6370 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Parts 223 and 238 

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

2] 

RIN 2130–AB72 

Passenger Train Emergency Systems; 

Emergency Communication, 

Emergency Egress, and Rescue 

Access 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule is intended to 

further the safety of passenger train 

occupants through both enhancements 

and additions to FRA’s existing 

requirements for emergency systems on 

passenger trains. In this final rule, FRA 

is enhancing existing requirements for 

emergency window exits and 

establishing requirements for rescue 

access windows for emergency 

responders to use to evacuate passenger 

train occupants. FRA is also enhancing 

passenger train emergency system 

requirements by expanding the 

application of existing requirements that 

are currently applicable only to 

passenger trains operating at speeds in 

excess of 125 mph (Tier II passenger 

trains) to cover passenger trains 

operating at speeds at or below 125 mph 

(Tier I passenger trains) as well; in 

particular, these enhancements require 

that Tier I passenger trains be equipped 

with public address (PA) and intercom 

systems for emergency communication 

and that passenger cars provide 

emergency roof access for use by 

emergency responders. FRA is applying 

certain of the requirements to both 

existing and new passenger equipment, 

while other requirements apply to new 

passenger equipment only. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: The final rule is 

effective April 1, 2008. The 

incorporation by reference of a certain 

publication listed in the rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of April 1, 2008. Petitions for 

reconsideration of this final rule must 

be received not later than March 17, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: Any petition for 

reconsideration should reference Docket 

No. FRA–2006–25273, Notice No. 2, and 

be submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting petitions for 

reconsideration and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the Public Participation heading of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. Note that all petitions 

for reconsideration received will be 

posted without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Please 

see the Privacy Act heading below. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents, comments, 

or petitions for reconsideration 

received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov anytime, or to the 

Docket Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brenda J. Moscoso, Office of Safety, 

Staff Director, Planning and Evaluation, 

Mail Stop 25, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 

(telephone 202–493–6282); Daniel L. 

Alpert, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief 

Counsel, Mail Stop 10, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 

(telephone 202–493–6026); or Anna 

Nassif Winkle, Trial Attorney, Office of 

Chief Counsel, Mail Stop 10, Federal 

Railroad Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 

20590 (telephone 202–493–6166). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Supplementary 

Information 

I. Statutory Background 

II. Proceedings to Date 

A. Proceedings To Carry Out the Initial 

Rulemaking Mandate 

B. Key Issues Identified for Future 

Rulemaking 

C. Railroad Safety Advisory Committee 

(RSAC) Overview 

D. Establishment of the Passenger Safety 

Working Group 

E. Establishment of the Emergency 

Preparedness Task Force 

F. Development of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) 

G. Development of the Final Rule, 

including Response to Written 

Comments 

III. Technical Background 

A. Change in the Composition of the 

Passenger Car Fleet 

B. National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB) Safety Recommendation on 

Windows 

C. Need for Emergency Communication 

Systems 

D. Window Technology 

E. American Public Transportation 

Association’s (APTA) Standard for 

Emergency Evacuation Units 

IV. General Overview of Requirements 

A. Emergency Window Exits and Rescue 

Access Windows 

B. Emergency Communication Systems— 

PA and Intercom Systems 

C. Emergency Roof Access 

D. Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance 

V. Section-by-Section Analysis 

VI. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive 

Order 13272 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

D. Federalism Implications 

E. Environmental Impact 

F. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 

G. Energy Impact 

H. Trade Impact 

I. Privacy Act 

VII. List of Subjects 

I. Statutory Background 

In September of 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 of the 

initiatives arising from this Rail Safety 

Summit, the Secretary announced that 

DOT would begin developing safety 

standards for rail passenger equipment 

over a five-year period. In November of 

1994, Congress adopted the Secretary’s 

schedule for implementing rail 

passenger equipment safety regulations 

and included it in the Federal Railroad 

Safety Authorization Act of 1994 (the 

Act), Pub. L. No. 103–440, 108 Stat. 

4619, 4623–4624 (November 2, 1994). 

Congress also authorized the Secretary 

to consult with various organizations 

involved in passenger train operations 

for purposes of prescribing and 

amending these regulations, as well as 

issuing orders pursuant to them. Section 

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

20133. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6371 

II. Proceedings to Date 

A. Proceedings To Carry Out the Initial 

Rulemaking Mandate 

The Secretary delegated these 

rulemaking responsibilities to the 

Federal Railroad Administrator, see 49 

CFR 1.49(m), and FRA formed the 

Passenger Equipment Safety Standards 

Working Group to provide FRA with 

advice in developing the regulations. On 

June 17, 1996, FRA published an 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

(ANPRM) concerning the establishment 

of comprehensive safety standards for 

railroad passenger equipment. See 61 

FR 30672. The ANPRM provided 

background information on the need for 

such standards, offered preliminary 

ideas on approaching passenger safety 

issues, and presented questions on 

various passenger safety topics. 

Following consideration of comments 

received on the ANPRM and advice 

from FRA’s Passenger Equipment Safety 

Standards Working Group, FRA 

published an NPRM on September 23, 

1997, to establish comprehensive safety 

standards for railroad passenger 

equipment. See 62 FR 49728. In 

addition to requesting written comment 

on the NPRM, FRA also solicited oral 

comment at a public hearing held on 

November 21, 1997. FRA considered the 

comments received on the NPRM and 

prepared a final rule establishing 

comprehensive safety standards for 

passenger equipment, which was 

published on May 12, 1999. See 64 FR 

25540. 

After publication of the final rule, 

interested parties filed petitions seeking 

FRA’s reconsideration of certain 

requirements contained in the rule. 

These petitions generally related to the 

following subject areas: structural 

design; fire safety; training; inspection, 

testing, and maintenance; and 

movement of defective equipment. To 

address the petitions, FRA grouped 

issues together and published in the 

Federal Register three sets of 

amendments to the final rule. Each set 

of amendments summarized the petition 

requests at issue, explained what action, 

if any, FRA decided to take in response 

to the issues raised, and described 

FRA’s justifications for its decisions and 

any action taken. Specifically, on July 3, 

2000, FRA issued a response to the 

petitions for reconsideration relating to 

the inspection, testing, and maintenance 

of passenger equipment, the movement 

of defective passenger equipment, and 

other miscellaneous provisions related 

to mechanical issues contained in the 

final rule. See 65 FR 41284. On April 

23, 2002, FRA responded to all 

remaining issues raised in the petitions 

for reconsideration, with the exception 

of those relating to fire safety. See 67 FR 

19970. Finally, on June 25, 2002, FRA 

completed its response to the petitions 

for reconsideration by publishing a 

response to the petitions for 

reconsideration concerning the fire 

safety portion of the rule. See 67 FR 

42892. (For more detailed information 

on the petitions for reconsideration and 

FRA’s response to them, please see 

these three rulemaking documents.) The 

product of this rulemaking was codified 

primarily at 49 CFR part 238 and 

secondarily at 49 CFR parts 216, 223, 

229, 231, and 232. 

Meanwhile, another rulemaking on 

passenger train emergency preparedness 

produced a final rule codified at 49 CFR 

part 239. See 63 FR 24629 (May 4, 

1998). The rule addresses passenger 

train emergencies of various kinds, 

including security situations, and 

requires the preparation, adoption, and 

implementation of emergency 

preparedness plans by railroads 

connected with the operation of 

passenger trains. The emergency 

preparedness plans must include 

elements such as communication, 

employee training and qualification, 

joint operations, tunnel safety, liaison 

with emergency responders, on-board 

emergency equipment, and passenger 

safety information. The rule requires 

each affected railroad to instruct its 

employees on the applicable provisions 

of its plan, and the plan adopted by 

each railroad is subject to formal review 

and approval by FRA. The rule also 

requires each railroad operating 

passenger train service to conduct 

emergency simulations to determine its 

capability to execute the emergency 

preparedness plan under the variety of 

emergency scenarios that could 

reasonably be expected to occur. 

In addition, in promulgating the rule, 

FRA established specific requirements 

for passenger train emergency systems. 

Among these are requirements that all 

emergency window exits and all 

windows intended for rescue access by 

emergency responders be marked and 

that instructions be provided for their 

use; and also requirements that all door 

exits intended for egress be lighted or 

marked, all door exits intended for 

rescue access by emergency responders 

be marked, and that instructions be 

provided for their use. 

B. Key Issues Identified for Future 

Rulemaking 

While FRA had completed these 

rulemakings, FRA had identified 

various issues for possible future 

rulemaking, including those to be 

addressed following the completion of 

additional research, the gathering of 

additional operating experience, or the 

development of industry standards, or 

all three. One such issue concerned 

expanding the application of emergency 

system requirements pertaining to Tier 

II passenger equipment to Tier I 

passenger equipment as well. Another 

issue concerned specifying minimum 

numbers and locations of windows 

intended for emergency responder 

access to passenger cars, as 49 CFR 

223.9(d)(2) addressed only marking and 

instruction requirements and did not 

provide any express requirement that 

any rescue access windows be present. 

FRA and interested industry members 

also began identifying other issues 

related to the new passenger equipment 

safety standards and the passenger train 

emergency preparedness regulations. 

FRA decided to address these issues 

with the assistance of RSAC. 

C. RSAC Overview 

In March 1996, FRA established 

RSAC, which provides a forum for 

developing consensus recommendations 

to FRA’s Administrator on rulemakings 

and other safety program issues. The 

Committee includes representation from 

all of the agency’s major customer 

groups, including railroads, labor 

organizations, suppliers and 

manufacturers, and other interested 

parties. A list of member groups follows: 

• American Association of Private 

Railroad Car Owners (AAPRCO); 

• American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO); 

• American Chemistry Council; 

• American Petroleum Institute; 

• APTA; 

• American Short Line and Regional 

Railroad Association (ASLRRA); 

• American Train Dispatchers 

Association; 

• Association of American Railroads 

(AAR); 

• Association of Railway Museums; 

• Association of State Rail Safety 

Managers (ASRSM); 

• Brotherhood of Locomotive 

Engineers and Trainmen (BLET); 

• Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way 

Employees Division; 

• Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen 

(BRS); 

• Chlorine Institute; 

• Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA)*; 

• Fertilizer Institute; 

• High Speed Ground Transportation 

Association (HSGTA); 

• Institute of Makers of Explosives; 

• International Association of 

Machinists and Aerospace Workers; 

• International Brotherhood of 

Electrical Workers (IBEW); 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
6372 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

• Labor Council for Latin American 

Advancement*; 

• League of Railway Industry 

Women*; 

• National Association of Railroad 

Passengers (NARP); 

• National Association of Railway 

Business Women*; 

• National Conference of Firemen & 

Oilers; 

• National Railroad Construction and 

Maintenance Association; 

• National Railroad Passenger 

Corporation (Amtrak); 

• NTSB *; 

• Railway Supply Institute (RSI); 

Indicates associate, non-voting 

membership. 

• Safe Travel America (STA); 

• Secretaria de Comunicaciones y 

Transporte*; 

• Sheet Metal Workers International 

Association (SMWIA); 

• Tourist Railway Association, Inc.; 

• Transport Canada*; 

• Transport Workers Union of 

America (TWU); 

• Transportation Communications 

International Union/BRC (TCIU/BRC); 

• Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA)*; and 

• United Transportation Union 

(UTU). 

* Indicates associate, non-voting 

membership. 

When appropriate, FRA assigns a task 

to RSAC, and after consideration and 

debate, RSAC may accept or reject the 

task. If the task is accepted, RSAC 

establishes a working group that 

possesses the appropriate expertise and 

representation of interests to develop 

recommendations to FRA for action on 

the task. These recommendations are 

developed by consensus. A working 

group may establish one or more task 

forces to develop facts and options on 

a particular aspect of a given task. The 

individual task force then provides that 

information to the working group for 

consideration. If a working group comes 

to unanimous consensus on 

recommendations for action, the 

package is presented to the full RSAC 

for a vote. If the proposal is accepted by 

a simple majority of RSAC, the proposal 

is formally recommended to FRA. FRA 

then determines what action to take on 

the recommendation. Because FRA staff 

play an active role at the working group 

level in discussing the issues and 

options and in drafting the language of 

the consensus proposal, FRA is often 

favorably inclined toward the RSAC 

recommendation. However, FRA is in 

no way bound to follow the 

recommendation, and the agency 

exercises its independent judgment on 

whether the recommended rule achieves 

the agency’s regulatory goal, is soundly 

supported, and is in accordance with 

policy and legal requirements. Often, 

FRA varies in some respects from the 

RSAC recommendation in developing 

the actual regulatory proposal or final 

rule. Any such variations would be 

noted and explained in the rulemaking 

document issued by FRA. If the working 

group or RSAC is unable to reach 

consensus on a recommendation for 

action, FRA moves ahead to resolve the 

issue through traditional rulemaking 

proceedings. 

D. Establishment of the Passenger Safety 

Working Group 

On May 20, 2003, FRA presented, and 

RSAC accepted, the task of reviewing 

existing passenger equipment safety 

needs and programs and recommending 

consideration of specific actions that 

could be useful in advancing the safety 

of rail passenger service. The RSAC 

established the Passenger Safety 

Working Group (Working Group) to 

handle this task and develop 

recommendations for the full RSAC to 

consider. Members of the Working 

Group, in addition to FRA, include the 

following: 

• AAR, including members from 

BNSF Railway Company (BNSF), CSX 

Transportation, Inc., and Union Pacific 

Railroad Company; 

• AAPRCO; 

• AASHTO; 

• Amtrak; 

• APTA, including members from 

Bombardier, Inc., LDK Engineering, 

Herzog Transit Services, Inc., Long 

Island Rail Road (LIRR), Metro-North 

Commuter Railroad Company (MetroNorth), Northeast Illinois Regional 

Commuter Railroad Corporation (Metra), 

Southern California Regional Rail 

Authority (Metrolink), and Southeastern 

Pennsylvania Transportation Authority 

(SEPTA); 

• BLET; 

• BRS; 

• FTA; 

• HSGTA; 

• IBEW; 

• NARP; 

• RSI; 

• SMWIA; 

• STA; 

• TCIU/BRC; 

• TWU; and 

• UTU. 

Staff from DOT’s John A. Volpe 

National Transportation Systems Center 

(Volpe Center) attended all of the 

meetings and contributed to the 

technical discussions. In addition, staff 

from the NTSB met with the Working 

Group when possible. The Working 

Group has held ten meetings on the 

following dates and locations: 

• September 9–10, 2003, in 

Washington, DC; 

• November 6, 2003, in Philadelphia, 

PA; 

• May 11, 2004, in Schaumburg, IL; 

• October 26–27, 2004 in Linthicum/ 

Baltimore, MD; 

• March 9–10, 2005, in Ft. 

Lauderdale, FL; 

• September 7, 2005 in Chicago, IL; 

• March 21–22, 2006 in Ft. 

Lauderdale, FL; 

• September 12–13, 2006 in Orlando, 

FL; 

• April 17–18, 2007 in Orlando, FL; 

and 

• December 11, 2007 in Ft. 

Lauderdale, FL. 

At the meetings in Chicago and Ft. 

Lauderdale in 2005, FRA met with 

representatives of Tri-County Commuter 

Rail and Metra, respectively, and toured 

their passenger equipment. The visits, 

which included demonstrations of 

emergency system features, were open 

to all members of the Working Group, 

and FRA believes they have added to 

the collective understanding of the 

Group in identifying and addressing 

passenger train emergency system 

issues. 

E. Establishment of the Emergency 

Preparedness Task Force 

Due to the variety of issues involved, 

at its November 2003 meeting the 

Working Group established four task 

forces—smaller groups to develop 

recommendations on specific issues 

within each group’s particular area of 

expertise. Members of the task forces 

include various representatives from the 

respective organizations that were part 

of the larger Working Group. One of 

these task forces was assigned the job of 

identifying and developing issues and 

recommendations specifically related to 

the inspection, testing, and operation of 

passenger equipment as well as 

concerns related to the attachment of 

safety appliances on passenger 

equipment. An NPRM on these topics 

was published on December 8, 2005 (see 

70 FR 73069), and a final rule was 

published on October 19, 2006 (see 71 

FR 61835). Another of these task forces 

was assigned the job of developing 

recommendations related to window 

glazing integrity, structural 

crashworthiness, and the protection of 

occupants during accidents and 

incidents. This work of this task force 

led to the publication of an NPRM 

focused on enhancing the front-end 

strength of cab cars and multiple-unit 

(MU) locomotives on August 1, 2007. 

See 72 FR 42016. Another task force, the 

Emergency Preparedness Task Force 

(Task Force), was established to identify 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6373 

issues and develop recommendations 

related to emergency systems, 

procedures, and equipment. 

Specifically, the Task Force was charged 

with evaluating APTA’s standards for 

emergency systems for their 

incorporation by reference as Federal 

standards and requirements. These 

APTA standards are aimed at promoting 

the ability of passenger car occupants to 

reach, identify, and operate emergency 

exits under various conditions. The 

Task Force was also given the 

responsibility of addressing a number of 

other emergency systems issues and to 

recommend any research necessary to 

facilitate their resolution. Members of 

the Task Force, in addition to FRA, 

include, or have included, the 

following: 

• Amtrak; 

• APTA, including members from 

Bombardier, Ellcon National, Go 

Transit, Interfleet, Jacobs Civil 

Engineering, Jessup Manufacturing 

Company, Kawasaki Rail Car, Inc., LDK 

Engineering, LIRR, LTK, Luminator, 

Maryland Transit Administration, 

Massachusetts Bay Transportation 

Authority (MBTA), Metrolink, MetroNorth, Northern Indiana Commuter 

Transit District (NICTD), SEPTA, San 

Diego Northern Commuter Railroad 

(Coaster), Permalight, PO’s Ability USA, 

Inc., Prolink, Transit Design Group 

(TDG),Transit Safety Management 

(TSM), Translite, STV Inc., and Visual 

Marking Systems, Inc.; 

• BLET; 

• California Department of 

Transportation (Caltrans); 

• FTA; 

• NARP; 

• RSI, including Globe Transportation 

Graphics; 

• TWU; and 

• UTU. 

While not voting members of the Task 

Force, representatives from the NTSB 

and from TSA, of the U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS), attended 

certain of the meetings and contributed 

to the discussions of the Task Force. In 

addition, staff from the Volpe Center 

attended all of the meetings and 

contributed to the technical discussions 

through their comments and 

presentations and by setting up various 

lighting, marking, and signage 

demonstrations. 

The Task Force has held 15 meetings 

on the following dates and locations: 

• February 25–26, 2004, in Los 

Angeles, CA; 

• April 14–15, 2004, in Cambridge, 

MA; 

• July 7–8, 2004, in Washington, DC; 

• September 13–14, 2004, in New 

York, NY; 

• December 1–2, 2004, in San Diego, 

CA; 

• February 16–17, 2005, in 

Philadelphia, PA; 

• April 19–20, 2005, in Cambridge, 

MA; 

• August 2–3, 2005, in Cambridge, 

MA; 

• December 13–14, 2005, in 

Baltimore, MD; 

• August 10, 2006, in Grapevine, TX; 

• October 25–26, 2006, in 

Philadelphia, PA; 

• December 6–7, 2006, in 

Washington, DC; 

• March 28–29, 2007, in Los Angeles, 

CA; 

• June 13–14, 2007, in San Francisco, 

CA; and 

• October 17–18, 2007, in Arlington, 

VA. 

At meetings in Los Angeles, 

Cambridge, Washington, New York, San 

Diego, Philadelphia, and San Francisco, 

FRA met with representatives of 

Metrolink, MBTA, Amtrak, LIRR, 

Coaster, SEPTA, and Caltrans, 

respectively, and toured their passenger 

equipment. The visits were open to all 

members of the Task Force and 

included demonstration of emergency 

system features. As in the case of the 

Working Group visits, FRA believes 

they have added to the collective 

understanding of the Task Force in 

identifying and addressing passenger 

train emergency system issues for not 

only this rulemaking, but for future 

rulemakings as well. 

F. Development of the NPRM 

The NPRM was developed to address 

a number of the concerns raised and 

issues discussed during the various 

Task Force and Working Group 

meetings. Minutes of each of these 

meetings have been made part of the 

docket in this proceeding and are 

available for public inspection. The 

Working Group reached full consensus 

on all the regulatory provisions 

contained in the NPRM at its meetings 

in March and September 2005. After the 

March 2005 meeting, the Working 

Group presented its recommendations 

to the full RSAC for concurrence at its 

meeting in May 2005. All of the 

members of the full RSAC in attendance 

at its May 2005 meeting accepted the 

regulatory recommendations submitted 

by the Working Group. Thus, the 

Working Group’s recommendations 

became the full RSAC’s 

recommendations to FRA. In October 

2005, the full RSAC also recommended 

that FRA adopt a further 

recommendation from the Working 

Group at its September 2005 meeting—

that FRA grant additional time for 

compliance with the proposal on rescue 

access windows. After reviewing the 

full RSAC’s recommendations, FRA 

agreed that the recommendations 

provided a sound basis for a proposed 

rule and adopted the recommendations 

with generally minor changes for 

purposes of clarity and formatting in the 

Federal Register. 

The NPRM was published in the 

Federal Register on August 24, 2006 

(see 71 FR 50276), and FRA solicited 

public comment on it. FRA specifically 

invited comment on a number of issues 

related to the proposed requirements for 

the purpose of developing the final rule, 

in addition to notifying the public of its 

option to submit written comments on 

the NPRM and to request a public, oral 

hearing on the NPRM. 

G. Development of the Final Rule, 

including Response to Written 

Comments 

This final rule is the product of FRA’s 

review, consideration, and acceptance 

of the recommendations of the Task 

Force, Working Group, and full RSAC, 

and of the written comments on which 

they are based. FRA received two 

written comments in response to the 

publication of the NPRM: one from the 

NTSB; the other from Caltrans. The 

NTSB indicated that the NPRM was 

consistent with the intent of its safety 

recommendation to FRA relevant to 

these emergency systems, and expressed 

support for the proposed emergency 

communication system and emergency 

roof access requirements. Caltrans’

comments related to the requirement for 

staggering the location of emergency 

window exits to the extent practical and 

to the proposed requirement for 

inspecting emergency roof access 

markings. As explained further below, 

after discussing the comments with the 

Task Force, the Task Force made 

consensus recommendations to resolve 

Caltrans’ two concerns by clarifying in 

this preamble the requirement for 

staggering, and by granting Caltrans’

request to extend the interval between 

inspections for roof access markings to 

a maximum of 368 days, instead of the 

184 days that FRA had proposed. FRA 

agrees with the underlying rationale for 

these recommendations and has 

modified the final rule accordingly. FRA 

did not receive a request for a public, 

oral hearing on the NPRM, and none 

was held. 

Throughout the preamble discussion 

of this final rule, FRA refers to 

comments, views, suggestions, or 

recommendations made by members of 

the Task Force, Working Group, and full 

RSAC, as they are identified or 

contained in the minutes of their 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
6374 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

meetings. FRA does so to show the 

origin of certain issues and the nature of 

discussions concerning those issues at 

the Task Force, Working Group, and full 

RSAC level. FRA believes this serves to 

illuminate factors that it has weighed in 

making its regulatory decisions, as well 

as the logic behind those decisions. The 

reader should keep in mind, of course, 

that only the full RSAC makes 

recommendations to FRA and that it is 

the consensus recommendation of the 

full RSAC on which FRA is acting. 

However, as noted above, FRA is in no 

way bound to follow the 

recommendation, and the agency 

exercises its independent judgment on 

whether the recommended rule achieves 

the agency’s regulatory goal, is soundly 

supported, and is in accordance with 

policy and legal requirements. 

III. Technical Background 

Trends in new passenger car orders, 

experience with passenger train 

accidents, concern about emergency 

communication, and technological 

advances in emergency systems 

provided the main impetus for these 

enhancements and additions to FRA’s 

standards for passenger train emergency 

systems, as highlighted below. 

A. Change in the Composition of the 

Passenger Car Fleet 

While FRA was developing the 

Passenger Equipment Safety Standards 

and the Passenger Train Emergency 

Preparedness regulations in the 1990s, 

the operation of multi-level passenger 

cars having two seating levels for 

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

common. However, the operation of 

multi-level passenger cars having three 

seating levels for passengers (i.e., cars 

with intermediate (or mezzanine) 

seating levels) was not as prevalent in 

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

those rulemakings there was less focus 

on the need for applying emergency 

system safety standards to intermediate 

seating levels of multi-level passenger 

cars. 

Since that time, the composition of 

the Nation’s commuter rail fleet has 

changed. Multi-level passenger cars 

with passenger seating in intermediate 

levels have become more prevalent and 

now account for over 15 percent of all 

passenger cars. The intermediate seating 

levels in these multi-level passenger 

cars are normally located at the far ends 

of the cars and are connected to the 

upper and lower seating levels by stairs. 

Exterior side doors are also often located 

toward the ends of these cars to 

facilitate boarding and de-boarding. 

Given the constraint posed by station 

platform lengths and the desire to 

minimize station dwell time, railroads 

have turned to multi-level passenger 

cars with intermediate seating levels to 

meet much of the increased demand for 

service, to the extent that vertical 

clearances permit their operation. 

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

seating levels, this final rule helps to 

address the need to provide more 

explicit emergency system safety 

standards for these passenger cars. 

B. NTSB Safety Recommendation on 

Windows 

On April 23, 2002, a BNSF freight 

train collided head on with a standing 

Metrolink passenger train near 

Placentia, CA, resulting in two fatalities 

and numerous injuries on the Metrolink 

train. Though not a contributing factor 

to the fatalities or injuries, the force of 

the collision blocked the rear end door 

and also blocked the rear stairway 

linking the upper and lower seating 

levels to the seating area on the 

intermediate level at the rear of the 

Metrolink cab car. Although passengers 

in that intermediate level seating area 

did exit through an emergency window, 

no windows on the intermediate level 

had been designated for rescue access, 

and consequently no instructions for 

emergency responders to gain access to 

the intermediate level through a 

window had been posted. Concerned 

with the extent of Federal requirements 

relating to rescuing passengers from the 

intermediate level of a multi-level 

passenger car, the NTSB issued Safety 

Recommendation R–03–21 to FRA on 

November 6, 2003. Safety 

Recommendation R–03–21 provides in 

full as follows: 

Revise the language of 49 Code of Federal 

Regulations 238.113(a)(1) to reflect that 

appropriate exterior instructional signage 

describing the emergency removal procedure 

be required at emergency windows on all 

levels of a multiple-level passenger railcar. 

In a February 20, 2004 letter to the 

NTSB, FRA noted that its existing 

regulations do require that windows 

intended for emergency responder 

access on every level of a multi-level 

passenger car be clearly marked and that 

clear and understandable instructions 

for their removal be posted at or near 

the windows on the car’s exterior. See 

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

letter to passenger railroads to make this 

clear in the event there was any 

confusion about these requirements. 

