```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 5, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9053-9055]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-02252]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2023-0066]

Program Approval: Georgia Central Railway, L.P. and Heart of 
Georgia Railroad, Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of approval.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this notice to approve a petition from Georgia 
Central Railway, L.P. (GC) and Heart of Georgia Railroad, Inc. (HOG) 
(collectively, Petitioners), subsidiaries of Genesee and Wyoming (G&W), 
for a Test Program designed to test self-propelled, zero-emission, 
battery-electric rail vehicles and their associated computer and 
telemetry technology systems, and to evaluate the effectiveness of the 
system and new operational approaches to rail vehicle technology in the 
short-haul movement of containers. The approval grants limited, 
temporary suspension of certain FRA rules necessary to facilitate the 
conduct of the Test Program, including an exemption for certain safety 
appliance laws (collectively, Impacted FRA Safety Standards).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Brewer, Staff Director, FRA 
Engineering and Technology Division, Office of Railroad Safety at (509) 
994-1978 or email: [email protected]; or Michael Masci, Senior 
Attorney Adviser, Office of the Chief Counsel, telephone: (202) 302-
7117 or email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Petitioners' submission (available in docket FRA-2023-0066 at 
www.regulations.gov) explains that the proposed Test Program involves a 
system of novel, self-propelled, zero-emission, battery-electric rail 
vehicles and their associated computer and telemetry technology 
systems, manufactured by Parallel Systems, Inc. The vehicle concept 
consists of a single intermodal container carried by two autonomous 
rail vehicles (AVs). Each rail AV is propelled by a battery and 
traction motor and has the necessary sensors, radios, and computers to 
be independent. Through hand-held controls or via the dispatch center, 
the AVs receive instructions to move either individually (e.g., 2 AVs 
with one container) or with a group of AVs to operate in a platoon.\1\ 
Petitioners note that following testing of the AVs' braking system and 
other components at a test site owned by MxV Rail, the Program, if 
approved, would take place in seven phases on a 160-mile segment of 
track in central Georgia,\2\ to progressively test and aim to prove the 
technology and collect data to support the safety case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The AVs do not couple but rather receive commands to move 
together.
    \2\ See Petition Exhibit C, ``Testing will take place between 
mileposts 503 and 577.8 on the [GC] and mileposts 577.8 and 663 on 
the [HOG], which are two Class III freight railroads that connect 
directly in Vidalia, GA.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners state that the goal of the technology is to provide 
smaller freight railroads an opportunity to meaningfully compete in the 
short-haul transportation of containers, and the technology would 
provide public benefits for the environment, the economy, the national 
highway system, and communities disproportionately impacted by highway 
movement of containers. Petitioners contend that ``safety is an 
overriding focus of the proposed Program,'' and Petitioners have 
developed, and will adhere to, a Pilot Test Safety Plan (Safety Plan), 
Exhibit C of the submission, to ensure safety during testing. 
Petitioners explain the ``Safety Plan includes protocols for hazard 
analysis, control, and verification of controls which will be reviewed 
by six technical working groups who will consider the risks associated 
with each phase and the necessary actions to mitigate each risk.''
    Petitioners provide that the Program, detailed in Exhibit B of the 
submission, ``is based on seven phases of tightly structured and 
closely monitored field testing.'' The Program would use the ``results 
of testing performed during each phase'' ``to evaluate the safety of 
the proceeding phase.'' The Program would collect ``data and service 
history'' and then ``evaluate changes in the design of the System, its 
components, and the relevant operating procedures in support of further 
testing before any proposed use of the System outside of the Program.'' 
The Program includes a structured sequence of test phases to ``allow 
collection and evaluation of the operating data in progressively more 
complex operating conditions.'' Petitioners emphasize that the priority 
``of each phase of the Program is to assure safety of railroad 
employees, other persons and property, and the general public along the 
railroad lines that will be used for the Program.''
