Automated monitoring- Documentation for 

alerter/deadman control timing.

1 new railroad 1.00 document 2 hours ........... 2.00 77.44 154.88 

—(d) Defective alerter/deadman control: Tagging .................. 34 railroads .... 25.00 tags ...... 3 minutes ....... 1.25 59.89 74.86 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19767 

CFR section Respondent 

universe 

Total annual 

responses 

Average 

time per 

responses 

Total annual 

burden hours Wage rate Total cost equivalent 

(A) (B) (C) = A * B (D) 30 (E) = C * D 

238.303—Exterior calendar day mechanical inspection of 

passenger equipment: Notice of previous inspection.

FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period. 

—(e)(15) Dynamic brakes not in operating mode: Tag .......... 34 railroads .... 50.00 tags ...... 3 minutes ....... 2.50 59.89 149.73 

—(e)(15)(ii) Conventional locomotives equipped with inoperative dynamic brakes: Tagging.The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under 

§ 238.303(e)(15). 

—(e)(17) MU passenger equipment found with inoperative/ 

ineffective air compressors at exterior calendar day inspection: Documents.

FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period. 

—(e)(17)(v) Written notice to train crew about inoperative/ineffective air compressors.The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under 

§ 238.303(e)(15). 

—(e)(18)(iv) Records of inoperative air compressors ............. The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered below under § 238.303(g). 

—(g) Record of exterior calendar day mechanical inspection 

(Other than locomotives) (* Note: Includes burden for 

records of inoperative air compressors under 

§ 238.303(e)(18)(iv)).

34 railroads .... 1,734,115.00 

daily inspection records.

1 minute ......... 28,901.92 77.44 2,238,164.68 

238.305—Interior calendar day mechanical inspection of 

passenger cars—Tagging of defective end/side doors.

34 railroads .... 540.00 tags .... 3 minutes ....... 27.00 77.44 2,090.88 

—(f) Records of interior calendar day inspection ................... 34 railroads .... 3,102,865.00 

daily inspection records.

1 minute ......... 51,714.42 77.44 4,004,764.68 

238.307(a)(2)—Periodic mechanical inspection of passenger 

cars and unpowered vehicles—Alternative inspection intervals: Notifications.

34 railroads .... 2.00 notices .... 5 hours ........... 10.00 77.44 774.40 

—(c)(1) Notice of seats and seat attachments broken or 

loose.

34 railroads .... 200.00 notices 2 minutes ....... 6.67 59.89 399.47 

—(e)(1) Records of each periodic mechanical inspection ...... 34 railroads .... 5,184.00 inspection 

records.

1 hour ............. 5,184.00 59.89 310,469.76 

—(e)(2) Detailed documentation of reliability assessments as 

basis for alternative inspection interval.

34 railroads .... 2.00 documents.100 hours ....... 200.00 77.44 15,488.00 

238.311—Single car test—Tagging to indicate need for single car test.34 railroads .... 50.00 tags ...... 3 minutes ....... 2.50 59.89 149.73 

238.313(h)—Class I Brake Test—Record for additional inspection for passenger equipment that does not comply 

with § 238.231(b)(1).

34 railroads .... 15,600.00 

records.

30 minutes ..... 7,800.00 59.89 467,142.00 

238.315(a)(1)—Class IA brake test—Notice to train crew that 

test has been performed (verbal notice).

The associated burdens related to briefings have been addressed previously when FRA calculated the 

economic costs of the regulation. 

—(f)(5) Communicating signal tested and operating as intended.The associated burdens related to briefings have been addressed previously when FRA calculated the 

economic costs of the regulation. 

238.317—Class II brake test—Communicating signal tested 

and operating as intended.

The associated burdens related to briefings have been addressed previously when FRA calculated the 

economic costs of the regulation. 

238.321—Out-of-service credit—Passenger car: Out-of-use 

notation.

The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under § 238.307 and under 

OMB control number 2130–0004 under § 229.23(d)–(g). 

238.445(a)—Automated Monitoring—Performance monitoring: alerters/alarms.There are no paperwork burdens associated with this subsection. FRA corrects its previous overinclusion. 

—(c) Monitoring system: Self-test feature: Notifications ......... There are no paperwork burdens associated with this subsection. FRA corrects its previous overinclusion. 

238.703—Quasi-static compression load requirements—Document to FRA on Tier III trainsets.1 new railroad .33 document 40 hours ......... 13.20 77.44 1,022.21 

238.705—Dynamic collision scenario—Model validation document to FRA for review and approval.1 new railroad .33 validation 

document.

40 hours ......... 13.20 77.44 1,022.21 

238.707—Override protection—Anti-climbing performance 

evaluation for Tier III trainsets.

1 new railroad .33 evaluation 40 hours ......... 13.20 77.44 1,022.21 

238.709—Fluid entry inhibition—Information to demonstrate 

compliance with this section of a Tier III trainset.

1 new railroad .33 analysis .... 20 hours ......... 6.60 77.44 511.10 

238.721—Glazing—Cab glazing; end facing—Documentation 

containing technical justification.

3 glass manufacturers..33 technical 

documentation.

60 hours ......... 19.80 77.44 1,533.31 

—(a)(6) Marking of end-facing exterior windows for Tier III 

trainsets.

Windows are, customarily, automatically marked during the production process. Therefore, there will 

be no additional burden to mark the windows. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19768 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

CFR section Respondent 

universe 

Total annual 

responses 

Average 

time per 

responses 

Total annual 

burden hours Wage rate Total cost equivalent 

(A) (B) (C) = A * B (D) 30 (E) = C * D 

—(b) Cab Glazing; side-facing exterior windows in Tier III 

cab—Each end-facing exterior window in a cab shall, at a 

minimum, provide ballistic penetration resistance that 

meets the requirements of appendix A to part 223 (Certification of Glazing Materials).

3 glass manufacturers..33 analysis .... 10 hours ......... 3.30 77.44 255.55 

—(b) Marking of side-facing exterior windows in Tier III 

Trainsets.

Windows are, customarily, automatically marked during the production process. Therefore, there will 

be no additional burden to mark the windows. 

—(c) Non-Cab Glazing; Side-facing exterior windows—Tier 

III—compliance document for Type II glazing.

3 glass manufacturers..33 analysis .... 20 hours ......... 6.60 77.44 511.10 

—(c) Marking of side-facing exterior windows—Tier III 

Trainsets—non-cab cars.

Windows are, customarily, automatically marked during the production process. Therefore, there will 

be no additional burden to mark the windows. 

—(c)(2) Alternative standard to FRA for side-facing exterior 

window intended to be breakable and serve as an emergency window exit (option to comply with an alternative 

standard).

3 glass manufacturers..67 alternative 

analysis.

5 hours ........... 3.35 77.44 259.42 

238.731(a)—Brake Systems—RR analysis and testing Tier 

III trainsets’ maximum safe operating speed.

The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under § 238.111(a). 

—(d) Tier III trainsets’ passenger brake alarm—legible stenciling/marking of devices with words ‘‘Passenger Brake 

Alarm’’ (Including the design of the sticker).

1 new railroad 53.33 

stencilings.

1 hour (design) 

+ 2 minutes 

(marking).

55.11 59.89 3,300.54 

—(f) Main reservoir test/certification ....................................... 1 new railroad .33 certification 6 hours ........... 1.98 59.89 118.58 

—(h) Main reservoir tests—Inspection, testing and maintenance program (ITM).1 railroad ........ .33 ITM plan ... 10 hours ......... 3.30 77.44 255.55 

—(j) Brake application/release—Brake actuator design with 

approved brake cylinder pressure as part of design review 

process.

1 railroad ........ .33 design ...... 40 hours ......... 13.20 77.44 1,022.21 

—(o) Train securement—Tier III equipment: demonstrated 

securement procedure.

1 railroad ........ .33 procedure 8 hours ........... 2.64 77.44 204.44 

238.733—Interior fixture attachment—Analysis for FRA approval (Tier III).1 railroad ........ .33 analysis/ 

document.

20 hours ......... 6.60 77.44 511.10 

238.735—Seat crashworthiness standard (passenger & cab 

crew)—Analysis for FRA approval (Tier III).

1 railroad ........ .33 analysis/ 

document.

40 hours ......... 13.20 77.44 1,022.21 

238.737—Luggage racks—Analysis for FRA approval (Tier 

III).

1 railroad ........ .33 analysis/ 

document.

20 hours ......... 6.60 77.44 511.10 

238.741—Emergency window egress and rescue access— 

Plan to FRA for passenger cars in Tier III trainsets not in 

compliance with sections 238.113 or 238.114.

1 railroad ........ .33 plan .......... 60 hours ......... 19.80 77.44 1,533.31 

238.743—Emergency Lighting—Analysis for FRA approval 

(Tier III).

1 railroad ........ .33 analysis/ 

test.

60 hours ......... 19.80 77.44 1,533.31 

238.745—Emergency communication—Marking of each 

intercom intended for passenger use on Tier III trainsets 

as specified in § 238.121 (New requirement; note the existing burden associated with Tier I & Tier II trainsets is 

covered under OMB control no. 2130–0576).

3 railroads ...... 277.00 marked 

intercom locations.

5 minutes ....... 23.08 77.44 1,787.32 

238.747—Emergency roof access for cab occupants— 

Marked emergency roof access locations on Tier III 

trainsets as specified in § 238.123(a), (d), and (e) (New requirement; note the existing burden associated with Tier I 

& Tier II trainsets is covered under OMB control no. 2130– 

0576).

3 railroads ...... 104.00 marked 

emergency 

roof access 

locations.

30 minutes ..... 52.00 77.44 4,026.88 

238.751—Alerters—Alternate technology—Analysis for FRA 

approval (Tier III).

1 railroad ........ .33 analysis/ 

test.

40 hours ......... 13.20 77.44 1,022.21 

238.759—Trainset cab noise—Performance standards for 

Tier III trainsets—Recordkeeping on cab noise test protocol as set forth in appendix I to this part (New requirement).

3 railroads ...... 1.00 record ..... 5 minutes ....... .08 77.44 6.20 

238.761—Trainset sanitation facilities for employees as 

specified in §§ 229.137 and 229.139—Defective locomotive toilet facility—Tagging, notation on daily inspection 

report (New requirement; note the existing burden associated with Tier I & Tier II trainsets is covered under OMB 

control no. 2130–0552).

FRA anticipates zero submissions for this 3-year ICR period. 

238.765—Event recorders (New requirement) ....................... FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period. 

238.775—Trainset horn—Testing of the trainset horn sound 

level in accordance with § 229.129(c)—Written report and 

record retention (New requirement).

3 railroads ...... .33 written report.1 hour ............. .33 77.44 25.56 

238.777(e)(2)—Inspection Records—Copy of summary report made available to the engineer and to FRA upon request (New requirement).FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19769 

CFR section Respondent 

universe 

Total annual 

responses 

Average 

time per 

responses 

Total annual 

burden hours Wage rate Total cost equivalent 

(A) (B) (C) = A * B (D) 30 (E) = C * D 

238.785—Trainset electrical system—High voltage markings: 

doors, cover plates, or barriers (New requirement).

FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period. 

238.791—Safety appliances (New requirement) .................... The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under §§ 238.110 (design) 

and 238.901 et seq. (records). 

238.903—Trainset Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance Requirements for Tier III Passenger Equipment—Program 

(New requirement).

3 railroads ...... .67 plan .......... 150 hours ....... 100.50 77.44 7,782.72 

—(f) Retention of records ........................................................ 3 railroads ...... 10,140.00 

records.

5 minutes ....... 845.00 77.44 65,436.80 

238.907—Standard procedures for safely performing inspection, testing, and maintenance, and repairs (New requirement).The estimated paperwork burden for this requirement is covered under § 238.903. 

238.909—Quality control/quality assurance program (New 

requirement).

The estimated paperwork burden for this requirement is covered under § 238.903. 

238.911—Inspection, testing, and maintenance program format—A condensed version of the program that contains 

only those items identified as safety-critical by the railroad 

submitted for approval by FRA (New requirement).

3 railroads ...... .67 condensed 

program.

2 hours ........... 1.34 77.44 103.77 

238.913(a)(1)—Inspection, testing, and maintenance program approval procedure—Initial submission (New requirement).The estimated paperwork burden for this requirement is covered under § 238.903. 

—(a)(2) Inspection, testing, and maintenance program approval procedure—Submission of amendments (New requirement).FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period. 

—(b)(3) Inspection, testing, and maintenance program approval procedure—Statement affirming that the railroad 

has provided a copy of the program or amendments on 

designated representatives of railroad employees as required under paragraph (c) of this section (New requirement).

3 railroads ...... .67 affirming 

statement.

5 minutes ....... .06 77.44 4.65 

—(c) Inspection, testing, and maintenance program approval 

procedure—Comment—Railroad to provide a copy to the 

designated representatives of railroad employees responsible for the equipment’s operation, inspection, testing, 

and maintenance under this subpart, of each submission 

filed with FRA (New requirement).

3 railroads ...... .33 comment .. 5 hours ........... 1.65 77.44 127.78 

—(d)(1) Inspection, testing, and maintenance program approval procedure—FRA’s notification to railroads (New requirement).3 railroads ...... .33 review of 

deficiency.

2 hours ........... .66 77.44 51.11 

—(d)(2) Inspection, testing, and maintenance program approval procedure—Amendments in response to FRA’s disapproval (New requirement).FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period. 

—(d)(3) Inspection, testing, and maintenance program approval procedure—Resubmission of initial submission or 

amendments in response to FRA’s identification of deficiencies after approval (New requirement).

The estimated paperwork burden for this requirement is covered above under paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section. 

—(e) Inspection, testing, and maintenance program approval 

procedure—Annual review—Railroad to provide written notice to FRA and the designated representatives of the railroad’s employees prior to the annual review (New requirement).

FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period. 

238.1003(a)–(e)—Movement of defective Tier III passenger 

equipment—Tagging to indicate ‘‘non-complying trainset’’ 

(New requirement).

FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period. 

—(f) Movement of defective Tier III passenger equipment— 

Movement is made in accordance with the restrictions 

contained in the Special Notice under part 216 (New requirement).

FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period. 

Total 31 .............................................................................. 37 railroads .... 4,871,540 Responses.N/A ................. 98,889 N/A 7,401,389 

All estimates include the time for 

reviewing instructions; searching 

existing data sources; gathering or 

maintaining the needed data; and 

reviewing the information. Pursuant to 

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


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19770 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

32 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999). 

33 19 U.S.C. ch. 13. 

34 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. 

35 40 CFR parts 1500–1508. 

36 23 CFR part 771. 

37 40 CFR 1508.4 

38See 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15) (categorically 

excluding ‘‘[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’’). 

39 23 CFR 771.116(b). 

40 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). 

41See 54 U.S.C. 306108. 

42See Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 

as amended (Pub. L. 89–670, 80 Stat. 931); 49 U.S.C. 

303. 

43 86 FR 7619 (Feb. 1, 2021). 

comments concerning: Whether these 

information collection requirements are 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of FRA, including whether 

the information has practical utility; the 

accuracy of FRA’s estimates of the 

burden of the information collection 

requirements; the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and whether the burden of 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology, may be minimized. For 

information or a copy of the paperwork 

package submitted to OMB, contact Ms. 

Arlette Mussington, Information 

Collection Clearance Officer, at 571– 

609–1285 or Ms. Joanne Swafford, 

Information Collection Clearance 

Officer, at 757–897–9908. Organizations 

and individuals desiring to submit 

comments on the collection of 

information requirements should direct 

them via email to Ms. Mussington at 

arlette.mussington@dot.gov or Ms. 

Swafford at joanne.swafford@dot.gov. 

OMB is required to decide 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. FRA intends to obtain current 

OMB control numbers for any new 

information collection requirements 

resulting from this rulemaking action 

prior to the effective date of the final 

rule. The OMB control number, when 

assigned, will be announced by separate 

notice in the Federal Register. 

D. Federalism Implications 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism,32

requires FRA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ are defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, the agency may 

not issue a regulation with federalism 

implications that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, the agency consults with 

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 proposed rule 

in accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132. FRA has determined that this 

proposed rule has no federalism 

implications, other than the possible 

preemption of State laws under 49 

U.S.C. 20106. Therefore, the 

consultation and funding requirements 

of Executive Order 13132 do not apply, 

and preparation of a federalism 

summary impact statement for the 

proposed rule is not required. 

E. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 33

prohibits Federal agencies from 

engaging in any standards or related 

activities that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. Legitimate domestic 

objectives, such as safety, are not 

considered unnecessary obstacles. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. 

FRA has assessed the potential effect 

of this rulemaking on foreign commerce 

and believes that its proposed 

requirements are consistent with the 

Trade Agreements Act. The proposed 

requirements are safety standards, 

which, as noted, are not considered 

unnecessary obstacles to trade. 

Moreover, FRA has sought, to the extent 

practicable, to state the proposed 

requirements in terms of the 

performance desired, rather than in 

more narrow terms restricted to a 

particular design or system. 

F. Environmental Impact 

FRA has evaluated this proposed rule 

in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act 34 (NEPA), the 

Council of Environmental Quality’s 

NEPA implementing regulations,35 and 

FRA’s NEPA implementing 

regulations.36 FRA has determined that 

this proposed rule 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 

procedures that do not normally have a 

significant impact on the environment 

and therefore do not require either an 

EA or EIS.37 Specifically, FRA has 

determined that this proposed rule is 

categorically excluded from detailed 

environmental review.38

The main purpose of this rulemaking 

is to amend FRA’s Passenger Equipment 

Safety Standards by adding safety 

standards to facilitate the safe 

implementation of high-speed rail at 

speeds up to 220 mph (Tier III). This 

rulemaking would not directly or 

indirectly impact any environmental 

resources and would not result in 

significantly increased emissions of air 

or water pollutants or noise. In 

analyzing the applicability of a CE, FRA 

must also consider whether unusual 

circumstances are present that would 

warrant a more detailed environmental 

review.39 FRA has concluded that no 

such unusual circumstances exist with 

respect to this proposed rule and it 

meets the requirements for categorical 

exclusion.40

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.41

FRA has also determined that this 

rulemaking does not approve a project 

resulting in a use of a resource protected 

by Section 4(f).42 Further, FRA reviewed 

this proposed rulemaking and found it 

consistent with Executive Order 14008, 

Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and 

Abroad.43


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19771 

44 59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994). 

45Available at: https://www.transportation.gov/ 

sites/dot.gov/files/Final-for-OST-C-210312-003- 

signed.pdf. 

46Public Law 104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531. 

47 2 U.S.C. 1532. 

48 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). 

G. Executive Order 12898 

(Environmental Justice) 

Executive Order 12898, Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations,44 and DOT 

Order 5610.2C45 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 and 

requirements within the DOT Order in 

rulemaking activities, as appropriate, 

and also requires consideration of the 

benefits of transportation programs, 

policies, and other activities where 

minority populations and low-income 

populations benefit, at a minimum, to 

the same level as the general population 

as a whole when determining impacts 

on minority and low-income 

populations. FRA has evaluated this 

proposed rule under Executive Order 

12898 and the DOT Order and has 

determined that it would not cause 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health and environmental effects 

on minority populations or low-income 

populations. 

H. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal 

Consultation) 

FRA has evaluated this proposed rule 

in accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, dated 

November 6, 2000. The proposed rule 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on one or more Indian tribes, 

would not impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on Indian tribal 

governments, and would not preempt 

tribal laws. Therefore, the funding and 

consultation requirements of Executive 

Order 13175 do not apply, and a tribal 

summary impact statement is not 

required. 

I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Under section 201 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995,46 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 47 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 proposed rule will 

not result in the expenditure, in the 

aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more (as 

adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

one year, and thus preparation of such 

a statement is not required. 