Nevertheless, the NTSB’s 

recommendation highlighted the fact 

that several related concerns were not 

specifically addressed in FRA’s 

regulations. One of these concerns was 

specifying minimum numbers and 

locations of windows intended for 

emergency responder access to 

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

addressed only marking and instruction 

requirements and did not provide any 

express requirement that any such 

rescue access windows be present. A 

second prominent issue concerned 

specifying minimum numbers and 

locations of emergency window exits on 

any level of a multi-level passenger 

car—not just on main levels, as then 

provided in 49 CFR 238.113(a)(1). 

FRA informed the NTSB that it was 

reviewing and considering the necessity 

of making amendments to its safety 

standards for passenger trains through 

the RSAC process and that these and 

other passenger safety issues would be 

presented to the Working Group and the 

Task Force for their consideration. 

Therefore, FRA asked that the NTSB 

classify Safety Recommendation R–03–

21 as ‘‘Open—Acceptable Response,’’

pending the results of this effort. (The 

NTSB classification ‘‘Open—Acceptable 

Response’’ means a ‘‘[r]esponse by 

recipient indicates a planned action that 

would comply with the safety 

recommendation when completed.’’) By 

letter dated June 2, 2004, the NTSB 

formally classified the recommendation 

as FRA requested. 

The Task Force reviewed the NTSB’s 

recommendation and the related issues 

that FRA presented to it and agreed to 

address emergency window exits and 

rescue access windows on a broad basis, 

with the goal that windows for 

emergency egress and rescue access 

would be available on every level of a 

passenger car in the event that a 

stairway or interior door is 

compromised and access to the primary 

means of exit (doors) is blocked. To this 

end, the Task Force agreed to develop 

requirements for emergency window 

exits on non-main levels of multi-level 

passenger cars, and rescue access 

windows on all levels of these cars, thus 

addressing requirements for every 

seating level of a passenger car. 

C. Need for Emergency Communication 

Systems 

Traditionally, conductors and 

assistant conductors have been relied 

upon to relay information to passengers 

in both normal and emergency 

situations through face-to-face 

communication or by use of the PA 

system. However, with smaller crew 

sizes, passengers may not be able to tell 

the crew about a medical emergency, 

report a fire on board the train, or 

provide notification of other safety 

issues as quickly as may be necessary. 

For instance, a passenger in the last car 

of a train needing to report an 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6375 

emergency situation could potentially 

have to walk the entire length of the 

train to communicate with the 

conductor (assuming the crew is 

composed of an engineer and only one 

conductor). Further, if the conductor 

became incapacitated, passengers would 

need to communicate directly with the 

engineer. 

FRA also notes that the NTSB’s report 

on its investigation of the February 9, 

1996 collision near Secaucus, NJ, that 

involved two New Jersey Transit Rail 

Operations (NJTR) trains and resulted in 

three fatalities and numerous injuries, 

touches on the importance of emergency 

communication systems to prevent 

panic and further injuries. According to 

the NTSB report of the accident 

investigation, 

[a]lthough the train crews said that they 

went from car to car instructing passengers 

to remain seated, passengers said that they 

were not told about the severity of the 

situation and were concerned about a 

possible fire or being struck by an oncoming 

train. They therefore left the train and 

wandered around the tracks waiting for 

guidance, potentially posing a greater hazard 

because of the leaking fuel from train 1107. 

No crewmember used the public address 

system to communicate with passengers. By 

using the public address system, all 

passengers would have received the same 

message in less time than it would have 

taken the NJT employees to walk from car to 

car. 

The report also stated: 

Information about the possibility of a fire 

or a collision with an oncoming train could 

have been provided to passengers over the 

public address system to address their 

concerns and prevent them from leaving the 

train. The Safety Board concludes that the 

lack of public announcements addressing the 

passengers’ concerns caused them to act 

independently, evacuate the train, and 

wander along the tracks, thus potentially 

contributing to the dangerous conditions at 

the collision site. 

NTSB/RAR–97/01, at p. 27. 

In 1998, APTA recognized the 

importance of emergency 

communication systems when it issued 

APTA SS–PS–001–98, ‘‘Standard for 

Passenger Railroad Emergency 

Communications,’’ noting that the 

establishment and execution of 

communications among train crews, 

operations control personnel, and train 

passengers are of the utmost importance 

under normal circumstances. According 

to the APTA standard, during 

emergency situations such 

communications take on added 

importance in the task of assuring the 

safety of all involved. 

While the Passenger Equipment 

Safety Standards issued in 1999 by FRA 

contain requirements for two-way 

emergency communication systems for 

Tier II passenger equipment (trains 

operating at speeds exceeding 125 mph, 

but not exceeding 150 mph), there are 

no requirements that Tier I passenger 

cars be equipped with any emergency 

communication system. In that 

rulemaking, concern had been raised 

about the practicability of applying such 

requirements to Tier I passenger 

equipment because of the 

interoperability of such equipment and 

the possible incompatibility of 

communications equipment in a Tier I 

passenger train. See 64 FR 25540, 25641 

(May 12, 1999). Nevertheless, most 

existing passenger cars are equipped 

with PA systems, and intercom systems 

are common in new passenger cars. 

FRA notes that, while there are many 

possible ways for an emergency 

situation to arise on a passenger train, 

an emergency system may be useful in 

many situations, regardless of the origin 

of the emergency. In this regard, 

emergency communication systems 

provide the added benefit of conveying 

information about security threats and 

handling security concerns. According 

to TSA, terrorists have considered 

attacks on subways and trains in the 

U.S., and TSA has found that passenger 

railroads and subways in the U.S. are 

particularly high-consequence targets in 

terms of potential loss of life and 

economic disruption. DHS, including 

TSA, as well as DOT’s FRA and FTA 

have been actively engaged in 

responding to the threat of terrorism to 

our Nation’s rail system, and have 

undertaken numerous initiatives to 

advance the safety and security of 

railroad passengers, railroad employees, 

and the public as a whole. Consistent 

with this response, the ability of 

passengers to timely report suspicious 

items and suspicious activity onboard 

passenger trains to appropriate 

personnel increases the likelihood of 

detecting terrorist planning activity or 

an attempted attack and thwarting it, or 

at least disrupting it and minimizing its 

consequences. This would also be 

facilitated by the ability of the train 

crew to timely communicate emergency 

information and instructions to 

passengers in response to a security 

threat. 

FRA also notes that emergency system 

requirements for such features as 

emergency window exits and emergency 

lighting, which were not specifically 

developed to address security threats, 

may play a critical role in minimizing 

the consequences of a terrorist attack 

onboard a passenger train. The safety 

and security functions that passenger 

train emergency systems may serve 

make them vital, and further 

enhancements and additions to 

emergency systems should be explored 

both to reduce the risk of a terrorist 

attack to passenger trains, to minimize 

the consequences of such an attack if it 

occurs, and to promote passenger train 

safety overall. 

D. Window Technology 

A ‘‘zip-strip’’ is a strip of rubber 

gasketing that holds a window panel in 

place and is capable of being pulled, or 

pried and then pulled, like a zipper 

from the panel that it holds. Zip-strips 

have been used for window removal for 

some time. Yet, the introduction of 

windows using zips-strips on both faces 

of the same window has allowed 

railroads to designate for rescue access 

those windows that are best suited for 

that purpose, without impacting the 

selection of emergency window exits or 

compromising compliance with safety 

glazing requirements. Before this 

technology was available, railroads that 

used zip-strips for window removal had 

to decide which windows would be 

designated for emergency egress and 

which would be designated for rescue 

access, as there was only one zip-strip 

available to open. Equipping cars with 

more rescue access windows with zipstrips meant having fewer emergency 

window exits, all things being equal, 

even though it would be preferable to 

have more emergency window exits 

than rescue access windows as 

occupants should normally begin to 

self-evacuate via emergency window 

exits before emergency responders 

arrive to assist. Whereas railroads could 

generally designate any window for 

rescue access by providing instructions 

for removal using tools normally 

available to emergency responders to 

pop out a window, such as a sledge 

hammer or a fire axe, some railroads 

prefer to equip windows with exterior 

zips-strips for rescue access because 

they allow for window removal with 

less effort. 

In the NPRM, FRA did not propose 

that the rule require the use of zip-strips 

for rescue access windows. 

Nevertheless, FRA did propose to 

recognize ‘‘dual-function windows,’’

which serve as both emergency exit and 

rescue access windows, through the use 

of zip-strips on both faces of the 

window. FRA has adopted this proposal 

in the final rule. As explained below, 

‘‘dual-function windows’’ afford 

railroads additional flexibility in the 

location of their windows in that 

railroads are not required to find 

locations for emergency window exits 

distinct from the locations specified for 

rescue access windows, and vice-versa. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
6376 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

E. APTA’s Standard for Emergency 

Evacuation Units 

As FRA noted in the preamble to the 

final rule promulgating the Passenger 

Equipment Safety Standards, FRA has 

had under consideration a performance 

standard for emergency evacuation 

similar to that used in commercial 

aviation where a sufficient number of 

emergency exits must be provided to 

evacuate the maximum passenger load 

in a specified time for various types of 

emergency situations. See 64 FR 25550. 

FRA further noted that it would 

evaluate whether an APTA performance 

standard for emergency egress, then 

under development in APTA’s PRESS 

Task Force, should be incorporated into 

FRA’s standards. 64 FR 25551. FRA’s 

intent is that such a performance 

standard would serve to supplement, as 

necessary, FRA’s minimum 

requirements for emergency window 

exits and door exits. 

In 1999, APTA issued APTA SS–PS–

003–98, ‘‘Standard for Emergency 

Evacuation Units for Rail Passenger 

Cars.’’ This standard assigns to doors 

and window exits a numerical value, 

referred to as an ‘‘emergency evacuation 

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

to the speed and ease of passenger 

egress. Each emergency window exit is 

assigned an EEU of 1, and each door leaf 

an EEU of 2. The standard defines the 

‘‘usable exit path’’ (UXP) as the number 

of emergency window and door exits 

that can be used by passengers after an 

incident that requires emergency egress 

from the vehicle, and provides that the 

UXP be calculated as ‘‘the sum of EEUs 

for one side of the car less 50% of car 

end doors.’’ The APTA standard also 

requires railroads to assign to each new 

passenger car a ‘‘capacity exit factor’’

(CXF), which is a value equal to the 

seating capacity of the car divided by 17 

and rounded up to the next whole 

number, and to designate a sufficient 

number of exits to achieve a total EEU 

value equal to or larger than the CXF or 

the UXP. 

Although the basic approach to 

establishing egress requirements based 

on car configuration and occupant 

capacity was widely accepted, during 

development of the APTA standard 

several organizations raised issues 

regarding the methodology for assigning 

EEU values to exits. For instance, Volpe 

Center staff suggested that point values 

for windows be reduced to numbers that 

are approximately in proportion to 

estimated passenger flow rates as 

compared with low-platform doors 

without steps, and that upper-level 

windows receive no credit toward the 

minimum EEU criterion but still be 

required to provide exit paths for certain 

rare accident scenarios. It was also 

questioned whether egress rates through 

windows could be half as great as 

through single-leaf doors, as implied by 

the standard. 

The Task Force reviewed the APTA 

standard and recommended the 

continuation of evacuation test 

experiments and research to establish 

relative exit flow rates using different 

types of exits at distinct locations in the 

car, prior to considering adoption of the 

APTA standard into FRA’s standards. 

To this end, the Volpe Center conducted 

a series of test experiments on 

commuter rail car evacuation in August 

2005, and in April and May 2006, in 

Boston, MA, with the cooperation of the 

MBTA. Test experiments were 

conducted under normal and emergency 

lighting conditions, and evaluated three 

different ways of evacuating a car: 

Directly into an adjoining car; to a high 

platform using one or more side doors; 

and to a simulated, low platform using 

side doors with stairways. A report, 

which is in the process of being 

finalized, will document the results of 

these test experiments. (Due to safety 

concerns, it is not anticipated that test 

experiments will be conducted using 

windows as a means of emergency 

egress.) FRA does note that the 

emergency evacuation approach 

underlying the requirements in this 

final rule is consistent with the basic 

approach taken in developing APTA’s 

standard, as the requirements do take 

into consideration both car 

configuration and occupant capacity. 

IV. General Overview of Requirements 

A. Emergency Window Exits and Rescue 

Access Windows 

Among the most prominent issues 

identified for consideration by the 

Working Group were those involving 

emergency window exits and rescue 

access windows and how these 

windows relate to the emergency 

systems requirements overall. 

Emergency window exits are intended 

to supplement door exits, which serve 

as the preferred means of egress in an 

emergency situation, and provide an 

alternative means of emergency egress 

in life-threatening situations, should 

doors be rendered inaccessible or 

inoperable. Prior to this rulemaking 

FRA’s regulations had required that 

each single-level car and each main 

level of a multi-level passenger car have 

a minimum of four emergency window 

exits, either in a staggered configuration 

where practical or with one exit located 

in each side of each end, on each level; 

that these windows be designed to 

permit rapid and easy removal during 

an emergency without the use of a tool 

or other implement; and that 

conspicuous photo-luminescent 

marking of the windows, as well as 

instructions for their use, be provided. 

FRA’s regulations had also required that 

windows intended for rescue access be 

marked with retroreflective material, 

and that instructions for their use also 

be provided. However, FRA’s 

regulations did not require any 

minimum number of rescue access 

windows for passenger cars. 

One of the basic principles underlying 

the final rule’s requirements for both 

emergency window exits and rescue 

access windows has been to locate these 

windows in such a manner that 

passengers would be able to exit from, 

and emergency responders would be 

able to gain direct access to, each 

passenger compartment without 

requiring that they first go to another 

level of a car or through an interior 

door. Optimally, there would be a 

sufficient number of windows for 

passengers to exit from, and for 

emergency responders to get access to, 

the following: (i) Every level with 

passenger seating of a multi-level 

passenger railcar; (ii) both sides of the 

passenger railcar, in the event of a 

derailment where the exits on one side 

are compromised; and (iii) each end 

(half) of the passenger railcar, in the 

event that one end is crushed or the 

exits on that end are otherwise rendered 

inaccessible or inoperable. A constraint 

for both new and existing intermediate 

levels of multi-level passenger car 

designs is that there is limited space for 

side windows due to the presence of 

bathrooms, equipment closets, and side 

door exits. Thus, the Task Force 

recommended making the requirements 

flexible and consistent with existing car 

designs and, in certain cases, providing 

for exceptions. The exceptions for new 

equipment are limited to situations that 

arise from the need to provide 

accessible accommodations under the 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

(ADA) in compartments where there are 

no more than four seats and a suitable 

alternative is provided. The Task Force 

recommended greater flexibility for 

existing equipment to avoid costly 

window installations where none had 

previously existed (e.g., relocating an 

electrical closet so that a space large 

enough to accommodate a new window 

could be cut into the side of the car). 

During Task Force discussions, it 

became apparent that the phrase ‘‘rapid 

and easy’’ in the emergency window 

exit regulation was being interpreted in 

different ways by commuter railroads 

and car manufacturers. Some believed 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6377 

that only the removal of the gasket had 

to be rapid and easy; however, FRA 

clarified that while FRA may have cited 

examples of gaskets that were becoming 

stuck and were therefore not removable 

in a rapid and easy fashion, the central 

goal of this provision is to create an 

opening that could be used for egress, 

which necessarily includes removal of 

the window panel as well. If the 

removal of the gasket is rapid and easy, 

but the removal of the window panel is 

not, the opening becomes less useful in 

an emergency situation, or in some 

cases, effectively non-existent. Several 

members of the Task Force also 

expressed their concern that the phrase 

‘‘rapid and easy’’ was too subjective and 

not quantifiable. They requested that 

FRA adopt a more measurable 

performance-based standard instead. 

Yet, various proposals to do so based on 

a specific allotment of time to open the 

window were not adopted, as consensus 

was not reached on how that time 

would be determined. Variables such as 

a person’s height, weight, strength, and 

awareness of emergency exit operation 

and procedures all could affect the ease 

of opening a window. For example, a 

railroad maintenance employee who 

installs emergency window exits or is 

otherwise trained on their use should be 

able to open a window more quickly 

than many passengers would be able to 

do. While there was general agreement 

that a time-performance standard 

should be based on the time taken by a 

representative sample of people to open 

the window, the Task Force was not in 

a position to specify that sample. 

Although unsuccessful at reaching 

consensus on an actual measure of 

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

able to agree that promoting ‘‘rapid and 

easy’’ removal of emergency windows is 

desirable. A combination of interior car 

fixtures, such as headrests and luggage 

racks, as well as larger and heavier 

windows, can create a situation where 

the most effective and efficient method 

for removing a window is not 

immediately apparent. As a step 

towards promoting rapid and easy 

removal of the window and to address 

the situation of particular concern, the 

Task Force recommended requiring that 

instructions specifically take into 

account potential hindrances. The 

instructions may be in written or 

pictorial format, since including 

pictorials depicting the window 

removal method as part of the 

instructions can be extremely helpful. 

As for rescue access windows, the 

Task Force generally recommended 

requiring two windows on each level of 

a passenger car for rescue access (versus 

four as is required for emergency exit). 

The principal reason for requiring only 

two windows for rescue access is that 

rescue access windows are the third 

means of egress in the overall 

emergency evacuation approach, in 

which door exits serve as the first 

(preferred) means of egress and 

emergency window exits serve as the 

second. Rescue access windows have 

this tertiary role because they would be 

used as a means of last resort when 

passengers cannot evacuate themselves 

and require aid from emergency 

responders. The design of window 

gaskets also affects how many rescue 

access windows can be placed in a car, 

especially on levels where there is 

limited space for windows. For 

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

easy removal of a window can be placed 

either on the interior or the exterior of 

the car, but not on both. In this case, if 

FRA were to require four rescue access 

windows, then a railroad that has cars 

with additional emergency window 

exits (i.e., beyond the minimum of four 

per main level) would likely just replace 

some of its emergency window exits 

with rescue access windows, resulting 

in fewer emergency window exits, and 

thereby limiting the more preferred 

means of egress. For the above reasons, 

as well as for the cost of retrofitting 

existing equipment, flexibility for 

locating rescue access windows in side 

doors was added for existing equipment. 

FRA did not propose, and the final 

rule does not make, any change to 

existing requirements for emergency 

window exits in sleeping compartments 

or similar private compartments. Yet, in 

establishing requirements for minimum 

numbers of rescue access windows in 

passenger cars, FRA is requiring that 

each sleeping compartment or similar 

private compartment in a passenger car 

have a rescue access window. FRA 

believes that this new requirement is 

consistent with current practice. 

B. Emergency Communication 

Systems—PA and Intercom Systems 

While the Passenger Equipment 

Safety Standards issued in 1999 by FRA 

contain requirements for two-way (i.e., 

crew-to-passenger and passenger-tocrew) emergency communication 

systems for Tier II passenger equipment, 

FRA did not require that Tier I 

passenger cars be equipped with any 

emergency communication system. 

Nevertheless, most existing passenger 

cars are equipped with PA systems, and 

after discussing the benefits of PA 

systems in light of the challenge and 

expense of retrofitting older, existing 

passenger equipment with limited 

service life, the Task Force agreed that 

all passenger cars should, at a 

minimum, have functioning PA 

systems. A PA system allows the train 

crew to keep their passengers informed 

in an emergency situation and provide 

instructions to them in a timely manner. 

In particular, the train crew can provide 

instructions to passengers not to take an 

action that could place them in any 

greater danger, such as instructing them, 

as appropriate, to remain on the train 

and not endanger themselves by 

unnecessarily evacuating the train on 

their own. 

The Task Force also agreed that 

emergency communication systems in 

all new passenger cars should include 

intercom systems that would enable 

passengers to quickly communicate in 

emergency situations with the train 

crew. During the discussions in 

developing the NPRM concerning 

whether to require intercom systems on 

Tier I passenger equipment, some Task 

Force members expressed concern that 

if intercom systems were added at each 

end of a car, were conspicuously 

marked, and had instructions provided 

for their use, passengers may use them 

in non-emergency situations. Amtrak 

and various commuter railroads that 

operate cars with intercom systems 

indicated that they have successfully 

implemented measures to deter misuse, 

however, such as by placing the 

intercom transmission button under a 

protective covering (which also prevents 

accidental operation by a passenger 

leaning against it) and by marking it 

‘‘FOR EMERGENCY USE ONLY’’. 

The emergency communication 

system requirements in this final rule 

generally reflect current practice for Tier 

I passenger equipment operating with 

PA and intercom systems and existing 

requirements for Tier II passenger 

equipment. FRA understands that those 

Tier I passenger cars that currently do 

not have PA systems are scheduled to be 

retired from service before the 

requirement to have PA systems on 

existing Tier I passenger equipment 

becomes effective. 

C. Emergency Roof Access Locations 

Emergency roof access locations (i.e., 

roof hatches or structural weak points) 

can be especially useful in emergency 

situations where passenger cars have 

rolled onto their sides following certain 

collision and derailment scenarios. In 

such situations, doors, which are the 

preferred means of egress and access 

under normal circumstances, may be 

rendered inoperable due to structural 

damage to the door or the door pocket, 

or become extremely difficult to use 

because the car is no longer upright. 

Moreover, although emergency 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
6378 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

responders may be able to enter a car 

that is on its side via a rescue access 

window, the removal of an injured 

occupant through a side window in 

such circumstances would likewise be 

difficult or complicated, especially 

depending upon the condition of the 

occupant. 

FRA’s 1999 final rule on Passenger 

Equipment Safety Standards required 

emergency roof access locations for Tier 

II passenger equipment, but not for Tier 

I passenger equipment. The Task Force 

examined both these requirements and 

the APTA PRESS recommended 

practice RP–C&S–001–98, 

‘‘Recommended Practice for Passenger 

Equipment Roof Emergency Access,’’ in 

recommending that emergency roof 

access requirements be applied to Tier 

I passenger equipment. FRA adopted the 

Task Force’s recommendation and, in 

general, is requiring that each new 

passenger car (both Tier I and Tier II) 

have a minimum of two emergency roof 

access locations. Existing Tier I 

passenger cars are not subject to the 

requirements, while existing Tier II 

passenger cars continue to be subject to 

existing requirements. For further 

discussion and explanation of the 

requirements, including the treatment of 

Tier II power cars, please see the 

Section-by-Section Analysis of this 

preamble at Section V. 

D. Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance 

This final rule amends §§ 238.17, 

238.303, and 238.305 (which contain 

standards for movement of passenger 

equipment with other than power brake 

defects, for inspection of passenger 

equipment, and for repair of passenger 

equipment) by adding requirements for 

the inspection, testing, maintenance and 

repair of emergency communication 

systems, emergency roof access points, 

and rescue access markings. To allow 

railroads sufficient time to repair the 

equipment with minimal disruption to 

normal operations, however, flexibility 

is provided for operating equipment in 

passenger service with certain 

noncompliant conditions. In affording 

this flexibility, the final rule requires 

the railroad to adhere to specified 

procedures for the safe operation of the 

equipment. 

V. Section-by-Section Analysis 

This section-by-section analysis 

explains the provisions of the final rule 

and any changes made from the 2006 

NPRM. Of course, a number of the 

issues and provisions involving this rule 

have been discussed and addressed in 

detail in the preceding discussions. 

Accordingly, the preceding discussions 

should be considered in conjunction 

with those below and will be referenced 

as appropriate. 

Amendments to 49 CFR Part 223, Safety 

Glazing Standards—Locomotives, 

Passenger Cars and Cabooses 

Subpart A—General 

Section 223.5 Definitions 

This section, which contains a set of 

definitions of terms used in part 223, 

has been modified to clarify the 

definition of one term and to remove the 

definitions of two terms that are no 

longer used in the part because of the 

removal of § 223.9(d)(2). 

The definition of ‘‘emergency 

window’’ has been revised in this 

section, as well as in § 238.5 of this 

chapter, to clarify that the purpose of an 

emergency window is egress, and thus 

an emergency window needs to be 

removable only from the inside of a 

passenger car. Accordingly, FRA has 

revised the definition of ‘‘emergency 

window’’ to mean the segment of a sidefacing glazing panel that has been 

designed to permit rapid and easy 

removal from inside a passenger car in 

an emergency situation. FRA has also 

removed the definitions ‘‘emergency 

responder’’ and ‘‘passenger train 

service’’ in accordance with the removal 

of § 223.9(d)(2), the only section in part 

223 that referenced these terms. The 

definition ‘‘emergency responder’’ has 

been moved to part 238 of this chapter. 

Subpart B—Specific Requirements 

Section 223.9 Requirements for New 

or Rebuilt Equipment 

In the discussion of § 223.5, FRA has 

noted that the definition of ‘‘emergency 

window’’ has been amended to clarify 

that the purpose of the windows is 

egress, and thus such a window would 

need to be removable only from the 

inside of a passenger car. Section 

223.9(c) required ‘‘at least four 

emergency opening windows.’’ As the 

term ‘‘emergency opening window’’ was 

not specifically defined—but had been 

understood to mean ‘‘emergency 

window’’—FRA has modified the rule 

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

emergency windows’’ and restructured 

the section in order to provide more 

clarity. 

FRA has removed § 223.9(d) and 

merged the requirements previously 

contained therein into §§ 238.113 and 

238.114 of part 238. The requirements 

in § 223.9(d) had been added by FRA’s 

May 4, 1998 final rule on Passenger 

Train Emergency Preparedness. See 63 

FR 24629, 24643. The Passenger Train 

Emergency Preparedness final rule 

required the marking of both emergency 

window exits and windows intended for 

rescue access, and also required that 

instructions be provided for their use. 

However, the requirements applied only 

to ‘‘each railroad providing passenger 

train service,’’ a class of train service 

purposefully narrower than the general 

application section in part 223. See 

§ 223.9. Because FRA has addressed 

marking and instruction requirements 

for such windows in this train service 

in part 238, and because the 

requirements of § 223.9(d) did not apply 

to other equipment covered by part 223, 

they have been removed from part 223, 

along with the corresponding definition 

of ‘‘emergency responder’’ and 

‘‘passenger train service.’’ Further, 

removal of § 223.9(d) avoids creating 

any confusion due to duplication of the 

marking and instruction requirements in 

two different parts of the CFR, 

especially since the marking 

requirements in part 238 that have been 

adopted by FRA vary somewhat from 

the ones that were contained in 

§ 223.9(d). Nevertheless, § 223.8 will 

continue to alert the reader to additional 

requirements for emergency window 

exits for ‘‘passenger equipment’’ in part 

238, as defined in that part. 

