Document ID: FRA-2021-0067-0002
Agency: fra
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Passenger Equipment Safety Standards: High-Speed Trainsets
Posted Date: 2023-04-03T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 63 (Monday, April 3, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19730-19796]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05576]

[[Page 19729]]

Vol. 88

Monday,

No. 63

April 3, 2023

Part II

Department of Transportation

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

Federal Railroad Administration

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

49 CFR Parts 216, 231, and 238

Passenger Equipment Safety Standards; Standards for High-Speed 
Trainsets; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 19730]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Parts 216, 231, and 238

[Docket No. FRA-2021-0067, Notice No. 1]
RIN 2130-AC90

Passenger Equipment Safety Standards; Standards for High-Speed 
Trainsets

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: FRA is proposing to amend its Passenger Equipment Safety 
Standards to modernize Tier I and Tier III safety appliance 
requirements; update the pre-revenue compliance documentation and 
testing requirements; establish crashworthiness requirements for 
individual Tier I-compliant vehicles equipped with crash energy 
management (CEM); establish standards for Tier III inspection, testing, 
and maintenance (ITM) and movement of defective equipment (MODE); 
incorporate general safety requirements from FRA's Railroad Locomotive 
Safety Standards for Tier III trainsets; and provide for periodic 
inspection of emergency lighting to ensure proper functioning.

DATES: Written comments must be received by June 2, 2023. Comments 
received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable 
without incurring additional expense or delay.
    FRA anticipates it can resolve this rulemaking without a public, 
oral hearing. However, if FRA receives a specific request for a public, 
oral hearing prior to May 3, 2023, FRA will schedule one and will 
publish a supplemental notice in the Federal Register to inform 
interested parties of the date, time, and location of any such hearing.

ADDRESSES: 
    Comments: Comments related to Docket No. FRA-2021-0067, Notice No. 
1, may be submitted by going to http://www.regulations.gov and 
following the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name, docket 
name, and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for 
this rulemaking (2130-AC90). Note that all comments received will be 
posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any 
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading in 
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document for Privacy Act 
information related to any submitted comments or materials.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the 
online instructions for accessing the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Hunter, Executive Staff 
Director, Office of Railroad Systems and Technology, telephone: 202-
579-5508 or email: [email protected]; or James Mecone, Attorney 
Adviser, Office of the Chief Counsel, telephone: (202) 380-5324 or 
email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Statutory Authority and Regulatory Development
III. Technical Background and Overview
    A. Passenger Electronic Hardware and Software Safety
    B. Updates to Pre-Revenue Compliance Documentation and Testing 
Requirements
    C. Exterior Side Door Safety Systems--New Passenger Cars and 
Locomotives
    D. Alternative Crashworthiness Requirements for Evaluating Tier 
I Equipment Utilizing Crash Energy Management (CEM) on Individual 
Vehicles
    E. Safety Appliances for Non-Passenger Carrying Locomotives and 
Passenger Equipment
    F. Tier III Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance, and Movement 
of Defective Equipment
    G. General Tier III Safety Requirements
    H. Congressional Mandates Under the Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
V. Regulatory Impact and Notices
    A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Federalism Implications
    E. International Trade Impact Assessment
    F. Environmental Impact
    G. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
    H. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
    I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    J. Energy Impact
    K. Privacy Act
    L. Analysis Under 1 CFR Part 51

Table of Abbreviations

    The following abbreviations are used in this document's preamble:

ATC automatic train control
CE categorical exclusion
CEM crash energy management
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EA environmental assessment
EIS environmental impact statement
ETF Engineering Task Force
FMECA Failure Modes, Effects, Criticality Analysis
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
HEP head-end power
ICC Interstate Commerce Commission
IIJA Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
ITM inspection, testing, and maintenance
LED light-emitting diode
LIA Locomotive Inspection Act
MCAT minimally compliant analytical track
MODE movement of defective equipment
mph miles per hour
MCAT minimally compliant analytical track
MU multiple-unit
NPRM notice of proposed rulemaking
OEM original equipment manufacturer
PA public address
PSWG Passenger Safety Working Group
PTC positive train control
RMS root mean squared
RSAC Railroad Safety Advisory Committee
U.S. United States

I. Executive Summary

    This NPRM is based on recommendations from the Railroad Safety 
Advisory Committee (RSAC) \1\ and will complete the Tier III passenger 
equipment safety standards.\2\ This NPRM is proposing new requirements 
and revisions to two main subject areas: (1) requirements generally 
applicable to all passenger equipment, such as new passenger service 
pre-revenue safety performance demonstration, and vehicle design and 
dynamic qualification; and (2) requirements specific to Tier III 
passenger equipment, such as general safety requirements and safety 
appliances, inspection, testing, and maintenance, and movement of 
defective equipment. FRA estimates the 30-year costs of this proposed 
rule to be approximately $55.5 million, undiscounted, with the majority 
of the costs deriving from Tier III equipment ITM requirements. The 
present value of these costs is approximately $21.7 million, discounted 
at 7 percent, and $35.5 million, discounted at 3 percent; of note, 
however, the majority of the costs are incurred only if an operator

[[Page 19731]]

chooses to take advantage of flexibilities in the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ RSAC was established to provide a forum for considering 
railroad safety issues and developing recommendations on rulemakings 
and other safety program areas. It includes representation from all 
FRA's major stakeholder groups, including railroads, labor 
organizations, suppliers, manufacturers, and other interested 
parties.
    \2\ Tier I passenger equipment is permitted to travel up to 125 
mph; Tier II passenger equipment is permitted to travel up to 160 
mph; and Tier III passenger equipment is permitted to travel up to 
125 mph in a shared right-of-way and 220 mph in an exclusive right-
of-way without highway-rail grade crossings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The benefits of this proposed rule are estimated to be 
approximately $0.3 million, undiscounted. The majority of the benefits 
are derived from emergency communication and savings to the Federal 
Government. The present value is approximately $0.2 million, discounted 
at 7 percent, and $0.3 million, discounted at 3 percent.
    In 2018, FRA issued a final rule adopting new and modified 
requirements governing the construction of conventional-speed and high-
speed passenger rail equipment. FRA notes that it is important to 
consider the costs and benefits of this proposed rulemaking in 
conjunction with the costs and benefits of the 2018 rulemaking, as the 
current rulemaking is necessary to complete the regulatory framework 
set out in the 2018 final rule. Over the 30-year period of analysis for 
the 2018 final rule, FRA estimated net regulatory cost savings of 
$284.8 million (low range) to $541.9 million (high range), discounted 
at 7 percent. Annualized net regulatory cost savings totaled between 
$22.9 million and $43.7 million when discounted at a 7-percent rate.
    The net costs of this proposed rule are estimated to be 
approximately $55.2 million, undiscounted. The annualized net costs are 
approximately $1.7 million, discounted at 7 percent.

                          Net Regulatory Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Present      Present
                    Impact                        value 7%     value 3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs.........................................       $21.67       $35.49
Benefits......................................         0.22         0.26
Net Costs.....................................        21.45        35.23
                                               -------------------------
  Annualized Net Costs........................         1.73         1.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Statutory Authority and Regulatory Development

    In September 1994, the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) 
convened a meeting of representatives from all sectors of the rail 
industry with the goal of enhancing rail safety. As one initiative of 
this Rail Safety Summit, the Secretary announced that DOT would begin 
developing safety standards for rail passenger equipment over a five-
year period. In November 1994, Congress adopted the Secretary's 
schedule for implementing rail passenger equipment safety regulations 
and included it in the Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 
1994 (the Act), Public Law 103-440, 108 Stat. 4619, 4623-4624 (November 
2, 1994). In the Act, Congress also authorized the Secretary to consult 
with various organizations involved in passenger train operations for 
purposes of prescribing and amending these regulations and to issue 
orders under it. See section 215 of the Act (codified at 49 U.S.C. 
20133).
    Since FRA promulgated the inaugural set of passenger equipment 
safety standards in May 1999, satisfying the Congressional mandate, FRA 
has engaged in a number of rulemakings to amend and enhance its 
passenger equipment safety requirements. Most pertinent to this 
proposed rulemaking, FRA published a final rule on November 21, 2018, 
adopting new and modified requirements governing the construction of 
conventional-speed and high-speed passenger rail equipment. See 83 FR 
59182. FRA added a new tier of passenger equipment safety standards 
(Tier III) to facilitate the safe implementation of nation-wide, 
interoperable passenger rail service at speeds up to 220 miles per hour 
(mph). FRA also established crashworthiness and occupant protection 
requirements in the alternative to those previously specified for Tier 
I passenger trainsets. Additionally, FRA increased from 150 mph to 160 
mph the maximum speed for passenger equipment that complies with FRA's 
Tier II requirements.
    Due to the complexity of the Tier III safety requirements, FRA 
separated their establishment into two distinct rulemaking efforts. The 
2018 final rule primarily established the occupant volume protection 
and other major structural requirements, such as brake and emergency 
systems requirements. This NPRM is proposing requirements that would 
complement those requirements and complete the Tier III rulemaking 
process.
    This proposed rule is the product of consensus reached by FRA's 
RSAC, which accepted the task of reviewing passenger equipment safety 
needs and programs and recommending specific actions that could be 
useful to advance the safety of passenger service, including the 
development of standards for the next generation of high-speed 
trainsets. The RSAC established the Passenger Safety Working Group 
(PSWG) \3\ to handle this task and develop recommendations for the full 
RSAC to consider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Engineering Task Force (ETF) was discontinued when the 
charter for RSAC expired on May 17, 2018. The RSAC was re-chartered 
on September 10, 2018, and on February 1, 2019, the RSAC established 
the PSWG to continue the work of the ETF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In August 2019, the PSWG convened to discuss the topics considered 
previously by the ETF that were not included in the initial, Tier III 
final rule published November 21, 2018.\4\ During this meeting, the 
PSWG reached consensus on revising or establishing, as appropriate, 
safety standards for Tier I and Tier III safety appliances and non-
passenger carrying locomotives. The PSWG also reached consensus on 
requirements for CEM for a single car or locomotive; Tier III 
inspection, testing, and maintenance; and movement of defective 
equipment. On November 26, 2019, the RSAC voted to recommend the 
consensus items to FRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 83 FR 59182.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Technical Background and Overview

A. Passenger Electronic Hardware and Software Safety

    With the proliferation of microprocessor control technologies, the 
integration of electronic hardware and software on passenger rail 
equipment has grown exponentially. Software-based electronic systems 
are currently used to manage virtually all critical subsystems on board 
a passenger train ranging from primarily passenger comfort features 
such as air temperature and wireless networking systems, to safety-
critical controls and monitoring systems, particularly for braking, 
traction and diagnostics systems. These systems are generally separate 
from safety-critical train control technology, such as positive train 
control (PTC) and automatic train control (ATC), which are governed by 
part 236.
    In the 1999 Passenger Equipment Safety Standards final rule,\5\ FRA 
established Sec.  238.105, Train electronic hardware and software 
safety, to address ``the growing role of automated systems to control 
or monitor passenger train safety functions.'' These requirements were 
revised in 2002 \6\ to provide more clarity in the applicability of the 
requirements to subsystems traditionally considered to perform safety-
critical functions and therefore expected to be implemented based on a 
failsafe philosophy. In 2012,\7\ the section was further revised to 
codify the terms of waivers from the requirements then in Sec.  
238.105(d) to provide flexibility for systems to provide either a 
service or emergency brake application in the event of a hardware/
software failure, in lieu of a full-service brake application alone, as 
originally written.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 64 FR 25591 (May 12, 1999).
    \6\ 67 FR 19970 (Apr. 23, 2002).
    \7\ 77 FR 21356 (Apr. 9, 2012).

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

[[Page 19732]]

    Also, in 2012, the Locomotive Safety Standards final rule \8\ 
established subpart E of part 229, providing comprehensive requirements 
for locomotive electronics, and appendix F to part 229, providing 
recommended practices for design and safety analysis for locomotive 
electronics. With the publication of the first set of standards for 
microprocessor-based train control systems in 2005,\9\ and requirements 
for statutorily mandated PTC systems in 2010, the 2012 locomotive 
electronics requirements and accompanying appendix F to part 229 
correspondingly reflected many of the concepts and industry practices 
that had evolved since Sec.  238.105 was first established in 1999. In 
doing so, this created slightly overlapping requirements because Sec.  
238.105 was not revised with similar language and passenger 
locomotives, especially cab cars and multiple-unit locomotives common 
to passenger operations, also qualify as locomotives under part 229 of 
this chapter and are therefore subject to part 229's requirements. For 
this reason, the PSWG decided to address the issue by recommending 
updates to Sec.  238.105 to reconcile the requirements with subpart E 
of part 229 to help clarify the applicability of the requirements and 
remove or modify any that may potentially overlap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 77 FR 21348 (Apr. 9, 2012).
    \9\ 70 FR 11052 (Mar. 7, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These proposed updates to the passenger electronic hardware and 
software safety requirements in this NPRM would establish uniform 
safety standards applicable to all safety-critical electronic control 
systems, subsystems, and components on passenger equipment. At the same 
time, in recognition of some of the differences between passenger and 
freight operations, this NPRM would create separate electronic hardware 
and software safety requirements specifically for passenger operations. 
However, the proposed requirements are not intended to impact 
technology or software subject to other FRA regulations, such as 49 CFR 
part 236.

B. Updates to Pre-Revenue Compliance Documentation and Testing 
Requirements

    FRA is updating the pre-revenue compliance documentation and 
testing requirements to address and clarify issues that have been 
identified by FRA and the industry during pre-revenue service testing 
acceptance for rolling stock, such as the types of testing and 
compliance validation required, the timing for such activities, and the 
documentation required. Additionally, with the establishment of Tier 
III, the additional flexibility afforded by the regulations that allow 
certain safety elements to be defined by the railroad (e.g., the 
functionality of a passenger brake alarm) necessitates establishing the 
means to capture the design and validate the performance of such 
attributes. Further, experience gained from administering the current 
pre-revenue service acceptance testing plan requirements under Sec.  
238.111 since 1999 has provided FRA the perspective that the industry 
as a whole would benefit from a more detailed regulation governing the 
design validation and dynamic acceptance process for passenger rolling 
stock. This concept was acknowledged by the PSWG, and with considerable 
help and input from participants, a new approach was developed by 
creating proposed Sec.  238.110. That section would address design 
criteria, testing, documentation, and approval, and would separate 
early-stage, design-related compliance validations (e.g., carbody 
structure and safety appliances) from the later-stage, over-the-route 
running tests required under Sec.  238.111, prior to putting the 
equipment into revenue service.
    By separating design criteria from dynamic testing requirements, 
more clarity can be provided as to the expectations for passenger 
equipment compliance demonstration throughout the life cycle of a 
procurement. Proposed Sec.  238.110 would also provide a means for 
railroads to document critical vehicle platform design criteria and 
operational performance requirements, systems integration requirements, 
and assumptions that are used to validate certain safety parameters 
(e.g., friction coefficient used to determine the minimum required 
braking distance). The identification of these governing parameters 
would provide a means for FRA and the railroad to effectively validate 
safety requirements tied to what would otherwise be configurable 
criteria, i.e., trainset elements that may differ between trainset 
manufacturers or trainset types, based on the operating environment, 
intended service, or even customer preference. It would also ensure 
that the limit of safe performance of the vehicles is clearly 
established and would require that new testing or validation be 
performed if the railroad intended to operate the passenger equipment 
outside of this established operating paradigm. For example, under this 
proposal, if a railroad has previously demonstrated a vehicle's safe 
operation at speeds up to only 100 mph, then additional testing and 
validation would be required to operate the same rolling stock at 
speeds above 100 mph. Similarly, if a railroad were to acquire 
passenger equipment from another railroad where it is operated with a 
longer minimum safe braking distance than it would be on the acquiring 
railroad, then the acquiring railroad would need to perform additional 
pre-revenue acceptance testing on its property to validate that that 
braking system is still compliant with the requirements of this part in 
the new operating environment.
    Much of proposed Sec.  238.110 formalizes and memorializes what is 
industry best practice. However, this proposal contains a significant 
addition above what is currently industry practice in the requirement 
for railroads to develop a ``vehicle qualification plan.'' This 
proposed plan would require the railroad to take into consideration the 
entire compliance demonstration process, from the early stages of a 
project through the creation of tools such as a compliance matrix. This 
would help ensure the railroad, rolling stock supplier, and FRA 
effectively work from the same ``sheet of music,'' by determining what 
regulatory metrics must be met to achieve compliance, and then what 
constitutes an effective method to demonstrate that compliance, either 
by validation testing, physical inspection, design review, analysis, 
calculation, computer modeling, or some combination thereof.
    By proposing to separate the requirements that were intrinsically 
considered part of the current language in Sec.  238.111 into two 
sections (Sec. Sec.  238.110 and 238.111), FRA would be able to provide 
more clarity as to the procedural and documentation requirements for 
the entire compliance validation process, particularly for Tier III 
where the documentation of configurable elements may be essential to 
establishing the expected safety performance which is to be 
demonstrated. In this spirit, the proposal would refine and expand upon 
much of the current Sec.  238.111 language to reinforce expectations 
and process considerations for key documentation, including test plans, 
procedures, and results. Further, more explicit expectations and 
examples have been provided for the types of validations required to 
occur during the final commissioning stages before equipment may enter 
into revenue service, in addition to how re-built or relocated 
equipment must be treated.

[[Page 19733]]

C. Exterior Side Door Safety Systems--New Passenger Cars and 
Locomotives

    As with other components of passenger rail equipment, innovations 
in the design and construction of door safety systems have generated 
new issues for potential regulation. The proposed language in this rule 
for exterior side door safety systems incorporated in new passenger 
cars and locomotives, developed from recommendations by RSAC, would 
revise Sec.  238.131 to address newer door designs, with a specific 
focus on plug doors (i.e., doors composed of a sliding panel that opens 
and slides along the side of the car, rather than retract into a 
pocket; when closed, the door conforms to the side of the car to seal 
out environmental noise and minimize aerodynamic resistance). This 
proposed language would address the additional function of a plug door 
in regard to a high-speed trainset and the system design pursuant to 
American Public Transportation Association (APTA) standard PR-M-S-18-
10, ``Standard for Powered Exterior Side Door System Design for New 
Passenger Cars.'' As revised, Sec.  238.131 would establish provisions 
for passenger equipment equipped with plug-style side doors that do not 
provide a minimum 1.5-inch gap at the leading edge of the door when the 
emergency release mechanism is activated and permit a speed interlock 
to prevent operation of the emergency release mechanism when the 
vehicle is moving.
    Although the proposed revisions to Sec.  238.131 could require 
stakeholders to apply or construct additional signage or handles, the 
expected efficiency enhancement in the equipment procurement and 
development process resulting from acceptance of the existing 
functionality of the plug door design could justify any such burden.

D. Alternative Crashworthiness Requirements for Evaluating Tier I 
Equipment Utilizing Crash Energy Management (CEM) on Individual 
Vehicles

    The final rule published on November 21, 2018, included 
crashworthiness requirements for certain Tier I trainsets, but not for 
individual passenger rail vehicles or locomotives. And although there 
is no requirement for the development of CEM components at the 
individual Tier I passenger rail vehicle or locomotive level, some 
railroads and other stakeholders have nonetheless demonstrated an 
increased interest in the construction and installation of CEM 
components at the individual passenger rail vehicle or locomotive 
level. To augment existing regulations on CEM and provide guidance for 
the development and use of CEM at the individual vehicle level, FRA 
proposes adding new requirements providing alternatives for evaluating 
crashworthiness and occupant protection of individual vehicles equipped 
with CEM based on the RSAC recommendations.
    The proposed alternative requirements would provide guidance and a 
means for evaluating individual locomotives or passenger rail vehicles 
that are fully compliant with existing Tier I structural requirements 
and have additional CEM features incorporated into their structure to 
operate within conventional, Tier I-compliant trains. These evaluation 
requirements would not apply to Tier I trainsets designed to 
alternative crashworthiness requirements under Sec.  238.201 and 
appendix G to part 238 or single pieces of equipment with traditionally 
compliant structures outfitted with pushback couplers as the only CEM 
feature.
    By establishing alternative requirements for evaluating 
crashworthiness and occupant protection of Tier I equipment utilizing 
CEM on individual vehicles, FRA would create clarity and reduce 
uncertainty for stakeholders who pursue the development of CEM at the 
individual vehicle level. Such clarification could also reduce the 
burden and time required for FRA to evaluate compliance issues related 
to passenger equipment utilizing CEM on an individual vehicle.

E. Safety Appliances for Non-Passenger Carrying Locomotives and 
Passenger Equipment

    Coinciding with the development of safety appliance requirements 
for Tier III equipment, the PSWG also looked at updating the safety 
appliance requirements for modern Tier I passenger equipment. While 
safety appliance regulations have long existed for passenger cars under 
49 CFR part 231, these standards are derived, in most cases verbatim, 
from the requirements set forth by the Interstate Commerce Commission 
(ICC) in 1910 and guidance of the Master Car Builders Association 
around the turn of the twentieth century.\10\ While these requirements 
have proven to be sufficient for the types of passenger cars they were 
explicitly developed to address (passenger train cars with wide 
vestibules, passenger train cars with open end platforms, and passenger 
train cars without end platforms), they generally have not been updated 
to reflect modern advancements in passenger train equipment or human 
ergonomics in over 100 years since they were adopted by the ICC. 
Likewise, they are based on individual cars that were common on 
railroads at the turn of the twentieth century, and do not reflect 
vehicle designs that utilize some form of semi-permanent coupling, such 
as fixed trainset configurations, or even married-pair, MU locomotives. 
The PSWG determined this would be a good opportunity to update the 
regulations to account for these modern vehicle types and apply more 
modern requirements, in addition to updating and reconciling the 
regulatory framework with the current APTA standard, APTA-PR-M-S-016-
06, ``Standard for Safety Appliances for Rail Passenger Cars.'' 
Specifically, FRA is taking this opportunity to update some 
requirements to reflect more modern design requirements based on 
recommendations particularly relating to strength and attachment 
requirements. These new standards, developed by the PSWG, reflect the 
significant changes in material and engineering design practice that 
have occurred since the first standards were adopted, when timber and 
iron were still the predominant railcar building materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ While various safety appliance standards were developed for 
different classes of equipment throughout the development of 
railroads in America, the publication titled, ``United Sates Safety 
Appliances for All Classes of Cars and Locomotives,'' M.C.B. 
Edition, published by Gibson, Pribble & Company, represents one of 
the first sets of comprehensives guidance on the matter. This 
guidance was later adopted by the ICC, and subsequently FRA, as 
regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As modern Tier I passenger equipment is functionally similar to 
Tier III high-speed trainsets in many ways, FRA decided that a single 
baseline set of requirements could be adopted for certain passenger 
carrying vehicles. It should also be noted, however, that while this 
proposed rule would establish and clarify requirements that could be 
used for both new and existing passenger equipment, it is not intended 
to replace the established regulations. Because passenger railcars tend 
to have long service lives in North America, there will remain a 
perpetual need to maintain the existing regulations for cars built to 
those standards, in addition to private cars and special car types 
(e.g., baggage) that are based on car types that are not addressed by 
contemporary standards.
    This proposed rule would also create a new regulatory section for 
Tier I non-passenger carrying locomotives. The proposal incorporates 
applicable requirements from part 231 pertaining

[[Page 19734]]

to passenger locomotives and various other car types that have 
historically been used to define the requirements for monocoque, semi-
monocoque, and cowl unit \11\ passenger road locomotives. Currently, 
the safety appliance requirements for road locomotives are primarily 
based on Sec.  231.15 (Steam locomotives used in road service), and 
Sec.  231.17 (Specifications common to all steam locomotives), which 
are also virtually unchanged from the original ICC standards. The 
existing regulations were not developed to specifically address the 
common designs utilized by diesel-electric or electric locomotives in 
passenger service within North America. Through the adoption of these 
proposed standards, FRA would help provide clarity and uniformity in 
how the Safety Appliance Act (49 U.S.C. ch. 203) is applied to all 
modern passenger road locomotives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For the purposes of this rulemaking, ``cowl unit'' 
locomotives are locomotives with a traditional frame, but whose 
mechanical components and walkways are enclosed within a non-
structural, non-load bearing element, typically made of steel or 
other metal alloy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current FRA regulations for safety appliances are based on 
longstanding statutory requirements for individual railroad cars used 
in general service. These requirements are primarily intended to keep 
railroad employees safe while performing their essential job functions. 
Historically, these duties have revolved around the practice of 
building trains by switching individual cars or groups of cars and are 
not specifically applicable to how modern, high-speed passenger 
equipment is designed and operated. The application of such appliances 
would require a significant redesign of high-speed rail equipment and 
would create aerodynamic problems particularly with respect to 
associated noise emissions. Therefore, FRA proposes to exempt Tier III 
(and certain Tier I) equipment from the following requirements of 49 
U.S.C. ch. 203: (1) couplers that couple automatically by impact, and 
are capable of being uncoupled, without individuals having to go 
between the ends of equipment; and (2) secure sill steps and grab irons 
or handholds on the vehicle's ends and sides.
    Rather than apply legacy requirements that are inappropriate for 
the proposed equipment design and service environment, this proposed 
rule focuses on how to provide a safe environment for employees as it 
pertains to modern high-speed equipment and operations. In this 
respect, the proposed rule would define specific safety appliance 
performance requirements applicable to these modern trainsets subject 
to the rule. By focusing on employee job functions, rather than 
mandating specific legacy designs for dissimilar equipment, the 
proposed approach would likely not only improve safety for railroad 
employees, but also provide flexibility for superior designs based on 
modern ergonomics and eliminate appliances that might otherwise 
encourage their use even though their functionality is moot (e.g., 
riding on side sills despite an inability to couple/decouple cars).
    Under 49 U.S.C. 20306, FRA may exempt a railroad or railroads from 
the above-identified statutory requirements for safety appliances based 
on evidence received and findings developed at a hearing demonstrating 
that the statutory requirements ``preclude the development or 
implementation of more efficient railroad transportation equipment or 
other transportation innovations under existing law.'' FRA notes that 
49 U.S.C. 20306 does not require a separate public hearing as related 
to Tier III (and certain Tier I) equipment for each new vehicle design. 
FRA conducted hearings in 2009, 2019, and 2020 addressing both Tier III 
and Tier I trainsets.\12\ Based on these hearings, FRA has determined 
that the equipment design regarding the application of safety 
appliances as proposed in this NPRM is substantially similar among the 
vehicle types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Docket numbers FRA-2006-25040, FRA-2019-0066, and FRA 
2019-0068.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, FRA believes it is appropriate to consider relief 
under the discretionary process established under 49 U.S.C. 20306 and 
proposes to adopt the requirements proposed in this NPRM under its 
statutory authority as part of this rulemaking without holding an 
additional public hearing, as an additional public hearing would not 
develop any new facts.

F. Tier III Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance, and Movement of 
Defective Equipment

    In developing new standards for modern high-speed trainsets, the 
PSWG deliberately separated later-stage design elements and 
operational-related requirements from those early-stage design issues 
that influence the vehicle platform (e.g., vehicle carbody design 
requirements). In this manner, the 2018 final rule provided a level of 
regulatory certainty for Tier III procurements to move forward, while 
providing additional time for the PSWG to help mature the remaining 
standards governing elements that are more critical to the later-stage 
equipment production and operational testing phases of such 
procurements. Following this concept, the development of the 
inspection, testing, and maintenance (ITM) requirements for Tier III 
trainsets was identified as an essential part of this second rulemaking 
to help complete the Tier III regulatory framework. While many of the 
elements in the 2018 rulemaking established a certain level of safety 
from a design perspective, the ITM requirements are intended to ensure 
that railroads can maintain the expected level of safety throughout the 
life of the equipment.
    To facilitate the development of appropriate ITM requirements, 
along with clarifying the applicability of general safety requirements 
(see Section III.G, General Tier III Safety Requirements, below) for 
modern high-speed trainsets, the PSWG considered the inspection and 
maintenance needs of modern trainsets based on current global practice, 
in comparison to longstanding North American practice established for 
locomotives, passenger equipment, and passenger brake systems codified 
in parts 229 and 238, respectively.
    A guiding light for this effort has been the experience 
implementing, and relative success of, the ITM requirements established 
for Tier II equipment under subpart F of part 238. Unlike many of the 
explicit requirements and intervals used for conventional Tier I 
passenger equipment in subpart D of part 238, the Tier II requirements 
provide a broader approach to ITM, setting out various parameters the 
railroad must follow in determining the appropriate procedures and 
periodicity for inspections, tests, and maintenance specific to the 
equipment it operates, as approved by FRA. This approach utilizes the 
development of a comprehensive ITM program, appropriate for the 
equipment design and technology, that can then be enforced and managed 
through an FRA approval process that includes an annual review of the 
railroad's program to monitor its effectiveness. When this approach was 
established in the 1999 final rule, it marked a significant departure 
from conventional practice, but this departure was viewed as 
appropriate given the nature of high-speed trainset technology, and the 
fact that the equipment's operational limits would be more closely 
defined and overseen than for conventional equipment. Since this 
parallels the need and operational considerations for Tier III 
trainsets, the approach was viewed as a logical starting point for the 
PSWG. This rule, as proposed, reflects the desire of the PSWG to 
continue the success of the Tier II ITM approach,

[[Page 19735]]

while incorporating lessons learned by FRA through applying subpart F 
of part 238 to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation's (Amtrak) 
Acela fleet.
    In particular, the proposed rule maintains the approach of subpart 
F of part 238 and the concept that an ITM program for Tier III 
trainsets should have the flexibility to be modified and updated based 
on verifiable data and the evolution of technology integrated into 
these high-performance trainsets. The requirements, as proposed, 
effectively perform two regulatory functions. First, they would require 
the railroad to establish the safety-critical maintenance needs for the 
trainset and its components, the appropriate periods for inspections, 
and the means by which inspections or maintenance must be performed 
(i.e., tools and methods). Second, they would establish the 
qualification requirements of the personnel designated to perform such 
activities.
    Additionally, this proposed rule would establish requirements for 
the movement of defective Tier III equipment, should a non-compliant 
condition arise where efficient repairs cannot be performed (e.g., such 
as an en-route failure of a safety-critical component). The 
requirements are intended to complement the ITM program, which would 
effectively establish the safe operating conditions required for the 
intended service of the trainsets and therefore be integrated into the 
same proposed subpart I. Together, these would require the railroad to 
establish the conditions under which defective equipment can be moved, 
the conditions movements may occur when defects are discovered during 
revenue service (e.g., en-route failures), the associated procedures 
that must be followed, including identifying who may determine that the 
movement is safe to make, and documentation requirements.

G. General Tier III Safety Requirements

    This proposed rule includes a number of provisions that would adopt 
certain relevant general safety requirements of part 229 and apply them 
to Tier III trainsets. As with most of the proposals in this NPRM, 
these provisions were developed from consensus recommendations by the 
RSAC.
    Overall, the proposals cross-reference relevant sections of part 
229 for Tier III trainsets aiming to distinguish legacy locomotive 
requirements of part 229 from those requirements more appropriate for 
modern high-speed passenger equipment. Additionally, the proposal would 
provide consistency between the general safety standards for Tier III 
trainsets and those standards applicable to trainsets qualified at 
other tiers, and to ensure that Tier III trainsets remain free of any 
condition that endangers the safety of the crew, passengers, or 
equipment.
    FRA notes that the proposed rule text to implement this initiative 
would make various sections and specific requirements of part 229 
directly applicable to Tier III trainsets by cross-reference, rather 
than simply repeat numerous similar or identical requirements in part 
238. This approach hopefully fulfills the intent by resolving ambiguity 
about applicability of these part 229 requirements to Tier III 
trainsets and avoiding drafting errors in the future if a requirement 
under part 229 changes without otherwise similarly changing a companion 
provision under part 238. FRA recognizes that this part uses some 
traditional terms, such as locomotive, when describing certain 
requirements. However, the use of the term locomotive, or other similar 
terms, should not be an impediment to compliance with the requirements 
of this proposed rule. Where appropriate, additional clarifying 
language has been included in the section-by-section analysis or rule 
text, or both, to help make the requirement and its application clear. 
FRA invites comments on these sections, below.
    In addition, FRA invites comment on whether it is more appropriate 
for part 229 not to apply to Tier III equipment, in toto. There may be 
some benefit in wholly separating Tier III from the requirements of 
part 229 for clarity and ease of use of the regulation. FRA notes, 
however, that even should part 229 be made not applicable to Tier III 
equipment, the requirements of the Locomotive Inspection Act codified 
at 49 U.S.C. ch. 207, would still apply independently. In inviting 
comment on this approach and its validity, FRA also seeks comment on 
whether it is more appropriate to make only certain sections under part 
229 inapplicable to Tier III equipment, and if so, which sections 
specifically.

H. Congressional Mandates Under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act

    On November 15, 2021, President Biden signed into law the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), Public Law 117-58, 135 
Stat. 429. As part of the IIJA, Congress directed FRA, as the 
Secretary's delegate, to promulgate regulations concerning periodic 
inspection plans for emergency lighting and pre-revenue service safety 
validation plans. Secs. 22406 and 22416. Congress also directed FRA, as 
the Secretary's delegate, to promulgate regulations ``as may be 
necessary for high-speed rail services[.]'' Sec. 22419 (codified at 49 
U.S.C. 26103). Through this rulemaking, FRA is addressing both these 
substantive mandates while promulgating regulations that are necessary 
for the implementation of high-speed rail services in the United 
States.
    Under Sec. 22406 of the IIJA, FRA must initiate a rulemaking to 
require that all rail carriers providing intercity passenger rail 
transportation or commuter rail passenger transportation develop and 
implement periodic inspection plans to ensure that passenger equipment 
offered for revenue service complies with the requirements of this 
part. This includes ensuring that, in the event of a loss of power, 
there is adequate emergency lighting available to allow passengers, 
crewmembers, and first responders to orient themselves to identify 
obstacles and to safely move through and evacuate from a rail car. This 
proposed rule would satisfy this requirement.
    Under Sec. 22416 of the IIJA, any railroad providing new, regularly 
scheduled, intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation, an 
extension of existing service, or renewal of service discontinued for 
more than 180 days to develop and submit for review a comprehensive 
pre-revenue safety validation plan to FRA no less than 60 days prior to 
the start of revenue service. Once submitted, the railroad must adopt 
and comply with the plan. This section of the IIJA also requires FRA to 
develop conforming regulations to implement this section, which are 
proposed under Sec.  238.108.

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis

Part 216--Special Notice and Emergency Order Procedures: Railroad 
Track, Locomotive and Equipment

Section 216.14 Special Notice for Repairs--Passenger Equipment
    FRA proposes to revise Sec.  216.14(c) to add a cross-reference to 
Sec.  238.1003, which would contain the requirements for movement of 
defective equipment for Tier III trainsets. This change would harmonize 
part 216 with the proposed changes to part 238 contained in this 
rulemaking applicable to Tier III equipment.

Part 231--Railroad Safety Appliance Standards

Section 231.0 Applicability and Penalties
    FRA is proposing to add paragraph (b)(6) to this section to 
harmonize part 231 with the changes proposed to part

[[Page 19736]]

238 in this NPRM. As FRA is proposing standalone and comprehensive 
safety appliance requirements for Tier III trainsets under proposed 
Sec.  238.791, this rule would make part 231 not applicable to Tier III 
trainsets.

Part 238--Passenger Equipment Safety Standards

Subpart A--General
Section 238.5 Definitions
    FRA is proposing to revise existing definitions and add new 
definitions to this part to clarify the meaning of important terms and 
minimize potential for misinterpretation of the rule. FRA requests 
public comment regarding the proposed terms to be defined in this 
section and whether definition of other terms is necessary.
    FRA proposes to revise paragraph (2)(i), the definition of ``in 
service,'' to include a reference to the movement of defective 
equipment provisions of Sec.  238.1003 for Tier III equipment.
    FRA proposes to add a definition of ``clear length,'' as applied to 
handholds and handrails, to mean the distance about which a minimum 2-
inch hand clearance exists in all directions around the handhold or 
handrail, with intermediate supports on handrails considered part of 
the clear length. FRA proposes to add this definition to clarify the 
appropriate measurement for determining compliance with part 238's 
requirements.
    FRA proposes to add a definition of ``crew access side steps'' to 
mean a step or stirrup, or a series of steps or stirrups, located on 
the carbody side to assist an employee boarding the equipment or 
exiting from the equipment to ground level through an exterior side 
door dedicated for train crew use. FRA proposes to add this definition 
to clarify the safety measures necessary for crewmembers operating 
passenger equipment with no provisions for platform-level boarding.
    FRA proposes to add a definition of ``representative segment of the 
route'' to mean either a continuous track section or a compilation of 
track no less than fifty miles in length that consists of a curvature 
distribution that is within two percent of the curvature distribution 
of the complete line segment (as evaluated using the root mean squared 
(RMS) of the differences between the two distributions), a segment or 
segments of tangent track over which the intended maximum operating 
speed can be sustained, and any bridges and special trackwork that are 
within the track section(s). Depending on the size of the railroad, a 
``representative segment of the route'' could include the entire system 
in order for the ``representative segment of the route'' to consist of 
a segment of tangent track over which the intended maximum operating 
speed can be sustained, any bridges and special trackwork, and have a 
curvature distribution that is within two percent of the curvature 
distribution of the complete line segment (as evaluated using the RMS 
of the differences between the two distributions). FRA proposes to add 
this definition to clarify the appropriate methods of qualification 
testing for passenger equipment to determine compliance with 
requirements addressing vehicle/track interaction.
    FRA proposes to define ``Tier IV system'' to mean any railroad that 
provides or is available to provide passenger service using non-
interoperable technology that operates on an exclusive right-of-way 
without grade crossings, not comingled with Tier I, II, or III 
passenger equipment or freight equipment, and not physically connected 
to the general railroad system. FRA proposes to add this definition to 
establish a classification and foundation applicable to passenger 
equipment that is subject to FRA regulation but falls outside the scope 
of the existing tier classifications. Unlike what was recommended by 
the RSAC to FRA, FRA is not proposing to include language in the 
definition that references a particular type of regulatory framework. 
FRA notes that the type of regulatory mechanism FRA employs to ensure 
effective safety oversight would not be consequential to whether a 
particular technology is considered a ``Tier IV system.'' FRA welcomes 
comment on the use of the term ``Tier IV,'' or an alternative 
categorization, to identify the type of system described in this 
paragraph.
Section 238.19 Reporting and Tracking of Repairs to Defective Passenger 
Equipment
    FRA is proposing to amend this section to harmonize the existing 
requirements with proposed new requirements applicable to Tier III 
passenger equipment. As part of the RSAC consensus recommendations, 
RSAC recommended that FRA issue regulations specific to Tier III 
equipment with respect to reporting and tracking of repairs made to 
defective Tier III equipment, so that these requirements would be 
included as part of the Tier III ITM requirements under proposed Sec.  
238.903. The recommended approach was based on the existing 
requirements codified under this section (Sec.  238.19). Yet, after 
further consideration, FRA is proposing to simply amend this section 
rather than add these requirements to subpart I, for clarity.
    Specifically, FRA is proposing to amend paragraphs (a), (b), and 
(d). In proposed paragraphs (a)(4) and (5), FRA would add the term 
qualified individual to account for the nomenclature's use under 
subpart H and proposed subpart I for Tier III equipment.
    In the proposed revision to paragraph (b), FRA would redesignate 
paragraph (b) as paragraph (b)(1) and add new paragraph (b)(2). In 
proposed paragraph (b)(2), FRA would add record retention requirements 
for reporting and tracking system records for Tier III equipment 
regarding the information in paragraph (a). FRA is also proposing that 
for Tier III equipment, the records be retained for at least one year.
    In FRA's proposed revision to paragraph (d), FRA would revise the 
paragraph heading, redesignate paragraph (d) as paragraph (d)(1), and 
add new paragraph (d)(2). Under proposed paragraph (d)(2), FRA would 
add the requirement that operators of Tier III equipment designate 
locations where repairs to safety-critical systems on Tier III 
equipment can be made, including repairs to Tier III brake systems. 
This requirement would follow the requirements in existing paragraph 
(d)(4) that such designations be made in writing, that the written 
designations be provided to FRA and made available for inspection and 
copying, and that the list of repair points could not be changed 
without at least 30 days' advance notice provided to FRA.\13\ Further, 
FRA would require that Tier III trainsets not leave designated brake 
repair points with anything less than the required operational braking 
capability. This means that a trainset could leave the designated brake 
repair point with less than its maximum designed braking capability, 
still retaining its required operational braking capability, but could 
not do so for a period exceeding 5 consecutive calendar days under 
proposed Sec.  238.1003(d)(1). This proposal is based on international, 
service-proven practice and FRA's approach to inspection, testing, and 
maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 64 FR 25540, 25587-25588.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA notes that it has introduced two new terms under proposed 
paragraph (d)(2), exclusive to Tier III equipment: required operational 
braking capability and maximum designed braking capability. As further 
discussed below under proposed Sec. Sec.  238.903(a)(8) and 
238.1003(d), the required operational braking capability with respect 
to Tier III equipment would be the capability of

[[Page 19737]]

the trainset to stop from its maximum operating speed within the signal 
spacing existing on the track over which the trainset is operating 
under the worst-case adhesion conditions defined by the railroad. This 
would also be consistent with Sec.  238.731(b). Maximum designed 
braking capability would be the maximum braking capability of the Tier 
III trainset as designed--a performance element of a Tier III trainset 
that must be specified by the railroad under proposed Sec.  
238.110(d)(2)(ii).
Subpart B--Safety Planning and General Requirements
Section 238.105 Passenger Electronic Hardware and Software Safety
    FRA is proposing to revise this section to clarify the requirements 
of this section and to reconcile overlapping requirements with subpart 
E of part 229 of this chapter. It has been FRA's experience over the 
last decade that much ambiguity exists with the correct application of 
part 238 requirements and similar requirements under part 229. In FRA's 
view, the requirements that are being proposed have been applicable to 
the passenger industry, consistent with the applicability dates listed 
in the introductory text of this section. FRA is also making clear that 
it is not expanding the applicability dates.
    Under paragraph (a), FRA is proposing to make editorial changes and 
is also proposing to permit railroads to maintain the hardware and 
software safety program in either a written or an electronic format.
    Additionally, FRA is proposing to swap current paragraphs (b) and 
(c) with each other, redesignating current paragraph (b) as paragraph 
(c) and current paragraph (c) as paragraph (b) for clarity and 
organizational purposes. Further, FRA is proposing to add a new 
requirement under proposed paragraph (b)(8). Proposed paragraph (b)(8) 
would make explicit that the safety analysis outlined in proposed 
paragraph (c) is a required part of the hardware and software safety 
program required under paragraph (a) of this section.
    Under proposed paragraph (c), FRA is providing additional detail on 
how to perform the safety analysis that is being proposed under 
paragraph (b)(8). FRA is proposing to use the term ``safety analysis'' 
rather than the legacy term ``safety program,'' to make clear that this 
is an analysis to be conducted as part of the broader safety program 
rather than a standalone program. Additionally, FRA is proposing that 
the safety analysis establish and document the minimum requirements 
governing the development and implementation of all products subject to 
this section. Further, the safety analysis, as proposed, would be based 
on good engineering practice and should be consistent with the guidance 
contained in appendix F to part 229 of this chapter in order to 
establish that a product's safety-critical functions operate with a 
high degree of confidence in a fail-safe manner. As proposed, the 
safety analysis would be based on a formal safety methodology, to 
include a Failure Modes, Effects, Criticality Analysis (FMECA), 
verification and validation testing for all hardware and software 
components and their interfaces, and comprehensive hardware and 
software integration testing to ensure that the hardware and software 
system functions as intended.
    FRA is proposing to revise paragraphs (d) and (e) simply by adding 
paragraph headings.
    FRA is also proposing to add paragraph (f) to this section to make 
explicit which specific requirements from subpart E of part 229 are 
being made applicable to passenger equipment. Consistent with the 
discussion above regarding the applicability of this section, FRA is 
proposing to reference the applicability dates set forth in Sec.  
229.303(a)(1) and (2), to make clear that FRA is not intending to 
expand the applicability of these requirements. In proposed paragraphs 
(f)(1) through (6), FRA has listed each provision of subpart E of part 
229 being made applicable to passenger equipment. Accordingly, if a 
provision in subpart E of part 229 is not listed in this paragraph (f), 
then that requirement would not be applicable to passenger equipment 
under this part.
    Additionally, FRA is proposing to add paragraph (g) to this 
section. Proposed paragraph (g) would add a requirement that railroads 
prepare a Vehicle Communication and Control System Vulnerability 
Assessment identifying potential system vulnerabilities, associated 
risk (including exploit likelihood and consequences), countermeasures 
applied, and resulting risk mitigation.
    Further, FRA is proposing to add paragraph (h) to this section, 
which would add a requirement that suppliers of safety-critical 
railroad products notify FRA of any safety-critical product failures. 
By requiring this notice to FRA, FRA may in turn help ensure that 
notice of the faulty product is provided to other possible users of the 
equipment.
Section 238.108 New Passenger Service Pre-Revenue Safety Performance 
Demonstration
    Pursuant to Section 22416 of the IIJA, FRA is proposing to add 
requirements for new passenger service pre-revenue safety performance 
demonstration. This proposal incorporates the requirements of the IIJA 
and provides additional direction for railroads to assist them with the 
development and execution of pre-revenue safety and operational 
readiness demonstration. These proposed requirements would apply to any 
new passenger rail service subject to FRA safety jurisdiction, 
including line extensions and the resumption of service if passenger 
rail service has not been present on a line for more than 180 days. 
This proposed section would not apply to the temporary re-routing of 
existing passenger service due to weather events, emergency scenarios, 
or planned PTC maintenance under Sec.  236.1005(g).
    Through this proposed section, FRA would require railroads and 
project stakeholders to use safety and operational readiness as the 
deciding factors as to when revenue passenger service should begin over 
a line, rather than an earlier date influenced by other factors. As an 
example, FRA is aware of an instance where the use of emergency phones 
located in a railroad's stations knocked out the signal system of the 
railroad as the two systems were using the same support infrastructure 
(a router). However, this problem was only discovered through 
happenstance, and not part of an overall system safety and operational 
readiness evaluation before the rail service began. This example is 
provided to illustrate the scope of the intended safety performance 
demonstration and the critical evaluation necessary to accomplish the 
goals of this proposed section.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1) establishes who must submit a pre-revenue 
safety validation plan. The requirements would apply to any railroad 
subject to the requirements of part 238 regardless of tier of service, 
or any other responsible entity providing new, regularly scheduled, 
intercity or commuter passenger service, an extension of existing 
service, or the re-start of service that has been suspended or 
otherwise discontinued for more than 180 days. These requirements would 
apply regardless of whether the railroad is already operating similar 
service. For example, an existing commuter railroad that is already 
providing commuter service would still need to comply with the proposed 
requirements of this section for any new commuter rail line