J. Energy Impact 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use, requires Federal 

agencies to prepare a Statement of 

Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant 

energy action.’’ 48 FRA evaluated this 

proposed rule under Executive Order 

13211 and determined that this 

regulatory action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ within the meaning of 

Executive Order 13211. 

K. Privacy Act 

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

DOT solicits comments from the public 

to better inform its rulemaking process. 

DOT posts these comments, without 

edit, to www.regulations.gov, as 

described in the system of records 

notice, DOT/ALL–14 FDMS, accessible 

through www.dot.gov/privacy. To 

facilitate comment tracking and 

response, we encourage commenters to 

provide their name, or the name of their 

organization; however, submission of 

names is completely optional. Whether 

or not commenters identify themselves, 

all timely comments will be fully 

considered. If you wish to provide 

comments containing proprietary or 

confidential information, please contact 

the agency for alternate submission 

instructions. 

L. Analysis Under 1 CFR Part 51 

As required by 1 CFR 51.5, FRA has 

summarized the standards it is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

and shown the reasonable availability of 

those standards in the section-bysection analysis of this rulemaking 

document (see the discussions of 

§§ 238.139(c)(1)(i) and 238.745(b)). 

APTA standard PR–M–S–18–10 is 

currently approved for the location 

where is appears in the amendatory text; 

no change to the standard is proposed. 

List of Subjects 

49 CFR Part 216 

Railroad safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

49 CFR Part 231 

Railroad safety. 

49 CFR Part 238 

Incorporation by reference, Passenger 

equipment, Railroad safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

The Proposed Rule 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, FRA proposes to amend 

chapter II, subtitle B of title 49 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 216—SPECIAL NOTICE AND 

EMERGENCY ORDER PROCEDURES: 

RAILROAD TRACK, LOCOMOTIVE 

AND EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 216 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20104, 20107, 

20111, 20133, 20701–20702, 21301–21302, 

21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; and 49 CFR 1.89. 

■ 2. Revise § 216.14(c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 216.214 Special notice for repairs— 

passenger equipment. 

* * * * * 

(c) Railroad passenger equipment 

subject to a Special Notice may be 

moved from the place where it was 

found to be unsafe for further service to 

the nearest available point where the 

equipment can be repaired, if such 

movement is necessary to make the 

repairs. However, the movement is 

subject to the further restrictions of 

§§ 238.15 and 238.17, or § 238.1003 of 

this chapter. 

PART 231—RAILROAD SAFETY 

APPLIANCE STANDARDS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 231 

continues to read as follows: 

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

20131, 20301–20303, 21301–21302, 21304; 

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


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19772 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

■ 4. Add § 231.0(b)(6) to read as follows: 

§ 231.0 Applicability and penalties. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(6) Tier III passenger equipment as 

defined in § 238.5 of this chapter (i.e., 

passenger equipment operating in a 

shared right-of-way at speeds not 

exceeding 125 mph and in an exclusive 

right-of-way without grade crossings at 

speeds exceeding 125 mph but not 

exceeding 220 mph). 

* * * * * 

PART 238—PASSENGER EQUIPMENT 

SAFETY STANDARDS 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 238 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

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

and 49 CFR 1.89. 

Subpart A—General 

■ 6. Amend § 238.5 by adding in 

alphabetical order definitions of ‘‘clear 

length’’, ‘‘crew access side access 

steps’’, ‘‘representative segment of the 

route’’, and ‘‘Tier IV system’’, and 

revising the definition of ‘‘in service’’. 

The additions and revision read as 

follows: 

§ 238.5 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Clear length means, as applied to 

handholds and handrails, the distance 

about which a minimum 2-inch hand 

clearance exists in all directions around 

the handhold or handrail. Intermediate 

supports on handrails may be 

considered part of the clear length. 

* * * * * 

Crew access side steps means a step(s) 

or stirrup(s) located on the side of the 

car to assist an employee in entering or 

existing through an exterior side door 

for train crew use. 

* * * * * 

In service, when used in connection 

with passenger equipment, means— 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Is being handled in accordance 

with §§ 238.15, 238.17, 238.305(d), 

238.503(f), or 238.1003 as applicable; 

* * * * * 

Representative segment of the route 

means— 

(1) A continuous track section or 

multiple track sections no less than 50 

miles in length that consist of— 

(i) A curvature distribution as 

described below; 

(ii) A segment or segments of tangent 

track over which the intended 

maximum operating speed can be 

sustained; and 

(iii) Any bridges and specialtrackwork that are within the track 

section or track sections. 

(2) If each of a railroad’s line segments 

is less than 50 miles, then the 

‘‘representative segment of the route’’ 

means one complete line segment that 

consists of the conditions described in 

paragraphs (1)(ii) and (iii) of this 

definition. 

(3) A track section as described under 

paragraph (1) of this definition shall 

have a curvature distribution that is 

within 2% of the curvature distribution 

of the complete line segment, evaluated 

using the root mean squared (RMS) of 

the differences between the two 

distributions. 

* * * * * 

Tier IV system means any railroad 

that provides or is available to provide 

passenger service using noninteroperable technology that operates 

on an exclusive right-of-way without 

grade crossings, not comingled with 

freight equipment or Tier I, II, or III 

passenger equipment, and not 

physically connected to the general 

railroad system. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. In § 238.19, revise paragraphs (a)(4) 

and (5), (b), and (d) to read as follows: 

§ 238.19 Reporting and tracking of repairs 

to defective passenger equipment. 

(a) * * * 

(4) The determination made by a 

qualified person, qualified maintenance 

person, or other qualified individual on 

whether the equipment is safe to run; 

(5) The name of the qualified person, 

qualified maintenance person, or other 

qualified individual making such a 

determination; 

* * * * * 

(b) Retention of records. At a 

minimum, each railroad shall keep the 

records described in paragraph (a) of 

this section in accordance with the 

following: 

(1) For Tier I equipment, one periodic 

maintenance interval for each specific 

type of equipment as described in the 

railroad’s inspection, testing, and 

maintenance plan required by § 238.107. 

FRA strongly encourages railroads to 

keep these records for longer periods of 

time because they form the basis for 

future reliability-based decisions 

concerning test and maintenance 

intervals that may be developed 

pursuant to § 238.307(b). 

(2) For Tier III equipment, at least one 

year. 

* * * * * 

(d) List of repair points. (1) Railroads 

operating long-distance intercity and 

long-distance Tier II passenger 

equipment shall designate locations, in 

writing, where repairs to passenger 

equipment with a power brake defect 

will be made. Railroads operating these 

trains shall designate a sufficient 

number of repair locations to ensure the 

safe and timely repair of passenger 

equipment. 

(2) Railroads operating Tier III 

passenger trainsets shall designate 

locations, in writing, where repairs to 

safety-critical items on passenger 

equipment, including those with a 

power brake defect will be made. The 

railroad shall designate brake system 

repair point(s) in the inspection, testing, 

and maintenance program required by 

§ 238.903(a). No Tier III trainset shall 

depart a brake system repair point 

where repairs can be made with brake 

system defect unless that trainset has its 

required operational braking capability, 

and not for a period to exceed 5 

consecutive calendar days. 

(3) The railroad shall provide the list 

required under either paragraph (d)(1) 

or (2) of this section to FRA’s Associate 

Administrator and make it available to 

FRA for inspection and copying upon 

request. The designations made in such 

lists shall not be changed without at 

least 30 days’ advance written notice to 

FRA’s Associate Administrator. 

Subpart B—Safety Planning and 

General Requirements 

■ 8. Amend § 238.105 by revising the 

undesignated introductory text, 

paragraphs (a), (b), (c), the paragraph 

headings of (d) and (e), and adding 

paragraphs (f) through (h). The revisions 

and additions read as follows: 

§ 238.105 Passenger electronic hardware 

and software safety. 

Except as provided below under 

paragraph (f) of this section, the 

requirements of this section apply to 

electronic hardware and software used 

to control or monitor safety functions in 

passenger equipment ordered on or after 

September 8, 2000, and such 

components implemented or materially 

modified in new or existing passenger 

equipment on or after September 9, 

2002. 

(a) General. The railroad shall 

develop, adopt, and comply with a 

hardware and software safety program 

to guide the design, development, 

testing, integration, and verification of 

safety-critical passenger equipment 

electronic software and hardware. The 

hardware and software safety program 

may be maintained in either a written or 

an electronic format. 

(b) Safety program. The hardware and 

software safety program shall include a 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19773 

description of how the following will be 

accomplished, achieved, carried out, or 

implemented to ensure safety and 

reliability: 

(1) The hardware and software design 

process; 

(2) The hardware and software design 

documentation; 

(3) The hardware and software hazard 

analysis; 

(4) Hardware and software safety 

reviews; 

(5) Hardware and software hazard 

monitoring and tracking; 

(6) Hardware and software integration 

safety testing; 

(7) Demonstration of overall hardware 

and software system safety as part of the 

pre-revenue service testing of the 

equipment; and 

(8) Safety analysis that follows the 

requirements of paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(c) Safety analysis. The safety analysis 

shall establish and document the 

minimum requirements that will govern 

the development and implementation of 

all products subject to this section, and 

be based on good engineering practice 

and should be consistent with the 

guidance contained in appendix F to 

part 229 of this chapter in order to 

establish that a product’s safety-critical 

functions will operate with a high 

degree of confidence in a fail-safe 

manner. The hardware and software 

safety analysis shall be based on a 

formal safety methodology that includes 

a Failure Modes, Effects, Criticality 

Analysis (FMECA); verification and 

validation testing for all hardware and 

software components and their 

interfaces; and comprehensive hardware 

and software integration testing to 

ensure that the hardware and software 

system functions as intended. 

(d) Fail safe requirements. * * * 

(e) Compliance. * * * 

(f) Additional requirements. The 

requirements of this paragraph are 

applicable as set forth under 

§ 229.303(a)(1) and (2) of this chapter. In 

addition to complying with paragraphs 

(a) through (e) of this section, electronic 

hardware and software used to control 

or monitor safety functions in passenger 

equipment must also comply with only 

the following requirements of subpart E 

of part 229 of this chapter: 

(1) Section 229.309(a)(1) through (6), 

Safety-critical changes and failures; 

(2) Section 229.311(a), (c), and (d)(1) 

through (3), Review of SAs; 

(3) Section 229.313, Product testing 

results and records; 

(4) Section 229.315, Operations and 

maintenance manual; 

(5) Section 229.317(a), Training and 

qualification program; and 

(6) Section 229.319, Operating 

personnel training. 

(g) Vehicle Communication and 

Control System Vulnerability 

Assessment. The railroad shall prepare 

a Vehicle Communication and Control 

System Vulnerability Assessment 

identifying potential system 

vulnerabilities, associated risk 

(including exploitation likelihood and 

consequences), countermeasures 

applied, and resulting risk mitigation. 

The PTC system must comply with the 

requirements in § 236.1033 of this 

chapter. 

(h) Notification of product failure. 

Suppliers will notify FRA of all safetycritical product failures without undue 

delay. 

■ 9. Add a new § 238.108 to read as 

follows: 

§ 238.108 New passenger service prerevenue safety performance demonstration. 

(a) Pre-revenue safety validation 

plan—(1) General. Any railroad subject 

to this part providing new, regularly 

scheduled, intercity or commuter 

passenger service, an extension of 

existing service, or a renewal of service 

that has been discontinued for more 

than 180 days shall develop and submit 

for review a comprehensive pre-revenue 

service safety validation plan. Such plan 

shall include pertinent safety milestones 

and a minimum period of simulated 

revenue service to validate the safe 

integration of major systems and 

operational readiness, and that all 

safety-sensitive personnel are properly 

trained and qualified as outlined in this 

section. 

(2) Plan contents. A pre-revenue 

safety validation plan shall be submitted 

to FRA 60 days prior to the 

commencement of the safety 

performance demonstration period 

containing, at a minimum, the 

following: 

(i) The status of all appliable safety 

plans or regulatory programs, and any 

associated certifications, qualifications, 

and employee training required for the 

start of revenue service including, but 

not limited to, the following: 

(A) Railroad workplace safety 

procedures, programs, and training 

pursuant to part 214 of this chapter; 

(B) A drug and alcohol program 

pursuant to part 219 of this chapter; 

(C) If required, information on the 

status of PTC certification or any request 

for amendment under part 236 of this 

chapter, and compliance with 

conditions and requirements of 

§ 236.1015 of this chapter as required by 

the host railroad’s PTC safety plan. If 

the railroad submitting the pre-revenue 

safety validation plan is not the host 

railroad, the host railroad must 

acknowledge in writing that all requisite 

testing, validation, or other conditions 

have been satisfactorily met for the use 

of the tenant’s PTC system in revenue 

service; 

(D) A bridge management program 

pursuant to part 237 of this chapter; 

(E) Passenger equipment compliance 

validation and testing conducted 

pursuant to §§ 238.110 and 238.111; 

(F) Inspection, testing, and 

maintenance programs, as required 

under this part; 

(G) Emergency preparedness planning 

pursuant to part 239 of this chapter, 

with a focus on first responder outreach 

and employee training; 

(H) Locomotive engineer and 

conductor training, qualification and 

certification programs under parts 240 

and 242 of this chapter; 

(I) Training, qualification, and 

oversight program for safety-related 

railroad employees under part 243 of 

this chapter, to include information and 

data indicating the number of safetyrelated employees required to receive 

training and qualification, and 

information regarding the roles and 

responsibilities of executing the 

program between the railroad and its 

contractors; 

(J) A system safety program plan 

pursuant to part 270 of this chapter, 

with particular focus on the status of 

mitigations and actions associated with 

hazard logs and risk assessments that 

have a direct impact on the safety of the 

operation; and, 

(K) Speed limit action plans required 

under 49 U.S.C. 20169, if applicable. 

(ii) A detailed description of the 

completeness of the system. This 

description must, at a minimum, 

include completeness descriptions of 

the vehicles, signals, crossings, stations, 

train control systems, track structure, 

wayside systems, signage, rule books, 

and employee staffing. For any area that 

is not expected to be complete when the 

system performance demonstration 

period commences, the railroad must 

provide an explanation as to why 

completeness or substantial 

completeness is not necessary for the 

demonstration of safe operations. If the 

railroad submitting the pre-revenue 

safety validation plan is not the host 

railroad, the host railroad must provide 

the railroad submitting the pre-revenue 

safety validation plan pertinent 

information regarding any scheduled 

construction activities planned during 

the system performance demonstration 

period and their anticipated completion 

date. The railroad submitting the prerevenue safety validation plan must 

then explain why completeness or 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19774 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

substantial completeness of the host 

railroad construction activities is not 

necessary for the demonstration of safe 

operations. 

(iii) A detailed description of the 

operating plan including schedules, 

headways, equipment required, 

equipment staging locations, crew 

schedules, grade crossing locations, 

signal locations, timetable, general 

orders, special instructions, and other 

relevant information regarding the 

regular railroad operations. This 

description must also include a 

summary of the operating plan that 

includes, at a minimum, the number of 

vehicles required to operate the plan, 

the number of crewmembers per day, 

the number of round trips per 

crewmember, and the total number of 

trips per day. 

(iv) The period of simulated service 

prior to revenue passenger service 

(expressed either in days or number of 

completed train trips) necessary to 

demonstrate operational readiness and 

reliability, to include successful 

completion of any safety-critical 

activities required (e.g., crewmember 

training and qualification) and clear 

pass/fail criteria that, at a minimum, 

accounts for on-time performance, 

signal and crossing failures, and vehicle 

and on-board systems failures. 

(b) Safety performance demonstration 

period. The railroad shall conduct a 

period of simulated service prior to 

revenue passenger service, with the 

specific period provided in the 

railroad’s pre-revenue safety validation 

plan pursuant to paragraph (a)(2)(iv) of 

this section. During this period, the 

railroad shall demonstrate that all 

necessary infrastructure and systems (to 

include traction power, signals/train 

control, and dispatching), vehicles, 

wayside equipment, timetable, 

operating instructions, and training and 

familiarization are properly integrated 

and will safely operate in the operating 

environment and under the service 

demands for which they are intended. 

Prior to commencing the safety 

performance demonstration period, the 

railroad will have successfully 

completed pre-revenue service 

acceptance testing under § 238.111 and 

have obtained certification of its PTC 

system or approval of any requests for 

amendment under part 236 of this 

chapter, if required. 

(1) Simulated service requirements. 

The railroad shall demonstrate the 

successful completion of the safety 

performance demonstration period in 

accordance with the pass/fail criteria 

required under paragraph (a)(2)(iv) of 

this section. 

(i) For new passenger service or 

extension of existing service, the safety 

performance demonstration period must 

be conducted while executing the full 

schedule over the entire route utilizing 

all stations and systems intended to 

operate at the start of revenue passenger 

service. The period shall be of sufficient 

duration to demonstrate that all safetyrelated employees are properly trained 

and able to execute the railroad’s 

programs and plans identified in 

paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section. The 

railroad shall also demonstrate its 

ability to operate its planned schedule 

when speed restrictions, mandatory 

directives, or other common situations 

arise that may impact operations. 

(ii) For the re-starting or permanent 

re-routing of existing service, the safety 

performance demonstration period may 

be conducted using a modified schedule 

or dedicated test trains accounting for 

crew and equipment availability. The 

period shall be of sufficient duration to 

demonstrate that all safety-related 

employees are properly trained and able 

to execute the railroad’s programs and 

plans identified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of 

this section, with particular attention to 

employees or groups of employees, who 

are not actively engaged in the existing 

operations. 

(2) Daily summary report. During the 

safety performance demonstration 

period, the railroad will provide FRA a 

daily summary of the activities 

performed and results. Additionally, 

any delays, system failures, unexpected 

events, close calls, or other safety 

concerns shall be described in detail. 

(3) Final report. The railroad shall 

correct any safety deficiencies identified 

during the safety performance 

demonstration period prior to 

commencing revenue service. If safety 

deficiencies cannot be corrected, the 

railroad shall impose appropriate 

mitigations or operational limitations on 

the operation of the railroad that are 

designed to ensure that the railroad can 

operate safely. Corrections, mitigations, 

or operational limitations shall be 

discussed in a final report to FRA 

addressing the complete safety 

performance demonstration period. FRA 

may require additional corrections, 

mitigations, or operational limitations to 

ensure the safety of the operation. 

(c) Compliance. After submitting a 

plan pursuant to paragraph (a) of this 

section, the railroad shall adopt and 

comply with such plan and may not 

amend the plan without first notifying 

the Associate Administrator of the 

proposed amendment. Revenue service 

may not begin until the railroad has 

completed the requirements of its plan, 

including the minimum safety 

performance demonstration period 

required by the plan and correcting any 

safety deficiencies identified or, for 

deficiencies that cannot be corrected, 

imposing appropriate mitigations or 

operational limitations on the operation 

of the railroad that are designed to 

ensure that the railroad can operate 

safety, as required by paragraph (b)(3) of 

this section. 

■ 10. Add § 238.110 to read as follows: 

§ 238.110 Design criteria, testing, 

documentation, and approvals. 

(a) Scope. Each railroad shall provide 

the pertinent design criteria and 

documentation, as defined within this 

section, to obtain required approvals for 

aspects of the design of passenger 

equipment subject to the requirements 

of this part prior to performance of onsite, dynamic acceptance testing under 

§ 238.111 of this chapter. 

(1) Applicability. Except for passenger 

equipment defined in paragraph (a)(2) of 

this section, the requirements of this 

section apply to all passenger 

equipment that qualifies under one of 

the following conditions: 

(i) A passenger equipment design that 

has not been used in revenue service in 

the United States. 

(ii) Rebuilt or modified passenger 

equipment where the carbody structure 

or any safety-critical elements have been 

modified or replaced by a new design 

not identical to the original 

component’s design. Submittals shall be 

required only to verify the safe 

operations of the modified system/subsystem and any safety-critical systems 

affected by such change. 