However, because the ‘‘application’’

section of part 223 is broader than that 

of part 238, FRA has been mindful not 

to alter the application of those part 223 

requirements unaffected by the May 4, 

1998 amendments. Part 238 does not 

apply to ‘‘tourist, scenic, historic, or 

excursion operations, whether on or off 

the general railroad system of 

transportation,’’ see § 238.3(c)(3); 

whereas, part 223 does not apply to 

‘‘locomotives, passenger cars and 

cabooses that are historical or 

antiquated equipment’’ and are also 

‘‘used only for excursion, educational, 

recreational purposes or private 

transportation purposes,’’ see 

§ 223.3(b)(3). As a result of this, for 

example, tourist equipment that is 

covered by part 223 because the 

equipment is not historical or 

antiquated and is required to be 

equipped with certified glazing in all 

windows pursuant to § 223.9(c) or 

223.15(c), is still required to have four 

emergency windows (emergency 

window exits), despite its exclusion 

from the part 238 requirements. 

Appendix B to Part 223—Schedule of 

Civil Penalties 

This appendix contains a schedule of 

civil penalties to be used in connection 

with this part. Because such penalty 

schedules are statements of agency 

policy, notice and comment are not 

required prior to their issuance. See 5 

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


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6379 

invited comment on the penalty 

schedule, but no comment was received. 

FRA has amended the penalty 

schedule. As discussed above, FRA has 

merged the requirements of § 223.9(d) 

into §§ 238.113 and 238.114. 

Accordingly, FRA has modified the 

schedule of civil penalties in appendix 

B to part 223 by removing the entries for 

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

and (d)(2)(ii) of § 223.9 and the 

associated penalties. FRA has also 

revised footnote 1 to clarify the use of 

penalty codes in the penalty schedule. 

Amendments to 49 CFR Part 238, 

Passenger Equipment Safety Standards 

Subpart A—General 

Section 238.5 Definitions 

This section, which contains a set of 

definitions of terms used in part 238, 

has been modified to include definitions 

of terms used in modifications to part 

238. 

FRA has added the definition of 

‘‘dual-function window’’ to mean a 

window that is intended to serve as both 

an emergency window exit and a rescue 

access window. This term generally 

refers to a window that has a zip-strip, 

which is a strip in a window gasket that 

can be pulled from end to end to unlock 

the gasket and thus release the glazing, 

on both faces, so that it can be opened 

from both the inside of the car and the 

outside. (This definition also covers 

other methods of opening the same 

window from both the inside of the car 

and the outside.) The term has been 

added because it is referenced in 

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

requirements on the location of rescue 

access windows set forth in § 238.114. 

Dual-function windows installed to 

meet the minimum requirements 

contained in § 238.113 are not required 

to meet the § 238.114 rescue access 

window location requirements, in order 

to recognize that a railroad that installs 

four compliant emergency window exits 

that are the dual-function type has also 

installed twice the number of rescue 

access windows required. 

FRA has revised the definition of 

‘‘emergency window’’ to clarify that the 

purpose of an emergency window is 

egress, and thus such a window needs 

to be removable only from the inside of 

a passenger car. Accordingly, FRA has 

amended the definition to mean the 

segment of a side-facing glazing panel 

that has been designed to permit rapid 

and easy removal from inside a 

passenger car in an emergency situation. 

FRA has also revised the definition of 

this term in § 223.5 for consistency and 

clarity. 

FRA has added the definition of 

‘‘intercom’’ to mean a device through 

which voice communication can be 

transmitted and received. A 

transmission unit normally has a button, 

which has to be pressed to begin 

transmission or notify the crew on the 

receiving end of the intention to 

communicate using the system. An 

intercom may be a telephone apparatus. 

FRA has also added the definition of 

‘‘intercom system’’ (or 

‘‘intercommunication system’’) to mean 

a two-way, voice communication 

system. This system allows a passenger 

to communicate with a crewmember, 

typically by pressing a button, or lifting 

a telephone handset, or both. 

FRA has added the definition of 

‘‘intermediate level’’ to mean a level of 

a multi-level passenger car that is used 

for passenger seating and is normally 

located between two main levels. An 

intermediate level normally contains 

two, separate seating areas, one at each 

end of the car, and is normally 

connected to each main level by stairs. 

The term ‘‘intermediate level’’ is 

intended to distinguish a level used for 

passenger seating of a multi-level 

passenger car from a ‘‘main level’’ of 

such a car, as FRA has applied different 

requirements to the different passenger 

seating levels. Please see the discussion 

of ‘‘main level,’’ below. 

Previously, the regulatory text of part 

238 did not define the term ‘‘main 

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

in the preamble to the April 23, 2002 

final rule, FRA explained that the term 

‘‘main level’’ was intended to exclude a 

level of a car that is ‘‘principally used 

for passage between the door exits and 

passenger seating areas, or between 

seating areas,’’ and noted that such an 

area is not ‘‘principally used for 

seating’’ and includes a stairwell 

landing. See 67 FR 19973. This 

distinction raised some concerns with 

respect to intermediate levels because 

their designation as main levels would 

hinge upon an interpretation of 

‘‘principally used’’ for passenger 

seating. Some Task Force members 

believed that these levels were 

principally used for passenger seating 

because passengers who are seated there 

are spending more time on that level 

than the passengers who simply use that 

level to reach the upper level (or lower 

level). Others believed that the 

intermediate level was principally used 

for passage between levels because there 

was a greater volume of passengers 

passing through that level to reach the 

upper level (or passing through to reach 

the lower level, or both) than there were 

passengers seated on that level. In light 

of the concerns raised, FRA has defined 

‘‘intermediate level,’’ as discussed 

above, and has also defined ‘‘main 

level’’ as a level of a passenger car that 

contains a passenger compartment 

whose length is equal to or greater than 

half the length of the car. This definition 

establishes a more direct relationship 

between the number of occupants on a 

level of a car and the number of 

emergency window exits required on 

that level. The longer a level is, the 

more seats and exterior side windows it 

is able to accommodate. Since passenger 

cars are normally about 85 to 90 feet in 

length, a main level in such a car would 

be a level that contains a passenger 

compartment whose length is 

approximately 42.5 feet or more. 

Accordingly, there should be sufficient 

space for the required number of 

emergency window exits on a main 

level of a passenger car, whether or not 

there is a bathroom, kitchen, or 

equipment closet located on the same 

level. 

FRA has added the definition of ‘‘PA 

system’’ or ‘‘public address system’’ to 

mean a one-way, voice communication 

system. Such a system is used by train 

crew members to make announcements 

to passengers in both normal and 

emergency situations. Crew members 

may use the PA system to make routine 

station announcements as well as to 

communicate information regarding 

unusual occurrences, such as 

unexpected delays and emergencies. If a 

person requires immediate medical 

attention, the crew may also use the PA 

system to request assistance from 

someone onboard with medical training. 

Some PA systems have speakers located 

on the exterior of cars that are used to 

make announcements to persons in the 

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

a station platform). 

FRA has added the definition of 

‘‘passenger compartment’’ to mean an 

area of a passenger car that consists of 

a seating area and any vestibule that is 

connected to the seating area by an open 

passageway. If a door separates the 

seating area from the vestibule, the 

vestibule is not part of the passenger 

compartment. See Figure 1c to subpart 

B. This definition was necessary to 

solidify the concept that passengers 

should not have to go through an 

interior door, which could get jammed, 

or to another level in order to reach an 

emergency window exit, and likewise, 

emergency responders should be able to 

directly access passengers in need of aid 

in each such compartment. 

Consistent with the amendments to 

part 223, discussed above, FRA has 

defined ‘‘rescue access window’’ as a 

side-facing exterior window intended 

for use by emergency responders to gain 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
6380 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

access to passengers in an emergency 

situation. In some passenger cars, all 

windows may be capable of serving as 

both emergency window exits and 

rescue access windows. However, a 

railroad may choose not to designate 

one or more of these windows for rescue 

access for various reasons, including the 

presence of a third-rail shoe that could 

pose an electrocution hazard, or a high 

seatback next to the window that may 

pose a potential hindrance to window 

removal for windows that are designed 

to open by being pushed into the car. 

Some rescue access windows are 

designed with a zip-strip to release the 

window panel from its frame. In some 

cars, side-facing glazing systems are 

designed so that there is a zip-strip on 

only one side of the window panel. It is 

common for railroads to install such 

systems with a zip-strip on the exterior 

of the car for rescue access use, and also 

have one in the interior of the car for 

emergency egress use. However, to the 

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

railroad must decide whether to place 

the zip-strip on the exterior of the car 

for use in rescue access, or in the 

interior of the car for use in emergency 

egress. 

Although use of zip-strips in rescue 

access windows is common, FRA makes 

clear that they are not required. The 

adopted definition is a performance 

standard, and a rescue access window 

may be opened by other means, such as 

by shattering the window (if glass) or by 

popping the window out by applying 

force at one corner. 

Throughout the discussion of rescue 

access windows, Task Force members 

repeatedly emphasized, as the definition 

reflects, that these windows are 

intended for use by emergency 

responders to gain access to passengers 

in an emergency situation. In the 

process of reviewing the definitions in 

parts 223, 238, and 239 in composing 

the NPRM and this final rule, FRA 

noted that the term ‘‘emergency 

responder’’ was defined in parts 223 

and 239, but not in part 238. As the 

adopted part 238 definition of ‘‘rescue 

access window’’ includes the term 

‘‘emergency responder,’’ FRA believed it 

was appropriate to add the definition of 

‘‘emergency responder’’ to part 238. The 

term has been defined to mean a 

member of a police or fire department, 

or other organization involved with 

public safety charged with providing or 

coordinating emergency services, who 

responds to a passenger train 

emergency. 

FRA has added the definition of 

‘‘retroreflective material’’ to mean a 

material that is capable of reflecting 

light rays back to the light source and 

that conforms to the specifications for 

Type I Sheeting, as specified in ASTM 

International’s (ASTM) Standard D 

4956–07, ‘‘Standard Specification for 

Retroreflective Sheeting for Traffic 

Control.’’ ASTM International defines 

Type I Sheeting as ‘‘medium-intensity 

retroreflective sheeting referred to as 

‘engineering grade’ and typically 

enclosed lens glass-bead sheeting,’’ and 

FRA has incorporated the ASTM 

definition by reference. This newly 

added definition is consistent with the 

definition and requirements for 

retroreflective material markings for 

doors, windows, and roof locations 

intended for rescue access contained in 

APTA Standard SS–PS–002–98, Rev. 3, 

‘‘Standard for Emergency Signage for 

Egress/Access of Passenger Rail 

Equipment.’’ (As discussed further in 

the Section-by-Section Analysis, 

Revision 3 of this Standard was 

authorized by APTA on October 7, 

2007.) FRA notes that this APTA 

standard also requires that the 

retroreflective material be tested 

according to ASTM’s Standard E 810–

03, ‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Coefficient of Retroreflective Sheeting 

Utilizing the Coplanar Geometry.’’

FRA has added the definition of 

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

passenger car that normally contains 

passenger seating. An area with no 

actual seats but with anchors for 

securing wheelchairs is considered a 

seating area. 

FRA notes that the term ‘‘vestibule’’ is 

defined in part 238 to mean an area of 

a passenger car that normally does not 

contain seating and is used in passing 

from the seating area to the side exit 

doors. Although FRA has not revised 

the definition of ‘‘vestibule,’’ FRA 

makes clear that for purposes of part 

238, a vestibule may be located 

anywhere along a car. The location of a 

vestibule is not restricted to the far ends 

of a car but may be elsewhere, such as 

in the middle of the car. As a result, 

what some in the passenger rail industry 

commonly refer to as an entranceway, 

by virtue of where it is located in a car, 

it is considered a vestibule for purposes 

of this part. 

Section 238.17 Movement of Passenger 

Equipment With Other Than Power 

Brake Defects 

This section contains the 

requirements related to the movement of 

passenger equipment with a condition 

not in compliance with part 238, 

excluding a power brake defect, without 

civil penalty liability under this part. 

FRA has modified paragraphs (b) and (c) 

of this section to include a reference to 

the specific provisions added to the 

exterior calendar day mechanical 

inspection in § 238.303(e)(18) regarding 

rescue-access-related markings, signage, 

and instructions. Section 238.303(e)(18) 

requires that all rescue-access-related 

exterior markings, signage, and 

instructions required by § 238.114 

(rescue access windows) and 

§ 239.107(a)(2) (door exits intended for 

emergency access) be in place and, as 

applicable, conspicuous, and/or legible, 

and that certain conditions be met for 

continued use of the cars with defective 

markings, signage, or instructions. As 

these provisions contain specific 

requirements related to the continued 

use in passenger service of passenger 

cars found with defective rescue access 

signs, markings, or instructions, 

recognition of these specific limitations 

is included in both paragraphs (b) and 

(c) of this section. The requirements in 

§ 238.303(e)(18) and the conditions for 

continued use of passenger equipment 

with non-complying conditions are 

discussed in detail, below. 

In the NPRM, FRA noted that it was 

considering moving the emergency exit 

marking requirements contained in 

§ 239.107(a) into part 238, and FRA 

invited comment on whether FRA 

should do so in the final rule. FRA 

explained that since § 239.107(a) 

contains requirements for door exit 

marking, signage, and operating 

instructions, the requirements of that 

section may more logically be situated 

in the very sections containing 

requirements for door exits in part 238, 

namely, §§ 238.235 and 238.439. 

However, no comment was received on 

this matter, and the Task Force advised 

that it is not necessary to move these 

requirements into part 238 at this time. 

The Task Force noted that it would be 

advisable to consider incorporating by 

reference the APTA standard containing 

more specific requirements for 

emergency exit markings in a future 

rulemaking, instead of making nonsubstantive changes concerning where 

these requirements are currently stated 

in the CFR. FRA agreed with the Task 

Force’s recommendation, and has left 

the rule unchanged in this regard at this 

time. 

Subpart B—Safety Planning and 

General Requirements 

Section 238.113 Emergency Window 

Exits 

Prior to this final rule, this section 

contained requirements for emergency 

window exits in single-level passenger 

cars and in main levels of multi-level 

passenger cars only. Again, emergency 

window exits are intended to 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6381 

supplement door exits, which are 

normally the preferred means of egress 

in an emergency situation. Emergency 

windows provide an alternative means 

of emergency egress should doors be 

rendered inoperable or inaccessible. 

They also provide an additional means 

of egress in life-threatening situations 

requiring very rapid exit, such as a fire 

on board or submergence of the car in 

a body of water. 

To ensure that emergency window 

exit requirements apply to every level 

with passenger seating, FRA has revised 

this section expressly to include 

emergency window exit requirements 

for any level with passenger seating in 

a multi-level passenger car. FRA has 

also revised this section to require that 

emergency window exit operating 

instructions specifically address the 

presence of interior fixtures that may 

hinder the removal of the window 

panel, to facilitate its rapid and easy 

removal. 

Paragraph (a). Paragraph (a), which 

applies to both new and existing 

passenger cars, has been modified to 

specify requirements for the number 

and location of emergency window exits 

on any level with passenger seating in 

a passenger car. The requirements for 

single-level passenger cars in paragraph 

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

passenger cars in paragraph (a)(2), have 

largely remained unchanged from the 

May 12, 1999, final rule in which they 

were adopted (64 FR 25540, 25673). 

Under the 1999 final rule, single-level 

passenger cars were required to have a 

minimum of four emergency window 

exits, located ‘‘either in a staggered 

configuration where practical or with 

one located in each end of each side of 

each level.’’ FRA has slightly modified 

this language by replacing the word 

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

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

extreme forward and rear ends of a car, 

but merely the front and rear halves of 

the car. See Figure 1 to subpart B. 

Additionally, the text has been 

reorganized to emphasize that a window 

is required in each end (half) of each 

side of the car and that, if practical, the 

windows are also to be in a staggered 

configuration. This clarification 

removes any ambiguity in the former 

rule text that wrongly suggested that one 

could choose to simply stagger the 

location of the windows without regard 

to having one window in each side of 

each end. 

FRA notes that Caltrans submitted a 

comment on the requirement that the 

emergency window exits be in a 

staggered configuration, where practical. 

In its comments, Caltrans stated that its 

California cars, which are bi-level, have 

emergency window exits that are not in 

a staggered configuration, but rather 

‘‘located symmetrically on each side of 

the vehicle’’—i.e., on both sides directly 

across from each other. Caltrans also 

stated that the cars have eight 

emergency window exits in the upper 

level, twice as many emergency window 

exits than it believed were required 

under the rule. Nevertheless, Caltrans 

expressed concern that the emergency 

window exit configuration was not 

compliant with the requirement for 

staggering their location where 

practical, and requested that the rule 

make clear that for cars where the 

number of emergency window exits 

exceeds the minimum required for each 

side and each half of the car, the 

staggering of the emergency window 

exit locations is not required. 

Caltrans also stated in its comments 

that its Surfliner cars, which are also bilevel, have 23 emergency window exits 

on the upper level of each and at least 

four on the lower level of each car. In 

effect, every window frame in such cars 

contains an emergency window exit. As 

a result, Caltrans expressed concern that 

it would possibly have to eliminate 

emergency window exits in order to 

located them in a staggered 

configuration. 

FRA referred these comments to the 

Task Force for discussion and its 

recommendation. FRA expressed its 

views on Caltrans’ comments and the 

Task Force agreed that Caltrans’ cars 

were in compliance with the emergency 

window exit location requirements and 

that no change in the rule text is 

necessary. The Task Force also agreed 

with FRA’s recommendation that, 

instead of modifying the rule, the 

preamble to this final rule clarify the 

intent and application of the emergency 

window exit location requirements. 

FRA emphasizes that a railroad is not 

required to stagger the location of 

emergency window exits when it is not 

practical to do so. Further, FRA makes 

clear that the requirement to stagger 

their location is principally a concern in 

a situation where only the minimum 

number of emergency window exits is 

present so as to maximize the rate of 

egress. That is, train occupants would 

not otherwise have to crowd the same 

two areas to escape out of a window 

where the minimum number of 

emergency window exits are paired 

across from one another, i.e., paired 

symmetrically with respect to the 

longitudinal centerline of the car. Yet, 

where more than the minimum number 

of required emergency window exits are 

present, train occupants have more 

window exits to escape through, and 

there is less concern that any one 

location would be crowded. Having 

examined Caltrans’ California and 

Surfliner cars, and considered the 

number of emergency window exits 

present in each car, FRA believes that 

the cars are in compliance with the 

location requirements for emergency 

window exits. 

FRA does not believe it necessary to 

modify the final rule, however, 

especially since factors other than the 

number of emergency window exits 

need to be taken into account in 

deciding whether it is practical to 

stagger their location. Instead, FRA is 

providing the following examples of 

instances where it may not be practical 

to stagger the location of emergency 

window exits. For example, if a car has 

a symmetrical seating arrangement that 

includes face-to-face seating with tables 

or workstations in between, a railroad 

may decide to configure emergency 

window exits symmetrically with 

respect to the longitudinal centerline of 

the car. Face-to-face seating 

arrangements usually provide sufficient 

clear space for locating emergency 

window exits such that they are free of 

obstruction or potential hindrance by 

high seatbacks and thus may be more 

rapid and easy to operate in an 

emergency situation. Railroads may also 

decide not to stagger emergency 

window exits to avoid creating 

potentially hazardous situations such as 

would exist if an emergency window 

exit were located immediately above a 

third-rail shoe that could pose an 

electrocution hazard. In other instances, 

the presence of a rescue access window 

that does not also serve as an emergency 

window exit, the size of a window, or 

a combination of these, could make 

staggering the location of emergency 

window exits not practical. 

To illustrate the requirements of 

paragraph (a)(2), FRA has added Figure 

1, as referenced above. FRA had invited 

comment in the NPRM on whether this 

and other figures proposed in the NPRM 

for inclusion in part 238 would be 

helpful in understanding the 

requirements of this part, and, if so, 

whether any additional figures should 

be included. FRA also noted that the 

proposed figures, which were not drawn 

to scale, represented possible ways of 

complying with the proposed 

requirements and should not be 

construed as depicting the only way to 

comply. While no written comments 

were received on this issue, both the 

Task Force and the Working Group 

recommended that FRA retain these 

figures in the final rule. FRA has 

decided to include the figures in the 

final rule as proposed. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
6382 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Paragraph (a)(3) contains the new 

requirements for emergency window 

exits on non-main levels with seating 

areas of multi-level passenger cars, 

including intermediate (or mezzanine) 

seating levels. The general intent of the 

paragraph is to have at least one 

emergency window exit that is 

accessible to passengers in each side of 

a passenger seating area without 

requiring the passengers to move to 

another level of the car or pass through 

a door. This will help ensure that, if a 

car rolls onto its side or if there is a 

hazard on one side of the train, an 

emergency window exit on the opposite 

side will be available to passengers and 

crew members for emergency egress. 

Nevertheless, as further discussed 

below, a constraint for intermediate 

levels of both new and existing multilevel passenger car designs is limited 

space due to the presence of bathrooms, 

equipment closets, and side door exits. 

Accordingly, the requirements for the 

number and location of emergency 

window exits in paragraph (a)(3) 

provide flexibility for, and are 

consistent with, existing passenger car 

designs. 

FRA notes that in light of adding the 

new definition of ‘‘main level,’’ some 

passenger cars will no longer have main 

levels. Such cars will thus be subject to 

the requirements for other levels with 

seating areas contained in paragraph 

(a)(3). For instance, none of the levels in 

a gallery-style car (a multi-level 

passenger car with a full-height, 

enclosed vestibule in the center) meet 

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

each of the four, separate seating areas 

in such a car is subject to the emergency 

window exit number and location 

requirements adopted in paragraph 

(a)(3). Further, the requirements of 

paragraph (a)(3) are consistent with the 

number and location of emergency 

windows on existing gallery-style 

passenger cars, will not impact current 

operations, and will not diminish the 

effect of FRA’s existing requirements. 

Paragraph (a)(3)(i) of the final rule, 

which applies to both new and existing 

passenger cars on or after August 1, 

2009, generally requires that non-main 

levels that are used for passenger seating 

have at least two emergency window 

exits that are accessible to passengers in 

each seating area without requiring the 

passengers to move to another level of 

the car or pass through an interior door. 

This provision is intended to address 

situations in which stairways could 

become structurally deformed and 

interior doors could be rendered 

inoperable as a result of a collision, 

derailment, or other accident, 

obstructing access to an emergency 

window exit or a side door exit on 

another level or in a vestibule area that 

is separated from the seating area by an 

interior door. Similarly, the provision is 

intended to address situations in which 

a passenger car rolls onto its side as a 

result of a collision, derailment, or other 

accident, by providing that at least one 

of these emergency window exits be 

required in each side of the passenger 

car, except as provided below. See 

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

This provision also permits an 

emergency window exit to be located 

within an exterior side door in the 

passenger compartment of a non-main 

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

window exit in the side of the seating 

area. It should be noted that, by 

definition, a side door is not considered 

to be located within the ‘‘passenger 

compartment’’ if an interior door 

separates the seating area from the area 

where the side door is located. The 

provision requires that there be an open 

passageway between the seating area 

and the vestibule, in such a 

circumstance. Use of the word 

‘‘practical’’ allows railroads and car 

builders some discretion regarding the 

location of an emergency window exit 

in a non-main level of a car. For 

instance, this provision could be used to 

address situations where a window in a 

door in the same passenger 

compartment may be better suited for 

emergency egress than one in the 

seating area. In some cars, removal of 

the windows in the seating area may be 

hindered by seatbacks or other fixtures, 

while windows in the exterior side 

doors could potentially be more easily 

and rapidly removed. Since there would 

still be two accessible side windows in 

a passenger compartment, one on each 

side, there is no limitation on the 

number of seats that may be in the 

compartment. Moreover, the door itself 

is a means of emergency egress that, if 

operable, would allow more rapid and 

safe egress than exiting through a 

window. Nevertheless, because having 

two emergency exits at the very same 

location could result in both exits being 

rendered inoperable (as by car crush) or 

inaccessible (as by fire), FRA decided 

not to allow the unrestricted placement 

of emergency window exits in side 

doors. FRA makes clear that, all things 

being equal, emergency window exits 

should be placed in a location separate 

from side door exits. See Figure 2b to 

subpart B; compare to Figure 2a to 

subpart B. 

In determining the appropriate 

applicability date for the requirement to 

have emergency window exits in nonmain levels of multi-level passenger 

cars, it was noted that, while some 

passenger cars already have windows in 

each side of an intermediate-level 

seating area, these windows are not 

necessarily emergency window exits. 

Consequently, some time would be 

needed to change out the existing 

windows with emergency window exits 

or otherwise retrofit the windows with 

pull-handles and make any other 

modification necessary so that the 

windows would meet the requirements 

for emergency window exits. The final 

rule takes this concern into account, and 

otherwise affords railroads sufficient 

time to come into compliance, 

regardless of the state of the existing 

windows, by not making the 

requirement applicable until 18 months 

after publication of the final rule. 

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

exception for non-main levels of both 

new and existing multi-level passenger 

cars. It requires only one emergency 

window exit in a seating area in a 

passenger compartment with no more 

than four seats, if it would not be 

practical to place an emergency window 

exit in a side of the passenger 

compartment due to the need to provide 

accessible accommodations under the 

ADA and a suitable, alternate 

arrangement for emergency egress is 

provided. This exception would address 

concerns involving multi-level 

passenger cars serving passenger 

stations with high-platforms, such as on 

the Northeast Corridor. Because all 

passengers enter these cars on the 

intermediate level, and disabled 

passengers are not able to access 

accommodations on another level of the 

cars, any accommodations provided to 

passengers are located on the 

intermediate level. The final rule 

recognizes this fact, and the exception 

applies to both existing and new 

passenger cars. However, the exception 

is limited to situations that arise from 

the need to provide accessible 

accommodations under the ADA, as 

well as limited to those seating areas in 

passenger compartments where there 

are no more than four seats and where 

a suitable alternate arrangement for 

egress is provided. Use of the word 

‘‘practical’’ in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) is 

intended to extend flexibility to car 

builders to locate an electrical locker or 

other equipment closet in a side of an 

intermediate level at one end of a 

passenger car without being required to 

place an emergency window exit in the 

same side at that location, provided the 

placement of the locker or closet is 

related to placement of ADA-accessible 

accommodations in the intermediate 

level at the other end of the car. The 

limitation concerning the maximum 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6383 

number of seats in the passenger 

compartment is consistent with the 

maximum number of seats in existing 

designs for cars that are being 

manufactured with emergency window 

exits in only one side of each passenger 

compartment in an intermediate level. 