[[Page 19738]]

or physical extension of its existing network. A plan would not be 
required for changes in service frequency or other modifications to 
existing services, such as changes to contract operators (or other 
contracted activities), or the addition of in-fill stations. However, a 
railroad proposing to operate new passenger service over a line that 
already provides passenger service would still be required to develop a 
plan under this section.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(2) outlines the content requirements for the 
proposed pre-revenue safety validation plan and would require that it 
be submitted to FRA for review no less than 60 days prior to the start 
of the service's safety demonstration period, the requirements of which 
are outlined further in this section. Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i) 
would require that the railroad provide the status of all appliable 
safety plans or regulatory programs, and any associated certifications, 
qualifications, and employee training required for the start of revenue 
service, that are enumerated in proposed paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(A) 
through (K). The railroad must be able to demonstrate that these 
programs, plans, certifications, qualifications, and employee training 
would be not only substantially complete and/or in place to support the 
service, but that it would also adequately execute the programs or 
plans as intended. FRA may look to validate this with field inspections 
during the service demonstration period. For example, if an employee 
(or contractor) is required to comply with the railroad's on-track 
safety program for the duties being performed, FRA would expect that 
field inspections would validate that the employee has received 
training and is knowledgeable on the requirements of the railroad's on-
track safety program. In providing its pre-revenue safety validation 
plan, the railroad should pay particular attention to the completion of 
required activities, testing and certification (especially engineer and 
conductor certification), the adequacy of its training programs, and 
appropriate close-out or mitigation of any identified hazards as part 
of its system safety planning efforts. Additionally, the railroad would 
be required to provide data indicating which safety-related employees 
are required to receive training, qualifications or other 
certifications, and the status of those programs (the number who have 
completed each step) as identified in proposed paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(H) 
and (I). Completion of FRA's ``new starts'' process may satisfy this 
requirement.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(ii) would require the railroad to provide 
a description of how it would measure ``substantial completion'' of the 
system. This must include items such as any tests or validations to be 
performed by contractors for facilities, structures, systems, or other 
major construction activities that must be performed before they can be 
accepted by the railroad, or before testing or revenue service can 
begin. Because system level testing and integration testing often 
require the availability of substantially complete infrastructure and 
supporting systems to conduct testing, the railroad must be able to 
demonstrate that it would have adequate access to these facilities to 
properly perform required testing under FRA's regulations. The 
availability of core infrastructure and systems is also necessary for 
the service demonstration period and FRA would require that the safety 
and acceptance of these core elements be addressed on their own merit, 
and that such activities would not conflict with required tests or 
other activities identified in this section due to schedule 
compression.
    Further, should there be a host-tenant relationship, and the 
railroad submitting the pre-revenue safety validation plan is not the 
host railroad, then the host railroad and the railroad submitting the 
pre-revenue safety validation plan must coordinate. Specifically, FRA 
is concerned about host railroads scheduling construction activities 
unbeknownst to the railroad submitting the pre-revenue safety 
validation plan that could potentially interfere with the safety 
performance demonstration period (simulated service). To help resolve 
this concern, FRA is proposing to require that host railroads share 
pertinent information with the railroad submitting the pre-revenue 
safety validation plan (when not the host railroad).
    Proposed paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (iv) would require the railroad 
to provide details on its proposed operations over the line, and its 
expectations and plans for its safety performance demonstration and 
simulated service required under this section. In each of these 
paragraphs, FRA has listed specific information requirements. These 
lists are not intended to be exhaustive. Specifically, under proposed 
paragraph (a)(2)(iv), the railroad would be required to provide its 
plans for simulated service (e.g., the minimum number or days or 
successful runs), and its criteria for determining if the simulated 
service has been successful.
    Proposed paragraph (b) outlines the requirements for the railroad's 
safety performance demonstration period (simulated service) to be 
performed to demonstrate operational readiness. The safety performance 
demonstration period would provide the railroad an opportunity to 
demonstrate operational readiness in a dynamic real-world environment, 
with all major elements and systems in place. The period may also be 
used by FRA to conduct inspections to validate that the railroad has 
effectively trained employees and executed its critical plans and 
programs.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(1) specifies that a minimum period of 
simulated service must be successfully performed prior to the start of 
revenue service (to be expressed in days or number of runs as required 
under proposed paragraph (a)(2)(iv)). Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(i) 
provides requirements for new operations or physical extensions to 
existing services. These services require the most activities to ensure 
operational readiness and should be conducted using the full proposed 
schedule to ensure that the service schedule can be practically 
implemented to support safe operations. For example, the railroad must 
be able to demonstrate that the scheduled running times and turns can 
be performed reliably, even when factoring in common scenarios that 
might affect service, such as speed restrictions or mandatory 
directives. This would ensure that crews are not subjected to undue 
stress and potential safety concerns when revenue service begins, due 
to delays that could otherwise be avoided if the schedule and 
operational readiness had been validated. In FRA's experience, most new 
operations that voluntarily conducted a period of simulated service 
prior to commencing revenue service have required a minimum of two to 
six weeks of simulated service to address issues and ensure operational 
readiness. FRA notes, however, that the process is not necessarily 
intended to be linear, and certain activities may also be completed in 
parallel with the simulated service, when appropriate.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(ii) provides considerations for the re-
start or re-routing of existing operations. For these situations, the 
amount of simulated service can vary greatly depending on the scope of 
the re-started or re-routed service. For example, the re-start of a 
discontinued service may necessitate running full, scheduled operations 
for a certain number of days, whereas re-routing of a service may only 
require a certain number of ``successful'' test runs. The railroad may 
reach out to and work with FRA in determining the appropriate period 
based on the individual circumstances.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would require the railroad to provide a 
daily

[[Page 19739]]

summary of the activities and results from the safety performance 
demonstration period, including discussion on any delays, system 
failures, unexpected events, close calls, or other safety concerns 
uncovered during simulated service.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would require the railroad to correct any 
safety deficiencies identified during the safety performance 
demonstration period prior to commencing revenue service. Additionally, 
this proposed paragraph would require that, if a safety deficiency 
cannot be corrected, then it must be addressed through mitigations or 
operational restrictions that would ensure the safety of the operation. 
Finally, this proposed paragraph would require a final report to be 
submitted to FRA addressing the complete safety performance 
demonstration period, specifically detailing the deficiencies uncovered 
and the associated corrections, mitigations, or operational 
restrictions imposed. FRA notes that it would reserve the right to 
require additional corrections, mitigations, or operational 
restrictions should it determine that those imposed by the railroad 
would not be sufficient to ensure the safety of the operation.
    Proposed paragraph (c) would require a railroad to comply with its 
plan before revenue service may begin. It would also prohibit a 
railroad from amending its plan without first notifying FRA, to prevent 
a railroad from effectively ``moving the goal posts'' to commence 
revenue service by a pre-determined date if the requirements of the 
plan have not otherwise been met. In addition, this proposed paragraph 
would impose a general prohibition against commencing revenue service 
until the plan has been successfully completed by the railroad, to 
include the imposition of corrections, mitigation, or operational 
limitations as required by proposed paragraph (b)(3).
Section 238.110 Design Criteria, Testing, Documentation, and Approvals
    To help clarify the compliance demonstration and approval process 
for passenger equipment, FRA is proposing new Sec.  238.110. This 
proposed section is intended to complement Sec.  238.111, as proposed 
to be revised in this NPRM. This section would require the railroad to 
establish the design criteria and provide the system description for 
the intended service against which the railroad is demonstrating safety 
compliance. This proposed section would also provide the ability for 
the railroad to define certain elements required for Tier III 
operations, as well as require the railroad to develop a vehicle 
qualification plan to establish how compliance would be demonstrated. 
Further, this proposal includes specific language for the demonstration 
of early-stage, vehicle design matters, such as carbody construction 
with respect to crashworthiness and safety appliances. In developing 
this language, FRA worked closely with industry subject matter experts 
through the RSAC to provide more detail about passenger vehicle 
compliance demonstration to help clarify the process. FRA welcomes any 
comments or considerations that might further improve the clarity of 
this section.
    Proposed paragraph (a) outlines the scope of this section and its 
relationship with Sec.  238.111. Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would make 
the requirements of this section applicable to new passenger equipment 
designs (i.e., an equipment design that has not been previously used in 
revenue service in the U.S.), and rebuilt or modified equipment where 
the carbody structure or any safety-critical elements have been 
modified or replaced by a new design not identical to the original 
component.
    While FRA has attempted to provide clear language with respect to 
when a vehicle design has been altered to a point where an updated 
demonstration of compliance with the safety standards would be 
required, FRA recognizes that this can be a matter of nuance, and 
additional feedback from FRA may be necessary as to when a modification 
to an existing vehicle platform may have crossed such a threshold. For 
instance, changes to the traction control or braking systems, 
modifications to trucks or suspensions systems, changes to the carbody 
structure or its material, or alterations that change the mass or 
center-of-gravity of the vehicle (and thus its dynamic performance), 
are all common examples of when a new safety assessment and compliance 
demonstration would likely be appropriate.
    Under proposed paragraph (a)(2), previously accepted passenger 
vehicle designs would not be subject to the requirements of this 
section, except for the development and maintenance of a system 
description under proposed paragraph (d). Even though development of a 
vehicle qualification plan would not be required, FRA still would 
require railroads to develop a system description to capture the 
critical information of the operating environment of the equipment in 
case changes are made that would necessitate a new safety assessment 
and compliance demonstration.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would make the railroad responsible for 
maintaining any documents or evidence related to the design and 
performance of the vehicle that may be necessary to establish or 
demonstrate compliance with the safety regulations. Even if material is 
provided to FRA for review or approval, this would not relieve the 
railroad from the proper maintenance of its records in this regard. FRA 
would require that the railroad be able to produce relevant 
documentation, including any changes or modifications to one or more of 
the vehicles in its fleet should the need arise, as proposed under 
paragraph (b)(2). Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would also require that the 
documentation be maintained for the life of the equipment. If the 
equipment is leased or sold, this paragraph would require a copy of the 
documentation to be provided to the lessee or purchasing entity, 
respectively.
    Under paragraph (c), FRA is proposing to require railroads develop 
a vehicle qualification plan. This plan would assist railroads in 
demonstrating compliance with the requirements of this proposed 
section. As proposed, the vehicle qualification plan would be comprised 
of a system description (which includes certain vehicle design 
assumptions) and a compliance matrix.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(i) contains the requirement for a 
railroad to develop a system description (a description of the intended 
operational environment for the equipment), which would cover topics 
listed under proposed paragraph (d)(1), as well as a listing of 
assumptions used when designing the equipment. This initial portion of 
the proposed system description would be for all passenger equipment. 
Additionally, railroads seeking to qualify Tier III equipment under 
this section would need to address the required elements for Tier III 
operations, as listed in proposed paragraph (d)(2).
    Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(ii) introduces the concept of a 
comprehensive compliance matrix (matrix) that must be developed by the 
railroad to outline the means by which compliance with various safety 
requirements under FRA's regulations would be demonstrated. This 
matrix, as proposed, is an extrapolation of what FRA has historically 
expected under the current language of Sec.  238.111, in that the 
railroad should be able to identify all tests required to demonstrate 
compliance under FRA's regulations--whether a carbody structural test 
to validate compliance with the occupied volume protection 
requirements, or a braking test performed during the final 
commissioning stages of a project. Both of these exemplar tests provide 
critical safety validation of the design and must

[[Page 19740]]

occur prior to the use of the equipment in revenue service. But as 
these two tests can occur years apart, it is not unusual for some to 
focus on the requirements of current Sec.  238.111 as relating to only 
those activities that occur when full-scale dynamic testing has begun. 
By proposing to move this planning requirement into Sec.  238.110 and 
expand language to require the development of a comprehensive test 
matrix at the early stages of a project, FRA would ensure the railroad 
and rolling stock supplier clearly articulate the intended means by 
which all critical compliance elements of FRA's regulations would be 
demonstrated. In doing so, the parties would also gain FRA's 
perspective and feedback on whether the means identified are adequate.
    In practice, as proposed under paragraph (c)(1)(ii), FRA is 
envisioning the compliance matrix as being a table to help identify the 
requirements for which compliance must be demonstrated (keeping in mind 
that certain projects, such as equipment modifications, may only 
require a limited number of items to be assessed), and the means by 
which compliance would be demonstrated (e.g., testing, analysis, 
calculations, computer modeling, etc.). This matrix would also allow 
all stakeholders to identify critical milestones in which an FRA 
observation, inspection, or approval may be necessary, particularly 
when testing is required. By doing this early in the process, FRA can 
work with the parties to set expectations and can coordinate 
participation or reviews where appropriate, to avoid delays due to 
inadequate documentation or failure to notify the agency of critical 
compliance-related activities. Moreover, FRA is contemplating including 
guidance in an appendix to this part to help guide railroads in 
properly developing compliance matrices and plans. FRA seeks comment as 
to whether such an appendix should be included or whether such guidance 
should be provided in a standalone document.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(2) further outlines the process and timing 
by which a railroad's vehicle qualification plan would be approved. FRA 
is seeking comment on whether there is utility in explicit FRA approval 
of this item, the process described, and the timeframe proposed. 
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iii) would simply enforce the execution of 
the plan by the railroad.
    In paragraph (d), FRA proposes that a railroad provide a 
description of the environment and service in which the passenger 
equipment is intended to operate (system description), key design 
criteria and physical characteristics of the equipment, and any 
assumptions used for key calculations or analysis. This information 
would help provide a baseline for the configuration and intended 
operating environment of the equipment against which the safety of the 
vehicle is being assessed. Such information would be useful when 
changes or modifications to a vehicle or its operating environment 
occur, or if the same equipment type is acquired by the railroad, or 
leased to another railroad, as it would provide a means for the 
railroad and FRA to determine if any new or different conditions, 
configurations, or operating parameters might require additional 
compliance testing or analysis.
    For example, proposed Sec.  238.791(j) would require an efficient 
handbrake or parking brake that is capable of holding a locomotive on 
the maximum grade condition identified by the operating railroad, or a 
minimum 3% grade, whichever is greater. If a railroad initially were to 
procure a passenger locomotive that operates over a network with a 
maximum grade of 1.3%, that railroad would be required to validate the 
sufficiency of the design and performance of the handbrake or parking 
brake when subjected to the minimum forces resulting from a 3% grade. 
If the same locomotive is leased to another railroad that operates over 
territory where the maximum grade is 3.5%, the original documentation 
must indicate to the acquiring railroad that additional validation may 
be necessary to ensure that the parking brake design is adequate for 
the characteristics of its new operating environment.
    As another example, if a railroad is electing to follow the 
interior fixture attachment strength requirements under Sec.  
238.733(a)(2), which permit an attachment strength sufficient to resist 
applied loads of 5g longitudinal, 3g lateral, and 3g vertical when 
applied to the mass of the fixture, then appropriate discussion and 
documentation must be provided demonstrating the trainset does not 
experience a crash pulse in excess of 5g.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would require the railroad to provide a 
description of the operational environment to which the railroad's 
passenger equipment is subject. This would include the defining 
physical characteristics of the environment that all passenger 
equipment would operate within, regardless of whether the equipment is 
intended for conventional or high-speed operations. Paragraphs 
(d)(1)(i) through (iii), as proposed, would help the railroad 
categorize and describe the operating environment and conditions, and 
provides examples for each.
    Of these, physical infrastructure as proposed under paragraph 
(d)(1)(i), would require the most extensive description, encapsulating 
a number of physical characteristics of the environment that may 
directly affect the safe operation of the equipment. In this portion of 
the system description, the railroad should be able to articulate the 
limiting track geometry (including turnout geometry), maximum grade, 
the minimum required stopping distance, and any other safety-critical 
limits or thresholds within which the equipment would be expected to 
operate safely. It is critical to note that the characteristics or 
limits listed are intended to help establish the operating limits of 
the equipment itself and are not intended simply to catalog the 
characteristics of the railroad.
    For example, when identifying limiting track geometry conditions, 
if the equipment is not designed to navigate anything less than a 
turnout having a certain curvature, then that is a limiting track 
geometry condition for the equipment that must be identified. The 
railroad may own or have access to track with even more limiting 
geometry conditions, such as turnouts having even tighter curvatures 
within a yard. Yet, by identifying the known limitations of the 
equipment to navigate such trackwork, and making known the safe 
operating limits of the equipment, the railroad can craft operating 
rules or instructions to ensure that the equipment is either not 
operated on portions of the railroad where such geometry exists, or 
operated under appropriate limitations so that the equipment can safely 
navigate such geometry.
    Similarly, proposed paragraph (d)(1)(ii) would require the railroad 
to identify the universe of systems that the equipment is expected to 
operate over or interface with. This would primarily include track 
circuits, control systems, electric traction systems, and wayside 
detectors and devices. Of particular importance would be those elements 
essential to signaling, train control, and active grade crossing 
warning systems. Here, the railroad must also be able to identify the 
core technologies (e.g., DC, AC, audio frequency overlay) and systems 
utilized by any host railroads on the routes it is expected to operate 
over, and whether or not those systems themselves are operating and 
maintained within their original equipment manufacturer (OEM) 
specifications. This information can then be used to help the railroad

[[Page 19741]]

determine what systems integration and validation testing would be 
necessary as part of its pre-revenue service acceptance test plan, 
developed pursuant to Sec.  238.111.
    Systems integration has become a critical element in the safe 
introduction of new passenger equipment in recent years, particularly 
as it relates to effective track circuit shunting to ensure the safe 
operation of signal and grade crossing systems. Taking the time to 
identify and validate performance characteristics of the equipment over 
these systems within the context of Sec. Sec.  238.110 and 238.111 
would help the railroad ensure that both the passenger vehicle and 
wayside technologies are operating as designed, and assist in 
establishing special operating rules, maintenance procedures, or design 
changes, as necessary, to ensure safe interactions between the two.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(iii) would require the railroad to 
identify any special operating parameters or rules that might apply to 
the design and operation of the passenger equipment. At a minimum, this 
must include information on the design time and setup of the alerter, 
as this design time may need to account for other operating parameters, 
such as the required minimum stopping distance identified in proposed 
paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(2) is intended to catalog design and 
operational variables specific to Tier III equipment. As many of the 
requirements pertaining to Tier III equipment are more performance-
based and technology neutral, it is essential that the railroad 
identify specific design and operational parameters where such 
flexibility is provided, so that necessary safety thresholds can be 
identified and maintained with proper oversight. Braking systems 
received particular attention in this regard, during the RSAC process, 
as there are many different, proven approaches to braking technology 
and operational rules used on high-speed trainsets throughout the 
world. To this effect, proposed paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (xiv) 
catalog the railroad's approach as it relates to Tier III braking 
technology.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(ii), as discussed above under Sec.  
238.19, would require the railroad to define the maximum designed 
braking capacity of the Tier III trainset.
    Proposed paragraphs (d)(2)(iii) through (v) are of particular note, 
as these sections would define the use of emergency braking and its 
accessibility to crewmembers and the general public. Unlike most 
conventional operations, the application of an irretrievable emergency 
brake application may pose a safety risk to the occupants at very high 
speeds, or within certain locations (e.g., tunnels or bridges), 
particularly if an immediate stop is unnecessary. As such, many systems 
throughout the world restrict access to only qualified crewmembers to 
initiate an irretrievable emergency brake application and utilize 
emergency brake ``alarms'' for passengers. These alarms notify the 
engineer that an emergency stop has been requested by a passenger and 
require the engineer to take some immediate action, while still 
allowing the engineer to continue train movement if an immediate stop 
is unnecessary, or if a different location may offer a more appropriate 
environment to address an emergency (e.g., enabling a train to exit a 
tunnel if an alarm is activated due to the presence of smoke in a 
passenger cabin).
    Proposed paragraphs (d)(2)(iii) and (iv) would require the railroad 
to identify both irretrievable emergency brake locations accessible 
only to crewmembers and passenger brake ``alarm'' locations (if used), 
respectively, within the Tier III trainset. A picture or diagram may be 
used to demonstrate compliance.
    If passenger brake alarm technology is employed by the railroad, 
proposed paragraphs (d)(2)(v) through (vii) would require the railroad 
to specify certain operational aspects of the technology. For example, 
proposed paragraph (d)(2)(v) would require defining the time period in 
which the trainset remains under full control of the engineer after an 
alarm is pulled. Like an alerter, this is intended to ensure that the 
engineer acknowledges the alarm and takes appropriate action promptly. 
As proposed, if no action is taken by the engineer in response to the 
passenger brake alarm, then the trainset's brake system would be 
required to automatically initiate an irretrievable emergency brake to 
ensure the safety of the occupants, crew, and trainset.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(vi) would require the railroad to detail 
how the passenger brake alarm would function within station locations, 
as delayed application of the brakes would be unacceptable if the alarm 
is activated when a train is departing a station due to a passenger 
emergency, such as a passenger trapped in a door. Only once a train has 
safely cleared the station platform would the retrievable aspect of the 
passenger emergency brake alarm be allowed to engage. To this end, the 
railroad would have to identify how to achieve this, to ensure that 
both passengers and crew can immediately stop a train if a dangerous 
situation is encountered while leaving a station. Nonetheless, as 
discussed above, there is concern about situations when an engineer may 
decide against immediately stopping the train following activation of a 
passenger brake alarm at a station location, such as when in a tunnel 
if smoke is present. FRA believes that the above discussion provides 
the necessary clarity on this issue but invites comment.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(vii) would allow the railroad to further 
define the operation of a passenger brake alarm by detailing what steps 
must be taken by an engineer to retrieve control from a full-service 
brake application in the event an alarm is activated, within the 
timeframe proposed by paragraph (d)(2)(v).
    Additional core braking parameters are defined in proposed 
paragraphs (d)(2)(viii) through (xiii). Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(viii) 
would require the railroad to identify and maintain a copy of the FRA-
approved industry standard utilized to comply with Sec.  238.731(f), 
which requires that main reservoirs be designed and tested according to 
a recognized industry standard. The railroad would be required to 
document the actual standard used to qualify main reservoirs for Tier 
III trainsets in its vehicle qualification plan. Any inspections or 
tests required by the standard must be incorporated into the railroad's 
ITM plan as well.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(ix) would require the railroad to 
identify the preset parameters by which it would determine if a Tier 
III trainset's wheel-slide protection has failed, as required by Sec.  
238.731(m)(3). The railroad would be required to document the 
corresponding operational restrictions within its ITM plan. Similarly, 
proposed paragraph (d)(2)(x) would require the railroad to provide 
information on brake system functionality, monitoring, and diagnostics, 
and any corresponding safety analysis. For example, if a railroad were 
to utilize an electronic brake system, it must ensure compliance with 
Sec.  238.105 if deemed-safety critical.
    Proposed paragraph (xi) would require the railroad to identify the 
worst-case grade condition for which the Tier III trainset must be 
secured.
    In relation to Sec.  238.751, proposed paragraphs (xii) and (xiii) 
would require the railroad to outline the functionality of the cab 
alerter system, and its integration with the braking system. 
Specifically, paragraph (xii) proposes to require the railroad to 
establish the parameters and scenarios in which the engineer must 
acknowledge the alerter, including which actions reset the timing, and 
which actions would be

[[Page 19742]]

ignored so that the engineer would be required to take some other 
action or directly acknowledge the alerter.\14\ Proposed paragraph 
(xiii) would require the railroad to outline what steps must be 
followed by the engineer to recover control should a full-service brake 
application occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Note, the specific alerter timing would be required under 
proposed Sec.  238.110(d)(1)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The remaining items proposed under paragraphs (d)(2)(xiv) through 
(xvi) are for optional features that a railroad may elect to include on 
Tier III rolling stock based on service-proven experience. If the 
railroad elects to use a technology other than a standard alerter 
pursuant to Sec.  238.751(e), plans to utilize a feature to dim 
headlights for extended periods of time on Tier III dedicated rights-
of-way pursuant to proposed Sec.  238.767(c), or utilizes a flashing 
rate other than what is described in proposed Sec.  238.769(b)(2)(i), 
then it would be required to comply with the requirements specific to 
each alternate technology as described in proposed paragraphs 
(d)(2)(xiv), (xv), and (xvi), respectively.
    Proposed paragraph (e) outlines the means by which a railroad would 
be required to demonstrate compliance with the structural carbody 
design and crashworthiness requirements contained within parts 229 and 
238, as applicable. This proposed paragraph would effectively codify 
FRA's longstanding guidance on the matter, and what the RSAC considered 
to be industry ``best practice.'' Specifically, proposed paragraph 
(e)(1) would make clear that compliance may be demonstrated by any 
appropriate combination of full-scale testing, validated computer 
modeling (e.g., finite element analysis), or engineering calculations, 
including manual calculations using accepted and proven engineering 
formulas.
    Designs incorporating dynamically activated CEM components may 
require additional scrutiny. In practice, some combination of all three 
is typically provided to establish compliance with structural and 
crashworthiness requirements. For example, a full-scale test could be 
used to demonstrate the strength of a collision post, but because this 
test involves the ultimate load of the material it may not be desirable 
or safe to conduct a full-scale test where plastic deformation, or even 
structural failure, would be possible. Consequently, computer modeling 
and engineering calculations may be used to predict the physical 
performance of collision posts under certain load conditions, but such 
modeling must be validated. To this end, testing may also be performed 
within the elastic-plastic range and, if the model shows good 
correlation to real-world testing under the same load conditions, FRA 
would consider the validated model to serve as an adequate 
demonstration of compliance for loading scenarios that are impractical 
or unsafe to test at full-scale. Because testing plays such a vital 
role to compliance demonstration, FRA seeks to ensure close 
coordination with railroads and their suppliers when such testing is 
required, especially where complex computer models require validation.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(2) outlines the documentation expectations 
and FRA notification requirements when carbody or structural component 
testing would be necessary for new, re-built, or substantially modified 
passenger equipment. Because designs that utilize CEM components rely 
on the dynamic-plastic deformation of structural components in a 
predictable and controlled manner, Tier I alternative, Tier II, and 
Tier III passenger equipment that incorporate such technology would 
require additional scrutiny. As these designs require models that are 
used to analyze loading conditions that are more complex than simple, 
quasi-static loads, to ensure that adequate validation of such models 
is performed, FRA would require that carbody and crashworthiness test 
procedures associated with such equipment be submitted to FRA prior to 
any test being conducted for compliance purposes, as proposed under 
paragraph (e)(2). Under this proposal, FRA would notify the railroad if 
FRA intends to witness the test. This would not prohibit a railroad or 
supplier from conducting preliminary or ``proof of design'' testing 
without submitting the test procedures to FRA, provided such testing is 
not intended for validation or compliance demonstration purposes.
    To address common interpretation issues related to passenger 
equipment safety appliances, FRA is proposing to mandate its otherwise 
voluntary, sample-equipment inspection process as part of proposed 
paragraph (f). To ensure consistency, the railroad would be required to 
submit designs for FRA review of all new passenger equipment or 
modified equipment that include carbody or structural modifications 
affecting the design of existing safety appliances, proposed to be 
validated as part of the sample-equipment inspection conducted in 
accordance with proposed paragraph (g)(2).
    Proposed paragraph (g)(1) outlines the process and procedures for 
submittal and approval of design review, testing, and inspection 
documentation. FRA proposes to notify the railroad whether the 
submission is approved or disapproved within 60 days of the submission 
to FRA. Of particular note are the timeframes for document submission, 
and associated approval or disapproval, for each type of request. FRA 
invites comments on the practicality of these timeframes and whether 
approval of this documentation is necessary in all cases or at all.
    Proposed paragraph (g)(2) contains the procedures for the sample-
equipment inspection. Though this is commonly known as a sample-car 
inspection, FRA is proposing to call it a sample-equipment inspection 
to include different types of equipment that might not be considered a 
``car,'' per se (e.g., a Tier III trainset). Proposed paragraph 
(g)(2)(i) would require railroads to submit to FRA a request for such 
an inspection at least 45 days in advance of the proposed inspection 
date. As part of its request, the railroad would be required under 
proposed paragraph (g)(2)(i)(A) to provide FRA with the first available 
time and date that the sample equipment can be inspected. Also, under 
proposed paragraph (g)(2)(i)(B), the railroad would be required to 
submit, as part of its request, engineering drawings reflecting the 
design and configuration of the safety appliances, emergency systems 
and signage, and any other elements to be inspected by FRA as part of 
the sample-equipment inspection.
    Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(ii) details the procedures to be followed 
should FRA take exception during the inspection. Proposed paragraph 
(g)(2)(iii) explains that should FRA take no exceptions during the 
inspection, FRA would provide the railroad with an inspection report 
stating as such.
Section 238.111 Pre-Revenue Service Acceptance Testing
    With the proposed addition of Sec.  238.110, FRA is proposing to 
revise Sec.  238.111 to focus primarily on the activities associated 
with dynamic ``on-track'' testing and commissioning procedures that 
occur during the later stages of a project. These dynamic tests 
typically occur when prototype or production trainsets are ready to 
operate over the general railroad system.
    Through the separation of static design and dynamic commissioning 
phases of rolling stock compliance with Sec. Sec.  238.110 and 238.111, 
respectively, more clarity can be given to the process of assuring that 
passenger rolling stock is ready for revenue service. FRA envisions 
that initially the railroad would look to proposed Sec.  238.110 to 
ensure compliance with static design

[[Page 19743]]

requirements and items that can be examined as part of a sample-
equipment inspection as a means to determine if prototype or production 
rolling stock is ready to start the dynamic and commissioning phase 
under Sec.  238.111, even though some overlap may occur between the 
phases. For instance, it may be desirable to initiate some level of 
dynamic testing before carbody interiors are completed, which may 
necessitate the verification of emergency systems after preliminary 
dynamic testing has occurred.
    Regardless, FRA intends that the railroad make use of the combined, 
pre-revenue planning process under Sec. Sec.  238.110 and 238.111 to 
ensure that adequate testing occurs before production sets of equipment 
types leave the manufacturing facility, so that compliance and quality 
issues can be addressed by the manufacturer before moving too far ahead 
into dynamic testing, and thus limiting such issues to initial 
prototype units. This approach would allow certain elements to be 
separated so that railroads and manufacturers can take a more focused 
approach to compliance assurance and commissioning, thereby also 
allowing railroads to produce a more focused plan for the final stages 
of testing and commissioning of passenger rolling stock as part of 
their pre-revenue service acceptance test plans.
    While the individual requirements within this section are intended 
to capture important elements to help validate and document compliance, 
of equal importance is the planning aspect of the section. FRA would 
require that railroads use the development and execution of their pre-
revenue service acceptance test plans to take a holistic view of their 
testing and commissioning programs so as to provide both FRA, as well 
as themselves, insight as to how the various tests and validations 
would be organized and executed in an effective manner. So, while part 
of the effort intended by this proposed language is to identify all of 
the tests that need to be performed before a vehicle can enter revenue 
passenger service, FRA also would require that the railroad identify 
how all of these tests relate to each other and other activities that 
must occur (required preceding events), and the logical order in which 
they should occur.
    Using qualification under Sec.  213.345 as an example, a railroad 
must consider what core tests should be performed before high-speed 
testing begins (e.g., tests for proper brake system operation to ensure 
the safety of the qualification testing), and what tests would require 
high-speed qualification or special test approval to be performed 
(e.g., high-speed ATC/PTC tests). Identifying not only the universe of 
tests to be conducted, but also how those tests interrelate, would help 
the railroad, its suppliers, and FRA all work together from the same 
perspective in achieving the goal of putting the equipment safely in 
service.
    Under this proposed revision, this section would remain divided 
primarily between requirements for ``new'' equipment that has never 
been used in revenue service before within the United States, and 
requirements for ``existing'' equipment that is, or has been 
previously, used within the United States. However, FRA is proposing 
significant revisions to this section to capture current practice for 
vehicle dynamic testing and qualification.
    The first such significant revision is based on an RSAC 
recommendation, preferring that the requirements for ``new'' vehicles 
be outlined first, because they are more comprehensive. Thus, FRA is 
proposing to reorganize the language so that the requirements for 
``new'' equipment are covered first, under paragraph (a) rather than as 
currently addressed under paragraph (b), and the less comprehensive 
requirements for ``existing'' equipment are moved to paragraph (b), 
rather than as currently addressed under paragraph (a). FRA notes, 
however, that this reorganization could lead to confusion for plans 
developed prior to the proposed publication of a final rule. While FRA 
does not foresee this as a problem for the execution of the intent of 
these requirements, it welcomes comment on whether this reorganization 
may pose any potential concerns and, if so, invites any potential 
solutions.
    The fundamental requirements of this section would be contained in 
proposed paragraph (a)(1), which is based on current paragraph (b)(1). 
This proposed language outlines the minimum content that a railroad 
would be required to provide as part of a pre-revenue service 
acceptance testing plan (test plan or testing plan).
    Proposed paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) would require the railroad 
to identify the physical characteristics and salient features that 
define both the equipment and its intended operating environment, 
respectively. The railroad should consider the equipment and its 
operating environment as parts of a whole within a systems approach to 
safety. In effect, these two proposed paragraphs ask the railroad to 
capture the ``control'' variables of the system whose configurations 
may have measurable effects on the performance of the passenger 
equipment and its overall safety. Items such as the wheel profile, axle 
and truck spacing, suspension characteristics, braking rates, mass, and 
center-of-gravity are just some examples (but in no way an exhaustive 
list) of the types of vehicle characteristics that must be identified 
under proposed paragraph (a)(1)(i) that can profoundly affect the safe 
performance of rolling stock. Similarly, the rail profile and cant, 
special trackwork geometry, maximum grade, effective track moduli, and 
signaling and grade crossing technology interfaces are just some 
examples of the characteristics of the operating environment for which 
the equipment's performance is being validated against, which would 
also be appropriate to identify under the requirements of the 
railroad's system description developed pursuant to Sec.  238.110.
    This ``systems'' perspective is key to the intent of Sec. Sec.  
238.110 and 238.111, as it would not only help the railroad establish 
and document the safety of the equipment, but also the equipment's 
known and proven configurations and operating conditions, such that a 
railroad may be able to identify any additional tests that may need to 
be performed if a vehicle characteristic is changed, or a vehicle is to 
be operated in a different environment with unproven characteristics 
(e.g., different track circuit technology which may result in different 
shunting characteristics).
    As the test plan is intended to be an umbrella plan to capture all 
of the necessary tests needed to demonstrate regulatory safety 
compliance for passenger equipment, this should include any waivers 
that are anticipated to be required, even if that test is part of a 
separate testing approval,\15\ as these may be predecessors to, or 
needed for, other required tests. Thus, proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iii) 
of this section would require the railroad to identify any approvals, 
qualification, or waivers from other regulatory requirements in this 
chapter, that would be required to conduct certain tests under this 
plan. For example, if tests are to occur on a section of track before a 
block signal system has been installed, then a waiver from Sec.  
236.0(c)(2) may be necessary to test at speeds above 60 mph until the 
signal system if fully commissioned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Such as Sec.  213.345 or Sec.  236.1035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iv) would require the railroad to 
identify the maximum speed and cant deficiency at which the equipment 
is intended to operate, as well as any intermediate qualifications it 
anticipates requesting prior to achieving the intended

[[Page 19744]]

maximum speed and cant deficiency to facilitate testing and 
qualification. For example, if systems integration tests would be 
required to validate grade crossing functionality at a speed lower than 
the intended maximum speed and cant deficiency, then an intermediate 
qualification at a speed and cant deficiency less than the intended 
maximum would be necessary in order to accomplish such systems 
integration testing. Accordingly, FRA would expect such an intermediate 
qualification be referenced in this portion of the test plan.
    Proposed paragraphs (a)(1)(v) through (vii) represent the core of 
the test plan. These proposed paragraphs are intended to capture the 
railroad's overall testing and commissioning plan and tie these tests 
to the procedures and records associated with them. FRA would caution 
the railroad or manufacturer not to overthink this critical part of the 
proposed regulation, as a simple table may be used to fulfill the 
requirements of these three proposed paragraphs. What matters most 
would be the information ascertained by the railroad pursuant to these 
paragraphs, and there would be no need for narrative or explanations if 
a succinct format such as a table or matrix is used.
    More specifically, proposed paragraph (a)(1)(v) would require the 
railroad to provide a list of the tests to be conducted as part of its 
dynamic testing and commissioning phase. This list can be inclusive of 
all the tests expected to be performed or focused solely on those tests 
related to demonstrating compliance with regulatory requirements, as 
outlined in proposed paragraphs (a)(1)(vii)(A) through (D). The 
railroad should present these tests in some logical order, either 
chronologically, or by sub-system. Any interdependencies or predecessor 
requirements (such as waivers or certifications) should also be 
identified for each test.
    The identification of predecessors is critical, as it would help 
all parties understand the critical path to completion of the testing 
and commissioning process and should logically tie to the estimated 
schedule proposed paragraph (a)(1)(vi) would require. FRA notes that 
the schedule identified in proposed paragraph (a)(1)(vi) is intended 
only to be an approximation, such as the month in which a test is to 
occur and anticipated duration, so that FRA can plan for resource needs 
to observe the testing, as appropriate, as the test program is 
executed. These dates can be modified as the test program matures, 
particularly if issues or delays occur. If this information is managed 
through a table or matrix, as suggested, it can be easily updated and 
provided to FRA, without modifications to the entire test plan.
    Whereas proposed paragraphs (a)(1)(v) and (vi) would be used for 
planning purposes, the content of proposed paragraph (a)(1)(vii) is 
intended more for execution and recordkeeping. Proposed paragraph 
(a)(1)(vii) would require the railroad provide a list of all applicable 
test procedures and reports (including test results and post-test 
analysis, if required) associated with each test. Because this 
information may not be readily available at the time the initial plan 
is developed and provided to FRA, it would be acceptable if the 
information relevant to proposed paragraph (a)(1)(vii) is left blank 
until it becomes available. That is, FRA would expect the initial 
submission to include all information relevant to proposed paragraphs 
(a)(1)(v) and (vi), but except for any test procedures already 
developed, the information relevant to proposed paragraph (a)(1)(vii) 
may need to be supplied as the test program is executed. Further, 
because this document is intended to serve both for planning purposes 
and record documentation, it is understood that this would be a 
``working'' document during the testing and commissioning phase.
    Proposed paragraphs (a)(1)(vii)(A) through (D) of this section 
would provide a list of the safety-critical subjects that must be 
addressed in the railroad's test plan, and any relevant regulatory 
references. As stated previously, the railroad's test plan can include 
all the tests intended to be performed, or it can be focused on just 
those tests relevant to the regulatory requirements. Regardless of 
which approach is taken, those tests and documents that are intended to 
demonstrate compliance with one or more regulatory requirements should 
be clearly identified.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would provide the process by which a test 
plan required under proposed paragraph (a)(1) would be submitted. 
Because separate approval is necessary for high-speed operations 
(including testing approval), and final approval is required before 
Tier II and III trainsets may enter into service, FRA is proposing that 
pre-revenue test plans need only be submitted to FRA for review and 
awareness--not for approval. This would be consistent with how the 
process applies to Tier I passenger equipment today. FRA welcomes 
comments as to the necessity of this process and whether there is value 
in FRA explicitly approving such plans.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(3) would require that test procedures 
included in the railroad's test plan contain at least the minimum 
information as further detailed in proposed appendix K to part 238.
    FRA is not proposing to approve individual test procedures as 
recommended by the RSAC, as FRA does not see the utility in doing so. 
Instead, FRA is proposing that test procedures be made available to FRA 
upon request under proposed paragraph (a)(4). FRA believes this would 
have no impact on its ability to conduct audits of test procedures in 
advance of testing (particularly those tests that it intends to 
witness) and would, instead, likely remove a significant burden for 
both industry and FRA. Because current practice for most procurements 
is to have project documentation, such as test procedures, uploaded to 
a central, secure website where FRA and other stakeholders have access, 
allowing FRA to review test procedures when they become available and 
provide feedback as necessary would obviate the need for FRA approval.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(5) would make clear that a railroad must 
adopt and comply with its own test procedures. Because many of the 
minimum requirements for procedures outlined in proposed appendix K to 
part 238 are intended to ensure tests are performed safely, and that 
records provide adequate documentation for showing compliance, tests 
that are not performed appropriately may necessitate re-testing.
    Proposed paragraphs (a)(6) through (8) outline the process by which 
FRA would determine if the passenger equipment is ready to be entered 
into revenue service. It is based on current Sec.  238.111(b)(4), (5), 
and (7). This process is intended to culminate the efforts resulting 
from Sec. Sec.  238.110 and 238.111 and consider the railroad's and 
supplier's efforts in demonstrating compliance with the passenger 
equipment safety standards. Proposed paragraph (a)(6)(i) would require 
test results for Tier I equipment be made available upon request by 
FRA, with proposed paragraph (a)(6)(ii) requiring test results for Tier 
II and Tier III equipment to be submitted to FRA at least 60 days prior 
to the equipment being placed in revenue service. FRA notes that this 
timeframe may be longer or different, as appropriate, should the 
railroad also need to complete new passenger service pre-revenue safety 
demonstration under proposed Sec.  238.108. Additionally, FRA notes 
that