(2) Previously accepted passenger 

equipment designs. Except for 

paragraph (d) of this section, passenger 

equipment designs that are the same as 

passenger equipment designs previously 

used in the United States are not subject 

to the requirements of this section. 

(b) Documentation and 

recordkeeping. (1) Railroads are 

required to obtain or develop; review; 

and evaluate all documentation in 

support of demonstrating compliance 

with the design and testing 

requirements of this section. 

(2) The railroad shall retain a copy of 

the documentation required under 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section for the 

lifetime of the equipment and make it 

available to FRA for review upon 

request. If the equipment is leased or 

sold to another entity, a copy of the 

documentation shall be provided to the 

lessee or purchasing entity. 

(c) Vehicle qualification plan—(1) 

Plan content. Prior to conducting any 

design reviews or tests, the railroad 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19775 

shall develop a vehicle qualification 

plan that is comprised of the following: 

(i) System description and design 

assumptions. As part of the vehicle 

qualification plan, the railroad shall 

include a description of the equipment’s 

intended operating environment (system 

description) as detailed in paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section and a list of design 

assumptions. Railroads operating Tier 

III equipment must also address the 

required elements for Tier III operations 

as detailed in paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section. 

(ii) Compliance matrix. In addition to 

the system description and design 

assumptions, the railroad shall develop 

and submit to FRA a compliance matrix 

identifying all safety requirements with 

which compliance must be 

demonstrated to include those 

requirements specified in paragraphs (e) 

and (f) of this section. 

(2) Approval of the vehicle 

qualification plan. (i) The vehicle 

qualification plan shall be submitted by 

the railroad for FRA review at least 60 

days before the first relevant design 

review and/or test. FRA shall notify the 

railroad within 30 days of receipt of the 

railroad’s submission that the vehicle 

qualification plan is approved, 

disapproved or disapproved in part. The 

notification shall also identify those 

documents and/or tests that FRA will 

require to be submitted for review and 

approval. 

(ii) If disapproved or disapproved in 

part, FRA shall explain the reason(s) on 

which the disapproval is based, and the 

measures needed to obtain approval. 

Upon receipt of notification by FRA of 

the disapproval or disapproval in part, 

the railroad shall revise the vehicle 

qualification plan to address the 

measures identified by FRA to obtain 

approval, and resubmit to FRA in 

accordance with paragraph (c)(2)(i) of 

this section. 

(iii) The railroad shall adopt and 

comply with the approved vehicle 

qualification plan, including completion 

of all design review and/or testing 

required by the plan. 

(d) System description (operating 

environment) and design criteria. The 

railroad shall maintain a system 

description to include relevant safetycritical elements affected by the 

intended operating environment. The 

system description shall identify 

common criteria, design assumptions, or 

other parameters that govern the design, 

maintenance, and safe operation of the 

equipment it operates, particularly as it 

relates to safety-critical features and 

systems. 

(1) Required elements common to all 

types of passenger equipment. The 

following is a list of elements common 

to all railroad passenger equipment 

subject to this part. 

(i) Infrastructure characteristics, to 

include governing or limiting geometry 

(including turnouts), maximum grade, 

minimum required braking or safe 

stopping distance, and rail or grinding 

profile (if maintained). 

(ii) Systems integration elements, to 

include types of train control systems, 

types of signal systems, grade crossing 

system types, and traction power 

systems (if used). 

(iii) Railroad operational parameters, 

to include alerter timing. 

(2) Required elements for Tier III 

operations. The following is a list of 

elements specific to railroad passenger 

equipment used in Tier III operations. 

The railroad shall— 

(i) Identify the assumptions used to 

calculate the worst-case braking 

adhesion conditions. 

(ii) Specify the maximum designed 

braking capacity. 

(iii) Identify the on-board locations 

where crewmembers can initiate an 

irretrievable emergency brake 

application. 

(iv) Identify the on-board locations of 

passenger brake alarms. 

(v) Specify the time period for train 

operations to remain under the full 

control of the engineer after a passenger 

brake alarm is activated. 

(vi) Detail the manner or means used 

to confirm that the trainset has safely 

cleared the boarding platform in which 

the application of a passenger brake 

alarm will no longer immediately 

initiate an irretrievable emergency brake 

application. 

(vii) Detail the railroad procedures to 

be followed and trainset controls that 

must be activated to retrieve the fullservice brake application described in 

§ 238.731(d)(5). 

(viii) Identify and maintain the 

approved standard for designing and 

testing main reservoirs, in accordance 

with § 238.731(f). 

(ix) Specify the parameters set by the 

railroad to determine if the wheel-slide 

protection system has failed to prevent 

wheel-slide. 

(x) Provide the details of the brake 

system functionality, monitoring, and 

diagnostics and any corresponding 

safety analysis. 

(xi) Identify the worst-case grade 

condition on which Tier III equipment 

must be effectively secured while 

unattended. 

(xii) Specify the operational 

parameters under which the engineer 

must acknowledge the alerter in order 

for train operations to remain under the 

full control of the engineer. 

(xiii) Provide the procedures to 

retrieve a full-service brake application 

as described in § 238.751(c). 

(xiv) Provide an analysis that 

confirms the ability of the railroad’s 

alternate technology to provide an 

equivalent level of safety if a standard 

alerter is not used. 

(xv) Provide information on the use of 

the headlight dimming functionality for 

Tier III trainsets when operating on a 

dedicated right-of-way. 

(xvi) Identify and maintain the 

approved standard procedure for use of 

flashing lights at public highway-rail 

grade crossings if an alternative to the 

flashing rate for auxiliary lights under 

§ 238.769(b) is used. 

(e) Structural carbody 

crashworthiness compliance. (1) 

Carbody and component 

crashworthiness design. New or 

modified passenger equipment 

structural carbody designs must 

demonstrate compliance with the 

minimum applicable crashworthiness 

requirements of parts 229 and 238 of 

this chapter. Designs that include crashenergy management (CEM) components 

must also comply with appendix J to 

this part. Compliance may be 

demonstrated by any of the following 

methods: 

(i) Full-scale testing; 

(ii) Quasi-static and dynamic analysis 

performed by a validated computer 

model supported by quasi-static test 

results; or 

(iii) Engineering calculations. 

(2) Carbody and component 

crashworthiness compliance testing. For 

any tests intended to be used for the 

purpose of demonstrating compliance 

with this section, the railroad must 

submit the following to FRA no later 

than 60 days prior to the start of testing: 

(i) A test plan and associated 

procedures; and 

(ii) Finite element analysis results. 

(f) Safety Appliances. New or 

modified passenger equipment must be 

equipped with safety appliances 

according to the applicable 

requirements of this part. The railroad 

shall submit design review 

documentation in accordance with 

paragraph (g)(1) of this section for FRA 

review. Compliance shall be validated 

through a sample-equipment inspection 

in accordance with paragraph (g)(2) of 

this section. 

(g) Approval of design review 

documentation, tests, and inspections 

for Safety Appliances—(1) Design 

review, testing, and inspection 

documentation. 

(i) Design review, testing, or 

inspection documentation shall be 

submitted to FRA in advance for review. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19776 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

FRA shall notify the railroad within 60 

calendar days that the submission is 

approved, disapproved, or disapproved 

in part. If disapproved or disapproved 

in part, FRA shall explain the reason on 

which the disapproval is based, and the 

measures needed to obtain approval. 

(ii) Upon receipt of notification by 

FRA of the disapproval or disapproval 

in part, the railroad shall revise the 

documentation to address the measures 

identified by FRA to obtain approval. 

The revised documentation shall be 

reviewed and approved in accordance 

with paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this section. 

(2) Sample-equipment inspection. (i) 

The railroad shall request a sampleequipment inspection from FRA by— 

(A) Notifying FRA with the first 

available date and location that the 

sample equipment can be inspected, 

which will be at least 45 days in 

advance of the inspection; and 

(B) Submitting engineering drawings 

reflecting the design and configuration 

of the safety appliances, emergency 

systems and signage, and any other 

elements to be inspected as part of the 

sample-equipment inspection. 

(ii) Should FRA take exception during 

the inspection, FRA will provide the 

railroad an inspection report 

documenting the exceptions taken 

within 30 days of the sample-equipment 

inspection. The railroad shall address 

all exceptions taken and then, if 

directed by FRA, request a reinspection 

pursuant to paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this 

section. 

(iii) If the sample equipment 

conforms, then FRA will indicate that 

no exceptions are noted on the 

inspection report. 

■ 11. Revise § 238.111 to read as 

follows: 

§ 238.111 Pre-revenue service acceptance 

testing. 

(a) Passenger equipment designs that 

have not been used in revenue service 

in the United States. Before using 

passenger equipment for the first time 

on its system that has not been used in 

revenue service in the United States, 

each railroad shall— 

(1) Pre-revenue service acceptance 

test plan contents. Develop a prerevenue service acceptance test plan for 

the equipment that, at a minimum, 

includes the following: 

(i) A description of the passenger 

equipment, its physical characteristics, 

the version or type of safety-critical 

features installed (e.g., type of brake 

system), and any other features that may 

be relevant to the testing to be 

conducted. 

(ii) A description of the railroad, 

systems, and conditions against which 

the pre-revenue service acceptance test 

plan is intended to demonstrate safe 

operation in accordance with the 

railroad’s system description and design 

criteria required under § 238.110(d). 

This includes the physical 

characteristics of the railroad, any 

known physical constraints (e.g., 

clearance requirements), track geometry 

constraints (i.e., turnouts), systems 

integration requirements, required 

alerter timing, and the minimum 

required stopping distance of the 

railroad pursuant to § 238.231(a), 

§ 238.431(a), or § 238.731(b). 

(iii) An identification of any 

approvals, qualifications, or waivers of 

FRA safety regulations required for the 

testing or for revenue service operation 

of the equipment. 

(iv) An identification of the maximum 

speed and cant deficiency at which the 

equipment is intended to operate. 

(v) A list of all tests to be conducted, 

indicating any interdependences or 

predecessor requirements that may 

exist, and a list of any testing of the 

equipment that has been previously 

performed. 

(vi) A schedule for conducting the 

testing. 

(vii) An identification of the 

applicable test procedures, test results 

or reports, and post-test analysis 

required by this part, corresponding to 

paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section 

detailing the approach to verify— 

(A) Safe vehicle-track system 

interaction in accordance with 

§§ 213.57, 213.329, 213.345, 238.139, or 

any applicable combination thereof. 

(B) The brake system functional 

requirements and performance of the 

system and components in accordance 

with §§ 238.231, 238.431, or 238.731. 

(C) That vehicle noise emission levels 

comply with part 210 of this chapter. 

(D) That locomotive or trainset cab 

noise complies with §§ 229.121 or 

238.759. 

(E) Systems integration and 

compatibility with technology utilized 

on the routes the equipment is intended 

to operate over, to include— 

(1) The signaling systems and track 

circuit technology over which the 

equipment will operate, to include ATC 

and PTC testing under part 236 of this 

chapter; 

(2) The grade crossing warning system 

technology utilized; and 

(3) Equipment inspection technology 

and defect detectors. 

(2) Pre-revenue service acceptance 

test plan submission. Except as 

provided for under § 239.139(e), the prerevenue service acceptance test plan 

shall be submitted for FRA review at 

least 30 days before the start of testing. 

(3) Test procedures. Each test 

procedure shall include at a minimum 

the information contained in appendix 

K to this part. 

(4) Test procedure availability. Test 

procedures utilized for compliance 

demonstration shall be made available 

to FRA upon request. 

(5) Compliance with test plan and 

procedures. The railroad shall comply 

with its pre-revenue service acceptance 

test plan and associated test procedures, 

including fully executing the tests 

required by the plan. 

(6) Test results. Except as required by 

§§ 213.57, 213.329, 213.345, or 

238.139— 

(i) Test results for Tier I equipment 

will be made available to FRA upon 

request. 

(ii) Test results for Tier II and Tier III 

equipment shall be submitted to FRA at 

least 60 days prior to the equipment 

being placed in revenue service. 

(7) Correction of safety deficiencies. 

The railroad shall correct any safety 

deficiencies identified in the design of 

the equipment or in the ITM 

procedures, discovered during the 

testing. If safety deficiencies cannot be 

corrected by design changes, the 

railroad shall impose operational 

limitations that are designed to ensure 

that the equipment can operate safely. 

For Tier II and Tier III passenger 

equipment, the railroad shall comply 

with any operational limitations 

imposed by the Associate Administrator 

on the revenue service operation of the 

equipment for cause stated following 

FRA review of the results of the test 

program under paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of 

this section. This section does not 

restrict a railroad from petitioning FRA 

for a waiver of a safety regulation under 

the procedures specified in part 211 of 

this chapter. 

(8) Approval. For Tier II or Tier III 

passenger equipment, the railroad must 

obtain approval from the Associate 

Administrator before placing the 

equipment in revenue service. The 

Associate Administrator will grant such 

approval if the railroad demonstrates 

compliance with the applicable 

requirements of this part. 

(b) Passenger equipment design that 

has previously been used in revenue 

service in the United States. (1) For 

passenger equipment design that has 

previously been used in revenue service 

in the United States, as defined in 

paragraph (b)(3) of this section, each 

railroad shall verify the applicability of 

previous tests performed under 

paragraphs (a)(1)(vii)(A) through (D) of 

this section and perform such tests if 

previous test data does not exist, cannot 

be obtained, or does not support 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19777 

demonstration of safe operation within 

the intended operating environment. 

(2) Retain a description of such testing 

and make such description available to 

FRA for inspection and copying upon 

request. 

(3) For purposes of paragraph (b) of 

this section, passenger equipment 

design that has previously been used in 

revenue service in the United States 

means— 

(i) The actual equipment used in such 

service; 

(ii) Equipment manufactured 

identically to that actual equipment; 

and 

(iii) Equipment manufactured 

similarly to that actual equipment with 

no material differences in safety-critical 

components or systems. 

(c) Modifications, new technology, 

and major upgrades. Prior to 

implementing a modification, installing 

a new technology, and/or conducting a 

major upgrade to any system component 

or sub-system that impacts a safetycritical function on passenger 

equipment that has been used in 

revenue service in the United States, the 

railroad shall follow the procedures 

specified in paragraph (a) of this section 

prior to placing the equipment in 

revenue service with such modification, 

new technology, or major upgrade. 

Testing shall be required only to verify 

the safe operations of any safety-critical 

systems affected by such change. 

■ 12. Add § 238.115(c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 238.115 Emergency lighting. 

* * * * * 

(c) At an interval not to exceed 184 

days, as part of the required periodic 

mechanical inspection, each railroad 

shall test a representative sample of the 

emergency lighting systems on its 

passenger cars to determine that they 

operate as intended when the cars are in 

revenue service. The sampling method 

must conform with a formalized, 

statistical test method. 

■ 13. Revise § 238.131(a)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 238.131 Exterior side door safety 

systems—new passenger cars and 

locomotives used in passenger service. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Be built in accordance with APTA 

standard PR–M–S–18–10. In particular, 

locomotives used in passenger service 

shall be connected to or interlocked 

with the door summary circuit to 

prohibit the train from developing 

tractive power if an exterior side door in 

a passenger car is not closed, unless the 

door is under the direct physical control 

of a crewmember for their exclusive use. 

APTA standard PR–M–S–18–10, 

‘‘Standard for Powered Exterior Side 

Door System Design for New Passenger 

Cars,’’ approved February 11, 2011 is 

incorporated by reference into this 

section with the approval of the Director 

of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may 

obtain a copy of the incorporated 

document from the American Public 

Transportation Association, 1666 K 

Street NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 

20006 (telephone 202–496–4800; 

www.apta.com). You may inspect a 

copy of the document at the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA) and the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA), Contact FRA 

at: Docket Clerk, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC; 

FRALegal@dot.gov; https://

railroads.dot.gov. For information on 

the availability of this material at 

NARA, visit www.archives.gov/federalregister/cfr/ibr-locations.html or email 

fr.inspection@nara.gov. Equipment with 

plug-type exterior side doors, section 

2.9 (including section 2.9.1) of the 

APTA standard regarding the emergency 

release mechanism shall be replaced 

with the following requirements: 

(i) Visual instructions for emergency 

operations of each plug-type exterior 

side door shall be provided. A manual 

interior and exterior emergency release 

mechanism shall be provided at each 

plug-type exterior side door. A clearly 

labeled emergency release mechanism, 

when activated, shall unlatch the door, 

disengage or unlock the local door 

isolation lock (if engaged), remove 

power from the door operator or 

controls, and allow the door to be 

moved to the open position. Feedback 

must be provided to the passenger to 

indicate that the mechanism has been 

actuated. 

(ii) The emergency release mechanism 

shall not require the availability of 

electric or pneumatic power to activate. 

The emergency release actuation device 

shall be readily accessible, without the 

use of tools or another implement. The 

force necessary to actuate the interior 

emergency release mechanism shall not 

exceed 20 lbf. The force necessary to 

actuate the exterior emergency release 

mechanism shall not exceed 30 lbf using 

a lever type mechanism or 50 lbf using 

a ‘‘T’’ handle type mechanism. When 

actuated, the emergency release 

mechanism shall override any local 

door isolation locks, and it shall be 

possible to manually open the released 

door with a force not to exceed 35 lbf. 

The emergency release mechanism shall 

require a manual reset. 

(iii) A speed interlock preventing 

operation of emergency release 

mechanism when vehicle is moving is 

permitted. 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Add § 238.139 to read as follows: 

§ 238.139 Vehicle/track system 

qualification. 

Pursuant to a railroad’s pre-revenue 

service acceptance test plan under 

§ 238.111, a railroad must demonstrate 

that its equipment does not exceed the 

safety limits of § 213.333 of this chapter. 

A railroad may demonstrate compliance 

by measuring the carbody and truck 

accelerations in accordance with 

§ 213.333 over the entirety of the 

territory the vehicle is intended to 

operate, or by complying with the below 

enumerated requirements of this 

section. Nothing in this section affects a 

railroad’s responsibility to comply with 

§ 213.345 of this chapter. 

(a) General. Qualification testing shall 

demonstrate that the vehicle/track 

system will not exceed the wheel/rail 

force safety limits and the carbody and 

truck acceleration criteria specified in 

§ 213.333 of this chapter— 

(1) Up to and including 5 mph above 

the proposed maximum operating 

speed; and 

(2) On track meeting the requirements 

for the class of track associated with the 

proposed maximum operating speed. 

For purposes of qualification testing, 

speeds may exceed the maximum 

allowable operating speed for the class 

of track in accordance with the test plan 

approved by FRA under § 238.111. 

(b) Existing vehicle type qualification. 

Except as otherwise provided by FRA, 

vehicle types previously qualified or 

permitted to operate prior to (INSERT 

DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL 

RULE), shall be deemed qualified under 

the requirements of this section for 

operation at the previously operated 

speeds and cant deficiencies. However, 

equipment deemed meeting the 

requirements of this section pursuant to 

this paragraph (b) does not have 

transferability of qualification. 

(c) New vehicle type qualification. 

Vehicle types that were not previously 

qualified under this section, or deemed 

qualified under paragraph (b) of this 

section, shall be qualified in accordance 

with the following: 

(1) Qualification methods. To 

demonstrate that new vehicle types will 

not exceed the wheel/rail force safety 

limits and the carbody and truck 

acceleration criteria specified in 

§ 213.333— 

(i) When operated over Class 1 track, 

the vehicle type shall demonstrate the 

ability to negotiate a 12-degree curve 

with a coefficient of friction 

representative of dry track conditions 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19778 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

(i.e., 0.5) and 3-inch track warp 

variations with the following 

wavelengths: 10, 20, 40, and 62 feet. The 

demonstration shall be done by 

simulating such track geometry 

conditions at speeds up to 5 mph above 

track Class 1 speeds, and the suspension 

system(s) shall meet the APTA truck 

equalization standard, APTA PR–M–S– 

014–06. The results of the simulation 

under both the AW0 and AW3 loading 

conditions shall not exceed the wheel/ 

rail forces safety limits specified in 

§ 213.333 of this chapter. 