In requiring that a suitable, alternate 

arrangement for emergency egress be 

provided, such an arrangement must not 

require the use of a tool or implement 

to operate, and must be comparable to 

an emergency window exit in terms of 

being rapid and easy to use. As part of 

the Task Force’s discussion during the 

development of the NPRM, Kawasaki 

presented a car design with a seating 

area separated from a vestibule by an 

interior door and an alternate 

arrangement for emergency egress to 

address having a distinct emergency 

window exit on only one side of the 

seating area. (A copy of this design has 

been placed in the docket for this 

rulemaking.) The interior door is 

designed with a removable window 

panel (with pull-handles on both sides) 

to allow passengers access to the 

vestibule in the event the door itself 

were inoperable. Further, once a 

passenger accesses the vestibule, there 

are two exterior side doors in the 

vestibule, one on each side, that each 

contain an emergency window exit. As 

a result, in this design, a means of 

exiting the car from the side that lacks 

the distinct emergency window exit is 

available to passengers. 

A combination of several factors 

makes this type of arrangement depicted 

by Kawasaki a suitable, alternate 

arrangement for emergency egress. First, 

the alternate emergency exit location 

provides a measure of redundancy, i.e., 

a safety factor, in that there are an 

exterior side door and an emergency 

window exit in the same door. The 

door, if operable, allows passengers and 

crewmembers to exit more 

expeditiously than through a window. 

In the event that this door is rendered 

inoperable, a window meeting the 

minimum dimension requirements in 

paragraph (c) is available. To the extent 

that both the door and its window are 

inaccessible or inoperable, and the side 

door exit on the opposite side of the 

vestibule is also inaccessible or 

inoperable, the exterior side door exits 

in the adjacent car’s vestibule are then 

next in sequence for use, since this car 

design has no end-frame doors 

separating adjoining cars. In fact, should 

the end of the car become uncoupled 

from the adjacent car, the vestibule 

would be open at the end, allowing 

passengers direct access to the outside. 

Regarding the removable panel in the 

interior door leading to the vestibule, it 

should be noted that it is designed to be 

polycarbonate, rather than glass, making 

it significantly lighter, and thus easier to 

remove than a glass panel. Further, the 

opening created by removing the panel 

is large enough for a person to pass 

through it relatively quickly. 

Paragraph (a)(3)(iii) requires 

passenger cars that were both ordered 

prior to April 1, 2009 and placed in 

service prior to April 1, 2011 to have a 

minimum of only one emergency 

window exit in a non-main level seating 

area in a passenger compartment with 

no more than eight seats, if it is not 

‘‘practicable’’ to place a window exit in 

a side of the passenger compartment 

(due to the presence of a structure such 

as a bathroom, electrical locker, or 

kitchen). This exception is broader than 

the one in paragraph (a)(3)(ii), as it 

applies to non-main levels with more 

seats and is not dependent on providing 

accessible accommodations under the 

ADA. However, it does not apply to new 

cars. New car designs must take into 

consideration the need to provide an 

emergency window exit in each side of 

a passenger compartment. 

Use of the word ‘‘practicable’’ limits 

railroad discretion so that a car subject 

to this paragraph is required to have an 

emergency window exit in a side of a 

seating area, if a window suitable for 

such use is already located there. 

Nevertheless, FRA notes that a railroad 

is under no obligation to install a 

window in a side of a passenger 

compartment for purposes of providing 

an emergency window exit under this 

paragraph, if an emergency window exit 

is located in either (i) the other side of 

the same compartment or (ii) an exterior 

side door located in the same side of the 

compartment. Cutting through a side 

panel in an existing passenger car to 

install an emergency window exit is not 

required. 

Requirements for cars with sleeping 

compartments or similar private 

compartments have been clarified and 

moved from former paragraph (a)(2) to 

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

passenger car with a sleeping 

compartment or a similar private 

compartment intended to be occupied 

by a passenger or train crewmember 

continues to be required to have at least 

one emergency window exit in each 

such compartment. A private seating 

area (such as found on certain European 

trains or on some antiquated American 

trains) is a private compartment. FRA 

notes that, in a passenger car with only 

sleeping compartments, if all the 

sleeping compartment doors are locked, 

passengers in a compartment without an 

egress window would not be able to get 

into another compartment to use an 

emergency window exit. The rule 

clarifies that, for purposes of this 

paragraph, a kitchen, locomotive cab, or 

bathroom—whether public or private—

is not considered a ‘‘private 

compartment,’’ however. In particular, a 

bathroom is not considered a ‘‘private 

compartment’’ for purposes of this 

requirement because a bathroom should 

normally be located either in a sleeping 

compartment or in a passenger 

compartment, both of which are subject 

to emergency window exit 

requirements. As a result, a passenger 

should have access to an emergency 

window exit upon exiting a bathroom. 

Paragraph (b). As part of the revision 

and reorganization of this section, 

paragraph (b) contains the same 

requirements for ease of operability of 

emergency window exits that were 

stated in former paragraph (a)(3) of the 

regulation. The only modification is that 

the applicability date of November 8, 

1999, which was stated in the 

introductory text of paragraph (a), has 

been added directly to this paragraph 

(b). FRA notes that the Task Force 

considered alternatives to the existing 

standard for the ease of operating 

emergency window exits—one that 

would be capable of more objective 

quantification. One such alternative that 

was considered involved specifying a 

maximum pull-force for removing 

window gaskets and glazing, but the 

Task Force found it difficult to specify 

a uniform standard that would account 

for varying operating environments and 

weather conditions. Further discussion 

relating to the requirements of 

paragraph (b) is found below in the 

paragraph discussing the requirements 

for marking emergency window exits. 

Paragraph (c). Consistent with the 

reorganization and revision of this 

section, FRA has moved existing 

requirements for the dimensions of 

emergency window exits from former 

paragraph (b) to paragraph (c). The 

applicability date of the dimension 

requirements is unchanged from former 

paragraph (b); thus, the requirements 

continue to apply to each passenger car 

ordered on or after September 8, 2000, 

or first placed in service on or after 

September 9, 2002. FRA has slightly 

modified the requirements to allow an 

emergency window exit with an 

unobstructed opening of at least 24 

inches horizontally by 26 inches 

vertically to be located within an 

exterior side door, in accordance with 

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

this section, as discussed above. FRA 

makes clear that, for purposes of 

determining compliance with the 

emergency window exit dimension 

requirements, the dimensions of the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
6384 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

unobstructed opening are measured 

after the emergency window exit has 

been opened. For example, the 

transparent area of the window for 

viewing use by passengers or train crew 

members may be several inches smaller 

than the opening created once the 

window is removed, and that would be 

acceptable, as long as the opening 

satisfies the dimension requirements. 

The 1999 Passenger Equipment Safety 

Standards final rule required that an 

emergency window exit in a passenger 

car ordered on or after September 8, 

2000, or placed in service for the first 

time on or after September 9, 2002, have 

an unobstructed opening with minimum 

dimensions of 26 inches horizontally by 

24 inches vertically. Prior to the 

promulgation of this requirement, FRA 

had not specified the dimensions of 

emergency window exits. As a result, in 

the August 2006 NPRM, FRA stated that 

a window exit in such a passenger car 

that does not create an unobstructed 

opening meeting these minimum 

dimension requirements may not be 

considered an ‘‘emergency window 

exit’’ for purposes of this section and 

may not be marked as an ‘‘emergency 

window exit.’’ See 71 FR 50288. Yet, 

FRA noted that it did not believe it 

necessary to modify or remove such a 

window exit, provided the passenger car 

containing the window exit is otherwise 

in compliance with all applicable 

emergency window exit requirements. 

Id. 

For example, FRA is aware of window 

exits that are not capable of creating 

openings of the required dimensions 

because of the presence of seatbacks that 

do not manually recline and may, 

therefore, obstruct passage through the 

window of a stretcher or an emergency 

responder with a self-contained 

breathing apparatus but not necessarily 

a passenger or crewmember. Certain 

emergency window exit designations 

appear to have been made 

independently of interior seat 

configurations, and this has resulted in 

the expense of relocating emergency 

window exit locations post-delivery. 

However, FRA does not intend to 

discourage a railroad from retaining 

these additional window exits in its 

passenger cars, even if they would not 

create openings of the required 

dimensions, out of the agency’s concern 

for circumstances such as those present 

in the derailment of an Amtrak train 

near Mobile, AL, in September 1993. 

There, after a barge had struck and 

displaced a railroad bridge, an Amtrak 

train traversing the bridge derailed and 

fell into a bayou, drowning 42 

passengers and two crewmembers, and 

killing three other crewmembers located 

in the lead locomotive. In what has been 

the Nation’s deadliest passenger train 

accident in over 50 years, train 

occupants needed to evacuate as quickly 

as possible from cars filling with water, 

potentially making the number of 

window exits more critical than their 

precise dimensions. (FRA is not 

suggesting that the cars lacked a 

sufficient number of exits; nor is FRA 

suggesting that their exits’ dimensions 

were too small. FRA is citing this 

incident to show that circumstances can 

exist where there may be extreme 

urgency to exit a passenger car.) 

FRA invited comment on the issue of 

window exits in passenger cars ordered 

on or after September 8, 2000, or placed 

in service for the first time on or after 

September 9, 2002, that have window 

exits not meeting the minimum 

dimension requirements. FRA 

specifically invited comment on 

whether these window exits should be 

removed—i.e., replaced with 

conventional windows—and, to the 

extent that they should not be removed, 

whether any instructional marking on 

these windows should be permitted. 

Since these windows could be used for 

emergency egress if they are not 

removed, FRA also invited comment as 

to whether they should have to be tested 

periodically to ensure that they operate 

properly. FRA noted that railroads are 

currently required to test emergency 

window exits no less frequently than 

every 180 days using commonly 

accepted sampling techniques to 

determine how many windows to test. 

See § 239.107 of this chapter. In general, 

these sampling techniques require that 

the greater the percentage of window 

exits that a railroad finds defective in a 

sample, the greater the percentage of 

windows that the railroad has to test in 

total (i.e., the number of windows that 

need to be tested is adjusted upward 

when defects are found). Specifically, 

sampling should be conducted to meet 

a 95-percent confidence level that no 

defective units remain and be in accord 

with either Military Standard MIL–

STD–105(E), ‘‘Sampling for Attributes,’’

or American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI)/ASQC Z1.4–1993, 

‘‘Sampling Procedures for Inspections 

by Attributes.’’ (FRA notes that MIL–

STD–105(E) was formally cancelled by 

the U.S. Department of Defense on 

February 27, 1995. The cancellation 

notice stated that future acquisitions 

should refer to acceptable nonGovernment standard sampling 

procedures and tables for inspection by 

attributes, such as ANSI/ASQZ Z1.4–

1993.) 

FRA also noted that, although testing 

these window exits would appear 

desirable, a testing requirement may 

discourage railroads from retaining 

these window exits at all. 

The Task Force considered these 

issues and, for passenger cars ordered 

on or after September 8, 2000, or placed 

in service for the first time on or after 

September 9, 2002, recommended 

allowing railroads to designate as 

‘‘additional’’ emergency window exits 

those windows that provide an 

unobstructed opening that is smaller 

than 24 inches vertically by 26 inches 

horizontally but that would still be 

suitable for use in an emergency. The 

Task Force further recommended that 

such ‘‘additional’’ emergency window 

exits be marked for emergency exit, 

have instructions provided for their use, 

and be tested in the same manner as the 

emergency window exits designated for 

purposes of complying with the 

minimum number requirements of this 

section 238.113. 

FRA agrees with the recommendation 

of the Task Force and has revised 

paragraph (c) accordingly. There are 

now two exceptions to the requirements 

concerning dimensions, and they are 

contained in newly added paragraphs 

(c)(1) and (c)(2). The first exception, 

which was originally proposed in the 

NPRM as part of the text of paragraph 

(c), is that an emergency window exit 

located within an exterior side door in 

accordance with paragraph (a)(3)(i) of 

this section, may have an unobstructed 

opening with minimum dimensions of 

24 inches horizontally by 26 inches 

vertically, rather than 26 inches by 24 

inches. The second exception addresses 

the dimensions of ‘‘additional’’

emergency window exits. It provides 

that any additional emergency window 

exit, beyond the minimum number 

required by paragraph (a) of this section, 

that has been designated for emergency 

use by the railroad need not comply 

with the minimum dimension 

requirements in paragraph (c) of this 

section, but must otherwise comply 

with all applicable emergency window 

exit requirements. Under this new 

section, there is no obligation for a 

railroad to designate any such 

‘‘additional’’ emergency window exits 

not meeting the minimum dimension 

requirements, in the same way that 

there is no obligation for a railroad to 

have more than the minimum number of 

emergency window exits that comply 

with the dimension requirements. 

Nevertheless, when a railroad does seek 

to have in its passenger cars more than 

the minimum number of emergency 

window exits, FRA encourages the 

railroad to follow the dimension 

requirements for those additional 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6385 

window exits as well, all things being 

equal. 

In those circumstances where any 

additional emergency window exit 

cannot meet the dimension 

requirements, namely in the case of an 

existing passenger car where the seating 

configuration causes a seatback to 

obstruct part of the opening, but the 

window exit is still considered suitable 

for use in an emergency to exit the car, 

the railroad may designate it as an 

‘‘additional’’ emergency window exit. 

FRA notes that while a railroad will 

most often designate an additional 

emergency window exit by marking it 

for use, designation could also occur by 

design (i.e., if a pull handle is present) 

or by written or verbal notice to 

passengers as part of the railroad’s 

passenger safety awareness program. 

FRA chose not to adopt a similar 

exception to the dimension 

requirements for rescue access windows 

because the additional rescue access 

windows are not likely to be as useful 

in an emergency situation requiring 

immediate evacuation (e.g., to escape 

water, smoke or fire) as additional 

emergency window exits. This also 

helps to ensure that there will be no 

confusion as to whether or not the 

rescue access window is of the 

appropriate size to accommodate an 

emergency responder equipped with 

breathing equipment and a standardsized stretcher. To the extent that 

emergency responders use emergency 

window exits to evacuate passengers 

(e.g., if a responder chose to enter 

through an already-opened emergency 

window exit rather than going through 

the process of pulling open a rescue 

access window), FRA expects that the 

training made available to emergency 

responders on affected railroads would 

include discussion on the fact that some 

of these window openings may have 

smaller dimensions than those required 

for the minimum number of emergency 

window exits specified in paragraph (a). 

At the same time, the Task Force also 

recognized that emergency responders 

are well-trained and should be able to 

determine whether a window opening is 

large enough to accommodate a 

stretcher. 

Paragraph (d). As the final part of the 

reorganization and revision of this 

section, paragraph (d) has been added 

and contains the requirements for 

marking emergency window exits, as 

well as providing operating instructions 

for their use. Marking and operating 

instruction requirements for emergency 

window exits were formerly contained 

in § 223.9(d)(1) of this chapter, and were 

referenced in paragraph (c) of this 

section. The requirements in 

§ 223.9(d)(1) have been to moved to 

paragraph (d) of this section and 

modified. Paragraph (d) requires that 

each emergency window exit be 

conspicuously marked with 

luminescent material on the inside of 

each car, and that legible and 

understandable operating instructions, 

including instructions for removing the 

window panel, be posted at or near each 

such window exit. 

Notably, paragraph (d) specifically 

requires that emergency window exit 

operating instructions address potential 

hindrances to removal of the window 

panel due to the presence of fixtures in 

the car. As discussed above, FRA 

became aware that the phrase ‘‘rapid 

and easy’’ in the requirement for 

emergency window exit ease of 

operability was not being interpreted 

uniformly. Central to the issue was the 

actual removal of the window panel in 

light of the weight of the window panel 

and the presence of interior fixtures 

near the window. It is not uncommon 

for a seatback to be located adjacent to 

an emergency window exit and for a 

luggage rack to be located above the 

exit. Even if the seatback does not affect 

compliance with the dimensions 

required for an unobstructed opening 

(especially in the case of a large window 

panel), it could, together with the 

presence of the luggage rack, hinder 

removal of the window. This 

combination of fixtures could create a 

situation where the most effective and 

efficient method for operating an 

emergency window exit would not be 

immediately apparent to a passenger, 

especially if the window were large and 

heavy. As a result, to promote the rapid 

and easy removal of the window panel, 

the Task Force recommended requiring 

that emergency window exit operating 

instructions specifically take into 

account such potential hindrances. 

Accordingly, if removal of a window 

(whether it is one of the minimum 

number required or an ‘‘additional’’

emergency window exit) may be 

hindered by the presence of a seatback, 

headrest, luggage rack, or other fixture, 

the instructions must state the method 

for allowing rapid and easy removal of 

the window panel, taking into account 

the fixture(s). This particular portion of 

the instructions may be in written or 

pictorial format to provide railroads the 

flexibility to convey the appropriate 

information to passengers, especially 

since a picture (pictogram) or pictures 

(pictograms) may potentially convey the 

information more readily than written 

instructions. 

FRA also notes that former 

§ 223.9(d)(1) required that the operating 

instructions for emergency window 

exits be ‘‘clear and legible.’’ FRA has 

modified this requirement by replacing 

the word ‘‘clear’’ with the word 

‘‘understandable,’’ so that railroads are 

required to post ‘‘legible and 

understandable’’ operating instructions. 

Use of the word ‘‘clear’’ in former 

§ 223.9(d) had created some confusion 

since it can have more than one 

meaning, and FRA believes this 

amendment eliminates any further 

confusion. 

Finally, FRA notes that existing 

requirements in parts 223 and 239 for 

the marking of emergency exits, as well 

as existing requirements in part 238 for 

the marking of emergency 

communications transmission points, 

specify the use of luminescent 

materials. (Door exits intended for 

emergency egress may also be lighted, in 

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

238 defines ‘‘luminescent material’’ as 

material that absorbs light energy when 

ambient levels of light are high and 

emits this stored energy when ambient 

levels of light are low, making the 

material appear to glow in the dark. See 

§ 238.5. Paragraph (d) continues to 

require that luminescent material be 

used to mark emergency window exits. 

However, as further discussed below, 

the Task Force has considered 

incorporating an APTA standard that 

would establish specific criteria for this 

material, including how bright the 

material must be and how long the 

material must stay luminescent. 

FRA’s requirements to mark 

emergency window exits and other 

emergency exits originated with FRA 

Emergency Order No. 20. See 61 FR 

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

(Mar. 5, 1996). Among its provisions, 

the emergency order required that ‘‘no 

later than April 20, 1996, commuter and 

intercity passenger railroads ensure that 

each emergency exit location is marked 

inside the car for passenger and crew 

information.’’ In an effort to respond to 

this requirement as effectively as 

possible within the short timeframe 

required, affected railroads began to 

install photo-luminescent emergency 

exit markings that were available at the 

time. Many railroads installed signs 

made of zinc-sulfide, which were 

capable of providing luminance only for 

a period of less than 10 minutes in 

many cases. Subsequently, photoluminescent sign technology evolved, 

and other materials began to be used, 

such as strontium-aluminate, which is 

capable of providing high levels of 

luminance for much longer periods. 

Prices for such signage also decreased, 

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

(HPPL) signs comparable to that of the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
6386 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

signs installed initially. Thus, in 1999, 

APTA issued APTA SS–PS–002–98, 

‘‘Standard for Emergency Signage for 

Egress/Access of Passenger Rail 

Equipment,’’ requiring the use of HPPL 

materials for all newly-installed, passive 

emergency-exit signs and for the retrofit 

of existing cars at their remanufacture. 

According to Revision 2 of this APTA 

standard, issued in 2003, following a 

charge of five foot-candles for one hour, 

installed photo-luminescent markings 

had to emit not less than a minimum of 

7.5 milli-candela per square meter (7.5 

mcd/m2) for 90 minutes after removal of 

the charging source. The APTA standard 

set the duration period of 90 minutes to 

correspond with the 90-minute duration 

requirement for emergency lighting 

contained in § 238.115 for new 

passenger cars, which affords a 

reasonable amount of time for 

passengers and crew members to wait 

for the arrival of emergency responders 

to remote accident sites. Depending on 

the circumstances, it could take more 

than an hour for crewmembers to 

evaluate an emergency situation, 

coordinate with the control center and 

emergency responders, notify 

passengers of the appropriate action(s) 

to take, and if necessary, begin to 

evacuate the train. In conditions of 

darkness, a brighter sign is more easily 

recognizable and facilitates 

identification of emergency exits. 

As noted, the Task Force has focused 

on revisions to this APTA standard for 

purposes of incorporating it into FRA’s 

regulations. FRA considered 

incorporating elements of the APTA 

standard into this final rule so that 

emergency exit signs and intercom 

markings in passenger cars would be 

required to be made of HPPL material, 

and FRA invited comment on doing so. 

See 71 FR 50289. Although no written 

comments were received, the Task Force 

discussed at length issues associated 

with the development of HPPL material 

component requirements. One of the 

most difficult issues the Task Force 

addressed was the extent to which such 

requirements should apply to photoluminescent signs and markings already 

installed in passenger cars. Task Force 

members were particularly concerned 

that lighting levels in enclosed vestibule 

areas in existing cars were not bright 

enough to charge photo-luminescent 

signs already in place such that they 

could meet the level of luminance 

required by the APTA standard. Field 

studies and laboratory tests revealed 

two issues: (1) In many cases, the levels 

of light in vestibules and other small 

areas were inadequate for photoluminescent signs to perform as 

required by the APTA standard; and (2) 

sufficiently accurate off-axis 

illuminance measurements cannot be 

taken without the use of light meters 

especially designed to take such 

measurements—certain commonly 

available light meters are not designed 

for such a purpose. 

FRA notes that the Task Force 

separately proposed revisions to the 

APTA standard to (1) allow flexibility 

for use of different types of charging 

light sources, (2) require that new HPPL 

signs meet the same luminance 

requirements with lower charging light 

levels, (3) allow alternative testing 

criteria using meters that do not 

measure off-axis illuminance accurately, 

(4) grandfather signs that are likely to 

perform as intended for 60 minutes, and 

(5) in small areas, to allow lower levels 

of luminance or use of larger signs to 

compensate for even lower light levels. 

The Task Force advised that 

requirements in the APTA standard for 

HPPL were very detailed and complex 

and not readily transferable directly into 

this final rule. Therefore, the Task Force 

recommended incorporating such 

requirements by reference into the CFR 

through a separate rulemaking, after the 

standard had been revised and 

authorized by APTA. These would 

include various other sign and marking 

requirements, including those 

addressing size, color, and contrast. 

FRA agreed with the Task Force’s 

recommendation, and has not modified 

this final rule with respect to this issue. 

As discussed earlier, the standard was 

revised and thereafter authorized by 

APTA on October 7, 2007. The standard 

is now designated as APTA SS–PS–002–

98, Rev. 3, ‘‘Standard for Emergency 

Signage for Egress/Access of Passenger 

Rail Equipment.’’ FRA intends to use 

this standard in a separate rulemaking 

that will add to and enhance FRA’s 

marking and signage requirements for 

passenger train emergency systems. 

Section 238.114 Rescue Access 

Windows 

FRA has established a new section 

that contains requirements for rescue 

access windows for both new and 

existing passenger cars. As discussed in 

detail above, this new section was 

prompted in part by the April 23, 2002 

collision involving a Metrolink 

passenger train near Placentia, CA, and 

the ensuing NTSB Safety 

Recommendation (R–03–21) to FRA, 

which illustrated the potential 

importance of having rescue access 

windows on each level of a passenger 

car. The general intent of the provision 

is to provide a means of rescue access 

by emergency responders through a 

window directly into every passenger 

compartment on every level of a 

passenger car, in the event that a 

stairway or interior door is 

compromised and exterior doors are 

blocked. 

Paragraph (a). Paragraph (a) contains 

requirements specifying the minimum 

number and location of rescue access 

windows. These requirements apply on 

or after the effective date of the final 

rule to all passenger cars, except for 

certain, existing single-level cars. As 

noted above, although FRA’s original 

regulations did not specifically require 

any minimum number of rescue access 

windows for passenger cars, they 

continue to require that windows that 

are intended for rescue access be 

marked and that instructions be 

provided for their operation. See 

§ 223.9(d)(2). 

Paragraph (a)(1) contains the number 

and location requirements for rescue 

access windows in single-level 

passenger cars. FRA is requiring that 

each single-level passenger car have a 

minimum of two rescue access 

windows. At least one rescue access 

window must be located in each side of 

the car, entirely within 15 feet of the 

centerline of the car, or entirely within 

71⁄2 feet of the centerline if the car does 

not exceed 45 feet in length. As 

discussed above, the Task Force 

recommended requiring two windows 

for rescue access (versus four, as is 

required for emergency exit) mainly 

because rescue access windows are the 

third means of egress in the overall 

emergency systems approach, with 

doors and emergency windows being 

the first and second means of emergency 

exit, respectively. 

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

located ‘‘as close to the center of the car 

as possible,’’ unlike emergency window 

exits which should be in a staggered 

configuration to the extent practical. See 

Figure 1a to subpart B; see also Figures 

1b and 1c to subpart B. Staggering the 

location of emergency window exits is 

intended to (i) ensure that a window 

exit is available for egress in the event 

that one end of the car is deformed by 

placing window exits throughout the 

car; (ii) optimize the rate of egress, as 

passengers have less distance to move to 

reach a window exit; and (iii) avoid 

congestion that could occur if the 

window exits were all located adjacent 

to or directly opposite one another. 

Since, in general, a minimum of only 

one rescue access window per side, per 

level of a single-level passenger car is 

required, the best way to ensure that a 

window is available for access in the 

event that either end of the car is 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6387 

deformed is to locate the window in the 

center portion of the car, which is 

generally less vulnerable to significant 

deformation in the event of a collision 

involving either end of the car. 

Congestion should likely not be an issue 

for rescue access window usage in a 

situation requiring emergency 

evacuation as most car occupants 

physically able to do so would likely 

have begun to self-evacuate through 

doors and emergency window exits 

prior to the arrival of emergency 

responders. 

To ensure that railroads have 

sufficient flexibility to select those 

window locations best suited for rescue 

access, a 30-foot section along the center 

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

car has been designated for their 

location. This flexibility allows 

railroads to take into consideration the 

location of external hazards (such as 

third-rail shoes); potential hindrances 

created by interior fixtures for those 

rescue access windows intended to be 

opened by being pushed inward into the 

passenger compartment; the location of 

emergency window exits in passenger 

cars without dual-function windows; 

and other factors that a railroad may 

deem relevant. For passenger cars not 

longer than 45 feet, approximately half 

the length of a standard passenger car, 

railroads have the flexibility to select a 

rescue access window from among 

approximately three windows along a 

15-foot section in the center of the car. 

If the seating level is obstructed by an 

interior door or otherwise partitioned 

into separate seating areas, the 

regulation requires that each separate 

seating area have at least one rescue 

access window in each side of the 

seating area, located as near to the 

center of the car as practical. This 

requirement is consistent with the 

general objective of having at least one 

rescue access window on each side of a 

passenger seating area or passenger 

compartment. Nevertheless, FRA is not 

aware of any such single-level car in 

current operation in the United States to 

which this requirement would apply. 