[[Page 19745]]

the timeframe in this proposed paragraph is shorter than what is 
currently in effect under Sec.  238.111(b)(4), and therefore invites 
comments on the appropriateness of the timeframe.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(7) mirrors current Sec.  238.111(b)(5) 
without substantive change, and FRA would accordingly rely on the 
substantive discussion contained in the May 1999 and November 2018 
final rules.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 64 FR 25540 and 83 FR 59182.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under proposed paragraph (a)(8), explicit approval to operate in 
revenue service would be required for only Tier II and Tier III 
equipment, as currently required under Sec.  238.111(b)(7), and FRA 
would also rely on the substantive discussions in the May 1999 and 
November 2018 final rules in this regard.\17\ FRA is considering if 
there is value in expanding this approval to all tiers of equipment and 
invites comment on this question. FRA notes that this approval would 
not supersede any other certifications or approvals required, such as 
those under Sec.  213.345 or Sec.  238.913 for operation of the 
equipment on the general system, but FRA approval under this section 
would be required before the railroad may institute passenger service. 
If a railroad seeks to operate the equipment for non-testing reasons 
before this approval has been received (e.g., demonstration runs or 
press events), the railroad would likewise be required to receive 
explicit FRA approval of such operations to ensure their safety. In 
this regard, the definition of ``tourist, scenic, historic, or 
excursion operations'' in Sec.  238.5 makes clear that train movements 
of new passenger equipment for demonstration purposes are not tourist, 
scenic, historic, or excursion operations.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
    \18\ 67 FR 19969, 19971 (April 23, 2002) (``FRA recognizes that 
a train consisting of new passenger equipment that is operated for 
demonstration purposes is seemingly not conveying passengers to a 
particular destination as its principal purpose. However, the very 
usage of new passenger equipment, as opposed to antiquated 
equipment, and the clear business purposes of the train, distinguish 
such demonstration train operations from the class of train 
operations FRA intended to exclude from the requirements of the rule 
under Sec.  238.3(c)(3). Any person wishing to operate such a 
demonstration train that does not comply with a requirement of the 
rule must file a request for a waiver and obtain FRA's approval on 
the waiver request prior to commencing the demonstration train's 
operation.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraph (b) contains the pre-revenue testing and 
commissioning requirements for equipment that has been previously used 
within the United States. As discussed, these requirements are 
currently contained under Sec.  238.111(a). The RSAC recommended that 
the requirements for new and previously used equipment be swapped in 
order to better reflect the order in which these requirements would be 
applied in practice, and the fact that new vehicles, by nature, have 
more requirements that must be met. FRA invites comment on this 
proposed change.
    FRA is proposing to expand the requirements for vehicles that have 
been previously used in revenue service in the United States. Under 
paragraph (b)(1), the railroad would be required to verify the 
applicability of previous tests performed under paragraphs 
(a)(1)(vii)(A) through (D) of this section and perform such tests if 
previous test data does not exist, cannot be obtained, or does not 
support demonstration of safe operation within the intended operating 
environment. Additionally, proposed paragraph (b)(2) contains a record 
retention requirement, with proposed paragraph (b)(3) detailing what 
equipment would be considered previously used in revenue service.
    Proposed paragraph (c) outlines the regulatory requirements for any 
modifications, major upgrades, or introduction of new technology on 
passenger equipment that is currently in revenue service. The proposed 
language establishes the scope of any pre-revenue testing, which would 
be expanded to include Tier I equipment, limited to only those safety-
critical systems, sub-systems, or functionality that may be affected by 
the introduction of the changes or new technology. As always, FRA would 
encourage railroads and suppliers to reach out to FRA if there are any 
questions as to what the scope of this testing should include.
Section 238.115 Emergency Lighting
    FRA is proposing to revise this section by adding new paragraph 
(c). Under proposed paragraph (c), FRA would include additional 
requirements for periodic inspection of emergency lighting systems 
pursuant to sec. 22406 of the IIJA. For consistency, the periodic 
inspection requirements for this paragraph are modeled after similar 
requirements for emergency windows in Sec.  238.113. Like the 
requirements for emergency windows, FRA would expect the railroad to 
develop an inspection plan designed to capture a representative sample 
of the emergency lighting system designs used throughout its fleet. In 
this regard, cars of similar construction may still require unique 
sample sets, if the design and components are materially different.\19\ 
To comply with the proposed requirement, the railroad must determine 
the total number of unique emergency system designs within its railcar 
fleet and utilize an appropriate statistical test method to determine 
the required sample size for each design type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ For example, due to the age of a passenger car, two cars of 
similar design may actually utilize two very different lighting 
designs, particularly if one involves a third-party retrofit to 
replace an older system. The railroad should take this into account 
when designing its sampling methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These proposed requirements, which would be in addition to the 
existing periodic inspection requirements specified under Sec.  
238.307(c)(5)(i), are intended to ensure that emergency lighting 
systems function as intended in accident scenarios, taking into 
consideration the operational conditions that might impact the 
performance of emergency lighting and associated electrical systems, 
particularly backup power supplies. An emergency lighting system may be 
compliant, by design, but fail if activated during revenue operations 
due to insufficient charging of the backup power supply. For example, 
to conserve fuel, many railroads turn off head-end power (HEP) on 
consists after their last revenue run. If the same consist is not 
provided sufficient time to charge its back-up power system before it 
is placed back in revenue service, the emergency lighting system may 
fail to meet the performance requirements of Sec.  238.115. The 
railroad would be required to take into consideration these operational 
factors when determining an appropriate sampling method. FRA is also 
seeking comment on whether public address or emergency intercom systems 
should also have a similar testing requirement, as they are often 
powered by the same back-up power supply.
Section 238.131 Exterior Side Door Safety Systems--New Passenger Cars 
and Locomotives Used in Passenger Service
    FRA is proposing to revise paragraph (a)(1) of this section, which 
describes certain requirements applicable to safety systems for powered 
exterior side doors. The proposed revisions address new door designs in 
high-speed trainsets, and specifically address trainsets equipped with 
plug-type exterior side doors that do not provide a minimum 1.5-inch 
gap at the leading edge of the door when the emergency release is 
activated. These proposed revisions would also permit a speed interlock 
preventing operation of the emergency release mechanism while the 
vehicle is moving.
    For equipment with plug-type exterior side doors, the proposed 
revision to

[[Page 19746]]

paragraph (a)(1) states that the requirements of section 2.9 (including 
section 2.9.1) of the APTA standard for the side door emergency release 
mechanism, identified in APTA standard PR-M-S-18-10, ``Standard for 
Powered Exterior Side Door System Design for New Passenger Cars,'' 
approved February 11, 2011, would be supplanted with three new 
regulatory requirements.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(i) describes the proposed requirements 
for the visual instructions, operation, and functionality of the 
emergency release mechanism for the plug-type exterior side door. It 
also proposes a requirement that some form of feedback must be provided 
to the passenger to alert the passenger that the emergency release 
mechanism has actuated. For example, a light activating over the door, 
or a sound played over a speaker in close proximity to the door, or a 
combination thereof, may satisfy the feedback requirement.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ii) would establish requirements for the 
activation of the emergency release mechanism, specifying that 
activation must not require electric or pneumatic power and that access 
to the device not require the use of tools or other implements. This 
proposed paragraph also contains requirements specifying the 
appropriate amount of force necessary to activate interior and exterior 
emergency release mechanisms, along with requiring a manual resetting 
of the device.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iii) would permit a speed interlock 
preventing operation of the emergency release mechanism when the 
vehicle is moving.
    In proposing to revise paragraph (a)(1), FRA is considering further 
revisions regarding movements of locomotive consists within a yard, 
when those locomotives are not connected to passenger cars. There may 
be situations where traction power to the locomotives is inhibited by 
the door system as the door system may not be able to distinguish 
between the absence of passenger cars and an exterior side door being 
open. FRA invites comment on this issue.
Section 238.139 Vehicle/Track System Qualification
    As proposed, this section would adopt the general structure of 
Sec.  213.345 of this chapter, which generally provides vehicle/track 
qualification requirements for equipment operating on FRA track Class 6 
and above (or at speeds producing high cant deficiencies), for 
passenger equipment operating on lower-speed track classes. Similar to 
Sec.  213.345, this new section would require demonstration that the 
equipment can operate safely and within the vehicle/track interaction 
safety limits specified in Sec.  213.333 either through dynamic testing 
only, or through a combination of testing and simulations. A major 
tenet of this proposal is to provide transferability of vehicle 
qualification through the use of testing and simulations so that when 
moving equipment from one part of a system to another, or to another 
railroad's system, certain testing under Sec.  238.111 does not need to 
be repeated. In this regard, this proposed section would serve as an 
extension and clarification of pre-revenue service acceptance testing 
under Sec.  238.111, helping to provide greater specificity as to the 
pre-revenue service acceptance testing requirements with respect to 
vehicle/track qualification.
    FRA makes clear that the proposed requirements of this section in 
no way modify or supplant the testing requirements in Sec.  213.345; 
Sec.  213.345 applies on its own and must be complied with when 
necessary. This proposal is to be complementary to Sec.  213.345, 
filling the gaps in stability testing for passenger equipment not 
addressed under Sec.  213.345. Specifically, and further discussed 
below, this section would address gaps in testing for new equipment 
through Class 5 track speeds and 6 inches of cant deficiency, and for 
previously qualified equipment through Class 6 track speeds and 6 
inches of cant deficiency by adding, as an alternative, requirements 
for demonstrating compliance through dynamic testing over a 
representative segment of the route and minimally compliant analytical 
track (MCAT) simulations.
    As discussed elsewhere, this section presents two paths for 
demonstrating compliance with the safety limits of Sec.  213.333, as 
part of the pre-revenue service acceptance testing process. A railroad 
could elect to measure carbody and truck accelerations over the 
entirety of the system the vehicle is intended to operate (which is 
what is currently required), or it could measure those same 
accelerations over a representative segment of the system coupled with 
MCAT simulations. If a railroad elects the former, the resultant 
qualification would be applicable only for the territory over which 
compliance was demonstrated. If a railroad elects the latter path, then 
that resultant qualification under this section would be transferable 
to a new territory so long it was for the same FRA track class and cant 
deficiency. With that said, however, should a vehicle be subject to 
high-speed qualification testing under Sec.  213.345, those 
requirements in Sec.  213.345 apply regardless of the path chosen under 
this section.
    FRA invites comment whether this section should cross-reference the 
suspension system safety requirements in Sec.  238.227, whether Sec.  
238.227 requires any conforming changes, or whether any other changes 
are necessary in establishing the requirements proposed in this new 
section, including changes to part 213 of this chapter. FRA also 
invites comment on the nature of any such changes and, as appropriate, 
may provide for them in the final rule.
    Under paragraph (a), FRA proposes that, for qualification purposes, 
the safety of the equipment must be demonstrated in an overspeed 
condition not to exceed 5 mph above the maximum proposed operating 
speed as specified in paragraph (a)(1). Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would 
require that the testing be conducted on track meeting the track safety 
requirements specified under part 213 for the class of track over which 
the equipment would operate, with an allowance for qualification 
testing to be conducted at a speed greater than that specified for the 
class of track should the combination of the proposed maximum operating 
speed and overspeed testing requirement exceed the maximum authorized 
speed for that track class.
    Paragraph (b) would address the qualification of existing vehicle 
types and provide that such vehicle types previously qualified or 
permitted to operate be considered qualified under the requirements of 
this section for operation at the previously operated speeds and cant 
deficiencies over the previously operated track segment(s). FRA makes 
clear that this qualification applies only for operation over the 
previously operated track segment(s) and does not confer 
transferability of such qualification. To operate such vehicle types 
over new routes (even at the same track speeds and cant deficiencies), 
the qualification requirements contained in other paragraphs of this 
section must be met, in addition to any other applicable testing and 
qualification requirements.
    Proposed paragraph (c) would contain the requirements for 
qualifying new vehicle types (or vehicle types previously qualified 
according to paragraph (b) for operation over new track segments). For 
clarity, FRA intends that vehicles being qualified under this proposed 
paragraph be tested under the requirements of this section through 
track Class 5 speeds and 6 inches of cant deficiency in addition to any 
testing required under part 213 of this chapter. This means that the

[[Page 19747]]

graduated method of demonstrating vehicle stability would start at 
track Class 2 speeds and 3 inches of cant deficiency, as discussed in 
more detail below.
    Paragraph (c)(1)(i) would describe the proposed testing procedure 
for new vehicle types at track Class 1 speeds. The procedure described 
is aligned with FRA Safety Advisory 2013-02: Low-Speed, Wheel-Climb 
Derailments of Passenger Equipment With ``Stiff'' Suspension Systems 
(Safety Advisory).\20\ Compliance would be demonstrated using computer 
simulations with a validated numerical model of the vehicle operating 
over the geometry conditions specified in the Safety Advisory at track 
Class 1 speeds plus 5 mph in the AW0 (no ``added weight'') and AW3 
(maximum passenger) loading conditions. The simulation results must 
show that under these conditions wheel/rail forces do not exceed the 
safety limits in Sec.  213.333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Paragraph (c)(1)(i) would also require demonstration of compliance 
with APTA PR-M-S-014-06, Rev. 1, ``Standard for Wheel Load Equalization 
of Passenger Railroad Rolling Stock,'' Authorized June 1, 2017, which 
is accomplished by static testing to demonstrate that wheel unloading 
does not exceed the limits prescribed in the standard. FRA is proposing 
to incorporate by reference this APTA standard into this paragraph. 
APTA PR-M-S-014-06 establishes static wheel load equalization 
requirements to provide passenger equipment with the wheel unloading 
characteristics necessary to reduce the risk of low-speed wheel climb 
derailments. It also provides the test conditions, equipment, and 
procedures necessary to demonstrate compliance with the enumerated 
static wheel load equalization requirements. APTA PR-M-S-014-06 is 
reasonably available to all interested parties online at www.apta.com. 
Additionally, FRA will maintain a copy available for review.
    FRA notes that APTA recently came out with a standard for 
evaluating low-speed vehicle curving performance of railroad passenger 
equipment, APTA PR-M-S-031-22, which follows the intent of FRA's Safety 
Advisory and provides additional detail on conducting simulations to 
evaluate curving performance. FRA therefore invites comment whether the 
final rule should reference APTA standard PR-M-S-031-22 in this section 
and on the effect it should be given.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(ii) specifies the testing necessary to 
demonstrate compliance with the safety limits in Sec.  213.333 at 
speeds from track Classes 2 through 5 and up to 6 inches of cant 
deficiency. In order to be qualified under this section, a railroad 
must perform simulations, as specified in proposed paragraph (c)(2), in 
addition to the carbody and truck acceleration measurements under 
proposed paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) respectively. The results of 
simulations and dynamic testing must demonstrate that the safety limits 
in Sec.  213.333 are not exceeded. This proposed paragraph would also 
provide a mechanism for transferability of the qualification under this 
proposed section to allow operation of previously qualified vehicles 
over new track segments at the same class of track and cant deficiency. 
This proposed paragraph would not provide transferability of any 
qualification conferred under Sec.  213.345, however.
    Again, FRA makes clear that the requirements of this section are 
intended to be complementary to those requirements found under Sec.  
213.345. FRA recognizes that in some scenarios, there may be overlap 
between the requirement proposed under this section and those under 
Sec.  213.345. For example, when attempting to qualify a new vehicle 
type for operation at Class 4 track speeds, where up to 6 inches of 
cant deficiency would be produced, Sec.  213.345 would require the use 
of carbody accelerometers and the performance of a lean test. As 
proposed, when attempting to qualify the same new vehicle type for the 
same service, this proposed section would also require the use of 
carbody accelerometers, in addition to truck accelerometers and MCAT 
simulations. So, while there may be overlap in certain requirements 
between these proposed requirements and existing requirements under 
part 213 (such as the use of carbody accelerometers), FRA views any as 
harmonious. The new vehicle type being qualified in this scenario would 
be subject to the following requirements: a lean test, the use of 
carbody and truck accelerometers, and MCAT simulations, with the 
testing and simulations starting at Class 2 track speeds and 3 inches 
of cant deficiency. FRA does invite comment, however, on whether there 
are any possible scenarios where there could be a conflict.
    Paragraph (c)(2) describes the analysis procedure that is to be 
performed using an industry-recognized methodology. The analysis 
considers the vehicle under evaluation operating on analytically 
defined track segments representing minimally compliant track 
conditions as defined in appendix C to this part, and a track segment 
representative of the route over which the vehicle is to operate. These 
requirements are reflective of similar requirements in Sec.  213.345 
for track Class 6 and greater, but do not replace the testing and 
analysis required under Sec.  213.345. This paragraph also requires a 
linear system analysis to identify the frequency and damping of the 
truck hunting modes. Damping of these modes must be at least 5%, up to 
the maximum intended operating speed + 5 mph considering equivalent 
conicities starting at 0.1 up to 0.6. The conicities range proposed is 
based on conicities prevalent on the Northeast Corridor. FRA invites 
comments on whether this proposed range is appropriate.
    Proposed paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) would require representative 
route testing for all operations at track Class 2 through 5 speeds and 
up to 6 inches of cant deficiency. Testing shall include measurements 
of carbody lateral and vertical accelerations and truck lateral 
accelerations that must not exceed the safety limits specified in Sec.  
213.333.
    In paragraph (d), FRA proposes to separate and explicitly define 
the qualification requirements for vehicle types previously qualified 
by simulation and testing under paragraph (c) of this section intended 
to operate on new track segments as defined in paragraphs (d)(1) 
through (3). FRA notes simulations are especially useful for 
demonstrating that, when qualified vehicles are intended to operate on 
a new route, the new vehicle/track system is adequately examined for 
deficiencies prior to revenue service operation.
    Paragraph (d)(1) addresses vehicle types previously qualified in 
accordance with paragraph (c). These vehicles may be operated on other 
routes with the same track class designation and at the same or lower 
cant deficiency without additional testing, simulations, or FRA 
approval.
    For vehicle types operating at speeds not to exceed Class 6 track 
speeds or at curving speeds producing greater than 5 inches of cant 
deficiency, but not exceeding 6 inches, paragraph (d)(2) would require 
that qualification testing on a representative segment of the new route 
be performed to demonstrate that the carbody lateral and vertical 
acceleration limits in Sec.  213.333 are respected.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(3) would require vehicle types that are 
previously qualified by testing alone to be subject to the requirements 
of paragraph (c) for new equipment.
    Paragraph (e) would provide requirements for the content of the 
qualification testing plan, which would

[[Page 19748]]

be submitted to FRA's Associate Administrator at least 60 days prior to 
conducting the testing. This 60-day period is to allow FRA sufficient 
time to review and approve the plan, and to seek clarification from the 
submitter as necessary. In some cases, the review and approval may be 
able to be accomplished in less than 60 days; in other cases, the 
process may take longer, especially if the plan is incomplete or if 
questions are raised. FRA is mindful of the concern that FRA not unduly 
delay testing, and at the same time recognizes that safety is better 
and more efficiently served by identifying potential safety issues 
early in the qualification process. FRA therefore encourages those 
planning to conduct qualification testing to approach FRA prior to the 
submission of their test plans should they have any questions or 
concerns about the testing and approval process.
    As proposed, the test program would establish a program of tests 
that permit identification of the operating limits of the vehicle/track 
system and would include, as identified in the following proposed 
paragraphs: under (e)(1), a description of the representative segment 
of the route over which the vehicle is intended to be operated; under 
(e)(2), consideration of the operating environment during qualification 
testing, including operating practices and conditions, the signal 
system, highway-rail grade crossings, and trains on adjacent tracks; 
under (e)(3), identification of the maximum angle found on the gage 
face of the designed (newly profiled) wheel flange referenced to the 
axis of the wheelset (the wheel flange angle would be used to determine 
the Single Wheel L/V Ratio safety limit specified in Sec.  213.333); 
under (e)(4), identification of the target maximum testing speed in 
accordance with paragraph (a) of this section and the maximum testing 
cant deficiency; and under (e)(5), the results of vehicle/track 
performance simulations required by this section.
    Proposed paragraph (f) would contain the requirements for 
conducting the two-stage qualification testing upon FRA approval of the 
qualification test plan. The two-stage testing approach permits 
assessment of safe vehicle operation on tangent and curved track 
segments individually as the test speed is incrementally increased.
    Stage-one testing, proposed under paragraph (f)(1), would require 
that for testing on tangent track (proposed under paragraph (f)(1)(i)), 
test speed is incrementally increased from maximum speeds corresponding 
to each track class to the target maximum test speed. Under paragraph 
(f)(1)(ii), testing speeds for curved track would start at that speed 
necessary to produce 3 inches of cant deficiency and would be 
incrementally increased until the maximum testing cant deficiency is 
achieved. The target maximum test speed and maximum testing cant 
deficiency are specified in the test plan. Incrementally increasing the 
testing speed would allow for assessment of the dynamic response of the 
vehicle with respect to the vehicle/track interaction safety limits 
specified in Sec.  213.333 of this chapter and establish the maximum 
safe speed and cant deficiency.
    Under paragraph (f)(2), FRA proposes requirements for stage-two 
testing of the vehicle over the representative segment of the route. As 
proposed, stage-two testing can begin only when stage-one testing has 
successfully demonstrated a maximum safe operating speed and cant 
deficiency. Under these proposed requirements, two round-trips over the 
representative segment of the route are required: the first is at the 
speed for which the railroad is seeking FRA approval for service (which 
may be limited by the results of stage-one testing); the second is 
performed at 5 mph above this speed. The orientation of the equipment 
(in the direction of travel) is to be reversed for each leg of the 
round-trip.
    Under proposed paragraph (f)(3), if during stage-one and -two 
testing, any of the monitored safety limits are exceeded on any segment 
of track, testing may continue provided that the track location(s) 
where any of the limits are exceeded be identified and test speeds be 
limited at the track location(s) until corrective action is taken. 
Corrective action may include making an adjustment in the track, in the 
vehicle, or in both of these system components.
    Proposed paragraph (f)(4) would require that Track Geometry 
Measurement System (TGMS) equipment be operated over the intended test 
route (the representative segment of the route) within 30 days prior to 
the start of the testing, to help ensure the integrity of the test 
results.
    Proposed paragraph (g) would contain the requirements for reporting 
to FRA's Associate Administrator the results of the qualification 
testing program. The qualification test report must include all results 
obtained during the qualification test program. When simulations 
comprise a portion of the report, comparisons of the simulated 
accelerations to those measured during the testing must be submitted to 
demonstrate model validation. For purposes of model validation, the 
report should also include comparisons that demonstrate the accuracy of 
the model under various conditions, specifically: predicting the 
transfer of wheel loads when a vehicle is unbalanced, the transfer of 
wheel loads when the primary suspension is deflected to simulate twist 
or warp, and the frequency and damping ratio associated with dominant 
vehicle modes. FRA invites comment whether FRA should make these 
expectations explicit in the regulatory text for MCAT model validation 
under this part, and potentially under part 213 of this chapter as 
well. The qualification test report must be submitted no less than 60 
days from the date the railroad intends to operate the equipment in 
revenue service.
    Under paragraph (h)(1), FRA proposes to approve a maximum train 
speed and value of cant deficiency for revenue service, based on the 
test results and all other required submissions. FRA intends to provide 
an approval decision normally within 45 days of receipt of all the 
required information in the form of the qualification test report. FRA 
may impose conditions, as necessary, to help ensure safe operations at 
the maximum train speed and value of cant deficiency approved for 
revenue service.
    Proposed paragraph (h)(2) would consider vehicle types previously 
qualified in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section for 
operations at Class 2 through 5 speeds, or at curving speeds producing 
up to 6 inches of cant deficiency, on one route to be approved for 
operation on another route at the same maximum speed and cant 
deficiency.
    Proposed paragraph (i) makes clear that the documents required by 
this section must be provided to FRA by either: (1) the track owner; or 
(2) a railroad that provides service with the same vehicle type over 
trackage of one or more track owner(s), with the written consent of 
each affected track owner. For example, Amtrak is a railroad that 
provides passenger service over trackage often owned by other entities, 
usually freight railroads. Under this example, Amtrak would need the 
consent of the freight railroad (the affected track owner) to conduct 
the testing. This is to ensure that the track owner is fully apprised 
as to the status of the track owner's track in case any anomalies 
during testing should arise. In another example, Amtrak is also a track 
owner over whose trackage numerous passenger railroads operate, such as 
the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) and New 
Jersey Transit (NJT); under this scenario, Amtrak, as the track owner, 
would not need the consent of these railroads, but these railroads 
would

[[Page 19749]]

need Amtrak's consent when seeking vehicle/track system qualification 
under this section.
Section 238.201 Scope/Alternative Compliance
    FRA is proposing to revise paragraph (a)(1) of this section to 
harmonize the language with other changes being proposed to part 238. 
Specifically, FRA would harmonize the language referencing the Safety 
Appliance Act (49 U.S.C. ch. 203) in an effort to make clear that Tier 
I equipment may follow either the current, legacy safety appliance 
requirements (49 CFR part 231, and Sec. Sec.  238.229 and 238.230), or 
the proposed requirements under Sec.  238.791. So, while the 
requirements of the Safety Appliance Act would continue to remain 
applicable, other means would be provided for complying with those 
statutory requirements.
    Additionally, FRA proposes to correct a typographical error. 
Currently, this paragraph references Sec.  232.2, which does not exist. 
FRA would correct that reference instead to Sec.  232.3, the 
applicability section of part 232.
Section 238.230 Safety Appliances--New Equipment
    FRA proposes to amend paragraph (a) of this section to clarify that 
a Tier I alternative passenger trainset that complies with the 
requirements of proposed Sec.  238.791 is not subject to the 
requirements of this section.
Section 238.235 Safety Appliances for Non-Passenger Carrying 
Locomotives Used in Passenger Service
    FRA is proposing to revise this section to identify the design 
standards for safety appliances on non-passenger carrying locomotives 
used in passenger service, in an effort to provide clarity and to 
remove the need for interpretation for the various requirements 
contained in 49 CFR part 231. Specifically, paragraph (a) proposes to 
clarify that these requirements are intended to apply to locomotives 
used in passenger service that utilize monocoque, semi-monocoque, or 
carbody construction common to most passenger road locomotives. FRA is 
inviting comment on this paragraph generally and, in particular, 
whether specific implementation dates are necessary (and, if so, what 
the implementation dates should be).
    Because many of these proposed requirements were developed when the 
PSWG developed the safety appliances standards for Tier III trainsets 
(contained in proposed Sec.  238.791), there is considerable overlap 
between the proposed requirements. Accordingly, FRA references proposed 
Sec.  238.791 when provisions under this section are identical to those 
under Sec.  238.791. In such situations, FRA relies on the analysis 
provided under Sec.  238.791, rather than repeat it here.
    Proposed paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section address 
attachment, fatigue life, handholds, and sill steps. The requirements 
proposed under each of these paragraphs are identical to the 
requirements under proposed Sec.  238.791(b) through (e).
    Proposed paragraph (f) contains the requirements for ground level 
access to (or egress to ground level from) the locomotive cab and other 
carbody side doors on a non-passenger carrying locomotive. This 
proposed paragraph contains the general requirement that exterior side 
locomotive cab access doors and other carbody side doors be equipped 
with appropriate safety appliances to permit safe access to the 
locomotive cab by employees and other authorized personnel from ground 
level. Because many passenger road locomotives do not utilize switching 
steps and platforms with external walkways, access to the locomotive 
cab or other compartments, or the locomotive's B end, is usually 
provided by an external door accompanied with a ladder and handhold 
arrangement. Accordingly, this proposed paragraph would provide the 
requirements for how such arrangements should be applied properly, 
based on the governing elements of part 231 and contemporary practice 
on diesel-electric and electric locomotives.
    Proposed paragraph (f)(1) would provide the requirements for the 
number, location, dimension, and clearance for handholds at each ground 
level access location to the locomotive cab and other carbody side 
doors on a non-passenger carrying locomotive. These requirements would 
mirror similar provisions under proposed Sec.  238.791(f). 
Additionally, proposed paragraph (f)(2) would make the requirements of 
proposed Sec.  238.791(e)(2) and (3) applicable to steps at each of 
these locations.
    Under proposed paragraph (g), concerning couplers on non-passenger 
carrying locomotives, FRA would make the coupler requirements of Sec.  
238.791(g) applicable to these locomotives.
    Proposed paragraph (h) would provide requirements for uncoupling 
levers. As these requirements would very closely mirror similar 
requirements under proposed Sec.  238.791(h), FRA relies on the same, 
supporting analysis. However, there is a notable difference between the 
two sections that should be highlighted. If a non-passenger carrying 
locomotive is equipped with a manual uncoupling lever, that lever must 
be operative from both sides of the locomotive, rather than just the 
left side of the equipment as proposed under Sec.  238.791(h).
    Proposed paragraph (i) would permit the coupler, end handholds, and 
uncoupling mechanism on the leading and trailing ends of a non-
passenger carrying locomotive to be stored within a removable shroud to 
reduce aerodynamic effects. This mirrors the same requirement proposed 
under Sec.  238.791(i).
    Proposed paragraph (j) contains the requirement for a non-passenger 
carrying locomotive to be equipped with an efficient hand brake. This 
proposed paragraph also includes the term ``parking'' brake, 
acknowledging the brake's primary role on a locomotive as a device used 
to hold a locomotive or train at a static location, as opposed to a 
means to brake (slow or stop) the train, as applied to railcars before 
the wide adoption of pneumatic braking systems. In this respect, the 
proposed performance requirement based on a 3 percent grade, or the 
railroad's maximum grade (if greater), was also added to reflect common 
practice. This proposed requirement would mirror Sec.  238.791(j).
    Proposed paragraph (k)(1) provides for the arrangement of safety 
appliances on non-passenger carrying locomotives to facilitate certain 
maintenance tasks. Should a locomotive be equipped with appurtenances 
such as headlights, windshield wipers, marker lights, and other similar 
items required for the safe operation of the locomotive that are 
designed to be maintained or replaced from the exterior of the 
locomotive, then the locomotive must be equipped with handholds and 
steps meeting the requirements of this section to allow for the safe 
maintenance and replacement of these appurtenances. However, under 
proposed paragraph (k)(2), the requirements under proposed paragraph 
(k)(1) would not apply if railroad operating rules require, and actual 
practice entails, the maintenance and replacement of these components 
by maintenance personnel in locations that are protected by the 
requirements of subpart B of part 218 of this chapter and equipped with 
ladders and other tools to safely repair or maintain those 
appurtenances. The requirements of this proposed paragraph (k) mirror 
similar requirements proposed under Sec.  238.791(k).
    Paragraph (l) would require that any safety appliances installed at 
the option of the railroad must be approved pursuant to Sec.  238.110.

[[Page 19750]]

Subpart H--Specific Requirements for Tier III Passenger Equipment
Section 238.701 Scope
    This subpart contains requirements for railroad passenger equipment 
operating in a shared right-of-way at speeds not exceeding 125 mph and 
in an exclusive right-of-way without grade crossings at speeds 
exceeding 125 mph but not exceeding 220 mph. FRA proposes to revise the 
scope of this subpart by adding a reference to proposed Sec.  238.110, 
to help clarify the compliance demonstration and approval process for 
this Tier III passenger equipment. FRA is also proposing to remove the 
undesignated center headings in this subpart (``Trainset Structure,'' 
``Glazing,'' ``Brake System,'' ``Interior Fittings and Surfaces,'' 
``Emergency Systems,'' and ``Cab Equipment'') to accommodate proposed 
additions and other changes.
Section 238.719 Trucks and Suspension
    In this section, FRA proposes safety performance standards for Tier 
III suspension systems. These performance standards would require a 
suspension system design that reasonably prevents wheel climb, wheel 
unloading, rail rollover, rail shift, and vehicle overturn to ensure 
safe, stable performance and ride quality. The proposed requirements 
are consistent with the general standards for high-speed trainsets 
adopted by the railroad industry and regulatory bodies around the 
world, and the overall approach is based on the suspension system 
safety provisions in existing Sec. Sec.  238.227 and 238.427.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would explain the general requirements 
applicable to Tier III trucks and suspension systems and describe the 
different track conditions and characteristics that must be taken into 
account when determining compliance with these requirements. Proposed 
paragraph (a)(2) would clarify the applicability of part 213 to Tier 
III trucks and suspension systems subject to this section, both while 
in general operation and during the pre-revenue service qualification 
and revenue service operation stages of operations.
    Paragraph (b) would prohibit Tier III trainsets from operating 
under conditions that result in a steady-state lateral acceleration 
greater than 0.15g, as measured parallel to the car floor inside the 
passenger compartment. This paragraph would also require that Tier III 
trainsets comply with the carbody acceleration limits specified in 
Sec.  213.333.
    Paragraph (c) describes the proposed lateral acceleration 
performance standards, with specific reference to the appropriate train 
monitoring system response to the detection of truck hunting and 
explains that compliance with this paragraph would be subject to the 
limits defined in Sec.  213.333.
    Paragraph (d) proposes limits for wheelsets based on the distances 
between wheel flanges. Notably, paragraph (d)(3) proposes that the 
back-to-back distance between flanges of two wheels on the same axle 
not vary more than \1/4\ inch when measured at similar points on each 
wheel. The back-to-back distance is measured from the inside face of 
the wheel (the portion of the wheel facing the inside gage of the 
track) to the inside face of the other wheel. As proposed, the 
measurements from a point on the flange of one wheel to the same point 
on the opposite wheel's flange may not be more than \1/4\ inch when 
multiple measurements are taken around the circumference of the wheel 
at the flange location. When this is done, care should be taken to 
ensure that the measurement points are the same distance from a common, 
non-deformable reference point for consistency and accuracy of 
measurement.
    FRA invites comments on this proposed section, including comment 
specifically on the appropriate track conditions and characteristics to 
be included in determining compliance with this section.
Section 238.723 Pilots, Snowplows, and End Plates
    Under this section, FRA proposes requirements for pilots, 
snowplows, and end plates on passenger equipment, which aim to serve 
the same purposes as Sec.  229.123 of this chapter, with slight 
modifications to address the unique characteristics of Tier III 
passenger equipment and operations. The most significant difference 
between the proposed requirements for pilots, snowplows, and end plates 
on Tier III passenger equipment and similar requirements in Sec.  
229.123 would be the increase in the maximum clearance from six inches 
to nine inches for a lead vehicle equipped with an obstacle deflector 
or truck (bogie)-mounted wheel guard. FRA is proposing this 
modification based on industry input to address the greater vertical 
movement of the lead vehicle during higher-speed passenger operations.
Section 238.725 Overheat Sensors
    Proposed section 238.725 would make applicable to Tier III 
trainsets the same minimum requirements for the use and placement of 
overheat sensors currently applicable to Tier II trainsets under Sec.  
238.428. Section 238.428 requires overheat sensors for each Tier II 
equipment wheelset journal bearing, placed either onboard the equipment 
or at reasonable intervals along the railroad's right-of-way. FRA 
invites comment on this proposed application to Tier III trainsets to 
monitor wheelset journal overheating.
Section 238.745 Emergency Communication
    FRA is proposing to add this section to address communication 
systems, to provide requirements for public address (PA) and intercom 
systems for Tier III trainsets. By adding these requirements, which FRA 
had intended to include in the 2018 final rule, FRA would harmonize the 
emergency communication requirements for Tier III trainsets with 
similar emergency system requirements (i.e., emergency lighting) 
already established.
    With one exception, the proposed emergency communication 
requirements for Tier III trainsets would be the same as the existing 
emergency communication requirements in Sec.  238.121 for passenger 
trainsets, as stated in proposed paragraph (a). The exception would be 
for emergency communication back-up power systems, permitting 
alternative crash loadings instead of those required in Sec.  
238.121(c)(2). This proposed exception is detailed in paragraph (b), 
under which a railroad may seek to use the loading requirements defined 
in Section 6.1.4, ``Security of furniture, equipment and features,'' of 
Railway Group Standard GM/RT2100, Issue Four, ``Requirements for Rail 
Vehicle Structures,'' Rail Safety and Standards Board Ltd., December 
2010, which FRA proposes to incorporate by reference in this paragraph. 
In particular, these loading requirements are the same as those for 
alternatively demonstrating adequate attachment strength of emergency 
lighting back-up power systems in Tier III trainsets discussed in the 
2016 NPRM and 2018 final rule under Sec.  238.743.\21\ Accordingly, 
both the interior lighting fixtures and their emergency back-up power 
systems would be subject to the same alternative loading requirements. 
As in Sec.  238.743, use of the alternative loading requirements would 
be carried out consistent with any conditions identified by the 
railroad, as approved by FRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 81 FR 88006 (Dec. 6, 2016); 83 FR 59182 (Nov. 21, 2018).

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

[[Page 19751]]

    Section 6.1.4 contains requirements for securement of furniture, 
on-board equipment, and other trainset features to help mitigate 
against injuries to passengers and crew from secondary impacts within 
the occupied volume. GM/RT2100 is available to all interested parties 
online at www.rgsonline.co.uk/Railway_Group_Standards. Additionally, 
FRA would maintain a copy available for review.
Section 238.747 Emergency Roof Access
    In this section, FRA proposes requirements for emergency roof 
access to the cabs of Tier III trainsets. These requirements aim to 
ensure that the trainset design allows for proper roof access for 
rescue access purposes for cab occupants in Tier III trainsets. This 
emergency roof access point would be required only if trainset design 
does not allow cab occupants access to emergency roof access locations 
otherwise required in the passenger compartment of the trainset. The 
proposed requirements would also define the dimensions for the 
emergency roof access location while making specifically applicable 
paragraphs (b), (d), and (e) of Sec.  238.123 (Emergency roof access).
    Should train crewmembers occupying the Tier III cab have ready 
access to emergency roof access locations in the passenger compartment 
that comply with Sec.  238.123, then the railroad would not need to 
comply with the requirements of this section, as the intent of the 
requirement (access to the roof of the trainset for cab occupants in 
emergency situations to facilitate rescue access) would be fulfilled. 
FRA also clarifies that the location of the emergency roof access point 
under this proposed section would not need to be directly over or into 
the cab, and could be a location behind the cab, so long as cab 
occupants have access.
Section 238.755 General Safety Requirements
    Proposed Sec.  238.755 is based on existing Sec. Sec.  229.13, 
229.41, and 229.45. Specifically, proposed paragraph (a) would cross-
reference the requirements of Sec.  229.41 for protection from personal 
injury. Proposed paragraph (b) would cross-reference the requirements 
of Sec.  229.45, requiring that a Tier III trainset be free from 
conditions that would endanger the safety of the passengers, crew, or 
equipment. Moreover, FRA makes clear that it does not intend for this 
provision to be limited to the list of conditions identified under 
Sec.  229.45. FRA would view other conditions not listed but still 
endangering the safety of passengers, crew, or equipment to be covered 
by this provision. Proposed paragraph (c) would make applicable the 
requirements of Sec.  229.13 when multiple Tier III trainsets are 
coupled in remote- or multiple-control. FRA reiterates that although 
the term ``locomotive'' is used under Sec.  229.13, the substantive 
requirements of this proposed paragraph are intended to be applied to 
Tier III trainsets, and thus should be read as such.
Section 238.757 Cab, Floors, and Passageways
    Under Sec.  238.757, FRA is proposing requirements for Tier III 
trainset cabs, floors, and passageways, and is basing these proposed 
requirements on Sec.  229.119. Proposed paragraph (a), based on Sec.  
229.119(a) and (i), contains the requirements for Tier III trainset cab 
doors. This paragraph proposes that such trainset cab doors be equipped 
with a secure and operable device to lock the doors from both the 
inside and outside without impeding egress from the cab.
    Proposed paragraph (b), based on Sec.  229.119(b), would require 
that Tier III end-facing windows located in the leading end of the 
trainset be free of cracks, breaks, or other conditions that obscure 
the view of the right-of-way for the crew from their normal positions 
in the operating cab.
    Proposed paragraph (c) would make applicable to Tier III trainsets 
the requirements of Sec.  229.119(c).
    Proposed paragraph (d), based on Sec.  229.119(g) and (h), would 
require that cabs of Tier III trainsets shall be climate-controlled, 
providing both appropriate heating and air conditioning. This proposed 
paragraph also states that the inspection, testing, and maintenance 
requirements for the heating and air condition system be specified in 
the railroad's ITM program.
Section 238.759 Trainset Cab Noise
    Under Sec.  238.759, FRA is proposing requirements to address 
trainset cab noise, which are based on Sec.  229.121. Proposed 
paragraph (a), based on Sec.  229.121(a), would establish a maximum 
noise threshold that occupants of a Tier III trainset may be subjected 
to (85 A-weighted decibels (85 db(A))); prohibit railroads from 
modifying the cab in a manner that would cause the noise to exceed the 
maximum level; and require railroads to follow the testing protocols, 
outlined under proposed appendix I to part 238 (discussed further, 
below), to verify that the noise levels within the cab do not exceed 
the maximum level. Proposed paragraph (b) would contain the 
requirements addressing excessive noise reports. This paragraph is 
based on Sec.  229.121(b) with minor editorial changes.
Section 238.761 Trainset Sanitation Facilities for Employees
    Under Sec.  238.761, FRA is proposing a set of requirements 
addressing crewmember sanitation facilities, which are based on Sec.  
229.137. Proposed paragraph (a) would require that if a railroad 
provides a crewmember sanitation compartment, as that term is defined 
under Sec.  229.5, accessible only to the crew onboard a Tier III 
trainset, that compartment must meet the requirements of Sec.  229.137 
and be maintained in accordance with Sec.  229.139. However, under 
proposed paragraph (b), should a railroad not provide such a sanitation 
compartment exclusively for crewmembers on board its trainset, the 
railroad would be required to provide access to sanitation facilities 
in accordance with Sec.  229.137(b)(1)(i) in that employees should have 
ready access to railroad-provided sanitation facilities external to the 
trainset or sanitation facilities elsewhere on the trainset.
    Again, FRA reiterates that although the term ``locomotive'' is used 
under Sec.  229.137, the substantive requirements of this proposed 
paragraph are intended to be applied to Tier III trainsets, and thus 
should be read as such.
Section 238.763 Speed Indicator
    Under Sec.  238.763, FRA is proposing requirements addressing speed 
indicators for Tier III trainsets. Although these requirements are 
based on Sec.  229.117, the requirements for speed indicators being 
proposed mark a significant departure from the traditional requirements 
under part 229. Proposed paragraph (a) provides that all Tier III 
trainsets be equipped with speed indicators, clearly readable for the 
engineer's normal position. Notably, the accuracy requirements under 
proposed paragraph (a)(1) would represent the biggest modification of 
the speed indicator requirements. Under this proposal, a Tier III speed 
indicator would be required to be accurate to within plus or minus 1.24 
mph for speeds not exceeding 18.6 mph.\22\ However, the accuracy would 
be permitted to deviate, linearly, up to plus or minus 5 mph for speeds 
not exceeding 220 mph. So, rather than specifying static accuracy based 
on whether one is above or below a certain speed, FRA would permit use 
of a

[[Page 19752]]

sliding scale performance requirement. Under this proposal, accuracy of 
the speed indicator would be permitted to change in a linear 
relationship to the speed of the trainset. And, as the necessity for 
more precise accuracy diminishes the faster a Tier III trainset 
operates,\23\ this requirement is reflective of the actual Tier III 
operating environment. Additionally, with the advances in digital 
technology, maintaining such an accuracy should not be as challenging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ These values are intended to correspond to 2 kilometers per 
hour (kph) and 30 kph.
    \23\ For example, a change in speed of 2 mph while operating at 
220 mph is not as significant as an equivalent change in speed at 20 
mph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraph (b) would require that the speed indicator 
output (what the engineer sees) be based on a system of independent, 
onboard speed measurement sources to comply with the accuracy 
requirements of proposed paragraph (a). At a minimum, FRA would expect 
that, from whatever source the speed is derived, there would be 
multiple (at least two) inputs provided by different sensors to ensure 
the accuracy of the speed as displayed to the engineer.
    Proposed paragraph (c) permits the railroad to define the 
calibration frequency for the speed indicator in its ITM program.
Section 238.765 Event Recorders
    Under this section, FRA is proposing a set of requirements 
addressing event recorders for Tier III trainsets. The requirements, as 
proposed, largely follow the event recorder requirements under Sec.  
229.135. However, FRA has made some changes to account for the 
different technology. Notably, under proposed paragraph (a), which 
would contain the general requirement that all Tier III trainsets be 
equipped with an in-service event recorder and is based on Sec.  
229.135(a), FRA would not require railroads to note the mere presence 
of an event recorder on FORM FRA F6180-49A or other record, as all Tier 
III trainsets would require event recorders.
    Proposed paragraph (b) contains the specific data elements to be 
recorded by the event recorder and the level of recording accuracy 
necessary. Notably, proposed paragraph (b)(2) outlines the data 
elements to be recorded. This paragraph would cross-reference a large 
majority of data elements contained in Sec.  229.135(b)(4), 
specifically, Sec.  229.135(b)(4)(i) through (xv), (xvii), (xx) and 
(xxi). In addition, proposed paragraph (b)(2) lists several more data 
elements that are tailored toward Tier III trainsets, such as: the 
application and operation of the eddy current brake, if equipped 
((b)(2)(i)); a passenger brake alarm request ((b)(2)(ii)); a passenger 
brake alarm override ((b)(2)(iii)); the activation of the bell 
((b)(2)(iv)); and the trainset brake cylinder pressures ((b)(2)(v)). 
Finally, proposed paragraph (b)(2) would require the recorded data to 
be retained on a certified crashworthy event recorder memory module 
that meets the requirements of appendix D to part 229 of this chapter.
    Proposed paragraph (c), which is based on Sec.  229.135(c), would 
require that when an in-service event recorder is taken out of service, 
the date the device was removed from service would be annotated in the 
trainset's maintenance records, required in accordance with proposed 
Sec.  238.777.
    Proposed paragraph (d), which is based on Sec.  229.135(d), would 
permit a Tier III trainset on which the event recorder has been taken 
out of service to continue in service only until the next pre-service 
inspection, as required by the railroad's ITM program under proposed 
Sec.  238.903(c)(2).
    Proposed paragraph (e) would make applicable to Tier III trainsets 
the requirements set forth in Sec.  229.135(e) through (g).
    Proposed paragraph (f) would require that event recorders be tested 
at intervals not to exceed 368 days, in accordance with Sec.  
229.27(c).
    FRA again reiterates that although the term ``locomotive'' is used 
under Sec.  229.135, the substantive requirements of this proposed 
paragraph are intended to be applied to Tier III trainsets, and thus 
should be read as such.
Section 238.767 Headlights
    Under this section, FRA is proposing requirements for Tier III 
trainset headlights. As proposed under paragraph (a), each end of a 
Tier III trainset would be required to be equipped with a headlight 
comprised of at least two lamps that meets the angular, intensity, and 
illumination requirements of Sec.  229.125(a).
    Proposed paragraph (b) would prohibit Tier III trainsets from 
operating with a leading end in revenue service if a defective 
headlight is discovered during the pre-service inspection; under such 
circumstances, it would only be allowed to move in accordance with the 
requirements covering the movement of defective equipment under 
proposed Sec.  238.1003(e). However, this proposed paragraph would 
permit continued operation of a trainset's leading end with a defective 
headlight if the defect is discovered while the trainset is in service 
in accordance with the requirements of proposed Sec.  238.1003(b)(1) 
through (3).
    Proposed paragraph (c) would permit the headlights of a Tier III 
trainset to be dimmed, which is consistent with existing Sec.  
229.125(c). However, because the headlight and auxiliary light 
standards are driven around the need for consistency and conspicuity 
when Tier III trainsets are used on a shared right-of-way, the 
performance requirements, themselves, would not directly address that 
it may be advantageous for a Tier III trainset to operate for extended 
periods of time with a lower candela setting. Specifically, whereas a 
conventional freight or passenger operation is likely to utilize the 
dim setting only when passing another train, idling, or as an 
alternative to marker lights, a Tier III trainset could operate for 
extended periods of time within a dedicated (and more protected) 
environment where the higher output may not be necessary or desired, 
particularly if the Tier III right-of-way is adjacent to or within a 
highway corridor. The use of this functionality, however, should be 
described by the railroad under proposed Sec.  238.110(d)(2)(xv).
    Proposed paragraph (d) would provide an allowance to use 
alternative lighting technology (e.g., LED versus incandescent). It 
also would provide an exception to the requirement that the headlight 
consist of at least two lamps, as required by proposed paragraph (a). 
Further, this proposed paragraph (d) would require that if such 
alternative technology is used, then the railroad's ITM program plan 
must include procedures for determining that such headlights provide 
the illumination intensity required by proposed paragraph (a), and that 
the headlights can achieve the minimum illumination intensity under 
snow and ice conditions (i.e., when there is a risk of snow and ice 
accumulation on the headlight).
Section 238.769 Auxiliary Lights
    Under this section, FRA is proposing requirements addressing 
auxiliary lights for Tier III trainsets, based on similar requirements 
in Sec.  229.125. Under proposed paragraph (a), FRA would establish the 
general requirement that Tier III trainsets operating in shared rights-
of-way over public highway-rail grade crossings at speeds 20 mph or 
greater be equipped with auxiliary lights that conform to Sec.  
229.125(d)(1) though (3). FRA recognizes that Sec.  229.125(d)(1) 
through (3) uses some traditional terms, such as ``locomotive,'' when 
describing the placement of auxiliary lights; however, the use of the 
term ``locomotive,'' or other similar terms, should not be an 
impediment to