(ii) When operated over track Classes 

2 through 5 at speeds producing no 

more than 6 inches of cant deficiency, 

the vehicle type shall be qualified by 

simulations performed under paragraph 

(c)(2) of this section and the 

measurement of carbody and truck 

accelerations during qualification 

testing in accordance with paragraphs 

(c)(3) and (4) of this section. If 

successful, the testing shall result in a 

transferable qualification with respect to 

the requirements of this section so long 

as the equipment is used at the same 

track class and cant deficiency. 

(iii) APTA PR–M–S–014–06, Rev. 1, 

‘‘Standard for Wheel Load Equalization 

of Passenger Railroad Rolling Stock,’’ 

Authorized June 1, 2017, is incorporated 

by reference into this section with the 

approval of the Director of the Federal 

Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. All approved material is 

available for inspection at FRA and at 

the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). Contact FRA 

at: Federal Railroad Administration 

Docket Clerk, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 

SE, Washington, DC; FRALegal@dot.gov; 

https://railroads.dot.gov. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, visit 

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

ibr-locations.html or email 

fr.inspection@nara.gov. The material is 

also available from the American Public 

Transportation Association, 1666 K 

Street NW, Washington, DC 20006; 

www.apta.com. 

(2) Simulations. (i) Analysis of 

vehicle/track performance (computer 

simulations) shall be conducted using 

an industry recognized methodology 

on— 

(A) Minimally compliant analytical 

track (MCAT) conditions for the 

respective track class(es) as specified in 

appendix C to this part; and 

(B) A track segment representative of 

the full route on which the vehicle type 

is intended to operate. Both simulations 

and physical examinations of the route’s 

track geometry shall be used to 

determine a track segment 

representative of the route. 

(ii) Linear system analysis shall be 

performed to identify the frequency and 

damping of the truck hunting modes. It 

shall be demonstrated that the damping 

of these modes is at least 5 percent, up 

to the intended operating speed +5 mph 

considering equivalent conicities 

starting at 0.1 up to 0.6. 

(3) Carbody acceleration. For vehicle 

types intended to operate at track Class 

2 through 5 speeds and up to 6 inches 

of cant deficiency, qualification testing 

conducted over a representative 

segment of the route on which the 

vehicle type is intended to operate shall 

demonstrate that the vehicle type will 

not exceed the carbody lateral and 

vertical acceleration safety limits 

specified in § 213.333 of this chapter. 

(4) Truck lateral acceleration. For 

vehicle types intended to operate at 

track Class 2 through 5 speeds and up 

to 6 inches of cant deficiency, 

qualification testing conducted over a 

representative segment of the route on 

which the vehicle type is intended to 

operate shall demonstrate that the 

vehicle type will not exceed the truck 

lateral acceleration safety limit specified 

in § 213.333 of this chapter. 

(d) Previously qualified vehicle types. 

Vehicle types previously qualified by 

simulation and testing in accordance 

with paragraph (c) of this section for a 

track class and cant deficiency on one 

route may be qualified for operation at 

the same class and cant deficiency on 

another route in accordance with the 

following: 

(1) Vehicle types previously qualified 

by simulation and testing in accordance 

with paragraph (c) of this section on one 

route shall not require additional 

simulations, testing, or approval so long 

as operated on routes with the same 

track class designation and at the same 

or lower cant deficiency. 

(2) For vehicle types intended to 

operate at speeds not to exceed Class 6 

track or at any curving speed producing 

more than 5 inches of cant deficiency, 

but not exceeding 6 inches, qualification 

testing conducted over a representative 

segment of the new route shall 

demonstrate that the vehicle type will 

not exceed the carbody lateral and 

vertical acceleration safety limits 

specified in § 213.333 of this chapter. 

(3) Vehicle types previously qualified 

by testing alone shall be subject to the 

requirements of paragraph (c) of this 

section for new equipment. 

(e) Qualification testing plan. To 

obtain the data required to support the 

qualification program outlined in 

paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, 

the track owner or railroad shall submit 

a qualification testing plan to FRA’s 

Associate Administrator at least 60 days 

prior to testing, requesting approval to 

conduct the testing at the desired speeds 

and cant deficiencies. This test plan 

shall provide for a test program 

sufficient to evaluate the operating 

limits of the track and vehicle type and 

shall include— 

(1) Identification of the representative 

segment of the route on which the 

vehicle type is intended to operate for 

qualification testing; 

(2) Consideration of the operating 

environment during qualification 

testing, including operating practices 

and conditions, the signal system, 

highway-rail grade crossings, and trains 

on adjacent tracks; 

(3) The maximum angle found on the 

gage face of the designed (newly 

profiled) wheel flange referenced with 

respect to the axis of the wheelset that 

will be used for the determination of the 

Single Wheel L/V Ratio safety limit 

specified in § 213.333 of this chapter 

when conducting simulations in 

accordance with (c)(2) of this section; 

(4) A target maximum testing speed in 

accordance with paragraph (a) of this 

section and the maximum testing cant 

deficiency; and 

(5) The results of vehicle/track 

performance simulations that are 

required by this section. 

(f) Qualification testing. Upon FRA 

approval of the qualification testing 

plan, qualification testing shall be 

conducted in two sequential stages as 

required in this subpart. 

(1) Stage-one testing shall include 

demonstration of acceptable vehicle 

dynamic response of the subject vehicle 

as speeds are incrementally increased— 

(i) On a segment of tangent track, from 

maximum speeds corresponding to each 

track class to the target maximum test 

speed; and 

(ii) On a segment of curved track, 

from the speeds corresponding to 3 

inches of cant deficiency to the 

maximum testing cant deficiency. 

(2) When stage-one testing has 

successfully demonstrated a maximum 

safe operating speed and cant 

deficiency, stage-two testing shall 

commence with the subject vehicle over 

a representative segment of the route as 

identified in paragraph (e)(1) of this 

section. A round-trip test run shall be 

conducted over the representative route 

segment at the speed the railroad will 

request FRA to approve for such service. 

An additional round-trip test run shall 

be conducted at 5 mph above this speed. 

The equipment shall be oriented 

differently in each leg of the round-trip 

test run. 

(3) When conducting stage-one and 

stage-two testing, if any of the 

monitored safety limits are exceeded on 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19779 

any segment of track, testing may 

continue provided that the track 

location(s) where any of the limits is 

exceeded be identified and test speeds 

be limited at the track location(s) until 

corrective action is taken. Corrective 

action may include making an 

adjustment in the track, in the vehicle, 

or in both of these system components. 

(4) Prior to the start of the 

qualification testing program, a 

qualifying Track Geometry 

Measurement System (TGMS) specified 

in § 213.333 of this chapter shall be 

operated over the intended route within 

30 calendar days prior to the start of the 

qualification testing program. 

(g) Qualification testing results. The 

track owner or railroad shall submit a 

report to FRA’s Associate Administrator 

detailing all the results of the 

qualification program. When 

simulations are submitted as part of 

vehicle qualification, this report shall 

include a comparison of simulation 

predictions to the acceleration data 

recorded during full-scale testing. The 

report shall be submitted at least 60 

days prior to the intended operation of 

the equipment in revenue service over 

the route. 

(h) Approvals. (1) Based on the test 

results and all other required 

submissions, FRA will approve, for new 

vehicle types qualified per paragraph (c) 

of this section, a maximum train speed 

and value of cant deficiency for revenue 

service, normally within 45 days of 

receipt of all the required information. 

FRA may impose conditions necessary 

for safely operating at the maximum 

approved train speed and cant 

deficiency. 

(2) Previously qualified vehicle types 

operating at track Class 2 through 5 

speeds, or at curving speeds producing 

up to 6 inches of cant deficiency, on one 

route may be qualified and approved for 

operation at the same class and cant 

deficiency on another route provided 

the vehicle types have been previously 

qualified by simulation and testing in 

accordance with paragraph (c) of this 

section for the same track class and cant 

deficiency. 

(i) Document retention. The 

documents required by this section 

must be provided to FRA by: 

(1) The track owner; or 

(2) A railroad that provides service 

with the same vehicle type over trackage 

of one or more track owner(s), with the 

written consent of each affected track 

owner. 

Subpart C—Specific Requirements for 

Tier I Passenger Equipment 

■ 15. Revise § 238.201(a)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 238.201 Scope/alternative compliance. 

(a) * * * 

(1) This subpart contains 

requirements for railroad passenger 

equipment operating at speeds not 

exceeding 125 miles per hour. All such 

passenger equipment remains subject to 

the safety appliance requirements 

contained in Federal statute at 49 U.S.C. 

chapter 203 and in applicable FRA 

regulations in this part 238, at part 231, 

and § 232.3 of this chapter. Unless 

otherwise specified, these requirements 

only apply to passenger equipment 

ordered on or after September 8, 2000, 

or placed in service for the first time on 

or after September 9, 2002. 

* * * * * 

■ 16. Revise § 238.230(a) to read as 

follows: 

§ 238.230 Safety appliances—new 

equipment. 

(a) Applicability. Except as provided 

in § 238.791, this section applies to 

passenger equipment placed in service 

on or after January 1, 2007. 

* * * * * 

■ 17. Revise § 238.235 to read as 

follows: 

§ 238.235 Safety appliances for nonpassenger carrying locomotives used in 

passenger service. 

(a) Application. The requirements of 

this section apply to all non-passenger 

carrying locomotives, used in passenger 

service, that specifically utilize 

monocoque, semi-monocoque, or are a 

cowl unit, built on or after (INSERT 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE), 

unless the requirements of part 231 of 

this chapter are applied. 

(b) Attachment. All safety appliances 

shall be securely fastened to the car 

body structure and meet the 

requirements of § 238.791(b). 

(c) Fatigue life. The safety appliance, 

the support or bracket to which the 

safety appliance is attached, and the 

carbody structure to which the safety 

appliance is directly attached or the 

support or bracket is attached, shall be 

designed for a fatigue life as specified 

under § 238.791(c). 

(d) Handholds. Handholds used on 

non-passenger carrying locomotives 

subject to this section shall meet the 

applicable requirements of § 238.791(d). 

(e) Sill steps. Sill steps used on nonpassenger carrying locomotives subject 

to this section shall meet the applicable 

requirements of § 238.791(e). 

(f) Ground level access to the 

locomotive cab and other carbody side 

doors. Non-passenger carrying 

locomotives subject to the requirements 

of this section shall be equipped with 

appropriate safety appliances at exterior 

side locomotive cab access doors and 

other carbody side doors, to permit safe 

access to the locomotive cab by 

employees and other authorized 

personnel from ground level. 

(1) Handholds. Each exterior 

locomotive cab side access door that 

provide access to the locomotive cab 

shall be equipped with two vertical 

handholds, one on each side of the door, 

which shall— 

(i) Have a minimum diameter of 5⁄8

inch. 

(ii) Have a distance from the bottom 

clear length of the vertical handholds 

not to exceed 54 inches above top of 

rail. 

(iii) Be installed so as to have a clear 

length extending at least 60 inches, or 

as high as practicable based on carbody 

design, above the floor of the cab. The 

design shall enable a person to safely 

turn around in order to exit the trainset. 

A smaller handhold, providing at least 

16 inches clear length, may be installed 

above the exterior cab access door 

opening on the inside of the equipment 

to facilitate a person’s ability to safely 

turn around. 

(iv) Have a clearance distance 

between the vehicle body of a minimum 

of 2 inches, preferably 21⁄2 inches for the 

entire length, except when a 

combination of handholds, additional 

attachment points, or both, are 

necessary due to the carbody design, 

length of the handhold, or both. 

(2) Steps. Exterior side doors that 

provide access to the locomotive cab 

shall be equipped with steps meeting 

the requirements of § 238.791(e)(2) and 

(3). 

(g) Couplers. Couplers used on nonpassenger carrying locomotives subject 

to this section shall comply with the 

requirements of § 238.791(g). 

(h) Uncoupling levers or devices. (1) 

General. Each end of a non-passenger 

carrying locomotive subject to the 

requirements of this section equipped 

with an automatic coupler required by 

paragraph (g) of this section shall have 

either— 

(i) A manual, double-lever type 

uncoupling lever, operative from either 

side of the locomotive; or 

(ii) An uncoupling mechanism 

operated by controls located in the 

locomotive cab, or other secure location. 

Additional manual uncoupling levers or 

handles on the coupler provided only as 

a backup for that remotely operated 

mechanism are not subject to paragraph 

(h)(2) of this section. 

(2) Manual uncoupling lever or 

device. Manual uncoupling levers shall 

be applied so that the automatic coupler 

can be operated from either side of the 

equipment, from ground level without 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19780 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

requiring a person to go between cars or 

equipment units. Manual uncoupling 

levers shall have a minimum clearance 

of 2 inches, preferably 21⁄2 inches, 

around the handle. 

(i) Shrouding. The automatic coupler, 

end handholds, and uncoupling 

mechanism on the leading and trailing 

ends of a non-passenger carrying 

locomotive may be stored within a 

removable shroud to reduce 

aerodynamic effects. 

(j) Hand brakes. Non-passenger 

carrying locomotives subject to the 

requirements of this section shall be 

equipped with an efficient hand or 

parking brake capable of holding the 

locomotive on the maximum grade 

condition identified by the operating 

railroad, or a minimum 3% grade, 

whichever is greater. 

(k) Safety appliances for 

appurtenances and windshields. (1) 

Non-passenger carrying locomotives 

subject to the requirements of this 

section having appurtenances such as 

headlights, windshield wipers, marker 

lights, and other similar items required 

for the safe operation of the trainset or 

trainset unit must be equipped with 

handholds and steps meeting the 

requirements of this section if the 

appurtenances are designed to be 

maintained or replaced from the exterior 

of the trainset or equipment. 

(2) The requirements of paragraph 

(k)(1) of this section do not apply if 

railroad operating rules require, and 

actual practice entails, the maintenance 

and replacement of these components 

by maintenance personnel in locations 

protected by the requirements of subpart 

B of part 218 of this chapter equipped 

with ladders and other tools to safely 

repair or maintain those appurtenances. 

(l) Optional safety appliances. Safety 

appliances installed at the option of the 

railroad shall be approved by FRA 

pursuant to § 238.110. 

Subpart H—Specific Requirements for 

Tier III Passenger Equipment 

■ 18. Amend subpart H to part 238 by 

removing undesignated center headings 

‘‘Trainset Structure’’, ‘‘Glazing’’, ‘‘Brake 

System’’, ‘‘Interior Fittings and 

Surfaces’’, ‘‘Emergency Systems’’, and 

‘‘Cab Equipment’’. 

■ 19. Revise § 238.701 to read as 

follows: 

§ 238.701 Scope. 

This subpart contains specific 

requirements for railroad passenger 

equipment operating in a shared rightof-way at speeds not exceeding 125 mph 

and in an exclusive right-of-way 

without grade crossings at speeds 

exceeding 125 mph but not exceeding 

220 mph. Passenger seating is permitted 

in the leading unit of a Tier III trainset 

if the trainset complies with the 

crashworthiness and occupant 

protection requirements of this subpart, 

and the railroad has an approved rightof-way plan under § 213.361 of this 

chapter and an approved HSR–125 plan 

under § 236.1007(c) of this chapter. 

Demonstration of compliance with the 

requirements of this subpart is subject to 

FRA review and approval under 

§§ 238.110 and 238.111. 

■ 20. Add § 238.719 to read as follows: 

§ 238.719 Trucks and Suspension. 

(a) General requirements. (1) 

Suspension systems shall be designed to 

reasonably prevent wheel climb, wheel 

unloading, rail rollover, rail shift, and a 

vehicle from overturning to ensure safe, 

stable performance and ride quality 

under the following conditions: 

(i) In all operating environments as 

defined by the railroad under 

§§ 238.110(d) and 238.111(a)(1)(ii); and 

(ii) At all track speeds and over all 

track qualities consistent with the Track 

Safety Standards in part 213 of this 

chapter, up to the maximum operating 

speed and maximum cant deficiency for 

which the equipment is qualified. 

(2) All passenger equipment shall 

meet the safety standards for suspension 

systems contained in part 213 of this 

chapter, or alternative standards 

providing at least equivalent safety if 

approved by FRA under the provisions 

of § 238.21. In particular— 

(i) Pre-revenue service qualification. 

All passenger equipment shall 

demonstrate safe operation during prerevenue service qualification in 

accordance with § 213.345 of this 

chapter and is subject to the 

requirements of § 213.329 of this 

chapter. 

(ii) Revenue service operation. All 

passenger equipment in service is 

subject to the requirements of 

§§ 213.329 and 213.333 of this chapter. 

(b) Carbody acceleration. A passenger 

car shall not operate under conditions 

that result in a steady-state lateral 

acceleration greater than 0.15g, as 

measured parallel to the car floor inside 

the passenger compartment. Additional 

carbody acceleration limits are specified 

in § 213.333 of this chapter. 

(c) Lateral truck accelerations 

(hunting). Each trainset shall be 

equipped with a system capable of 

detecting hunting on all trucks as 

defined in § 213.333 of this chapter 

(criteria based on reference location 

defined in § 213.333(k)(2) of this 

chapter). If truck hunting is detected, 

the train monitoring system shall 

provide an alarm to the controlling cab, 

and the train shall be slowed to a speed 

at least 5 mph less than the speed at 

which the truck hunting stopped. 

(d) Wheelsets. Unless further clarified 

in the railroad’s approved ITM plan, 

each trainset shall comply with the 

following limits and be free of the 

following defective conditions: 

(1) The distance between the inside 

gauge of the flanges on non-wide flange 

wheels may not be less than 533⁄32

inches or more than 533⁄8 inches. 

(2) The distance between the inside 

gauge of the flanges on wide flange 

wheels may not be less than 53 inches 

or more than 533⁄32 inches. 

(3) The back-to-back distance of 

flanges of wheels mounted on the same 

axle shall not vary more than 1⁄4 inch 

when measured at similar points around 

the circumference of the wheels. 

■ 21. Add § 238.723 to read as follows: 

§ 238.723 Pilots, Snowplows, End Plates. 

Each lead vehicle must be equipped 

with a pilot, snowplow, or end plate 

that extends across both rails. The 

minimum clearance above the rail of the 

pilot, snowplow, or end plate is 3 

inches. In general, the maximum 

clearance is 6 inches. For a lead vehicle 

equipped with an obstacle deflector or 

truck-mounted wheel guard (or both) to 

minimize the risk of derailment from 

substantial obstacles that pass beneath 

them and into the path of the wheels, 

the maximum clearance is 9 inches. 

■ 22. Add § 238.725 to read as follows: 

§ 238.725 Overheat sensors. 

Overheat sensors for each wheelset 

journal bearing shall be provided. The 

sensors may be placed either onboard 

the equipment or at reasonable intervals 

along the railroad’s right-of-way. 

■ 23. Add § 238.745 to read as follows: 

§ 238.745 Emergency communication. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, Tier III trainsets shall 

comply with the emergency 

communication requirements specified 

in § 238.121. 

(b) Emergency communication backup power systems shall, at a minimum, 

be capable of operating after 

experiencing the individually applied 

accelerations defined in either of the 

following paragraphs: 

(1) Section 238.121(c)(2); or 

(2) Section 6.1.4, ‘‘Security of 

furniture, equipment and features,’’ of 

GM/RT2100, provided that— 

(i) The conditions of § 238.705(b)(2) 

are met; 

(ii) The initial shock of a collision or 

derailment is based on a minimum load 

of 5g longitudinal, 3g lateral, and 3g 

vertical; and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19781 

(iii) Use of the standard is carried out 

under any conditions identified by the 

railroad, as approved by FRA. 