FRA notes that on some single-level 

passenger cars, polycarbonate windows 

are installed in a channel in the window 

mask, which is itself installed in the car 

body with the frame compressed over 

the window to secure it. Removal of the 

window would require removal of the 

frame, which would be very difficult in 

an emergency situation. In addition, it 

would be costly for these cars to be 

retrofitted with glass windows (so that 

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

window panel from its frame and 

gasketing. On this type of equipment, 

the location requirement would be met 

by having a rescue access window 

available on each side of each end of the 

same passenger compartment, including 

in exterior side doors. An exception was 

crafted that permits the location of the 

rescue access windows in four exterior 

side doors. It was approved by the Task 

Force, Working Group, and the full 

RSAC, and has been adopted by FRA in 

this final rule. Moreover, as proposed in 

the NPRM, the final rule permits these 

windows to be located farther than 15 

feet from the car’s centerline, provided 

that there is at least one such window 

in each side of each end (half) of the 

same passenger compartment—a 

minimum of four rescue access 

windows, overall. FRA believes that 

effectively requiring a minimum of four 

rescue access windows, instead of two, 

is appropriate for granting flexibility for 

installing rescue access windows on 

existing equipment in side doors. 

Paragraph (a)(1)(ii) states the number 

and location requirements for rescue 

access windows for single-level 

passenger cars that were ordered prior 

to September 8, 2000, and placed in 

service prior to September 9, 2002, if 

equipped with manual door releases for 

at least two exterior side doors (or door 

leaves) in diagonally-opposite quadrants 

of the cars. The manual door release 

must be capable of releasing the door (or 

door leaf) to permit it to be opened 

without power from outside the car, be 

located adjacent to the door (or door 

leaf) which it controls, and be designed 

and maintained so that an emergency 

responder could access the release from 

outside the car without requiring the 

use of a tool or other implement. The 

requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(ii) 

become effective August 1, 2010. FRA 

decided to make these requirements 

applicable not until 18 months after 

publication of this final rule, in part 

because the passenger cars subject to 

this provision have safety features not 

otherwise required for cars of their 

age—i.e., manual releases capable of 

opening side doors from outside of the 

cars. Section 238.235(b) contains 

requirements for manual door releases, 

but only applies to passenger cars 

ordered on or after September 8, 2000, 

or placed in service for the first time on 

or after September 9, 2002. 

This paragraph also addresses those 

passenger cars equipped with 

compressed frame window systems in 

which rescue access windows will need 

to be retrofitted in the four side doors 

by replacing the polycarbonate glazing 

with glass that can be broken to gain 

access into the car. The 18-month 

implementation period allows for the 

time necessary to plan and carry out the 

retrofit without disrupting train service. 

In the interim, emergency responders 

will continue to rely on the manual door 

releases to open the side doors for 

rescue access purposes should the need 

arise. 

In paragraph (a)(2), FRA has adopted 

minimum requirements for the number 

and location of rescue access windows 

in main levels of multi-level passenger 

cars. Each main level in a multi-level 

passenger car is subject to the same, 

minimum requirements provided for 

single-level passenger cars in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section. 

In paragraph (a)(3), FRA has adopted 

minimum requirements for the number 

and location of rescue access windows 

in non-main levels of multi-level 

passenger cars with seating areas. These 

requirements and exceptions for nonmain levels with passenger seating are 

also the same as those for emergency 

window exits on non-main levels with 

passenger seating. Specifically, 

paragraph (a)(3)(i) requires that any nonmain level used for passenger seating in 

a multi-level passenger car have at least 

two rescue access windows in each 

seating area to permit emergency 

responders to reach occupants without 

requiring movement through an interior 

door or to another level of the car. At 

least one rescue access window must be 

located in each side of the seating area. 

A rescue access window can be located 

within an exterior side door in the 

passenger compartment if it is not 

practical to place the rescue access 

window in the side of the seating area. 

See Figure 2a to subpart B; compare to 

Figure 2b to subpart B. 

Paragraph (a)(3)(ii) requires only one 

rescue access window in a seating area 

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

a rescue access window in a side of the 

passenger compartment due to the need 

to provide accessible accommodations 

under the ADA; there are no more than 

four seats in the seating area; and a 

suitable, alternate arrangement for 

rescue access is provided. The rationale 

for this exception is the same as the one 

for emergency window exits in nonmain levels of multi-level passenger cars 

in § 238.113(a)(3)(ii), as discussed 

above. 

Paragraph (a)(3)(iii) requires that 

passenger cars both ordered prior to 

April 1, 2009 and placed in service prior 

to April 1, 2011 have only one rescue 

access window in a seating area in a 

passenger compartment of a non-main 

level if it is not practicable to place a 

rescue access window in a side of the 

passenger compartment (due to the 

presence of a structure such as a 

bathroom, electrical locker, or kitchen) 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
6388 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

and there are no more than eight seats 

in the seating area. For more 

background on this provision, please see 

the related discussion above for 

emergency window exits in such seating 

areas. 

In paragraph (a)(4), FRA has adopted 

minimum requirements for the number 

and location of rescue access windows 

for passengers cars with a sleeping 

compartment or similar private 

compartment. Each level of a passenger 

car with a sleeping compartment or a 

similar private compartment intended to 

be occupied by passengers or train 

crewmembers is now required to have a 

minimum of one rescue access window 

in each such compartment. For 

purposes of this paragraph, a bathroom, 

kitchen, and locomotive cab are not 

considered a ‘‘compartment.’’ These 

requirements reflect current practice. 

Amtrak cars with sleeping 

compartments are already equipped 

with a window in each such 

compartment that is capable of being 

used for both emergency egress and 

rescue access. 

Paragraph (a)(5) addresses the use of 

dual-function windows as rescue access 

windows. If on any level of a passenger 

car the emergency window exits 

installed to meet the minimum 

requirements of § 238.113 are intended 

to function as rescue access windows, 

the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) 

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

number and location of rescue access 

windows are met for that level. Under 

this provision, four rescue access 

windows are required for cars with 

dual-function windows that do not have 

at least one rescue access window in 

each side within 15 feet of the 

centerline of the car. 

Paragraph (b). Paragraph (b) contains 

the requirements for the ease of 

operability of rescue access windows. 

The requirements apply on or after 

April 1, 2008, and require that each 

rescue access window be capable of 

being removed without unreasonable 

delay by an emergency responder using 

either a provided external mechanism, 

or tools or implements that are 

commonly available to the responder in 

a passenger train emergency, such as a 

sledge hammer or a pry bar. In the 

NPRM, FRA had proposed the same 

requirement except for the 

terminological difference that each 

rescue access window be capable of 

being removed ‘‘without undue delay.’’

In the final rule, FRA has decided to use 

the words ‘‘without unreasonable 

delay,’’ however, in order to avoid any 

confusion with other uses of ‘‘without 

undue delay’’ in FRA’s regulations. 

Nevertheless, for the purposes of this 

rulemaking, the proposed language in 

the NPRM and the text of this final rule 

are intended to mean the same thing 

with respect to the speed at which the 

rescue access windows must be capable 

of being removed. 

FRA makes clear that the adopted 

performance requirement for removing 

windows ‘‘without unreasonable delay’’

is intended to be less stringent than the 

performance requirement of ‘‘rapid and 

easy’’ that is specified for removing 

emergency window exits in § 238.113. 

For example, using a sledge hammer to 

shatter a glass window would be 

considered removal without 

unreasonable delay. Windows that are 

not made of glass may also be designed 

to be removed without unreasonable 

delay by an emergency responder, 

through use of an axe, sledge hammer, 

or similar large impact tool to strike the 

window at an appropriate point so that 

the window panel will push inward. 

Paragraph (c). Paragraph (c) contains 

the requirements for the dimensions of 

rescue access windows. Each rescue 

access window in a passenger car, 

including a sleeping car, ordered on or 

after April 1, 2009, or placed in service 

for the first time on or after April 1, 

2011, is required to have an 

unobstructed opening with minimum 

dimensions of 26 inches horizontally by 

24 inches vertically. If the rescue access 

window is located within an exterior 

side door, in accordance with the 

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

this section, it is permitted to have an 

unobstructed opening with minimum 

dimensions of 24 inches horizontally by 

26 inches vertically. FRA makes clear 

that a seatback is not considered an 

obstruction if it can be moved away 

from the window opening without 

requiring the use of a tool or other 

implement. The dimensions for rescue 

access window unobstructed openings 

are the same as those for emergency 

window exit unobstructed openings. 

Accordingly, FRA’s reasoning for 

proposing and adopting these minimum 

dimensions for emergency window exits 

applies here to rescue access windows. 

These minimum dimensions are 

intended to allow an emergency 

responder equipped with a selfcontained breathing apparatus to pass 

through the window, as well as allow a 

train occupant to be carried through the 

window on a standard-sized stretcher. 

As noted in the earlier discussion 

concerning emergency window exits, 

FRA chose not to adopt a similar 

exception to the dimension 

requirements for rescue access windows 

because the additional rescue access 

windows are not likely to be as useful 

in an emergency situation requiring 

immediate evacuation (e.g., to escape 

water, smoke, or fire) as additional 

emergency window exits. The 

requirement for minimum dimensions 

also helps ensure that there will be no 

confusion as to whether or not the 

window is of the appropriate size to 

accommodate a responder equipped 

with breathing equipment and a 

standard-sized stretcher. 

Paragraph (d). As discussed above, 

FRA has modified the requirements for 

rescue access window marking and 

operating instructions, which were 

formerly contained in § 223.9(d)(2), and 

has moved them here to paragraph (d). 

Formerly, each rescue access window 

was required to be ‘‘marked with a 

retroreflective, unique, and easily 

recognizable symbol or other clear’’

marking. FRA has restated these 

requirements to make clear that rescue 

access windows must be marked with 

retroreflective material. Second, FRA 

makes clear that a unique and easily 

recognizable symbol, sign, or other 

conspicuous marking must be used to 

identify each rescue access window. 

FRA has replaced the word ‘‘clear’’ in 

the former requirements with the word 

‘‘conspicuous’’ and has added the word 

‘‘sign’’ as another example of a 

conspicuous marking. The revisions 

make clear that use of retroreflective 

material to mark a rescue access 

window is a distinct requirement in 

itself that was adopted to enable 

emergency responders to quickly 

identify rescue access windows under 

conditions of darkness by shining a 

flashlight on a car. Second, the revisions 

make clear that the window must also 

be marked by a unique and easily 

recognized symbol, a sign (such as 

‘‘RESCUE ACCESS’’), or other 

conspicuous marking (such as 

delineation of the window by means of 

a contrasting color). Both requirements 

could be met by the same marking. 

FRA also notes that the regulations 

formerly required that each railroad post 

‘‘clear and understandable’’ window 

access instructions either at each rescue 

access window or at each end of the car. 

FRA has replaced the word ‘‘clear’’ with 

the word ‘‘legible,’’ so that railroads are 

required to post ‘‘legible and 

understandable’’ operating instructions. 

Use of the word ‘‘clear’’ in § 223.9(d) 

had created some confusion, since it 

could have more than one meaning, and 

FRA believes the amendment eliminates 

any further confusion. FRA has also 

modified the requirements so that it is 

no longer permissible to have window 

access instructions solely at the end of 

the car. Instead, legible and 

understandable rescue access window 

instructions, including instructions for 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6389 

removing the window, are required to 

be posted at or near each rescue access 

window. FRA agreed with the Task 

Force that rescue access efforts could be 

unduly delayed by posting rescue access 

window operating instructions at the 

end of a car, potentially more than 40 

feet away from the rescue access 

window to which the instructions 

apply. 

As noted above in the discussion of 

emergency window exits, the Task 

Force has focused on revisions to APTA 

SS–PS–002–98, Rev. 2, ‘‘Standard for 

Emergency Signage for Egress/Access of 

Passenger Rail Equipment,’’ in order to 

recommend whether some or all of its 

contents should be incorporated into 

FRA’s regulations. This APTA standard 

also contains detailed criteria for 

marking rescue access windows, 

including the use of retroreflective 

material. FRA invited comment on 

whether the criteria in the APTA 

standard or in draft revisions to this 

standard for marking rescue access 

windows were appropriate for use in the 

final rule. See 71 FR 50292. While no 

written comments were received on this 

issue, both the Task Force and the 

Working Group recommended that FRA 

add the criteria to the final rule. FRA 

agrees and has added a definition of 

‘‘retroreflective material’’ that 

incorporates by reference criteria from 

ASTM’s Standard D 4956–07 for Type I 

Sheeting. See the discussion in § 238.5. 

This newly added definition is 

consistent with the definition and 

requirements for retroreflective 

markings for rescue access windows 

that are contained in Revision 3 of the 

APTA standard. 

In order to maintain optimum 

retroreflective properties of the base 

material, any retroreflective markings 

that have ink or pigment applied should 

utilize a translucent or semi-translucent 

ink, as per the manufacturer’s 

instructions. A clear coat that protects 

against ultra-violet light may be added 

to the markings to prevent fading. 

Retroreflectivity requirements shall be 

met if protective coatings or other 

materials for the enhancement of 

marking durability are used. 

Section 238.121 Emergency 

Communication 

This new section establishes 

emergency communication 

requirements for Tier I passenger 

equipment and replaces the previous 

emergency communication system 

requirements in § 238.437 for Tier II 

passenger equipment. Overall, the 

adopted requirements generally reflect 

current practice for Tier I passenger 

equipment and generally carry forward 

the former requirements for Tier II 

passenger equipment. 

In the NPRM, FRA had originally 

proposed to designate this section as 

§ 238.117 and redesignate § 238.117 

(Protection against personal injury) as 

§ 238.121. See 71 FR 50276, 50304. FRA 

had believed that such a redesignation 

would help keep the emergency system 

requirements together in section 

numbering sequence for the benefit of 

the user. However, concern has been 

raised that redesignating original 

sections of the May 12, 1999 Passenger 

Equipment Safety Standards rule could 

cause unnecessary confusion, and FRA 

has decided against the proposed 

redesignation. FRA has chosen instead 

to designate this section as § 238.121. 

This new designation has no effect on 

the substance of the emergency 

communication requirements. 

Paragraph (a). Paragraph (a) contains 

requirements for PA systems for both 

existing and new Tier I and Tier II 

passenger cars. Most passenger cars 

used in commuter and intercity service 

are equipped with PA systems that train 

crews often use to notify passengers of 

the nature and expected duration of 

delays. If a person requires immediate 

medical attention, the crew may also 

use the PA system to request assistance 

from someone onboard with medical 

training. Railroad representatives on the 

Task Force noted that PA systems are 

particularly beneficial in the immediate 

aftermath of an accident to provide 

instructions for appropriate passenger 

action. In light of a security threat or 

other emergency situation requiring 

rapid evacuation of an area, crews may 

also use the PA system to instruct 

passengers to deboard as quickly as 

possible. If there is a hazard on one end 

of the train or one side of the train, 

crews may use the PA system to notify 

passengers of the hazard and direct 

them to use the appropriate exit route(s) 

that would avoid or minimize their 

exposure to the hazard. Of course, all 

things being equal, the safest place for 

passengers is to remain onboard the 

train. Deboarding could aggravate an 

emergency situation, particularly if 

passengers step onto the right-of-way on 

their own without direction from a crew 

member. Accordingly, the crew must 

have the means to provide passengers 

with appropriate instructions as soon as 

possible. 

Paragraph (a)(1) requires that on or 

after January 1, 2012, each Tier I 

passenger car be equipped with a PA 

system that provides a means for a 

crewmember to communicate to all train 

passengers in an emergency situation. 

FRA understands that existing Tier I 

passenger cars that currently do not 

have PA systems are scheduled to be 

retired before 2012 and thus would be 

removed from service before the 

requirement would apply. FRA notes 

that APTA’s PRESS Task Force is 

currently evaluating the feasibility of a 

wireless, two-way communication 

system that would function 

independently of the train line, i.e., not 

rely on the train line for power. The 

wireless system is intended to provide 

a means of two-way communication in 

the event that the train line is broken, 

as may occur as a result of certain 

collisions or derailments. However, FRA 

makes clear that it is not currently 

adopting a requirement in this section 

that the communication system be 

wireless; communication through use of 

a train line is still permitted. 

Paragraph (a)(2) contains 

requirements for new Tier I and all Tier 

II passenger cars. As is stated for 

existing Tier I passenger cars in 

paragraph (a)(1), this paragraph requires 

that each Tier I passenger car ordered on 

or after April 1, 2008, or placed in 

service for the first time on or after April 

1, 2010, and all Tier II passenger cars be 

equipped with a PA system that 

provides a means for a crewmember to 

communicate to all train passengers in 

an emergency situation. In addition, PA 

systems in new Tier I and all Tier II 

passenger cars are required to provide a 

means for a crewmember to 

communicate in an emergency situation 

to persons in the immediate vicinity of 

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

These requirements include the basic 

features of PA systems installed in most 

recently-manufactured Tier I passenger 

cars and in all existing Tier II passenger 

trains. 

Finally, it should be noted that the PA 

system may be part of the same system 

as the intercom system. A shared 

configuration is quite common on cars 

equipped with both PA and intercom 

systems. 

Paragraph (b). Paragraph (b) contains 

the requirements for intercom systems. 

Traditionally, conductors and assistant 

conductors have been relied upon to 

relay information to passengers in both 

normal and emergency situations 

through face-to-face interaction or by 

use of a PA system. However, with 

smaller crew sizes, such face-to-face 

communication may not be possible for 

passengers attempting to quickly 

communicate to the crew a medical 

emergency, safety concern, or security 

threat requiring immediate attention. 

For instance, a passenger in the last car 

of a train who needs to communicate a 

safety or security threat to a 

crewmember could potentially have to 

walk the entire length of the train to do 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
6390 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

so (assuming the crew is composed of 

an engineer and one conductor, who in 

this circumstance would be in the first 

car at the time). Furthermore, if the 

conductor were incapacitated, 

passengers would need to communicate 

with the engineer. The Task Force 

therefore recommended and FRA 

decided that emergency communication 

systems in new passenger cars must 

include intercom systems to enable 

passengers to quickly communicate 

emergency situations to the train crew. 

These requirements reflect common 

intercom system configurations for new 

passenger cars. 

Specifically, paragraph (b)(1) contains 

the intercom system requirements for 

new Tier I and all Tier II passenger cars. 

Each Tier I passenger car ordered on or 

after April 1, 2008, or placed in service 

for the first time on or after April 1, 

2010, and all Tier II passenger cars are 

required to be equipped with an 

intercom system that provides a means 

for passengers and crewmembers to 

communicate with each other in an 

emergency situation. Passenger cars that 

are at least 45 feet in length are required 

to have a minimum of one intercom in 

each end (half) of each car that is 

accessible to passengers without 

requiring the use of a tool or other 

implement. Although some passenger 

cars currently equipped with intercom 

systems have one located in each end 

(half), others have only one per car. An 

intercom in each end (half) of a car is 

intended to allow passengers to have 

access to an intercom within half a car 

length, which is normally 42 to 45 feet, 

and without having to pass into an 

adjoining car. As long as intercoms are 

accessible to passengers, they may be 

placed anywhere in each end (half) of 

the car and not necessarily in the far 

ends. 

Paragraph (b)(1) continues the logic of 

former § 238.437 by requiring only one 

intercom for a passenger car that does 

not exceed 45 feet in length, such as the 

Talgo passenger cars operated by 

Amtrak. As the length of a conventional 

passenger is typically between 85 and 

90 feet, FRA believes it appropriate to 

require a car not more than half that 

length to have only one intercom 

location. This paragraph also continues 

to require, as § 238.437 formerly did, 

that a Tier II passenger car ordered prior 

to May 12, 1999, be equipped with only 

one intercom. The preamble to the April 

23, 2002 final rule, which amended the 

May 12, 1999 final rule, explained that 

after FRA had proposed that intercoms 

be located at each end of a Tier II 

passenger car, Amtrak indicated that not 

all passenger cars in its high-speed 

trainsets had intercom transmission 

locations at each end of the cars. See 67 

FR 19986. Amtrak further noted that the 

intercoms would be difficult to install at 

the non-vestibule ends of the cars. As 

these trainsets were in development in 

advance of both the then-proposed and 

final rules, FRA made an exception for 

all cars ordered prior to May 12, 1999, 

and this final rule carries forward this 

exception. 

Some Task Force members were 

concerned that making the intercoms 

accessible to passengers without 

requiring the use of a tool or other 

implement could lead to misuse that 

could unnecessarily distract the train 

operator. However, representatives from 

Amtrak and various commuter railroads 

that operate cars with intercom systems 

indicated that they have successfully 

implemented measures to deter misuse. 

For instance, on some passenger cars, 

the intercom transmission device is 

located in a safety compartment 

designated and marked for emergency 

communications only. In the proposed 

rule, FRA invited comment on whether 

passenger misuse of intercom systems 

had been identified as a problem, and, 

if so, FRA invited suggestions for 

measures that could curb such misuse 

without rendering the systems 

inaccessible to passengers in an 

emergency. No comments were received 

on this issue, and FRA has decided to 

adopt the language as proposed. FRA 

makes clear that intercoms need to be 

accessible to passengers with 

disabilities to the extent required by the 

ADA and its implementing regulations. 

Paragraph (b)(2) requires that the 

location of each intercom intended for 

passenger use be clearly marked with 

luminescent material and that legible 

and understandable operating 

instructions be posted at or near each 

such intercom to facilitate passenger 

use. These requirements apply to each 

Tier I passenger car on or after April 1, 

2010, and continue to apply to each Tier 

II passenger car. During the 

development of the rule, some railroad 

representatives on the Task Force noted 

that although instructions are currently 

posted at the intercom locations on their 

cars, there are no luminescent markings. 

The Task Force therefore recommended 

that luminescent markings be required. 

FRA proposed to adopt such a 

requirement in this final rule, and 

invited comment on whether the 

luminescent material should be HPPL 

material, as discussed below. See 71 FR 

50293. The final rule requires 

luminescent marking of each intercom 

location to ensure that the intercom can 

be easily identified for use in the event 

that both normal and emergency 

lighting are not functioning. The posted 

operating instructions, however, are not 

required to be luminescent. Some Task 

Force members indicated that the 

instructions may be easier to read when 

not luminescent. 

As noted in the discussion concerning 

emergency window exit signage, above, 

APTA SS–PS–002–98, ‘‘Standard for 

Emergency Signage for Egress/Access of 

Passenger Rail Equipment,’’ contains 

specific criteria for luminescent 

markings. The Task Force has focused 

on revisions to this APTA standard in 

order to recommend whether to 

incorporate some or all of its contents 

into part 238 by reference and thereby 

require that luminescent markings for 

intercoms comply with the standard as 

it relates to luminescent markings. 

APTA PRESS has also indicated that 

they intend to revise APTA SS–PS–001–

98, ‘‘Standard for Passenger Railroad 

Emergency Communications,’’ to 

include more specific requirements for 

marking emergency communication 

systems. In the proposed rule, FRA 

invited comment on whether the 

luminescent material that would be 

required for marking should be HPPL 

material. FRA indicated that it would 

evaluate any comments received in 

considering whether a requirement for 

use of HPPL material should be 

established in the final rule. 

Although no written comments were 

received, the Task Force discussed at 

length issues associated with the 

development of HPPL material 

component requirements, as noted 

above. Ultimately, the Task Force 

advised that requirements in Revision 2 

of APTA Standard SS–PS–002–98, 

‘‘Standard for Emergency Signage for 

Egress/Access of Passenger Rail 

Equipment,’’ for HPPL were very 

detailed and complex and not readily 

transferable directly into this final rule. 

Therefore, the Task Force recommended 

incorporating such requirements by 

reference into the CFR through a 

separate rulemaking, after the standard 

had been revised and authorized by 

APTA. These would include various 

other sign and marking requirements, 

including those addressing size, color, 

and contrast. FRA agreed with the Task 

Force’s recommendation, and has not 

modified this final rule. Accordingly, 

the marking is only required to be 

luminescent. As noted, APTA 

authorized Revision 3 of the standard on 

October 7, 2007, and FRA intends to use 

this standard in a separate rulemaking 

that will add to and enhance FRA’s 

marking and signage requirements for 

passenger train emergency systems. 

Paragraph (c). Paragraph (c) continues 

to require that PA and intercom systems 

on Tier II passenger trains have back-up 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6391 

power for a minimum period of 90 

minutes. See former § 238.437(d). An 

example of a back-up power source is 

the main battery in a passenger car. PA 

and intercom systems may continue to 

draw back-up power from a source 

which provides power to other systems, 

as the main car battery does. These 

systems are not required to have a backup power source that provides power 

exclusively for their operation. 

Additionally, it is permissible to meet 

this requirement using a main car 

battery located in another car, if the two 

cars are semi-permanently coupled as in 

the case of a married pair of MU 

locomotives. 

The Task Force approved a 

recommendation for a back-up power 

requirement for new Tier I passenger 

cars, similar to the requirements 

contained in § 238.115(b)(4) for 

emergency lighting back-up power 

systems. That is, the back-up power 

system must be capable of operating: in 

all equipment orientations within 45 

degrees of vertical; after the initial shock 

of a collision or derailment resulting in 

individually applied accelerations of 8g 

longitudinally, 4g laterally, and 4g 

vertically; and for at least 90 minutes. 

Yet, this recommendation was not 

forwarded to the Working Group, due to 

an oversight, prior to the publication of 

the NPRM. Given that backup power to 

the PA and intercom systems could be 

supplied by the same source as that for 

the emergency lighting system, and that 

the amount of power required would 

likely be only a fraction of that required 

for the emergency lighting system, FRA 

had no reason to believe that this 

recommendation would not have 

received the full support of the Working 

Group or full RSAC. As a result, FRA 

noted in the NPRM that it was 

considering inserting in the final rule a 

back-up power system requirement 

containing the provisions recommended 

by the Task Force, and FRA invited 

comment on doing so. In particular, 

FRA sought comment on whether the 

system needs to be capable of providing 

continuous communication over the 90- 

minute period, or only intermittent 

communication, which would draw less 

battery power. FRA noted that it may 

not be necessary to provide the means 

to communicate continuously for a 90- 

minute period, and FRA invited 

comment as to how many minutes of 

intermittent communication would 

need to be provided. 

While no written comments were 

received on this issue, the Task Force 

discussed the matter at length during its 

meeting held on October 25–26, 2006. 

Both APTA and the UTU indicated that 

90 minutes of continuous 

communication was unnecessary. 

Instead, the Task Force recommended 

that intermittent communication with 

the equivalent of 15 minutes of 

continuous communication would be 

sufficient during a 90-minute period. In 

order to ensure that the system will 

have enough power to support a total of 

15 minutes of communication at any 

point during the 90-minute period, the 

Task Force agreed that the system must, 

at a minimum, support 15 minutes of 

continuous communication at the end of 

the 90-minute period (i.e., during 

minutes 76 through 90). The Working 

Group concurred with the Task Force’s 

recommendations, and FRA has agreed 

to adopt them in this final rule. As a 

result, the final rule includes 

requirements for a back-up power 

system for both Tier I and Tier II 

passenger trains. 