[[Page 19753]]

compliance with the requirements of this proposed paragraph.
    Proposed paragraph (b) would permit auxiliary lights to be arranged 
in any manner specified in Sec.  229.125(e)(1) through (2), and 
proposed paragraph (c) would require compliance with Sec.  229.125(f).
    Proposed paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) address requirements 
concerning defective auxiliary lights, and would require that a lead 
unit with a single defective auxiliary light be switched to a trailing 
position (or repaired) if discovered during the pre-service inspection. 
Although the proposal would permit a unit to continue in the lead 
position if a single defective auxiliary light is discovered while in 
service, a lead unit discovered with two defective auxiliary lights 
while in service would be allowed to continue in service only to the 
next forward location where repairs could be made.
Section 238.771 Marking Device
    This section proposes a set of requirements for rear marker devices 
for Tier III trainsets, based generally on part 221. Proposed paragraph 
(a) contains the general requirement that Tier III trainsets be 
equipped with a rear marking device. Paragraph (a) would also require 
marking devices to conform with the characteristics of Sec.  
221.14(a)(1) through (a)(3), along with other requirements in proposed 
paragraphs (a)(1) and)(2) of this section.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would require that marking devices 
continuously illuminate, with proposed paragraph (a)(2) permitting 
alternative lighting technology so long as the railroad's ITM program 
plan contains procedures for determining that the marker lights conform 
with the requirements of proposed paragraphs (a) and (a)(1).
    Proposed paragraph (b) specifies that the centroid of the marking 
device would be located 48 inches above the top of the rail.
    Proposed paragraph (c) would require that marking devices be 
illuminated while the trainset is in service and that they be inspected 
as part of the pre-service inspection.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would specify that a trainset with a 
defective or inoperative marking device not be moved in revenue service 
if discovered as part of a pre-service inspection. However, proposed 
paragraph (d)(2) would permit movement to the next forward repair 
location if the marking device is discovered inoperative while the 
trainset in service.
    Proposed paragraph (e) would provide an exception to equipping 
trainsets with a marking device in conformance with paragraph (a) by 
allowing a headlight set on dim to serve as a rear marking device.
Section 238.773 Cab Lights
    This proposed section would require that cab lights comply with the 
requirements of Sec.  229.127(a). It also would require that cab 
passageways and compartments be adequately illuminated.
    FRA reiterates that although the term ``locomotive'' is used under 
Sec.  229.127, the substantive requirements of this proposed section 
are intended to be applied to Tier III trainsets, and thus should be 
read as such.
Section 238.775 Trainset Horn
    Proposed paragraph (a) would require that each Tier III trainset be 
equipped and arranged with a horn that conforms with Sec.  229.129(a).
    Proposed paragraph (b) provides an option for testing the trainset 
horn. Railroads would be able either to perform acceptance sampling in 
accordance with Sec.  229.129(b)(1) or test each horn individually 
under the procedures of proposed paragraph (e).
    Proposed paragraph (c) would require that, but for the exception 
under proposed paragraph (d), replacement trainset horns be tested 
individually in accordance with proposed paragraph (e). Under proposed 
paragraph (d), replacement trainset horns need not be tested if the 
replacement horn is of the same model of horn being replaced that had 
been successfully tested either in accordance with Sec.  229.129(b)(1) 
or proposed paragraph (e).
    Proposed paragraph (e) would require that trainset horns be 
individually tested in accordance with Sec.  229.129(c), subject to one 
exception and one addition. The positioning of the microphone used for 
testing the trainset horn would be specified under proposed paragraph 
(e)(1), in lieu of complying with Sec.  229.129(c)(7). Additionally, 
proposed paragraph (e)(2) would permit the records required under Sec.  
229.129(c)(10) to be kept electronically.
    Although Sec.  229.129 references the term ``locomotive,'' this 
should not prove an impediment to compliance, as substantive 
requirements of this proposed section are intended to be applied to 
Tier III trainsets.
Section 238.777 Inspection Records
    This proposed section is generally based on Sec.  229.23 insofar as 
certain periodic inspections must be performed at certain intervals and 
completion thereof must be recorded. In addition, and as discussed 
further below, certain other pertinent information must also be 
recorded and made available to railroad employees and FRA inspectors.
    The most significant aspect of this proposed section is that FRA is 
not requiring use of FRA form F6180-49A (form 49A), or any future 
variants, to record the pertinent inspection data and other data that 
FRA necessitates under part 229 (such as the presence of an in-service 
event recorder in the remarks section of the form). FRA would permit 
users of Tier III equipment the option of using onboard technology to 
provide to the engineer the same type of information regarding the 
inspection state of the Tier III trainset as would be provided through 
use of form 49A under part 229 and its physical presence in the cab of 
a locomotive. As discussed below, should a railroad using Tier III 
equipment wish to use this option, the onboard technology would need to 
have the capability of informing the engineer that, at the time of use, 
the trainset has received all required periodic inspections. The 
technology would also need to be able to communicate the type of brake 
system used, and various other pieces of necessary information. On the 
other hand, should a railroad using Tier III equipment not elect this 
option, the railroad may still use a physical form under a transparent 
cover in the controlling cab of the Tier III trainset. Although a 
railroad would not be required to use form 49A for Tier III equipment 
specifically, this proposed paragraph should not be construed as 
absolving a railroad using Tier III equipment from complying with the 
applicable requirements for Tier I or II equipment it may also operate. 
For clarity, the periodic inspection information intended to be 
captured under this proposed section would be analogous to the periodic 
inspection information captured under Sec.  229.23, albeit the periodic 
inspections would be conducted pursuant to a Tier III railroad's 
approved ITM program. FRA also welcomes comment on whether to make this 
option available to Tier I or II equipment.
    Proposed paragraph (a) would establish a general requirement that 
for certain periodic inspections as defined by a Tier III railroad's 
ITM program, certain information be captured with respect to those 
inspections. Proposed paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) would specify the 
minimum information required for each inspection record: the date the 
last inspection was done, the name of the inspector conducting the 
work, and the name of the supervisor certifying the work was done 
correctly.

[[Page 19754]]

    Proposed paragraph (b) would require that the locomotive engineer 
have access to information from the inspection record and summary 
report and identify digital (proposed paragraph (b)(1)) and physical 
methods (proposed paragraph (b)(2)) for enabling that access. Should a 
railroad using Tier III equipment elect to comply with proposed 
paragraph (b)(2), use of form 49A (or any future variant) to display or 
record the particular maintenance information listed in this proposed 
section would not be required; the railroad would be free to develop 
its own form unique to its needs for its Tier III equipment.
    Proposed paragraph (c) would establish the requirements for a 
summary report. This summary report is similar in intent to FRA's form 
49A (providing pertinent information regarding the state of the 
trainset to those in the controlling cab), requiring information that 
is consistent with what is required currently under part 229. However, 
use of FRA's form is not required for Tier III equipment, as discussed 
under proposed paragraph (b). This paragraph proposes that the summary 
report, in whatever form it takes, should contain certain information 
regarding the specific trainset such as the date(s) of the last 
periodic inspection required under the railroad's ITM program plan, 
whether there are any waivers of compliance granted by FRA under part 
211 applicable to the trainset, the type of brake system used on the 
trainset, and whether the event recorder is out of service.
    Proposed paragraph (d) would permit compliance with Sec.  229.23 as 
satisfying the requirements of this section.
Section 238.781 Current Collectors
    This proposed section would apply many of the requirements for the 
use of current collectors in part 229 to passenger equipment and 
trainsets, with some changes. Proposed paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) would 
apply requirements from part 229 through cross-references, and proposed 
paragraph (a)(4) would impose requirements similar to those in part 
229, with minor changes. Other paragraphs in this proposed section 
would contain requirements with no direct counterpart in part 229.
    Paragraph (a) proposes requirements for pantographs and other 
overhead collection systems. Paragraph (a)(1) proposes to apply the 
requirements of Sec.  229.77(a) to Tier III equipment. Paragraphs 
(a)(2) and (3) have no counterparts in part 229, and propose 
requirements to provide additional protection for engineers and other 
personnel by requiring the electrical grounding of insulated parts to 
reduce the risk of electric shock and by enabling an engineer to 
identify the position of and secure the pantograph without mounting the 
roof of the trainset.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(4), which is based on Sec.  229.81(a), would 
require that, for pantographs used on Tier III trainsets, a means be 
provided to safely lower the pantograph in the event of an emergency, 
permitting the use of an emergency pole, subject to certain 
requirements (such as properly marking where the pole can be safely 
handled and keeping the pole free from moisture and damage when not in 
use). Paragraph (a)(4) proposes an additional requirement that a 
railroad's ITM program identify an alternate means of securement and 
electrical isolation of a damaged pantograph when automatic methods are 
not possible.
    Paragraph (b) proposes to apply the requirements of Sec. Sec.  
229.79 and 229.81(b) to trainsets equipped with pantographs and third-
rail shoes. Although the requirements of Sec. Sec.  229.79 and 
229.81(b) use the term ``locomotive,'' rather than ``trainset,'' the 
proposed language of paragraph (b) would clarify the application of 
these requirements to Tier III trainsets.
Section 238.783 Circuit Protection
    This section proposes requirements for the protection of electrical 
circuits used within a Tier III trainset. Proposed paragraph (a) 
describes the general requirements for circuit protection in Tier III 
passenger equipment. Proposed paragraphs (b) and (c) would provide 
requirements for more specific categories of circuit protection, with 
proposed paragraph (b) addressing lightning protection and proposed 
paragraph (c) addressing overload and ground fault protection. For 
purposes of this section, the term ``lightning arrestor'' includes a 
surge arrestor that also functions as a lightning arrestor.
Section 238.785 Trainset Electrical System
    Under this section, FRA is proposing requirements addressing 
various aspects of a Tier III trainset's electric system and is 
proposing to apply by cross-reference certain electrical system 
requirements for locomotives in part 229. Proposed paragraph (a) would 
address the insulation or grounding of metal parts and apply by cross-
reference requirements of Sec. Sec.  229.83 and 238.225 to trainsets.
    Proposed paragraph (b) would address high voltage markings on 
doors, cover plates, or barriers, and apply by cross-reference the 
requirements of Sec.  229.85. Although in Sec.  229.85 the words 
``Danger-High Voltage'' or ``Danger'' appear with just each word's 
first letter capitalized, FRA makes clear that use of all capital 
letters (i.e., ``DANGER-HIGH VOLTAGE'' or ``DANGER'') would also be 
acceptable. However, font size, symbols, and colors must comply with a 
national or international standard recognized by the railroad industry, 
and labels must be retro-reflective. FRA also makes clear that the 
proposed requirements for marking doors, cover plates, or barriers 
under this paragraph would apply to the external surfaces of any doors, 
cover plates, or barriers, and that the marking must be conspicuous and 
legible. The purpose of these proposed requirements would be negated if 
the markings were hidden on surfaces blocked from ready view or were 
otherwise indistinguishable from the external surface, or if the 
language conveying the warning were illegible.
    Proposed paragraph (c) would apply the requirements for hand-
operated electrical switches in Sec.  229.87 to Tier III trainsets.
    Under the proposed requirements of paragraph (d), trainsets would 
be subject to the requirements for conductors, jumpers, and cable 
connections in Sec. Sec.  229.89 and 238.225(a). As clarification, 
while Sec.  229.89 refers to cable and jumper connections for a 
locomotive, proposed paragraph (d) would apply such requirements to 
Tier III trainsets.
    Paragraph (e), as proposed, describes requirements for energy 
storage systems (batteries and capacitors) on Tier III trainsets. 
Paragraph (e)(1), which addresses batteries, proposes to apply the 
requirements of Sec.  238.225(b) and also proposes an additional 
requirement: battery circuits must include an emergency battery cut-off 
switch to completely disconnect the energy stored in the batteries from 
the load.
    Paragraph (e)(2), which has no counterpart in part 229, proposes 
requirements for the design of capacitors for high-energy storage on 
trainsets and would require that such capacitors be isolated by a fire-
resistant barrier from passenger seating areas and the trainset cabs 
(proposed paragraph (e)(2)(i)) and that the capacitors be designed to 
protect against overcharging (proposed paragraph (e)(2)(ii)).
    Paragraph (f) proposes to apply the requirements for power 
dissipation resistors in Sec.  238.225(c) to Tier III trainsets, with 
one additional proposed requirement: power dissipation resistor 
circuits must incorporate warning or protective devices for low 
ventilation air

[[Page 19755]]

flow, over-temperature, and short circuit failures.
    Paragraph (g) proposes to apply the requirements for 
electromagnetic interference and compatibility in Sec.  238.225(d), so 
that the onboard electronic equipment, among other things, not produce 
electrical noise that interferes with the trainline control and 
communications or wayside signaling systems. In addition to applying 
the requirements of Sec.  238.225(d), FRA is proposing an additional 
requirement: electrical and electronic systems of equipment must be 
capable of operation in the presence of external electromagnetic noise 
sources.
    In paragraph (h), FRA proposes requirements for motors and 
generators in use on a Tier III trainset. Proposed paragraph (h)(1) 
contains a general requirement that all motors and generators would be 
in proper working order or safely cut-out and isolated. Proposed 
paragraph (h)(2) would require that if motors and generators are 
equipped with support brackets, bearings, isolation mounts, or guards, 
those items would be present and function properly as defined by the 
railroad's ITM program.
Section 238.791 Safety Appliances
    Under this section, FRA is proposing a comprehensive set of 
requirements addressing safety appliances for Tier III trainsets. As 
described in paragraph (a), this section may also be applied to Tier I 
passenger-carrying vehicles and trainsets. Non-passenger-carrying 
passenger locomotives that are not part of an integrated trainset 
design would be covered under proposed Sec.  238.235. A railroad or 
supplier may still utilize the relevant passenger rail car safety 
appliance standards contained in part 231 of this chapter, if 
appropriate. The proposed safety appliance standards in this section, 
however, are intended to address modern passenger rail vehicle designs 
considerations and updated ergonomics from the recommendations provided 
by APTA and the international car builders represented in the PSWG. FRA 
notes that the application of these proposed requirements to Tier I 
equipment would be an all-or-none approach, like the alternative 
crashworthiness requirements under Sec.  238.201 and appendix G to this 
part. This means that Tier I equipment would either follow all the 
requirements, as proposed under this section, or comply with the 
existing safety appliance requirements for Tier I equipment; however, 
no mixing of the two sets of requirements would be permitted.
    Proposed paragraph (b) outlines the requirements for the attachment 
of safety appliances to the structural carbody of passenger rail 
equipment. These requirements are subdivided into two main categories: 
attachment by mechanical fasteners (e.g., rivets, bolts), and 
attachment by welding. Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would establish the 
minimum fastener mechanical strength and fatigue resistance, as 
provided by a \1/2\-inch SAE Grade 5 bolt, or equivalent, by means of 
one- or two-piece rivets, Huck bolts[supreg], or threaded fasteners. To 
ensure that threaded fasteners remain appropriately secured, proposed 
paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) would provide the acceptable methods 
that must be followed to ensure that bolts or nuts used to secure the 
appliance to the carbody do not become loose.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2) addresses the minimum requirements for 
appliances, sub-assemblies, brackets, and supports that are welded as a 
means of attachment to the structural carbody. Proposed paragraph 
(b)(3) would further identify when brackets or supports (e.g., tapping 
blocks) can be considered part of the structural carbody. FRA notes 
that there is a small but important distinction between the intended 
treatment of brackets or supports in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3). 
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would apply specifically to brackets and 
supports that are considered components of the appliance itself (e.g., 
to add stiffness), as distinguished from supports used for the sole 
purpose of attaching the appliance to the carbody under proposed 
paragraph (b)(3).
    Proposed paragraph (b)(4) would require that safety appliance 
designs facilitate the regular inspection of their attachment points to 
ensure threaded connections are not loose and welds show no signs of 
premature failure. Proposed paragraph (b)(5) would provide for the use 
of a minimum factor of safety of two, if the design loads in proposed 
paragraphs (d)(4)(ii) or (e)(4)(ii) are used as the method of 
determining appliance strength. FRA makes clear that this proposed 
requirement would apply only if the design load methodology for 
appliance strength is utilized, as a factor of safety would not be 
necessary if the traditional (e.g., \5/8\-inch diameter steel, or a 
material providing an equivalent level of mechanical strength) approach 
is used.
    Proposed paragraph (c) would establish that the appliance and its 
attachment must be designed to account for fatigue, particularly as it 
relates to the size of welded connections. Because of the high-
vibrational environment in which safety appliances are utilized, 
particularly where reciprocal engines are also present (e.g., diesel-
electric locomotive, diesel multiple-unit), the PSWG wanted to ensure 
designs accounted for environmental service factors, in addition to 
obvious static loads. Traditional threaded connections do occasionally 
come loose in such environments when not secured properly, but 
generally remain attached, whereas a welded connection may fail 
completely, without warning, if such considerations are not taken into 
account. This was a primary concern raised in discussions within the 
PSWG when alternative language to Sec. Sec.  238.229 and 238.230 was 
being considered for welded appliances and components. Therefore, 
proposed paragraph (c) is intended to complement the other requirements 
for welded appliances outlined in more detail within this section, to 
help address many of these concerns.
    Proposed paragraphs (d) and (e) address the pertinent requirements 
for the design of all handholds and sill steps, respectively. FRA notes 
that the proposed text represents an organizational change from the 
RSAC recommendations. Because handholds and sill steps are the most 
common types of safety appliances installed on passenger rail 
equipment, and the requirements can vary depending on their location 
and function, FRA believes that by consolidating requirements for all 
handholds and sill steps, it can avoid repeating requirements that are 
common to all locations (e.g., clearance, strength) while more 
succinctly delineating the requirements for specific locations (e.g., 
end handholds). FRA welcomes comments towards the utility of this 
approach, and the value of possibly including accompanying drawings in 
a final rule.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would detail the number of handholds 
required, and any critical dimensions depending on the function, 
location and arrangement (i.e., horizontal or vertical) of each type of 
handhold. Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(i) would require handrails to be 
present at all passenger side door locations but note that internal 
handrails installed to comply with the requirements of Sec.  38.97(a) 
or Sec.  38.115(a) of this title, Americans with Disabilities Act 
Accessibility Specifications for Transportation Vehicles, may be used 
to satisfy this requirement, recognizing that this would likely be the 
primary method of compliance.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(ii) addresses the minimum requirements 
for locations where external access to the cab of a trainset, power 
car, or

[[Page 19756]]

locomotive is provided, other than for passenger access. These 
locations typically include one or more vertical handholds and sill 
steps stacked in ``ladder'' arrangement for crewmembers to access the 
cab from the ground level.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(iii) addresses the requirements for all 
side handholds. Side handholds are required at any location where sill 
steps are installed, including those required by statute or regulation, 
and optional installations. A major goal of the PSWG was to address the 
various arrangements that have been developed over the years to provide 
better ergonomics. For example, some passenger equipment designs 
incorporate two horizontal handholds above side sill steps located at 
car ends, as opposed to the single horizontal handhold design codified 
under part 231 for most passenger cars. The multiple handhold 
arrangement was adopted to provide better ergonomics for crews riding 
on car ends performing switching moves and other activities, while 
providing a lower handhold for stability from the ballast level. 
Proposed paragraphs (d)(1)(iii)(A) through (F) provide specific 
dimensions for the different types of arrangements that are commonly 
used on modern passenger rail equipment.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(iv) provides the requirements for end 
handholds. End handholds are generally required at the end of any car 
where a coupler is installed that requires crewmembers to manually 
couple, uncouple, or make electrical or pneumatic connections, as 
detailed in this section. The PSWG recommendations added additional 
language to address position requirements for vehicles with tapered 
(aerodynamic noses), included in proposed paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(C), and 
when the use of an uncoupling lever is acceptable in lieu of a separate 
end handhold, as contained in proposed paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(E). Perhaps 
most significantly, this rule would codify the exception proposed in 
paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(F) that end handholds would not be required at the 
ends of vehicles equipped with an automatic coupling mechanism that can 
be safely operated from inside the appropriate cab of the vehicle and 
does not require a person to go between vehicle units. This approach 
has been adopted in numerous, recent equipment designs that incorporate 
some level of semi-permanent connection (e.g., trainsets, married pair 
MUs), or utilize a ``fully-automated'' coupling device that can couple 
or decouple and make all electrical and pneumatic connections without 
the need for manual intervention. Often these couplers (commonly 
referred to as ``transit type'' couplers) can be monitored and 
controlled from the cab of a trainset. FRA is utilizing its authority 
under 49 U.S.C. 20306 to codify this exception through this rulemaking 
process.\24\ By doing so, FRA anticipates it would eliminate the need 
for additional waiver requests on the subject and better incorporate 
modern technology and equipment designs, as the statutory provision 
intends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ For further discussion on FRA's proposed use of its 
discretionary authority under 49 U.S.C. 20306, see section III.E, 
above, Safety Appliances for Non-Passenger Carrying Locomotives and 
Passenger Equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) provide the required minimum 
handhold dimension and hand clearance requirements.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(4) contains the handhold strength and 
rigidity requirements with proposed paragraph (d)(4)(i) providing an 
option to utilize the traditional \5/8\-inch wrought-iron or steel 
equivalency strength for those that prefer to design appliances using 
the traditional approach. In turn, proposed paragraph (d)(4)(ii) 
reflects the new, design strength approach, as recommended by the PSWG.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(5) addresses the use of multiple handholds 
when arranged vertically in a ``ladder'' type arrangement, often used 
by crewmembers to access cabs or carbody doors from the ground level.
    The requirements for different sill step arrangements are 
consolidated within proposed paragraph (e) of this section. Proposed 
paragraph (e)(1)(i) would specify the locations where sill steps must 
be equipped and proposed paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) and (iii), respectively, 
the required dimensions. Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(iv) would provide 
exceptions for where side sill steps are not required. Specifically, 
under proposed paragraph (e)(1)(iv)(A), side sill steps would not be 
required if steps are provided for an exterior cab access door in a 
location where a crewmember can ride the equipment with an unobstructed 
view of the track ahead. This would reduce the need to have redundant 
safety appliances where the cab ladder arrangement can be effectively 
used to safely perform switching moves. Under proposed paragraph 
(e)(1)(iv)(B), sill steps, as with end handholds, would not be required 
at locations equipped with an automatic coupling mechanism that can be 
safely operated from inside the appropriate cab of the vehicle and does 
not require ground intervention from a person to go on, under, or 
between the equipment such as to couple air, electric, or other 
connections. As with other safety appliance requirements proposed in 
this section, FRA proposes to adopt these common exceptions from the 
statutory need to equip a vehicle with sill steps by the authority 
provided in 49 U.S.C. 20306. Doing so would also remove the need for 
continued waiver requests under this authority for modern passenger 
equipment designs.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraph (e)(2) provides the various required dimensions 
for various sill step arrangements. Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(i) would 
establish the minimum tread length as 10 inches, which is the useable 
length of the step where a person could place their foot, excluding any 
construction features such as bend radii where someone could not step 
onto a flush surface of the step. Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(ii) would 
establish the clear (unobstructed) distance required above the usable 
tread of a step. This dimension has historically been referred to as 
the clear ``depth'' in part 231. The PSWG recommended use of the term 
``clear distance'' in the proposal, to avoid historical confusion 
regarding the meaning of the term ``depth,'' which could also be 
interpreted as meaning the distance from the outside vertical plane of 
a step.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(A) would require that a Tier III 
trainset have a minimum of at least 4.7 inches of clear distance, 
whereas proposed paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(B) would provide the traditional 
8-inch clear distance requirement for Tier I equipment. In discussions 
with the PSWG, industry requested that FRA adopt the service-proven 
clear distance based on international standards (4.7 inches). The PSWG 
noted that this standard has proven appropriate for international high-
speed passenger equipment as it reduces the potential pocket size that 
can be a major contributor to aerodynamic noise. Additionally, the PSWG 
noted that this standard would help avoid the need for potential 
modifications to the carbody underframe of service-proven, high-speed 
trainsets if manufacturers were required to increase the clear distance 
length to the historical 8 inches. In a continuing effort to harmonize 
FRA regulations with service-proven international standards to 
facilitate the implementation of service-proven, high-speed rail in the 
United States, FRA is proposing to adopt this recommendation. However, 
as these proposed regulations may also apply to Tier I equipment, FRA 
is proposing to retain the requirement that Tier I

[[Page 19757]]

equipment maintain a minimum clear distance of at least 8 inches.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(iii) would specify the required clear 
space from the outside edge of a sill step. The purpose of this 
dimension is to allow the user to have enough room to firmly place the 
ball of their foot on the step. The most common application of this 
requirement would be where a step is built directly into the side of a 
vehicle, or into the pocket of the carbody or side sill of a locomotive 
or passenger vehicle. The term ``clear space'' is being introduced here 
to avoid confusion with similar terms, such as clear length and depth. 
FRA welcomes comments on other terminology that might be considered for 
this dimension.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(iv) would adopt a maximum vertical rise 
between consecutive sill steps. This proposed requirement is intended 
to ensure that vertical spacing is ergonomic for users in multiple sill 
step arrangements, particularly those used in a ladder-type 
arrangement, and is derived from other regulations such as those for 
box car ladders outlined in Sec.  231.1(e) of this chapter. Similarly, 
proposed paragraph (e)(2)(v) would require that proper clearance be 
provided behind a sill step and running gear or any other moving parts. 
This is intended to ensure that the truck or other moving part of a 
passenger vehicle does not come into contact with the boot (foot) of a 
crewmember riding on a sill step or cab access ladder. This would also 
effectively prohibit steps being installed directly onto such moving 
parts, which could present an unsafe condition if the equipment starts 
to move.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(3) would establish the requirements for sill 
step tread surfaces and provide some examples for acceptable methods. 
Railroad and suppliers should consider the appropriate anti-skid 
material to use depending on the functionality of the sill step. For 
example, if a sill step is also intended to function as a handhold, 
then it should utilize an anti-skid material that does not affect the 
use of the handhold. This proposed language would also require that 
enclosed steps, such as those built into the side sill or carbody of 
equipment, have at least 50 percent of the tread area as open space to 
help prevent the minor build-up of snow or ice from impacting the 
utility of the anti-skid surface.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(4) provides the strength requirements for 
sill steps. These requirements would be similar to those the PSWG 
recommended for other appliances in this section, but also include an 
empirical requirement for sill steps constructed with a rectangular 
cross-section.
    Proposed paragraph (f) addresses the minimum crew access locations 
for new passenger trainsets and individual pieces of equipment. It is 
intended to ensure that vehicles designed to provide only high-level 
boarding for passengers also have a means for crewmembers to board a 
trainset or passenger car from ground level, or alight from one to the 
ground. Specifically, proposed paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iii) would 
detail when such access locations must be provided and when low-level 
boarding or cab access locations can be used to satisfy this 
requirement.
    Proposed paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (ii) provide the requirements for 
steps and handholds utilized in crew access locations, primarily 
referencing similar requirements proposed in this section. FRA is also 
including additional provisions recommended by the PSWG in proposed 
paragraphs (f)(2)(iii) and (iv), which would allow for crew access 
steps to be retractable, or for portable ladders to be utilized in lieu 
of permanently installed external steps, respectively. These proposed 
requirements were added to address concerns with aerodynamic noise 
contribution, particularly on Tier III trainsets. If portable ladder 
arrangements are used, they should be readily accessible to 
crewmembers, designed to provide strength equivalent to or greater than 
that required for sill step arrangements in this section, and be 
securely attached to the equipment.
    Proposed paragraph (g)(1) details where ``automatic'' couplers must 
be equipped, and their functionality, as required by 49 U.S.C. ch. 203. 
FRA is proposing to codify exemptions from the need to install 
automatic couplers and their associated appliances (e.g., uncoupling 
levers, end handholds) on passenger trainsets or equipment with semi-
permanent connections, or at the ends of trainsets where couplers are 
only intended for rescue purposes, as detailed in proposed paragraph 
(g)(2). As described previously, FRA is proposing to use its authority 
under 49 U.S.C. 20306 to permanently adopt these exclusions for which 
waivers are commonly requested for modern trainset and MU passenger 
equipment designs, and FRA believes this would help reduce the burden 
associated with such requests.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraph (h) provides the requirements for uncoupling 
levers or devices and would require uncoupling levers or devices on 
each vehicle end equipped with an automatic coupler, as required under 
proposed paragraph (g) of this section. Proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(i) 
and (ii) would require that an automatic coupler be equipped with 
either a traditional, manual uncoupling lever or some other uncoupling 
mechanism operated by controls located in the appropriate cab, or other 
secure location in a trainset, respectively. Additionally, proposed 
paragraph (h)(1)(ii) provides that additional uncoupling levers or 
handles on the coupler that serve only as a backup to the remotely 
operated mechanism would not be subject to the requirements of proposed 
paragraph (h)(2).
    Proposed paragraph (h)(2) would require that manual uncoupling 
levers be installed so that the automatic coupler may be operated from 
the left side of the equipment, as determined when facing the end of 
the equipment, from ground level without requiring a person to go 
between cars or equipment units and have a clearance around the handle 
of 2, preferably 2\1/2\, inches. This proposed performance requirement 
for manual uncoupling levers is a slight departure from the traditional 
requirements for such appliances under part 231. Yet, FRA believes that 
adherence to the more rigid, traditional measurement requirements from 
the coupler to the outside edge of the equipment is not appropriate, as 
it becomes difficult to determine the proper place at which to measure 
when equipment ends are tapered. Additionally, by setting the 
performance requirement as requiring a person to be able to operate the 
coupler without going between cars or equipment units, the requirement 
can be easily and objectively measured.
    Proposed paragraph (i) would permit the automatic coupler, end 
handholds, and uncoupling mechanism on the leading and trailing ends of 
a trainset unit to be located within a removable shroud to reduce 
aerodynamic effects.
    Proposed paragraph (j) would provide that trainsets, and equipment 
units or sections of trainsets that are not semi-permanently coupled to 
an adjacent equipment unit or section of trainset, must be equipped 
with an efficient parking or hand brake capable of holding the 
trainset, equipment unit, or section of trainset on at least a 3-
percent grade, or on the worst-case grade conditions identified by the 
operating railroad. This proposal is consistent with that for use of 
worst-case grade conditions under proposed Sec.  238.110.
    Proposed paragraph (k)(1) provides for the arrangement of safety 
appliances on trainsets and equipment units to facilitate certain 
maintenance tasks.

[[Page 19758]]

Should a trainset or equipment unit be equipped with appurtenances such 
as headlights, windshield wipers, marker lights, and other similar 
items required for the safe operation of the trainset or equipment unit 
that are designed to be maintained or replaced from the exterior of the 
equipment, then the equipment must have handholds and steps meeting the 
requirements of this section to allow for the safe maintenance and 
replacement of these appurtenances.
    However, under proposed paragraph (k)(2), the requirements under 
proposed paragraph (k)(1) would not apply if railroad operating rules 
require, and actual practice entails, the maintenance and replacement 
of these components by maintenance personnel in locations protected by 
the requirements of subpart B of part 218 of this chapter equipped with 
ladders and other tools to safely repair or maintain those 
appurtenances.
    Paragraph (l) would require that any safety appliances installed at 
the option of the railroad must be approved pursuant to proposed Sec.  
238.110.
Subpart I--Trainset Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance Requirements 
for Tier III Passenger Equipment
Section 238.901 Scope
    This proposed subpart would contain specific inspection, testing, 
and maintenance requirements.
Section 238.903 General Requirements
    Proposed Sec.  238.903 would provide an overview of the general 
requirements applicable to Tier III passenger equipment. Most of these 
requirements are referenced and described in more detail in other 
sections of part 238. Accordingly, this proposed section would address 
the ITM program for Tier III passenger equipment, and specifically the 
content of the program and the procedures and intervals for performance 
of inspection, testing, and maintenance activities; requirements for 
the safe operation of a Tier III trainset; required safety inspections; 
and requirements for the training and qualification program and 
retention of records.
    Proposed paragraph (a) contains the general requirement that 
railroads operating Tier III equipment would have an ITM program that 
contains detailed information regarding the inspection, testing, and 
maintenance procedures necessary for the railroad to safely maintain 
and operate its Tier III passenger equipment.
    Proposed paragraphs (b)(1) through (8) list specific informational 
requirements to be discussed in detail as part of the railroad's ITM 
program. Most notably, proposed paragraph (b)(8) would require the 
railroad to describe the required operational braking capability for 
the trainset. Consistent with Sec.  238.731(b), required operational 
braking capability is proposed as the capability of the trainset to 
stop from its maximum operating speed within the signal spacing 
existing on the track over which the trainset is operating under the 
worst-case adhesion conditions defined by the railroad. Under this 
proposed requirement, FRA would require railroads to detail the total 
effective braking power necessary to achieve this performance standard. 
FRA recognizes that this would mark a significant change in how the 
health of the brake system is categorized as further discussed under 
proposed Sec.  238.1003(d)(1). FRA notes that a railroad would need to 
establish and verify the required operational braking capability during 
the dynamic testing and commissioning of the trainset under Sec.  
238.111.
    Proposed paragraph (c) would require that trainsets receive 
thorough inspections from qualified individuals. It would prohibit a 
trainset from being put into service with any safety-critical defect 
until that defect is repaired, except for defects discovered in the 
brake system during a pre-service inspection under proposed paragraph 
(c)(2)(i). Proposed paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) would list the 
specific safety inspections required in addition to any inspection 
required under subpart H of this part.
    A pre-departure inspection, as proposed under paragraph (c)(1), 
would mean trainset system verifications, inspections, or functional 
tests that must be performed prior to departure from terminal locations 
or when operating ends or crews are changed.
    Pre-service inspections, as proposed under paragraph (c)(2), would 
mean those inspections to be performed before a trainset goes into 
passenger service. They would be conducted at locations where such 
inspections can be performed safely and properly, typically in a shop 
location, but also at terminal locations provided a qualified 
individual performing the inspection can safely go on, under, or 
between the equipment. This inspection is proposed to be performed 
before a trainset enters revenue service, at an interval of no more 
than every 48 hours. As proposed, this inspection would ensure the 
trainset is safe to enter revenue service, similar to the mechanical 
and brake inspections required of Tier I trains under subpart D; 
however, the specifics of the pre-departure inspection proposed here 
for Tier III trainsets would be defined by each individual railroad in 
its ITM program. FRA is also proposing certain minimum requirements for 
pre-service inspections.
    Under proposed paragraph (c)(2)(i), the procedures for pre-service 
inspections would cover all the items required by a pre-departure 
inspection under proposed paragraph (c)(1). FRA is also proposing to 
include the specific exception for the brake system as discussed 
elsewhere in this NPRM in that, should the pre-service inspection 
uncover an issue with brake system, but yet the brake system still meet 
or exceed the required operational braking capability, the trainset may 
enter passenger service, assuming no other safety-critical defect is 
discovered. However, in accordance with proposed Sec.  238.1003(d)(1), 
this practice would be permitted only for up to 5 consecutive calendar 
days, at which time the trainset could no longer continue in service 
and would be required to have the brake system fully repaired. Further, 
should a pre-service inspection reveal that the brake system no longer 
meets the required operational braking capability, then the trainset 
would not be permitted to enter or continue in passenger service and 
must move immediately to a repair location with the trainset not being 
able to depart the repair location until all defects were repaired.
    Paragraph (c)(2)(ii) proposes another minimum requirement in that 
an interior inspection of the trainset must be performed of the 
emergency systems to ensure proper functionality of certain emergency 
systems (such as public address, intercom, and emergency lighting 
systems) and to ensure that any permitted tools or other implements 
necessary for emergency egress are present.
    Paragraph (c)(3) proposes that the railroad's ITM program have one 
comprehensive section or chapter where the railroad would detail all 
the required brake inspections to be performed on the trainset, to 
include the procedures for performing those inspections, along with the 
periodicity of inspections. This would include brake system inspections 
performed as part of other inspections, such as a pre-service 
inspection. FRA envisions this section or chapter of a railroad's ITM 
program as a central repository of the brake system inspections for 
ease of reference and use. This discussion is equally applicable to 
proposed paragraph (c)(4), with respect to truck inspections.
    Under paragraph (c)(5), FRA is proposing that the railroad detail 
all other safety-critical periodic inspections

[[Page 19759]]

that are required to maintain the safety of the trainset. Rather than 
attempt to exhaustively list all those types of inspections, FRA is 
placing the responsibility on the railroad to thoroughly evaluate and 
document the required safety-critical inspections. FRA would expect to 
see inspections of the electrical and train control systems, as 
examples. However, consistent with FRA's overall approach to high-speed 
train inspection, testing, and maintenance, FRA would provide the 
railroad discretion in the development of its ITM program, subject to 
FRA's review and approval, discussed below.
    To set a baseline, FRA is proposing under paragraph (d) that the 
railroad specify in its initial ITM program submission the initial 
scheduled maintenance intervals for Tier III equipment. Deviations from 
this baseline for safety-critical components could only be implemented 
when approved by FRA, and those changes would require justification by 
accumulated, verifiable operating data.
    Proposed paragraph (e) contains the training and qualification 
program requirements for individuals performing inspections, testing, 
or maintenance on Tier III trainsets. Proposed paragraph (e)(1) would 
require the railroad to identify which inspections, tests, or 
maintenance tasks require special training or qualification.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(2) would require the railroad to develop a 
training and qualification program for those tasks identified under 
proposed paragraph (e)(1) of this section that, at a minimum, addresses 
those items listed under Sec.  238.109(b).
    Proposed paragraph (e)(3) would require the railroad to maintain a 
list of those individuals designated as qualified pursuant to the 
railroad's training and qualification program to perform those tasks 
identified in proposed paragraph (e)(1). The railroad would be required 
to make those records available to FRA upon request.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(4) contains the proposed, overarching 
requirement that only those individuals qualified pursuant to the 
railroad's training and qualification program can inspect, test, or 
maintain safety-critical components or systems on Tier III equipment. 
This approach was recommended by the RSAC to avoid more specifically 
defining those who can or cannot perform certain inspection, testing, 
or maintenance tasks under the regulation.
    Proposed paragraph (f) specifies that the railroad would maintain 
records of each inspection required under proposed paragraph (c) for at 
least one year from the date of the inspection.
Section 238.905 Compliance
    This proposed section would require the railroad to adopt and 
comply with its ITM program once approved by FRA under proposed Sec.  
238.913.
Section 238.907 Standard Procedures for Safely Performing Inspection, 
Testing, Maintenance, and Repairs
    Proposed paragraph (a) would require the railroad to establish 
standard procedures addressing the performance of inspection, testing, 
maintenance, and repair tasks, and identify the informational, 
approval, enforcement, and review processes that must be included in 
the procedures. Under proposed paragraph (a)(5), ``the railroad's 
official responsible for safety'' would be the party who must approve 
the written standard procedures; however, FRA invites comment whether 
it would be more appropriate to designate the head of high-speed rail 
maintenance, the chief maintenance officer, some other railroad 
official, or a combination thereof, as the ``railroad's official 
responsible for safety.''
    Proposed paragraph (b) clarifies that FRA does not intend for the 
ITM program required by this subpart I to address employee working 
conditions related to the performance of the inspections, tests, and 
maintenance required by the program. Such working conditions are the 
purview of the Occupational Health and Safety Administration.
Section 238.909 Quality Control/Quality Assurance Program
    This proposed section would require that each railroad establish an 
inspection, testing, and maintenance quality control/quality assurance 
program for the purpose of ensuring that each railroad performs its 
inspections, testing, and maintenance in accordance with its approved 
ITM program. Either the railroad or its contractors would be able to 
perform compliance responsibilities related to the quality control 
program established under this proposed section.
Section 238.911 Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance Program Format
    This proposed section establishes the format in which the ITM 
program would be submitted to FRA for review and approval.
    Proposed paragraph (a) would require that the railroad prepare a 
complete ITM program covering all components, systems, or sub-systems 
on a Tier III trainset, regardless of whether the railroad deems those 
components, systems, or sub-systems safety-critical. This would include 
all inspections, tests, and maintenance tasks required, the intervals 
and periodicity of those inspections, tests, and maintenance tasks, and 
all associated information and procedures required for the railroad and 
its personnel to implement the program. The purpose behind this 
proposed requirement is to allow FRA to ensure that the railroad has 
properly captured all safety-critical items. Under proposed paragraph 
(b), below, the railroad would be required to submit a condensed 
version of the program addressing only the safety-critical elements as 
deemed by the railroad. FRA notes that under proposed Sec.  238.913, 
FRA would approve the ITM program addressing only those safety-critical 
elements. Additionally, once the ITM program has received its initial 
approval, FRA would not expect submission of the complete ITM program 
with any future amendment to a safety-critical portion.
    Proposed paragraph (b) would require the railroad to submit a 
condensed version of the ITM program, with only the program items 
identified as safety-critical by the railroad. It would be this 
condensed version of the ITM program that FRA would approve under Sec.  
238.913. Nevertheless, FRA has identified certain components or systems 
that are always considered safety-critical, such as the operation of 
emergency equipment, emergency back-up systems, trainset exits, and 
trainset safety-critical hardware and software systems.
    FRA invites comment on the utility of this approach.
Section 238.913 Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance Program Approval 
Procedure
    Under this section, FRA is proposing the procedures for the 
submission and approval of the railroad's ITM program.
    Proposed paragraph (a) describes requirements for both the initial 
submission of the ITM program and the submission of amendments. With 
respect to the initial submission, the proposed language under 
paragraph (a)(1) explains that the ITM program must be submitted no 
less than 180 days prior to the commencement of revenue service. FRA 
makes clear though, that the mileage accumulated during dynamic 
qualification testing must be accurately recorded in the maintenance 
records of the trainsets so that prior to entering revenue service, the 
trainset is current on all required inspection, tests, and maintenance 
required under the ITM based on the mileage of the trainset. Thus, if a 
certain maintenance interval is specified in miles, FRA expects that 
the milage incurred during

[[Page 19760]]

dynamic pre-revenue testing would be used when determining whether 
maintenance of the equipment is necessary. FRA recognizes that for the 
dynamic testing of Tier III equipment, the test procedures required 
under Sec.  238.111 and appendix K must include the inspection, 
testing, and maintenance procedures to be followed to ensure testing is 
conducted safely.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would require that an amendment to an 
approved ITM program must be submitted for approval not less than 60 
days prior to the railroad's proposed implementation date. FRA welcomes 
comments on the appropriate review period for both the initial 
submission and the submission of program amendments.
    Proposed paragraph (b) identifies the required content for the ITM 
program or program amendment submission. As proposed, not only must the 
railroad submit the ITM program or amendment itself, but it must also 
include the primary point of contact for the program or amendment and 
affirm that the program or amendment was provided to the designated 
representatives of railroad employees along with a list of the names 
and addresses of those persons.
    Proposed paragraph (c) would require the railroad to provide a copy 
of the ITM program or amendment to the designated representatives of 
railroad employees responsible for the equipment's operation, and 
inspection, testing, and maintenance under this subpart. Additionally, 
this proposed paragraph would impose a deadline of 45 days for 
providing comment to FRA. Proposed paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) would 
outline the required process for each comment.
    Proposed paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) would explain the approval 
process for the initial ITM program submission and amendments, the 
timing of FRA's review and approval determination, and the requirement 
to correct a program or amendment if FRA discovers a deficiency during 
its review.
    Notably, under proposed paragraph (d)(3), at any time after its 
approval determination, FRA would retain the ability to review the 
program and amendments under its general inspection authority and to 
require further corrections to the ITM program or amendment. Submittal 
of a revised program or amendment made pursuant to this paragraph would 
follow the submittal procedures detailed in proposed paragraphs (d)(1) 
and (2).
    Proposed paragraph (e) would establish requirements for the annual 
review of the ITM program, addressing the scheduling of such review 
with FRA and the designated representatives of railroad employees.
Subpart J--Movement of Defective Tier III Passenger Equipment
Section 238.1001 Scope
    This proposed subpart would contain specific requirements for the 
movement of Tier III passenger equipment that is defective.
Section 238.1003 Movement of Defective Tier III Passenger Equipment
    Under Sec.  238.1003, FRA is proposing the procedural requirements 
for the movement of defective Tier III equipment. These requirements 
would address defective conditions identified during a pre-service 
inspection and defective conditions discovered during revenue service 
operations.
    Except as explained in proposed Sec.  238.903(c)(2)(i) and 
paragraph (d) of this section, proposed paragraph (a) would describe 
the general prohibition on the movement of a Tier III trainset with a 
defect identified during a pre-service inspection and specify that such 
a trainset may only move pursuant proposed paragraph (e), as explained 
in more detail below.
    Proposed paragraph (b) would describe the procedural requirements 
for the movement of a Tier III trainset with a safety-critical defect 
discovered during revenue service operations (such as during a pre-
departure inspection under proposed Sec.  238.903(c)(1)) and between 
required pre-service inspections. Under these proposed requirements, an 
individual qualified pursuant to proposed Sec.  238.903(e) would be 
required to make a determination, consistent with railroad operating 
rules, that it is safe to move the trainset (proposed paragraph 
(b)(1)). It would be permissible for such a qualified individual to 
make this determination remotely based on information provided by on-
site personnel, provided that a qualified individual performs an on-
site inspection of the defect when the trainset arrives at the first 
location where an on-site inspection by a qualified individual is 
possible.
    After determining that it is safe to move the defective trainset, 
the qualified individual would be required to notify the train crew of 
the authorized speed and destination, and any other operational 
restrictions on the movement of the non-compliant trainset, pursuant to 
proposed paragraph (b)(2). The qualified individual may provide this 
notice through the tagging process described in proposed paragraph 
(b)(3) or through the automated tracking system described in proposed 
paragraph (c), which would adopt the requirements of Sec.  
238.15(c)(3).
    Proposed paragraph (d) addresses the requirements for the movement 
of a trainset that experiences an in-service failure of the braking 
system. During PSWG meetings, there was significant discussion 
regarding the applicability of these requirements to trainsets with 
advanced technology brake systems and automated reporting systems that 
provide the engineer with real-time information concerning the 
operative brakes within the trainset. Specifically, there was 
discussion that these modern Tier III trainsets are designed and 
equipped with a braking capability that most often exceeds what is 
necessary for routine operational braking. Thus, FRA is proposing a 
balanced approach that considers the operational capability of these 
trainsets without compromising safety.
    A such, under proposed paragraph (d)(1), a trainset may continue in 
service for no more than 5 consecutive calendar days (to include 
leaving a repair point) so long as the trainset meets or exceeds its 
required operational braking capability. As discussed above under 
proposed Sec.  238.903(a)(8), the railroad would be required to 
describe in detail in its ITM program this required operational braking 
capability. Additionally, FRA clarifies that consistent with the 
proposal under Sec.  238.19(d)(2), after 5 consecutive calendar days 
elapse, a Tier III trainset may not leave a designated brake repair 
point with anything less than a brake system that is free from defects, 
regardless of whether the trainset meets or exceeds its required 
operational braking capability (i.e., with 100% operative brakes). This 
would mean a Tier III trainset may leave a designated brake repair 
point with less than its maximum designed braking capability, so long 
as it retains its required operational braking capability pursuant to 
Sec.  238.731(b). FRA is proposing this approach based on industry's 
input, which is consistent with international, service-proven 
operational practice.
    Under paragraph (d)(2), FRA is proposing requirements for a 
trainset that has in-service failure of the brake system bringing it 
below the required operational braking capability. FRA is proposing 
that in such a situation, a trainset may only move in service until its 
next pre-service inspection in accordance with railroad operating rules 
relating to the percentage of operative brakes and at a speed no 
greater than the maximum authorized speed as

[[Page 19761]]

determined by Sec.  238.731(e)(4), so long as the requirements of 
paragraph (b) of this section are otherwise fully met. Under this 
proposal, if a pre-service inspection becomes due on such a trainset, 
and the brake system has not been repaired, then the trainset may not 
be used in passenger service until such repairs are made.
    As part of the comment process for this proposed rulemaking, FRA 
welcomes input on the appropriateness of these proposed requirements 
for the movement of defective trainsets equipped with advanced 
technology brake systems.
    Under proposed paragraph (e), a railroad would be permitted to move 
a trainset with a safety-critical defect discovered during a pre-
service inspection for purposes of repair without complying with the 
procedural requirements of proposed paragraph (b), provided the 
movement is without passengers, within a yard, at speeds not to exceed 
10 mph, and for the sole purpose of repair. FRA is also proposing that, 
should a railroad elect to repair a trainset with a safety-critical 
defect in place, it would be required, at a minimum, to apply a tag 
that complies with proposed paragraph (b)(3) to provide notice that the 
trainset is defective and not in service. FRA makes clear that the tag 
is to be applied while the trainset is non-compliant; once the repair 
is made, the tag may be removed, and the trainset placed into service.
    Proposed paragraph (f), which is identical to Sec.  238.17(f), 
makes clear that the movement of a defective Tier III trainset subject 
to a Special Notice for Repair under part 216 would continue to be 
subject to the restrictions in a Special Notice.
Appendix C to Part 238--Minimally Compliant Analytical Track (MCAT) 
Simulations Used for Qualifying Passenger Vehicles To Operate on Track 
Classes 2 Through 5 and Up to 6 Inches of Cant Deficiency
    This proposed appendix would contain requirements for using 
computer simulations to comply with the vehicle/track system 
qualification testing requirements specified in Sec.  238.139. These 
simulations would be performed using a track model containing defined 
geometry perturbations at the limits that are permitted for a specific 
class of track and level of cant deficiency. This track model is known 
as Minimally Compliant Analytical Track (MCAT). These simulations would 
be used to identify vehicle dynamic performance issues prior to service 
or, as appropriate, a change in service, and demonstrate that a vehicle 
type is suitable for operation on the track over which it is intended 
to operate. FRA notes that, for the short warp (a12) MCAT 
segment in figure 1, the profile deviations for the inside and outside 
rails appear in reverse order from their counterparts in appendix D to 
part 213. This change aims to address the risk of low-speed, wheel-
climb derailment, and FRA welcomes comment on the need for a similar 
change to appendix D to part 213.
    For simulations measuring hunting perturbation involving tangent 
track segments, FRA proposes the use of a high-conicity, wheel-rail 
profile combination approved by FRA that produces a minimum conicity of 
0.4 for wheelset lateral shifts up to flange contact. FRA has added to 
the docket a file that reflects wheel-rail profile combinations FRA has 
found acceptable in the past, and welcomes comment on this data or the 
incorporation of such combinations into the regulation.
    As noted under the discussion of proposed Sec.  238.139, Vehicle/
track system qualification, the proposed requirements are intended to 
complement existing requirements for higher speed and higher cant 
deficiency operations in part 213 of this chapter. Specifically, this 
appendix would apply to operations up to 6 inches of cant deficiency on 
lower-speed track classes, and would have no impact on part 213 
requirements for operations over 6 inches of cant deficiency on such 
track classes. By illustration, proposed table 6 would apply to track 
Classes 2 through 5 where cant deficiency exceeds 5 inches but is not 
more than 6 inches, while table 7 of appendix D to part 213 currently 
applies to track Classes 1 through 5 where cant deficiency exceeds 6 
inches. Although there would be no direct conflict in application of 
the respective appendices, FRA notes in particular that the differences 
in repeated surface limits and repeated alinement limits between the 
two tables may not necessarily be explained by the differences in cant 
deficiency alone. FRA therefore welcomes comments on the potential 
impact of the proposed changes, will evaluate any comments received, 
and will consider revisions to both parts 213 and 238 in the final rule 
or a future rulemaking.
Appendix I to Part 238--Tier III Trainset Cab Noise Test Protocol
    In proposed appendix I to part 238, which is modeled after appendix 
H to part 229 of this chapter, FRA presents proposed testing protocols 
to verify that the noise levels within the cab of a Tier III trainset 
comply with the requirements established in Sec.  238.759(a)(1). These 
proposed protocols address measurement instrumentation, test site 
requirements, procedures for measurement, and recordkeeping. In this 
proposal, FRA is intending to align these measurement procedures with 
those used in international practice and welcomes comments on any 
relevant international practice that could contribute to the further 
development of the proposed protocols. FRA also notes that although the 
requirements proposed in this appendix are very similar to those under 
appendix H to part 229, this appendix would also contain a separate set 
of requirements due to subtle but significant differences. Notably, the 
test proposed under this appendix would be under dynamic conditions, 
while the trainset is moving, whereas the test under appendix H to part 
229 is under static conditions, not involving equipment movement.
Appendix J to Part 238--Alternative Requirements for Evaluating the 
Crashworthiness and Occupant Protection Performance of a Tier I 
Passenger Trainset Equipped With Crash Energy Management Features
    Proposed appendix J would establish a framework that enables the 
evaluation of an individual piece of Tier I passenger equipment for 
compliance with crash energy management (CEM) requirements. Current 
regulations provide for the assessment of CEM components in the context 
of a complete trainset. Although a railroad, equipment manufacturer, or 
other party is not required to incorporate CEM features into an 
individual piece of Tier I equipment, this proposed appendix would 
provide direction for the development of these features for a single 
vehicle, rather than a complete trainset. Under the framework of this 
proposed appendix, single pieces of rail equipment that are fully 
compliant with existing Tier I structural requirements, and have 
additional CEM features, could operate within conventional, Tier I-
compliant trains.
    Proposed appendix J would define in-line and offset collision 
scenarios for locomotives, cab cars, and intermediate cars. As 
proposed, the crashworthiness requirements contained in proposed 
appendix J would not apply to Tier I alternatively designed trainsets 
or single pieces of equipment with traditionally compliant structures 
outfitted with pushback couplers as the only CEM feature.
    Current industry standards served as a model for the 
crashworthiness requirements proposed in this

[[Page 19762]]

appendix, and FRA welcomes comments addressing the consistency between 
the appendix and industry standards.
Appendix K to Part 238--Minimum Information for Test Procedures
    FRA is proposing to add appendix K to part 238 to contain the 
minimum information necessary for test procedures associated with the 
required testing to be performed pursuant to the railroad's pre-revenue 
service acceptance testing plan under Sec.  238.111. This is to ensure 
that testing is performed in a safe and controlled manner, and that the 
testing captures information critical to the demonstration of 
compliance. FRA understands this level of information may not be 
available for all tests at the time of initial submission of a test 
plan; however, if a test procedure relied on for a test does not 
contain this minimum level of information, FRA may take exception to it 
and require the test be repeated or the test procedure updated. This 
determination may be made in advance of testing (e.g., if FRA personnel 
plan to witness the testing) or as part of a records review, and FRA 
encourages railroads and their suppliers to pay particular attention to 
the quality and content of their test procedures and records to avoid 
any such issues.

V. Regulatory Impact and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action within 
the meaning of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and 
Review'') and DOT Order 2100.6A (``Rulemaking and Guidance 
Procedures'').
    FRA has prepared and placed in the docket (FRA-2021-0067) a 
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) addressing the economic impacts of 
this proposed rule. The RIA estimates the costs and benefits of this 
proposed rule over a 30-year period. FRA used discount rates of 7 and 3 
percent with these estimates. For the 30-year period analyzed, the net 
costs of this proposed rule are estimated to be approximately $55.2 
million, undiscounted. The present value is approximately $21.4 
million, discounted at 7 percent, and $35.2 million, discounted at 3 
percent. The annualized net costs are approximately $1.7 million and 
$1.8 million, discounted at 7 and 3 percent, respectively.
    The analysis of this proposed rule includes estimates of costs 
associated with the proposed requirement for low-speed vehicle/track 
system qualification, emergency roof access for certain Tier III 
trainsets, as well as for the inspection, testing, and maintenance of 
high-speed trainsets. FRA estimates that the 30-year total costs of 
this proposed rule would be approximately $55.5 million, undiscounted. 
The present value is approximately $21.7 million, discounted at 7 
percent, and $35.5 million, discounted at 3 percent.

                                                                 Regulatory Cost Summary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Vehicle track  Emergency roof
                                                             analyses       access cost      ITM costs      Total costs    Discounted 7%   Discounted 3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................................................      $1,350,000      $1,650,000     $52,500,000     $55,500,000     $21,669,972     $35,489,848
Annualized..............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       1,746,305       1,810,666
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This analysis also estimates the benefits associated with: (A) 
railroads not needing to apply for a waiver for pilots, snowplows, and 
end plates installed on Tier III trainsets; (B) railroads not having to 
redesign Tier III trainsets to account for legacy attachment strength 
requirements for emergency communication equipment back-up power 
fixtures; (C) modernizing the safety appliance requirements for Tier 
III and certain Tier I passenger equipment, and for certain non-
passenger carrying locomotives (reducing the need for railroads to seek 
statutory exemptions); and (D) a reduction in the administrative burden 
of processing, reviewing, and implementing safety regulatory waivers. 
FRA estimates a 30-year total benefits of approximately $0.3 million, 
undiscounted, for this proposed rule. The present value is 
approximately $0.2 million, discounted at 7 percent, and $0.3 million, 
discounted at 3 percent.

                                                               Regulatory Benefits Summary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Pilots,
                                          snowplows,        Emergency         Safety        Government    Total benefits   Discounted 7%   Discounted 3%
                                          end plates     communications     appliances       benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................         $18,576          $150,000         $55,728         $74,304        $298,608        $224,959        $256,003
Annualized............................  ..............  ................  ..............  ..............  ..............          18,129          13,061
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The net costs of this proposed rule are estimated to be 
approximately $55.2 million, undiscounted. The present value is 
approximately $21.4 million, discounted at 7 percent, and $35.2 
million, discounted at 3 percent. The annualized net costs are 
approximately $1.7 million and $1.8 million, discounted at 7 and 3 
percent, respectively.

                          Net Regulatory Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Present value   Present value
                 Impact                         7%              3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs...................................          $21.67          $35.49
Benefits................................            0.22            0.26
Net Costs...............................           21.45           35.23

[[Page 19763]]

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

    Details on the estimated costs and benefits of this proposed rule 
can be found in the RIA associated with this docket. FRA invites 
comments on the costs and benefits associated with this proposed rule.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 \27\ and E.O. 13272 \28\ 
require agency review of proposed and final rules to assess their 
impacts on small entities. An agency must prepare an Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis unless it determines and certifies that a rule, if 
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Pursuant to the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Administrator of the Federal 
Railroad Administration certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    \28\ 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    FRA is submitting the information collection requirements in this 
proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.\29\ The sections that 
contain the new or revised information collection requirements and the 
estimated time to fulfill each requirement are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
    \30\ Throughout the tables in this document, the dollar 
equivalent cost is derived from the 2020 Surface Transportation 
Board's Full Year Wage A&B data series using the appropriate 
employee group hourly wage rate that includes 75-percent overhead 
charges.
    \31\ Totals may not add due to rounding.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Total annual         Average time per     Total annual                     Total cost
            CFR section               Respondent universe         responses              responses         burden hours      Wage rate      equivalent
                                                            (A)..................  (B)..................     (C) = A * B        (D) \30\     (E) = C * D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
229.47(a)-(b)--Emergency Brake       FRA anticipates zero submissions for stencils and markings.
 Valve--Marking brake pipe valve as
 such.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.7--Waivers.....................  34 railroads.........  12.00 waivers........  6 hours..............           72.00          $77.44       $5,575.68
238.15(b)--Movement of passenger     34 railroads.........  1,000.00 tags........  3 minutes............           50.00           77.44        3,872.00
 equipment with power brake
 defects--Limitations on movement
 of passenger equipment containing
 a power brake defect at the time a
 Class I or IA brake test is
 performed--Passenger equipment
 tagged or information is recorded
 as prescribed under Sec.
 238.15(c)(2).
--(c) Limitations on movement of     34 railroads.........  288.00 tags..........  3 minutes............           14.40           77.44        1,115.14
 passenger equipment in passenger
 service that becomes defective en
 route after a Class I or IA brake
 test--Tagging of defective
 equipment.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(c)(4) Conditional requirement--   The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under Sec.   238.15(a)-(b).
 Notice between employees.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.17--Movement of passenger        34 railroads.........  200.00 tags..........  3 minutes............           10.00           77.44          774.40
 equipment with other than power
 brake defects--Tagging of
 defective equipment.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(e) Special requisites for         The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under Sec.   238.17.
 movement of passenger equipment
 with safety appliance defects.
--(e)(4) Crewmember notifications..  The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under Sec.   238.17.
238.19(b)--Reporting and tracking    For Tier I trainsets, FRA determined since the 1990s retention and availability of records for reporting and
 defective passenger equipment--      tracking defective passenger equipment are performed by the railroad industry as part of their normal business
 Retention or availability of         operations. For Tier III, FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
 records for Tier I and Tier III
 (Revised requirement).
--(d)(1) List of repair points--     This ICR only affects Amtrak, which has submitted the necessary list of power brake repair points. FRA does not
 Railroads operating long-distance    anticipate any changes or updates to this list over the next few years. Consequently, there is no burden
 intercity and long-distance Tier     associated with this requirement.
 II passenger equipment.
--(d)(2) List of repair points--     FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
 Railroads operating Tier III
 passenger trainsets (New
 requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.21(b)--Special approval          34 railroads.........  1.00 petition........  16 hours.............           16.00           77.44        1,239.04
 procedure--Petitions for special
 approval of alternative standard.
--(c) Petitions for special          34 railroads.........  1.00 petition........  40 hours.............           40.00           77.44        3,097.60
 approval of alternative compliance.
--(f) Comments on petitions........  Manufacturers and      2.00 comments........  1 hour...............            2.00           77.44          154.88
                                      public.
238.103(c)--Fire safety analysis     1 new railroad.......  1.00 analysis........  150 hours............          150.00           77.44       11,616.00
 for procuring new passenger cars
 and locomotives.
--(d) Fire safety analysis for       34 railroads.........  1.00 revised analysis  10 hours.............           10.00           77.44          774.40
 existing passenger cars and
 locomotives--Revised fire safety
 analysis for leased or transferred
 equipment.
238.105(a)-(e)--Passenger            2 new railroads......  2.00 program plans...  150 hours............          300.00           77.44       23,232.00
 electronic hardware and software
 safety--Safety program including
 safety analysis for new and
 existing railroads (Revised
 requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 19764]]

 
--(f) Additional requirements        FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
 (Revised requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(g) Vehicle Communication and      37 railroads.........  12.30 assessments....  20 hours.............          246.00           77.44       19,050.24
 Control System Vulnerability
 Assessment--Railroad to assess and
 identify potential system
 vulnerabilities and resulting risk
 mitigation as part of the overall
 Railroad System Safety Plan
 required by part 270; PTC system
 must comply with the requirements
 in Sec.   236.1033 (New
 requirement).
--(h) Notification of product        20 suppliers.........  0.33 notifications...  1 minute.............            0.01           77.44            0.77
 failure--Notification to FRA (New
 requirement).
238.107--Inspection, testing, and    1 new railroad.......  1.00 maintenance plan  150 hours............          150.00           77.44       11,616.00
 maintenance plan--Development of
 maintenance plan for new railroads.
--(d) Inspection, testing, and       34 railroads.........  34.00 maintenance      20 hours.............          680.00           77.44       52,659.20
 maintenance plan for existing                               plan reviews.
 railroads--Maintenance plan review.
238.108(a)--New passenger service    37 railroads.........  3.00 plans...........  63 hours.............          189.00           77.44       14,636.16
 pre-revenue safety performance
 demonstration--Pre-revenue safety
 validation plan (New requirement
 due to Sec. 22416 of the IIJA).
--(b)(2) Daily summary of the        37 railroads.........  29.00 summary reports  30 minutes...........           14.50           77.44        1,122.88
 activities provided to FRA by
 railroads (New requirement).
--(b)(3) Railroad to provide a       37 railroads.........  3.00 reports.........  2 hours..............            6.00           77.44          464.64
 final report to FRA (New
 requirement).
--(c) Compliance--Railroads to       37 railroads.........  1.00 plan              15 hours.............           15.00           77.44        1,161.60
 notify FRA on proposed amendments                           modification.
 (New requirement).
238.109(b)--Training,                1 new railroad.......  1.00 training program  160 hours............          160.00           77.44       12,390.40
 qualification, and designation
 program--Development of training
 program/curriculum for new
 railroads.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(b) Training employees and         The associated burdens relating to the training of employees and supervisors have been addressed previously when
 supervisors.                         FRA calculated the economic costs of the regulation.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(b)(13) Recordkeeping--Employees   34 railroads.........  488.00 records.......  3 minutes............           24.40           77.44        1,889.54
 and trainers--Training
 qualifications.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.110(b)(1)--Design criteria,      The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under paragraphs (b)(2) through (g)(2) of
 testing, documentation, and          this section.
 approvals--Documentation and
 recordkeeping (New requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(b)(2) Recordkeeping or            37 railroads.........  1.00 retention of      5 minutes............             .08           77.44            6.20
 documentation (New requirement).                            document.
--(c)(1)(ii) Vehicle qualification   37 railroads.........  1.00 new or modified   75 hours.............           75.00           77.44        5,808.00
 plan--Compliance matrix (New                                plan.
 requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(c)(2) Approval of the vehicle     FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
 qualification plan--Vehicle
 qualification plan disapproved in
 part--Resubmission (New
 requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(d) System description (operating  37 railroads.........  11.67 system           75 hours.............          875.25           77.44       67,779.36
 environment) and design criteria                            descriptions.
 (New requirement).
--(e)(2)(i) Structural carbody       37 railroads.........  1.00 new or modified   8 hours..............            8.00           77.44          619.52
 crashworthiness compliance--A test                          test plan.
 plan submission to FRA (New
 requirement).
--(e)(2)(ii) Structural carbody      37 railroads.........  1.00 analysis........  10 hours.............           10.00           77.44          774.40
 crashworthiness compliance--Finite
 element analysis results submitted
 to FRA (New requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(f) Safety Appliances (New         The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of
 requirement).                        this section.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(g)(1)(i) Approval of design       37 railroads.........  1.00 new or modified   4 hours..............            4.00           77.44          309.76
 review documentation, tests, and                            documentation.
 inspections--Design review,
 testing, and inspection
 documentation (New requirement).
--(g)(1)(ii) Approval of design      37 railroads.........  1.00 revised document  1 hour...............            1.00           77.44           77.44
 review documentation, tests, and
 inspections--Resubmission of
 revised document (New requirement).
--(g)(2)(i) Approval of design       37 railroads.........  1.00 request.........  1 hour...............            1.00           77.44           77.44
 review documentation, tests, and
 inspections--Sample-equipment
 inspection--Request (New
 requirement).
--(g)(2)(ii) Approval of design      37 railroads.........  1.00 re-request......  1 hour...............            1.00           77.44           77.44
 review documentation, tests, and
 inspections--Railroad to address
 all exceptions taken and then, if
 directed by FRA, request a
 reinspection pursuant to (g)(2)(i)
 of this section (New requirement).
238.111(a)(1)-(2)--Pre-revenue       37 railroads.........  2.00 new and modified  192 hours............          384.00           77.44       29,736.96
 service acceptance testing--                                plans.
 Passenger equipment designs that
 have not been used in revenue
 service in the U.S.--Plan and
 submission to FRA (previously
 under Sec.   238.111(b)(1)-(2))
 (Revised requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 19765]]

 
--(a)(3)-(4) Test procedures         The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement when it comes to the test plan development is
 containing minimum information       covered under Sec.   238.111(a). Additionally, the reporting of the test results is covered under Sec.
 listed in appendix K to this part    238.111(a)(6)(ii).
 to be provided to FRA as part of
 pre-revenue service acceptance
 testing plan test procedures
 (previously under Sec.
 238.111(b)(3)-(4)) (Revised
 requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(a)(6)(i) Tier I passenger         33 railroads.........  1.00 test result.....  4 hours..............            4.00           77.44          309.76
 equipment: Test results made
 available to FRA upon request
 (previously under Sec.
 238.111(b)(4)) (Revised
 requirement).
--(a)(6)(ii) Tier II & Tier III      4 railroads..........  1.00 letter..........  4 hours..............            4.00           77.44          309.76
 passenger equipment: Report of
 test results to FRA (previously
 under Sec.   238.111(b)(4))
 (Revised requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(a)(7) Correction of safety        FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
 deficiencies--Railroads can
 petition FRA for a waiver of a
 safety regulation under the
 procedure specified in part 211
 (previously under Sec.
 238.111(b)(5)).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(b) Passenger equipment that has   37 railroads.........  1.33 plans...........  16 hours.............           21.28           77.44        1,647.92
 previously been used in revenue
 service in the U.S.--Railroads to
 verify the applicability of
 previous tests performed under
 Sec.   238.111(a)(1)(vii)(A)-(D)
 (previously under 238.111(a)(1))
 (Revised requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(c) Modifications, new             The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under Sec.   238.111(a).
 technology, and major upgrades
 (Revised requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.115(c)--Emergency lighting--     The inspection time and mechanical testing are covered under the economic cost. Consequently, there is no PRA
 Periodic inspection (New             burden.
 requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.131(a)--Exterior side door       FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
 safety systems--new passenger cars
 and locomotives used in passenger
 service--Labels and visual
 guidelines (Revised requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(b) Exterior side door safety      1 new railroad.......  1.00 analysis........  80 hours.............           80.00           77.44        6,195.20
 systems--new passenger cars and
 locomotives used in passenger
 service--Failure Modes, Effects,
 Criticality Analysis (FMECA).
238.133(a)--Exterior side door       1 new railroad.......  1.00 plan............  4 hours..............            4.00           77.44          309.76
 safety systems--Passenger cars and
 locomotives used in passenger
 service--By-pass device
 verification--Functional test
 plans.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(b) Unsealed door by-pass device-- The associated burdens related to safety job briefings have been addressed previously when FRA calculated the
 Notification to railroad's           economic costs of the regulation.
 designated authority by train
 crewmember of unsealed door by-
 pass device.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(c) En route failure--Safety       34 railroads.........  100.00 topic-specific  2 minutes............            3.33           77.44          257.88
 briefing by train crew when door                            briefings and
 by-pass device is activated.                                notifications.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(c) Notification to designated RR  The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under Sec.   238.133(c).
 authority by train crewmember that
 door by-pass device has been
 activated.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(c)(1) On-site qualified person    The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under Sec.   238.133(c).
 (QP) description to a qualified
 maintenance person (QMP) off-site
 that equipment is safe to move for
 repairs.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(c)(2) QP/QMP notification to      The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under Sec.   238.133(c).
 crewmember in charge that door by-
 pass has been activated and safety
 briefing by train crew.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(d) Records......................  34 railroads.........  100.00 records.......  2 minutes............            3.33           77.44          257.88
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(d) Records of unintended opening  The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under Sec.   238.133(d).
 of a powered exterior side door.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(g)(2) RR record of by-pass        The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under Sec.   238.133(d).
 activations found unsealed.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.135(a)(1)--Operating practices   The associated burdens related to daily job briefings have been addressed previously when FRA calculated the
 for exterior side door safety        economic costs of the regulation.
 systems--Daily job briefings.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(c) Railroads' request to FRA for  The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under Sec.   238.7 or Sec.
 special consideration to operate     238.21.
 passenger trains with exterior
 side doors or trap doors, or both,
 open between stations.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(c)(4) Railroads' response to FRA  The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under Sec.   238.7 or Sec.
 request for additional information   238.21.
 concerning special consideration
 request.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 19766]]

 
--(d) Operating rules on how to      1 new railroad.......  1.00 operating rule..  8 hours..............            8.00           77.44          619.52
 safely override a door summary
 circuit or no-motion system, or
 both, in the event of an en route
 exterior side door failure or
 malfunction on a passenger train
 (Note: Includes burden under Sec.
  238.137).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(d) Railroads to provide a copy    Railroads were required to complete the requirements of this subsection by December 6, 2018, so the estimated
 of written operating rules to        paperwork burden is zero.
 train crewmembers and control
 center personnel.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(e) Railroads' training of train   The associated burdens relating to the training of train crewmembers have been addressed previously when FRA
 crewmembers on requirements of       calculated the economic costs of the regulation. FRA estimates the paperwork burdens associated with training
 this section.                        recordkeeping under Sec.   238.109 or under the OMB control numbers 2130-0596 or 2130-0533.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(e) Railroads' training of new     The associated burdens relating to the training of train crewmembers have been addressed previously when FRA
 employees.                           calculated the economic costs of the regulation. FRA estimates the paperwork burdens associated with training
                                      recordkeeping under Sec.   238.109 or under the OMB control numbers 2130-0596 or 2130-0533.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(g) RR operational/efficiency      The associated burdens relating to operational testing or observation of operating crewmembers and control center
 tests of train crewmembers &         personnel have been previously addressed when FRA calculated the economic costs of the regulation.
 control center employees.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.139(e)--Vehicle/track system     33 railroads.........  1.00 testing plan....  120 hours............          120.00           77.44        9,292.80
 qualification--New vehicle type
 qualification testing plan (New
 requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(e) Vehicle/track system           FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
 qualification--Existing vehicle
 type qualification testing plan
 (New requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(g) Vehicle/track system           The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under paragraph (e) of this
 qualification--Qualification         section.
 testing results (New requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(i)(1) Vehicle/track system        33 railroads.........  1.00 record..........  10 minutes...........             .17           77.44           13.16
 qualification--Document retention
 (New requirement).
--(i)(2) Vehicle/track system        33 railroads.........  2.00 written consents  30 minutes...........            1.00           77.44           77.44
 qualification--Written consent of
 each affected track owner (New
 requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.201(b)--Scope/alternative        The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under Sec.   238.21.
 compliance--Supporting
 documentation demonstrating
 compliance.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(b) Notice of tests sent to FRA    The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under Sec.   238.111(a)(4).
 30 days prior to commencement of
 operations.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.229(c)--Safety appliances--      1 new railroad.......  1.00 list............  1 hour...............            1.00           77.44           77.44
 Welded safety appliances--Written
 lists submitted to FRA by the
 railroads.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(d) Defective welded safety        34 railroads.........  4.00 tags............  3 minutes............             .20           59.89           11.98
 appliance or welded safety
 appliance bracket or support--
 Tagging.
--(d) Notification to crewmembers    34 railroads.........  2.00 notices.........  1 minute.............             .03           77.44            2.32
 about non-compliant equipment.
--(g) Inspection plans.............  1 new railroad.......  1.00 plan............  16 hours.............           16.00           77.44        1,239.04
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(h) Inspection personnel--         The associated burdens relating to training of inspection personnel have been addressed previously when FRA
 Training.                            calculated the economic costs of the regulation. FRA estimates the paperwork burdens associated with the retention
                                      of training records under Sec.   238.109.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(j)(1)(iv) Remedial action:        The associated burdens relating to inspections have been addressed previously when FRA calculated the economic
 Defect/crack in weld--A record of    costs of the regulation. FRA estimates the paperwork burdens associated with the retention of inspection records
 the welded repair.                   under Sec.   238.229(k).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(j)(2)(iv) Petitions for special   The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under Sec.   238.21.
 approval of alternative
 compliance--Impractical equipment
 design.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(k) Records of the inspection and  The estimated burden for this regulatory requirement is covered below under Sec.   238.303 and under the OMB
 repair of the welded safety          control number 2130-0004 (Sec.   229.21).
 appliance brackets.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.230(b)(1)--Safety Appliances--   FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
 New equipment--Inspection record
 of welded equipment by qualified
 employee.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(b)(3) Welded safety appliances:   FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
 Documentation for equipment
 impractically designed to
 mechanically fasten safety
 appliance support.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.231--Brake System--Inspection    The estimated paperwork burden for this requirement is covered under Sec.   238.303 and under the OMB control
 and repair of hand/parking brake:    number 2130-0004.
 Records (under FRA Form 6180.49A).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(h) Procedures verifying hold of   1 new railroad.......  1.00 procedure.......  2 hours..............            2.00           77.44          154.88
 hand/parking brakes.
238.237(a)-(b)--Automated            1 new railroad.......  1.00 document........  2 hours..............            2.00           77.44          154.88
 monitoring- Documentation for
 alerter/deadman control timing.
--(d) Defective alerter/deadman      34 railroads.........  25.00 tags...........  3 minutes............            1.25           59.89           74.86
 control: Tagging.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 19767]]

 
238.303--Exterior calendar day       FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
 mechanical inspection of passenger
 equipment: Notice of previous
 inspection.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(e)(15) Dynamic brakes not in      34 railroads.........  50.00 tags...........  3 minutes............            2.50           59.89          149.73
 operating mode: Tag.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(e)(15)(ii) Conventional           The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under Sec.   238.303(e)(15).
 locomotives equipped with
 inoperative dynamic brakes:
 Tagging.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(e)(17) MU passenger equipment     FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
 found with inoperative/ineffective
 air compressors at exterior
 calendar day inspection: Documents.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(e)(17)(v) Written notice to       The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered above under Sec.   238.303(e)(15).
 train crew about inoperative/
 ineffective air compressors.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(e)(18)(iv) Records of             The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered below under Sec.   238.303(g).
 inoperative air compressors.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(g) Record of exterior calendar    34 railroads.........  1,734,115.00 daily     1 minute.............       28,901.92           77.44    2,238,164.68
 day mechanical inspection (Other                            inspection records.
 than locomotives) (* Note:
 Includes burden for records of
 inoperative air compressors under
 Sec.   238.303(e)(18)(iv)).
238.305--Interior calendar day       34 railroads.........  540.00 tags..........  3 minutes............           27.00           77.44        2,090.88
 mechanical inspection of passenger
 cars--Tagging of defective end/
 side doors.
--(f) Records of interior calendar   34 railroads.........  3,102,865.00 daily     1 minute.............       51,714.42           77.44    4,004,764.68
 day inspection.                                             inspection records.
238.307(a)(2)--Periodic mechanical   34 railroads.........  2.00 notices.........  5 hours..............           10.00           77.44          774.40
 inspection of passenger cars and
 unpowered vehicles--Alternative
 inspection intervals:
 Notifications.
--(c)(1) Notice of seats and seat    34 railroads.........  200.00 notices.......  2 minutes............            6.67           59.89          399.47
 attachments broken or loose.
--(e)(1) Records of each periodic    34 railroads.........  5,184.00 inspection    1 hour...............        5,184.00           59.89      310,469.76
 mechanical inspection.                                      records.
--(e)(2) Detailed documentation of   34 railroads.........  2.00 documents.......  100 hours............          200.00           77.44       15,488.00
 reliability assessments as basis
 for alternative inspection
 interval.
238.311--Single car test--Tagging    34 railroads.........  50.00 tags...........  3 minutes............            2.50           59.89          149.73
 to indicate need for single car
 test.
238.313(h)--Class I Brake Test--     34 railroads.........  15,600.00 records....  30 minutes...........        7,800.00           59.89      467,142.00
 Record for additional inspection
 for passenger equipment that does
 not comply with Sec.
 238.231(b)(1).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.315(a)(1)--Class IA brake test-- The associated burdens related to briefings have been addressed previously when FRA calculated the economic costs
 Notice to train crew that test has   of the regulation.
 been performed (verbal notice).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(f)(5) Communicating signal        The associated burdens related to briefings have been addressed previously when FRA calculated the economic costs
 tested and operating as intended.    of the regulation.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.317--Class II brake test--       The associated burdens related to briefings have been addressed previously when FRA calculated the economic costs
 Communicating signal tested and      of the regulation.
 operating as intended.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.321--Out-of-service credit--     The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under Sec.   238.307 and under OMB
 Passenger car: Out-of-use notation.  control number 2130-0004 under Sec.   229.23(d)-(g).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.445(a)--Automated Monitoring--   There are no paperwork burdens associated with this subsection. FRA corrects its previous overinclusion.
 Performance monitoring: alerters/
 alarms.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(c) Monitoring system: Self-test   There are no paperwork burdens associated with this subsection. FRA corrects its previous overinclusion.
 feature: Notifications.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.703--Quasi-static compression    1 new railroad.......  .33 document.........  40 hours.............           13.20           77.44        1,022.21
 load requirements--Document to FRA
 on Tier III trainsets.
238.705--Dynamic collision           1 new railroad.......  .33 validation         40 hours.............           13.20           77.44        1,022.21
 scenario--Model validation                                  document.
 document to FRA for review and
 approval.
238.707--Override protection--Anti-  1 new railroad.......  .33 evaluation.......  40 hours.............           13.20           77.44        1,022.21
 climbing performance evaluation
 for Tier III trainsets.
238.709--Fluid entry inhibition--    1 new railroad.......  .33 analysis.........  20 hours.............            6.60           77.44          511.10
 Information to demonstrate
 compliance with this section of a
 Tier III trainset.
238.721--Glazing--Cab glazing; end   3 glass manufacturers  .33 technical          60 hours.............           19.80           77.44        1,533.31
 facing--Documentation containing                            documentation.
 technical justification.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(a)(6) Marking of end-facing       Windows are, customarily, automatically marked during the production process. Therefore, there will be no
 exterior windows for Tier III        additional burden to mark the windows.
 trainsets.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 19768]]

 
--(b) Cab Glazing; side-facing       3 glass manufacturers  .33 analysis.........  10 hours.............            3.30           77.44          255.55
 exterior windows in Tier III cab--
 Each end-facing exterior window in
 a cab shall, at a minimum, provide
 ballistic penetration resistance
 that meets the requirements of
 appendix A to part 223
 (Certification of Glazing
 Materials).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(b) Marking of side-facing         Windows are, customarily, automatically marked during the production process. Therefore, there will be no
 exterior windows in Tier III         additional burden to mark the windows.
 Trainsets.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(c) Non-Cab Glazing; Side-facing   3 glass manufacturers  .33 analysis.........  20 hours.............            6.60           77.44          511.10
 exterior windows--Tier III--
 compliance document for Type II
 glazing.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(c) Marking of side-facing         Windows are, customarily, automatically marked during the production process. Therefore, there will be no
 exterior windows--Tier III           additional burden to mark the windows.
 Trainsets--non-cab cars.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(c)(2) Alternative standard to     3 glass manufacturers  .67 alternative        5 hours..............            3.35           77.44          259.42
 FRA for side-facing exterior                                analysis.
 window intended to be breakable
 and serve as an emergency window
 exit (option to comply with an
 alternative standard).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.731(a)--Brake Systems--RR        The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under Sec.   238.111(a).
 analysis and testing Tier III
 trainsets' maximum safe operating
 speed.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(d) Tier III trainsets' passenger  1 new railroad.......  53.33 stencilings....  1 hour (design) + 2             55.11           59.89        3,300.54
 brake alarm--legible stenciling/                                                   minutes (marking).
 marking of devices with words
 ``Passenger Brake Alarm''
 (Including the design of the
 sticker).
--(f) Main reservoir test/           1 new railroad.......  .33 certification....  6 hours..............            1.98           59.89          118.58
 certification.
--(h) Main reservoir tests--         1 railroad...........  .33 ITM plan.........  10 hours.............            3.30           77.44          255.55
 Inspection, testing and
 maintenance program (ITM).
--(j) Brake application/release--    1 railroad...........  .33 design...........  40 hours.............           13.20           77.44        1,022.21
 Brake actuator design with
 approved brake cylinder pressure
 as part of design review process.
--(o) Train securement--Tier III     1 railroad...........  .33 procedure........  8 hours..............            2.64           77.44          204.44
 equipment: demonstrated securement
 procedure.
238.733--Interior fixture            1 railroad...........  .33 analysis/document  20 hours.............            6.60           77.44          511.10
 attachment--Analysis for FRA
 approval (Tier III).
238.735--Seat crashworthiness        1 railroad...........  .33 analysis/document  40 hours.............           13.20           77.44        1,022.21
 standard (passenger & cab crew)--
 Analysis for FRA approval (Tier
 III).
238.737--Luggage racks--Analysis     1 railroad...........  .33 analysis/document  20 hours.............            6.60           77.44          511.10
 for FRA approval (Tier III).
238.741--Emergency window egress     1 railroad...........  .33 plan.............  60 hours.............           19.80           77.44        1,533.31
 and rescue access--Plan to FRA for
 passenger cars in Tier III
 trainsets not in compliance with
 sections 238.113 or 238.114.
238.743--Emergency Lighting--        1 railroad...........  .33 analysis/test....  60 hours.............           19.80           77.44        1,533.31
 Analysis for FRA approval (Tier
 III).
238.745--Emergency communication--   3 railroads..........  277.00 marked          5 minutes............           23.08           77.44        1,787.32
 Marking of each intercom intended                           intercom locations.
 for passenger use on Tier III
 trainsets as specified in Sec.
 238.121 (New requirement; note the
 existing burden associated with
 Tier I & Tier II trainsets is
 covered under OMB control no. 2130-
 0576).
238.747--Emergency roof access for   3 railroads..........  104.00 marked          30 minutes...........           52.00           77.44        4,026.88
 cab occupants--Marked emergency                             emergency roof
 roof access locations on Tier III                           access locations.
 trainsets as specified in Sec.
 238.123(a), (d), and (e) (New
 requirement; note the existing
 burden associated with Tier I &
 Tier II trainsets is covered under
 OMB control no. 2130-0576).
238.751--Alerters--Alternate         1 railroad...........  .33 analysis/test....  40 hours.............           13.20           77.44        1,022.21
 technology--Analysis for FRA
 approval (Tier III).
238.759--Trainset cab noise--        3 railroads..........  1.00 record..........  5 minutes............             .08           77.44            6.20
 Performance standards for Tier III
 trainsets--Recordkeeping on cab
 noise test protocol as set forth
 in appendix I to this part (New
 requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.761--Trainset sanitation         FRA anticipates zero submissions for this 3-year ICR period.
 facilities for employees as
 specified in Sec.  Sec.   229.137
 and 229.139--Defective locomotive
 toilet facility--Tagging, notation
 on daily inspection report (New
 requirement; note the existing
 burden associated with Tier I &
 Tier II trainsets is covered under
 OMB control no. 2130-0552).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.765--Event recorders (New        FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
 requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.775--Trainset horn--Testing of   3 railroads..........  .33 written report...  1 hour...............             .33           77.44           25.56
 the trainset horn sound level in
 accordance with Sec.   229.129(c)--
 Written report and record
 retention (New requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.777(e)(2)--Inspection Records--  FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
 Copy of summary report made
 available to the engineer and to
 FRA upon request (New requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 19769]]

 
238.785--Trainset electrical         FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
 system--High voltage markings:
 doors, cover plates, or barriers
 (New requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.791--Safety appliances (New      The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under Sec.  Sec.   238.110 (design) and
 requirement).                        238.901 et seq. (records).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.903--Trainset Inspection,        3 railroads..........  .67 plan.............  150 hours............          100.50           77.44        7,782.72
 Testing, and Maintenance
 Requirements for Tier III
 Passenger Equipment--Program (New
 requirement).
--(f) Retention of records.........  3 railroads..........  10,140.00 records....  5 minutes............          845.00           77.44       65,436.80
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.907--Standard procedures for     The estimated paperwork burden for this requirement is covered under Sec.   238.903.
 safely performing inspection,
 testing, and maintenance, and
 repairs (New requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.909--Quality control/quality     The estimated paperwork burden for this requirement is covered under Sec.   238.903.
 assurance program (New
 requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.911--Inspection, testing, and    3 railroads..........  .67 condensed program  2 hours..............            1.34           77.44          103.77
 maintenance program format--A
 condensed version of the program
 that contains only those items
 identified as safety-critical by
 the railroad submitted for
 approval by FRA (New requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.913(a)(1)--Inspection, testing,  The estimated paperwork burden for this requirement is covered under Sec.   238.903.
 and maintenance program approval
 procedure--Initial submission (New
 requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(a)(2) Inspection, testing, and    FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
 maintenance program approval
 procedure--Submission of
 amendments (New requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(b)(3) Inspection, testing, and    3 railroads..........  .67 affirming          5 minutes............             .06           77.44            4.65
 maintenance program approval                                statement.
 procedure--Statement affirming
 that the railroad has provided a
 copy of the program or amendments
 on designated representatives of
 railroad employees as required
 under paragraph (c) of this
 section (New requirement).
--(c) Inspection, testing, and       3 railroads..........  .33 comment..........  5 hours..............            1.65           77.44          127.78
 maintenance program approval
 procedure--Comment--Railroad to
 provide a copy to the designated
 representatives of railroad
 employees responsible for the
 equipment's operation, inspection,
 testing, and maintenance under
 this subpart, of each submission
 filed with FRA (New requirement).
--(d)(1) Inspection, testing, and    3 railroads..........  .33 review of          2 hours..............             .66           77.44           51.11
 maintenance program approval                                deficiency.
 procedure--FRA's notification to
 railroads (New requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(d)(2) Inspection, testing, and    FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
 maintenance program approval
 procedure--Amendments in response
 to FRA's disapproval (New
 requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(d)(3) Inspection, testing, and    The estimated paperwork burden for this requirement is covered above under paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
 maintenance program approval
 procedure--Resubmission of initial
 submission or amendments in
 response to FRA's identification
 of deficiencies after approval
 (New requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(e) Inspection, testing, and       FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
 maintenance program approval
 procedure--Annual review--Railroad
 to provide written notice to FRA
 and the designated representatives
 of the railroad's employees prior
 to the annual review (New
 requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.1003(a)-(e)--Movement of         FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
 defective Tier III passenger
 equipment--Tagging to indicate
 ``non-complying trainset'' (New
 requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(f) Movement of defective Tier     FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
 III passenger equipment--Movement
 is made in accordance with the
 restrictions contained in the
 Special Notice under part 216 (New
 requirement).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total \31\.....................  37 railroads.........  4,871,540 Responses..  N/A..................          98,889             N/A       7,401,389
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions; 
searching existing data sources; gathering or maintaining the needed 
data; and reviewing the information. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits

[[Page 19770]]

comments concerning: Whether these information collection requirements 
are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of FRA, 
including whether the information has practical utility; the accuracy 
of FRA's estimates of the burden of the information collection 
requirements; the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and whether the burden of collection of information on 
those who are to respond, including through the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology, may be 
minimized. For information or a copy of the paperwork package submitted 
to OMB, contact Ms. Arlette Mussington, Information Collection 
Clearance Officer, at 571-609-1285 or Ms. Joanne Swafford, Information 
Collection Clearance Officer, at 757-897-9908. Organizations and 
individuals desiring to submit comments on the collection of 
information requirements should direct them via email to Ms. Mussington 
at [email protected] or Ms. Swafford at 
[email protected].
    OMB is required to decide concerning the collection of information 
requirements contained in this rule between 30 and 60 days after 
publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a 
comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB 
receives it within 30 days of publication. FRA is not authorized to 
impose a penalty on persons for violating information collection 
requirements that do not display a current OMB control number, if 
required. FRA intends to obtain current OMB control numbers for any new 
information collection requirements resulting from this rulemaking 
action prior to the effective date of the final rule. The OMB control 
number, when assigned, will be announced by separate notice in the 
Federal Register.

D. Federalism Implications

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism,\32\ requires FRA to develop an 
accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State 
and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue 
a regulation with federalism implications that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs and that is not required by statute, unless the 
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, the agency 
consults with State and local governments, or the agency consults with 
State and local government officials early in the process of developing 
the regulation. Where a regulation has federalism implications and 
preempts State law, the agency seeks to consult with State and local 
officials in the process of developing the regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FRA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. FRA has 
determined that this proposed rule has no federalism implications, 
other than the possible preemption of State laws under 49 U.S.C. 20106. 
Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 
13132 do not apply, and preparation of a federalism summary impact 
statement for the proposed rule is not required.

E. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 \33\ prohibits Federal agencies 
from engaging in any standards or related activities that create 
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. 
Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered 
unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of 
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis 
for U.S. standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FRA has assessed the potential effect of this rulemaking on foreign 
commerce and believes that its proposed requirements are consistent 
with the Trade Agreements Act. The proposed requirements are safety 
standards, which, as noted, are not considered unnecessary obstacles to 
trade. Moreover, FRA has sought, to the extent practicable, to state 
the proposed requirements in terms of the performance desired, rather 
than in more narrow terms restricted to a particular design or system.

F. Environmental Impact

    FRA has evaluated this proposed rule in accordance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act \34\ (NEPA), the Council of 
Environmental Quality's NEPA implementing regulations,\35\ and FRA's 
NEPA implementing regulations.\36\ FRA has determined that this 
proposed rule is categorically excluded from environmental review and 
therefore does not require the preparation of an environmental 
assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). Categorical 
exclusions (CEs) are actions identified in an agency's NEPA 
implementing procedures that do not normally have a significant impact 
on the environment and therefore do not require either an EA or 
EIS.\37\ Specifically, FRA has determined that this proposed rule is 
categorically excluded from detailed environmental review.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
    \35\ 40 CFR parts 1500-1508.
    \36\ 23 CFR part 771.
    \37\ 40 CFR 1508.4
    \38\ See 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15) (categorically excluding 
``[p]romulgation of rules, the issuance of policy statements, the 
waiver or modification of existing regulatory requirements, or 
discretionary approvals that do not result in significantly 
increased emissions of air or water pollutants or noise'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The main purpose of this rulemaking is to amend FRA's Passenger 
Equipment Safety Standards by adding safety standards to facilitate the 
safe implementation of high-speed rail at speeds up to 220 mph (Tier 
III). This rulemaking would not directly or indirectly impact any 
environmental resources and would not result in significantly increased 
emissions of air or water pollutants or noise. In analyzing the 
applicability of a CE, FRA must also consider whether unusual 
circumstances are present that would warrant a more detailed 
environmental review.\39\ FRA has concluded that no such unusual 
circumstances exist with respect to this proposed rule and it meets the 
requirements for categorical exclusion.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 23 CFR 771.116(b).
    \40\ 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 
and its implementing regulations, FRA has determined this undertaking 
has no potential to affect historic properties.\41\ FRA has also 
determined that this rulemaking does not approve a project resulting in 
a use of a resource protected by Section 4(f).\42\ Further, FRA 
reviewed this proposed rulemaking and found it consistent with 
Executive Order 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and 
Abroad.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See 54 U.S.C. 306108.
    \42\ See Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended 
(Pub. L. 89-670, 80 Stat. 931); 49 U.S.C. 303.
    \43\ 86 FR 7619 (Feb. 1, 2021).

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

[[Page 19771]]

G. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

    Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,\44\ and DOT 
Order 5610.2C \45\ require DOT agencies to achieve environmental 
justice as part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic 
effects, of their programs, policies, and activities on minority 
populations and low-income populations. The DOT Order instructs DOT 
agencies to address compliance with Executive Order 12898 and 
requirements within the DOT Order in rulemaking activities, as 
appropriate, and also requires consideration of the benefits of 
transportation programs, policies, and other activities where minority 
populations and low-income populations benefit, at a minimum, to the 
same level as the general population as a whole when determining 
impacts on minority and low-income populations. FRA has evaluated this 
proposed rule under Executive Order 12898 and the DOT Order and has 
determined that it would not cause disproportionately high and adverse 
human health and environmental effects on minority populations or low-
income populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994).
    \45\ Available at: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/Final-for-OST-C-210312-003-signed.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    FRA has evaluated this proposed rule in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175, 
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, dated 
November 6, 2000. The proposed rule would not have a substantial direct 
effect on one or more Indian tribes, would not impose substantial 
direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and would not 
preempt tribal laws. Therefore, the funding and consultation 
requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply, and a tribal 
summary impact statement is not required.

I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Under section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,\46\ 
each Federal agency ``shall, unless otherwise prohibited by law, assess 
the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments, and the private sector (other than to the extent that such 
regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law).'' 
Section 202 of the Act \47\ further requires that ``before promulgating 
any general notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in 
the promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may 
result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted 
annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and before promulgating any 
final rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was 
published, the agency shall prepare a written statement'' detailing the 
effect on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. 
This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure, in the 
aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more (as adjusted annually for inflation) 
in any one year, and thus preparation of such a statement is not 
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Public Law 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531.
    \47\ 2 U.S.C. 1532.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Energy Impact

    Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use, requires 
Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any 
``significant energy action.'' \48\ FRA evaluated this proposed rule 
under Executive Order 13211 and determined that this regulatory action 
is not a ``significant energy action'' within the meaning of Executive 
Order 13211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

K. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the 
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these 
comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the 
system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through 
www.dot.gov/privacy. To facilitate comment tracking and response, we 
encourage commenters to provide their name, or the name of their 
organization; however, submission of names is completely optional. 
Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all timely comments will 
be fully considered. If you wish to provide comments containing 
proprietary or confidential information, please contact the agency for 
alternate submission instructions.

L. Analysis Under 1 CFR Part 51

    As required by 1 CFR 51.5, FRA has summarized the standards it is 
proposing to incorporate by reference and shown the reasonable 
availability of those standards in the section-by-section analysis of 
this rulemaking document (see the discussions of Sec. Sec.  
238.139(c)(1)(i) and 238.745(b)). APTA standard PR-M-S-18-10 is 
currently approved for the location where is appears in the amendatory 
text; no change to the standard is proposed.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 216

    Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 231

    Railroad safety.

49 CFR Part 238

    Incorporation by reference, Passenger equipment, Railroad safety, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The Proposed Rule

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA proposes to amend 
chapter II, subtitle B of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
as follows:

PART 216--SPECIAL NOTICE AND EMERGENCY ORDER PROCEDURES: RAILROAD 
TRACK, LOCOMOTIVE AND EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 216 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-20104, 20107, 20111, 20133, 20701-
20702, 21301-21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
0
2. Revise Sec.  216.14(c) to read as follows:

Sec.  216.214  Special notice for repairs--passenger equipment.

* * * * *
    (c) Railroad passenger equipment subject to a Special Notice may be 
moved from the place where it was found to be unsafe for further 
service to the nearest available point where the equipment can be 
repaired, if such movement is necessary to make the repairs. However, 
the movement is subject to the further restrictions of Sec. Sec.  
238.15 and 238.17, or Sec.  238.1003 of this chapter.

PART 231--RAILROAD SAFETY APPLIANCE STANDARDS

0
3. The authority citation for part 231 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-20103, 20107, 20131, 20301-20303, 
21301-21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.

[[Page 19772]]

0
4. Add Sec.  231.0(b)(6) to read as follows:

Sec.  231.0  Applicability and penalties.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) Tier III passenger equipment as defined in Sec.  238.5 of this 
chapter (i.e., passenger equipment operating in a shared right-of-way 
at speeds not exceeding 125 mph and in an exclusive right-of-way 
without grade crossings at speeds exceeding 125 mph but not exceeding 
220 mph).
* * * * *

PART 238--PASSENGER EQUIPMENT SAFETY STANDARDS

0
5. The authority citation for part 238 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20133, 20141, 20302-20303, 
20306, 20701-20702, 21301-21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; and 49 
CFR 1.89.

Subpart A--General

0
6. Amend Sec.  238.5 by adding in alphabetical order definitions of 
``clear length'', ``crew access side access steps'', ``representative 
segment of the route'', and ``Tier IV system'', and revising the 
definition of ``in service''. The additions and revision read as 
follows:

Sec.  238.5  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Clear length means, as applied to handholds and handrails, the 
distance about which a minimum 2-inch hand clearance exists in all 
directions around the handhold or handrail. Intermediate supports on 
handrails may be considered part of the clear length.
* * * * *
    Crew access side steps means a step(s) or stirrup(s) located on the 
side of the car to assist an employee in entering or existing through 
an exterior side door for train crew use.
* * * * *
    In service, when used in connection with passenger equipment, 
means--
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Is being handled in accordance with Sec. Sec.  238.15, 238.17, 
238.305(d), 238.503(f), or 238.1003 as applicable;
* * * * *
    Representative segment of the route means--
    (1) A continuous track section or multiple track sections no less 
than 50 miles in length that consist of--
    (i) A curvature distribution as described below;
    (ii) A segment or segments of tangent track over which the intended 
maximum operating speed can be sustained; and
    (iii) Any bridges and special-trackwork that are within the track 
section or track sections.
    (2) If each of a railroad's line segments is less than 50 miles, 
then the ``representative segment of the route'' means one complete 
line segment that consists of the conditions described in paragraphs 
(1)(ii) and (iii) of this definition.
    (3) A track section as described under paragraph (1) of this 
definition shall have a curvature distribution that is within 2% of the 
curvature distribution of the complete line segment, evaluated using 
the root mean squared (RMS) of the differences between the two 
distributions.
* * * * *
    Tier IV system means any railroad that provides or is available to 
provide passenger service using non-interoperable technology that 
operates on an exclusive right-of-way without grade crossings, not 
comingled with freight equipment or Tier I, II, or III passenger 
equipment, and not physically connected to the general railroad system.
* * * * *
0
7. In Sec.  238.19, revise paragraphs (a)(4) and (5), (b), and (d) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  238.19  Reporting and tracking of repairs to defective passenger 
equipment.

    (a) * * *
    (4) The determination made by a qualified person, qualified 
maintenance person, or other qualified individual on whether the 
equipment is safe to run;
    (5) The name of the qualified person, qualified maintenance person, 
or other qualified individual making such a determination;
* * * * *
    (b) Retention of records. At a minimum, each railroad shall keep 
the records described in paragraph (a) of this section in accordance 
with the following:
    (1) For Tier I equipment, one periodic maintenance interval for 
each specific type of equipment as described in the railroad's 
inspection, testing, and maintenance plan required by Sec.  238.107. 
FRA strongly encourages railroads to keep these records for longer 
periods of time because they form the basis for future reliability-
based decisions concerning test and maintenance intervals that may be 
developed pursuant to Sec.  238.307(b).
    (2) For Tier III equipment, at least one year.
* * * * *
    (d) List of repair points. (1) Railroads operating long-distance 
intercity and long-distance Tier II passenger equipment shall designate 
locations, in writing, where repairs to passenger equipment with a 
power brake defect will be made. Railroads operating these trains shall 
designate a sufficient number of repair locations to ensure the safe 
and timely repair of passenger equipment.
    (2) Railroads operating Tier III passenger trainsets shall 
designate locations, in writing, where repairs to safety-critical items 
on passenger equipment, including those with a power brake defect will 
be made. The railroad shall designate brake system repair point(s) in 
the inspection, testing, and maintenance program required by Sec.  
238.903(a). No Tier III trainset shall depart a brake system repair 
point where repairs can be made with brake system defect unless that 
trainset has its required operational braking capability, and not for a 
period to exceed 5 consecutive calendar days.
    (3) The railroad shall provide the list required under either 
paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section to FRA's Associate 
Administrator and make it available to FRA for inspection and copying 
upon request. The designations made in such lists shall not be changed 
without at least 30 days' advance written notice to FRA's Associate 
Administrator.

Subpart B--Safety Planning and General Requirements

0
8. Amend Sec.  238.105 by revising the undesignated introductory text, 
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), the paragraph headings of (d) and (e), and 
adding paragraphs (f) through (h). The revisions and additions read as 
follows:

Sec.  238.105  Passenger electronic hardware and software safety.

    Except as provided below under paragraph (f) of this section, the 
requirements of this section apply to electronic hardware and software 
used to control or monitor safety functions in passenger equipment 
ordered on or after September 8, 2000, and such components implemented 
or materially modified in new or existing passenger equipment on or 
after September 9, 2002.
    (a) General. The railroad shall develop, adopt, and comply with a 
hardware and software safety program to guide the design, development, 
testing, integration, and verification of safety-critical passenger 
equipment electronic software and hardware. The hardware and software 
safety program may be maintained in either a written or an electronic 
format.
    (b) Safety program. The hardware and software safety program shall 
include a

[[Page 19773]]

description of how the following will be accomplished, achieved, 
carried out, or implemented to ensure safety and reliability:
    (1) The hardware and software design process;
    (2) The hardware and software design documentation;
    (3) The hardware and software hazard analysis;
    (4) Hardware and software safety reviews;
    (5) Hardware and software hazard monitoring and tracking;
    (6) Hardware and software integration safety testing;
    (7) Demonstration of overall hardware and software system safety as 
part of the pre-revenue service testing of the equipment; and
    (8) Safety analysis that follows the requirements of paragraph (c) 
of this section.
    (c) Safety analysis. The safety analysis shall establish and 
document the minimum requirements that will govern the development and 
implementation of all products subject to this section, and be based on 
good engineering practice and should be consistent with the guidance 
contained in appendix F to part 229 of this chapter in order to 
establish that a product's safety-critical functions will operate with 
a high degree of confidence in a fail-safe manner. The hardware and 
software safety analysis shall be based on a formal safety methodology 
that includes a Failure Modes, Effects, Criticality Analysis (FMECA); 
verification and validation testing for all hardware and software 
components and their interfaces; and comprehensive hardware and 
software integration testing to ensure that the hardware and software 
system functions as intended.
    (d) Fail safe requirements. * * *
    (e) Compliance. * * *
    (f) Additional requirements. The requirements of this paragraph are 
applicable as set forth under Sec.  229.303(a)(1) and (2) of this 
chapter. In addition to complying with paragraphs (a) through (e) of 
this section, electronic hardware and software used to control or 
monitor safety functions in passenger equipment must also comply with 
only the following requirements of subpart E of part 229 of this 
chapter:
    (1) Section 229.309(a)(1) through (6), Safety-critical changes and 
failures;
    (2) Section 229.311(a), (c), and (d)(1) through (3), Review of SAs;
    (3) Section 229.313, Product testing results and records;
    (4) Section 229.315, Operations and maintenance manual;
    (5) Section 229.317(a), Training and qualification program; and
    (6) Section 229.319, Operating personnel training.
    (g) Vehicle Communication and Control System Vulnerability 
Assessment. The railroad shall prepare a Vehicle Communication and 
Control System Vulnerability Assessment identifying potential system 
vulnerabilities, associated risk (including exploitation likelihood and 
consequences), countermeasures applied, and resulting risk mitigation. 
The PTC system must comply with the requirements in Sec.  236.1033 of 
this chapter.
    (h) Notification of product failure. Suppliers will notify FRA of 
all safety-critical product failures without undue delay.
0
9. Add a new Sec.  238.108 to read as follows:

Sec.  238.108  New passenger service pre-revenue safety performance 
demonstration.

    (a) Pre-revenue safety validation plan--(1) General. Any railroad 
subject to this part providing new, regularly scheduled, intercity or 
commuter passenger service, an extension of existing service, or a 
renewal of service that has been discontinued for more than 180 days 
shall develop and submit for review a comprehensive pre-revenue service 
safety validation plan. Such plan shall include pertinent safety 
milestones and a minimum period of simulated revenue service to 
validate the safe integration of major systems and operational 
readiness, and that all safety-sensitive personnel are properly trained 
and qualified as outlined in this section.
    (2) Plan contents. A pre-revenue safety validation plan shall be 
submitted to FRA 60 days prior to the commencement of the safety 
performance demonstration period containing, at a minimum, the 
following:
    (i) The status of all appliable safety plans or regulatory 
programs, and any associated certifications, qualifications, and 
employee training required for the start of revenue service including, 
but not limited to, the following:
    (A) Railroad workplace safety procedures, programs, and training 
pursuant to part 214 of this chapter;
    (B) A drug and alcohol program pursuant to part 219 of this 
chapter;
    (C) If required, information on the status of PTC certification or 
any request for amendment under part 236 of this chapter, and 
compliance with conditions and requirements of Sec.  236.1015 of this 
chapter as required by the host railroad's PTC safety plan. If the 
railroad submitting the pre-revenue safety validation plan is not the 
host railroad, the host railroad must acknowledge in writing that all 
requisite testing, validation, or other conditions have been 
satisfactorily met for the use of the tenant's PTC system in revenue 
service;
    (D) A bridge management program pursuant to part 237 of this 
chapter;
    (E) Passenger equipment compliance validation and testing conducted 
pursuant to Sec. Sec.  238.110 and 238.111;
    (F) Inspection, testing, and maintenance programs, as required 
under this part;
    (G) Emergency preparedness planning pursuant to part 239 of this 
chapter, with a focus on first responder outreach and employee 
training;
    (H) Locomotive engineer and conductor training, qualification and 
certification programs under parts 240 and 242 of this chapter;
    (I) Training, qualification, and oversight program for safety-
related railroad employees under part 243 of this chapter, to include 
information and data indicating the number of safety-related employees 
required to receive training and qualification, and information 
regarding the roles and responsibilities of executing the program 
between the railroad and its contractors;
    (J) A system safety program plan pursuant to part 270 of this 
chapter, with particular focus on the status of mitigations and actions 
associated with hazard logs and risk assessments that have a direct 
impact on the safety of the operation; and,
    (K) Speed limit action plans required under 49 U.S.C. 20169, if 
applicable.
    (ii) A detailed description of the completeness of the system. This 
description must, at a minimum, include completeness descriptions of 
the vehicles, signals, crossings, stations, train control systems, 
track structure, wayside systems, signage, rule books, and employee 
staffing. For any area that is not expected to be complete when the 
system performance demonstration period commences, the railroad must 
provide an explanation as to why completeness or substantial 
completeness is not necessary for the demonstration of safe operations. 
If the railroad submitting the pre-revenue safety validation plan is 
not the host railroad, the host railroad must provide the railroad 
submitting the pre-revenue safety validation plan pertinent information 
regarding any scheduled construction activities planned during the 
system performance demonstration period and their anticipated 
completion date. The railroad submitting the pre-revenue safety 
validation plan must then explain why completeness or

[[Page 19774]]

substantial completeness of the host railroad construction activities 
is not necessary for the demonstration of safe operations.
    (iii) A detailed description of the operating plan including 
schedules, headways, equipment required, equipment staging locations, 
crew schedules, grade crossing locations, signal locations, timetable, 
general orders, special instructions, and other relevant information 
regarding the regular railroad operations. This description must also 
include a summary of the operating plan that includes, at a minimum, 
the number of vehicles required to operate the plan, the number of 
crewmembers per day, the number of round trips per crewmember, and the 
total number of trips per day.
    (iv) The period of simulated service prior to revenue passenger 
service (expressed either in days or number of completed train trips) 
necessary to demonstrate operational readiness and reliability, to 
include successful completion of any safety-critical activities 
required (e.g., crewmember training and qualification) and clear pass/
fail criteria that, at a minimum, accounts for on-time performance, 
signal and crossing failures, and vehicle and on-board systems 
failures.
    (b) Safety performance demonstration period. The railroad shall 
conduct a period of simulated service prior to revenue passenger 
service, with the specific period provided in the railroad's pre-
revenue safety validation plan pursuant to paragraph (a)(2)(iv) of this 
section. During this period, the railroad shall demonstrate that all 
necessary infrastructure and systems (to include traction power, 
signals/train control, and dispatching), vehicles, wayside equipment, 
timetable, operating instructions, and training and familiarization are 
properly integrated and will safely operate in the operating 
environment and under the service demands for which they are intended. 
Prior to commencing the safety performance demonstration period, the 
railroad will have successfully completed pre-revenue service 
acceptance testing under Sec.  238.111 and have obtained certification 
of its PTC system or approval of any requests for amendment under part 
236 of this chapter, if required.
    (1) Simulated service requirements. The railroad shall demonstrate 
the successful completion of the safety performance demonstration 
period in accordance with the pass/fail criteria required under 
paragraph (a)(2)(iv) of this section.
    (i) For new passenger service or extension of existing service, the 
safety performance demonstration period must be conducted while 
executing the full schedule over the entire route utilizing all 
stations and systems intended to operate at the start of revenue 
passenger service. The period shall be of sufficient duration to 
demonstrate that all safety-related employees are properly trained and 
able to execute the railroad's programs and plans identified in 
paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section. The railroad shall also 
demonstrate its ability to operate its planned schedule when speed 
restrictions, mandatory directives, or other common situations arise 
that may impact operations.
    (ii) For the re-starting or permanent re-routing of existing 
service, the safety performance demonstration period may be conducted 
using a modified schedule or dedicated test trains accounting for crew 
and equipment availability. The period shall be of sufficient duration 
to demonstrate that all safety-related employees are properly trained 
and able to execute the railroad's programs and plans identified in 
paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, with particular attention to 
employees or groups of employees, who are not actively engaged in the 
existing operations.
    (2) Daily summary report. During the safety performance 
demonstration period, the railroad will provide FRA a daily summary of 
the activities performed and results. Additionally, any delays, system 
failures, unexpected events, close calls, or other safety concerns 
shall be described in detail.
    (3) Final report. The railroad shall correct any safety 
deficiencies identified during the safety performance demonstration 
period prior to commencing revenue service. If safety deficiencies 
cannot be corrected, the railroad shall impose appropriate mitigations 
or operational limitations on the operation of the railroad that are 
designed to ensure that the railroad can operate safely. Corrections, 
mitigations, or operational limitations shall be discussed in a final 
report to FRA addressing the complete safety performance demonstration 
period. FRA may require additional corrections, mitigations, or 
operational limitations to ensure the safety of the operation.
    (c) Compliance. After submitting a plan pursuant to paragraph (a) 
of this section, the railroad shall adopt and comply with such plan and 
may not amend the plan without first notifying the Associate 
Administrator of the proposed amendment. Revenue service may not begin 
until the railroad has completed the requirements of its plan, 
including the minimum safety performance demonstration period required 
by the plan and correcting any safety deficiencies identified or, for 
deficiencies that cannot be corrected, imposing appropriate mitigations 
or operational limitations on the operation of the railroad that are 
designed to ensure that the railroad can operate safety, as required by 
paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
0
10. Add Sec.  238.110 to read as follows:

Sec.  238.110  Design criteria, testing, documentation, and approvals.

    (a) Scope. Each railroad shall provide the pertinent design 
criteria and documentation, as defined within this section, to obtain 
required approvals for aspects of the design of passenger equipment 
subject to the requirements of this part prior to performance of on-
site, dynamic acceptance testing under Sec.  238.111 of this chapter.
    (1) Applicability. Except for passenger equipment defined in 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the requirements of this section 
apply to all passenger equipment that qualifies under one of the 
following conditions:
    (i) A passenger equipment design that has not been used in revenue 
service in the United States.
    (ii) Rebuilt or modified passenger equipment where the carbody 
structure or any safety-critical elements have been modified or 
replaced by a new design not identical to the original component's 
design. Submittals shall be required only to verify the safe operations 
of the modified system/sub-system and any safety-critical systems 
affected by such change.
    (2) Previously accepted passenger equipment designs. Except for 
paragraph (d) of this section, passenger equipment designs that are the 
same as passenger equipment designs previously used in the United 
States are not subject to the requirements of this section.
    (b) Documentation and recordkeeping. (1) Railroads are required to 
obtain or develop; review; and evaluate all documentation in support of 
demonstrating compliance with the design and testing requirements of 
this section.
    (2) The railroad shall retain a copy of the documentation required 
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section for the lifetime of the 
equipment and make it available to FRA for review upon request. If the 
equipment is leased or sold to another entity, a copy of the 
documentation shall be provided to the lessee or purchasing entity.
    (c) Vehicle qualification plan--(1) Plan content. Prior to 
conducting any design reviews or tests, the railroad

[[Page 19775]]

shall develop a vehicle qualification plan that is comprised of the 
following:
    (i) System description and design assumptions. As part of the 
vehicle qualification plan, the railroad shall include a description of 
the equipment's intended operating environment (system description) as 
detailed in paragraph (d)(1) of this section and a list of design 
assumptions. Railroads operating Tier III equipment must also address 
the required elements for Tier III operations as detailed in paragraph 
(d)(2) of this section.
    (ii) Compliance matrix. In addition to the system description and 
design assumptions, the railroad shall develop and submit to FRA a 
compliance matrix identifying all safety requirements with which 
compliance must be demonstrated to include those requirements specified 
in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section.
    (2) Approval of the vehicle qualification plan. (i) The vehicle 
qualification plan shall be submitted by the railroad for FRA review at 
least 60 days before the first relevant design review and/or test. FRA 
shall notify the railroad within 30 days of receipt of the railroad's 
submission that the vehicle qualification plan is approved, disapproved 
or disapproved in part. The notification shall also identify those 
documents and/or tests that FRA will require to be submitted for review 
and approval.
    (ii) If disapproved or disapproved in part, FRA shall explain the 
reason(s) on which the disapproval is based, and the measures needed to 
obtain approval. Upon receipt of notification by FRA of the disapproval 
or disapproval in part, the railroad shall revise the vehicle 
qualification plan to address the measures identified by FRA to obtain 
approval, and resubmit to FRA in accordance with paragraph (c)(2)(i) of 
this section.
    (iii) The railroad shall adopt and comply with the approved vehicle 
qualification plan, including completion of all design review and/or 
testing required by the plan.
    (d) System description (operating environment) and design criteria. 
The railroad shall maintain a system description to include relevant 
safety-critical elements affected by the intended operating 
environment. The system description shall identify common criteria, 
design assumptions, or other parameters that govern the design, 
maintenance, and safe operation of the equipment it operates, 
particularly as it relates to safety-critical features and systems.
    (1) Required elements common to all types of passenger equipment. 
The following is a list of elements common to all railroad passenger 
equipment subject to this part.
    (i) Infrastructure characteristics, to include governing or 
limiting geometry (including turnouts), maximum grade, minimum required 
braking or safe stopping distance, and rail or grinding profile (if 
maintained).
    (ii) Systems integration elements, to include types of train 
control systems, types of signal systems, grade crossing system types, 
and traction power systems (if used).
    (iii) Railroad operational parameters, to include alerter timing.
    (2) Required elements for Tier III operations. The following is a 
list of elements specific to railroad passenger equipment used in Tier 
III operations. The railroad shall--
    (i) Identify the assumptions used to calculate the worst-case 
braking adhesion conditions.
    (ii) Specify the maximum designed braking capacity.
    (iii) Identify the on-board locations where crewmembers can 
initiate an irretrievable emergency brake application.
    (iv) Identify the on-board locations of passenger brake alarms.
    (v) Specify the time period for train operations to remain under 
the full control of the engineer after a passenger brake alarm is 
activated.
    (vi) Detail the manner or means used to confirm that the trainset 
has safely cleared the boarding platform in which the application of a 
passenger brake alarm will no longer immediately initiate an 
irretrievable emergency brake application.
    (vii) Detail the railroad procedures to be followed and trainset 
controls that must be activated to retrieve the full-service brake 
application described in Sec.  238.731(d)(5).
    (viii) Identify and maintain the approved standard for designing 
and testing main reservoirs, in accordance with Sec.  238.731(f).
    (ix) Specify the parameters set by the railroad to determine if the 
wheel-slide protection system has failed to prevent wheel-slide.
    (x) Provide the details of the brake system functionality, 
monitoring, and diagnostics and any corresponding safety analysis.
    (xi) Identify the worst-case grade condition on which Tier III 
equipment must be effectively secured while unattended.
    (xii) Specify the operational parameters under which the engineer 
must acknowledge the alerter in order for train operations to remain 
under the full control of the engineer.
    (xiii) Provide the procedures to retrieve a full-service brake 
application as described in Sec.  238.751(c).
    (xiv) Provide an analysis that confirms the ability of the 
railroad's alternate technology to provide an equivalent level of 
safety if a standard alerter is not used.
    (xv) Provide information on the use of the headlight dimming 
functionality for Tier III trainsets when operating on a dedicated 
right-of-way.
    (xvi) Identify and maintain the approved standard procedure for use 
of flashing lights at public highway-rail grade crossings if an 
alternative to the flashing rate for auxiliary lights under Sec.  
238.769(b) is used.
    (e) Structural carbody crashworthiness compliance. (1) Carbody and 
component crashworthiness design. New or modified passenger equipment 
structural carbody designs must demonstrate compliance with the minimum 
applicable crashworthiness requirements of parts 229 and 238 of this 
chapter. Designs that include crash-energy management (CEM) components 
must also comply with appendix J to this part. Compliance may be 
demonstrated by any of the following methods:
    (i) Full-scale testing;
    (ii) Quasi-static and dynamic analysis performed by a validated 
computer model supported by quasi-static test results; or
    (iii) Engineering calculations.
    (2) Carbody and component crashworthiness compliance testing. For 
any tests intended to be used for the purpose of demonstrating 
compliance with this section, the railroad must submit the following to 
FRA no later than 60 days prior to the start of testing:
    (i) A test plan and associated procedures; and
    (ii) Finite element analysis results.
    (f) Safety Appliances. New or modified passenger equipment must be 
equipped with safety appliances according to the applicable 
requirements of this part. The railroad shall submit design review 
documentation in accordance with paragraph (g)(1) of this section for 
FRA review. Compliance shall be validated through a sample-equipment 
inspection in accordance with paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
    (g) Approval of design review documentation, tests, and inspections 
for Safety Appliances--(1) Design review, testing, and inspection 
documentation.
    (i) Design review, testing, or inspection documentation shall be 
submitted to FRA in advance for review.

[[Page 19776]]

FRA shall notify the railroad within 60 calendar days that the 
submission is approved, disapproved, or disapproved in part. If 
disapproved or disapproved in part, FRA shall explain the reason on 
which the disapproval is based, and the measures needed to obtain 
approval.
    (ii) Upon receipt of notification by FRA of the disapproval or 
disapproval in part, the railroad shall revise the documentation to 
address the measures identified by FRA to obtain approval. The revised 
documentation shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with 
paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this section.
    (2) Sample-equipment inspection. (i) The railroad shall request a 
sample-equipment inspection from FRA by--
    (A) Notifying FRA with the first available date and location that 
the sample equipment can be inspected, which will be at least 45 days 
in advance of the inspection; and
    (B) Submitting engineering drawings reflecting the design and 
configuration of the safety appliances, emergency systems and signage, 
and any other elements to be inspected as part of the sample-equipment 
inspection.
    (ii) Should FRA take exception during the inspection, FRA will 
provide the railroad an inspection report documenting the exceptions 
taken within 30 days of the sample-equipment inspection. The railroad 
shall address all exceptions taken and then, if directed by FRA, 
request a reinspection pursuant to paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section.
    (iii) If the sample equipment conforms, then FRA will indicate that 
no exceptions are noted on the inspection report.
0
11. Revise Sec.  238.111 to read as follows:

Sec.  238.111  Pre-revenue service acceptance testing.

    (a) Passenger equipment designs that have not been used in revenue 
service in the United States. Before using passenger equipment for the 
first time on its system that has not been used in revenue service in 
the United States, each railroad shall--
    (1) Pre-revenue service acceptance test plan contents. Develop a 
pre-revenue service acceptance test plan for the equipment that, at a 
minimum, includes the following:
    (i) A description of the passenger equipment, its physical 
characteristics, the version or type of safety-critical features 
installed (e.g., type of brake system), and any other features that may 
be relevant to the testing to be conducted.
    (ii) A description of the railroad, systems, and conditions against 
which the pre-revenue service acceptance test plan is intended to 
demonstrate safe operation in accordance with the railroad's system 
description and design criteria required under Sec.  238.110(d). This 
includes the physical characteristics of the railroad, any known 
physical constraints (e.g., clearance requirements), track geometry 
constraints (i.e., turnouts), systems integration requirements, 
required alerter timing, and the minimum required stopping distance of 
the railroad pursuant to Sec.  238.231(a), Sec.  238.431(a), or Sec.  
238.731(b).
    (iii) An identification of any approvals, qualifications, or 
waivers of FRA safety regulations required for the testing or for 
revenue service operation of the equipment.
    (iv) An identification of the maximum speed and cant deficiency at 
which the equipment is intended to operate.
    (v) A list of all tests to be conducted, indicating any 
interdependences or predecessor requirements that may exist, and a list 
of any testing of the equipment that has been previously performed.
    (vi) A schedule for conducting the testing.
    (vii) An identification of the applicable test procedures, test 
results or reports, and post-test analysis required by this part, 
corresponding to paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section detailing the 
approach to verify--
    (A) Safe vehicle-track system interaction in accordance with 
Sec. Sec.  213.57, 213.329, 213.345, 238.139, or any applicable 
combination thereof.
    (B) The brake system functional requirements and performance of the 
system and components in accordance with Sec. Sec.  238.231, 238.431, 
or 238.731.
    (C) That vehicle noise emission levels comply with part 210 of this 
chapter.
    (D) That locomotive or trainset cab noise complies with Sec. Sec.  
229.121 or 238.759.
    (E) Systems integration and compatibility with technology utilized 
on the routes the equipment is intended to operate over, to include--
    (1) The signaling systems and track circuit technology over which 
the equipment will operate, to include ATC and PTC testing under part 
236 of this chapter;
    (2) The grade crossing warning system technology utilized; and
    (3) Equipment inspection technology and defect detectors.
    (2) Pre-revenue service acceptance test plan submission. Except as 
provided for under Sec.  239.139(e), the pre-revenue service acceptance 
test plan shall be submitted for FRA review at least 30 days before the 
start of testing.
    (3) Test procedures. Each test procedure shall include at a minimum 
the information contained in appendix K to this part.
    (4) Test procedure availability. Test procedures utilized for 
compliance demonstration shall be made available to FRA upon request.
    (5) Compliance with test plan and procedures. The railroad shall 
comply with its pre-revenue service acceptance test plan and associated 
test procedures, including fully executing the tests required by the 
plan.
    (6) Test results. Except as required by Sec. Sec.  213.57, 213.329, 
213.345, or 238.139--
    (i) Test results for Tier I equipment will be made available to FRA 
upon request.
    (ii) Test results for Tier II and Tier III equipment shall be 
submitted to FRA at least 60 days prior to the equipment being placed 
in revenue service.
    (7) Correction of safety deficiencies. The railroad shall correct 
any safety deficiencies identified in the design of the equipment or in 
the ITM procedures, discovered during the testing. If safety 
deficiencies cannot be corrected by design changes, the railroad shall 
impose operational limitations that are designed to ensure that the 
equipment can operate safely. For Tier II and Tier III passenger 
equipment, the railroad shall comply with any operational limitations 
imposed by the Associate Administrator on the revenue service operation 
of the equipment for cause stated following FRA review of the results 
of the test program under paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of this section. This 
section does not restrict a railroad from petitioning FRA for a waiver 
of a safety regulation under the procedures specified in part 211 of 
this chapter.
    (8) Approval. For Tier II or Tier III passenger equipment, the 
railroad must obtain approval from the Associate Administrator before 
placing the equipment in revenue service. The Associate Administrator 
will grant such approval if the railroad demonstrates compliance with 
the applicable requirements of this part.
    (b) Passenger equipment design that has previously been used in 
revenue service in the United States. (1) For passenger equipment 
design that has previously been used in revenue service in the United 
States, as defined in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, each railroad 
shall verify the applicability of previous tests performed under 
paragraphs (a)(1)(vii)(A) through (D) of this section and perform such 
tests if previous test data does not exist, cannot be obtained, or does 
not support

[[Page 19777]]

demonstration of safe operation within the intended operating 
environment.
    (2) Retain a description of such testing and make such description 
available to FRA for inspection and copying upon request.
    (3) For purposes of paragraph (b) of this section, passenger 
equipment design that has previously been used in revenue service in 
the United States means--
    (i) The actual equipment used in such service;
    (ii) Equipment manufactured identically to that actual equipment; 
and
    (iii) Equipment manufactured similarly to that actual equipment 
with no material differences in safety-critical components or systems.
    (c) Modifications, new technology, and major upgrades. Prior to 
implementing a modification, installing a new technology, and/or 
conducting a major upgrade to any system component or sub-system that 
impacts a safety-critical function on passenger equipment that has been 
used in revenue service in the United States, the railroad shall follow 
the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section prior to 
placing the equipment in revenue service with such modification, new 
technology, or major upgrade. Testing shall be required only to verify 
the safe operations of any safety-critical systems affected by such 
change.
0
12. Add Sec.  238.115(c) to read as follows:

Sec.  238.115  Emergency lighting.

* * * * *
    (c) At an interval not to exceed 184 days, as part of the required 
periodic mechanical inspection, each railroad shall test a 
representative sample of the emergency lighting systems on its 
passenger cars to determine that they operate as intended when the cars 
are in revenue service. The sampling method must conform with a 
formalized, statistical test method.
0
13. Revise Sec.  238.131(a)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  238.131  Exterior side door safety systems--new passenger cars 
and locomotives used in passenger service.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Be built in accordance with APTA standard PR-M-S-18-10. In 
particular, locomotives used in passenger service shall be connected to 
or interlocked with the door summary circuit to prohibit the train from 
developing tractive power if an exterior side door in a passenger car 
is not closed, unless the door is under the direct physical control of 
a crewmember for their exclusive use. APTA standard PR-M-S-18-10, 
``Standard for Powered Exterior Side Door System Design for New 
Passenger Cars,'' approved February 11, 2011 is incorporated by 
reference into this section with the approval of the Director of the 
Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may 
obtain a copy of the incorporated document from the American Public 
Transportation Association, 1666 K Street NW, Suite 1100, Washington, 
DC 20006 (telephone 202-496-4800; www.apta.com). You may inspect a copy 
of the document at the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), Contact FRA at: 
Docket Clerk, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC; 
[email protected]; https://railroads.dot.gov. For information on the 
availability of this material at NARA, visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html or email [email protected]. 
Equipment with plug-type exterior side doors, section 2.9 (including 
section 2.9.1) of the APTA standard regarding the emergency release 
mechanism shall be replaced with the following requirements:
    (i) Visual instructions for emergency operations of each plug-type 
exterior side door shall be provided. A manual interior and exterior 
emergency release mechanism shall be provided at each plug-type 
exterior side door. A clearly labeled emergency release mechanism, when 
activated, shall unlatch the door, disengage or unlock the local door 
isolation lock (if engaged), remove power from the door operator or 
controls, and allow the door to be moved to the open position. Feedback 
must be provided to the passenger to indicate that the mechanism has 
been actuated.
    (ii) The emergency release mechanism shall not require the 
availability of electric or pneumatic power to activate. The emergency 
release actuation device shall be readily accessible, without the use 
of tools or another implement. The force necessary to actuate the 
interior emergency release mechanism shall not exceed 20 lbf. The force 
necessary to actuate the exterior emergency release mechanism shall not 
exceed 30 lbf using a lever type mechanism or 50 lbf using a ``T'' 
handle type mechanism. When actuated, the emergency release mechanism 
shall override any local door isolation locks, and it shall be possible 
to manually open the released door with a force not to exceed 35 lbf. 
The emergency release mechanism shall require a manual reset.
    (iii) A speed interlock preventing operation of emergency release 
mechanism when vehicle is moving is permitted.
* * * * *
0
14. Add Sec.  238.139 to read as follows:

Sec.  238.139  Vehicle/track system qualification.

    Pursuant to a railroad's pre-revenue service acceptance test plan 
under Sec.  238.111, a railroad must demonstrate that its equipment 
does not exceed the safety limits of Sec.  213.333 of this chapter. A 
railroad may demonstrate compliance by measuring the carbody and truck 
accelerations in accordance with Sec.  213.333 over the entirety of the 
territory the vehicle is intended to operate, or by complying with the 
below enumerated requirements of this section. Nothing in this section 
affects a railroad's responsibility to comply with Sec.  213.345 of 
this chapter.
    (a) General. Qualification testing shall demonstrate that the 
vehicle/track system will not exceed the wheel/rail force safety limits 
and the carbody and truck acceleration criteria specified in Sec.  
213.333 of this chapter--
    (1) Up to and including 5 mph above the proposed maximum operating 
speed; and
    (2) On track meeting the requirements for the class of track 
associated with the proposed maximum operating speed. For purposes of 
qualification testing, speeds may exceed the maximum allowable 
operating speed for the class of track in accordance with the test plan 
approved by FRA under Sec.  238.111.
    (b) Existing vehicle type qualification. Except as otherwise 
provided by FRA, vehicle types previously qualified or permitted to 
operate prior to (INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE), shall be 
deemed qualified under the requirements of this section for operation 
at the previously operated speeds and cant deficiencies. However, 
equipment deemed meeting the requirements of this section pursuant to 
this paragraph (b) does not have transferability of qualification.
    (c) New vehicle type qualification. Vehicle types that were not 
previously qualified under this section, or deemed qualified under 
paragraph (b) of this section, shall be qualified in accordance with 
the following:
    (1) Qualification methods. To demonstrate that new vehicle types 
will not exceed the wheel/rail force safety limits and the carbody and 
truck acceleration criteria specified in Sec.  213.333--
    (i) When operated over Class 1 track, the vehicle type shall 
demonstrate the ability to negotiate a 12-degree curve with a 
coefficient of friction representative of dry track conditions

[[Page 19778]]

(i.e., 0.5) and 3-inch track warp variations with the following 
wavelengths: 10, 20, 40, and 62 feet. The demonstration shall be done 
by simulating such track geometry conditions at speeds up to 5 mph 
above track Class 1 speeds, and the suspension system(s) shall meet the 
APTA truck equalization standard, APTA PR-M-S-014-06. The results of 
the simulation under both the AW0 and AW3 loading conditions shall not 
exceed the wheel/rail forces safety limits specified in Sec.  213.333 
of this chapter.
    (ii) When operated over track Classes 2 through 5 at speeds 
producing no more than 6 inches of cant deficiency, the vehicle type 
shall be qualified by simulations performed under paragraph (c)(2) of 
this section and the measurement of carbody and truck accelerations 
during qualification testing in accordance with paragraphs (c)(3) and 
(4) of this section. If successful, the testing shall result in a 
transferable qualification with respect to the requirements of this 
section so long as the equipment is used at the same track class and 
cant deficiency.
    (iii) APTA PR-M-S-014-06, Rev. 1, ``Standard for Wheel Load 
Equalization of Passenger Railroad Rolling Stock,'' Authorized June 1, 
2017, is incorporated by reference into this section with the approval 
of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 
part 51. All approved material is available for inspection at FRA and 
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact FRA 
at: Federal Railroad Administration Docket Clerk, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue SE, Washington, DC; [email protected]; https://railroads.dot.gov. 
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit 
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html or email 
[email protected]. The material is also available from the 
American Public Transportation Association, 1666 K Street NW, 
Washington, DC 20006; www.apta.com.
    (2) Simulations. (i) Analysis of vehicle/track performance 
(computer simulations) shall be conducted using an industry recognized 
methodology on--
    (A) Minimally compliant analytical track (MCAT) conditions for the 
respective track class(es) as specified in appendix C to this part; and
    (B) A track segment representative of the full route on which the 
vehicle type is intended to operate. Both simulations and physical 
examinations of the route's track geometry shall be used to determine a 
track segment representative of the route.
    (ii) Linear system analysis shall be performed to identify the 
frequency and damping of the truck hunting modes. It shall be 
demonstrated that the damping of these modes is at least 5 percent, up 
to the intended operating speed +5 mph considering equivalent 
conicities starting at 0.1 up to 0.6.
    (3) Carbody acceleration. For vehicle types intended to operate at 
track Class 2 through 5 speeds and up to 6 inches of cant deficiency, 
qualification testing conducted over a representative segment of the 
route on which the vehicle type is intended to operate shall 
demonstrate that the vehicle type will not exceed the carbody lateral 
and vertical acceleration safety limits specified in Sec.  213.333 of 
this chapter.
    (4) Truck lateral acceleration. For vehicle types intended to 
operate at track Class 2 through 5 speeds and up to 6 inches of cant 
deficiency, qualification testing conducted over a representative 
segment of the route on which the vehicle type is intended to operate 
shall demonstrate that the vehicle type will not exceed the truck 
lateral acceleration safety limit specified in Sec.  213.333 of this 
chapter.
    (d) Previously qualified vehicle types. Vehicle types previously 
qualified by simulation and testing in accordance with paragraph (c) of 
this section for a track class and cant deficiency on one route may be 
qualified for operation at the same class and cant deficiency on 
another route in accordance with the following:
    (1) Vehicle types previously qualified by simulation and testing in 
accordance with paragraph (c) of this section on one route shall not 
require additional simulations, testing, or approval so long as 
operated on routes with the same track class designation and at the 
same or lower cant deficiency.
    (2) For vehicle types intended to operate at speeds not to exceed 
Class 6 track or at any curving speed producing more than 5 inches of 
cant deficiency, but not exceeding 6 inches, qualification testing 
conducted over a representative segment of the new route shall 
demonstrate that the vehicle type will not exceed the carbody lateral 
and vertical acceleration safety limits specified in Sec.  213.333 of 
this chapter.
    (3) Vehicle types previously qualified by testing alone shall be 
subject to the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section for new 
equipment.
    (e) Qualification testing plan. To obtain the data required to 
support the qualification program outlined in paragraphs (c) and (d) of 
this section, the track owner or railroad shall submit a qualification 
testing plan to FRA's Associate Administrator at least 60 days prior to 
testing, requesting approval to conduct the testing at the desired 
speeds and cant deficiencies. This test plan shall provide for a test 
program sufficient to evaluate the operating limits of the track and 
vehicle type and shall include--
    (1) Identification of the representative segment of the route on 
which the vehicle type is intended to operate for qualification 
testing;
    (2) Consideration of the operating environment during qualification 
testing, including operating practices and conditions, the signal 
system, highway-rail grade crossings, and trains on adjacent tracks;
    (3) The maximum angle found on the gage face of the designed (newly 
profiled) wheel flange referenced with respect to the axis of the 
wheelset that will be used for the determination of the Single Wheel L/
V Ratio safety limit specified in Sec.  213.333 of this chapter when 
conducting simulations in accordance with (c)(2) of this section;
    (4) A target maximum testing speed in accordance with paragraph (a) 
of this section and the maximum testing cant deficiency; and
    (5) The results of vehicle/track performance simulations that are 
required by this section.
    (f) Qualification testing. Upon FRA approval of the qualification 
testing plan, qualification testing shall be conducted in two 
sequential stages as required in this subpart.
    (1) Stage-one testing shall include demonstration of acceptable 
vehicle dynamic response of the subject vehicle as speeds are 
incrementally increased--
    (i) On a segment of tangent track, from maximum speeds 
corresponding to each track class to the target maximum test speed; and
    (ii) On a segment of curved track, from the speeds corresponding to 
3 inches of cant deficiency to the maximum testing cant deficiency.
    (2) When stage-one testing has successfully demonstrated a maximum 
safe operating speed and cant deficiency, stage-two testing shall 
commence with the subject vehicle over a representative segment of the 
route as identified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section. A round-trip 
test run shall be conducted over the representative route segment at 
the speed the railroad will request FRA to approve for such service. An 
additional round-trip test run shall be conducted at 5 mph above this 
speed. The equipment shall be oriented differently in each leg of the 
round-trip test run.
    (3) When conducting stage-one and stage-two testing, if any of the 
monitored safety limits are exceeded on

[[Page 19779]]

any segment of track, testing may continue provided that the track 
location(s) where any of the limits is exceeded be identified and test 
speeds be limited at the track location(s) until corrective action is 
taken. Corrective action may include making an adjustment in the track, 
in the vehicle, or in both of these system components.
    (4) Prior to the start of the qualification testing program, a 
qualifying Track Geometry Measurement System (TGMS) specified in Sec.  
213.333 of this chapter shall be operated over the intended route 
within 30 calendar days prior to the start of the qualification testing 
program.
    (g) Qualification testing results. The track owner or railroad 
shall submit a report to FRA's Associate Administrator detailing all 
the results of the qualification program. When simulations are 
submitted as part of vehicle qualification, this report shall include a 
comparison of simulation predictions to the acceleration data recorded 
during full-scale testing. The report shall be submitted at least 60 
days prior to the intended operation of the equipment in revenue 
service over the route.
    (h) Approvals. (1) Based on the test results and all other required 
submissions, FRA will approve, for new vehicle types qualified per 
paragraph (c) of this section, a maximum train speed and value of cant 
deficiency for revenue service, normally within 45 days of receipt of 
all the required information. FRA may impose conditions necessary for 
safely operating at the maximum approved train speed and cant 
deficiency.
    (2) Previously qualified vehicle types operating at track Class 2 
through 5 speeds, or at curving speeds producing up to 6 inches of cant 
deficiency, on one route may be qualified and approved for operation at 
the same class and cant deficiency on another route provided the 
vehicle types have been previously qualified by simulation and testing 
in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section for the same track 
class and cant deficiency.
    (i) Document retention. The documents required by this section must 
be provided to FRA by:
    (1) The track owner; or
    (2) A railroad that provides service with the same vehicle type 
over trackage of one or more track owner(s), with the written consent 
of each affected track owner.

Subpart C--Specific Requirements for Tier I Passenger Equipment

0
15. Revise Sec.  238.201(a)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  238.201  Scope/alternative compliance.

    (a) * * *
    (1) This subpart contains requirements for railroad passenger 
equipment operating at speeds not exceeding 125 miles per hour. All 
such passenger equipment remains subject to the safety appliance 
requirements contained in Federal statute at 49 U.S.C. chapter 203 and 
in applicable FRA regulations in this part 238, at part 231, and Sec.  
232.3 of this chapter. Unless otherwise specified, these requirements 
only apply to passenger equipment ordered on or after September 8, 
2000, or placed in service for the first time on or after September 9, 
2002.
* * * * *
0
16. Revise Sec.  238.230(a) to read as follows:

Sec.  238.230   Safety appliances--new equipment.

    (a) Applicability. Except as provided in Sec.  238.791, this 
section applies to passenger equipment placed in service on or after 
January 1, 2007.
* * * * *
0
17. Revise Sec.  238.235 to read as follows:

Sec.  238.235  Safety appliances for non-passenger carrying locomotives 
used in passenger service.

    (a) Application. The requirements of this section apply to all non-
passenger carrying locomotives, used in passenger service, that 
specifically utilize monocoque, semi-monocoque, or are a cowl unit, 
built on or after (INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE), unless the 
requirements of part 231 of this chapter are applied.
    (b) Attachment. All safety appliances shall be securely fastened to 
the car body structure and meet the requirements of Sec.  238.791(b).
    (c) Fatigue life. The safety appliance, the support or bracket to 
which the safety appliance is attached, and the carbody structure to 
which the safety appliance is directly attached or the support or 
bracket is attached, shall be designed for a fatigue life as specified 
under Sec.  238.791(c).
    (d) Handholds. Handholds used on non-passenger carrying locomotives 
subject to this section shall meet the applicable requirements of Sec.  
238.791(d).
    (e) Sill steps. Sill steps used on non-passenger carrying 
locomotives subject to this section shall meet the applicable 
requirements of Sec.  238.791(e).
    (f) Ground level access to the locomotive cab and other carbody 
side doors. Non-passenger carrying locomotives subject to the 
requirements of this section shall be equipped with appropriate safety 
appliances at exterior side locomotive cab access doors and other 
carbody side doors, to permit safe access to the locomotive cab by 
employees and other authorized personnel from ground level.
    (1) Handholds. Each exterior locomotive cab side access door that 
provide access to the locomotive cab shall be equipped with two 
vertical handholds, one on each side of the door, which shall--
    (i) Have a minimum diameter of \5/8\ inch.
    (ii) Have a distance from the bottom clear length of the vertical 
handholds not to exceed 54 inches above top of rail.
    (iii) Be installed so as to have a clear length extending at least 
60 inches, or as high as practicable based on carbody design, above the 
floor of the cab. The design shall enable a person to safely turn 
around in order to exit the trainset. A smaller handhold, providing at 
least 16 inches clear length, may be installed above the exterior cab 
access door opening on the inside of the equipment to facilitate a 
person's ability to safely turn around.
    (iv) Have a clearance distance between the vehicle body of a 
minimum of 2 inches, preferably 2\1/2\ inches for the entire length, 
except when a combination of handholds, additional attachment points, 
or both, are necessary due to the carbody design, length of the 
handhold, or both.
    (2) Steps. Exterior side doors that provide access to the 
locomotive cab shall be equipped with steps meeting the requirements of 
Sec.  238.791(e)(2) and (3).
    (g) Couplers. Couplers used on non-passenger carrying locomotives 
subject to this section shall comply with the requirements of Sec.  
238.791(g).
    (h) Uncoupling levers or devices. (1) General. Each end of a non-
passenger carrying locomotive subject to the requirements of this 
section equipped with an automatic coupler required by paragraph (g) of 
this section shall have either--
    (i) A manual, double-lever type uncoupling lever, operative from 
either side of the locomotive; or
    (ii) An uncoupling mechanism operated by controls located in the 
locomotive cab, or other secure location. Additional manual uncoupling 
levers or handles on the coupler provided only as a backup for that 
remotely operated mechanism are not subject to paragraph (h)(2) of this 
section.
    (2) Manual uncoupling lever or device. Manual uncoupling levers 
shall be applied so that the automatic coupler can be operated from 
either side of the equipment, from ground level without

[[Page 19780]]

requiring a person to go between cars or equipment units. Manual 
uncoupling levers shall have a minimum clearance of 2 inches, 
preferably 2\1/2\ inches, around the handle.
    (i) Shrouding. The automatic coupler, end handholds, and uncoupling 
mechanism on the leading and trailing ends of a non-passenger carrying 
locomotive may be stored within a removable shroud to reduce 
aerodynamic effects.
    (j) Hand brakes. Non-passenger carrying locomotives subject to the 
requirements of this section shall be equipped with an efficient hand 
or parking brake capable of holding the locomotive on the maximum grade 
condition identified by the operating railroad, or a minimum 3% grade, 
whichever is greater.
    (k) Safety appliances for appurtenances and windshields. (1) Non-
passenger carrying locomotives subject to the requirements of this 
section having appurtenances such as headlights, windshield wipers, 
marker lights, and other similar items required for the safe operation 
of the trainset or trainset unit must be equipped with handholds and 
steps meeting the requirements of this section if the appurtenances are 
designed to be maintained or replaced from the exterior of the trainset 
or equipment.
    (2) The requirements of paragraph (k)(1) of this section do not 
apply if railroad operating rules require, and actual practice entails, 
the maintenance and replacement of these components by maintenance 
personnel in locations protected by the requirements of subpart B of 
part 218 of this chapter equipped with ladders and other tools to 
safely repair or maintain those appurtenances.
    (l) Optional safety appliances. Safety appliances installed at the 
option of the railroad shall be approved by FRA pursuant to Sec.  
238.110.

Subpart H--Specific Requirements for Tier III Passenger Equipment

0
18. Amend subpart H to part 238 by removing undesignated center 
headings ``Trainset Structure'', ``Glazing'', ``Brake System'', 
``Interior Fittings and Surfaces'', ``Emergency Systems'', and ``Cab 
Equipment''.
0
19. Revise Sec.  238.701 to read as follows:

Sec.  238.701  Scope.

    This subpart contains specific requirements for railroad passenger 
equipment operating in a shared right-of-way at speeds not exceeding 
125 mph and in an exclusive right-of-way without grade crossings at 
speeds exceeding 125 mph but not exceeding 220 mph. Passenger seating 
is permitted in the leading unit of a Tier III trainset if the trainset 
complies with the crashworthiness and occupant protection requirements 
of this subpart, and the railroad has an approved right-of-way plan 
under Sec.  213.361 of this chapter and an approved HSR-125 plan under 
Sec.  236.1007(c) of this chapter. Demonstration of compliance with the 
requirements of this subpart is subject to FRA review and approval 
under Sec. Sec.  238.110 and 238.111.
0
20. Add Sec.  238.719 to read as follows:

Sec.  238.719   Trucks and Suspension.

    (a) General requirements. (1) Suspension systems shall be designed 
to reasonably prevent wheel climb, wheel unloading, rail rollover, rail 
shift, and a vehicle from overturning to ensure safe, stable 
performance and ride quality under the following conditions:
    (i) In all operating environments as defined by the railroad under 
Sec. Sec.  238.110(d) and 238.111(a)(1)(ii); and
    (ii) At all track speeds and over all track qualities consistent 
with the Track Safety Standards in part 213 of this chapter, up to the 
maximum operating speed and maximum cant deficiency for which the 
equipment is qualified.
    (2) All passenger equipment shall meet the safety standards for 
suspension systems contained in part 213 of this chapter, or 
alternative standards providing at least equivalent safety if approved 
by FRA under the provisions of Sec.  238.21. In particular--
    (i) Pre-revenue service qualification. All passenger equipment 
shall demonstrate safe operation during pre-revenue service 
qualification in accordance with Sec.  213.345 of this chapter and is 
subject to the requirements of Sec.  213.329 of this chapter.
    (ii) Revenue service operation. All passenger equipment in service 
is subject to the requirements of Sec. Sec.  213.329 and 213.333 of 
this chapter.
    (b) Carbody acceleration. A passenger car shall not operate under 
conditions that result in a steady-state lateral acceleration greater 
than 0.15g, as measured parallel to the car floor inside the passenger 
compartment. Additional carbody acceleration limits are specified in 
Sec.  213.333 of this chapter.
    (c) Lateral truck accelerations (hunting). Each trainset shall be 
equipped with a system capable of detecting hunting on all trucks as 
defined in Sec.  213.333 of this chapter (criteria based on reference 
location defined in Sec.  213.333(k)(2) of this chapter). If truck 
hunting is detected, the train monitoring system shall provide an alarm 
to the controlling cab, and the train shall be slowed to a speed at 
least 5 mph less than the speed at which the truck hunting stopped.
    (d) Wheelsets. Unless further clarified in the railroad's approved 
ITM plan, each trainset shall comply with the following limits and be 
free of the following defective conditions:
    (1) The distance between the inside gauge of the flanges on non-
wide flange wheels may not be less than 53\3/32\ inches or more than 
53\3/8\ inches.
    (2) The distance between the inside gauge of the flanges on wide 
flange wheels may not be less than 53 inches or more than 53\3/32\ 
inches.
    (3) The back-to-back distance of flanges of wheels mounted on the 
same axle shall not vary more than \1/4\ inch when measured at similar 
points around the circumference of the wheels.
0
21. Add Sec.  238.723 to read as follows:

Sec.  238.723  Pilots, Snowplows, End Plates.

    Each lead vehicle must be equipped with a pilot, snowplow, or end 
plate that extends across both rails. The minimum clearance above the 
rail of the pilot, snowplow, or end plate is 3 inches. In general, the 
maximum clearance is 6 inches. For a lead vehicle equipped with an 
obstacle deflector or truck-mounted wheel guard (or both) to minimize 
the risk of derailment from substantial obstacles that pass beneath 
them and into the path of the wheels, the maximum clearance is 9 
inches.
0
22. Add Sec.  238.725 to read as follows:

Sec.  238.725  Overheat sensors.

    Overheat sensors for each wheelset journal bearing shall be 
provided. The sensors may be placed either onboard the equipment or at 
reasonable intervals along the railroad's right-of-way.
0
23. Add Sec.  238.745 to read as follows:

Sec.  238.745  Emergency communication.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, Tier III 
trainsets shall comply with the emergency communication requirements 
specified in Sec.  238.121.
    (b) Emergency communication back-up power systems shall, at a 
minimum, be capable of operating after experiencing the individually 
applied accelerations defined in either of the following paragraphs:
    (1) Section 238.121(c)(2); or
    (2) Section 6.1.4, ``Security of furniture, equipment and 
features,'' of GM/RT2100, provided that--
    (i) The conditions of Sec.  238.705(b)(2) are met;
    (ii) The initial shock of a collision or derailment is based on a 
minimum load of 5g longitudinal, 3g lateral, and 3g vertical; and

[[Page 19781]]

    (iii) Use of the standard is carried out under any conditions 
identified by the railroad, as approved by FRA.
    (c) Railway Group Standard GM/RT2100, Issue Four, ``Requirements 
for Rail Vehicle Structures,'' December 2010, is incorporated by 
reference into this section with the approval of the Director of the 
Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved 
material is available for inspection at the Federal Railroad 
Administration (FRA) and the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA). Contact FRA at: Federal Railroad Administration 
Docket Clerk, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC; 
[email protected]; https://railroads.dot.gov. For information on the 
availability of this material at NARA, visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html or email [email protected]. It is 
available from Rail Safety and Standards Board Ltd., Communications, 
RSSB, Block 2 Angel Square, 1 Torrens Street, London, England EC1V 1NY; 
www.rgsonline.co.uk.
0
24. Add Sec.  238.747 to read as follows:

Sec.  238.747  Emergency roof access.

    Each cab of a Tier III trainset shall have an emergency roof access 
location for crewmembers occupying the cab, unless the crewmembers have 
direct access to an emergency roof access point located in a passenger 
compartment of the trainset. Each emergency roof access location shall 
have a minimum opening of 26 inches longitudinally by 24 inches 
laterally and comply with the emergency roof access requirements 
specified in Sec.  238.123(b), (d), and (e).
0
25. Add Sec.  238.755 to read as follows:

Sec.  238.755  General safety requirements.

    (a) Protection against personal injury. Tier III trainsets shall 
comply with Sec.  229.41 of this chapter.
    (b) General condition. All systems and components on a trainset 
shall be free of conditions that endanger the safety of the passengers, 
crew, or equipment. Such conditions may include those conditions listed 
in Sec.  229.45 of this chapter, but are not limited thereto.
    (c) Control of multiple trainsets. Except when a trainset is moved 
in accordance with Sec.  238.1003, when multiple trainsets are coupled 
in remote- or multiple-control, the railroad will comply with the 
requirements of Sec.  229.13 of this chapter.
0
26. Add Sec.  238.757 to read as follows:

Sec.  238.757  Cabs, floors, and passageways.

    (a) Cab doors. Tier III trainset cab doors shall be equipped with a 
secure and operable device to lock the door from the outside that does 
not impede egress from the cab and a securement device that is capable 
of securing the door from inside of the cab.
    (b) End-facing cab windows. End-facing cab windows of the lead 
trainset cab shall be free of cracks, breaks or other conditions that 
obscure the view of the right-of-way for the crew from their normal 
position in the cab.
    (c) Cab floors, passageways, and compartments. Tier III trainsets 
will comply with Sec.  229.119(c) of this chapter.
    (d) Cab climate control. Each lead cab in a Tier III trainset shall 
be heated and air conditioned. The heating, ventilation, and air 
conditioning system shall be inspected and maintained to ensure that it 
operates properly and meets the railroad's performance standard which 
shall be defined in the inspection, testing, and maintenance program.
0
27. Add Sec.  238.759 to read as follows:

Sec.  238.759  Trainset cab noise.

    (a) Performance standards for Tier III trainsets. (1) The average 
noise levels in the trainset cab shall be less than or equal to 85 
dB(A) when the trainset is operating at maximum operating speed. 
Compliance shall be demonstrated during the trainset qualification 
testing as required by Sec.  238.111.
    (2) A railroad shall not make any alterations during maintenance, 
or otherwise modify the cab, to cause the average sound level to exceed 
the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (3) The railroad or manufacturer shall follow the test protocols 
set forth in appendix I to this part to determine compliance with 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section and, to the extent reasonably 
necessary to evaluate the effect of alterations during maintenance, to 
determine compliance with paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (b) Maintenance of trainset cabs. (1) If a railroad receives an 
excessive-noise report, and if the condition giving rise to the noise 
is not required to be immediately corrected under this part, the 
railroad shall maintain a record of the report, and repair or replace 
the item or component identified as substantially contributing to the 
noise--
    (i) On or before the next periodic inspection required by the 
railroad's inspection, testing, and maintenance program; or
    (ii) At the time of the next major equipment repair commonly used 
for the particular type of maintenance needed if the railroad 
determines that the repair or replacement of the item or component 
requires significant shop or material resources that are not readily 
available.
    (2) A railroad has an obligation to respond to an excessive noise 
report filed by a trainset cab occupant. The railroad meets its 
obligation to respond to an excessive noise report, as set forth in 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, if the railroad makes a good faith 
effort to identify the cause of the reported noise, and where the 
railroad is successful in determining the cause, if the railroad 
repairs or replaces the items that cause the noise.
    (3)(i) A railroad shall maintain a written or electronic record of 
any excessive noise report, inspection, test, maintenance, and 
replacement or repair completed pursuant to paragraph (b) of this 
section, and the date on which that inspection, test, maintenance, and 
replacement or repair occurred. If a railroad elects to maintain an 
electronic record, the railroad must satisfy the conditions listed in 
Sec.  227.121(a)(2)(i) through (v) of this chapter.
    (ii) The railroad shall retain these records for a period of one 
year.
    (iii) The railroad shall establish an internal, auditable, 
monitorable system that contains these records.
0
28. Add Sec.  238.761 to read as follows:

Sec.  238.761  Trainset sanitation facilities for employees.

    (a) Tier III trainsets that are equipped with a sanitation 
compartment, as this term is defined in Sec.  229.5 of this chapter, 
accessible only to train crewmembers shall meet the requirements set 
forth in Sec.  229.137 of this chapter, and be maintained to the 
requirements of Sec.  229.139 of this chapter.
    (b) Railroads that do not provide sanitation compartments solely 
for use by crewmembers on board Tier III trainsets shall provide an 
alternate arrangement in accordance with Sec.  229.137(b)(1)(i) of this 
chapter.
0
29. Add Sec.  238.763 to read as follows:

Sec.  238.763  Speed indicator.

    (a) Each trainset controlling cab shall be equipped with a speed 
indicator which is--
    (1) Accurate within 1.24 mph for speeds under 18.6 mph, 
then increasing linearly up to 5 mph at 220 mph; and
    (2) Clearly readable from the engineer's normal position under all 
light conditions.
    (b) The speed indicator shall be based on a system of independent 
on-board speed measurement sources guaranteeing the accuracy level 
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section under all operational 
conditions.

[[Page 19782]]

The system shall be automatically monitored for inconsistencies and the 
engineer shall be automatically notified of any inconsistency 
potentially compromising this accuracy level.
    (c) The speed indicator shall be calibrated periodically as defined 
in the railroad's inspection, testing, and maintenance program.
0
30. Add Sec.  238.765 to read as follows:

Sec.  238.765  Event recorders.

    (a) Duty to equip and record. Except as provided in paragraphs (c) 
and (d) of this section, a trainset shall have an in-service event 
recorder, of the type described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, to 
record data from the lead cab and other locations within the trainset. 
The event recorder shall record the most recent 48 hours of operational 
data of the trainset on which it is installed.
    (b) Equipment requirements. (1) Event recorders shall monitor and 
record data elements or information needed to support the data elements 
required by this paragraph with at least the accuracy required of the 
indicators displaying any of the required data elements to the 
engineer.
    (2) A trainset shall be equipped with an event recorder with a 
certified crashworthy event recorder memory module that meets the 
requirements of appendix D to part 229 of this chapter. The certified 
crashworthy event recorder memory module shall be mounted for its 
maximum protection. (Although other mounting standards may meet this 
requirement, an event recorder memory module mounted in a non-crush 
zone area of the trainset and above the platform level is deemed 
appropriate ``for its maximum protection.'') The event recorder shall 
record, and the certified crashworthy event recorder memory module 
shall retain, the data elements or information needed to support the 
data elements as specified in Sec.  229.135(b)(4)(i) through (xv), 
(xvii), (xx), and (xxi). In addition, the event recorder shall record, 
and the certified crashworthy event recorder memory module shall 
retain, the following data elements or information needed to support 
the following data elements:

    (i) Application and operation of the eddy current brake, if so 
equipped;
    (ii) Passenger brake alarm request;
    (iii) Passenger brake alarm override;
    (iv) Bell activation; and
    (v) Trainset brake cylinder pressures.
    (c) Removal from service. Notwithstanding the duty established in 
paragraph (a) of this section to equip trainsets with an in-service 
event recorder, a railroad may remove an event recorder from service. 
If a railroad knows that an event recorder is not monitoring or 
recording required data, the railroad shall remove the event recorder 
from service. When a railroad removes an event recorder from service, a 
qualified person shall record the date that the device was removed from 
service in the trainset's maintenance records, required in accordance 
with Sec.  238.777.
    (d) Response to defective equipment. Notwithstanding the duty 
established in paragraph (a) of this section to equip Tier III 
trainsets with an in-service event recorder, a trainset on which the 
event recorder has been taken out of service as provided in paragraph 
(c) of this section may remain in service only until the next pre-
service inspection, as required by Sec.  238.903(c)(2). A trainset with 
an inoperative event recorder is not deemed to be in improper 
condition, unsafe to operate, or a non-complying trainset under Sec.  
238.1003, and, other than the requirements of appendix D to part 229 of 
this chapter, the inspection, testing, and maintenance of event 
recorders are limited to the requirements set forth in subpart I of 
this part.
    (e) Preserving accident data, relationship to other laws, and 
disabling event recorders. In addition to the requirements of 
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, Sec.  229.135(e) through 
(g) of this chapter apply to Tier III trainset event recorders.
    (f) Annual test. At a minimum, event recorders shall be tested at 
intervals not to exceed 368 days in accordance with Sec.  229.27(c) of 
this chapter.
0
31. Add Sec.  238.767 to read as follows:

Sec.  238.767  Headlights.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, 
each end of a Tier III trainset shall be equipped with a headlight 
comprised of at least two lamps, one of which shall be illuminated when 
the trainset is in use. Each lamp, when illuminated, shall comply with 
the angular, intensity, and illumination requirements of Sec.  
229.125(a) of this chapter.
    (b) The leading unit of a trainset with a headlight not in 
compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section shall 
not be moved in revenue service if the defective headlight is 
discovered during the pre-service inspection required by Sec.  
238.903(d)(1), and may only move in accordance with Sec.  238.1003(e). 
The leading unit of a trainset with a headlight not in compliance with 
the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section that is discovered 
while the trainset is in service may continue in service only to the 
nearest forward location where either the leading unit can be switched, 
repairs necessary to bring the trainset into compliance can be made, or 
the trainset can be moved according to the procedures specified in 
Sec.  238.1003(b)(1) through (3).
    (c) Headlights may be provided with a device to dim the light. The 
use of this feature for Tier III trainsets operating on a dedicated 
right-of-way shall be described by the railroad in its system 
description required under Sec.  238.110(d)(2)(xv).
    (d) If Tier III trainsets are equipped with headlights 
incorporating alternative technology, the number of lamps specified in 
paragraph (a) of this section does not apply, and--
    (1) The railroad's inspection, testing, and maintenance program 
shall include procedures for determining that such headlights provide 
the illumination intensity required by paragraph (a) of this section; 
and
    (2) A means must be provided to ensure that the minimum 
illumination intensity required by paragraph (a) of this section can be 
achieved under the snow or ice conditions expected in the geographic 
region in which the trainsets will be operated.
0
32. Add Sec.  238.769 to read as follows:

Sec.  238.769  Auxiliary lights.

    (a) Trainsets operated at a speed greater than 20 mph in a shared 
right-of-way over one or more public highway-rail grade crossings shall 
be equipped with operative auxiliary lights, in addition to the 
headlight required by Sec.  238.767. Auxiliary lights shall conform 
with Sec.  229.125(d)(1) though (3) of this chapter.
    (b) Auxiliary lights required by paragraph (a) of this section may 
be arranged in any manner specified in Sec.  229.125(e)(1) through (2) 
of this chapter.
    (c) In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of 
this section, auxiliary lights required by paragraph (a) of this 
section shall comply with Sec.  229.125(f).
    (d)(1) A lead unit of a trainset with only one operative auxiliary 
light must be repaired or switched to a trailing position before 
departure from the place where a pre-service inspection is required 
under Sec.  238.903(d)(1) for that trainset.
    (2) A lead unit of a trainset with only one operative auxiliary 
light that is discovered after the trainset enter service may continue 
to be used in passenger service:
    (i) Until the next scheduled inspection of the trainset where the 
repairs necessary to bring the trainset into compliance can be made; or

[[Page 19783]]

    (ii) According to the procedures specified in the railroad's 
inspection, testing, and maintenance program.
    (3) A lead unit of a trainset with two failed auxiliary lights may 
only proceed to the next forward location where repairs can be made. 
This movement must be made according to the procedures specified in 
Sec.  238.1003(b)(1) through (3).
0
33. Add Sec.  238.771 to read as follows:

Sec.  238.771  Marking device.

    (a) Except for paragraph (d)(3) of this section, the trailing end 
of each trainset shall be equipped with at least one marking device 
conforming with the characteristics specified in Sec.  221.14(a)(1) 
through (3), along with the following other requirements:
    (1) An arrangement to continuously illuminate when on the trailing 
end of the train; and
    (2) For marker lights incorporating alternative technology, the 
railroad's inspection, testing, and maintenance program shall include 
procedures for determining that such marker lights meet the 
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (a)(1) of this section.
    (b) The centroid of the marking device shall be located at a 
minimum of 48 inches above the top of the rail.
    (c) Trailing end marking devices shall operate when the trainset is 
in service and be inspected as defined in the railroad's inspection, 
testing, and maintenance program.
    (d)(1) A trainset with a marking device not in compliance with the 
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section shall not be moved in 
revenue service if the defective marking device is discovered during 
the pre-service inspection required by Sec.  238.903(c)(2).
    (2) Whenever a marking device prescribed in this section becomes 
inoperative en route, the train may be moved to the next forward 
location where the marking device can be repaired or replaced.
    (3) A trainset's trailing end headlight illuminated on the dim 
setting satisfies the requirements of a highly visible marking device 
as described in paragraph (a) of this section.
0
34. Add Sec.  238.773 to read as follows:

Sec.  238.773  Cab lights.

    Each trainset cab shall have cab lights in conformance with the 
requirements of Sec.  229.127(a) of this chapter. Cab passageways and 
compartments shall also be adequately illuminated.
0
35. Add Sec.  238.775 to read as follows:

Sec.  238.775   Trainset horn.

    (a) Each leading end of trainset shall be equipped with a horn that 
conforms to the requirements of Sec.  229.129(a) of this chapter.
    (b) Each trainset horn shall be individually tested under paragraph 
(e) of this section, or through acceptance sampling under Sec.  
229.129(b)(1) of this chapter, to ensure compliance with paragraph (a) 
of this section.
    (c) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, each 
trainset equipped with a replacement horn shall be tested, in 
accordance with paragraph (e) of this section, before the next 
specified test required by the railroad inspection, testing and 
maintenance program.
    (d) Trainsets that have already been tested individually under 
paragraph (e) of this section, or through acceptance sampling under 
Sec.  229.129(b)(1) of this chapter, shall not be required to undergo 
sound level testing when equipped with a replacement trainset horn, 
provided the replacement trainset horn is of the same model as the horn 
that was replaced and the mounting location and type of mounting are 
the same.
    (e) Testing of the trainset horn sound level shall be in accordance 
with Sec.  229.129(c) of this chapter, with the following exceptions:
    (1) In lieu of Sec.  229.129(c)(7) of this chapter, the microphone 
shall be located 100 feet forward of the front-most car body structure 
of the trainset, four feet above the top of the rail, at an angle no 
greater than 20 degrees from the center line of the track, and oriented 
with respect to the sound source according to the manufacturer's 
recommendations. The observer shall not stand between the microphone 
and the horn.
    (2) Reports required by Sec.  229.129(c)(10) of this chapter may be 
maintained electronically.
0
36. Add Sec.  238.777 to read as follows:

Sec.  238.777  Inspection records.

    (a) For certain periodic inspections, as defined by the railroad's 
inspection, testing, and maintenance program required under subpart I 
of this part, the railroad shall maintain a record of the inspection 
that shall contain at a minimum:
    (1) The date the last periodic inspection was performed as required 
by the railroad's inspection, testing, and maintenance program;
    (2) The name of the person conducting the inspection; and
    (3) The name of the supervisor certifying that the inspection was 
performed.
    (b) The information contained in the inspection record and summary 
report required under paragraph (c) of this section shall be made 
available to the engineer so that the engineer knows the trainset is 
ready for service. The inspection record and summary report shall be 
made available to the engineer by either--
    (1) Electronic displays provided in the cab or other FRA-approved 
devices located within the trainset; or
    (2) Being physically displayed in hardcopy form under a transparent 
cover in a conspicuous place in the cab of each trainset.
    (c) The summary report shall be generated that provides pertinent 
information to review and will be made available to FRA upon request. 
At a minimum, the summary report shall include information such as the 
periodic inspection dates, applicable waivers, the type of brake system 
used (e.g., regenerative versus rheostatic), whether the trainset's 
event recorder is out of service, the car number, the date of 
manufacture, the number of propulsion motors, the manufacturer's 
information, and verification that all required inspections have been 
performed.
    (d) Compliance with the requirements of Sec.  229.23 of this 
chapter shall satisfy the requirements of this section.
0
37. Add Sec.  238.781 to read as follows:

Sec.  238.781  Current collectors.

    (a) Overhead Collector Systems. (1) Pantographs shall comply with 
Sec.  229.77(a) of this chapter.
    (2) Each overhead collector system, including the pantograph, shall 
be equipped with a means to electrically ground any uninsulated parts 
to prevent the risk of electrical shock on personnel working on the 
system.
    (3) Means shall be provided to permit the engineer to determine 
that the pantograph is in its lowest position, and for securing the 
pantograph if necessary, without the need to mount the roof of the 
trainset.
    (4) Each pantograph shall be equipped with a means to safely lower 
the pantograph in the event of an emergency. If an emergency pole is 
used for this purpose, that part of the pole which can be safely 
handled shall be marked to so indicate. This pole shall be protected 
from moisture and damage when not in use. The means of securement and 
electrical isolation of a damaged pantograph, when automatic methods 
are not possible, shall be addressed in the railroad's inspection, 
testing, and maintenance program.
    (b) Third Rail Shoes. Trainsets equipped with pantographs and 
third-rail shoes shall comply with Sec. Sec.  229.79 and 229.81(b) of 
this chapter.
0
38. Add Sec.  238.783 to read as follows:

[[Page 19784]]

Sec.  238.783  Circuit protection.

    (a) General. Circuits used for purposes other than propelling the 
equipment shall be provided with a circuit breaker or equivalent 
current-limiting devices located as near as practical to the point of 
connection to the source of power for that circuit. Such protection may 
be omitted from circuits controlling safety-critical devices.
    (b) Lightning protection. The main propulsion power line shall be 
protected with a lightning arrestor, automatic circuit breaker, and 
overload relay. The lightning arrestor shall be run by the most direct 
path possible to ground. These overload protection devices shall be 
housed in an enclosure designed specifically for that purpose with the 
arc chute vented directly to outside air. Safety-critical circuits 
shall be protected against lightning damage. Should safety-critical 
circuits be adversely affected in such an instance, the trainset shall 
default to a safe condition.
    (c) Overload and ground fault protection. Head-end power, including 
trainline power distribution, shall be provided with both overload and 
ground fault protection.
0
39. Add Sec.  238.785 to read as follows:

Sec.  238.785  Trainset electrical system.

    (a) Insulation or grounding of metal parts. Tier III trainsets 
shall comply with Sec.  229.83 of this chapter.
    (b) High voltage markings: doors, cover plates, or barriers. Tier 
III trainsets shall comply with Sec.  229.85 of this chapter.
    (c) Hand-operated electrical switches. Tier III trainsets shall 
comply with Sec.  229.87 of this chapter.
    (d) Conductors, jumpers, and cable connections. Tier III trainsets 
shall comply with Sec. Sec.  229.89 and 238.225(a) of this chapter.
    (e) Energy storage systems. (1) Batteries. In addition to complying 
with the requirements of Sec.  238.225(b), battery circuits shall 
include an emergency battery cut-off switch to completely disconnect 
the energy stored in the batteries from the load.
    (2) Capacitors for high-energy storage. If provided, capacitors 
shall be--
    (i) Isolated from the cab and passenger seating areas by a fire-
resistant barrier; and
    (ii) Designed to protect against overcharging and overheating.
    (f) Power dissipation resistors. In addition to complying with the 
requirements of Sec.  238.225(c), power dissipation resistor circuits 
shall incorporate warning or protective devices for low ventilation air 
flow, over-temperature, and short circuit failures.
    (g) Electromagnetic interference and compatibility. In addition to 
complying with the requirements of Sec.  238.225(d), electrical and 
electronic systems of equipment shall be capable of operation in the 
presence of external electromagnetic noise sources.
    (h) Motors and generators. (1) All motors and generators shall be 
in proper working order, or safely cut-out and isolated.
    (2) If equipped, support brackets, bearings, isolation mounts, and 
guards shall be present, function properly, and function as intended, 
as specified in the railroad's inspection, testing, and maintenance 
program.
0
40. Add Sec.  238.791 to read as follows:

Sec.  238.791  Safety appliances.

    (a) Applicability. This section applies to Tier III trainsets. The 
requirements of this section may also be applied to Tier I passenger 
cars and Tier I alternative passenger trainsets in lieu of the 
requirements of Sec. Sec.  238.229 and 238.230, or part 231 of this 
chapter, as applicable.
    (b) Attachment. Safety appliances must be attached by either 
mechanical fasteners meeting the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of 
this section, or by welds meeting the requirements of paragraph (b)(2) 
of this section.
    (1) Mechanical fasteners. Safety appliance mechanical fasteners 
shall have tensile strength and fatigue resistance equal to or greater 
than a \1/2\ inch (12 mm) diameter SAE Grade 5 steel bolt. Fasteners 
must be one- or two-piece rivets, Huck bolts[supreg], or threaded 
fasteners secured by one of the following methods:
    (i) Self-locking feature, including locknut and locking bolt, that 
meets the prevailing torque requirements for locking fasteners such as 
those specified by the Industrial Fastener Institute for the applicable 
grade and size fastener used.
    (ii) Locking device that provides the minimum prevailing first 
removal torque value for locking fasteners, such as those specified by 
the Industrial Fastener Institute for the applicable grade and size 
fastener used.
    (iii) Wedge-locking washers consisting of two symmetrically 
designed washers that have inclined ramps on the sides in mutual 
contact and non-slip contact surfaces on the sides in contact with the 
nut and work piece. Washer and nut or bolt arrangements utilizing 
similar locking principles are also acceptable.
    (iv) Lock washers that meet the requirements for lock washers 
specified by the Industrial Fastener Institute for the applicable grade 
and size fastener used.
    (v) Locking tab, cotter pin, or safety wire that restricts rotation 
of the bolt, or nut, or both.
    (2) Welded Safety Appliances. Welds for safety appliances, 
connections, safety appliance subassemblies, and brackets or supports 
shall be--
    (i) Designed and fabricated in accordance with the welding process 
and the quality control procedures contained in the applicable American 
Welding Society Standard, the Canadian Welding Bureau Standard, or an 
equivalent nationally or internationally recognized welding standard;
    (ii) Performed by an individual possessing the qualifications to be 
certified under the applicable American Welding Society Standard, the 
Canadian Welding Bureau Standard, or an equivalent nationally or 
internationally recognized welding qualification standard;
    (iii) Inspected by an individual qualified to determine that the 
welding has been performed in accordance with the requirements in 
paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section. A written or electronic record of 
the inspection shall be retained by the railroad operating the 
equipment and shall be provided to FRA upon request. At a minimum, this 
record shall include the date, time, and location of the inspection, 
and the identification and qualifications of the person performing the 
inspection.
    (iv) Repaired in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs 
(b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (3) Carbody. Brackets or supports welded in accordance with 
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section and meeting the 
strength requirements in paragraphs (c), (d)(4)(ii), and (e)(4)(ii) of 
this section shall be considered part of the carbody structure.
    (4) Inspection. Except for couplers and handbrakes, all safety 
appliances, and brackets or supports shall, as far as practicable, be 
installed to facilitate inspection of attachments, whether mechanical 
fasteners or welds.
    (5) Strength. Welds, if used, and mechanical fasteners shall be 
designed to have an ultimate strength with a factor of safety of at 
least two with respect to the load values specified in paragraphs 
(d)(3)(ii) and (e)(4)(ii) of this section.
    (c) Fatigue life. The safety appliance, the support or bracket to 
which the safety appliance is attached, and the carbody structure to 
which the safety appliance is directly attached or the support or 
bracket is attached, shall be designed for a fatigue life of 10 million

[[Page 19785]]

cycles based upon the service vibration environment.
    (d) Handholds. (1) Number, location, and orientation. (i) Exterior 
side door passenger access handholds. (A) A vertical handhold shall be 
provided for passengers on both sides of steps (one on each side) used 
for boarding or alighting. Internally installed handrails, as that term 
is used under part 38 of this title, may be used to satisfy the 
requirements of this paragraph, and if used must meet the applicable 
requirements for handrails specified in Sec.  38.97(a) or Sec.  
38.115(a) of this title.
    (B) Each vertical handhold provided for passengers shall be 
positioned so that the bottom clear length shall not be more than 54 
inches above top of rail.
    (ii) Exterior cab access handholds. (A) Except as provided in 
paragraph (f)(2)(iv) of this section, a vertical handhold shall be 
provided for crewmembers and other authorized personnel on both sides 
(one on each side) of any exterior cab access door, if equipped.
    (B) Vertical handholds provided for cab access doors shall have a 
clear length extending above the floor of the cab at least 48 inches, 
and where practicable at least 60 inches or as high as feasible based 
on carbody design, enabling a person to safely turn around. A smaller 
handhold, providing at least 16 inches of clear length, may be 
installed above the exterior cab access door opening on the inside of 
the equipment to facilitate a person's ability to safely turn around.
    (iii) Side handholds. (A) At least one side handhold, preferably 
two, shall be provided at each location equipped with a sill step, and 
be oriented either vertically, horizontally, or a combination thereof, 
relative to the carbody. Each side handhold shall provide at least 16 
inches of clear length. At least 12 inches of the clear length of each 
horizontal side handhold shall be directly over the sill step.
    (B) If one horizontal handhold is used it shall be not less than 
58.5 nor more than 64.5 inches above top of rail.
    (C) If two horizontal handholds are used, one horizontal handhold 
shall be at most 54 inches above top of rail. The second horizontal 
handhold shall be 54 to 58 inches above the step.
    (D) If one vertical handhold is used, its lowest clearance point 
shall be at most 54 inches above top of rail. Its highest clearance 
point shall be at least 70 inches above top of rail. The handhold shall 
be located above the clear length of the step.
    (E) If two vertical handholds are used, the lowest clearance point 
of each vertical handhold shall be at most 54 inches above top of rail. 
The highest clearance point of each vertical handhold shall be at least 
58 inches above the step. Each set of vertical handholds shall be 
spaced not less than 16 inches nor more than 22 inches apart. To align 
two vertical handholds with the sill steps, the handholds shall be 
located in the longitudinal direction such that the inside face of the 
outboard handhold is no more than 2 inches outboard of the inside face 
of the outboard vertical leg of the step and is no less than 10 inches 
outboard from the inside face of the inboard vertical leg.
    (F) When a combination of horizontal and vertical handholds is 
used, the horizontal handhold shall be 54 to 58 inches above the step. 
The lowest clearance point of the vertical handhold shall be at most 54 
inches above top of rail. The highest clearance point of the vertical 
handhold shall be at least 70 inches, preferably 78 inches above top of 
rail. One continuous handhold may be used as long as it meets the 
dimensional requirements of this paragraph.
    (iv) End handholds. (A) Except as provided in paragraph 
(d)(1)(iv)(F) of this section, two horizontal end handholds shall be 
provided at each end of a vehicle or trainset unit equipped with an 
automatic coupler, as described in paragraph (g) of this section, with 
one on each side of the vehicle or trainset unit. Each end handhold 
shall provide at least 16 inches of clear length.
    (B) There shall be no more than 16 inches between the side of the 
vehicle or trainset unit to the useable clear length of an end 
handhold, measured horizontally.
    (C) If the equipment is designed with a tapered nose, the side of 
the car shall be determined based on the outer dimension of the tapered 
nose where the end handhold is attached.
    (D) End handholds shall be positioned no more than 50 inches from 
top of rail. Handholds may be attached to any primary structure (e.g., 
carbody frame; or pilot, or plow on cab cars), provided the dimension 
requirements in paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(A) of this section are met.
    (E) An uncoupling lever may be used as an end handhold if it meets 
the requirements of paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section.
    (F) End handholds are not required at the ends of vehicles equipped 
with an automatic coupling mechanism that can be safely operated from 
inside the appropriate cab of the vehicle and does not require ground 
intervention from a person such as to go on, under, or between to 
couple air, electric or other connections.
    (2) Handhold dimensions. Regardless of location or orientation, the 
minimum diameter for each handhold listed under paragraph (d)(1) of 
this section shall be no less than \5/8\ inch.
    (3) Clearance. All handholds listed under paragraph (d)(1) of this 
section shall have a clearance between the handhold and carbody of at 
least 2 inches, preferably 2\1/2\ inches, for the entire clear length, 
except when a combination of handholds, or additional attachment 
points, or both, are necessary due to the carbody design, or length of 
the handhold, or both. In such cases, alternate ergonomic 
configurations may be used instead, subject to FRA approval.
    (4) Strength and rigidity. Handholds shall meet either of the 
following strength and rigidity requirements:
    (i) They must be made of \5/8\-inch diameter steel, or a material 
providing an equivalent level of mechanical strength; or
    (ii) They must be designed to support a load of 350 lbs at any 
point on the useable length, in any direction, and shall be rigidly 
attached to the carbody structure such that the maximum elastic 
deflection at the midpoint of an unsupported span under 50 percent of 
the applied 350-lb load shall be no greater than L/120, where L is the 
unsupported length of the span. Stresses in the handhold and the 
carbody structure to which it is attached shall be less than the 
minimum yield strength for the load values specified in this paragraph. 
For purposes of evaluation, the load may be distributed over a distance 
of not more than 3 inches along the usable clear length of the 
handhold.
    (5) Multiple handholds. When multiple handholds are arranged in a 
ladder-style configuration, each handhold shall meet the requirements 
of this paragraph (d) and shall not have a vertical rise between 
handholds exceeding 18 inches.
    (e) Sill steps. (1) Number and location. (i) Except as provided in 
paragraph (e)(1)(iv) of this section, two sill steps shall be provided 
at each end of a vehicle or trainset unit equipped with an automatic 
coupler, with one on each side of the vehicle or trainset unit no more 
than 18 inches from the end of the vehicle or trainset unit to the 
useable clear length of the sill step. For vehicle or trainset ends 
equipped with shrouding or aerodynamic treatments that taper toward the 
center of the vehicle or trainset unit, the 18 inches shall be measured 
from the point where the shrouding or aerodynamic treatment begins to 
taper.

[[Page 19786]]

    (ii) The sill step tread shall be no more than 24 inches, 
preferably no more than 22 inches, above top of rail.
    (iii) The outside edge of the sill step tread shall be no more than 
2 inches inside of any carbody structure located directly above the 
sill step and below the lowest side handhold.
    (iv) Sill steps are not required--
    (A) If an exterior cab access door or an exterior passenger access 
door is equipped with handholds and steps, as required by this section, 
and is located such that an employee riding on the step has an 
unobstructed view of the track ahead.
    (B) At the ends of vehicles equipped with an automatic coupling 
mechanism that can be safely operated from inside the appropriate cab 
of the vehicle and does not require ground intervention from a person 
such as to go on, under, or between to couple air, electric or other 
connections.
    (2) Dimensions. (i) The minimum clear length of the tread of the 
sill step shall be 10 inches.
    (ii) The minimum clear distance above the usable clear length of 
each step shall be--
    (A) 4.7 inches for Tier III trainsets.
    (B) 8 inches for applicable Tier I equipment as specified in 
paragraph (a) of this section.
    (iii) The minimum clear space from the outside edge of the sill 
step shall be 6 inches for the entire usable clear length of the step, 
of which at least 2 inches shall be tread surface.
    (iv) Sill steps shall not have a vertical rise between treads 
exceeding 18 inches.
    (v) Proper clearance must be provided between steps and the vehicle 
running gear to provide proper clearance from moving parts.
    (3) Sill step tread surface. The portion of the tread surface area 
of each sill step that is normally contacted by the foot shall be 
treated with an anti-skid material or be slip resistant by texturing of 
the metal surface in such a way that it lasts the life of the car. Some 
examples of acceptable methods are: diamond plate or stamped, upset, or 
expanded metal. For enclosed step designs, at least 50 percent of the 
tread area shall be open space.
    (4) Strength and rigidity. Sill steps shall meet either of the 
following strength and rigidity requirements:
    (i) If a rectangular cross-section is used, the sill step shall 
have a minimum \1/2\-inch-thick by 2-inch-wide cross-sectional area. 
Alternate material sections may be used if they meet the strength and 
rigidity of a \1/2\-inch-thick by 2-inch-wide steel section. Sill or 
crew steps exceeding 18 inches (457 mm) in depth shall have an 
additional tread and be laterally braced; or
    (ii) Sill steps shall be designed to support individually applied 
loads at any point on the useable length of 450 lbs in the downward 
direction and 350 lbs in the horizontal direction (inward or outward). 
Stresses in the sill step and the carbody structure to which it is 
attached shall be less than the minimum yield strength for the load 
values specified in this paragraph. For purposes of evaluation, the 
load may be distributed over a distance of not more than 3 inches along 
the usable clear length of the sill step.
    (f) Crew access. (1) Ground-level crew access. (i) Crewmembers 
shall be provided the means where they can board and alight the 
equipment from ground level, safely.
    (A) For a trainset, or any section of a trainset that is not semi-
permanently connected to an adjacent unit of the same trainset, a 
minimum of four locations, two per side, shall be provided.
    (B) For single vehicles or trainset units that are not semi-
permanently connected to an adjacent vehicle or trainset unit, a 
minimum of two locations, one per side, shall be provided.
    (ii) Exterior side doors used for passenger boarding and alighting 
that provide ground-level access equipped with handholds meeting the 
requirements of paragraphs (d)(1)(i), (d)(2), and (d)(3) of this 
section may be used to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (f)(1)(i) 
of this section so long as access to the controlling cab can be gained 
from the interior of the trainset.
    (iii) An exterior cab access side door that provides access to the 
trainset cab and is equipped with handholds meeting the requirements of 
paragraphs (d)(1)(ii), (d)(2), and (d)(3) of this section may be used 
to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section so 
long as access to the interior of the trainset can be gained from the 
trainset cab.
    (2) Ground level crew access side steps. (i) Except as provided in 
paragraph (f)(2)(iv) of this section, for each location provided for 
crewmember ground-level access under paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this 
section, steps shall be provided that comply with the requirements of 
paragraphs (e)(2) through (4) of this section and meet the following 
requirements:
    (A) The outside edge of the tread of the step shall be not more 
than 3 inches inside of the edge of the door threshold; and
    (B) The bottom tread shall be not more than 24 inches, preferably 
not more than 22, inches above top of rail.
    (ii) Handholds meeting the requirements of paragraphs (d)(1)(ii), 
(d)(2), and (d)(3) of this section shall be provided at each location 
where ground level crew access steps are provided.
    (iii) The steps required under paragraph (f)(2)(i) may be 
retractable.
    (iv) Portable ladders equipped with handrails designed for safe 
access from ground level can also be used in lieu of crew side access 
steps.
    (g) Couplers. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (g)(2) of this 
section, trainset units shall be equipped with automatic couplers at 
each end. The coupler shall--
    (i) Couple on impact; and
    (ii) Uncouple by either activation of a traditional uncoupling 
lever, or some other type of uncoupling mechanism that does not require 
a person to go on, under, or between the trainset units.
    (2) An automatic coupler is not required--
    (i) At trainset unit ends that are semi-permanently coupled to an 
adjacent trainset unit; or
    (ii) Where the coupler on the leading and trailing ends of a 
trainset is only used for rescue purposes. The railroad shall develop 
and implement rescue procedures that assure employee safety during 
rescue operations are included as part of its inspection, testing, and 
maintenance program.
    (h) Uncoupling levers or devices. (1) General. Each trainset unit 
end equipped with an automatic coupler required by paragraph (g)(1) of 
this section shall have either--
    (i) A manual uncoupling lever; or,
    (ii) An uncoupling mechanism operated by controls located in the 
appropriate cab, or other secure location in a trainset. Additional 
manual uncoupling levers or handles on the coupler provided only as a 
backup for that remotely operated mechanism are not subject to 
paragraph (h)(2) of this section, but shall allow use from outside the 
gage of the track, or in accordance with railroad procedures.
    (2) Manual uncoupling lever or device. Manual uncoupling levers 
shall be applied so that the automatic coupler can be operated from the 
left side of the trainset unit as determined when facing the end of the 
trainset unit, from ground level without requiring a person to go 
between cars or trainset units. Manual uncoupling levers shall have a 
minimum clearance of 2 inches, preferably 2\1/2\ inches, around the 
handle.
    (i) Shrouding or aerodynamic treatments. The automatic coupler, end

[[Page 19787]]

handholds, and uncoupling mechanism on the leading and trailing ends of 
a trainset unit may be located within a removable shroud to reduce 
aerodynamic effects.
    (j) Hand brakes. Trainsets, and trainset units or sections of 
trainsets that are not semi-permanently coupled to an adjacent trainset 
unit or section of trainset, must be equipped with an efficient parking 
or hand brake capable of holding the trainset, trainset unit, or 
section of trainset on at least a 3-percent grade, or on the worst-case 
grade conditions identified by the operating railroad, as approved by 
FRA.
    (k) Safety appliances for appurtenances and windshields. (1) 
Trainsets and trainset units having appurtenances such as headlights, 
windshield wipers, marker lights, and other similar items required for 
the safe operation of the trainset or trainset unit must be equipped 
with handholds and steps meeting the requirements of this section, if 
the appurtenances are designed to be maintained or replaced from the 
exterior of the trainset or equipment.
    (2) The requirements of paragraph (k)(1) do not apply if railroad 
operating rules require, and actual practice entails, the maintenance 
and replacement of these components by maintenance personnel in 
locations protected by the requirements of subpart B of part 218 of 
this chapter equipped with ladders and other tools to safely repair or 
maintain those appurtenances.
    (l) Optional safety appliances. Safety appliances installed at the 
option of the railroad shall be approved by FRA pursuant to Sec.  
238.110.
0
41. Add subpart I to part 238 to read as follows:
Subpart I--Trainset Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance Requirements 
for Tier III Passenger Equipment
Sec.
 Trainset Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance Program
238.901 Scope.
238.903 General requirements.
238.905 Compliance.
238.907 Standard procedures for safely performing inspections, 
testing, maintenance, or repairs.
238.909 Quality control/quality assurance program.
238.911 Inspection, testing, and maintenance program format.
238.913 Inspection, testing, and maintenance program approval 
procedure.

Subpart I--Trainset Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance 
Requirements for Tier III Passenger Equipment

Sec.  238.901  Scope.

    This subpart contains specific requirements for inspection, 
testing, and maintenance of Tier III passenger equipment.

Sec.  238.903  General requirements.

    (a) General. Each railroad operating Tier III passenger equipment 
shall have a written inspection, testing, and maintenance program, 
approved pursuant to Sec.  238.913.
    (b) Program contents. The program shall provide detailed 
information, consistent with the requirements set forth in this 
subpart, on the inspection, testing, and maintenance procedures 
necessary for the railroad to safely maintain and operate its Tier III 
passenger equipment. This information shall include a detailed 
description of--
    (1) Inspection procedures, intervals, and acceptance/rejection 
criteria addressing applicable reliability-based monitoring and 
inspections based on appendix E to this part or an equivalent national 
or international standard;
    (2) Test procedures and intervals;
    (3) Scheduled preventative maintenance intervals;
    (4) Maintenance procedures;
    (5) Special testing equipment or measuring devices required to 
perform inspections and tests;
    (6) The training, qualification, and designation of employees and 
contractors to perform inspections, tests, and maintenance pursuant to 
the requirements of paragraph (h) of this section;
    (7) Out-of-service procedures to protect out-of-service equipment, 
to account for time out of service, and how the railroad will return 
out-of-service equipment back to service; and
    (8) The required operational braking capability.
    (c) Specific safety inspections. The program required under 
paragraph (a) of this section shall ensure that all Tier III passenger 
trainsets receive thorough safety inspections by qualified personnel 
designated by the railroad at regular intervals. Each inspection 
identified in this paragraph shall be performed on Tier III trainsets 
in accordance with the test procedures and inspection criteria and at 
the intervals defined by the railroad's approved inspection, testing, 
and maintenance program. Except as specified in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of 
this section regarding defects in a trainset's braking system, if any 
system or component that is defined as safety-critical under Sec.  
238.911(b) is found to be defective or otherwise non-compliant during 
these inspections, the trainset shall not be put into service until 
that condition is rectified. In addition to other inspections required 
under subpart H of this part, the following inspections shall be 
performed on each trainset:
    (1) Pre-departure inspections, i.e., trainset system verifications, 
inspections, or functional tests that must be performed prior to 
departures from terminal locations where operating ends or operating 
crews are changed. Pre-departure inspection procedures must include--
    (i) Verification of application and release of the service and 
emergency brakes using the monitoring system; and
    (ii) Functional tests of the passenger access exterior side doors.
    (2) Pre-service inspections, i.e., inspections conducted at 
identified locations where such inspections can be safely and properly 
conducted prior to the trainset entering service after the previous 
pre-service inspection, at a period not to exceed 48 hours. At a 
minimum, pre-service inspections must include--
    (i) All items covered under paragraph (c)(1) of this section. 
Defects with the brake system discovered during a pre-service 
inspection shall be handled in accordance with Sec.  238.1003(d)(1), 
except that if a trainset's braking system is discovered having less 
than the required operational braking capability, it shall move 
immediately to a repair point under the provisions of Sec.  238.1003(b) 
and (e).
    (ii) An interior inspection of emergency systems, ensuring 
functionality of certain systems (such as the public address and 
intercom systems) including a determination that any required tools or 
other implements necessary for emergency egress are present.
    (3) Brake system inspections.
    (4) Truck inspections.
    (5) Other safety-critical periodic inspections.
    (d) Inspection, testing and maintenance intervals. The program 
shall identify the railroad's initial scheduled inspection, testing, 
and maintenance intervals for Tier III equipment. Changes to scheduled 
inspection, testing, and maintenance intervals of safety-critical 
components, as identified by Sec.  238.911(b), shall be implemented 
only when approved by FRA under Sec.  238.913. Such changes must be 
justified by accumulated, verifiable operating data.
    (e) Training and qualification program. The program required under

[[Page 19788]]

this subpart shall describe the training, qualification, and 
designation program established by the railroad to qualify individuals 
to inspect, test, and maintain the equipment.
    (1) The railroad shall identify which inspection, testing, or 
maintenance tasks require special training or qualifications.
    (2) The training and qualification program shall, at a minimum, 
address the items in Sec.  238.109(b).
    (3) A list of all personnel and contractors designated as qualified 
to perform activities specific to paragraph (e)(1) of this section, 
training material, and records shall be maintained and made available 
to FRA upon request.
    (4) Only individuals qualified under the railroad's program may 
inspect, test, or maintain components or systems the railroad deems 
safety-critical.
    (f) Retention of records. At a minimum, the railroad shall keep the 
records of each inspection required under paragraph (c) of this 
section. Each record shall be maintained for at least one year from the 
date of the inspection.

Sec.  238.905   Compliance.

    After the railroad's inspection, testing, and maintenance program 
is approved by FRA pursuant to Sec.  238.913, the railroad shall adopt 
and comply with the program, and perform--
    (a) All inspections and tests described in the program in 
accordance with the procedures and criteria for the components that the 
railroad identifies as safety-critical; and
    (b) All maintenance tasks described in the program in accordance 
with the procedures and intervals for the components that the railroad 
identifies as safety-critical.

Sec.  238.907   Standard procedures for safely performing inspection, 
testing, and maintenance, and repairs.

    (a) The railroad shall establish standard procedures for performing 
all safety-critical or potentially hazardous inspection, testing, 
maintenance, and repair tasks. These standard procedures shall--
    (1) Describe in detail each step required to safely perform the 
task;
    (2) Describe the knowledge necessary to safely perform the task;
    (3) Describe any precautions that shall be taken to safely perform 
the task;
    (4) Describe the use of any safety equipment necessary to perform 
the task;
    (5) Be approved by the railroad's official responsible for safety;
    (6) Be enforced by the railroad's supervisors responsible for 
accomplishing the tasks; and
    (7) Be reviewed annually by the railroad and its designated 
employee representatives pursuant to Sec.  238.913(e).
    (b) The inspection, testing, and maintenance program required by 
this section is not intended to address and should not include 
procedures to address employee working conditions that arise in the 
course of conducting the inspections, tests, and maintenance set forth 
in the program. When reviewing the railroad's program, FRA does not 
intend to review any portion of the program that relates to employee 
working conditions.

Sec.  238.909   Quality control/quality assurance program.

    Each railroad shall establish an inspection, testing, and 
maintenance quality control/quality assurance program. The railroad or 
its contractor(s), or both, shall ensure that inspections, testing, and 
maintenance are performed in accordance with the railroad's approved 
inspection, testing, and maintenance program.

Sec.  238.911  Inspection, testing, and maintenance program format.

    The railroad's inspection, testing, and maintenance program 
established pursuant to this subpart I shall be comprised of--
    (a) The complete inspection, testing, and maintenance program for 
all components, systems, or sub-systems on a Tier III trainset, whether 
safety-critical or not, to include all inspections, tests, and 
maintenance tasks required, the intervals and periodicity of those 
inspections, tests, and maintenance tasks, and all associated 
information and procedures required for the railroad and its personnel 
to implement the program. The railroad shall submit the complete 
program to FRA along with the condensed version required under 
paragraph (b) of this section for FRA review to ensure that the 
railroad has properly classified a particular inspection, test, or 
maintenance task as safety-critical or not. Should FRA identify a 
particular inspection, test, or maintenance task as safety-critical, 
the railroad shall include the particular inspection, test, or 
maintenance task in the condensed version of the program under 
paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) A condensed version of the program that contains only those 
items identified as safety-critical by the railroad. The railroad shall 
submit this version for approval by FRA, as provided in Sec.  238.913. 
The operation of emergency equipment, emergency back-up systems, 
trainset exits, and trainset safety-critical hardware and software 
systems shall be deemed safety-critical.

Sec.  238.913  Inspection, testing, and maintenance program approval 
procedure.

    (a) Submission--(1) Initial submission. The railroad shall submit 
for approval an inspection, testing, and maintenance program not less 
than 180 days prior to commencing revenue service. The program shall be 
submitted to the Associate Administrator.
    (2) Submission of amendments. If the railroad seeks to amend an 
approved program, the railroad shall file with the Associate 
Administrator for approval of such amendment not less than 60 days 
prior to the proposed implementation date of the amendment.
    (b) Contents. Each program or amendment shall contain the 
following:
    (1) The information prescribed in this subpart for such program or 
amendment;
    (2) The name, title, address, and telephone number of the primary 
point of contact for the program or amendment; and
    (3) A statement affirming that the railroad has provided a copy of 
the program or amendment on designated representatives of railroad 
employees as required under paragraph (c) of this section, together 
with a list of the names and addresses of those persons.
    (c) Comment. Each railroad shall provide a copy to the designated 
representatives of railroad employees responsible for the equipment's 
operation, inspection, testing, and maintenance under this subpart, of 
each submission filed with FRA. Designated representatives will then 
have 45 days from the date of filing to provide any comment to FRA.
    (1) Each comment shall set forth specifically the basis upon which 
it is made and contain a concise statement of the interest of the 
commenter in the proceeding.
    (2) Each comment shall be submitted to the Associate Administrator.
    (3) The commenter shall certify that a copy of the comment was 
provided to the railroad.
    (d) Approval--(1) Initial submission. Within 60 days of receipt of 
each initial inspection, testing, and maintenance program, FRA will 
conduct a formal review of the program. FRA will then notify the 
primary railroad contact person in writing whether the inspection, 
testing, and maintenance program is approved and, if not approved, the 
specific points in which the program is deficient. If a program is not 
approved by FRA, the railroad shall amend its program to correct all 
deficiencies and resubmit its program with the required revisions not 
later than 45 days prior to commencing revenue service. The railroad 
shall not

[[Page 19789]]

implement its inspection, testing, and maintenance program until 
approved by FRA.
    (2) Amendments. FRA will review each proposed amendment to the 
program within 45 days of receipt. FRA will then notify the primary 
railroad contact person and the designated employee representatives in 
writing whether the proposed amendment has been approved by FRA and, if 
not approved, the specific points in which the proposed amendment is 
deficient. The railroad shall correct any deficiencies and file the 
corrected amendment prior to implementing the amendment.
    (3) Identification of deficiencies after approval. Should FRA 
identify deficiencies within the program following initial approval of 
a program or approval of an amendment, FRA will notify the railroad of 
the specific points in which the program or amendment is deficient. The 
railroad must resubmit its program or amendment with the necessary 
revisions for review and approval in accordance with paragraph (d)(1) 
or (2) of this section.
    (e) Annual review. The inspection, testing, and maintenance program 
required by this section shall be reviewed by the railroad annually. 
The railroad shall provide written notice to the Associate 
Administrator and the designated representatives of the railroad's 
employees at least one month prior to the annual review. If the 
Associate Administrator or their designee indicates a desire to be 
present, the railroad shall provide a scheduled date and location for 
the annual review. If the Associate Administrator requests the annual 
review be performed on another date but the railroad and the Associate 
Administrator are unable to agree on a date for rescheduling, the 
annual review may be performed as scheduled.
0
42. Add subpart J to part 238 to read as follows:
Subpart J--Movement of Defective Tier III Passenger Equipment
Sec.
238.1001 Scope.
238.1003 Movement of defective Tier III passenger equipment.

Subpart J--Movement of Defective Tier III Passenger Equipment

Sec.  238.1001  Scope.

    This subpart contains specific requirements for the movement of 
defective Tier III passenger equipment.

Sec.  238.1003  Movement of defective Tier III passenger equipment.

    (a) Except as provided in Sec.  238.903(c)(2)(i) and paragraph 
(d)(1) of this section, a Tier III trainset with one or more safety-
critical items not in compliance with the railroad's approved 
inspection, testing, and maintenance program identified during a pre-
service inspection required by Sec.  238.903(c)(2) shall not be moved 
in revenue service and may only be moved in accordance with paragraph 
(e) of this section.
    (b) A Tier III trainset with one or more safety-critical items not 
in compliance with the railroad's approved inspection, testing, and 
maintenance program identified while en route to its destination after 
its pre-service inspection is performed and before its next pre-service 
inspection is performed, may be moved only after the railroad has 
complied with the following:
    (1) An individual qualified under the training and qualification 
program implemented pursuant to Sec.  238.903(e) determines that it is 
safe to move the trainset, consistent with the railroad's operating 
rules. If appropriate, this determination may be made based upon a 
description of the defective condition provided by a crewmember. If the 
determination required by this paragraph is made by an off-site, 
qualified individual based on a description of the defective condition 
by on-site personnel, then a qualified individual shall perform a 
physical inspection of the defective equipment at the first location 
possible to verify the description of the defect provided by the on-
site personnel.
    (2) The qualified individual who made the determination in 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section notifies the train crew, in accordance 
with the railroad's operating rules, of the maximum authorized speed, 
authorized destination, and any other operational restrictions that 
apply to the movement of the non-compliant trainset. This notification 
may be achieved through the tag required by paragraph (b)(3) of this 
section.
    (3) The qualified individual securely attaches to the control stand 
on each control cab of the trainset a tag bearing the words ``NON-
COMPLIANT TRAINSET'' and containing the following information:
    (i) The trainset, and unit or car number;
    (ii) The name, job title, location, and signature if possible, of 
the qualified individual making the determination that the non-
compliant trainset is otherwise safe to move;
    (iii) The location and date of the inspection that led to the 
discovery of the non-compliant item;
    (iv) A description of each non-compliant item;
    (v) Movement restrictions, if any; and
    (vi) The authorized destination of the trainset.
    (c) Automated tracking systems used to meet the tagging 
requirements contained in paragraph (b)(3) of this section must comply 
with Sec.  238.15(c)(3).
    (d) In the event of an in-service failure of the braking system--
    (1) The trainset may continue in service for no more than 5 
consecutive calendar days so long as the trainset meets or exceeds its 
required operational braking capability.
    (2) When below the required operational braking capability, the 
trainset may remain in service until the next pre-service inspection 
and proceed only in accordance with railroad operating rules relating 
to the percentage of operative brakes and at a speed no greater than 
the maximum authorized speed as determined by Sec.  238.731(e)(4), so 
long as the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section are otherwise 
fully met.
    (e) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, a 
trainset with one or more safety-critical items not in compliance with 
the railroad's approved inspection, testing, and maintenance program 
may be moved without passengers, within a yard, and at speeds not to 
exceed 10 mph, without meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) of 
this section where the movement is solely for the purpose of repair. A 
railroad shall ensure that the movement is made safely. If the railroad 
elects to repair the equipment in place, it shall, at a minimum, tag 
the equipment in accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of this section to 
make clear that the trainset is defective.
    (f) Nothing in this section authorizes the movement of Tier III 
equipment subject to a Special Notice for Repair under part 216 of this 
chapter unless the movement is made in accordance with the restrictions 
contained in the Special Notice.
0
43. Revise appendix C to part 238 to read as follows:

Appendix C to Part 238--Minimally Compliant Analytical Track (MCAT) 
Simulations Used for Qualifying Passenger Vehicles To Operate on Track 
Classes 2 Through 5 and up to 6 Inches of Cant Deficiency

    (a) This appendix contains requirements for using computer 
simulations to comply with the vehicle/track system qualification 
testing requirements specified in Sec.  238.139.

[[Page 19790]]

These simulations shall be performed using a track model containing 
defined geometry perturbations at the limits that are permitted for 
a specific class of track and level of cant deficiency. This track 
model is known as Minimally Compliant Analytical Track (MCAT). These 
simulations shall be used to identify vehicle dynamic performance 
issues prior to service or, as appropriate, a change in service, and 
demonstrate that a vehicle type is suitable for operation on the 
track over which it is intended to operate.
    (b) As specified in Sec.  238.139(c), MCAT shall be used for the 
qualification of new vehicle types intended to operate at track 
Classes 2 through 5 speeds, or at any curving speed producing no 
more than 6 inches of cant deficiency. In addition, as specified in 
Sec.  238.139(d)(2), MCAT shall be used to qualify on new routes 
vehicle types that have previously been qualified, by testing only, 
on other routes.
    (1) Validation. To validate the vehicle model used for 
simulations under this part, the track owner or railroad shall 
obtain vehicle simulation predictions using measured track geometry 
data, chosen from the same track section over which testing shall be 
performed as specified in Sec.  238.139(c)(2)(ii). These predictions 
shall be submitted to FRA in support of the request for approval of 
the qualification testing plan. Full validation of the vehicle model 
used for simulations under this part shall be determined when the 
results of the simulations demonstrate that they replicate all key 
responses observed during qualification testing.
    (2) MCAT layout. MCAT consists of nine segments, each designed 
to test a vehicle's performance in response to a specific type of 
track perturbation. The basic layout of MCAT is shown in figure 1 of 
this appendix, by type of track (curving or tangent), class of 
track, and cant deficiency (CD). The values for wavelength, 
[lambda], amplitude of perturbation, a, and segment length, d, are 
specified in this appendix. The bars at the top of figure 1 show 
which segments are required depending on the speed and degree of 
curvature.
    (i) MCAT segments. MCAT's nine segments contain different types 
of track deviations in which the shape of each deviation is a 
versine having wavelength and amplitude varied for each simulation 
speed as further specified. The nine MCAT segments are defined as 
follows:
    (A) Hunting perturbation (a1). This segment contains an 
alinement deviation having a wavelength, [lambda], of 10 feet and 
amplitude of 0.25 inch on both rails to test vehicle stability on 
tangent track.
    (B) Gage narrowing (a2). This segment contains an alinement 
deviation on one rail to reduce the gage from the nominal value to 
the minimum permissible gage or maximum alinement (whichever comes 
first).
    (C) Gage widening (a3). This segment contains an alinement 
deviation on one rail to increase the gage from the nominal value to 
the maximum permissible gage or maximum alinement (whichever comes 
first).
    (D) Repeated surface (a9). This segment contains three 
consecutive profile variations on each rail.
    (E) Repeated alinement (a4). This segment contains two 
consecutive alinement variations on each rail.
    (F) Single surface (a10, a11). This segment contains a maximum 
permissible profile variation on one rail. If the maximum 
permissible profile variation alone produces a condition which 
exceeds the maximum allowed warp condition, a second profile 
variation is also placed on the opposite rail to limit the warp to 
the maximum permissible value.
    (G) Single alinement (a5, a6). This segment contains a maximum 
permissible alinement variation on one rail. If the maximum 
permissible alinement variation alone produces a condition which 
exceeds the maximum allowed gage condition, a second alinement 
variation is also placed on the opposite rail to limit the gage to 
the maximum permissible value.
    (H) Short warp (a12). This segment contains a pair of profile 
deviations to produce a maximum permissible 10-foot warp 
perturbation. The first is on the inner rail, and the second follows 
10 feet farther on the outside rail. Each deviation has a 
wavelength, [lambda], of 20 feet and variable amplitude for each 
simulation speed as described below. This segment is to be used only 
on curved track simulations.
    (I) Combined perturbation (a7, a8, a13). This segment contains a 
down and out combined geometry condition on the outside rail in the 
body of the curve. If the variations produce a condition which 
exceeds the maximum allowed gage condition, a second variation is 
also placed on the opposite rail as for the MCAT segments described 
in paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(F) and (G) of this appendix. This segment is 
to be used for all curved track simulations at speeds producing no 
more than 6 inches of cant deficiency on track Classes 2 through 5.
    (ii) Segment lengths. Each MCAT segment shall be long enough to 
allow the vehicle's response to the track deviation(s) to damp out. 
Each segment shall also have a minimum length as specified in table 
1 of this appendix, which references the distances in figure 1 of 
this appendix. For curved track segments, the perturbations shall be 
placed far enough in the body of the curve to allow for any spiral 
effects to damp out.
    (iii) Degree of curvature. (A) For each simulation involving 
assessment of curving performance, the degree of curvature, D, which 
generates a particular level of cant deficiency, Eu, for 
a given speed, V, shall be calculated using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AP23.000

Where

D = Degree of curvature (degrees).
V = Simulation speed (mph).
Ea = 3 inches for Class 2 and 6 inches for Classes 3 
through 5.
Eu = Cant deficiency (inches).

    (B) Table 2 of this appendix depicts the degree of curvature for 
use in MCAT simulations of passenger equipment performance on Class 
2 through 5 track, based on the equation in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) 
of this appendix.
    (3) Required simulations--(i) General. To develop a 
comprehensive assessment of vehicle performance, simulations shall 
be performed for a variety of scenarios using MCAT. These 
simulations shall be performed on tangent or curved track, or both, 
depending on the level of cant deficiency and speed (track class) as 
summarized in table 3 of this appendix.
    (A) All simulations shall be performed using the design wheel 
profile and a nominal track gage of 56.5 inches, using tables 4, 5, 
or 6 of this appendix, as appropriate. In addition, all simulations 
involving the assessment of curving performance shall be repeated 
using a nominal track gage of 57.0 inches, using tables 5 or 6 of 
this appendix, as appropriate.
    (B) For tangent track segments, all simulations on the hunting 
perturbation shall be repeated using a high-conicity, wheel-rail 
profile combination approved by FRA that produces a minimum conicity 
of 0.4 for wheelset lateral shifts up to flange contact.
    (C) All simulations shall be performed using a wheel/rail 
coefficient of friction of 0.5.
    (ii) Vehicle performance on tangent track Classes 2 through 5. 
For maximum vehicle speeds corresponding to track Classes 2 through 
5, the MCAT segments described in paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(A) through 
(G) of this appendix shall be used to assess vehicle performance on 
tangent track. A parametric matrix of MCAT simulations shall be 
performed using the following range of conditions:
    (A) Vehicle speed. Simulations shall demonstrate that at up to 5 
mph above the proposed maximum operating speed, the vehicle type 
shall not exceed the wheel/rail force and acceleration criteria 
defined in the Vehicle/Track Interaction Safety Limits table in 
Sec.  213.333 of this chapter. Simulations shall also demonstrate 
acceptable vehicle dynamic response by incrementally increasing 
speed, as shown in table 2, up to 5 mph above the proposed maximum 
operating speed for each track class (in 5 mph increments).
    (B) Perturbation wavelength. For each speed, a set of two 
separate MCAT simulations shall be performed. In each MCAT 
simulation for the perturbation segments described in paragraphs 
(b)(2)(i)(B) through (G) of this appendix, every perturbation shall 
have the same wavelength. The following two wavelengths, [lambda], 
shall be used: 31, and 62 feet. The hunting perturbation segment 
described in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) of this appendix has a fixed 
wavelength, [lambda], of 10 feet.
    (C) Amplitude parameters. Table 4 of this appendix provides the 
amplitude values for the MCAT segments described in paragraphs 
(b)(2)(i)(A) through (G) of this appendix for each speed of the 
required parametric MCAT simulations. The last set of simulations 
shall

[[Page 19791]]

be performed at 5 mph above the proposed maximum operating speed, as 
shown in table 2, using the amplitude values in table 4 that 
correspond to the proposed maximum operating speed.

Figure 1 of Appendix C to Part 238 MCAT Simulations on Curved Track 
(Cant Deficiency <=6 Inches) Track Layout
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AP23.001

                                           Table 1 of Appendix C to Part 238--Minimum Lengths of MCAT Segments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Distances (ft)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       d1                d2               d3               d4               d5               d6               d7               d8               d9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       1,000                                1,500                                           1,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table 2 of Appendix C to Part 238--Degree of Curvature for Use in MCAT Simulations (Track Classes 2 Through 5)
                                           Cant Deficiency <=6 Inches
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cant deficiency
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                   Tangent     Class 2 Ea \1\ = 3'', Class 3 through 5 Ea = 6''
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                  3''          4''          5''          6''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 2:
    30 mph.....................................            0         9.52  ...........  ...........  ...........
    35 mph.....................................            0         9.52  ...........  ...........  ...........
Class 3:
    35 mph.....................................            0        10.50        11.66        12.83        13.99
    40 mph.....................................            0         8.04         8.93         9.82        10.71
    45 mph.....................................            0         6.35         7.05         7.76         8.47
    50 mph.....................................            0         5.14         5.71         6.29         6.86
    55 mph.....................................            0         4.25         4.72         5.19         5.67
    60 mph.....................................            0         3.57         3.97         4.37         4.76
    65 mph.....................................            0         3.57         3.97         4.37         4.76
Class 4:
    65 mph.....................................            0         3.04         3.38         3.72         4.06
    70 mph.....................................            0         2.62         2.92         3.21         3.50
    75 mph.....................................            0         2.29         2.54         2.79         3.05
    80 mph.....................................            0         2.01         2.23         2.46         2.68
    85 mph.....................................            0         2.01         2.23         2.46         2.68
Class 5:
    85 mph.....................................            0         1.78         1.98         2.17         2.37
    90 mph.....................................            0         1.59         1.76         1.94         2.12
    95 mph.....................................            0         1.59         1.76         1.94         2.12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Ea'' means actual elevation.

     Table 3 of Appendix C to Part 238--Summary of Required Vehicle
                Performance Assessment Using Simulations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                New vehicle types
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curved Track: cant deficiency <=6        Curving performance simulation:
 inches.                                  required for track classes 2
                                          through 5.
Tangent track..........................  Tangent performance simulation:
                                          required for track classes 2
                                          through 5.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 19792]]

Table 4 of Appendix C to Part 238--Track Class 2 Through 5 Amplitude 
Parameters (in Inches) for MCAT Simulations on Tangent Track

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AP23.002

[[Page 19793]]

Table 5 of Appendix C to Part 238 Track Class 2 Through 5 Amplitude 
Parameters (in Inches) for MCAT Simulations on Curved Track With Cant 
Deficiency >=3 and <=5 Inches
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AP23.003

[[Page 19794]]

Table 6 of Appendix C to Part 238 Track Class 2 Through 5 Amplitude 
Parameters (in Inches) for MCAT Simulations on Curved Track With Cant 
Deficiency >5 Inches and <=6 Inches)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AP23.004

BILLING CODE 4910-06-C
0
44. Add Appendix I to part 238 to read as follows:

Appendix I to Part 238--Tier III Trainset Cab Noise Test Protocol

    This appendix prescribes the procedures for the in-cab noise 
measurements for Tier III trainsets at speed. The purpose of the cab 
noise testing is to ensure that the noise levels within the cab of 
the trainset meet the minimum requirements defined within Sec.  
238.759(a)(1).

I. Measurement Instrumentation

    The instrumentation used shall conform to the measurement 
instrumentation requirements prescribed in paragraph I of appendix H 
to part 229 of this chapter.

II. Test Site Requirements

    The test site shall meet the following requirements:
    (1) The passenger trainset shall be tested over a representative 
segment of the railroad and shall not be tested in any site 
specifically designed to artificially lower in-cab noise levels.

[[Page 19795]]

    (2) All windows, doors, cabinets seals, etc., must be installed 
in the trainset cab and be closed.
    (3) The heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system 
or a dedicated heating or air conditioner system must be operating 
on high, and the vents must be open and unobstructed.

III. Procedures for Measurement

    (1) LAeq, T is defined as the A-weighted, equivalent 
sound level for a duration of T seconds, and the sound level meter 
shall be set for A-weighting with slow response.
    (2) The sound level meter shall be calibrated with the acoustic 
calibrator immediately before and after the in-cab tests. The 
calibration levels shall be recorded.
    (3) Any change in the before and after calibration level(s) 
shall be less than 0.5 dB.
    (4) The sound level meter shall be located:
    (i) Laterally as close as practicable to the longitudinal 
centerline of the cab, adjacent to the engineer's seat;
    (ii) Longitudinally at the center of the engineer's nominal 
seating position; and
    (iii) At a height 1,219 mm (48 inches) above the floor.
    (5) The sound measurements shall be taken autonomously within 
the cab.
    (6) The sound level shall be recorded at the maximum approved 
train speed  3km/h (1.86 mph).
    (7) After the trainset speed has become constant at the maximum 
test speed and the in-cab noise is continuous, LAeq, T 
shall be measured, either directly or using a 1-second sampling 
interval, for a minimum duration of 30 seconds at the measurement 
position (LAeq, 30s).

IV. Recordkeeping

    To demonstrate compliance, the entity conducting the test shall 
maintain records of the following data. The records created under 
this procedure shall be retained and made readily accessible for 
review for a minimum of three years. All records may be maintained 
in either written or electronic form.
    (1) Name(s) of persons conducting the test, and the date of the 
test.
    (2) Description of the passenger trainset cab being tested, 
including: model number, serial number, and date of manufacture.
    (3) Description of sound level meter and calibrator, including: 
make, model, type, serial number, and manufacturer's calibration 
date.
    (4) The recorded measurement during calibration and for the 
microphone location during operating conditions.
    (5) The recorded measurements taken during the test.
    (6) Other information as appropriate to describe the testing 
conditions and procedure.
    (7) Where a trainset fails a test and is re-tested under the 
provisions of section III(7) of this appendix, the suspected 
reason(s) for the failure.
0
45. Add Appendix J to part 238 to read as follows:

Appendix J to Part 238--Alternative Requirements for Evaluating the 
Crashworthiness and Occupant Protection Performance of a Tier I 
Passenger Trainset Equipped With Crash Energy Management Features

General

    As required by Sec.  238.110(e)(1), this appendix applies to 
single pieces of passenger equipment that are fully compliant with 
existing Tier I structural requirements, provide additional CEM 
features, and are intended for interoperable use within 
conventional, Tier I-compliant trains. The requirements of this 
appendix do not apply to Tier I alternatively designed trainsets, or 
single pieces of equipment fully compliant with existing Tier I 
structural requirements outfitted with pushback couplers as the only 
CEM feature. Each new, fully Tier I-compliant single vehicle design 
equipped with additional CEM features shall be subject to the 
following collision scenarios to ensure appropriate performance of 
the crush zone and stable load transmission.

In-Line Collision Scenario Between Identical Trains

    The new single car or locomotive design shall be placed into a 
reference train composed of vehicles of similar design, the details 
of which depend upon whether the single car is a locomotive, cab 
car, or an intermediate car. The vehicles shall be in-line without 
offset between adjacent cars. The reference train shall be subjected 
to a collision with an identical train on level, tangent track as 
described below. This symmetric scenario may be simulated by a 
collision of the reference train moving at one-half the collision 
speed into a rigid, stationary plane whose normal direction is 
parallel to the direction of travel (representing the plane of 
symmetry). Each car in both trains shall have a weight corresponding 
to AW0 and shall not have the brakes applied.

Non-Passenger Carrying Locomotives

    For non-passenger carrying locomotives with CEM features, the 
reference train shall consist of five of the non-passenger carrying 
CEM locomotives. The closing speed for this collision scenario is 
that which is sufficient to exhaust the design energy-absorption 
capacity of the leading locomotive crush zone.

CEM-Equipped Cab Cars

    For evaluation of the performance of a CEM-equipped cab car, the 
reference train shall consist of five such CEM-equipped cab cars. If 
the CEM-equipped cab cars are not all of symmetric design, each end 
of the trailing four cars shall have the same crush zone as that of 
the non-cab end of the non-symmetric cab car under evaluation. The 
closing speed for this collision scenario is that which results in 
dissipation of no less than 75 percent of the design energy-
absorption capacity of at least one crush zone at the colliding 
interface.

CEM-Equipped Intermediate Cars

    Evaluation of the performance of CEM-equipped intermediate cars 
shall be performed using a reference train consisting of four 
identical intermediate cars behind a leading vehicle with the 
following characteristics:
    (a)(1) The leading vehicle shall be decelerated to zero by:
    (i) A prescribed motion equivalent to a constant, longitudinal 
deceleration of 8g; or
    (ii) An application of forces resulting in a deceleration of at 
least 8g.
    (2) The point of application of the motion constraint or the 
measurement of the resulting speed shall be located in the rear half 
of the leading vehicle.
    (b) The trailing end of the leading vehicle shall have the same 
crash characteristic as the adjacent end of the coach to be assessed 
(if the evaluation vehicle is of a symmetric design), or the same 
crash characteristic as the trailing end of the coach to be assessed 
(if the evaluation vehicle is of a non-symmetric design), where:
    (1) The crush zone shall be represented with the same degree of 
detail as the coach to be assessed; and
    (2) Any additional potential contact surfaces shall be 
represented, at a minimum, as rigid geometry.
    (c) The forward structure of the leading vehicle may be 
modelled:
    (1) Identically to the coach to be assessed;
    (2) As a lumped mass model with a stiffness not less than the 
coach to be assessed; or
    (3) As rigid.
    (d) The criteria for preservation of survival space in Sec.  
238.705(b)(1)(i) and (ii) shall apply to the deformable portion of 
the lead vehicle, excluding its crush zone.
    (e) The four remaining identical intermediate cars (including 
the intermediate car being assessed) shall follow the leading 
vehicle described, because CEM-equipped intermediate cars cannot be 
placed in the lead position in a train. The intermediate car to be 
assessed shall be placed immediately behind the leading vehicle; all 
other vehicles are not part of the assessment and may be simplified.
    (f) The closing speed for this collision scenario is that which 
results in dissipation of no less than 75 percent of the design 
energy-absorption capacity of at least one crush zone at the 
colliding interface.

Offset Collision Scenario Between Identical Trains

    An offset simulated collision between identical trains shall be 
run under the conditions defined in Sec.  238.707(a) for locomotive- 
or cab car-led trains.
    The performance of the evaluated single vehicle in the in-line 
and offset collision scenarios shall meet the deformation 
requirements in Sec.  238.705(b)(1)(i) and (ii), and, if the single 
vehicle being evaluated is a cab car or locomotive, the requirements 
in Sec.  238.705(b)(3)(i) through (iv).
0
46. Add appendix K to part 238 to read as follows:

Appendix K to Part 238--Minimum Information for Test Procedures

    The following is the minimum information necessary to be 
provided to FRA as part of pre-revenue service acceptance testing 
plan procedures under Sec.  238.111(a)(3):

[[Page 19796]]

    (a) A clear statement of the test objectives. One of the 
principal test objectives shall be to demonstrate that the equipment 
meets the safety requirements specified in this part when operated 
in the environment in which it is to be used.
    (b) Dates, times, and locations of the pre-revenue service tests 
to permit FRA observation of such tests.
    (c) Any special safety precautions to be observed during 
testing.
    (d) A description of the railroad property or test facilities to 
be used to conduct the testing.
    (e) Prerequisites for conducting each test.
    (f) A detailed description of how the testing is to be 
conducted. This description shall include all the following:
    (1) Identification of the equipment and on-board sub-systems to 
be tested.
    (2) The method for testing.
    (3) The instrumentation to be used.
    (4) The means by which the test results will be recorded and 
reported.
    (5) A description of the information or data to be obtained.
    (6) A description of any criteria to be used as safety limits 
during the testing.
    (7) The acceptance criteria to be used to evaluate the equipment 
and on-board sub-systems performance. If acceptance is to be based 
on extrapolation of less than full-level testing results, the 
analysis to be done to justify the validity of the extrapolation 
shall be described.
    (g) Inspection, testing, and maintenance procedures to be 
followed to ensure testing is conducted safely.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Amitabha Bose,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-05576 Filed 3-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P