(c) Railway Group Standard GM/ 

RT2100, Issue Four, ‘‘Requirements for 

Rail Vehicle Structures,’’ December 

2010, is incorporated by reference into 

this section with the approval of the 

Director of the Federal Register under 5 

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

approved material is available for 

inspection at the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) and the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA). Contact FRA at: Federal 

Railroad Administration Docket Clerk, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC; FRALegal@dot.gov; 

https://railroads.dot.gov. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, visit 

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

ibr-locations.html or email 

fr.inspection@nara.gov. It is available 

from Rail Safety and Standards Board 

Ltd., Communications, RSSB, Block 2 

Angel Square, 1 Torrens Street, London, 

England EC1V 1NY; 

www.rgsonline.co.uk. 

■ 24. Add § 238.747 to read as follows: 

§ 238.747 Emergency roof access. 

Each cab of a Tier III trainset shall 

have an emergency roof access location 

for crewmembers occupying the cab, 

unless the crewmembers have direct 

access to an emergency roof access point 

located in a passenger compartment of 

the trainset. Each emergency roof access 

location shall have a minimum opening 

of 26 inches longitudinally by 24 inches 

laterally and comply with the 

emergency roof access requirements 

specified in § 238.123(b), (d), and (e). 

■ 25. Add § 238.755 to read as follows: 

§ 238.755 General safety requirements. 

(a) Protection against personal injury. 

Tier III trainsets shall comply with 

§ 229.41 of this chapter. 

(b) General condition. All systems and 

components on a trainset shall be free 

of conditions that endanger the safety of 

the passengers, crew, or equipment. 

Such conditions may include those 

conditions listed in § 229.45 of this 

chapter, but are not limited thereto. 

(c) Control of multiple trainsets. 

Except when a trainset is moved in 

accordance with § 238.1003, when 

multiple trainsets are coupled in 

remote- or multiple-control, the railroad 

will comply with the requirements of 

§ 229.13 of this chapter. 

■ 26. Add § 238.757 to read as follows: 

§ 238.757 Cabs, floors, and passageways. 

(a) Cab doors. Tier III trainset cab 

doors shall be equipped with a secure 

and operable device to lock the door 

from the outside that does not impede 

egress from the cab and a securement 

device that is capable of securing the 

door from inside of the cab. 

(b) End-facing cab windows. Endfacing cab windows of the lead trainset 

cab shall be free of cracks, breaks or 

other conditions that obscure the view 

of the right-of-way for the crew from 

their normal position in the cab. 

(c) Cab floors, passageways, and 

compartments. Tier III trainsets will 

comply with § 229.119(c) of this 

chapter. 

(d) Cab climate control. Each lead cab 

in a Tier III trainset shall be heated and 

air conditioned. The heating, 

ventilation, and air conditioning system 

shall be inspected and maintained to 

ensure that it operates properly and 

meets the railroad’s performance 

standard which shall be defined in the 

inspection, testing, and maintenance 

program. 

■ 27. Add § 238.759 to read as follows: 

§ 238.759 Trainset cab noise. 

(a) Performance standards for Tier III 

trainsets. (1) The average noise levels in 

the trainset cab shall be less than or 

equal to 85 dB(A) when the trainset is 

operating at maximum operating speed. 

Compliance shall be demonstrated 

during the trainset qualification testing 

as required by § 238.111. 

(2) A railroad shall not make any 

alterations during maintenance, or 

otherwise modify the cab, to cause the 

average sound level to exceed the 

requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section. 

(3) The railroad or manufacturer shall 

follow the test protocols set forth in 

appendix I to this part to determine 

compliance with paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section and, to the extent reasonably 

necessary to evaluate the effect of 

alterations during maintenance, to 

determine compliance with paragraph 

(a)(2) of this section. 

(b) Maintenance of trainset cabs. (1) If 

a railroad receives an excessive-noise 

report, and if the condition giving rise 

to the noise is not required to be 

immediately corrected under this part, 

the railroad shall maintain a record of 

the report, and repair or replace the item 

or component identified as substantially 

contributing to the noise— 

(i) On or before the next periodic 

inspection required by the railroad’s 

inspection, testing, and maintenance 

program; or 

(ii) At the time of the next major 

equipment repair commonly used for 

the particular type of maintenance 

needed if the railroad determines that 

the repair or replacement of the item or 

component requires significant shop or 

material resources that are not readily 

available. 

(2) A railroad has an obligation to 

respond to an excessive noise report 

filed by a trainset cab occupant. The 

railroad meets its obligation to respond 

to an excessive noise report, as set forth 

in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, if the 

railroad makes a good faith effort to 

identify the cause of the reported noise, 

and where the railroad is successful in 

determining the cause, if the railroad 

repairs or replaces the items that cause 

the noise. 

(3)(i) A railroad shall maintain a 

written or electronic record of any 

excessive noise report, inspection, test, 

maintenance, and replacement or repair 

completed pursuant to paragraph (b) of 

this section, and the date on which that 

inspection, test, maintenance, and 

replacement or repair occurred. If a 

railroad elects to maintain an electronic 

record, the railroad must satisfy the 

conditions listed in § 227.121(a)(2)(i) 

through (v) of this chapter. 

(ii) The railroad shall retain these 

records for a period of one year. 

(iii) The railroad shall establish an 

internal, auditable, monitorable system 

that contains these records. 

■ 28. Add § 238.761 to read as follows: 

§ 238.761 Trainset sanitation facilities for 

employees. 

(a) Tier III trainsets that are equipped 

with a sanitation compartment, as this 

term is defined in § 229.5 of this 

chapter, accessible only to train 

crewmembers shall meet the 

requirements set forth in § 229.137 of 

this chapter, and be maintained to the 

requirements of § 229.139 of this 

chapter. 

(b) Railroads that do not provide 

sanitation compartments solely for use 

by crewmembers on board Tier III 

trainsets shall provide an alternate 

arrangement in accordance with 

§ 229.137(b)(1)(i) of this chapter. 

■ 29. Add § 238.763 to read as follows: 

§ 238.763 Speed indicator. 

(a) Each trainset controlling cab shall 

be equipped with a speed indicator 

which is— 

(1) Accurate within ±1.24 mph for 

speeds under 18.6 mph, then increasing 

linearly up to ±5 mph at 220 mph; and 

(2) Clearly readable from the 

engineer’s normal position under all 

light conditions. 

(b) The speed indicator shall be based 

on a system of independent on-board 

speed measurement sources 

guaranteeing the accuracy level 

specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section under all operational conditions. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19782 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

The system shall be automatically 

monitored for inconsistencies and the 

engineer shall be automatically notified 

of any inconsistency potentially 

compromising this accuracy level. 

(c) The speed indicator shall be 

calibrated periodically as defined in the 

railroad’s inspection, testing, and 

maintenance program. 

■ 30. Add § 238.765 to read as follows: 

§ 238.765 Event recorders. 

(a) Duty to equip and record. Except 

as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of 

this section, a trainset shall have an inservice event recorder, of the type 

described in paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section, to record data from the lead cab 

and other locations within the trainset. 

The event recorder shall record the most 

recent 48 hours of operational data of 

the trainset on which it is installed. 

(b) Equipment requirements. (1) Event 

recorders shall monitor and record data 

elements or information needed to 

support the data elements required by 

this paragraph with at least the accuracy 

required of the indicators displaying 

any of the required data elements to the 

engineer. 

(2) A trainset shall be equipped with 

an event recorder with a certified 

crashworthy event recorder memory 

module that meets the requirements of 

appendix D to part 229 of this chapter. 

The certified crashworthy event 

recorder memory module shall be 

mounted for its maximum protection. 

(Although other mounting standards 

may meet this requirement, an event 

recorder memory module mounted in a 

non-crush zone area of the trainset and 

above the platform level is deemed 

appropriate ‘‘for its maximum 

protection.’’) The event recorder shall 

record, and the certified crashworthy 

event recorder memory module shall 

retain, the data elements or information 

needed to support the data elements as 

specified in § 229.135(b)(4)(i) through 

(xv), (xvii), (xx), and (xxi). In addition, 

the event recorder shall record, and the 

certified crashworthy event recorder 

memory module shall retain, the 

following data elements or information 

needed to support the following data 

elements: 

(i) Application and operation of the 

eddy current brake, if so equipped; 

(ii) Passenger brake alarm request; 

(iii) Passenger brake alarm override; 

(iv) Bell activation; and 

(v) Trainset brake cylinder pressures. 

(c) Removal from service. 

Notwithstanding the duty established in 

paragraph (a) of this section to equip 

trainsets with an in-service event 

recorder, a railroad may remove an 

event recorder from service. If a railroad 

knows that an event recorder is not 

monitoring or recording required data, 

the railroad shall remove the event 

recorder from service. When a railroad 

removes an event recorder from service, 

a qualified person shall record the date 

that the device was removed from 

service in the trainset’s maintenance 

records, required in accordance with 

§ 238.777. 

(d) Response to defective equipment. 

Notwithstanding the duty established in 

paragraph (a) of this section to equip 

Tier III trainsets with an in-service event 

recorder, a trainset on which the event 

recorder has been taken out of service as 

provided in paragraph (c) of this section 

may remain in service only until the 

next pre-service inspection, as required 

by § 238.903(c)(2). A trainset with an 

inoperative event recorder is not 

deemed to be in improper condition, 

unsafe to operate, or a non-complying 

trainset under § 238.1003, and, other 

than the requirements of appendix D to 

part 229 of this chapter, the inspection, 

testing, and maintenance of event 

recorders are limited to the 

requirements set forth in subpart I of 

this part. 

(e) Preserving accident data, 

relationship to other laws, and disabling 

event recorders. In addition to the 

requirements of paragraphs (a) through 

(d) of this section, § 229.135(e) through 

(g) of this chapter apply to Tier III 

trainset event recorders. 

(f) Annual test. At a minimum, event 

recorders shall be tested at intervals not 

to exceed 368 days in accordance with 

§ 229.27(c) of this chapter. 

■ 31. Add § 238.767 to read as follows: 

§ 238.767 Headlights. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(c) and (d) of this section, each end of 

a Tier III trainset shall be equipped with 

a headlight comprised of at least two 

lamps, one of which shall be 

illuminated when the trainset is in use. 

Each lamp, when illuminated, shall 

comply with the angular, intensity, and 

illumination requirements of 

§ 229.125(a) of this chapter. 

(b) The leading unit of a trainset with 

a headlight not in compliance with the 

requirements of paragraph (a) of this 

section shall not be moved in revenue 

service if the defective headlight is 

discovered during the pre-service 

inspection required by § 238.903(d)(1), 

and may only move in accordance with 

§ 238.1003(e). The leading unit of a 

trainset with a headlight not in 

compliance with the requirements of 

paragraph (a) of this section that is 

discovered while the trainset is in 

service may continue in service only to 

the nearest forward location where 

either the leading unit can be switched, 

repairs necessary to bring the trainset 

into compliance can be made, or the 

trainset can be moved according to the 

procedures specified in § 238.1003(b)(1) 

through (3). 

(c) Headlights may be provided with 

a device to dim the light. The use of this 

feature for Tier III trainsets operating on 

a dedicated right-of-way shall be 

described by the railroad in its system 

description required under 

§ 238.110(d)(2)(xv). 

(d) If Tier III trainsets are equipped 

with headlights incorporating 

alternative technology, the number of 

lamps specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section does not apply, and— 

(1) The railroad’s inspection, testing, 

and maintenance program shall include 

procedures for determining that such 

headlights provide the illumination 

intensity required by paragraph (a) of 

this section; and 

(2) A means must be provided to 

ensure that the minimum illumination 

intensity required by paragraph (a) of 

this section can be achieved under the 

snow or ice conditions expected in the 

geographic region in which the trainsets 

will be operated. 

■ 32. Add § 238.769 to read as follows: 

§ 238.769 Auxiliary lights. 

(a) Trainsets operated at a speed 

greater than 20 mph in a shared rightof-way over one or more public 

highway-rail grade crossings shall be 

equipped with operative auxiliary 

lights, in addition to the headlight 

required by § 238.767. Auxiliary lights 

shall conform with § 229.125(d)(1) 

though (3) of this chapter. 

(b) Auxiliary lights required by 

paragraph (a) of this section may be 

arranged in any manner specified in 

§ 229.125(e)(1) through (2) of this 

chapter. 

(c) In addition to the requirements of 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, 

auxiliary lights required by paragraph 

(a) of this section shall comply with 

§ 229.125(f). 

(d)(1) A lead unit of a trainset with 

only one operative auxiliary light must 

be repaired or switched to a trailing 

position before departure from the place 

where a pre-service inspection is 

required under § 238.903(d)(1) for that 

trainset. 

(2) A lead unit of a trainset with only 

one operative auxiliary light that is 

discovered after the trainset enter 

service may continue to be used in 

passenger service: 

(i) Until the next scheduled 

inspection of the trainset where the 

repairs necessary to bring the trainset 

into compliance can be made; or 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19783 

(ii) According to the procedures 

specified in the railroad’s inspection, 

testing, and maintenance program. 

(3) A lead unit of a trainset with two 

failed auxiliary lights may only proceed 

to the next forward location where 

repairs can be made. This movement 

must be made according to the 

procedures specified in § 238.1003(b)(1) 

through (3). 

■ 33. Add § 238.771 to read as follows: 

§ 238.771 Marking device. 

(a) Except for paragraph (d)(3) of this 

section, the trailing end of each trainset 

shall be equipped with at least one 

marking device conforming with the 

characteristics specified in 

§ 221.14(a)(1) through (3), along with 

the following other requirements: 

(1) An arrangement to continuously 

illuminate when on the trailing end of 

the train; and 

(2) For marker lights incorporating 

alternative technology, the railroad’s 

inspection, testing, and maintenance 

program shall include procedures for 

determining that such marker lights 

meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) 

and (a)(1) of this section. 

(b) The centroid of the marking device 

shall be located at a minimum of 48 

inches above the top of the rail. 

(c) Trailing end marking devices shall 

operate when the trainset is in service 

and be inspected as defined in the 

railroad’s inspection, testing, and 

maintenance program. 

(d)(1) A trainset with a marking 

device not in compliance with the 

requirements of paragraph (a) of this 

section shall not be moved in revenue 

service if the defective marking device 

is discovered during the pre-service 

inspection required by § 238.903(c)(2). 

(2) Whenever a marking device 

prescribed in this section becomes 

inoperative en route, the train may be 

moved to the next forward location 

where the marking device can be 

repaired or replaced. 

(3) A trainset’s trailing end headlight 

illuminated on the dim setting satisfies 

the requirements of a highly visible 

marking device as described in 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

■ 34. Add § 238.773 to read as follows: 

§ 238.773 Cab lights. 

Each trainset cab shall have cab lights 

in conformance with the requirements 

of § 229.127(a) of this chapter. Cab 

passageways and compartments shall 

also be adequately illuminated. 

■ 35. Add § 238.775 to read as follows: 

§ 238.775 Trainset horn. 

(a) Each leading end of trainset shall 

be equipped with a horn that conforms 

to the requirements of § 229.129(a) of 

this chapter. 

(b) Each trainset horn shall be 

individually tested under paragraph (e) 

of this section, or through acceptance 

sampling under § 229.129(b)(1) of this 

chapter, to ensure compliance with 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

(c) Except as provided in paragraph 

(d) of this section, each trainset 

equipped with a replacement horn shall 

be tested, in accordance with paragraph 

(e) of this section, before the next 

specified test required by the railroad 

inspection, testing and maintenance 

program. 

(d) Trainsets that have already been 

tested individually under paragraph (e) 

of this section, or through acceptance 

sampling under § 229.129(b)(1) of this 

chapter, shall not be required to 

undergo sound level testing when 

equipped with a replacement trainset 

horn, provided the replacement trainset 

horn is of the same model as the horn 

that was replaced and the mounting 

location and type of mounting are the 

same. 

(e) Testing of the trainset horn sound 

level shall be in accordance with 

§ 229.129(c) of this chapter, with the 

following exceptions: 

(1) In lieu of § 229.129(c)(7) of this 

chapter, the microphone shall be 

located 100 feet forward of the frontmost car body structure of the trainset, 

four feet above the top of the rail, at an 

angle no greater than 20 degrees from 

the center line of the track, and oriented 

with respect to the sound source 

according to the manufacturer’s 

recommendations. The observer shall 

not stand between the microphone and 

the horn. 

(2) Reports required by 

§ 229.129(c)(10) of this chapter may be 

maintained electronically. 

■ 36. Add § 238.777 to read as follows: 

§ 238.777 Inspection records. 

(a) For certain periodic inspections, as 

defined by the railroad’s inspection, 

testing, and maintenance program 

required under subpart I of this part, the 

railroad shall maintain a record of the 

inspection that shall contain at a 

minimum: 

(1) The date the last periodic 

inspection was performed as required 

by the railroad’s inspection, testing, and 

maintenance program; 

(2) The name of the person 

conducting the inspection; and 

(3) The name of the supervisor 

certifying that the inspection was 

performed. 

(b) The information contained in the 

inspection record and summary report 

required under paragraph (c) of this 

section shall be made available to the 

engineer so that the engineer knows the 

trainset is ready for service. The 

inspection record and summary report 

shall be made available to the engineer 

by either— 

(1) Electronic displays provided in the 

cab or other FRA-approved devices 

located within the trainset; or 

(2) Being physically displayed in 

hardcopy form under a transparent 

cover in a conspicuous place in the cab 

of each trainset. 

(c) The summary report shall be 

generated that provides pertinent 

information to review and will be made 

available to FRA upon request. At a 

minimum, the summary report shall 

include information such as the 

periodic inspection dates, applicable 

waivers, the type of brake system used 

(e.g., regenerative versus rheostatic), 

whether the trainset’s event recorder is 

out of service, the car number, the date 

of manufacture, the number of 

propulsion motors, the manufacturer’s 

information, and verification that all 

required inspections have been 

performed. 

(d) Compliance with the requirements 

of § 229.23 of this chapter shall satisfy 

the requirements of this section. 

■ 37. Add § 238.781 to read as follows: 

§ 238.781 Current collectors. 

(a) Overhead Collector Systems. (1) 

Pantographs shall comply with 

§ 229.77(a) of this chapter. 

(2) Each overhead collector system, 

including the pantograph, shall be 

equipped with a means to electrically 

ground any uninsulated parts to prevent 

the risk of electrical shock on personnel 

working on the system. 

(3) Means shall be provided to permit 

the engineer to determine that the 

pantograph is in its lowest position, and 

for securing the pantograph if necessary, 

without the need to mount the roof of 

the trainset. 

(4) Each pantograph shall be equipped 

with a means to safely lower the 

pantograph in the event of an 

emergency. If an emergency pole is used 

for this purpose, that part of the pole 

which can be safely handled shall be 

marked to so indicate. This pole shall be 

protected from moisture and damage 

when not in use. The means of 

securement and electrical isolation of a 

damaged pantograph, when automatic 

methods are not possible, shall be 

addressed in the railroad’s inspection, 

testing, and maintenance program. 

(b) Third Rail Shoes. Trainsets 

equipped with pantographs and thirdrail shoes shall comply with §§ 229.79 

and 229.81(b) of this chapter. 

■ 38. Add § 238.783 to read as follows: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19784 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

§ 238.783 Circuit protection. 

(a) General. Circuits used for purposes 

other than propelling the equipment 

shall be provided with a circuit breaker 

or equivalent current-limiting devices 

located as near as practical to the point 

of connection to the source of power for 

that circuit. Such protection may be 

omitted from circuits controlling safetycritical devices. 