Section 238.123 Emergency Roof 

Access 

This new section contains emergency 

roof access requirements for Tier I and 

Tier II passenger cars ordered on or after 

April 1, 2009, or placed in service for 

the first time on or after April 1, 2011. 

Requirements for Tier II power cars and 

existing Tier II passenger cars remain in 

§ 238.441, as discussed below. The 

emergency roof access requirements for 

Tier II passenger equipment contained 

in former § 238.441 and APTA PRESS 

recommended practice RP–C&S–001–

98, ‘‘Recommended Practice for 

Passenger Equipment Roof Emergency 

Access,’’ serve as the basis for the 

requirements in this section. This APTA 

recommended practice contains 

additional useful information not 

included in this final rule; however, 

FRA notes that this final rule supersedes 

certain provisions of the recommended 

practice. 

In the NPRM, FRA originally 

proposed to designate this section as 

§ 238.118, see 71 FR 50276, 50304. FRA 

has chosen instead to designate this 

section as § 238.123, consistent with the 

decision not to redesignate original 

sections of the May 12, 1999, Passenger 

Equipment Safety Standards final rule. 

This new designation has no effect on 

the substance of the emergency roof 

access requirements. 

Emergency roof access locations (roof 

hatches or structural weak points) can 

be especially useful in emergency 

situations where passenger cars have 

rolled onto their sides following certain 

collision and derailment scenarios. All 

things being equal, car rollover or tilt 

should result in more severe injuries 

than when a car remains upright, as 

occupants may be thrown greater 

distances inside the car. In turn, this 

risk increases the potential need for 

rescue access of the car’s occupants 

because of the reduced likelihood that 

the occupants can evacuate the car on 

their own. In addition, when there is a 

rollover, doors, which are the preferred 

means of access under normal 

circumstances, may be blocked or 

otherwise rendered inoperable due to 

structural damage to the door or the 

door pocket. In particular, end doors, 

which due to the direction they face, 

would normally be better suited for use 

than side doors when a car has tilted or 

rolled onto its side, may also be 

blocked, jammed, or otherwise 

unavailable for use. Moreover, although 

emergency responders may be able to 

enter a car that is on its side via a rescue 

access window, the removal of an 

injured occupant through a side 

window in such circumstances can be 

difficult or complicated, especially 

depending upon the condition of the 

occupant. 

Paragraph (a). Paragraph (a) contains 

requirements for the number and 

dimensions of emergency roof access 

locations. Each passenger car ordered on 

or after April 1, 2009, or placed in 

service for the first time on or after April 

1, 2011, must have a minimum of two 

emergency roof access locations. 

Although the May 12, 1999, final rule 

required Tier II passenger cars and 

power cars to have only one roof hatch 

for emergency roof entry or at least one 

structural weak point for properly 

equipped emergency personnel to 

quickly access a car, many new Tier I 

multi-level passenger cars are currently 

being manufactured with up to four 

structural weak points in the roof. In 

determining the minimum number of 

access points needed for new Tier I and 

Tier II passenger cars, the Task Force 

agreed it would be useful to protect the 

emergency roof access locations against 

crush at either end of the car. To do so 

would require placement of the 

locations away from the far ends of the 

car or, at a minimum, placement not in 

the same end (half) of the car in the 

event that the end with the access 

points becomes crushed. Second, the 

Task Force thought it prudent to 

facilitate rescue access by having the 

access points located within the bottom 

half of the car’s roof, so that the bottom 

of the opening would be closer (lower) 

to the ground and thus, presumably, 

more easily accessible when the car is 

on its side. This would require having 

one access point on either side of the 

roof’s longitudinal centerline. To 

accomplish both goals, the Task Force 

recommended having two access points 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
6392 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

located at diagonally-opposite quadrants 

of the roof. See Figure 3 to subpart B. 

Under this new section, each roof 

access location is required to have a 

minimum opening of 26 inches 

longitudinally (i.e., parallel to the 

longitudinal axis of the car) by 24 

inches laterally. These dimensions are 

consistent with the minimum 

dimension requirements for emergency 

window exits specified for new 

passenger cars in the 1999 Passenger 

Equipment Safety Standards final rule, 

see 64 FR 25673, and were based on 

specifying opening requirements 

necessary to allow passage of an 

emergency responder equipped with a 

self-contained breathing apparatus or 

fire gear, as well as to allow passage of 

a person being carried on a backboard 

or basket stretcher, see 64 FR 25595–

25596. In discussing the issue of 

appropriate dimensions for emergency 

roof access locations, Task Force 

members noted that in order to gain 

access to a car via a structural weak 

point, a responder would normally have 

to cut through the roof skin, which is 

usually steel, and then through the 

lining. In some cases, a responder may 

have to cut through additional non-rigid 

structures. If the outside dimensions are 

only 26 inches longitudinally by 24 

inches laterally, and multiple cuts 

through car structures are required to 

gain access to the passenger 

compartment, this could present a 

problem for emergency responders, 

since each subsequent cut made using a 

saw would potentially result in a 

smaller opening. Consequently, 

railroads and car builders would need to 

take this into account when designing 

structural weak points and ensure that 

the dimensions of the final cut in such 

circumstances would still result in an 

opening meeting the minimum 

dimension requirements. This concern 

is addressed further in the discussion of 

paragraph (d), below. 

Paragraph (b). Paragraph (b) provides 

that permissible means of emergency 

roof access include either a hatch, or a 

clearly marked structural weak point in 

the roof for access by properly equipped 

emergency response personnel. 

Structural weak points, commonly 

known as ‘‘soft spots,’’ are usually 

created by routing cables, wiring, and 

piping in the roof of the car around the 

location designated for roof access. This 

paragraph affords railroads the 

flexibility of installing either roof 

hatches or providing structural weak 

points in the roof, as each individual 

railroad is in the best position to decide 

which one is preferable taking into 

consideration such factors as the car’s 

intended use and the safety hazards 

presented by one versus the other. For 

example, although roof hatches could 

provide a means of self-evacuation in 

addition to a means of access, placing 

them in the roofs of electric MU 

locomotives, which rely on overhead 

catenary systems for power, could create 

an electrocution hazard for occupants 

attempting to self-evacuate in an 

emergency. 

Paragraph (c). Paragraph (c) requires 

that emergency roof access points be 

located, insofar as practical, in such a 

manner that when a car is on its side: 

(i) One emergency roof access location 

is wholly within each half of the roof as 

divided top from bottom; and (ii) one 

emergency roof access location is 

wholly within each half of the roof as 

divided left from right. See Figure 3 to 

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

allows railroads and car builders some 

discretion regarding the location of the 

access points and is necessary to 

accommodate particular equipment 

types. For instance, some electric MU 

equipment has pantographs that take up 

a significant portion of one end of the 

rooftop, making it difficult to place one 

emergency access location wholly 

within each half of the car’s roof. 

Additionally, on some passenger cars 

that have luggage racks, it may be more 

practical to place the emergency access 

location so that it is not wholly within 

the bottom half of the car’s roof (when 

the car is on its side) if doing so would 

facilitate rescue access by eliminating 

the need for emergency responders to 

cut through or maneuver around the 

luggage racks to get to passengers. 

Paragraph (d). Paragraph (d) contains 

provisions related to obstructions and 

requires that the ceiling space below 

each emergency roof access location be 

free from wire, cabling, conduit, and 

piping. Additionally, paragraph (d) 

requires that, where practicable, this 

space also be free of rigid secondary 

structure(s) (e.g., diffusers and diffuser 

support, lighting back fixtures, mounted 

PA equipment, and luggage racks). In 

determining the placement of the 

emergency roof access locations, 

railroads and manufacturers need to 

consider the requirements of § 238.123 

as a whole. Use of the word ‘‘practical’’

in paragraph (c) is intended to allow 

more discretion than would be allowed 

through use of the word ‘‘practicable’’ in 

this paragraph (d). For example, in a 

situation where placement of an 

emergency roof access location wholly 

within the bottom half of a car’s roof 

(when the car is on its side) would 

result in obstruction by a rigid 

secondary structure, a railroad would be 

required to place the roof access 

location elsewhere so as to avoid the 

obstruction, even though this may result 

in its placement partially in both sides 

of the roof, or otherwise not wholly 

within each half of the roof. In such a 

situation, the rule recognizes that 

avoidance of the rigid secondary 

structure is more critical than the exact 

location of the emergency roof access 

location. 

If emergency roof access is provided 

by means of a hatch, it must be possible 

to push interior panels or liners out of 

their retention devices and into the 

interior of the vehicle after removing the 

hatch. For example, for car interior 

aesthetics, it would not be uncommon 

to cover the area below the hatch with 

lining and use a fastener like VELCRO 

to secure the lining in place. This type 

of cover and securement make it 

possible for emergency responders to 

reach the interior of the vehicle by 

pushing in the lining after removing the 

hatch. This is just one example, and 

other types of covers and means of 

securement are permissible, provided 

emergency responders are able to push 

through them to reach the interior of the 

vehicle after removing the hatch. 

If emergency roof access is provided 

by means of a structural weak point, the 

rule states that it is permissible to cut 

through interior panels, liners, or other 

non-rigid secondary structures after 

making the cutout hole in the roof. 

However, any such additional cutting 

that is required must permit a minimum 

opening of the dimensions specified in 

paragraph (a) to be maintained. In this 

regard, having to make additional cuts 

could affect the size of the markings 

indicating the structural weak points, as 

provided in paragraph (e). 

Paragraph (e). Paragraph (e) contains 

requirements for providing markings of, 

and instructions for, emergency roof 

access locations. Each emergency roof 

access location is required to be clearly 

marked with retroreflective material of 

contrasting color. The retroreflective 

material is intended to enable 

emergency responders to quickly 

identify the access locations by shining 

a light on the roof. As discussed in the 

section-by-section analysis of the 

definition of ‘‘retroreflective material,’’

FRA has incorporated ASTM 

International’s Standard D 4956–07 by 

reference in the CFR. 

While FRA did not specifically 

request comment on applying this 

definition to roof access markings, FRA 

believes it logical to apply this 

definition here, in addition to applying 

it to rescue access windows in 

§ 238.114. The underlying reasons for 

using retroreflective material for roof 

access markings are the same as those 

for using the material for rescue access 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6393 

window markings. Nevertheless, FRA 

notes that this definition has not been 

included in the emergency roof access 

marking requirements in § 238.441 for 

existing Tier II passenger cars and 

power cars—only for new equipment. 

As a result, markings on existing 

equipment do not have to be removed 

and reapplied, should they not be in 

conformance with the retroreflectivity 

criteria applicable to markings on new 

equipment in this final rule. 

Paragraph (e) requires that legible and 

understandable instructions be posted at 

or near each emergency roof access 

location. These instructions are not 

required to be retroreflective for two 

principal reasons: it can be difficult to 

read writing on certain grades of 

retroreflective materials while shining 

light on them, and light used to identify 

the emergency rescue access locations 

should be available for reading the 

instructions as well. This is consistent 

with the requirements for marking 

rescue access windows. As an 

additional requirement, paragraph (e) 

requires that if emergency roof access is 

provided by means of a structural weak 

point, the line along which the roof skin 

is intended to be cut is required to be 

clearly marked with retroreflective 

material. The size of the border marking 

may have to be larger than 24 inches 

laterally by 26 inches longitudinally to 

ensure that any cuts in addition to the 

cut through the roof skin retain the 

minimum dimensions required for the 

opening. Structural weak points are also 

required to have a sign plate with a 

retroreflective border that states as 

follows: 

CAUTION—DO NOT USE FLAME-CUTTING 

DEVICES 

CAUTION—WARN PASSENGERS BEFORE 

CUTTING 

CUT ALONG DASHED LINE TO GAIN 

ACCESS 

ROOF CONSTRUCTION—[STATE 

RELEVANT DETAILS] 

In particular, warning must be 

provided against use of a flame-cutting 

device during a rescue access attempt to 

avoid creation of a fire hazard. This is 

especially important since rescue access 

is usually a last resort for those who 

cannot self-evacuate due to being 

injured or disabled, as well as due to the 

lack of a viable exit. Emergency 

responders usually have a variety of 

tools available to them at the scene of 

an emergency, including a specialized 

saw which can be used to cut through 

steel, and do not have to rely on flamecutting devices. 

Subpart D—Inspection, Testing, and 

Maintenance Requirements for Tier I 

Passenger Equipment 

Section 238.303 Exterior Calendar Day 

Mechanical Inspection of Passenger 

Equipment 

This section contains the 

requirements related to the performance 

of exterior mechanical inspections of 

passenger cars (e.g., passenger coaches, 

MU locomotives, and cab cars) and 

unpowered vehicles used in a passenger 

train each calendar day that the 

equipment is used in service. Paragraph 

(e) of this section identifies the various 

components that are required to be 

inspected as part of the exterior 

calendar day mechanical inspection. 

As proposed, FRA is adding new 

paragraph (e)(18) to require that all 

rescue-access-related exterior markings, 

signage, and instructions required by 

§ 238.114 (rescue access windows) and 

§ 239.107 (emergency exits) be in place 

and, as applicable, conspicuous, and/or 

legible. Paragraph (e)(18)(i) does permit 

passenger cars with any required rescueaccess-related exterior markings, 

signage, or instructions that are missing, 

illegible, or inconspicuous, as 

applicable, to remain in passenger 

service until the equipment’s fourth 

exterior calendar day mechanical 

inspection or next periodic mechanical 

inspection required under § 238.307, 

whichever occurs first, after the 

noncompliant condition is discovered. 

The car must then be repaired or 

removed from service. 

The four-day repair flexibility is 

intended to allow railroads to schedule 

repairs at locations where they can be 

performed safely and in a manner that 

would avoid disrupting normal 

operations. Railroad representatives on 

the Task Force noted that not all yards 

are properly equipped for personnel to 

safely, effectively, or efficiently remove 

and replace signage on the exterior of 

cars. For example, work on the upper 

levels of cars can be more safely 

performed at maintenance facilities that 

have platform ladders. In addition, 

various vendors noted that signs and 

markings must be applied on a dry, 

clean surface at temperatures of 

approximately 65 degrees Fahrenheit 

and must be allowed to set for up to two 

hours. Graffiti may render a sign, 

marking, or instruction illegible and 

thus in need of replacement. Proper 

removal of a sign can be a long and 

tedious process because the adhesives 

used are difficult to remove. This, 

coupled with the conditions necessary 

for application of a sign, may make it an 

unfeasible task for some railroads to 

perform during an exterior calendar day 

mechanical inspection. Furthermore, 

some long-distance intercity train trips 

take three or four days to complete, and 

many of the en-route repair locations 

may not be appropriate places to make 

the repairs to signage. Removing a car 

from service for missing rescue access 

signage before it reaches its final 

destination could result in stranding 

passengers on platforms or require that 

the same number of passengers ride in 

a fewer number of cars, with fewer 

emergency exits available to them as a 

whole. Thus, the safety of both railroad 

employees and railroad passengers also 

necessitates that some flexibility be 

provided in making repairs. 

Paragraph (e)(18)(ii) provides even 

greater flexibility for use of passenger 

cars with required rescue-access-related 

exterior markings, signage, or 

instructions that are missing, illegible, 

or inconspicuous on a side of a level of 

a car that has more than 50 percent of 

the windows designated and properly 

marked for rescue access. Such a car is 

permitted to remain in passenger service 

until no later than the car’s next 

periodic mechanical inspection required 

under § 238.307, where the car must 

repaired or removed from service. In 

developing the rule, FRA agreed with 

the Task Force recommendation that 

this added flexibility for these types of 

cars recognizes the extra effort that a 

railroad undertakes by designating and 

identifying a greater number of rescueaccess windows than is required by 

§ 238.114. A single act of vandalism 

may destroy multiple signs, markings, 

and instructions or render them illegible 

or inconspicuous. Placement or 

replacement of several signs could take 

more time than may be scheduled for 

maintenance of the car prior to the 

periodic mechanical inspection. FRA 

believes it makes little sense to require 

immediate repair of the damaged 

markings when more than a sufficient 

number meeting the requirements of 

§ 238.114 are still present on the 

equipment. Moreover, without such 

flexibility, railroads would likely be 

discouraged from designating more 

rescue-access windows than are 

required by § 238.114. 

Similarly, paragraph (e)(18)(iii) 

provides flexibility for the continued 

use of a sleeping car that has more than 

two consecutive windows with any 

required rescue-access-related exterior 

markings, signage, or instructions at or 

near their locations that are missing, 

illegible, or inconspicuous. Such a car 

may be operated in passenger service 

until the car’s next periodic mechanical 

inspection required under § 238.307, 

when it would have to be repaired or 

removed from service. FRA believes this 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
6394 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

flexibility is necessary because each 

sleeping compartment intended to be 

occupied by passengers or train 

crewmembers is required to have a 

minimum of one rescue access window 

in the compartment under § 238.114 and 

most sleeping compartments have only 

one window. If two consecutive 

windows were missing exterior 

markings, signage, or instructions, an 

emergency responder would still be 

readily able to gain access via the 

window by relying on the signage, 

markings, or instructions posted at a 

nearby window. 

Paragraph (e)(18)(iv) requires that a 

record of any noncomplying marking, 

signage, or instruction described in 

paragraphs (e)(18)(i) through (iii) be 

maintained. This record must contain 

the date and time that the defective 

condition was first discovered, and 

must be retained until all necessary 

repairs have been completed. These 

records are necessary for purposes of 

tracking when the defect was first 

discovered and will be utilized in 

determining when repairs have to be 

made on cars that remain in passenger 

service. Most commuter and intercity 

railroads already keep this type of 

record electronically. 

Section 238.305 Interior Calendar Day 

Mechanical Inspection of Passenger Cars 

This section contains the 

requirements related to the performance 

of interior calendar day mechanical 

inspections of passenger cars (e.g., 

passenger coaches, MU locomotives, 

and cab cars) each calendar day that the 

equipment is used in service. Paragraph 

(c) identifies the various components 

that are required to be inspected as part 

of the interior calendar day mechanical 

inspection. Except as provided in 

paragraphs (c)(8) through (c)(12), and in 

paragraph (d), all noncomplying 

conditions under this section must be 

repaired at the time of the daily interior 

inspection or the equipment is required 

to be locked-out and empty in order to 

be placed or remain in passenger 

service. FRA notes that it has revised 

the introductory text of paragraph (c) to 

expressly reference paragraphs (c)(8) 

through (c)(12), removing the reference 

to paragraphs (c)(5) through (c)(7). 

Paragraphs (c)(5) through (c)(7) do not 

contain any exceptions themselves. 

Instead, paragraph (d) references these 

paragraphs, and it is by operation of 

paragraph (d) that exceptions are 

provided. FRA makes clear that 

removing the reference to paragraphs 

(c)(5) and (c)(7) in the introductory text 

of paragraph (c) does not have any effect 

on the exceptions currently provided in 

this section. 

As proposed in the NPRM, FRA has 

also slightly modified paragraph (c)(10) 

in order to add a condition under which 

a car with noncompliant end doors and 

side doors may continue in passenger 

service pursuant to paragraph (d) of this 

section. The former conditions for such 

operation were that at least one 

operative and accessible door be 

available on each side of the car and a 

notice be prominently displayed 

directly on the defective door indicating 

that the door is defective. In addition to 

those conditions, this paragraph now 

requires that the train crew be provided 

written notification of the noncompliant 

condition. This additional measure is 

intended to ensure that crewmembers 

are aware of a door that may not be 

available for use in an emergency 

situation that requires the off-loading of 

passengers. Without this additional 

measure, train crews may not realize a 

door is defective until they actually try 

to use it. If an emergency requiring the 

rapid off-loading of passengers should 

occur before the crew notices that the 

door is inoperative, then the crew might 

direct passengers to that door, which 

could unnecessarily delay the 

evacuation of the train. 

FRA has also added new paragraph 

(c)(12) to cover the inspection of PA and 

intercom systems. Paragraph (c)(12) 

contains requirements for ensuring that, 

on passenger cars so equipped, PA and 

intercom systems are operative and 

function as intended as part of the 

interior calendar day mechanical 

inspection. This paragraph also affords 

flexibility for handling noncompliant 

equipment, provided that the train crew 

is given written notification of the 

defect and a record of the time and date 

the defect was discovered is maintained. 

Thus, a passenger car with an 

inoperative or nonfunctioning PA or 

intercom system is permitted to remain 

in passenger service until no later than 

the car’s fourth interior calendar day 

mechanical inspection or next periodic 

mechanical inspection required under 

§ 238.307, whichever occurs first, or for 

a passenger car used in long-distance 

intercity train service until the eighth 

interior calendar day mechanical 

inspection or next periodic mechanical 

inspection required under § 238.307, 

whichever occurs first, after the 

noncompliant condition is discovered. 

At that time, the PA or intercom system, 

or both, would have to be repaired, or 

the car would have to be removed from 

service. 

In developing the rule, railroad 

representatives on the Task Force noted 

that PA systems are currently inspected 

on a daily basis and any necessary 

repairs are made at the first convenient 

opportunity. The provision requiring 

that the train crew be given written 

notification of any noncompliant PA or 

intercom system is intended to ensure 

that the crew is aware of any 

nonfunctioning system(s) and will not 

rely upon any such system for 

communication in the event of an 

emergency situation. Without such 

notification, the train crew could 

mistakenly rely on a system that is 

inoperative, which could potentially 

hinder resolution of an emergency 

situation where the crew relies on using 

the PA or intercom system to 

communicate instructions or warnings 

of hazards to passengers. 

In modifying paragraph (c), FRA has 

reserved paragraph (c)(11) for a 

contemplated requirement that all lowlocation emergency exit path markings 

be in place and conspicuous as part of 

the interior calendar day mechanical 

inspection. Low-location emergency exit 

path markings provide a visual means 

for passenger car occupants to locate 

emergency door exits under conditions 

of limited visibility due to darkness or 

the presence of smoke, or both. FRA 

intends to propose minimum standards 

for low-location emergency exit path 

markings in a separate NPRM on 

passenger train emergency systems. 

Finally, as discussed in the NPRM, 

FRA considered clarifying paragraph 

(c)(7), the interior calendar day 

inspection requirement that ‘‘[a]ll 

safety-related signage is in place and 

legible.’’ 71 FR 50297. FRA considered 

including in paragraph (c)(7) express 

references to signage, as well as 

markings and instructions, required by 

parts 238 and 239. FRA invited 

comment on whether such clarification 

should be provided in the final rule. No 

comment was received, and, in 

discussing this issue with the Task 

Force, the Task Force did not 

recommend making a change in the 

final rule, as this was already clear. FRA 

does not believe a change is necessary 

at this time, but may make 

modifications related to the possible 

incorporation by reference of the APTA 

signage standard in a future rulemaking. 

Section 238.307 Periodic Mechanical 

Inspection of Passenger Cars and 

Unpowered Vehicles Used in Passenger 

Trains 

This section contains the 

requirements for performing periodic 

mechanical inspections on all passenger 

cars and all unpowered vehicles used in 

passenger trains. Paragraph (c) identifies 

the various components that are 

required to be inspected as part of the 

periodic mechanical inspection that is 

required to be conducted no less 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6395 

frequently than every 184 days. FRA has 

modified paragraph (c)(5), which 

requires in paragraph (c)(5)(i) that 

emergency lighting systems be 

inspected no less frequently than every 

184 days to determine that they are in 

place and operational, to reserve 

requirements in paragraph (c)(5)(ii) for 

the periodic inspection of other 

emergency systems in this timeframe, 

such as low-location exit path marking. 

As discussed above, FRA intends to 

propose minimum standards for lowlocation emergency exit path marking in 

a separate rulemaking on passenger 

train emergency systems. 

FRA notes that if emergency lighting 

is found to be defective at any time 

other than the periodic mechanical 

inspection required by paragraph 

(c)(5)(i), it still must be brought into 

compliance pursuant to the provisions 

contained in § 238.17 related to nonrunning-gear defects. 

FRA had proposed to include periodic 

inspection requirements within the 184- 

day timeframe for emergency roof access 

markings and instructions. However, 

FRA has decided to require that 

emergency roof access markings and 

instructions be inspected no less 

frequently than every 368 days, as 

provided in paragraph (d) of this 

section. As discussed earlier, in 

commenting on the NPRM, Caltrans 

requested that FRA extend the interval 

between inspections for roof access 

markings and instructions to a 

maximum of 368 days, instead of the 

184 days that FRA had proposed. 

Caltrans stated that it maintains its 

passenger equipment on a 120-day 

maintenance cycle, and that a 

requirement to inspect the roof access 

markings and instructions every 184 

days would result in Caltrans having to 

inspect them every 120 days. Caltrans 

stated that this would increase costs and 

the potential for employee injury, as 

each of its inspection requires the use of 

a man-lift or harness for an employee to 

safely inspect the markings. 

This comment was referred to the 

Task Force and, with Caltrans’

representatives present, the Task Force 

discussed this comment. Commuter 

railroads indicated that they had been 

operating cars with roof access locations 

for several years or more and that roof 

access markings and instructions had 

remained legible and conspicuous 

during that time. These railroads noted 

that vandalism has not been a concern 

for rooftops, and that vandals are much 

more likely to vandalize the sides of 

cars, which are much more easily 

accessible. Further, sign vendors stated 

that retroreflective roof access markings 

hold up well in the elements and should 

easily be expected to go for at least a 

year without becoming illegible or 

inconspicuous. The Task Force also 

considered that some railroads do not 

have facilities from which they can 

easily and safely observe the rooftops of 

their equipment, and agreed that 

inspecting roof access markings would 

be more safely conducted when the 

equipment is out of service at a 

maintenance facility. The Task Force 

recommended that FRA require 

emergency roof access markings and 

instructions to be inspected not less 

frequently than every 368 days, instead 

of the 184 days as proposed. FRA agrees 

with the Task Force’s recommendation, 

considering the favorable maintenance 

experience cited and the potential costs 

involved. FRA believes that a yearly 

inspection of roof access markings and 

instructions is sufficient to ensure that 

they are in place, conspicuous, and 

legible. 

Subpart E—Specific Requirements for 

Tier II Passenger Equipment 

Section 238.437 [Reserved] 

This section formerly contained the 

emergency communication 

requirements for Tier II passenger 

equipment. These requirements have 

been moved to new § 238.121 

(‘‘Emergency communication’’) to be 

integrated with the new emergency 

communication system requirements for 

Tier I passenger equipment, as stated 

above. This is consistent with FRA’s 

desire to prescribe, to the extent 

possible, the same emergency system 

requirements for all passenger trains, 

regardless of train speed. Section 

238.437 is therefore being removed and 

reserved. Please see § 238.121 for a 

discussion of the emergency 

communication system requirements for 

Tier II passenger equipment. 