    Petitioners state that the Program is ``designed to evaluate the 
effectiveness of the system and new operational approaches to rail 
vehicle technology in the short-haul movement of containers.'' As 
described in Exhibit B of the submission, the Program will gather 
``quantitative and qualitative data'' in each phase and evaluate the 
reliability, compatibility, and cost of operation, along with a safety 
analysis. Additionally, phase-specific testing objectives are 
identified in the submission (e.g., to determine if conditions at the 
test track affect controllability of the vehicle, as well as identify 
any sources of variation between phases).
    The testing is planned in seven phases, with defined success 
criteria that must be achieved prior to FRA approval to move to the 
next test phase:
     Phase 1--Verification of Vehicle Communications, Traction 
and Braking: Criteria to move to the next phase include successful 
validation of all vehicle controls and validation of all field test 
procedures, communication, and safety protocols.
     Phase 2--Testing Over a Longer Distance and More Diverse 
Territory: Criteria to move to the next phase include successful 
validation of all vehicle controls throughout the longer distances and 
more diverse territory, control of the vehicle is fully validated, and 
confirmation of shunting at a grade crossing.
     Phase 3--Validation of Remote Capability of Vehicle With 
Direct Supervision: Criteria to move to the next phase include 
successful validation of all vehicle controls over the broader 
environment, validation of remote monitoring and video links, including 
back-up when communications fail, and shunting validation over the 
territory.
     Phase 4--Testing and Data Gathering With Extended Remote 
Operations: Criteria to move to the next phase include final validation 
of all vehicle controls, validation of remote monitoring and video 
links, including back-up when there is a communications failure, and 
shunting validation over the territory.
     Phase 5--Vehicle Upgrades To Enhance Reliability and 
Performance (Based on Previous Phases): Criteria to move to the next 
phase include re-validation of all vehicle controls, re-validation of 
remote monitoring and video links, including back-up when

[[Page 9054]]

communications fail, and shunting re-validation over the territory with 
the upgraded vehicle.
     Phase 6--Concurrent Operations of Vehicle With 
Conventional Train Service: Criteria to move to the next phase include 
all vehicle controls and functionality are reliable, intermixed 
operations are validated, remote monitoring and video links are 
reliable, and shunting is validated.
     Phase 7--Traverse Entire Route WithMultiple Vehicles 
(Platooning): At the completion of Phase 7, the vehicle controls and 
functionality will be reliable, intermixed operations validated, 
platooning operations validated, remote monitoring and video links 
reliable, and shunting validated.
    FRA conducted a public hearing on March 12, 2024, to provide the 
public an opportunity to provide oral comment on the petition. 
Additionally, as explained in Petitioners' submission, Petitioners have 
performed outreach to local, State, and federal government 
representatives, and local authorities in Georgia.

Evaluation of Petition

    After review and analysis of Petitioners' submission and public 
comments, FRA approves temporary, limited suspension of compliance with 
Impacted FRA Safety Standards 3 4 in connection with the 
Test Program, subject to certain conditions designed to ensure 
safety.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 49 CFR part 218, Operating Practices: Sec. Sec.  218.55 
through 59.
    49 CFR part 229, Locomotive Safety Standards: Sec. Sec.  
229.9(a)(3), 229.13, 229.15(a)(10), 229.29, 229.47, 229.53, 
229.55(b), 229.71, 229.115(a) and (c), 229.117, 229.119, 229.127, 
229.131(a), 229.137, 229.139, 229.141, 229.201 through 206, 229.301 
through 319.
    49 CFR part 231, Railroad Safety Appliance Standards: Sec. Sec.  
231.6(a), 231.6(d), 231.6(e).
    49 CFR part 232, Brake System Safety Standards for Freight and 
Other Non-Passenger Trains and Equipment: Sec. Sec.  232.103(f), 
(g), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), (o), 232.205-212, 232.215, 232.303, 
232.305, 232.503, 232.505.
    49 CFR part 236--Rules, Standards, and Instructions Governing 
the Installation, Inspection, Maintenance and Repair of Signal and 
Train Control Systems, Devices, and Appliances, Sec.  236.913.
    49 CFR parts 240 and 242--Qualification and Certification of 
Engineers and Conductors: Sec. Sec.  240.103 and 242.103.
    49 U.S.C. 20302.
    \4\ In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 20306, FRA may exempt 
Petitioners from the statutory requirements in 49 U.S.C. 20302 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'' or an ``agreement between national railroad labor 
representatives and the developer of the new equipment or 
technology.'' See 49 U.S.C. 20306(a), (b)(2).
    \5\ Per 49 CFR 211.51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA finds that the temporary, limited suspension of Impacted FRA 
Safety Standards is necessary to the conduct of the approved Test 
Program, which is specifically designed to test self-propelled, zero-
emission, battery-electric rail vehicles and their associated computer 
and telemetry technology systems and evaluate the effectiveness of the 
system and new operational approaches to rail vehicle technology in the 
short-haul movement of containers. Many of the suspensions are 
necessary because the newly designed equipment does not have certain 
conventional mechanical elements to which the regulations apply. For 
example, the vehicle does not have a cab and does not couple to other 
equipment. Similarly, there is no need for hand holds, ladders, or 
other safety appliances, because the vehicle is autonomous. FRA 
acknowledges the Petitioners have installed some safety appliances for 
use during maintenance and in the event of failure recovery of the 
vehicle. Suspension of the prohibition against tampering with safety 
devices is also necessary to perform the testing. For these tests, 
other safety mitigations are in place to ensure the safety of the 
employees and public.
    Furthermore, FRA also finds that the scope and application of the 
suspensions, as applied to the Test Program, are limited to that 
necessary to conduct the Test Program. Each of the seven phases would 
take place in a limited, clearly defined area as described in the Test 
Program. Ultimately, the entire Test Program is limited to a 160-mile 
segment of track in central Georgia.
    Finally, FRA's temporary, limited suspension of compliance with 
Impacted FRA Safety Standards is conditioned on the observance of the 
following conditions (incorporated here, as listed in FRA's decision 
letter dated January 15, 2025) \6\ to ensure safety:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Conditions 1 through 23 are incorporated from FRA's decision 
letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Petitioners must provide to FRA the projected scheduled testing 
for each phase outlined in their submission. FRA subject matter experts 
(SMEs) will use this information to plan and conduct site visits to 
monitor testing for compliance with the conditions outlined in this 
notice and for observation.
    2. During each pilot phase readiness review, a multi-disciplinary 
team consisting of GC and HOG representatives (including operating and 
maintenance staff), Parallel Systems, and FRA, will review the results 
of each phase of testing and evaluate the readiness and safety of 
transitioning to the next test phase. Documentation must be provided at 
the completion of each phase to verify and validate that the criteria 
and metrics are met. Prior to Phase 1, GC and HOG representatives 
(including operating and maintenance staff), Parallel Systems, and FRA 
will hold a safety design review to discuss in detail the specific 
safety features that are designed into the system to ensure safety, 
including brake system design, electrical storage/regenerative braking, 
and emergency stop procedures. Only upon FRA's written approval will 
Petitioners be able to continue with the next phase of testing.
    3. The testing must be restricted to the territory and mileposts 
documented in the Petitioners' submission, in dark territory under 
track warrant control.
    4. Only railroad or designated representatives trained and 
qualified on Federal safety rules \7\ and railroad safety rules will 
operate the equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 49 CFR parts 214, 218, 240, 242, and 243.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. All mechanical inspections must be performed by a qualified 
inspector.
    6. All grade crossings must be flagged for all phases where 
crossings are present.
    7. Equipment must be inspected daily prior to use and each control 
console must be equipped with a digital banner indicating the equipment 
is safe to operate, or if there is a defective component, the banner 
must indicate the defect and prevent operation until the defect is 
repaired. Each control console must also have an accurate speed 
display.
    8. Each vehicle must have an appropriate direction of movement 
indicator light on the end of the vehicle that faces the direction of 
travel. The trailing end of the vehicle must have a rear end marker 
identifying the rear of the vehicle.
    9. Each vehicle must be equipped with an operable audible warning 
device (bells/whistle/alarm) that sounds at the required decibel level 
(see 49 CFR 229.129(a)) prior to vehicle movement or over grade 
crossings.
    10. Each vehicle must be equipped with a manual safety bus cut out 
switch located in a safe accessible position not on the ends of the 
vehicle, as well as having electronic remote safety stop capability on 
each control device as a first option to ensure personnel are out of 
harm's way when initiating an emergency stop.
    11. Documentation must include clear instructions on how to test, 
inspect, maintain, and operate the brake system

[[Page 9055]]

and what to do in the event of a brake failure.
    12. Documentation must clearly define procedures to ensure the 
vehicle does not move (roll back or forward) when initiating a 
movement, including performing a standing braking test.
    13. Brake calibration/inspection/maintenance processes must be 
clearly outlined and adhered to for the duration of the test.
    14. Communications loss criteria between the vehicle and operator 
must be documented on the FRA Form 6180.49A (blue card). Length of 
communications loss before an automatic brake application must be 
documented prior to operation.
    15. Test Program must address electronic safety features during the 
handoff between traction and braking. The Program must identify 
failsafe stop/emergency procedures in the event of a failure, outlining 
the electronics logic on how to enforce an emergency stop when there is 
a fault.
    16. Test Program must provide a complete description of the braking 
technology process, including how energy stored in the batteries is 
managed to prevent overcharge from regenerative braking.
    17. Petitioners must provide emergency response training for all 
emergency responders who might be called to respond in the event of an 
emergency.
    18. Although these vehicles do not couple, there must be a 
provision for a rescue coupler or alternate process to provide a safe 
way to move the vehicle in the event of a system failure or emergency.
    19. Petitioners must produce and provide FRA with a monthly test 
report in a common electronic format reviewable by FRA (such as in an 
Excel file). The report will contain information pertaining to the test 
area to include vehicle identification, date of each test, geographic 
(milepost) limits of the test, issues identified, anomalies and 
proposed solutions.
    20. Prior to advancing beyond Phase 2 and in accordance with 
Condition 2, petitioners must provide FRA with specific documentation 
explaining how safety-critical products were developed, how the 
equipment is inspected, a concept of operations, maintenance schedule 
and a thorough testing plan indicating what constitutes a pass or fail. 
Petitioners must also describe how personnel working with safety-
critical products will be trained to perform functions of the Program 
safely. Petitioners must provide FRA with an updated Railroad Safety 
Program Plan and Product Safety Plan and obtain FRA approval before any 
Phase 3 testing begins.
    21. All personnel involved in the process outlined in this approval 
must be informed of the content and be aware of the conditions prior to 
participation in the process. Petitioners must make readily available 
at every test segment location a copy of the waiver decision letter and 
the test program and any amendments prior to participation in the test.
    22. As this technology and operating approach does not involve a 
locomotive cab where facilities would normally be located, the 
Petitioners must make available lavatory facilities for operating and 
test crews.
    23. End handholds and uncoupling levers are not applicable to this 
equipment because it does not couple. Based on evidence during the 
March 2024 hearing, FRA exempts Petitioners from the requirements of 49 
U.S.C. 20302 for purposes of testing this new technology. The purpose 
of the statute is to protect employees who are between traditional rail 
equipment lacing air hoses and coupling equipment, but, because this 
novel equipment being tested does not couple or have air hoses, the 
risk has been engineered out.

Conclusion

    This test program is approved. Based on the consideration and 
analysis of data gathered during the Program, or upon Petitioners' 
written request, FRA may modify or rescind the approval.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Kyle David Fields,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2025-02252 Filed 2-4-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
```