(b) Lightning protection. The main 

propulsion power line shall be 

protected with a lightning arrestor, 

automatic circuit breaker, and overload 

relay. The lightning arrestor shall be run 

by the most direct path possible to 

ground. These overload protection 

devices shall be housed in an enclosure 

designed specifically for that purpose 

with the arc chute vented directly to 

outside air. Safety-critical circuits shall 

be protected against lightning damage. 

Should safety-critical circuits be 

adversely affected in such an instance, 

the trainset shall default to a safe 

condition. 

(c) Overload and ground fault 

protection. Head-end power, including 

trainline power distribution, shall be 

provided with both overload and 

ground fault protection. 

■ 39. Add § 238.785 to read as follows: 

§ 238.785 Trainset electrical system. 

(a) Insulation or grounding of metal 

parts. Tier III trainsets shall comply 

with § 229.83 of this chapter. 

(b) High voltage markings: doors, 

cover plates, or barriers. Tier III 

trainsets shall comply with § 229.85 of 

this chapter. 

(c) Hand-operated electrical switches. 

Tier III trainsets shall comply with 

§ 229.87 of this chapter. 

(d) Conductors, jumpers, and cable 

connections. Tier III trainsets shall 

comply with §§ 229.89 and 238.225(a) of 

this chapter. 

(e) Energy storage systems. (1) 

Batteries. In addition to complying with 

the requirements of § 238.225(b), battery 

circuits shall include an emergency 

battery cut-off switch to completely 

disconnect the energy stored in the 

batteries from the load. 

(2) Capacitors for high-energy storage. 

If provided, capacitors shall be— 

(i) Isolated from the cab and passenger 

seating areas by a fire-resistant barrier; 

and 

(ii) Designed to protect against 

overcharging and overheating. 

(f) Power dissipation resistors. In 

addition to complying with the 

requirements of § 238.225(c), power 

dissipation resistor circuits shall 

incorporate warning or protective 

devices for low ventilation air flow, 

over-temperature, and short circuit 

failures. 

(g) Electromagnetic interference and 

compatibility. In addition to complying 

with the requirements of § 238.225(d), 

electrical and electronic systems of 

equipment shall be capable of operation 

in the presence of external 

electromagnetic noise sources. 

(h) Motors and generators. (1) All 

motors and generators shall be in proper 

working order, or safely cut-out and 

isolated. 

(2) If equipped, support brackets, 

bearings, isolation mounts, and guards 

shall be present, function properly, and 

function as intended, as specified in the 

railroad’s inspection, testing, and 

maintenance program. 

■ 40. Add § 238.791 to read as follows: 

§ 238.791 Safety appliances. 

(a) Applicability. This section applies 

to Tier III trainsets. The requirements of 

this section may also be applied to Tier 

I passenger cars and Tier I alternative 

passenger trainsets in lieu of the 

requirements of §§ 238.229 and 238.230, 

or part 231 of this chapter, as 

applicable. 

(b) Attachment. Safety appliances 

must be attached by either mechanical 

fasteners meeting the requirements of 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section, or by 

welds meeting the requirements of 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section. 

(1) Mechanical fasteners. Safety 

appliance mechanical fasteners shall 

have tensile strength and fatigue 

resistance equal to or greater than a 1⁄2

inch (12 mm) diameter SAE Grade 5 

steel bolt. Fasteners must be one- or 

two-piece rivets, Huck bolts®, or 

threaded fasteners secured by one of the 

following methods: 

(i) Self-locking feature, including 

locknut and locking bolt, that meets the 

prevailing torque requirements for 

locking fasteners such as those specified 

by the Industrial Fastener Institute for 

the applicable grade and size fastener 

used. 

(ii) Locking device that provides the 

minimum prevailing first removal 

torque value for locking fasteners, such 

as those specified by the Industrial 

Fastener Institute for the applicable 

grade and size fastener used. 

(iii) Wedge-locking washers 

consisting of two symmetrically 

designed washers that have inclined 

ramps on the sides in mutual contact 

and non-slip contact surfaces on the 

sides in contact with the nut and work 

piece. Washer and nut or bolt 

arrangements utilizing similar locking 

principles are also acceptable. 

(iv) Lock washers that meet the 

requirements for lock washers specified 

by the Industrial Fastener Institute for 

the applicable grade and size fastener 

used. 

(v) Locking tab, cotter pin, or safety 

wire that restricts rotation of the bolt, or 

nut, or both. 

(2) Welded Safety Appliances. Welds 

for safety appliances, connections, 

safety appliance subassemblies, and 

brackets or supports shall be— 

(i) Designed and fabricated in 

accordance with the welding process 

and the quality control procedures 

contained in the applicable American 

Welding Society Standard, the Canadian 

Welding Bureau Standard, or an 

equivalent nationally or internationally 

recognized welding standard; 

(ii) Performed by an individual 

possessing the qualifications to be 

certified under the applicable American 

Welding Society Standard, the Canadian 

Welding Bureau Standard, or an 

equivalent nationally or internationally 

recognized welding qualification 

standard; 

(iii) Inspected by an individual 

qualified to determine that the welding 

has been performed in accordance with 

the requirements in paragraph (b)(2)(i) 

of this section. A written or electronic 

record of the inspection shall be 

retained by the railroad operating the 

equipment and shall be provided to 

FRA upon request. At a minimum, this 

record shall include the date, time, and 

location of the inspection, and the 

identification and qualifications of the 

person performing the inspection. 

(iv) Repaired in accordance with the 

requirements of paragraphs (b)(2)(i) 

through (iii) of this section. 

(3) Carbody. Brackets or supports 

welded in accordance with paragraphs 

(b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section and 

meeting the strength requirements in 

paragraphs (c), (d)(4)(ii), and (e)(4)(ii) of 

this section shall be considered part of 

the carbody structure. 

(4) Inspection. Except for couplers 

and handbrakes, all safety appliances, 

and brackets or supports shall, as far as 

practicable, be installed to facilitate 

inspection of attachments, whether 

mechanical fasteners or welds. 

(5) Strength. Welds, if used, and 

mechanical fasteners shall be designed 

to have an ultimate strength with a 

factor of safety of at least two with 

respect to the load values specified in 

paragraphs (d)(3)(ii) and (e)(4)(ii) of this 

section. 

(c) Fatigue life. The safety appliance, 

the support or bracket to which the 

safety appliance is attached, and the 

carbody structure to which the safety 

appliance is directly attached or the 

support or bracket is attached, shall be 

designed for a fatigue life of 10 million 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19785 

cycles based upon the service vibration 

environment. 

(d) Handholds. (1) Number, location, 

and orientation. (i) Exterior side door 

passenger access handholds. (A) A 

vertical handhold shall be provided for 

passengers on both sides of steps (one 

on each side) used for boarding or 

alighting. Internally installed handrails, 

as that term is used under part 38 of this 

title, may be used to satisfy the 

requirements of this paragraph, and if 

used must meet the applicable 

requirements for handrails specified in 

§ 38.97(a) or § 38.115(a) of this title. 

(B) Each vertical handhold provided 

for passengers shall be positioned so 

that the bottom clear length shall not be 

more than 54 inches above top of rail. 

(ii) Exterior cab access handholds. (A) 

Except as provided in paragraph 

(f)(2)(iv) of this section, a vertical 

handhold shall be provided for 

crewmembers and other authorized 

personnel on both sides (one on each 

side) of any exterior cab access door, if 

equipped. 

(B) Vertical handholds provided for 

cab access doors shall have a clear 

length extending above the floor of the 

cab at least 48 inches, and where 

practicable at least 60 inches or as high 

as feasible based on carbody design, 

enabling a person to safely turn around. 

A smaller handhold, providing at least 

16 inches of clear length, may be 

installed above the exterior cab access 

door opening on the inside of the 

equipment to facilitate a person’s ability 

to safely turn around. 

(iii) Side handholds. (A) At least one 

side handhold, preferably two, shall be 

provided at each location equipped with 

a sill step, and be oriented either 

vertically, horizontally, or a 

combination thereof, relative to the 

carbody. Each side handhold shall 

provide at least 16 inches of clear 

length. At least 12 inches of the clear 

length of each horizontal side handhold 

shall be directly over the sill step. 

(B) If one horizontal handhold is used 

it shall be not less than 58.5 nor more 

than 64.5 inches above top of rail. 

(C) If two horizontal handholds are 

used, one horizontal handhold shall be 

at most 54 inches above top of rail. The 

second horizontal handhold shall be 54 

to 58 inches above the step. 

(D) If one vertical handhold is used, 

its lowest clearance point shall be at 

most 54 inches above top of rail. Its 

highest clearance point shall be at least 

70 inches above top of rail. The 

handhold shall be located above the 

clear length of the step. 

(E) If two vertical handholds are used, 

the lowest clearance point of each 

vertical handhold shall be at most 54 

inches above top of rail. The highest 

clearance point of each vertical 

handhold shall be at least 58 inches 

above the step. Each set of vertical 

handholds shall be spaced not less than 

16 inches nor more than 22 inches 

apart. To align two vertical handholds 

with the sill steps, the handholds shall 

be located in the longitudinal direction 

such that the inside face of the outboard 

handhold is no more than 2 inches 

outboard of the inside face of the 

outboard vertical leg of the step and is 

no less than 10 inches outboard from 

the inside face of the inboard vertical 

leg. 

(F) When a combination of horizontal 

and vertical handholds is used, the 

horizontal handhold shall be 54 to 58 

inches above the step. The lowest 

clearance point of the vertical handhold 

shall be at most 54 inches above top of 

rail. The highest clearance point of the 

vertical handhold shall be at least 70 

inches, preferably 78 inches above top 

of rail. One continuous handhold may 

be used as long as it meets the 

dimensional requirements of this 

paragraph. 

(iv) End handholds. (A) Except as 

provided in paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(F) of 

this section, two horizontal end 

handholds shall be provided at each end 

of a vehicle or trainset unit equipped 

with an automatic coupler, as described 

in paragraph (g) of this section, with one 

on each side of the vehicle or trainset 

unit. Each end handhold shall provide 

at least 16 inches of clear length. 

(B) There shall be no more than 16 

inches between the side of the vehicle 

or trainset unit to the useable clear 

length of an end handhold, measured 

horizontally. 

(C) If the equipment is designed with 

a tapered nose, the side of the car shall 

be determined based on the outer 

dimension of the tapered nose where 

the end handhold is attached. 

(D) End handholds shall be positioned 

no more than 50 inches from top of rail. 

Handholds may be attached to any 

primary structure (e.g., carbody frame; 

or pilot, or plow on cab cars), provided 

the dimension requirements in 

paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(A) of this section 

are met. 

(E) An uncoupling lever may be used 

as an end handhold if it meets the 

requirements of paragraphs (b), (c), and 

(d) of this section. 

(F) End handholds are not required at 

the ends of vehicles equipped with an 

automatic coupling mechanism that can 

be safely operated from inside the 

appropriate cab of the vehicle and does 

not require ground intervention from a 

person such as to go on, under, or 

between to couple air, electric or other 

connections. 

(2) Handhold dimensions. Regardless 

of location or orientation, the minimum 

diameter for each handhold listed under 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section shall be 

no less than 5⁄8 inch. 

(3) Clearance. All handholds listed 

under paragraph (d)(1) of this section 

shall have a clearance between the 

handhold and carbody of at least 2 

inches, preferably 21⁄2 inches, for the 

entire clear length, except when a 

combination of handholds, or additional 

attachment points, or both, are 

necessary due to the carbody design, or 

length of the handhold, or both. In such 

cases, alternate ergonomic 

configurations may be used instead, 

subject to FRA approval. 

(4) Strength and rigidity. Handholds 

shall meet either of the following 

strength and rigidity requirements: 

(i) They must be made of 5⁄8-inch 

diameter steel, or a material providing 

an equivalent level of mechanical 

strength; or 

(ii) They must be designed to support 

a load of 350 lbs at any point on the 

useable length, in any direction, and 

shall be rigidly attached to the carbody 

structure such that the maximum elastic 

deflection at the midpoint of an 

unsupported span under 50 percent of 

the applied 350-lb load shall be no 

greater than L/120, where L is the 

unsupported length of the span. Stresses 

in the handhold and the carbody 

structure to which it is attached shall be 

less than the minimum yield strength 

for the load values specified in this 

paragraph. For purposes of evaluation, 

the load may be distributed over a 

distance of not more than 3 inches along 

the usable clear length of the handhold. 

(5) Multiple handholds. When 

multiple handholds are arranged in a 

ladder-style configuration, each 

handhold shall meet the requirements of 

this paragraph (d) and shall not have a 

vertical rise between handholds 

exceeding 18 inches. 

(e) Sill steps. (1) Number and 

location. (i) Except as provided in 

paragraph (e)(1)(iv) of this section, two 

sill steps shall be provided at each end 

of a vehicle or trainset unit equipped 

with an automatic coupler, with one on 

each side of the vehicle or trainset unit 

no more than 18 inches from the end of 

the vehicle or trainset unit to the 

useable clear length of the sill step. For 

vehicle or trainset ends equipped with 

shrouding or aerodynamic treatments 

that taper toward the center of the 

vehicle or trainset unit, the 18 inches 

shall be measured from the point where 

the shrouding or aerodynamic treatment 

begins to taper. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19786 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

(ii) The sill step tread shall be no 

more than 24 inches, preferably no more 

than 22 inches, above top of rail. 

(iii) The outside edge of the sill step 

tread shall be no more than 2 inches 

inside of any carbody structure located 

directly above the sill step and below 

the lowest side handhold. 

(iv) Sill steps are not required— 

(A) If an exterior cab access door or 

an exterior passenger access door is 

equipped with handholds and steps, as 

required by this section, and is located 

such that an employee riding on the 

step has an unobstructed view of the 

track ahead. 

(B) At the ends of vehicles equipped 

with an automatic coupling mechanism 

that can be safely operated from inside 

the appropriate cab of the vehicle and 

does not require ground intervention 

from a person such as to go on, under, 

or between to couple air, electric or 

other connections. 

(2) Dimensions. (i) The minimum 

clear length of the tread of the sill step 

shall be 10 inches. 

(ii) The minimum clear distance 

above the usable clear length of each 

step shall be— 

(A) 4.7 inches for Tier III trainsets. 

(B) 8 inches for applicable Tier I 

equipment as specified in paragraph (a) 

of this section. 

(iii) The minimum clear space from 

the outside edge of the sill step shall be 

6 inches for the entire usable clear 

length of the step, of which at least 2 

inches shall be tread surface. 

(iv) Sill steps shall not have a vertical 

rise between treads exceeding 18 inches. 

(v) Proper clearance must be provided 

between steps and the vehicle running 

gear to provide proper clearance from 

moving parts. 

(3) Sill step tread surface. The portion 

of the tread surface area of each sill step 

that is normally contacted by the foot 

shall be treated with an anti-skid 

material or be slip resistant by texturing 

of the metal surface in such a way that 

it lasts the life of the car. Some 

examples of acceptable methods are: 

diamond plate or stamped, upset, or 

expanded metal. For enclosed step 

designs, at least 50 percent of the tread 

area shall be open space. 

(4) Strength and rigidity. Sill steps 

shall meet either of the following 

strength and rigidity requirements: 

(i) If a rectangular cross-section is 

used, the sill step shall have a minimum 

1⁄2-inch-thick by 2-inch-wide crosssectional area. Alternate material 

sections may be used if they meet the 

strength and rigidity of a 1⁄2-inch-thick 

by 2-inch-wide steel section. Sill or 

crew steps exceeding 18 inches (457 

mm) in depth shall have an additional 

tread and be laterally braced; or 

(ii) Sill steps shall be designed to 

support individually applied loads at 

any point on the useable length of 450 

lbs in the downward direction and 350 

lbs in the horizontal direction (inward 

or outward). Stresses in the sill step and 

the carbody structure to which it is 

attached shall be less than the minimum 

yield strength for the load values 

specified in this paragraph. For 

purposes of evaluation, the load may be 

distributed over a distance of not more 

than 3 inches along the usable clear 

length of the sill step. 

(f) Crew access. (1) Ground-level crew 

access. (i) Crewmembers shall be 

provided the means where they can 

board and alight the equipment from 

ground level, safely. 

(A) For a trainset, or any section of a 

trainset that is not semi-permanently 

connected to an adjacent unit of the 

same trainset, a minimum of four 

locations, two per side, shall be 

provided. 

(B) For single vehicles or trainset 

units that are not semi-permanently 

connected to an adjacent vehicle or 

trainset unit, a minimum of two 

locations, one per side, shall be 

provided. 

(ii) Exterior side doors used for 

passenger boarding and alighting that 

provide ground-level access equipped 

with handholds meeting the 

requirements of paragraphs (d)(1)(i), 

(d)(2), and (d)(3) of this section may be 

used to satisfy the requirements of 

paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section so long 

as access to the controlling cab can be 

gained from the interior of the trainset. 

(iii) An exterior cab access side door 

that provides access to the trainset cab 

and is equipped with handholds 

meeting the requirements of paragraphs 

(d)(1)(ii), (d)(2), and (d)(3) of this section 

may be used to satisfy the requirements 

of paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section so 

long as access to the interior of the 

trainset can be gained from the trainset 

cab. 

(2) Ground level crew access side 

steps. (i) Except as provided in 

paragraph (f)(2)(iv) of this section, for 

each location provided for crewmember 

ground-level access under paragraph 

(f)(1)(i) of this section, steps shall be 

provided that comply with the 

requirements of paragraphs (e)(2) 

through (4) of this section and meet the 

following requirements: 

(A) The outside edge of the tread of 

the step shall be not more than 3 inches 

inside of the edge of the door threshold; 

and 

(B) The bottom tread shall be not 

more than 24 inches, preferably not 

more than 22, inches above top of rail. 

(ii) Handholds meeting the 

requirements of paragraphs (d)(1)(ii), 

(d)(2), and (d)(3) of this section shall be 

provided at each location where ground 

level crew access steps are provided. 

(iii) The steps required under 

paragraph (f)(2)(i) may be retractable. 

(iv) Portable ladders equipped with 

handrails designed for safe access from 

ground level can also be used in lieu of 

crew side access steps. 

(g) Couplers. (1) Except as provided in 

paragraph (g)(2) of this section, trainset 

units shall be equipped with automatic 

couplers at each end. The coupler 

shall— 

(i) Couple on impact; and 

(ii) Uncouple by either activation of a 

traditional uncoupling lever, or some 

other type of uncoupling mechanism 

that does not require a person to go on, 

under, or between the trainset units. 

(2) An automatic coupler is not 

required— 

(i) At trainset unit ends that are semipermanently coupled to an adjacent 

trainset unit; or 

(ii) Where the coupler on the leading 

and trailing ends of a trainset is only 

used for rescue purposes. The railroad 

shall develop and implement rescue 

procedures that assure employee safety 

during rescue operations are included as 

part of its inspection, testing, and 

maintenance program. 

(h) Uncoupling levers or devices. (1) 

General. Each trainset unit end 

equipped with an automatic coupler 

required by paragraph (g)(1) of this 

section shall have either— 

(i) A manual uncoupling lever; or, 

(ii) An uncoupling mechanism 

operated by controls located in the 

appropriate cab, or other secure location 

in a trainset. Additional manual 

uncoupling levers or handles on the 

coupler provided only as a backup for 

that remotely operated mechanism are 

not subject to paragraph (h)(2) of this 

section, but shall allow use from outside 

the gage of the track, or in accordance 

with railroad procedures. 

(2) Manual uncoupling lever or 

device. Manual uncoupling levers shall 

be applied so that the automatic coupler 

can be operated from the left side of the 

trainset unit as determined when facing 

the end of the trainset unit, from ground 

level without requiring a person to go 

between cars or trainset units. Manual 

uncoupling levers shall have a 

minimum clearance of 2 inches, 

preferably 21⁄2 inches, around the 

handle. 