Section 238.441 Emergency Roof 

Access 

In issuing the Passenger Equipment 

Safety Standards, FRA required that 

Tier II passenger equipment have either 

a roof hatch or a clearly marked 

structural weak point in the roof to 

provide quick access for properly 

equipped emergency response 

personnel. See 64 FR 25689. FRA stated 

that the final rule did not contain such 

requirements for Tier I passenger 

equipment and that there was no 

consensus within the Passenger 

Equipment Safety Standards Working 

Group to do so. See 64 FR 25642. 

Nevertheless, FRA noted that it believed 

that APTA PRESS Task Force efforts 

would address requirements for Tier I 

passenger equipment and that FRA 

intended to reexamine the requirements 

of this section in a future rulemaking 

with a view to applying emergency roof 

access requirements to Tier I passenger 

equipment. Id. 

As discussed above, in § 238.123 FRA 

is applying emergency roof access 

requirements to Tier I passenger 

equipment and making the requirements 

the same for new Tier I and Tier II 

passenger cars. In doing so, FRA is 

revising § 238.441, including the section 

heading, to reconcile the requirements 

of these sections and thereby limit the 

application of these separate 

requirements in § 238.441 to existing 

Tier II passenger cars and to any Tier II 

power car (whether existing or new). At 

the same time, FRA is increasing the 

required dimensions of emergency roof 

access locations for existing Tier II 

passenger equipment, and providing 

general marking and instruction 

requirements for such equipment. FRA 

believes that existing Tier II passenger 

equipment is in compliance with these 

requirements, as revised, and that these 

revisions more closely approximate the 

requirements for new passenger 

equipment. FRA notes that all existing 

Tier II passenger cars were built with 

the same design, thus once an 

emergency responder has learned of the 

location of the roof access point on one 

passenger car, the responder has learned 

it for all passenger cars. Given this and 

the fact that there are a limited number 

of existing Tier II equipment, FRA has 

decided to limit the applicability of 

certain provisions to new Tier II 

passenger cars and power cars only. 

Paragraph (a). Specifically, paragraph 

(a) has been revised to limit its 

applicability to Tier II passenger cars 

and power cars both ordered prior to 

April 1, 2009 and placed in service for 

the first time prior to April 1, 2011. 

Paragraph (a) has also been modified to 

revise the dimensions of the required 

opening from 18 inches by 24 inches, to 

24 inches by 26 inches to be consistent 

with the requirements for Tier I 

passenger equipment. In addition, 

paragraph (a) has been revised to require 

that each emergency roof access location 

be conspicuously marked, and that 

legible and understandable operating 

instructions be posted at or near each 

such location. 

The fundamental differences between 

the requirements in § 238.123 for new 

passenger cars and those contained in 

revised paragraph (a) of § 238.441 for 

existing Tier II passenger cars and Tier 

II power cars are as follows: The number 

of required emergency roof access 

locations (two in § 238.123, and one in 

§ 238.441), the marking requirements 

(‘‘conspicuously marked with 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
6396 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

retroreflective material of contrasting 

color’’ in § 238.123, and ‘‘conspicuously 

marked’’ in § 238.441), and the 

specifications for their location (detailed 

specifications are contained in 

§ 238.123, while more general 

requirements are in § 238.441). These 

differences reflect the consideration 

given to existing equipment built in 

compliance with § 238.441 of the 1999 

final rule, and also recognize that a 

requirement for two emergency roof 

access locations on a Tier II power car 

would not be reasonable given that the 

only normally occupied area in such a 

car is the cab compartment, in which 

only one emergency roof access location 

can be placed. 

Paragraph (b). Paragraph (b) has been 

revised to make clear that each Tier II 

passenger car ordered on or after April 

1, 2009, or placed in service for the first 

time on or after April 1, 2011, is 

required to comply with the emergency 

roof access requirements specified in 

§ 238.123. Section 238.123 subjects new 

Tier I and Tier II passenger cars to the 

same emergency roof access 

requirements, and this revision to 

paragraph (b) is intended to conform 

with that section’s requirements. 

As specified in paragraph (b), new 

Tier II passenger cars are required to 

comply with the standards contained in 

§ 238.123, which were developed 

exclusively for passenger cars. 

Paragraph (c). Paragraph (c) has been 

added to address new Tier II power cars. 

FRA believes that Tier II power cars—

both new and existing—should continue 

to be subject to emergency roof access 

requirements, and that the requirements 

for emergency roof access in § 238.123 

should generally apply to this 

equipment as well. However, as 

§ 238.123 was developed specifically for 

passenger cars, its requirements simply 

cannot be referenced in their entirety for 

Tier II power cars. In particular, unlike 

the requirements of § 238.123, only one 

emergency roof access location is 

necessary for a power car. As a result, 

FRA has specifically limited the 

portions of § 238.123 that are applicable 

to new power cars. Paragraph (c) 

requires that each power car ordered on 

or after April 1, 2009, or placed in 

service for the first time on or after April 

1, 2011, have a minimum of one 

emergency roof access location, with 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). 

Appendix A to Part 238—Schedule of 

Civil Penalties 

This appendix contains a schedule of 

civil penalties to be used in connection 

with this part. Because such penalty 

schedules are statements of agency 

policy, notice and comment are not 

required prior to their issuance. See 5 

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

invited comment on the proposed 

penalty schedule, but no comment was 

received. 

FRA has amended the penalty 

schedule to reflect changes made to part 

238. Specifically, FRA has added entries 

for new §§ 238.114, 238.121, and 

238.123; removed and reserved the 

entry for § 238.437; revised the entry for 

§ 238.441; revised footnote 1; and added 

footnote 2 to clarify the use of penalty 

codes in the penalty schedule. 

VI. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This final rule has been evaluated in 

accordance with existing policies and 

procedures, and determined not to be 

significant under both Executive Order 

12866 and DOT policies and 

procedures. See 44 FR 11034 (Feb. 26, 

1979). FRA has prepared and placed in 

the docket a regulatory evaluation 

addressing the economic impact of this 

final rule. Document inspection and 

copying facilities are available at the 

Docket Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. Docket material 

is also available for inspection on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Photocopies may also be obtained by 

submitting a written request to the FRA 

Docket Clerk at Office of Chief Counsel, 

Mail Stop 10, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; 

please refer to Docket No. FRA 2006–

25273. 

Certain of the requirements reflect 

current industry practice, or restate 

existing regulations, or both. As a result, 

in calculating the costs of this final rule, 

FRA has neither included the costs of 

those actions that would be performed 

voluntarily in the absence of a 

regulation, nor has FRA included the 

costs of those actions that would be 

required by an existing regulation. 

As presented in the following table, 

FRA estimates that the present value 

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

industry would be expected to incur to 

comply with the requirements in this 

final rule is $15.5 million: 

20-YEAR PV COSTS INCURRED

Description 20-year PV 

total ($) 

Costs: 

(238.113) Emergency Window 

Exits: 

—Installation of pull handles/ 

gaskets in two intermediate 

level windows .................... $4,050 

—Replacement of instructions for window removal 

to ensure that potential 

hindrances are addressed 10,800 

—Installation of pull handles/ 

gaskets in four intermediate level windows ...... 1,440 

(238.114) Rescue Access Windows: 

—Installation of two windows 

per car ............................... 163,880 

—Marking and instructions ... 3,840 

(238.121) Emergency Communication: 

—Addition of second intercom transmission location 213,675 

—Addition of outside speaker 

for public address system 101,565 

(238.123) Emergency Roof Access.

—Structural weak points— 

engineering redesign ......... 80,000 

—Structural weak points— 

additional materials ........... 117,250 

—Platform ladder .................. 1,700 

(238.303, 238.305, and 

238.307) Exterior, Interior, 

and Periodic Inspection, 

Testing, and Maintenance .... 14,808,086 

Total Costs ........................ 15,506,286 

If over the 20-year period covered by 

the regulatory evaluation the equivalent 

of 7.7 lives would be saved as a result 

of implementing the requirements (from 

a combination of fatalities prevented, 

and injuries avoided or minimized), the 

final rule would be cost-justified by the 

safety benefits alone. FRA believes it is 

reasonable to expect that the safety 

benefits would exceed the costs of the 

requirements. Although passenger 

railroads offer the traveling public one 

of the safest forms of transportation 

available, the potential for injuries and 

loss of life in certain situations is very 

high. Nevertheless, FRA cannot predict 

with reasonable confidence the actual 

numbers of lives that would be saved. 

The number and severity of each future 

passenger train accident or incident 

would determine the ultimate 

effectiveness of the requirements; these 

cannot be forecast with a level of 

precision that would allow us to predict 

the actual need for the measures in the 

rule. Yet, FRA believes that the 

requirements protect passengers and 

crew members against known safety 

concerns in a cost-effective manner. 

These safety concerns are discussed in 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6397 

detail, above, in the preamble to this 

final rule. 

In particular, as discussed in Section 

III.C., the requirement for an intercom 

system on Tier I passenger trains is 

intended to allow passengers to 

communicate to the crew a medical 

emergency, report a fire onboard the 

train, or provide notification of other 

emergency situations as quickly as may 

be necessary. In fact, some passenger 

lives may have already been saved at 

least in part due to the availability of an 

intercom system because fellow 

passengers were able to use the 

intercom to alert a crewmember that a 

passenger onboard their car was 

experiencing a medical emergency. This 

led the crew to call the dispatcher to 

arrange for prompt medical attention at 

a nearby station. FRA believes that over 

the next 20 years the availability of an 

intercom system to passengers may save 

the life of one or more passengers 

experiencing a medical emergency. 

The availability of an intercom system 

to passengers may also save the life of 

one or more passengers in other 

emergency situations. For example, on 

December 7, 1993, a gunman opened 

fire onboard an LIRR commuter train 

traveling between New Hyde Park and 

Garden City, NY, killing 6 people and 

injuring 19 others before he was 

overpowered by passengers. No 

intercom system was available to the 

passengers, and the train crew was not 

aware of the situation until the train 

arrived at the next station where police 

happened to be present on the platform. 

The availability of an intercom system 

to passengers in such a situation could 

allow passengers to provide notification 

to the crew in a timely manner so that 

the crew could contact the appropriate 

authorities to obtain emergency 

assistance and take other necessary 

action. This may include providing a 

direct warning over the train’s public 

address system both to passengers on 

the train as well as to passengers in the 

immediate vicinity of the train on the 

station platform. The final rule does 

require that Tier I passenger trains be 

equipped with public address systems. 

Further, over the past 20 years, other 

accidents and incidents have occurred 

where, if they were to recur, the 

availability of the safety features 

required by this final rule might save 

lives or prevent or minimize injuries. 

For instance, 11 lives were lost in a 

February 16, 1996 collision between a 

Maryland Rail Commuter (MARC) train 

and an Amtrak passenger train in Silver 

Spring, Maryland. The collision 

breached a fuel tank of an Amtrak 

locomotive, spraying fuel into the lead 

vehicle of the MARC train, which 

erupted in fire. The fire and collision 

trapped a number of people in the lead 

vehicle. Having rescue access windows 

available to emergency responders on 

the scene of such a situation in the 

future might facilitate the rescue of one 

or more passengers. 

Similar accidents and incidents have 

unique circumstances that ultimately 

determine their severity in terms of 

casualties, and actual future events 

cannot be predicted with certainty. 

Nonetheless, it is possible that over the 

next 20 years the safety features 

required by this final rule will preserve 

life in a single event in an amount that 

exceeds the entire estimated costs of the 

rule. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and 

Executive Order 13272 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

13272 require a review of proposed and 

final rules to assess their impact on 

small entities. FRA has prepared and 

placed in the docket an Analysis of 

Impact on Small Entities (AISE) that 

assesses the small entity impact of this 

final rule. Document inspection and 

copying facilities are available at the 

Docket Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. Docket material 

is also available for inspection on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Photocopies may also be obtained by 

submitting a written request to the FRA 

Docket Clerk at Office of Chief Counsel, 

Mail Stop 10, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; 

please refer to Docket No. FRA 2006–

25273. 

The AISE developed in connection 

with this final rule concludes that this 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The principal 

entities impacted by the rule are 

governmental jurisdictions or transit 

authorities—none of which is small for 

purposes of the United States Small 

Business Administration (i.e., no entity 

serves a locality with a population less 

than 50,000). These entities also receive 

Federal transportation funds. Although 

these entities are not small, the level of 

costs incurred by each entity should 

generally vary in proportion to either 

the size of the entity, or the extent to 

which the entity purchases newly 

manufactured passenger equipment, or 

both. Tourist, scenic, excursion, and 

historic passenger railroad operations 

are exempt from the new requirements 

in the rule, and, therefore, these smaller 

operations will not incur any costs. 

The final rule does impact passenger 

car manufacturers. However, these 

entities are principally large 

international corporations that are not 

considered small entities. Some 

manufacturers and suppliers of 

emergency signage and communication 

systems may be impacted by the rule, 

and these may be small entities. Yet, 

FRA believes that any impact on these 

entities will neither be significant nor 

negative, to the extent that the demand 

for products and services that they 

provide actually increases. 

Having made these determinations, 

FRA certifies that this final rule is not 

expected to have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act or Executive Order 13272. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this final rule have been 

submitted for approval to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

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

contain the new information collection 

requirements and the estimated time to 

fulfill each requirement are as follows: 

CFR section—49 CFR 

Respondent 

universe 

(railroads) 

Total annual 

responses 

Average time 

per response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

(in minutes) 

Total annual burden 

cost 

238.113—Emergency Window Exits: Markings and Instructions.22 662 markings ............ 60/90/120 964 $0 (Included in Reg. 

Eval.). 

238.114—Rescue Access Windows: Markings and Instructions.22 1,092 markings ......... 45 819 $0 (Included in Reg. 

Eval.). 

238.121—Emergency Communication—

Intercom System: Markings and Instructions.

22 116 markings ............ 5 10 $410. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
6398 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

CFR section—49 CFR 

Respondent 

universe 

(railroads) 

Total annual 

responses 

Average time 

per response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

(in minutes) 

Total annual burden 

cost 

238.123—Emergency Roof Access: Markings and Instructions.22 232 marked locations 30 116 $0 (Included in Reg. 

Eval.). 

238.303—Exterior Calendar Day Mechanical 

Inspection of Passenger Equipment: 

—Repair/Replacement of Non-Complying Rescue Access Markings.22 150 replacement 

markings.

20 50 $2,050. 

—Records of Non-Complying Markings 22 150 records ............... 2 5 $205. 

238.305—Interior Calendar Day Mechanical 

Inspection of Passenger Cars: 

—Non-Complying Conditions of End 

Doors and Side Doors of Passenger 

Cars.

22 260 notifications + 

260 notices.

1 9 $369. 

—Written Notification to Train Crew of 

Inoperative/Non-Functioning Public 

Address and Intercom Systems.

22 300 notifications ........ 1 5 $205. 

—Records of Non-Compliance with Requirements of Section 238.305(d)(3).22 300 records ............... 2 10 $410. 

238.307—Periodic Mechanical Inspection of 

Passenger Cars and Unpowered Vehicles 

Used in Passenger Trains: Replacement 

of Non-complying Emergency Roof Access Markings and Instructions.

22 32 replacement markings/instructions.20 11 $451. 

All estimates include the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering or 

maintaining the needed data, and 

reviewing the information. For 

information or a copy of the paperwork 

package submitted to OMB, contact Mr. 

Robert Brogan, Information Clearance 

Officer, at (202) 493–6292 or via e-mail 

at robert.brogan@dot.gov; or contact Ms. 

Gina Christodoulou at (202) 493–6139 

or via e-mail at 

gina.christodoulou@dot.gov. 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the collection of information 

requirements contained in this final rule 

between 30 and 60 days after 

publication of this final rule 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. Send any comments to: 

The Office of Management and Budget, 

725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20503, Attn: FRA OMB Desk Officer; or 

via e-mail at 

oira_submissions@omb.eop.gov. The 

OMB control number, when assigned, 

will be announced by separate notice in 

the Federal Register. 

FRA is not authorized to impose a 

penalty on persons for violating 

information collection requirements 

which do not display a current OMB 

control number, if required. FRA 

intends to obtain current OMB control 

numbers for any new information 

collection requirements resulting from 

this rulemaking action prior to the 

effective date of the final rule. 

D. Federalism Implications 

FRA has analyzed this final rule in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132, issued on August 4, 1999, which 

directs Federal agencies to exercise great 

care in establishing policies that have 

federalism implications. See 64 FR 

43255. This final rule will not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the National 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among various levels of 

government. 

One of the fundamental Federalism 

principles, as stated in Section 2(a) of 

Executive Order 13132, is that 

‘‘Federalism is rooted in the belief that 

issues that are not national in scope or 

significance are most appropriately 

addressed by the level of government 

closest to the people.’’ Congress 

expressed its intent that there be 

national uniformity of regulation 

concerning railroad safety matters when 

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

provides that all regulations prescribed 

by the Secretary of Transportation with 

respect to railroad safety matters and the 

Secretary of Homeland Security with 

respect to railroad security matters 

preempt any State law, regulation, or 

order covering the same subject matter, 

except a provision necessary to 

eliminate or reduce an essentially local 

safety or security hazard that is not 

incompatible with a Federal law, 

regulation, or order and that does not 

unreasonably burden interstate 

commerce. This intent was expressed 

even more specifically in 49 U.S.C. 

20133, which mandated that the 

Secretary of Transportation prescribe 

‘‘regulations establishing minimum 

standards for the safety of cars used by 

railroad carriers to transport 

passengers’’ and consider such matters 

as ‘‘emergency response procedures and 

equipment’’ before prescribing such 

regulations. This final rule is intended 

to add to and enhance the regulations 

issued pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 20133. 

FRA notes that the above factors have 

been considered throughout the 

development of this final rule both 

internally and through consultation 

within the RSAC forum, as described in 

Section II of this preamble. The full 

RSAC, which, prior to the publication of 

the NPRM, reached consensus on the 

proposed rule text and recommended 

the proposal to FRA, has as permanent 

voting members two organizations 

representing State and local interests: 

AASHTO and ASRSM. As such, these 

State organizations concurred with the 

proposed requirements, which differ in 

only limited respects from the 

requirements contained in this final 

rule. The RSAC regularly provides 

recommendations to the FRA 

Administrator for solutions to regulatory 

issues that reflect significant input from 

its State members. To date, FRA has 

received no indication of concerns 

about the Federalism implications of 

this rulemaking from these 

representatives or from any other 

representative. 

For the foregoing reasons, FRA 

believes that this final rule is in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6399 

E. Environmental Impact 

FRA has evaluated this final rule in 

accordance with its ‘‘Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts’’

(FRA’s Procedures) (see 64 FR 28545 

(May 26, 1999)) as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (see 

42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other 

environmental statutes, Executive 

Orders, and related regulatory 

requirements. FRA has determined that 

this final rule is not a major FRA action 

(requiring the preparation of an 

environmental impact statement or 

environmental assessment) because it is 

categorically excluded from detailed 

environmental review pursuant to 

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

See 64 FR 28547 (May 26, 1999). In 

accordance with section 4(c) and (e) of 

FRA’s Procedures, the agency has 

further concluded that no extraordinary 

circumstances exist with respect to this 

regulation that might trigger the need for 

a more detailed environmental review. 

As a result, FRA finds that this final rule 

is not a major Federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Pursuant to Section 201 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. No. 104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each 

Federal agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise 

prohibited by law, assess the effects of 

Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and tribal governments, and the 

private sector (other than to the extent 

that such regulations incorporate 

requirements specifically set forth in 

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

1532) further requires that ‘‘before 

promulgating any general notice of 

proposed rulemaking that is likely to 

result in the promulgation of any rule 

that includes any Federal mandate that 

may result in expenditure by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100,000,000 or more (adjusted 

annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and 

before promulgating any final rule for 

which a general notice of proposed 

rulemaking was published, the agency 

shall prepare a written statement’’

detailing the effect on State, local, and 

tribal governments and the private 

sector. The final 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. 

G. Energy Impact 

Executive Order 13211 requires 

Federal agencies to prepare a Statement 

of Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant 

energy action.’’ See 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001). Under the Executive Order, a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency (normally 

published in the Federal Register) that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to the 

promulgation of a final rule or 

regulation, including notices of inquiry, 

advance notices of proposed 

rulemaking, and notices of proposed 

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

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy; or (2) that is designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

significant energy action. FRA has 

evaluated this final rule in accordance 

with Executive Order 13211. FRA has 

determined that this final rule is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. Consequently, FRA has 

determined that this regulatory action is 

not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ within 

the meaning of Executive Order 13211. 

H. Trade Impact 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39, 19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.) 

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 final rule on foreign commerce 

and believes that its requirements are 

consistent with the Trade Agreements 

Act. The requirements imposed are 

safety standards, which, as noted, are 

not considered unnecessary obstacles to 

trade. Moreover, FRA has sought, to the 

extent practicable, to state the 

requirements in terms of the 

performance desired, rather than in 

more narrow terms restricted to a 

particular design, so as not to limit 

different, compliant designs by any 

manufacturer—foreign or domestic. 

For related discussion on the 

international effects of part 238, please 

see the preamble to the May 12, 1999 

Passenger Equipment Safety Standards 

final rule on the topic of ‘‘United States 

international treaty obligations.’’ See 64 

FR 25545. 

I. Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments or 

petitions for reconsideration received 

into any of FRA’s dockets by the name 

of the individual submitting the 

comment or petition for reconsideration 

(or signing the comment or petition for 

reconsideration, if submitted on behalf 

of an association, business, labor union, 

etc.). You may review DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(65 FR 19477–78), or you may visit 

http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

List of Subjects 

49 CFR Part 223 

Glazing standards, Penalties, Railroad 

safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

49 CFR Part 238 

Incorporation by reference, Passenger 

equipment, Penalties, Railroad safety, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

The Rule 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, parts 223 and 238 of chapter 

II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal 

Regulations are amended as follows: 

PART 223—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 223 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20103, 20133, 

20701–20702, 21301–21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 

2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49. 

Subpart A—General 

■ 2. Section 223.5 is amended by 

removing the definitions of ‘‘Emergency 

responder’’ and ‘‘Passenger train 

service’’; and by revising the definition 

of ‘‘Emergency window’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 223.5 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Emergency window means the 

segment of a side-facing glazing panel 

that has been designed to permit rapid 

and easy removal from inside a 

passenger car in an emergency situation. 

* * * * * 

Subpart B—Specific Requirements 

■ 3. Section 223.9 is amended by 

removing paragraph (d); and by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
6400 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

1A penalty may be assessed against an individual 

only for a willful violation. The Administrator 

reserves the right to assess a penalty of up to 

$27,000 for any violation where circumstances 

warrant. See 49 U.S.C. 21301, 21304, and 49 CFR 

part 209, appendix A. If more than one item is 

listed as a type of violation of a given section, each 

item is also designated by a ‘‘penalty code,’’ which 

is used to facilitate assessment of civil penalties, 

and which may or may not correspond to any 

subsection designation(s). For convenience, penalty 

citations will cite the CFR section and the penalty 

code, if any. FRA reserves the right, should 

litigation become necessary, to substitute in its 

complaint the CFR citation in place of the 

combined CFR and penalty code citation, should 

they differ. 

§ 223.9 Requirements for new or rebuilt 

equipment. 

* * * * * 

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

after June 30, 1980, must be equipped 

with certified glazing in all windows 

and at least four emergency windows. 

■ 4. Appendix B to part 223 is amended 

by revising the entry for section 223.9; 

and by revising footnote 1 to read as 

follows: 

Appendix B to Part 223—Schedule of 

Civil Penalties 1

Section Violation Willful 

violation 

223.9 New or rebuilt equipment: 

(a) Locomotives ........................................................................................................................................................ $2,500 $5,000 

(b) Cabooses ............................................................................................................................................................ 2,500 5,000 

(c) Passenger cars ................................................................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000 

* * * * * 

PART 238—[AMENDED] 

■ 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 1.49. 

Subpart A—General 

■ 6. Section 238.5 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘Emergency 

window’’ and by adding the definitions 

of ‘‘Dual-function window,’’

‘‘Emergency responder,’’ ‘‘Intercom,’’

‘‘Intercom system,’’ ‘‘Intermediate 

level,’’ ‘‘Main level,’’ ‘‘PA System,’’

‘‘Passenger compartment,’’ ‘‘Rescue 

access window,’’ ‘‘Retroreflective 

material,’’ and ‘‘Seating area’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 238.5 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Dual-function window means a 

window that is intended to serve as both 

an emergency window exit and a rescue 

access window and that meets the 

applicable requirements set forth in 

both §§ 238.113 and 238.114. 

* * * * * 

Emergency responder means a 

member of a police or fire department, 

or other organization involved with 

public safety charged with providing or 

coordinating emergency services, who 

responds to a passenger train 

emergency. 

Emergency window means the 

segment of a side-facing glazing panel 

that has been designed to permit rapid 

and easy removal from inside a 

passenger car in an emergency situation. 

* * * * * 

Intercom means a device through 

which voice communication is 

transmitted and received. 

Intercom system means a two-way, 

voice communication system. 

* * * * * 

Intermediate level means a level of a 

multi-level passenger car that is used for 

passenger seating and is normally 

located between two main levels. An 

intermediate level normally contains 

two, separate seating areas, one at each 

end of the car, and is normally 

connected to each main level by stairs. 

* * * * * 

Main level means a level of a 

passenger car that contains a passenger 

compartment whose length is equal to 

or greater than half the length of the car. 

* * * * * 

PA system (or public address system) 

means a one-way, voice communication 

system. 

* * * * * 

Passenger compartment means an 

area of a passenger car that consists of 

a seating area and any vestibule that is 

connected to the seating area by an open 

passageway. 

* * * * * 

Rescue access window means a sidefacing exterior window intended for use 

by emergency responders to gain access 

to passengers in an emergency situation. 

* * * * * 

Retroreflective material means a 

material that is capable of reflecting 

light rays back to the light source and 

that conforms to the specifications for 

Type I Sheeting as specified in ASTM 

International Standard D 4956–07, 

‘‘Standard Specification for 

Retroreflective Sheeting for Traffic 

Control.’’ The Director of the Federal 

Register approves the incorporation by 

reference of this standard in accordance 

with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

You may obtain a copy of the 

incorporated standard from ASTM 

International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, 

P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 

19428–2959. You may inspect a copy of 

the incorporated standard at the Federal 

Railroad Administration, Docket Clerk, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC, or at the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA). For information on the 

availability of this material at NARA, 

call 202–741–6030, or go to http:// 

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

ibr-locations.html. 