(i) Shrouding or aerodynamic 

treatments. The automatic coupler, end 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19787 

handholds, and uncoupling mechanism 

on the leading and trailing ends of a 

trainset unit may be located within a 

removable shroud to reduce 

aerodynamic effects. 

(j) Hand brakes. Trainsets, and 

trainset units or sections of trainsets that 

are not semi-permanently coupled to an 

adjacent trainset unit or section of 

trainset, must be equipped with an 

efficient parking or hand brake capable 

of holding the trainset, trainset unit, or 

section of trainset on at least a 3-percent 

grade, or on the worst-case grade 

conditions identified by the operating 

railroad, as approved by FRA. 

(k) Safety appliances for 

appurtenances and windshields. (1) 

Trainsets and trainset units having 

appurtenances such as headlights, 

windshield wipers, marker lights, and 

other similar items required for the safe 

operation of the trainset or trainset unit 

must be equipped with handholds and 

steps meeting the requirements of this 

section, if the appurtenances are 

designed to be maintained or replaced 

from the exterior of the trainset or 

equipment. 

(2) The requirements of paragraph 

(k)(1) do not apply if railroad operating 

rules require, and actual practice 

entails, the maintenance and 

replacement of these components by 

maintenance personnel in locations 

protected by the requirements of subpart 

B of part 218 of this chapter equipped 

with ladders and other tools to safely 

repair or maintain those appurtenances. 

(l) Optional safety appliances. Safety 

appliances installed at the option of the 

railroad shall be approved by FRA 

pursuant to § 238.110. 

■ 41. Add subpart I to part 238 to read 

as follows: 

Subpart I—Trainset Inspection, Testing, and 

Maintenance Requirements for Tier III 

Passenger Equipment 

Sec. 

Trainset Inspection, Testing, and 

Maintenance Program 

238.901 Scope. 

238.903 General requirements. 

238.905 Compliance. 

238.907 Standard procedures for safely 

performing inspections, testing, 

maintenance, or repairs. 

238.909 Quality control/quality assurance 

program. 

238.911 Inspection, testing, and 

maintenance program format. 

238.913 Inspection, testing, and 

maintenance program approval 

procedure. 

Subpart I—Trainset Inspection, 

Testing, and Maintenance 

Requirements for Tier III Passenger 

Equipment 

§ 238.901 Scope. 

This subpart contains specific 

requirements for inspection, testing, and 

maintenance of Tier III passenger 

equipment. 

§ 238.903 General requirements. 

(a) General. Each railroad operating 

Tier III passenger equipment shall have 

a written inspection, testing, and 

maintenance program, approved 

pursuant to § 238.913. 

(b) Program contents. The program 

shall provide detailed information, 

consistent with the requirements set 

forth in this subpart, on the inspection, 

testing, and maintenance procedures 

necessary for the railroad to safely 

maintain and operate its Tier III 

passenger equipment. This information 

shall include a detailed description of— 

(1) Inspection procedures, intervals, 

and acceptance/rejection criteria 

addressing applicable reliability-based 

monitoring and inspections based on 

appendix E to this part or an equivalent 

national or international standard; 

(2) Test procedures and intervals; 

(3) Scheduled preventative 

maintenance intervals; 

(4) Maintenance procedures; 

(5) Special testing equipment or 

measuring devices required to perform 

inspections and tests; 

(6) The training, qualification, and 

designation of employees and 

contractors to perform inspections, tests, 

and maintenance pursuant to the 

requirements of paragraph (h) of this 

section; 

(7) Out-of-service procedures to 

protect out-of-service equipment, to 

account for time out of service, and how 

the railroad will return out-of-service 

equipment back to service; and 

(8) The required operational braking 

capability. 

(c) Specific safety inspections. The 

program required under paragraph (a) of 

this section shall ensure that all Tier III 

passenger trainsets receive thorough 

safety inspections by qualified 

personnel designated by the railroad at 

regular intervals. Each inspection 

identified in this paragraph shall be 

performed on Tier III trainsets in 

accordance with the test procedures and 

inspection criteria and at the intervals 

defined by the railroad’s approved 

inspection, testing, and maintenance 

program. Except as specified in 

paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section 

regarding defects in a trainset’s braking 

system, if any system or component that 

is defined as safety-critical under 

§ 238.911(b) is found to be defective or 

otherwise non-compliant during these 

inspections, the trainset shall not be put 

into service until that condition is 

rectified. In addition to other 

inspections required under subpart H of 

this part, the following inspections shall 

be performed on each trainset: 

(1) Pre-departure inspections, i.e., 

trainset system verifications, 

inspections, or functional tests that 

must be performed prior to departures 

from terminal locations where operating 

ends or operating crews are changed. 

Pre-departure inspection procedures 

must include— 

(i) Verification of application and 

release of the service and emergency 

brakes using the monitoring system; and 

(ii) Functional tests of the passenger 

access exterior side doors. 

(2) Pre-service inspections, i.e., 

inspections conducted at identified 

locations where such inspections can be 

safely and properly conducted prior to 

the trainset entering service after the 

previous pre-service inspection, at a 

period not to exceed 48 hours. At a 

minimum, pre-service inspections must 

include— 

(i) All items covered under paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section. Defects with the 

brake system discovered during a preservice inspection shall be handled in 

accordance with § 238.1003(d)(1), 

except that if a trainset’s braking system 

is discovered having less than the 

required operational braking capability, 

it shall move immediately to a repair 

point under the provisions of 

§ 238.1003(b) and (e). 

(ii) An interior inspection of 

emergency systems, ensuring 

functionality of certain systems (such as 

the public address and intercom 

systems) including a determination that 

any required tools or other implements 

necessary for emergency egress are 

present. 

(3) Brake system inspections. 

(4) Truck inspections. 

(5) Other safety-critical periodic 

inspections. 

(d) Inspection, testing and 

maintenance intervals. The program 

shall identify the railroad’s initial 

scheduled inspection, testing, and 

maintenance intervals for Tier III 

equipment. Changes to scheduled 

inspection, testing, and maintenance 

intervals of safety-critical components, 

as identified by § 238.911(b), shall be 

implemented only when approved by 

FRA under § 238.913. Such changes 

must be justified by accumulated, 

verifiable operating data. 

(e) Training and qualification 

program. The program required under 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19788 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

this subpart shall describe the training, 

qualification, and designation program 

established by the railroad to qualify 

individuals to inspect, test, and 

maintain the equipment. 

(1) The railroad shall identify which 

inspection, testing, or maintenance tasks 

require special training or 

qualifications. 

(2) The training and qualification 

program shall, at a minimum, address 

the items in § 238.109(b). 

(3) A list of all personnel and 

contractors designated as qualified to 

perform activities specific to paragraph 

(e)(1) of this section, training material, 

and records shall be maintained and 

made available to FRA upon request. 

(4) Only individuals qualified under 

the railroad’s program may inspect, test, 

or maintain components or systems the 

railroad deems safety-critical. 

(f) Retention of records. At a 

minimum, the railroad shall keep the 

records of each inspection required 

under paragraph (c) of this section. Each 

record shall be maintained for at least 

one year from the date of the inspection. 

§ 238.905 Compliance. 

After the railroad’s inspection, testing, 

and maintenance program is approved 

by FRA pursuant to § 238.913, the 

railroad shall adopt and comply with 

the program, and perform— 

(a) All inspections and tests described 

in the program in accordance with the 

procedures and criteria for the 

components that the railroad identifies 

as safety-critical; and 

(b) All maintenance tasks described in 

the program in accordance with the 

procedures and intervals for the 

components that the railroad identifies 

as safety-critical. 

§ 238.907 Standard procedures for safely 

performing inspection, testing, and 

maintenance, and repairs. 

(a) The railroad shall establish 

standard procedures for performing all 

safety-critical or potentially hazardous 

inspection, testing, maintenance, and 

repair tasks. These standard procedures 

shall— 

(1) Describe in detail each step 

required to safely perform the task; 

(2) Describe the knowledge necessary 

to safely perform the task; 

(3) Describe any precautions that shall 

be taken to safely perform the task; 

(4) Describe the use of any safety 

equipment necessary to perform the 

task; 

(5) Be approved by the railroad’s 

official responsible for safety; 

(6) Be enforced by the railroad’s 

supervisors responsible for 

accomplishing the tasks; and 

(7) Be reviewed annually by the 

railroad and its designated employee 

representatives pursuant to § 238.913(e). 

(b) The inspection, testing, and 

maintenance program required by this 

section is not intended to address and 

should not include procedures to 

address employee working conditions 

that arise in the course of conducting 

the inspections, tests, and maintenance 

set forth in the program. When 

reviewing the railroad’s program, FRA 

does not intend to review any portion of 

the program that relates to employee 

working conditions. 

§ 238.909 Quality control/quality 

assurance program. 

Each railroad shall establish an 

inspection, testing, and maintenance 

quality control/quality assurance 

program. The railroad or its 

contractor(s), or both, shall ensure that 

inspections, testing, and maintenance 

are performed in accordance with the 

railroad’s approved inspection, testing, 

and maintenance program. 

§ 238.911 Inspection, testing, and 

maintenance program format. 

The railroad’s inspection, testing, and 

maintenance program established 

pursuant to this subpart I shall be 

comprised of— 

(a) The complete inspection, testing, 

and maintenance program for all 

components, systems, or sub-systems on 

a Tier III trainset, whether safety-critical 

or not, to include all inspections, tests, 

and maintenance tasks required, the 

intervals and periodicity of those 

inspections, tests, and maintenance 

tasks, and all associated information 

and procedures required for the railroad 

and its personnel to implement the 

program. The railroad shall submit the 

complete program to FRA along with 

the condensed version required under 

paragraph (b) of this section for FRA 

review to ensure that the railroad has 

properly classified a particular 

inspection, test, or maintenance task as 

safety-critical or not. Should FRA 

identify a particular inspection, test, or 

maintenance task as safety-critical, the 

railroad shall include the particular 

inspection, test, or maintenance task in 

the condensed version of the program 

under paragraph (b) of this section. 

(b) A condensed version of the 

program that contains only those items 

identified as safety-critical by the 

railroad. The railroad shall submit this 

version for approval by FRA, as 

provided in § 238.913. The operation of 

emergency equipment, emergency backup systems, trainset exits, and trainset 

safety-critical hardware and software 

systems shall be deemed safety-critical. 

§ 238.913 Inspection, testing, and 

maintenance program approval procedure. 

(a) Submission—(1) Initial 

submission. The railroad shall submit 

for approval an inspection, testing, and 

maintenance program not less than 180 

days prior to commencing revenue 

service. The program shall be submitted 

to the Associate Administrator. 

(2) Submission of amendments. If the 

railroad seeks to amend an approved 

program, the railroad shall file with the 

Associate Administrator for approval of 

such amendment not less than 60 days 

prior to the proposed implementation 

date of the amendment. 

(b) Contents. Each program or 

amendment shall contain the following: 

(1) The information prescribed in this 

subpart for such program or 

amendment; 

(2) The name, title, address, and 

telephone number of the primary point 

of contact for the program or 

amendment; and 

(3) A statement affirming that the 

railroad has provided a copy of the 

program or amendment on designated 

representatives of railroad employees as 

required under paragraph (c) of this 

section, together with a list of the names 

and addresses of those persons. 

(c) Comment. Each railroad shall 

provide a copy to the designated 

representatives of railroad employees 

responsible for the equipment’s 

operation, inspection, testing, and 

maintenance under this subpart, of each 

submission filed with FRA. Designated 

representatives will then have 45 days 

from the date of filing to provide any 

comment to FRA. 

(1) Each comment shall set forth 

specifically the basis upon which it is 

made and contain a concise statement of 

the interest of the commenter in the 

proceeding. 

(2) Each comment shall be submitted 

to the Associate Administrator. 

(3) The commenter shall certify that a 

copy of the comment was provided to 

the railroad. 

(d) Approval—(1) Initial submission. 

Within 60 days of receipt of each initial 

inspection, testing, and maintenance 

program, FRA will conduct a formal 

review of the program. FRA will then 

notify the primary railroad contact 

person in writing whether the 

inspection, testing, and maintenance 

program is approved and, if not 

approved, the specific points in which 

the program is deficient. If a program is 

not approved by FRA, the railroad shall 

amend its program to correct all 

deficiencies and resubmit its program 

with the required revisions not later 

than 45 days prior to commencing 

revenue service. The railroad shall not 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19789 

implement its inspection, testing, and 

maintenance program until approved by 

FRA. 

(2) Amendments. FRA will review 

each proposed amendment to the 

program within 45 days of receipt. FRA 

will then notify the primary railroad 

contact person and the designated 

employee representatives in writing 

whether the proposed amendment has 

been approved by FRA and, if not 

approved, the specific points in which 

the proposed amendment is deficient. 

The railroad shall correct any 

deficiencies and file the corrected 

amendment prior to implementing the 

amendment. 

(3) Identification of deficiencies after 

approval. Should FRA identify 

deficiencies within the program 

following initial approval of a program 

or approval of an amendment, FRA will 

notify the railroad of the specific points 

in which the program or amendment is 

deficient. The railroad must resubmit its 

program or amendment with the 

necessary revisions for review and 

approval in accordance with paragraph 

(d)(1) or (2) of this section. 

(e) Annual review. The inspection, 

testing, and maintenance program 

required by this section shall be 

reviewed by the railroad annually. The 

railroad shall provide written notice to 

the Associate Administrator and the 

designated representatives of the 

railroad’s employees at least one month 

prior to the annual review. If the 

Associate Administrator or their 

designee indicates a desire to be 

present, the railroad shall provide a 

scheduled date and location for the 

annual review. If the Associate 

Administrator requests the annual 

review be performed on another date 

but the railroad and the Associate 

Administrator are unable to agree on a 

date for rescheduling, the annual review 

may be performed as scheduled. 

■ 42. Add subpart J to part 238 to read 

as follows: 

Subpart J—Movement of Defective Tier III 

Passenger Equipment 

Sec. 

238.1001 Scope. 

238.1003 Movement of defective Tier III 

passenger equipment. 

Subpart J—Movement of Defective Tier 

III Passenger Equipment 

§ 238.1001 Scope. 

This subpart contains specific 

requirements for the movement of 

defective Tier III passenger equipment. 

§ 238.1003 Movement of defective Tier III 

passenger equipment. 

(a) Except as provided in 

§ 238.903(c)(2)(i) and paragraph (d)(1) of 

this section, a Tier III trainset with one 

or more safety-critical items not in 

compliance with the railroad’s approved 

inspection, testing, and maintenance 

program identified during a pre-service 

inspection required by § 238.903(c)(2) 

shall not be moved in revenue service 

and may only be moved in accordance 

with paragraph (e) of this section. 

(b) A Tier III trainset with one or more 

safety-critical items not in compliance 

with the railroad’s approved inspection, 

testing, and maintenance program 

identified while en route to its 

destination after its pre-service 

inspection is performed and before its 

next pre-service inspection is 

performed, may be moved only after the 

railroad has complied with the 

following: 

(1) An individual qualified under the 

training and qualification program 

implemented pursuant to § 238.903(e) 

determines that it is safe to move the 

trainset, consistent with the railroad’s 

operating rules. If appropriate, this 

determination may be made based upon 

a description of the defective condition 

provided by a crewmember. If the 

determination required by this 

paragraph is made by an off-site, 

qualified individual based on a 

description of the defective condition by 

on-site personnel, then a qualified 

individual shall perform a physical 

inspection of the defective equipment at 

the first location possible to verify the 

description of the defect provided by 

the on-site personnel. 

(2) The qualified individual who 

made the determination in paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section notifies the train 

crew, in accordance with the railroad’s 

operating rules, of the maximum 

authorized speed, authorized 

destination, and any other operational 

restrictions that apply to the movement 

of the non-compliant trainset. This 

notification may be achieved through 

the tag required by paragraph (b)(3) of 

this section. 

(3) The qualified individual securely 

attaches to the control stand on each 

control cab of the trainset a tag bearing 

the words ‘‘NON–COMPLIANT 

TRAINSET’’ and containing the 

following information: 

(i) The trainset, and unit or car 

number; 

(ii) The name, job title, location, and 

signature if possible, of the qualified 

individual making the determination 

that the non-compliant trainset is 

otherwise safe to move; 

(iii) The location and date of the 

inspection that led to the discovery of 

the non-compliant item; 

(iv) A description of each noncompliant item; 

(v) Movement restrictions, if any; and 

(vi) The authorized destination of the 

trainset. 

(c) Automated tracking systems used 

to meet the tagging requirements 

contained in paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section must comply with § 238.15(c)(3). 

(d) In the event of an in-service failure 

of the braking system— 

(1) The trainset may continue in 

service for no more than 5 consecutive 

calendar days so long as the trainset 

meets or exceeds its required 

operational braking capability. 

(2) When below the required 

operational braking capability, the 

trainset may remain in service until the 

next pre-service inspection and proceed 

only in accordance with railroad 

operating rules relating to the 

percentage of operative brakes and at a 

speed no greater than the maximum 

authorized speed as determined by 

§ 238.731(e)(4), so long as the 

requirements of paragraph (b) of this 

section are otherwise fully met. 

(e) Except as provided in paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section, a trainset with one 

or more safety-critical items not in 

compliance with the railroad’s approved 

inspection, testing, and maintenance 

program may be moved without 

passengers, within a yard, and at speeds 

not to exceed 10 mph, without meeting 

the requirements of paragraph (b) of this 

section where the movement is solely 

for the purpose of repair. A railroad 

shall ensure that the movement is made 

safely. If the railroad elects to repair the 

equipment in place, it shall, at a 

minimum, tag the equipment in 

accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section to make clear that the trainset is 

defective. 

(f) Nothing in this section authorizes 

the movement of Tier III equipment 

subject to a Special Notice for Repair 

under part 216 of this chapter unless the 

movement is made in accordance with 

the restrictions contained in the Special 

Notice. 

■ 43. Revise appendix C to part 238 to 

read as follows: 

Appendix C to Part 238—Minimally 

Compliant Analytical Track (MCAT) 

Simulations Used for Qualifying 

Passenger Vehicles To Operate on 

Track Classes 2 Through 5 and up to 6 

Inches of Cant Deficiency 

(a) This appendix contains requirements 

for using computer simulations to comply 

with the vehicle/track system qualification 

testing requirements specified in § 238.139. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19790 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

These simulations shall be performed using 

a track model containing defined geometry 

perturbations at the limits that are permitted 

for a specific class of track and level of cant 

deficiency. This track model is known as 

Minimally Compliant Analytical Track 

(MCAT). These simulations shall be used to 

identify vehicle dynamic performance issues 

prior to service or, as appropriate, a change 

in service, and demonstrate that a vehicle 

type is suitable for operation on the track 

over which it is intended to operate. 

(b) As specified in § 238.139(c), MCAT 

shall be used for the qualification of new 

vehicle types intended to operate at track 

Classes 2 through 5 speeds, or at any curving 

speed producing no more than 6 inches of 

cant deficiency. In addition, as specified in 

§ 238.139(d)(2), MCAT shall be used to 

qualify on new routes vehicle types that have 

previously been qualified, by testing only, on 

other routes. 

(1) Validation. To validate the vehicle 

model used for simulations under this part, 

the track owner or railroad shall obtain 

vehicle simulation predictions using 

measured track geometry data, chosen from 

the same track section over which testing 

shall be performed as specified in 

§ 238.139(c)(2)(ii). These predictions shall be 

submitted to FRA in support of the request 

for approval of the qualification testing plan. 

Full validation of the vehicle model used for 

simulations under this part shall be 

determined when the results of the 

simulations demonstrate that they replicate 

all key responses observed during 

qualification testing. 

(2) MCAT layout. MCAT consists of nine 

segments, each designed to test a vehicle’s 

performance in response to a specific type of 

track perturbation. The basic layout of MCAT 

is shown in figure 1 of this appendix, by type 

of track (curving or tangent), class of track, 

and cant deficiency (CD). The values for 

wavelength, l, amplitude of perturbation, a, 

and segment length, d, are specified in this 

appendix. The bars at the top of figure 1 

show which segments are required 

depending on the speed and degree of 

curvature. 

(i) MCAT segments. MCAT’s nine segments 

contain different types of track deviations in 

which the shape of each deviation is a 

versine having wavelength and amplitude 

varied for each simulation speed as further 

specified. The nine MCAT segments are 

defined as follows: 

(A) Hunting perturbation (a1). This 

segment contains an alinement deviation 

having a wavelength, l, of 10 feet and 

amplitude of 0.25 inch on both rails to test 

vehicle stability on tangent track. 

(B) Gage narrowing (a2). This segment 

contains an alinement deviation on one rail 

to reduce the gage from the nominal value to 

the minimum permissible gage or maximum 

alinement (whichever comes first). 

(C) Gage widening (a3). This segment 

contains an alinement deviation on one rail 

to increase the gage from the nominal value 

to the maximum permissible gage or 

maximum alinement (whichever comes first). 

(D) Repeated surface (a9). This segment 

contains three consecutive profile variations 

on each rail. 

(E) Repeated alinement (a4). This segment 

contains two consecutive alinement 

variations on each rail. 

(F) Single surface (a10, a11). This segment 

contains a maximum permissible profile 

variation on one rail. If the maximum 

permissible profile variation alone produces 

a condition which exceeds the maximum 

allowed warp condition, a second profile 

variation is also placed on the opposite rail 

to limit the warp to the maximum 

permissible value. 

(G) Single alinement (a5, a6). This segment 

contains a maximum permissible alinement 

variation on one rail. If the maximum 

permissible alinement variation alone 

produces a condition which exceeds the 

maximum allowed gage condition, a second 

alinement variation is also placed on the 

opposite rail to limit the gage to the 

maximum permissible value. 

(H) Short warp (a12). This segment contains 

a pair of profile deviations to produce a 

maximum permissible 10-foot warp 

perturbation. The first is on the inner rail, 

and the second follows 10 feet farther on the 

outside rail. Each deviation has a 

wavelength, l, of 20 feet and variable 

amplitude for each simulation speed as 

described below. This segment is to be used 

only on curved track simulations. 

(I) Combined perturbation (a7, a8, a13). This 

segment contains a down and out combined 

geometry condition on the outside rail in the 

body of the curve. If the variations produce 

a condition which exceeds the maximum 

allowed gage condition, a second variation is 

also placed on the opposite rail as for the 

MCAT segments described in paragraphs 

(b)(2)(i)(F) and (G) of this appendix. This 

segment is to be used for all curved track 

simulations at speeds producing no more 

than 6 inches of cant deficiency on track 

Classes 2 through 5. 

(ii) Segment lengths. Each MCAT segment 

shall be long enough to allow the vehicle’s 

response to the track deviation(s) to damp 

out. Each segment shall also have a minimum 

length as specified in table 1 of this 

appendix, which references the distances in 

figure 1 of this appendix. For curved track 

segments, the perturbations shall be placed 

far enough in the body of the curve to allow 

for any spiral effects to damp out. 

(iii) Degree of curvature. (A) For each 

simulation involving assessment of curving 

performance, the degree of curvature, D, 

which generates a particular level of cant 

deficiency, Eu, for a given speed, V, shall be 

calculated using the following equation: 

Where 

D = Degree of curvature (degrees). 

V = Simulation speed (mph). 

Ea = 3 inches for Class 2 and 6 inches for 

Classes 3 through 5. 

Eu = Cant deficiency (inches). 

(B) Table 2 of this appendix depicts the 

degree of curvature for use in MCAT 

simulations of passenger equipment 

performance on Class 2 through 5 track, 

based on the equation in paragraph 

(b)(2)(iii)(A) of this appendix. 

(3) Required simulations—(i) General. To 

develop a comprehensive assessment of 

vehicle performance, simulations shall be 

performed for a variety of scenarios using 

MCAT. These simulations shall be performed 

on tangent or curved track, or both, 

depending on the level of cant deficiency and 

speed (track class) as summarized in table 3 

of this appendix. 

(A) All simulations shall be performed 

using the design wheel profile and a nominal 

track gage of 56.5 inches, using tables 4, 5, 

or 6 of this appendix, as appropriate. In 

addition, all simulations involving the 

assessment of curving performance shall be 

repeated using a nominal track gage of 57.0 

inches, using tables 5 or 6 of this appendix, 

as appropriate. 

(B) For tangent track segments, all 

simulations on the hunting perturbation shall 

be repeated using a high-conicity, wheel-rail 

profile combination approved by FRA that 

produces a minimum conicity of 0.4 for 

wheelset lateral shifts up to flange contact. 

(C) All simulations shall be performed 

using a wheel/rail coefficient of friction of 

0.5. 

(ii) Vehicle performance on tangent track 

Classes 2 through 5. For maximum vehicle 

speeds corresponding to track Classes 2 

through 5, the MCAT segments described in 

paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(A) through (G) of this 

appendix shall be used to assess vehicle 

performance on tangent track. A parametric 

matrix of MCAT simulations shall be 

performed using the following range of 

conditions: 

(A) Vehicle speed. Simulations shall 

demonstrate that at up to 5 mph above the 

proposed maximum operating speed, the 

vehicle type shall not exceed the wheel/rail 

force and acceleration criteria defined in the 

Vehicle/Track Interaction Safety Limits table 

in § 213.333 of this chapter. Simulations 

shall also demonstrate acceptable vehicle 

dynamic response by incrementally 

increasing speed, as shown in table 2, up to 

5 mph above the proposed maximum 

operating speed for each track class (in 5 

mph increments). 

(B) Perturbation wavelength. For each 

speed, a set of two separate MCAT 

simulations shall be performed. In each 

MCAT simulation for the perturbation 

segments described in paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(B) 

through (G) of this appendix, every 

perturbation shall have the same wavelength. 

The following two wavelengths, l, shall be 

used: 31, and 62 feet. The hunting 

perturbation segment described in paragraph 

(b)(2)(i)(A) of this appendix has a fixed 

wavelength, l, of 10 feet. 

(C) Amplitude parameters. Table 4 of this 

appendix provides the amplitude values for 

the MCAT segments described in paragraphs 

(b)(2)(i)(A) through (G) of this appendix for 

each speed of the required parametric MCAT 

simulations. The last set of simulations shall 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03AP23.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19791 

be performed at 5 mph above the proposed 

maximum operating speed, as shown in table 

2, using the amplitude values in table 4 that 

correspond to the proposed maximum 

operating speed. 

Figure 1 of Appendix C to Part 238 MCAT 

Simulations on Curved Track (Cant 

Deficiency ≤6 Inches) Track Layout 

TABLE 1 OF APPENDIX C TO PART 238—MINIMUM LENGTHS OF MCAT SEGMENTS

Distances 

(ft) 

d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 d9

1,000 1,500 1,000 

TABLE 2 OF APPENDIX C TO PART 238—DEGREE OF CURVATURE FOR USE IN MCAT SIMULATIONS (TRACK CLASSES 2 

THROUGH 5) CANT DEFICIENCY ≤6 INCHES

Tangent 

Cant deficiency 

Class 2 Ea 1 = 3′′, Class 3 through 5 Ea = 6′′ 

3′′ 4′′ 5′′ 6′′ 

Class 2: 

30 mph .............................................................................................. 0 9.52 .................... .................... ....................

35 mph .............................................................................................. 0 9.52 .................... .................... ....................

Class 3: 

35 mph .............................................................................................. 0 10.50 11.66 12.83 13.99 

40 mph .............................................................................................. 0 8.04 8.93 9.82 10.71 

45 mph .............................................................................................. 0 6.35 7.05 7.76 8.47 

50 mph .............................................................................................. 0 5.14 5.71 6.29 6.86 

55 mph .............................................................................................. 0 4.25 4.72 5.19 5.67 

60 mph .............................................................................................. 0 3.57 3.97 4.37 4.76 

65 mph .............................................................................................. 0 3.57 3.97 4.37 4.76 

Class 4: 

65 mph .............................................................................................. 0 3.04 3.38 3.72 4.06 

70 mph .............................................................................................. 0 2.62 2.92 3.21 3.50 

75 mph .............................................................................................. 0 2.29 2.54 2.79 3.05 

80 mph .............................................................................................. 0 2.01 2.23 2.46 2.68 

85 mph .............................................................................................. 0 2.01 2.23 2.46 2.68 

Class 5: 

85 mph .............................................................................................. 0 1.78 1.98 2.17 2.37 

90 mph .............................................................................................. 0 1.59 1.76 1.94 2.12 

95 mph .............................................................................................. 0 1.59 1.76 1.94 2.12 

1 ‘‘Ea’’ means actual elevation. 

TABLE 3 OF APPENDIX C TO PART 238—SUMMARY OF REQUIRED VEHICLE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT USING

SIMULATIONS

New vehicle types 

Curved Track: cant deficiency ≤6 inches ................................................. Curving performance simulation: required for track classes 2 through 5. 

Tangent track ............................................................................................ Tangent performance simulation: required for track classes 2 through 

5. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03AP23.001</GPH>
19792 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

Table 4 of Appendix C to Part 238—Track 

Class 2 Through 5 Amplitude Parameters (in 

Inches) for MCAT Simulations on Tangent 

Track 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03AP23.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19793 

Table 5 of Appendix C to Part 238 Track 

Class 2 Through 5 Amplitude Parameters (in 

Inches) for MCAT Simulations on Curved 

Track With Cant Deficiency ≥3 and ≤5 

Inches 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03AP23.003</GPH>
19794 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

Table 6 of Appendix C to Part 238 Track 

Class 2 Through 5 Amplitude Parameters (in 

Inches) for MCAT Simulations on Curved 

Track With Cant Deficiency >5 Inches and 

≤6 Inches) 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–C 

■ 44. Add Appendix I to part 238 to 

read as follows: 

Appendix I to Part 238—Tier III 

Trainset Cab Noise Test Protocol 

This appendix prescribes the procedures 

for the in-cab noise measurements for Tier III 

trainsets at speed. The purpose of the cab 

noise testing is to ensure that the noise levels 

within the cab of the trainset meet the 

minimum requirements defined within 

§ 238.759(a)(1). 

I. Measurement Instrumentation 

The instrumentation used shall conform to 

the measurement instrumentation 

requirements prescribed in paragraph I of 

appendix H to part 229 of this chapter. 

II. Test Site Requirements 

The test site shall meet the following 

requirements: 

(1) The passenger trainset shall be tested 

over a representative segment of the railroad 

and shall not be tested in any site specifically 

designed to artificially lower in-cab noise 

levels. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03AP23.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 19795 

(2) All windows, doors, cabinets seals, etc., 

must be installed in the trainset cab and be 

closed. 

(3) The heating, ventilation, and air 

conditioning (HVAC) system or a dedicated 

heating or air conditioner system must be 

operating on high, and the vents must be 

open and unobstructed. 

III. Procedures for Measurement 

(1) LAeq, T is defined as the A-weighted, 

equivalent sound level for a duration of T 

seconds, and the sound level meter shall be 

set for A-weighting with slow response. 

(2) The sound level meter shall be 

calibrated with the acoustic calibrator 

immediately before and after the in-cab tests. 

The calibration levels shall be recorded. 

(3) Any change in the before and after 

calibration level(s) shall be less than 0.5 dB. 

(4) The sound level meter shall be located: 

(i) Laterally as close as practicable to the 

longitudinal centerline of the cab, adjacent to 

the engineer’s seat; 

(ii) Longitudinally at the center of the 

engineer’s nominal seating position; and 

(iii) At a height 1,219 mm (48 inches) 

above the floor. 

(5) The sound measurements shall be taken 

autonomously within the cab. 

(6) The sound level shall be recorded at the 

maximum approved train speed ± 3km/h 

(±1.86 mph). 

(7) After the trainset speed has become 

constant at the maximum test speed and the 

in-cab noise is continuous, LAeq, T shall be 

measured, either directly or using a 1-second 

sampling interval, for a minimum duration of 

30 seconds at the measurement position 

(LAeq, 30s). 

IV. Recordkeeping 

To demonstrate compliance, the entity 

conducting the test shall maintain records of 

the following data. The records created under 

this procedure shall be retained and made 

readily accessible for review for a minimum 

of three years. All records may be maintained 

in either written or electronic form. 

(1) Name(s) of persons conducting the test, 

and the date of the test. 

(2) Description of the passenger trainset 

cab being tested, including: model number, 

serial number, and date of manufacture. 

(3) Description of sound level meter and 

calibrator, including: make, model, type, 

serial number, and manufacturer’s calibration 

date. 

(4) The recorded measurement during 

calibration and for the microphone location 

during operating conditions. 

(5) The recorded measurements taken 

during the test. 

(6) Other information as appropriate to 

describe the testing conditions and 

procedure. 

(7) Where a trainset fails a test and is retested under the provisions of section III(7) 

of this appendix, the suspected reason(s) for 

the failure. 

■ 45. Add Appendix J to part 238 to 

read as follows: 

Appendix J to Part 238—Alternative 

Requirements for Evaluating the 

Crashworthiness and Occupant 

Protection Performance of a Tier I 

Passenger Trainset Equipped With 

Crash Energy Management Features 

General 

As required by § 238.110(e)(1), this 

appendix applies to single pieces of 

passenger equipment that are fully compliant 

with existing Tier I structural requirements, 

provide additional CEM features, and are 

intended for interoperable use within 

conventional, Tier I-compliant trains. The 

requirements of this appendix do not apply 

to Tier I alternatively designed trainsets, or 

single pieces of equipment fully compliant 

with existing Tier I structural requirements 

outfitted with pushback couplers as the only 

CEM feature. Each new, fully Tier Icompliant single vehicle design equipped 

with additional CEM features shall be subject 

to the following collision scenarios to ensure 

appropriate performance of the crush zone 

and stable load transmission. 

In-Line Collision Scenario Between Identical 

Trains 

The new single car or locomotive design 

shall be placed into a reference train 

composed of vehicles of similar design, the 

details of which depend upon whether the 

single car is a locomotive, cab car, or an 

intermediate car. The vehicles shall be inline without offset between adjacent cars. 

The reference train shall be subjected to a 

collision with an identical train on level, 

tangent track as described below. This 

symmetric scenario may be simulated by a 

collision of the reference train moving at onehalf the collision speed into a rigid, 

stationary plane whose normal direction is 

parallel to the direction of travel 

(representing the plane of symmetry). Each 

car in both trains shall have a weight 

corresponding to AW0 and shall not have the 

brakes applied. 

Non-Passenger Carrying Locomotives 

For non-passenger carrying locomotives 

with CEM features, the reference train shall 

consist of five of the non-passenger carrying 

CEM locomotives. The closing speed for this 

collision scenario is that which is sufficient 

to exhaust the design energy-absorption 

capacity of the leading locomotive crush 

zone. 

CEM-Equipped Cab Cars 

For evaluation of the performance of a 

CEM-equipped cab car, the reference train 

shall consist of five such CEM-equipped cab 

cars. If the CEM-equipped cab cars are not all 

of symmetric design, each end of the trailing 

four cars shall have the same crush zone as 

that of the non-cab end of the non-symmetric 

cab car under evaluation. The closing speed 

for this collision scenario is that which 

results in dissipation of no less than 75 

percent of the design energy-absorption 

capacity of at least one crush zone at the 

colliding interface. 

CEM-Equipped Intermediate Cars 

Evaluation of the performance of CEMequipped intermediate cars shall be 

performed using a reference train consisting 

of four identical intermediate cars behind a 

leading vehicle with the following 

characteristics: 

(a)(1) The leading vehicle shall be 

decelerated to zero by: 

(i) A prescribed motion equivalent to a 

constant, longitudinal deceleration of 8g; or 

(ii) An application of forces resulting in a 

deceleration of at least 8g. 

(2) The point of application of the motion 

constraint or the measurement of the 

resulting speed shall be located in the rear 

half of the leading vehicle. 

(b) The trailing end of the leading vehicle 

shall have the same crash characteristic as 

the adjacent end of the coach to be assessed 

(if the evaluation vehicle is of a symmetric 

design), or the same crash characteristic as 

the trailing end of the coach to be assessed 

(if the evaluation vehicle is of a nonsymmetric design), where: 

(1) The crush zone shall be represented 

with the same degree of detail as the coach 

to be assessed; and 

(2) Any additional potential contact 

surfaces shall be represented, at a minimum, 

as rigid geometry. 

(c) The forward structure of the leading 

vehicle may be modelled: 

(1) Identically to the coach to be assessed; 

(2) As a lumped mass model with a 

stiffness not less than the coach to be 

assessed; or 

(3) As rigid. 

(d) The criteria for preservation of survival 

space in § 238.705(b)(1)(i) and (ii) shall apply 

to the deformable portion of the lead vehicle, 

excluding its crush zone. 

(e) The four remaining identical 

intermediate cars (including the intermediate 

car being assessed) shall follow the leading 

vehicle described, because CEM-equipped 

intermediate cars cannot be placed in the 

lead position in a train. The intermediate car 

to be assessed shall be placed immediately 

behind the leading vehicle; all other vehicles 

are not part of the assessment and may be 

simplified. 

(f) The closing speed for this collision 

scenario is that which results in dissipation 

of no less than 75 percent of the design 

energy-absorption capacity of at least one 

crush zone at the colliding interface. 

Offset Collision Scenario Between Identical 

Trains 

An offset simulated collision between 

identical trains shall be run under the 

conditions defined in § 238.707(a) for 

locomotive- or cab car-led trains. 

The performance of the evaluated single 

vehicle in the in-line and offset collision 

scenarios shall meet the deformation 

requirements in § 238.705(b)(1)(i) and (ii), 

and, if the single vehicle being evaluated is 

a cab car or locomotive, the requirements in 

§ 238.705(b)(3)(i) through (iv). 

■ 46. Add appendix K to part 238 to 

read as follows: 

Appendix K to Part 238—Minimum 

Information for Test Procedures 

The following is the minimum information 

necessary to be provided to FRA as part of 

pre-revenue service acceptance testing plan 

procedures under § 238.111(a)(3): 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19796 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

(a) A clear statement of the test objectives. 

One of the principal test objectives shall be 

to demonstrate that the equipment meets the 

safety requirements specified in this part 

when operated in the environment in which 

it is to be used. 

(b) Dates, times, and locations of the prerevenue service tests to permit FRA 

observation of such tests. 

(c) Any special safety precautions to be 

observed during testing. 

(d) A description of the railroad property 

or test facilities to be used to conduct the 

testing. 

(e) Prerequisites for conducting each test. 

(f) A detailed description of how the 

testing is to be conducted. This description 

shall include all the following: 

(1) Identification of the equipment and onboard sub-systems to be tested. 

(2) The method for testing. 

(3) The instrumentation to be used. 

(4) The means by which the test results 

will be recorded and reported. 

(5) A description of the information or data 

to be obtained. 

(6) A description of any criteria to be used 

as safety limits during the testing. 

(7) The acceptance criteria to be used to 

evaluate the equipment and on-board subsystems performance. If acceptance is to be 

based on extrapolation of less than full-level 

testing results, the analysis to be done to 

justify the validity of the extrapolation shall 

be described. 

(g) Inspection, testing, and maintenance 

procedures to be followed to ensure testing 

is conducted safely. 

Issued in Washington, DC. 

Amitabha Bose, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2023–05576 Filed 3–31–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2