* * * * * 

Seating area means an area of a 

passenger car that normally contains 

passenger seating. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 238.17 is amended by 

revising the introductory text of 

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

§ 238.17 Movement of passenger 

equipment with other than power brake 

defects. 

* * * * * 

(b) Limitations on movement of 

passenger equipment containing defects 

found at time of calendar day 

inspection. Except as provided in 

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

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

passenger equipment containing a 

condition not in conformity with this 

part at the time of its calendar day 

mechanical inspection may be moved 

from that location for repair if all of the 

following conditions are satisfied: 

* * * * * 

(c) Limitations on movement of 

passenger equipment that develops 

defects en route. Except as provided in 

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

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

238.503(f), passenger equipment that 

develops en route to its destination, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6401 

after its calendar day mechanical 

inspection is performed and before its 

next calendar day mechanical 

inspection is performed, any condition 

not in compliance with this part, other 

than a power brake defect, may be 

moved only if the railroad complies 

with all of the following requirements 

or, if applicable, the specified 

requirements in paragraph (e) of this 

section: 

* * * * * 

Subpart B—Safety Planning and 

General Requirements 

■ 8. Section 238.113 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 238.113 Emergency window exits. 

(a) Number and location. Except as 

provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section, the following requirements in 

this paragraph (a) apply on or after April 

1, 2008—

(1) Single-level passenger cars. Each 

single-level passenger car shall have a 

minimum of four emergency window 

exits. At least one emergency window 

exit shall be located in each side of each 

end (half) of the car, in a staggered 

configuration where practical. (See 

Figure 1 to this subpart; see also Figures 

1b and 1c to this subpart.) 

(2) Multi-level passenger cars—main 

levels. Each main level in a multi-level 

passenger car is subject to the same 

requirements specified for single-level 

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

section. 

(3) Multi-level passenger cars—levels 

with seating areas other than main 

levels. 

(i) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(a)(3)(ii) and (iii) of this section, on or 

after August 1, 2009, any level other 

than a main level used for passenger 

seating in a multi-level passenger car, 

such as an intermediate level, shall have 

a minimum of two emergency window 

exits in each seating area. The 

emergency window exits shall be 

accessible to passengers in the seating 

area without requiring movement 

through an interior door or to another 

level of the car. At least one emergency 

window exit shall be located in each 

side of the seating area. An emergency 

window exit may be located within an 

exterior side door in the passenger 

compartment if it is not practical to 

place the window exit in the side of the 

seating area. (See Figures 2 and 2a to 

this subpart.) 

(ii) Only one emergency window exit 

is required in a seating area in a 

passenger compartment if: 

(A) It is not practical to place an 

emergency window exit in a side of the 

passenger compartment due to the need 

to provide accessible accommodations 

under the Americans with Disabilities 

Act of 1990; 

(B) There are no more than four seats 

in the seating area; and 

(C) A suitable, alternate arrangement 

for emergency egress is provided. 

(iii) For passenger cars ordered prior 

to April 1, 2009, and placed in service 

prior to April 1, 2011, only one 

emergency window exit is required in a 

seating area in a passenger compartment 

if—

(A) It is not practicable to place a 

window exit in a side of the passenger 

compartment (due to the presence of a 

structure such as a bathroom, electrical 

locker, or kitchen); and 

(B) There are no more than eight seats 

in the seating area. 

(4) Cars with a sleeping compartment 

or similar private compartment. Each 

level of a passenger car with a sleeping 

compartment or a similar private 

compartment intended to be occupied 

by a passenger or train crewmember 

shall have at least one emergency 

window exit in each such compartment. 

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

bathroom, kitchen, or locomotive cab is 

not considered a ‘‘compartment.’’

(b) Ease of operability. On or after 

November 8, 1999, each emergency 

window exit shall be designed to permit 

rapid and easy removal from the inside 

of the car during an emergency situation 

without requiring the use of a tool or 

other implement. 

(c) Dimensions. Except as provided in 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this 

section, each emergency window exit in 

a passenger car, including a sleeping 

car, ordered on or after September 8, 

2000, or placed in service for the first 

time on or after September 9, 2002, shall 

have an unobstructed opening with 

minimum dimensions of 26 inches 

horizontally by 24 inches vertically. A 

seatback is not an obstruction if it can 

be moved away from the window 

opening without using a tool or other 

implement. 

(1) Emergency window exits in 

exterior side doors. An emergency 

window exit located within an exterior 

side door, in accordance with the 

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

this section, may have an unobstructed 

opening with minimum dimensions of 

24 inches horizontally by 26 inches 

vertically. 

(2) Additional emergency window 

exits. Any emergency window exit in 

addition to the minimum number 

required by paragraph (a) of this section 

that has been designated for use by the 

railroad need not comply with the 

minimum dimension requirements in 

paragraph (c) of this section, but must 

otherwise comply with all requirements 

in this part applicable to emergency 

window exits. 

(d) Marking and instructions. (1) Each 

emergency window exit shall be 

conspicuously and legibly marked with 

luminescent material on the inside of 

each car to facilitate passenger egress. 

(2) Legible and understandable 

operating instructions, including 

instructions for removing the window, 

shall be posted at or near each such 

window exit. If window removal may be 

hindered by the presence of a seatback, 

headrest, luggage rack, or other fixture, 

the instructions shall state the method 

for allowing rapid and easy removal of 

the window, taking into account the 

fixture(s), and this portion of the 

instructions may be in written or 

pictorial format. 

■ 9. Section 238.114 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 238.114 Rescue access windows. 

(a) Number and location. Except as 

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

section, the following requirements in 

this paragraph (a) apply on or after April 

1, 2008—

(1) Single-level passenger cars. Except 

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

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

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

passenger car shall have a minimum of 

two rescue access windows. At least one 

rescue access window shall be located 

in each side of the car entirely within 

15 feet of the car’s centerline, or entirely 

within 71⁄2 feet of the centerline if the 

car does not exceed 45 feet in length. 

(See Figure 1a to this subpart; see also 

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

seating level is obstructed by an interior 

door or otherwise partitioned into 

separate seating areas, each separate 

seating area shall have a minimum of 

one rescue access window in each side 

of the seating area, located as near to the 

center of the car as practical. 

(i) For a single-level passenger car 

ordered prior to April 1, 2009, and 

placed in service prior to April 1, 2011, 

rescue access windows may be located 

farther than the above prescribed 

distances from the car’s centerline, or 

located within exterior side doors, or 

both, if at least one rescue access 

window is located within each side of 

each end (half) of the same passenger 

compartment. 

(ii) For a single-level passenger car 

ordered prior to September 8, 2000, and 

placed in service prior to September 9, 

2002, the requirements of paragraph 

(a)(1) apply on or after August 1, 2009 

if the car has at least two exterior side 

doors (or door leaves), each with a 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
6402 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

manual override device, and such doors 

(or door leaves) are located one on each 

side of the car, in opposite ends (halves) 

of the car (i.e., in diagonally-opposite 

quadrants). The manual override device 

shall be—

(A) Capable of releasing the door (or 

door leaf) to permit it to be opened 

without power from outside the car; 

(B) Located adjacent to the door (or 

door leaf) that it controls; and 

(C) Designed and maintained so that 

a person can access the override device 

from outside the car without using a 

tool or other implement. 

(2) Multi-level passenger cars—main 

levels. Each main level in a multi-level 

passenger car is subject to the same 

requirements specified for single-level 

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

section, with the exception of paragraph 

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

(3) Multi-level passenger cars—levels 

with seating areas other than main 

levels. (i) Except as provided in 

paragraphs (a)(3)(ii) and (a)(3)(iii) of this 

section, any level other than a main 

level used for passenger seating in a 

multi-level passenger car, such as an 

intermediate level, shall have a 

minimum of two rescue access windows 

in each seating area. The rescue access 

windows shall permit emergency 

responders to gain access to passengers 

in the seating area without requiring 

movement through an interior door or to 

another level of the car. At least one 

rescue access window shall be located 

in each side of the seating area. A rescue 

access window may be located within 

an exterior side door in the passenger 

compartment if it is not practical to 

place the access window in the side of 

the seating area. (See Figures 2 and 2a 

of this subpart.) 

(ii) Only one rescue access window is 

required in a seating area in a passenger 

compartment if—

(A) It is not practical to place a rescue 

access window in a side of the 

passenger compartment due to the need 

to provide accessible accommodations 

under the Americans with Disabilities 

Act of 1990; 

(B) There are no more than four seats 

in the seating area; and 

(C) A suitable, alternate arrangement 

for rescue access is provided. 

(iii) For passenger cars ordered prior 

to April 1, 2009, and placed in service 

prior to April 1, 2011, only one rescue 

access window is required in a seating 

area in a passenger compartment if—

(A) It is not practicable to place an 

access window in a side of the 

passenger compartment (due to the 

presence of a structure such as a 

bathroom, electrical locker, or kitchen); 

and 

(B) There are no more than eight seats 

in the seating area. 

(4) Cars with a sleeping compartment 

or similar private compartment. Each 

level of a passenger car with a sleeping 

compartment or a similar private 

compartment intended to be occupied 

by a passenger or train crewmember 

shall have a minimum of one rescue 

access window in each such 

compartment. For purposes of this 

paragraph, a bathroom, kitchen, or 

locomotive cab is not considered a 

‘‘compartment.’’

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

level of a passenger car, the emergency 

window exits installed to meet the 

minimum requirements of § 238.113 are 

also intended to function as rescue 

access windows, the minimum 

requirements for the number and 

location of rescue access windows in 

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

section are also met for that level. 

(b) Ease of operability. On or after 

April 1, 2008, each rescue access 

window must be capable of being 

removed without unreasonable delay by 

an emergency responder using either—

(1) A provided external mechanism; 

or 

(2) Tools or implements that are 

commonly available to the responder in 

a passenger train emergency. 

(c) Dimensions. Each rescue access 

window in a passenger car, including a 

sleeping car, ordered on or after April 1, 

2009, or placed in service for the first 

time on or after April 1, 2011, shall have 

an unobstructed opening with minimum 

dimensions of 26 inches horizontally by 

24 inches vertically. A rescue access 

window located within an exterior side 

door, in accordance with the 

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

this section, may have an unobstructed 

opening with minimum dimensions of 

24 inches horizontally by 26 inches 

vertically. A seatback is not an 

obstruction if it can be moved away 

from the window opening without using 

a tool or other implement. 

(d) Marking and instructions. Each 

rescue access window shall be marked 

with retroreflective material. A unique 

and easily recognizable symbol, sign, or 

other conspicuous marking shall also be 

used to identify each such window. 

Legible and understandable windowaccess instructions, including 

instructions for removing the window, 

shall be posted at or near each rescue 

access window. 

■ 10. Add new § 238.121 to read as 

follows: 

§ 238.121 Emergency communication. 

(a) PA system (public address system). 

(1) Existing Tier I passenger cars. On or 

after January 1, 2012, each Tier I 

passenger car shall be equipped with a 

PA system that provides a means for a 

train crewmember to communicate by 

voice to passengers of his or her train in 

an emergency situation. 

(2) New Tier I and all Tier II 

passenger cars. Each Tier I passenger 

car ordered on or after April 1, 2008, or 

placed in service for the first time April 

1, 2010, and all Tier II passenger cars 

shall be equipped with a PA system that 

provides a means for a train 

crewmember to communicate by voice 

to passengers of his or her train in an 

emergency situation. The PA system 

shall also provide a means for a train 

crewmember to communicate by voice 

in an emergency situation to persons in 

the immediate vicinity of his or her 

train (e.g., persons on the station 

platform). The PA system may be part 

of the same system as the intercom 

system. 

(b) Intercom system. (1) New Tier I 

and all Tier II passenger cars. Each Tier 

I passenger car ordered on or after April 

1, 2008, or placed in service for the first 

time on or after April 1, 2010, and all 

Tier II passenger cars shall be equipped 

with an intercom system that provides 

a means for passengers and 

crewmembers to communicate by voice 

with each other in an emergency 

situation. Except as further specified, at 

least one intercom that is accessible to 

passengers without using a tool or other 

implement shall be located in each end 

(half) of each car. If any passenger car 

does not exceed 45 feet in length, or if 

a Tier II passenger car was ordered prior 

to May 12, 1999, only one such 

intercom is required. The intercom 

system may be part of the same system 

as the PA system. 

(2) Marking and instructions. The 

following requirements apply to each 

Tier I passenger car on or after April 1, 

2010 and to all Tier II passenger cars: 

(i) The location of each intercom 

intended for passenger use shall be 

conspicuously marked with 

luminescent material; and 

(ii) Legible and understandable 

operating instructions shall be posted at 

or near each such intercom. 

(c) Back-up power. PA and intercom 

systems shall have a back-up power 

system capable of—

(1) Operating in all equipment 

orientations within 45 degrees of 

vertical; 

(2) Operating after the initial shock of 

a collision or derailment resulting in the 

following individually applied 

accelerations: 

(i) Longitudinal: 8g; 

(ii) Lateral: 4g; and 

(iii) Vertical: 4g; and 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6403 

(3) Powering each system to allow 

intermittent emergency communication 

for a minimum period of 90 minutes. 

Intermittent communication shall be 

considered equivalent to continuous 

communication during the last 15 

minutes of the 90-minute minimum 

period. 

■ 11. Section 238.123 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 238.123 Emergency roof access. 

Except as provided in § 238.441 of 

this chapter—

(a) Number and dimensions. Each 

passenger car ordered on or after April 

1, 2009, or placed in service for the first 

time on or after April 1, 2011, shall have 

a minimum of two emergency roof 

access locations, each with a minimum 

opening of 26 inches longitudinally (i.e., 

parallel to the longitudinal axis of the 

car) by 24 inches laterally. 

(b) Means of access. Emergency roof 

access shall be provided by means of a 

hatch, or a conspicuously marked 

structural weak point in the roof for 

access by properly equipped emergency 

response personnel. 

(c) Location. Emergency roof access 

locations shall be situated as practical 

so that when a car is on its side—

(1) One emergency access location is 

wholly within each half of the roof as 

divided top from bottom; and 

(2) One emergency access location is 

wholly within each half of the roof as 

divided left from right. (See Figure 3 to 

this subpart.) 

(d) Obstructions. The ceiling space 

below each emergency roof access 

location shall be free from wire, cabling, 

conduit, and piping. This space shall 

also be free of any rigid secondary 

structure (e.g., a diffuser or diffuser 

support, lighting back fixture, mounted 

PA equipment, or luggage rack) where 

practicable. If emergency roof access is 

provided by means of a hatch, it shall 

be possible to push interior panels or 

liners out of their retention devices and 

into the interior of the vehicle after 

removing the hatch. If emergency roof 

access is provided by means of a 

structural weak point, it shall be 

permissible to cut through interior 

panels, liners, or other non-rigid 

secondary structures after making the 

cutout hole in the roof, provided any 

such additional cutting necessary to 

access the interior of the vehicle permits 

a minimum opening of the dimensions 

specified in paragraph (a) to be 

maintained. 

(e) Marking and instructions. Each 

emergency roof access location shall be 

conspicuously marked with 

retroreflective material of contrasting 

color. As further specified, legible and 

understandable instructions shall be 

posted at or near each such location. If 

emergency roof access is provided by 

means of a structural weak point—

(1) The retroreflective material shall 

conspicuously mark the line along 

which the roof skin shall be cut; and 

(2) A sign plate with a retroreflective 

border shall also state as follows: 

CAUTION—DO NOT USE FLAME CUTTING 

DEVICES 

CAUTION—WARN PASSENGERS BEFORE 

CUTTING 

CUT ALONG DASHED LINE TO GAIN 

ACCESS 

ROOF CONSTRUCTION—[STATE 

RELEVANT DETAILS] 

■ 12. Subpart B to part 238 is amended 

by adding Figures 1, 1a, 1b, 1c, 2, 2a, 2b, 

and 3 to read as follows: 

Sec. 

Figure 1 to Subpart B of Part 238—Example 

of Location and Staggering of Emergency 

Window Exits—§ 238.113 

Figure 1A to Subpart B of Part 238—Example 

of Location of Rescue Access Windows—

§ 238.114 

Figure 1B to Subpart B of Part 238—Example 

of Location and Staggering of Emergency 

Window Exits and Location of Rescue 

Access Windows—§§ 238.113 and 

238.114 

Figure 1C to Subpart B of Part 238—Example 

of a Passenger Compartment Including a 

Vestibule Connected by an Open 

Passageway and Excluding a Vestibule 

Separated by an Interior Door—

§§ 238.113 and 238.114 

Figure 2 to Subpart B of Part 238—Example 

of a Multi-Level Car Complying with 

Window Location and Staggering 

Requirements—§§ 238.113 and 238.114 

Figure 2A to Subpart B of Part 238—Example 

of an Intermediate Level Seating Area of 

a Multi-Level Car Complying With 

Window Location Requirements—

§§ 238.113 and 238.114 

Figure 2B to Subpart B of Part 238—Example 

of an Intermediate Level Seating Area of 

a Multi-Level Car Complying With 

Window Location Requirements—

§§ 238.113 and 238.114 

Figure 3 to Subpart B of Part 238—Example 

of Location and Marking of Structural 

Weak Points on Roof of Passenger Car—

§ 238.123 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
6404 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER01FE08.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6405 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER01FE08.002</GPH>
6406 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER01FE08.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6407 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER01FE08.004</GPH>
6408 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER01FE08.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6409 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER01FE08.006</GPH>
6410 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER01FE08.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6411 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER01FE08.008</GPH>
6412 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–C 

Subpart D—Inspection, Testing, and 

Maintenance Requirements for Tier I 

Passenger Equipment 

■ 13. Section 238.303 is amended by 

adding paragraph (e)(18) to read as 

follows: 

§ 238.303 Exterior calendar day 

mechanical inspection of passenger 

equipment. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(18) All rescue-access-related exterior 

markings, signage, and instructions 

required by § 238.114 and § 239.107(a) 

of this chapter shall be in place and, as 

applicable, conspicuous or legible, or 

both. 

(i) Except as provided in paragraphs 

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

passenger equipment that has any 

required rescue-access-related exterior 

marking, signage, or instruction that is 

missing, illegible, or inconspicuous may 

remain in passenger service until no 

later than the equipment’s fourth 

exterior calendar day mechanical 

inspection or next periodic mechanical 

inspection required under § 238.307, 

whichever occurs first, after the 

noncomplying condition is discovered, 

where the car shall be repaired or 

removed from service. 

(ii) A passenger car having more than 

50 percent of the windows on a side of 

a level of the car designated and 

properly marked for rescue access that 

has any required rescue-access-related 

exterior marking, signage, or instruction 

that is missing, illegible, or 

inconspicuous on any of the other 

windows on that side and level of the 

car may remain in passenger service 

until no later than the car’s next 

periodic mechanical inspection required 

under § 238.307, where the car shall be 

repaired or removed from service. 

(iii) A passenger car that is a sleeping 

car that has more than two consecutive 

windows with any required rescue 

access-related exterior marking, signage, 

or instruction at or near their locations 

that is missing, illegible, or 

inconspicuous may remain in passenger 

service until no later than the car’s next 

periodic mechanical inspection required 

under § 238.307, where the car shall be 

repaired or removed from service. 

(iv) A record shall be maintained of 

any noncomplying marking, signage, or 

instruction described in paragraphs 

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

contains the date and time that the 

defective condition was first discovered. 

This record shall be retained until all 

necessary repairs are completed. 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Section 238.305 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) introductory text 

and paragraph (c)(10), and by adding 

paragraphs (c)(11) and (c)(12) to read as 

follows: 

§ 238.305 Interior calendar day mechanical 

inspection of passenger cars. 

* * * * * 

(c) As part of the interior calendar day 

mechanical inspection, the railroad 

shall verify conformity with the 

following conditions, and 

nonconformity with any such condition 

renders the car defective whenever 

discovered in service, except as 

provided in paragraphs (c)(8) through 

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

* * * * * 

(10) All end doors and side doors 

operate safely and as intended. A 

noncomplying car may continue in 

passenger service pursuant to paragraph 

(d) of this section—

(i) If at least one operative and 

accessible door is available on each side 

of the car; 

(ii) The train crew is provided written 

notification of the noncomplying 

condition; and 

(iii) A notice is prominently displayed 

directly on the defective door indicating 

that the door is defective. 

(11) [Reserved] 

(12) On passenger cars so equipped, 

public address and intercom systems 

shall be operative and function as 

intended. A passenger car with an 

inoperative or nonfunctioning public 

address or intercom system may remain 

in passenger service until no later than 

the car’s fourth interior calendar day 

mechanical inspection or next periodic 

mechanical inspection required under 

§ 238.307, whichever occurs first, or for 

a passenger car used in long-distance 

intercity train service until the eighth 

interior calendar day mechanical 

inspection or next periodic mechanical 

inspection required under § 238.307, 

whichever occurs first, after the 

noncomplying condition is discovered, 

where it shall be repaired or removed 

from service; provided, the train crew is 

given written notification of the 

noncomplying condition, and all of the 

requirements contained in paragraph 

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

* * * * * 

■ 15. Section 238.307 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) introductory text, 

paragraph (c)(5), and paragraph (d) to 

read as follows: 

§ 238.307 Periodic mechanical inspection 

of passenger cars and unpowered vehicles 

used in passenger trains. 

* * * * * 

(c) The periodic mechanical 

inspection shall specifically include the 

following interior and exterior 

mechanical components, which shall be 

inspected not less frequently than every 

184 days. At a minimum, this 

inspection shall determine that: 

* * * * * 

(5) With regard to the following 

emergency systems: 

(i) Emergency lighting systems 

required under § 238.115 are in place 

and operational; and 

(ii) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(d) At an interval not to exceed 368 

days, the periodic mechanical 

inspection shall specifically include 

inspection of the following: 

(1) Manual door releases, to determine 

that all manual door releases operate as 

intended; 

(2) The hand or parking brake as well 

as its parts and connections, to 

determine that they are in proper 

condition and operate as intended. The 

date of the last inspection shall be either 

entered on Form FRA F 6180–49A, 

suitably stenciled or tagged on the 

equipment, or maintained electronically 

provided FRA has access to the record 

upon request; and 

(3) Emergency roof access markings 

and instructions required under 

§ 238.123(e), to determine that they are 

in place and, as applicable, conspicuous 

or legible, or both. 

* * * * * 

Subpart E—Specific Requirements for 

Tier II Passenger Equipment 

§ 238.437 [Removed] 

■ 16. Section 238.437 is removed and 

reserved. 

■ 17. Section 238.441 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 238.441 Emergency roof access. 

(a) Existing passenger cars and power 

cars. Each passenger car and power car 

ordered prior to April 1, 2009 and 

placed in service for the first time prior 

to April 1, 2011, shall have a minimum 

of one roof hatch emergency access 

location with a minimum opening of 26 

inches by 24 inches, or at least one 

structural weak point in the roof 

providing a minimum opening of the 

same dimensions, to provide access for 

properly equipped emergency response 

personnel. Each emergency roof access 

location shall be conspicuously marked, 

and legible and understandable 

operating instructions shall be posted at 

or near each such location. 

(b) New passenger cars. Each 

passenger car ordered on or after April 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6413 

1A penalty may be assessed against an individual 

only for a willful violation. Generally when two or 

more violations of these regulations are discovered 

with respect to a single unit of passenger equipment 

that is placed or continued in service by a railroad, 

the appropriate penalties set forth above are 

aggregated up to a maximum of $16,000 per day. 

However, failure to perform, with respect to a 

particular unit of passenger equipment, any of the 

inspections and tests required under subparts D and 

F of this part will be treated as a violation separate 

and distinct from, and in addition to, any 

substantive violative conditions found on that unit 

of passenger equipment. Moreover, the 

Administrator reserves the right to assess a penalty 

of up to $27,000 for any violation where 

circumstances warrant. See 49 CFR part 209, 

appendix A. 

Failure to observe any condition for movement of 

defective equipment set forth in § 238.17 will 

deprive the railroad of the benefit of the movementfor-repair provision and make the railroad and any 

responsible individuals liable for penalty under the 

particular regulatory section(s) concerning the 

substantive defect(s) present on the unit of 

passenger equipment at the time of movement. 

Failure to observe any condition for the 

movement of passenger equipment containing 

defective safety appliances, other than power 

brakes, set forth in § 238.17(e) will deprive the 

railroad of the movement-for-repair provision and 

make the railroad and any responsible individuals 

liable for penalty under the particular regulatory 

section(s) contained in part 231 of this chapter or 

§ 238.429 concerning the substantive defective 

condition. 

The penalties listed for failure to perform the 

exterior and interior mechanical inspections and 

tests required under § 238.303 and § 238.305 may be 

assessed for each unit of passenger equipment 

contained in a train that is not properly inspected. 

Whereas, the penalties listed for failure to perform 

the brake inspections and tests under § 238.313 

through § 238.319 may be assessed for each train 

that is not properly inspected. 

2The penalty schedule uses section numbers 

from 49 CFR part 238. If more than one item is 

listed as a type of violation of a given section, each 

item is also designated by a ‘‘penalty code,’’ which 

is used to facilitate assessment of civil penalties, 

and which may or may not correspond to any 

subsection designation(s). For convenience, penalty 

citations will cite the CFR section and the penalty 

code, if any. FRA reserves the right, should 

litigation become necessary, to substitute in its 

complaint the CFR citation in place of the 

combined CFR and penalty code citation, should 

they differ. 

1, 2009 or placed in service for the first 

time on or after April 1, 2011, shall 

comply with the emergency roof access 

requirements specified in § 238.123. 

(c) New power cars. Each power car 

ordered on or after April 1, 2009, or 

placed in service for the first time on or 

after April 1, 2011, shall have a 

minimum of one emergency roof access 

location, with 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). 

■ 18. Appendix A to part 238 is 

amended by adding entries under 

subpart B for new sections 238.114, 

238.121, and 238.123, under subpart E 

by removing and reserving the entry for 

section 238.437 and revising the entry 

for section 238.441, and by revising 

footnote 1 and adding footnote 2 to read 

as follows: 

Appendix A to Part 238—Schedule of 

Civil Penalties 1 2

Section Violation Willful 

violation 

Subpart B—Safety Planning and General Requirements 

* * * * * * * 

238.114 Rescue access windows ................................................................................................................................. 2,500 5,000 

* * * * * * * 

238.121 Emergency communication ............................................................................................................................. 2,500 5,000 

238.123 Emergency roof access ................................................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000 

* * * * * * * 

Subpart E—Specific Requirements for 

Tier II Passenger Equipment 

§ 238.437 [Reserved] 

* * * * * * * 

238.441 Emergency roof access ................................................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000 

* * * * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 17, 

2008. 

Joseph H. Boardman, 

Federal Railroad Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 08–247 Filed 1–31–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–00–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES