Passenger Equipment Safety Standards; Standards for High-Speed Trainsets

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:

michael.hunter@dot.gov;

or James Mecone, Attorney Adviser, Office of the Chief Counsel, telephone: (202) 380-5324 or email:

james.mecone@dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary

II. Statutory Authority and Regulatory Development

III. Technical Background and Overview

A. Passenger Electronic Hardware and Software Safety

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

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

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

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

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

G. General Tier III Safety Requirements

H. Congressional Mandates Under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis

V. Regulatory Impact and Notices

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Federalism Implications

E. International Trade Impact Assessment

F. Environmental Impact

G. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

H. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

J. Energy Impact

K. Privacy Act

L. Analysis Under 1 CFR Part 51

Table of Abbreviations

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

ATC automatic train control

CE categorical exclusion

CEM crash energy management

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

EA environmental assessment

EIS environmental impact statement

ETF Engineering Task Force

FMECA Failure Modes, Effects, Criticality Analysis

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

HEP head-end power

ICC Interstate Commerce Commission

IIJA Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

ITM inspection, testing, and maintenance

LED light-emitting diode

LIA Locomotive Inspection Act

MCAT minimally compliant analytical track

MODE movement of defective equipment

mph miles per hour

MCAT minimally compliant analytical track

MU multiple-unit

NPRM notice of proposed rulemaking

OEM original equipment manufacturer

PA public address

PSWG Passenger Safety Working Group

PTC positive train control

RMS root mean squared

RSAC Railroad Safety Advisory Committee

U.S. United States

I. Executive Summary

This NPRM is based on recommendations from the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC)

1

and will complete the Tier III passenger equipment safety standards.

2

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

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

Impact

Present value 7%

Present value 3%

Costs

$21.67

$35.49

Benefits

0.22

0.26

Net Costs

21.45

35.23

Annualized Net Costs

1.73

1.80

II. Statutory Authority and Regulatory Development

In September 1994, the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) convened a meeting of representatives from all sectors of the rail industry with the goal of enhancing rail safety. As one initiative of this Rail Safety Summit, the Secretary announced that DOT would begin developing safety standards for rail passenger equipment over a 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 § 238.105, Train electronic hardware and software safety, to address “the growing role of automated systems to control or monitor passenger train safety functions.” These requirements were revised in 2002

6

to provide more clarity in the applicability of the requirements to subsystems traditionally considered to perform safety-critical functions and therefore expected to be implemented based on a failsafe philosophy. In 2012,

7

the section was further revised to codify the terms of waivers from the requirements then in § 238.105(d) to provide flexibility for systems to provide either a service or emergency brake application in the event of a hardware/software failure, in lieu of a full-service brake application alone, as originally written.

5

64 FR 25591 (May 12, 1999).

6

67 FR 19970 (Apr. 23, 2002).

7

77 FR 21356 (Apr. 9, 2012).

Also, in 2012, the Locomotive Safety Standards final rule

8

established subpart E of part 229, providing comprehensive requirements for locomotive electronics, and appendix F to part 229, providing recommended practices for design and safety analysis for locomotive electronics. With the publication of the first set of standards for microprocessor-based train control systems in 2005,

9

and requirements for statutorily mandated PTC systems in 2010, the 2012 locomotive electronics requirements and accompanying appendix F to part 229 correspondingly reflected many of the concepts and industry practices that had evolved since § 238.105 was first established in 1999. In doing so, this created slightly overlapping requirements because § 238.105 was not revised with similar language and passenger locomotives, especially cab cars and multiple-unit locomotives common to passenger operations, also qualify as locomotives under part 229 of this chapter and are therefore subject to part 229's requirements. For this reason, the PSWG decided to address the issue by recommending updates to § 238.105 to reconcile the requirements with subpart E of part 229 to help clarify the applicability of the requirements and remove or modify any that may potentially overlap.

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 § 238.111 since 1999 has provided FRA the perspective that the industry as a whole would benefit from a more detailed regulation governing the design validation and dynamic acceptance process for passenger rolling stock. This concept was acknowledged by the PSWG, and with considerable help and input from participants, a new approach was developed by creating proposed § 238.110. That section would address design criteria, testing, documentation, and approval, and would separate early-stage, design-related compliance validations (

e.g.,

carbody structure and safety appliances) from the later-stage, over-the-route running tests required under § 238.111, prior to putting the equipment into revenue service.

By separating design criteria from dynamic testing requirements, more clarity can be provided as to the expectations for passenger equipment compliance demonstration throughout the life cycle of a procurement. Proposed § 238.110 would also provide a means for railroads to document critical vehicle platform design criteria and operational performance requirements, systems integration requirements, and assumptions that are used to validate certain safety parameters (

e.g.,

friction coefficient used to determine the minimum required braking distance). The identification of these governing parameters would provide a means for FRA and the railroad to effectively validate safety requirements tied to what would otherwise be configurable criteria,

i.e.,

trainset elements that may differ between trainset manufacturers or trainset types, based on the operating environment, intended service, or even customer preference. It would also ensure that the limit of safe performance of the vehicles is clearly established and would require that new testing or validation be performed if the railroad intended to operate the passenger equipment outside of this established operating paradigm. For example, under this proposal, if a railroad has previously demonstrated a vehicle's safe operation at speeds up to only 100 mph, then additional testing and validation would be required to operate the same rolling stock at speeds above 100 mph. Similarly, if a railroad were to acquire passenger equipment from another railroad where it is operated with a longer minimum safe braking distance than it would be on the acquiring railroad, then the acquiring railroad would need to perform additional 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 § 238.110 formalizes and memorializes what is industry best practice. However, this proposal contains a significant addition above what is currently industry practice in the requirement for railroads to develop a “vehicle qualification plan.” This proposed plan would require the railroad to take into consideration the entire compliance demonstration process, from the early stages of a project through the creation of tools such as a compliance matrix. This would help ensure the railroad, rolling stock supplier, and FRA effectively work from the same “sheet of music,” by determining what regulatory metrics must be met to achieve compliance, and then what constitutes an effective method to demonstrate that compliance, either by validation testing, physical inspection, design review, analysis, calculation, computer modeling, or some combination thereof.

By proposing to separate the requirements that were intrinsically considered part of the current language in § 238.111 into two sections (§§ 238.110 and 238.111), FRA would be able to provide more clarity as to the procedural and documentation requirements for the entire compliance validation process, particularly for Tier III where the documentation of configurable elements may be essential to establishing the expected safety performance which is to be demonstrated. In this spirit, the proposal would refine and expand upon much of the current § 238.111 language to reinforce expectations and process considerations for key documentation, including test plans, procedures, and results. Further, more explicit expectations and examples have been provided for the types of validations required to occur during the final commissioning stages before equipment may enter into revenue service, in addition to how re-built or relocated equipment must be treated.

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

As with other components of passenger rail equipment, innovations in the design and construction of door safety systems have generated new issues for potential regulation. The proposed language in this rule for exterior side door safety systems incorporated in new passenger cars and locomotives, developed from recommendations by RSAC, would revise § 238.131 to address newer door designs, with a specific focus on plug doors (

i.e.,

doors composed of a sliding panel that opens and slides along the side of the car, rather than retract into a pocket; when closed, the door conforms to the side of the car to seal out environmental noise and minimize aerodynamic resistance). This proposed language would address the additional function of a plug door in regard to a high-speed trainset and the system design pursuant to American Public Transportation Association (APTA) standard PR-M-S-18-10, “Standard for Powered Exterior Side Door System Design for New Passenger Cars.” As revised, § 238.131 would establish provisions for passenger equipment equipped with plug-style side doors that do not provide a minimum 1.5-inch gap at the leading edge of the door when the emergency release mechanism is activated and permit a speed interlock to prevent operation of the emergency release mechanism when the vehicle is moving.

Although the proposed revisions to § 238.131 could require stakeholders to apply or construct additional signage or handles, the expected efficiency enhancement in the equipment procurement and development process resulting from acceptance of the existing functionality of the plug door design could justify any such burden.

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

The final rule published on November 21, 2018, included crashworthiness requirements for certain Tier I trainsets, but not for individual passenger rail vehicles or locomotives. And although there is no requirement for the development of CEM components at the individual Tier I passenger rail vehicle or locomotive level, some railroads and other stakeholders have nonetheless demonstrated an increased interest in the construction and installation of CEM components at the individual passenger rail vehicle or locomotive level. To augment existing regulations on CEM and provide guidance for the development and use of CEM at the individual vehicle level, FRA proposes adding new requirements providing alternatives for evaluating crashworthiness and occupant protection of individual vehicles equipped with CEM based on the RSAC recommendations.

The proposed alternative requirements would provide guidance and a means for evaluating individual locomotives or passenger rail vehicles that are fully compliant with existing Tier I structural requirements and have additional CEM features incorporated into their structure to operate within conventional, Tier I-compliant trains. These evaluation requirements would not apply to Tier I trainsets designed to alternative crashworthiness requirements under § 238.201 and appendix G to part 238 or single pieces of equipment with traditionally compliant structures outfitted with pushback couplers as the only CEM feature.

By establishing alternative requirements for evaluating crashworthiness and occupant protection of Tier I equipment utilizing CEM on individual vehicles, FRA would create clarity and reduce uncertainty for stakeholders who pursue the development of CEM at the individual vehicle level. Such clarification could also reduce the burden and time required for FRA to evaluate compliance issues related to passenger equipment utilizing CEM on an individual vehicle.

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

Coinciding with the development of safety appliance requirements for Tier III equipment, the PSWG also looked at updating the safety appliance requirements for modern Tier I passenger equipment. While safety appliance regulations have long existed for passenger cars under 49 CFR part 231, these standards are derived, in most cases verbatim, from the requirements set forth by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) in 1910 and guidance of the Master Car Builders Association around the turn of the twentieth century.

10

While these requirements have proven to be sufficient for the types of passenger cars they were explicitly developed to address (passenger train cars with wide vestibules, passenger train cars with open end platforms, and passenger train cars without end platforms), they generally have not been updated to reflect modern advancements in passenger train equipment or human ergonomics in over 100 years since they were adopted by the ICC. Likewise, they are based on individual cars that were common on railroads at the turn of the twentieth century, and do not reflect vehicle designs that utilize some form of semi-permanent coupling, such as fixed trainset configurations, or even 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

to passenger locomotives and various other car types that have historically been used to define the requirements for monocoque, semi-monocoque, and cowl unit

11

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

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,

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 § 238.108.

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis

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

Section 216.14 Special Notice for Repairs—Passenger Equipment

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

Part 231—Railroad Safety Appliance Standards

Section 231.0 Applicability and Penalties

FRA is proposing to add paragraph (b)(6) to this section to harmonize part 231 with the changes proposed to part

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

Part 238—Passenger Equipment Safety Standards

Subpart A—General

Section 238.5 Definitions

FRA is proposing to revise existing definitions and add new definitions to this part to clarify the meaning of important terms and minimize potential for misinterpretation of the rule. FRA requests public comment regarding the proposed terms to be defined in this section and whether definition of other terms is necessary.

FRA proposes to revise paragraph (2)(i), the definition of “in service,” to include a reference to the movement of defective equipment provisions of § 238.1003 for Tier III equipment.

FRA proposes to add a definition of “clear length,” as applied to handholds and handrails, to mean the distance about which a minimum 2-inch hand clearance exists in all directions around the handhold or handrail, with intermediate supports on handrails considered part of the clear length. FRA proposes to add this definition to clarify the appropriate measurement for determining compliance with part 238's requirements.

FRA proposes to add a definition of “crew access side steps” to mean a step or stirrup, or a series of steps or stirrups, located on the carbody side to assist an employee boarding the equipment or exiting from the equipment to ground level through an exterior side door dedicated for train crew use. FRA proposes to add this definition to clarify the safety measures necessary for crewmembers operating passenger equipment with no provisions for platform-level boarding.

FRA proposes to add a definition of “representative segment of the route” to mean either a continuous track section or a compilation of track no less than fifty miles in length that consists of a curvature distribution that is within two percent of the curvature distribution of the complete line segment (as evaluated using the root mean squared (RMS) of the differences between the two distributions), a segment or segments of tangent track over which the intended maximum operating speed can be sustained, and any bridges and special trackwork that are within the track section(s). Depending on the size of the railroad, a “representative segment of the route” could include the entire system in order for the “representative segment of the route” to consist of a segment of tangent track over which the intended maximum operating speed can be sustained, any bridges and special trackwork, and have a curvature distribution that is within two percent of the curvature distribution of the complete line segment (as evaluated using the RMS of the differences between the two distributions). FRA proposes to add this definition to clarify the appropriate methods of qualification testing for passenger equipment to determine compliance with requirements addressing vehicle/track interaction.

FRA proposes to define “Tier IV system” to mean any railroad that provides or is available to provide passenger service using 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 § 238.903. The recommended approach was based on the existing requirements codified under this section (§ 238.19). Yet, after further consideration, FRA is proposing to simply amend this section rather than add these requirements to subpart I, for clarity.

Specifically, FRA is proposing to amend paragraphs (a), (b), and (d). In proposed paragraphs (a)(4) and (5), FRA would add the term qualified individual to account for the nomenclature's use under subpart H and proposed subpart I for Tier III equipment.

In the proposed revision to paragraph (b), FRA would redesignate paragraph (b) as paragraph (b)(1) and add new paragraph (b)(2). In proposed paragraph (b)(2), FRA would add record retention requirements for reporting and tracking system records for Tier III equipment regarding the information in paragraph (a). FRA is also proposing that for Tier III equipment, the records be retained for at least one year.

In FRA's proposed revision to paragraph (d), FRA would revise the paragraph heading, redesignate paragraph (d) as paragraph (d)(1), and add new paragraph (d)(2). Under proposed paragraph (d)(2), FRA would add the requirement that operators of Tier III equipment designate locations where repairs to safety-critical systems on Tier III equipment can be made, including repairs to Tier III brake systems. This requirement would follow the requirements in existing paragraph (d)(4) that such designations be made in writing, that the written designations be provided to FRA and made available for inspection and copying, and that the list of repair points could not be changed without at least 30 days' advance notice provided to FRA.

13

Further, FRA would require that Tier III trainsets not leave designated brake repair points with anything less than the required operational braking capability. This means that a trainset could leave the designated brake repair point with less than its maximum designed braking capability, still retaining its required operational braking capability, but could not do so for a period exceeding 5 consecutive calendar days under proposed § 238.1003(d)(1). This proposal is based on international, service-proven practice and FRA's approach to inspection, testing, and maintenance.

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 §§ 238.903(a)(8) and 238.1003(d), the required operational braking capability with respect to Tier III equipment would be 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. This would also be consistent with § 238.731(b). Maximum designed braking capability would be the maximum braking capability of the Tier III trainset as designed—a performance element of a Tier III trainset that must be specified by the railroad under proposed § 238.110(d)(2)(ii).

Subpart B—Safety Planning and General Requirements

Section 238.105 Passenger Electronic Hardware and Software Safety

FRA is proposing to revise this section to clarify the requirements of this section and to reconcile overlapping requirements with subpart E of part 229 of this chapter. It has been FRA's experience over the last decade that much ambiguity exists with the correct application of part 238 requirements and similar requirements under part 229. In FRA's view, the requirements that are being proposed have been applicable to the passenger industry, consistent with the applicability dates listed in the introductory text of this section. FRA is also making clear that it is not expanding the applicability dates.

Under paragraph (a), FRA is proposing to make editorial changes and is also proposing to permit railroads to maintain the hardware and software safety program in either a written or an electronic format.

Additionally, FRA is proposing to swap current paragraphs (b) and (c) with each other, redesignating current paragraph (b) as paragraph (c) and current paragraph (c) as paragraph (b) for clarity and organizational purposes. Further, FRA is proposing to add a new requirement under proposed paragraph (b)(8). Proposed paragraph (b)(8) would make explicit that the safety analysis outlined in proposed paragraph (c) is a required part of the hardware and software safety program required under paragraph (a) of this section.

Under proposed paragraph (c), FRA is providing additional detail on how to perform the safety analysis that is being proposed under paragraph (b)(8). FRA is proposing to use the term “safety analysis” rather than the legacy term “safety program,” to make clear that this is an analysis to be conducted as part of the broader safety program rather than a standalone program. Additionally, FRA is proposing that the safety analysis establish and document the minimum requirements governing the development and implementation of all products subject to this section. Further, the safety analysis, as proposed, would be based on good engineering practice and should be consistent with the guidance contained in appendix F to part 229 of this chapter in order to establish that a product's safety-critical functions operate with a high degree of confidence in a fail-safe manner. As proposed, the safety analysis would be based on a formal safety methodology, to include a Failure Modes, Effects, Criticality Analysis (FMECA), verification and validation testing for all hardware and software components and their interfaces, and comprehensive hardware and software integration testing to ensure that the hardware and software system functions as intended.

FRA is proposing to revise paragraphs (d) and (e) simply by adding paragraph headings.

FRA is also proposing to add paragraph (f) to this section to make explicit which specific requirements from subpart E of part 229 are being made applicable to passenger equipment. Consistent with the discussion above regarding the applicability of this section, FRA is proposing to reference the applicability dates set forth in § 229.303(a)(1) and (2), to make clear that FRA is not intending to expand the applicability of these requirements. In proposed paragraphs (f)(1) through (6), FRA has listed each provision of subpart E of part 229 being made applicable to passenger equipment. Accordingly, if a provision in subpart E of part 229 is not listed in this paragraph (f), then that requirement would not be applicable to passenger equipment under this part.

Additionally, FRA is proposing to add paragraph (g) to this section. Proposed paragraph (g) would add a requirement that railroads prepare a Vehicle Communication and Control System Vulnerability Assessment identifying potential system vulnerabilities, associated risk (including exploit likelihood and consequences), countermeasures applied, and resulting risk mitigation.

Further, FRA is proposing to add paragraph (h) to this section, which would add a requirement that suppliers of safety-critical railroad products notify FRA of any safety-critical product failures. By requiring this notice to FRA, FRA may in turn help ensure that notice of the faulty product is provided to other possible users of the equipment.

Section 238.108 New Passenger Service Pre-Revenue Safety Performance Demonstration

Pursuant to Section 22416 of the IIJA, FRA is proposing to add requirements for new passenger service pre-revenue safety performance demonstration. This proposal incorporates the requirements of the IIJA and provides additional direction for railroads to assist them with the development and execution of pre-revenue safety and operational readiness demonstration. These proposed requirements would apply to any new passenger rail service subject to FRA safety jurisdiction, including line extensions and the resumption of service if passenger rail service has not been present on a line for more than 180 days. This proposed section would not apply to the temporary re-routing of existing passenger service due to weather events, emergency scenarios, or planned PTC maintenance under § 236.1005(g).

Through this proposed section, FRA would require railroads and project stakeholders to use safety and operational readiness as the deciding factors as to when revenue passenger service should begin over a line, rather than an earlier date influenced by other factors. As an example, FRA is aware of an instance where the use of emergency phones located in a railroad's stations knocked out the signal system of the railroad as the two systems were using the same support infrastructure (a router). However, this problem was only discovered through happenstance, and not part of an overall system safety and operational readiness evaluation before the rail service began. This example is provided to illustrate the scope of the intended safety performance demonstration and the critical evaluation necessary to accomplish the goals of this proposed section.

Proposed paragraph (a)(1) establishes who must submit a pre-revenue safety validation plan. The requirements would apply to any railroad subject to the requirements of part 238 regardless of tier of service, or any other responsible entity providing new, regularly scheduled, intercity or commuter passenger service, an extension of existing service, or the 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

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

summary of the activities and results from the safety performance demonstration period, including discussion on any delays, system failures, unexpected events, close calls, or other safety concerns uncovered during simulated service.

Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would require the railroad to correct any safety deficiencies identified during the safety performance demonstration period prior to commencing revenue service. Additionally, this proposed paragraph would require that, if a safety deficiency cannot be corrected, then it must be addressed through mitigations or operational restrictions that would ensure the safety of the operation. Finally, this proposed paragraph would require a final report to be submitted to FRA addressing the complete safety performance demonstration period, specifically detailing the deficiencies uncovered and the associated corrections, mitigations, or operational restrictions imposed. FRA notes that it would reserve the right to require additional corrections, mitigations, or operational restrictions should it determine that those imposed by the railroad would not be sufficient to ensure the safety of the operation.

Proposed paragraph (c) would require a railroad to comply with its plan before revenue service may begin. It would also prohibit a railroad from amending its plan without first notifying FRA, to prevent a railroad from effectively “moving the goal posts” to commence revenue service by a pre-determined date if the requirements of the plan have not otherwise been met. In addition, this proposed paragraph would impose a general prohibition against commencing revenue service until the plan has been successfully completed by the railroad, to include the imposition of corrections, mitigation, or operational limitations as required by proposed paragraph (b)(3).

Section 238.110 Design Criteria, Testing, Documentation, and Approvals

To help clarify the compliance demonstration and approval process for passenger equipment, FRA is proposing new § 238.110. This proposed section is intended to complement § 238.111, as proposed to be revised in this NPRM. This section would require the railroad to establish the design criteria and provide the system description for the intended service against which the railroad is demonstrating safety compliance. This proposed section would also provide the ability for the railroad to define certain elements required for Tier III operations, as well as require the railroad to develop a vehicle qualification plan to establish how compliance would be demonstrated. Further, this proposal includes specific language for the demonstration of early-stage, vehicle design matters, such as carbody construction with respect to crashworthiness and safety appliances. In developing this language, FRA worked closely with industry subject matter experts through the RSAC to provide more detail about passenger vehicle compliance demonstration to help clarify the process. FRA welcomes any comments or considerations that might further improve the clarity of this section.

Proposed paragraph (a) outlines the scope of this section and its relationship with § 238.111. Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would make the requirements of this section applicable to new passenger equipment designs (

i.e.,

an equipment design that has not been previously used in revenue service in the U.S.), and rebuilt or modified equipment where the carbody structure or any 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 § 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

occur prior to the use of the equipment in revenue service. But as these two tests can occur years apart, it is not unusual for some to focus on the requirements of current § 238.111 as relating to only those activities that occur when full-scale dynamic testing has begun. By proposing to move this planning requirement into § 238.110 and expand language to require the development of a comprehensive test matrix at the early stages of a project, FRA would ensure the railroad and rolling stock supplier clearly articulate the intended means by which all critical compliance elements of FRA's regulations would be demonstrated. In doing so, the parties would also gain FRA's perspective and feedback on whether the means identified are adequate.

In practice, as proposed under paragraph (c)(1)(ii), FRA is envisioning the compliance matrix as being a table to help identify the requirements for which compliance must be demonstrated (keeping in mind that certain projects, such as equipment modifications, may only require a limited number of items to be assessed), and the means by which compliance would be demonstrated (

e.g.,

testing, analysis, calculations, computer modeling, etc.). This matrix would also allow all stakeholders to identify critical milestones in which an FRA observation, inspection, or approval may be necessary, particularly when testing is required. By doing this early in the process, FRA can work with the parties to set expectations and can coordinate participation or reviews where appropriate, to avoid delays due to inadequate documentation or failure to notify the agency of critical compliance-related activities. Moreover, FRA is contemplating including guidance in an appendix to this part to help guide railroads in properly developing compliance matrices and plans. FRA seeks comment as to whether such an appendix should be included or whether such guidance should be provided in a standalone document.

Proposed paragraph (c)(2) further outlines the process and timing by which a railroad's vehicle qualification plan would be approved. FRA is seeking comment on whether there is utility in explicit FRA approval of this item, the process described, and the timeframe proposed. Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iii) would simply enforce the execution of the plan by the railroad.

In paragraph (d), FRA proposes that a railroad provide a description of the environment and service in which the passenger equipment is intended to operate (system description), key design criteria and physical characteristics of the equipment, and any assumptions used for key calculations or analysis. This information would help provide a baseline for the configuration and intended operating environment of the equipment against which the safety of the vehicle is being assessed. Such information would be useful when changes or modifications to a vehicle or its operating environment occur, or if the same equipment type is acquired by the railroad, or leased to another railroad, as it would provide a means for the railroad and FRA to determine if any new or different conditions, configurations, or operating parameters might require additional compliance testing or analysis.

For example, proposed § 238.791(j) would require an efficient handbrake or parking brake that is capable of holding a locomotive on the maximum grade condition identified by the operating railroad, or a minimum 3% grade, whichever is greater. If a railroad initially were to procure a passenger locomotive that operates over a network with a maximum grade of 1.3%, that railroad would be required to validate the sufficiency of the design and performance of the handbrake or parking brake when subjected to the minimum forces resulting from a 3% grade. If the same locomotive is leased to another railroad that operates over territory where the maximum grade is 3.5%, the original documentation must indicate to the acquiring railroad that additional validation may be necessary to ensure that the parking brake design is adequate for the characteristics of its new operating environment.

As another example, if a railroad is electing to follow the interior fixture attachment strength requirements under § 238.733(a)(2), which permit an attachment strength sufficient to resist applied loads of 5g longitudinal, 3g lateral, and 3g vertical when applied to the mass of the fixture, then appropriate discussion and documentation must be provided demonstrating the trainset does not experience a crash pulse in excess of 5g.

Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would require the railroad to provide a description of the operational environment to which the railroad's passenger equipment is subject. This would include the defining physical characteristics of the environment that all passenger equipment would operate within, regardless of whether the equipment is intended for conventional or high-speed operations. Paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iii), as proposed, would help the railroad categorize and describe the operating environment and conditions, and provides examples for each.

Of these, physical infrastructure as proposed under paragraph (d)(1)(i), would require the most extensive description, encapsulating a number of physical characteristics of the environment that may directly affect the safe operation of the equipment. In this portion of the system description, the railroad should be able to articulate the limiting track geometry (including turnout geometry), maximum grade, the minimum required stopping distance, and any other safety-critical limits or thresholds within which the equipment would be expected to operate safely. It is critical to note that the characteristics or limits listed are intended to help establish the operating limits of the equipment itself and are not intended simply to catalog the characteristics of the railroad.

For example, when identifying limiting track geometry conditions, if the equipment is not designed to navigate anything less than a turnout having a certain curvature, then that is a limiting track geometry condition for the equipment that must be identified. The railroad may own or have access to track with even more limiting geometry conditions, such as turnouts having even tighter curvatures within a yard. Yet, by identifying the known limitations of the equipment to navigate such trackwork, and making known the safe operating limits of the equipment, the railroad can craft operating rules or instructions to ensure that the equipment is either not operated on portions of the railroad where such geometry exists, or operated under appropriate limitations so that the equipment can safely navigate such geometry.

Similarly, proposed paragraph (d)(1)(ii) would require the railroad to identify the universe of systems that the equipment is expected to operate over or interface with. This would primarily include track circuits, control systems, electric traction systems, and wayside detectors and devices. Of particular importance would be those elements essential to signaling, train control, and active grade crossing warning systems. Here, the railroad must also be able to identify the core technologies (

e.g.,

DC, AC, audio frequency overlay) and systems utilized by any host railroads on the routes it is expected to operate over, and whether or not those systems themselves are operating and maintained within their original equipment manufacturer (OEM) specifications. This information can then be used to help the railroad

determine what systems integration and validation testing would be necessary as part of its pre-revenue service acceptance test plan, developed pursuant to § 238.111.

Systems integration has become a critical element in the safe introduction of new passenger equipment in recent years, particularly as it relates to effective track circuit shunting to ensure the safe operation of signal and grade crossing systems. Taking the time to identify and validate performance characteristics of the equipment over these systems within the context of §§ 238.110 and 238.111 would help the railroad ensure that both the passenger vehicle and wayside technologies are operating as designed, and assist in establishing special operating rules, maintenance procedures, or design changes, as necessary, to ensure safe interactions between the two.

Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(iii) would require the railroad to identify any special operating parameters or rules that might apply to the design and operation of the passenger equipment. At a minimum, this must include information on the design time and setup of the alerter, as this design time may need to account for other operating parameters, such as the required minimum stopping distance identified in proposed paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section.

Proposed paragraph (d)(2) is intended to catalog design and operational variables specific to Tier III equipment. As many of the requirements pertaining to Tier III equipment are more performance-based and technology neutral, it is essential that the railroad identify specific design and operational parameters where such flexibility is provided, so that necessary safety thresholds can be identified and maintained with proper oversight. Braking systems received particular attention in this regard, during the RSAC process, as there are many different, proven approaches to braking technology and operational rules used on high-speed trainsets throughout the world. To this effect, proposed paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (xiv) catalog the railroad's approach as it relates to Tier III braking technology.

Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(ii), as discussed above under § 238.19, would require the railroad to define the maximum designed braking capacity of the Tier III trainset.

Proposed paragraphs (d)(2)(iii) through (v) are of particular note, as these sections would define the use of emergency braking and its accessibility to crewmembers and the general public. Unlike most conventional operations, the application of an irretrievable emergency brake application may pose a safety risk to the occupants at very high speeds, or within certain locations (

e.g.,

tunnels or bridges), particularly if an immediate stop is unnecessary. As such, many systems throughout the world restrict access to only qualified crewmembers to initiate an irretrievable emergency brake application and utilize emergency brake “alarms” for passengers. These alarms notify the engineer that an emergency stop has been requested by a passenger and require the engineer to take some immediate action, while still allowing the engineer to continue train movement if an immediate stop is unnecessary, or if a different location may offer a more appropriate environment to address an emergency (

e.g.,

enabling a train to exit a tunnel if an alarm is activated due to the presence of smoke in a passenger cabin).

Proposed paragraphs (d)(2)(iii) and (iv) would require the railroad to identify both irretrievable emergency brake locations accessible only to crewmembers and passenger brake “alarm” locations (if used), respectively, within the Tier III trainset. A picture or diagram may be used to demonstrate compliance.

If passenger brake alarm technology is employed by the railroad, proposed paragraphs (d)(2)(v) through (vii) would require the railroad to specify certain operational aspects of the technology. For example, proposed paragraph (d)(2)(v) would require defining the time period in which the trainset remains under full control of the engineer after an alarm is pulled. Like an alerter, this is intended to ensure that the engineer acknowledges the alarm and takes appropriate action promptly. As proposed, if no action is taken by the engineer in response to the passenger brake alarm, then the trainset's brake system would be required to automatically initiate an irretrievable emergency brake to ensure the safety of the occupants, crew, and trainset.

Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(vi) would require the railroad to detail how the passenger brake alarm would function within station locations, as delayed application of the brakes would be unacceptable if the alarm is activated when a train is departing a station due to a passenger emergency, such as a passenger trapped in a door. Only once a train has safely cleared the station platform would the retrievable aspect of the passenger emergency brake alarm be allowed to engage. To this end, the railroad would have to identify how to achieve this, to ensure that both passengers and crew can immediately stop a train if a dangerous situation is encountered while leaving a station. Nonetheless, as discussed above, there is concern about situations when an engineer may decide against immediately stopping the train following activation of a passenger brake alarm at a station location, such as when in a tunnel if smoke is present. FRA believes that the above discussion provides the necessary clarity on this issue but invites comment.

Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(vii) would allow the railroad to further define the operation of a passenger brake alarm by detailing what steps must be taken by an engineer to retrieve control from a 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 § 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 § 238.731(m)(3). The railroad would be required to document the corresponding operational restrictions within its ITM plan. Similarly, proposed paragraph (d)(2)(x) would require the railroad to provide information on brake system functionality, monitoring, and diagnostics, and any corresponding safety analysis. For example, if a railroad were to utilize an electronic brake system, it must ensure compliance with § 238.105 if deemed-safety critical.

Proposed paragraph (xi) would require the railroad to identify the worst-case grade condition for which the Tier III trainset must be secured.

In relation to § 238.751, proposed paragraphs (xii) and (xiii) would require the railroad to outline the functionality of the cab alerter system, and its integration with the braking system. Specifically, paragraph (xii) proposes to require the railroad to establish the parameters and scenarios in which the engineer must acknowledge the alerter, including which actions reset the timing, and which actions would be

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 § 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 § 238.751(e), plans to utilize a feature to dim headlights for extended periods of time on Tier III dedicated rights-of-way pursuant to proposed § 238.767(c), or utilizes a flashing rate other than what is described in proposed § 238.769(b)(2)(i), then it would be required to comply with the requirements specific to each alternate technology as described in proposed paragraphs (d)(2)(xiv), (xv), and (xvi), respectively.

Proposed paragraph (e) outlines the means by which a railroad would be required to demonstrate compliance with the structural carbody design and crashworthiness requirements contained within parts 229 and 238, as applicable. This proposed paragraph would effectively codify FRA's longstanding guidance on the matter, and what the RSAC considered to be industry “best practice.” Specifically, proposed paragraph (e)(1) would make clear that compliance may be demonstrated by any appropriate combination of 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 § 238.110, FRA is proposing to revise § 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 §§ 238.110 and 238.111, respectively, more clarity can be given to the process of assuring that passenger rolling stock is ready for revenue service. FRA envisions that initially the railroad would look to proposed § 238.110 to ensure compliance with static design

requirements and items that can be examined as part of a sample-equipment inspection as a means to determine if prototype or production rolling stock is ready to start the dynamic and commissioning phase under § 238.111, even though some overlap may occur between the phases. For instance, it may be desirable to initiate some level of dynamic testing before carbody interiors are completed, which may necessitate the verification of emergency systems after preliminary dynamic testing has occurred.

Regardless, FRA intends that the railroad make use of the combined, pre-revenue planning process under §§ 238.110 and 238.111 to ensure that adequate testing occurs before production sets of equipment types leave the manufacturing facility, so that compliance and quality issues can be addressed by the manufacturer before moving too far ahead into dynamic testing, and thus limiting such issues to initial prototype units. This approach would allow certain elements to be separated so that railroads and manufacturers can take a more focused approach to compliance assurance and commissioning, thereby also allowing railroads to produce a more focused plan for the final stages of testing and commissioning of passenger rolling stock as part of their pre-revenue service acceptance test plans.

While the individual requirements within this section are intended to capture important elements to help validate and document compliance, of equal importance is the planning aspect of the section. FRA would require that railroads use the development and execution of their pre-revenue service acceptance test plans to take a holistic view of their testing and commissioning programs so as to provide both FRA, as well as themselves, insight as to how the various tests and validations would be organized and executed in an effective manner. So, while part of the effort intended by this proposed language is to identify all of the tests that need to be performed before a vehicle can enter revenue passenger service, FRA also would require that the railroad identify how all of these tests relate to each other and other activities that must occur (required preceding events), and the logical order in which they should occur.

Using qualification under § 213.345 as an example, a railroad must consider what core tests should be performed before high-speed testing begins (

e.g.,

tests for proper brake system operation to ensure the safety of the qualification testing), and what tests would require high-speed qualification or special test approval to be performed (

e.g.,

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 § 238.110.

This “systems” perspective is key to the intent of §§ 238.110 and 238.111, as it would not only help the railroad establish and document the safety of the equipment, but also the equipment's known and proven configurations and operating conditions, such that a railroad may be able to identify any additional tests that may need to be performed if a vehicle characteristic is changed, or a vehicle is to be operated in a different environment with unproven characteristics (

e.g.,

different track circuit technology which may result in different shunting characteristics).

As the test plan is intended to be an umbrella plan to capture all of the necessary tests needed to demonstrate regulatory safety compliance for passenger equipment, this should include any waivers that are anticipated to be required, even if that test is part of a separate testing approval,

15

as these may be predecessors to, or needed for, other required tests. Thus, proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section would require the railroad to identify any approvals, qualification, or waivers from other regulatory requirements in this chapter, that would be required to conduct certain tests under this plan. For example, if tests are to occur on a section of track before a block signal system has been installed, then a waiver from § 236.0(c)(2) may be necessary to test at speeds above 60 mph until the signal system if fully commissioned.

15

Such as § 213.345 or § 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

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 § 238.111(b)(4), (5), and (7). This process is intended to culminate the efforts resulting from §§ 238.110 and 238.111 and consider the railroad's and supplier's efforts in demonstrating compliance with the passenger equipment safety standards. Proposed paragraph (a)(6)(i) would require test results for Tier I equipment be made available upon request by FRA, with proposed paragraph (a)(6)(ii) requiring test results for Tier II and Tier III equipment to be submitted to FRA at least 60 days prior to the equipment being placed in revenue service. FRA notes that this timeframe may be longer or different, as appropriate, should the railroad also need to complete new passenger service pre-revenue safety demonstration under proposed § 238.108. Additionally, FRA notes that

the timeframe in this proposed paragraph is shorter than what is currently in effect under § 238.111(b)(4), and therefore invites comments on the appropriateness of the timeframe.

Proposed paragraph (a)(7) mirrors current § 238.111(b)(5) without substantive change, and FRA would accordingly rely on the substantive discussion contained in the May 1999 and November 2018 final rules.

16

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 § 238.111(b)(7), and FRA would also rely on the substantive discussions in the May 1999 and November 2018 final rules in this regard.

17

FRA is considering if there is value in expanding this approval to all tiers of equipment and invites comment on this question. FRA notes that this approval would not supersede any other certifications or approvals required, such as those under § 213.345 or § 238.913 for operation of the equipment on the general system, but FRA approval under this section would be required before the railroad may institute passenger service. If a railroad seeks to operate the equipment for non-testing reasons before this approval has been received (

e.g.,

demonstration runs or press events), the railroad would likewise be required to receive explicit FRA approval of such operations to ensure their safety. In this regard, the definition of “tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion operations” in § 238.5 makes clear that train movements of new passenger equipment for demonstration purposes are not tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion operations.

18

17

Id.

18

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

Proposed paragraph (b) contains the pre-revenue testing and commissioning requirements for equipment that has been previously used within the United States. As discussed, these requirements are currently contained under § 238.111(a). The RSAC recommended that the requirements for new and previously used equipment be swapped in order to better reflect the order in which these requirements would be applied in practice, and the fact that new vehicles, by nature, have more requirements that must be met. FRA invites comment on this proposed change.

FRA is proposing to expand the requirements for vehicles that have been previously used in revenue service in the United States. Under paragraph (b)(1), the railroad would be required to verify the applicability of previous tests performed under paragraphs (a)(1)(vii)(A) through (D) of this section and perform such tests if previous test data does not exist, cannot be obtained, or does not support demonstration of safe operation within the intended operating environment. Additionally, proposed paragraph (b)(2) contains a record retention requirement, with proposed paragraph (b)(3) detailing what equipment would be considered previously used in revenue service.

Proposed paragraph (c) outlines the regulatory requirements for any modifications, major upgrades, or introduction of new technology on passenger equipment that is currently in revenue service. The proposed language establishes the scope of any pre-revenue testing, which would be expanded to include Tier I equipment, limited to only those safety-critical systems, 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 § 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 § 238.307(c)(5)(i), are intended to ensure that emergency lighting systems function as intended in accident scenarios, taking into consideration the operational conditions that might impact the performance of emergency lighting and associated electrical systems, particularly backup power supplies. An emergency lighting system may be compliant, by design, but fail if activated during revenue operations due to insufficient charging of the backup power supply. For example, to conserve fuel, many railroads turn off head-end power (HEP) on consists after their last revenue run. If the same consist is not provided sufficient time to charge its back-up power system before it is placed back in revenue service, the emergency lighting system may fail to meet the performance requirements of § 238.115. The railroad would be required to take into consideration these operational factors when determining an appropriate sampling method. FRA is also seeking comment on whether public address or emergency intercom systems should also have a similar testing requirement, as they are often powered by the same back-up power supply.

Section 238.131 Exterior Side Door Safety Systems—New Passenger Cars and Locomotives Used in Passenger Service

FRA is proposing to revise paragraph (a)(1) of this section, which describes certain requirements applicable to safety systems for powered exterior side doors. The proposed revisions address new door designs in high-speed trainsets, and specifically address trainsets equipped with plug-type exterior side doors that do not provide a minimum 1.5-inch gap at the leading edge of the door when the emergency release is activated. These proposed revisions would also permit a speed interlock preventing operation of the emergency release mechanism while the vehicle is moving.

For equipment with plug-type exterior side doors, the proposed revision to

paragraph (a)(1) states that the requirements of section 2.9 (including section 2.9.1) of the APTA standard for the side door emergency release mechanism, identified in APTA standard PR-M-S-18-10, “Standard for Powered Exterior Side Door System Design for New Passenger Cars,” approved February 11, 2011, would be supplanted with three new regulatory requirements.

Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(i) describes the proposed requirements for the visual instructions, operation, and functionality of the emergency release mechanism for the plug-type exterior side door. It also proposes a requirement that some form of feedback must be provided to the passenger to alert the passenger that the emergency release mechanism has actuated. For example, a light activating over the door, or a sound played over a speaker in close proximity to the door, or a combination thereof, may satisfy the feedback requirement.

Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ii) would establish requirements for the activation of the emergency release mechanism, specifying that activation must not require electric or pneumatic power and that access to the device not require the use of tools or other implements. This proposed paragraph also contains requirements specifying the appropriate amount of force necessary to activate interior and exterior emergency release mechanisms, along with requiring a manual resetting of the device.

Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iii) would permit a speed interlock preventing operation of the emergency release mechanism when the vehicle is moving.

In proposing to revise paragraph (a)(1), FRA is considering further revisions regarding movements of locomotive consists within a yard, when those locomotives are not connected to passenger cars. There may be situations where traction power to the locomotives is inhibited by the door system as the door system may not be able to distinguish between the absence of passenger cars and an exterior side door being open. FRA invites comment on this issue.

Section 238.139 Vehicle/Track System Qualification

As proposed, this section would adopt the general structure of § 213.345 of this chapter, which generally provides vehicle/track qualification requirements for equipment operating on FRA track Class 6 and above (or at speeds producing high cant deficiencies), for passenger equipment operating on lower-speed track classes. Similar to § 213.345, this new section would require demonstration that the equipment can operate safely and within the vehicle/track interaction safety limits specified in § 213.333 either through dynamic testing only, or through a combination of testing and simulations. A major tenet of this proposal is to provide transferability of vehicle qualification through the use of testing and simulations so that when moving equipment from one part of a system to another, or to another railroad's system, certain testing under § 238.111 does not need to be repeated. In this regard, this proposed section would serve as an extension and clarification of pre-revenue service acceptance testing under § 238.111, helping to provide greater specificity as to the pre-revenue service acceptance testing requirements with respect to vehicle/track qualification.

FRA makes clear that the proposed requirements of this section in no way modify or supplant the testing requirements in § 213.345; § 213.345 applies on its own and must be complied with when necessary. This proposal is to be complementary to § 213.345, filling the gaps in stability testing for passenger equipment not addressed under § 213.345. Specifically, and further discussed below, this section would address gaps in testing for new equipment through Class 5 track speeds and 6 inches of cant deficiency, and for previously qualified equipment through Class 6 track speeds and 6 inches of cant deficiency by adding, as an alternative, requirements for demonstrating compliance through dynamic testing over a representative segment of the route and minimally compliant analytical track (MCAT) simulations.

As discussed elsewhere, this section presents two paths for demonstrating compliance with the safety limits of § 213.333, as part of the pre-revenue service acceptance testing process. A railroad could elect to measure carbody and truck accelerations over the entirety of the system the vehicle is intended to operate (which is what is currently required), or it could measure those same accelerations over a representative segment of the system coupled with MCAT simulations. If a railroad elects the former, the resultant qualification would be applicable only for the territory over which compliance was demonstrated. If a railroad elects the latter path, then that resultant qualification under this section would be transferable to a new territory so long it was for the same FRA track class and cant deficiency. With that said, however, should a vehicle be subject to high-speed qualification testing under § 213.345, those requirements in § 213.345 apply regardless of the path chosen under this section.

FRA invites comment whether this section should cross-reference the suspension system safety requirements in § 238.227, whether § 238.227 requires any conforming changes, or whether any other changes are necessary in establishing the requirements proposed in this new section, including changes to part 213 of this chapter. FRA also invites comment on the nature of any such changes and, as appropriate, may provide for them in the final rule.

Under paragraph (a), FRA proposes that, for qualification purposes, the safety of the equipment must be demonstrated in an overspeed condition not to exceed 5 mph above the maximum proposed operating speed as specified in paragraph (a)(1). Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would require that the testing be conducted on track meeting the track safety requirements specified under part 213 for the class of track over which the equipment would operate, with an allowance for qualification testing to be conducted at a speed greater than that specified for the class of track should the combination of the proposed maximum operating speed and overspeed testing requirement exceed the maximum authorized speed for that track class.

Paragraph (b) would address the qualification of existing vehicle types and provide that such vehicle types previously qualified or permitted to operate be considered qualified under the requirements of this section for operation at the previously operated speeds and cant deficiencies over the previously operated track segment(s). FRA makes clear that this qualification applies only for operation over the previously operated track segment(s) and does not confer transferability of such qualification. To operate such vehicle types over new routes (even at the same track speeds and cant deficiencies), the qualification requirements contained in other paragraphs of this section must be met, in addition to any other applicable testing and qualification requirements.

Proposed paragraph (c) would contain the requirements for qualifying new vehicle types (or vehicle types previously qualified according to paragraph (b) for operation over new track segments). For clarity, FRA intends that vehicles being qualified under this proposed paragraph be tested under the requirements of this section through track Class 5 speeds and 6 inches of cant deficiency in addition to any testing required under part 213 of this chapter. This means that the

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 § 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 § 213.333 at speeds from track Classes 2 through 5 and up to 6 inches of cant deficiency. In order to be qualified under this section, a railroad must perform simulations, as specified in proposed paragraph (c)(2), in addition to the carbody and truck acceleration measurements under proposed paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) respectively. The results of simulations and dynamic testing must demonstrate that the safety limits in § 213.333 are not exceeded. This proposed paragraph would also provide a mechanism for transferability of the qualification under this proposed section to allow operation of previously qualified vehicles over new track segments at the same class of track and cant deficiency. This proposed paragraph would not provide transferability of any qualification conferred under § 213.345, however.

Again, FRA makes clear that the requirements of this section are intended to be complementary to those requirements found under § 213.345. FRA recognizes that in some scenarios, there may be overlap between the requirement proposed under this section and those under § 213.345. For example, when attempting to qualify a new vehicle type for operation at Class 4 track speeds, where up to 6 inches of cant deficiency would be produced, § 213.345 would require the use of carbody accelerometers and the performance of a lean test. As proposed, when attempting to qualify the same new vehicle type for the same service, this proposed section would also require the use of carbody accelerometers, in addition to truck accelerometers and MCAT simulations. So, while there may be overlap in certain requirements between these proposed requirements and existing requirements under part 213 (such as the use of carbody accelerometers), FRA views any as harmonious. The new vehicle type being qualified in this scenario would be subject to the following requirements: a lean test, the use of carbody and truck accelerometers, and MCAT simulations, with the testing and simulations starting at Class 2 track speeds and 3 inches of cant deficiency. FRA does invite comment, however, on whether there are any possible scenarios where there could be a conflict.

Paragraph (c)(2) describes the analysis procedure that is to be performed using an industry-recognized methodology. The analysis considers the vehicle under evaluation operating on analytically defined track segments representing minimally compliant track conditions as defined in appendix C to this part, and a track segment representative of the route over which the vehicle is to operate. These requirements are reflective of similar requirements in § 213.345 for track Class 6 and greater, but do not replace the testing and analysis required under § 213.345. This paragraph also requires a linear system analysis to identify the frequency and damping of the truck hunting modes. Damping of these modes must be at least 5%, up to the maximum intended operating speed + 5 mph considering equivalent conicities starting at 0.1 up to 0.6. The conicities range proposed is based on conicities prevalent on the Northeast Corridor. FRA invites comments on whether this proposed range is appropriate.

Proposed paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) would require representative route testing for all operations at track Class 2 through 5 speeds and up to 6 inches of cant deficiency. Testing shall include measurements of carbody lateral and vertical accelerations and truck lateral accelerations that must not exceed the safety limits specified in § 213.333.

In paragraph (d), FRA proposes to separate and explicitly define the qualification requirements for vehicle types previously qualified by simulation and testing under paragraph (c) of this section intended to operate on new track segments as defined in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3). FRA notes simulations are especially useful for demonstrating that, when qualified vehicles are intended to operate on a new route, the new vehicle/track system is adequately examined for deficiencies prior to revenue service operation.

Paragraph (d)(1) addresses vehicle types previously qualified in accordance with paragraph (c). These vehicles may be operated on other routes with the same track class designation and at the same or lower cant deficiency without additional testing, simulations, or FRA approval.

For vehicle types operating at speeds not to exceed Class 6 track speeds or at curving speeds producing greater than 5 inches of cant deficiency, but not exceeding 6 inches, paragraph (d)(2) would require that qualification testing on a representative segment of the new route be performed to demonstrate that the carbody lateral and vertical acceleration limits in § 213.333 are respected.

Proposed paragraph (d)(3) would require vehicle types that are previously qualified by testing alone to be subject to the requirements of paragraph (c) for new equipment.

Paragraph (e) would provide requirements for the content of the qualification testing plan, which would

be submitted to FRA's Associate Administrator at least 60 days prior to conducting the testing. This 60-day period is to allow FRA sufficient time to review and approve the plan, and to seek clarification from the submitter as necessary. In some cases, the review and approval may be able to be accomplished in less than 60 days; in other cases, the process may take longer, especially if the plan is incomplete or if questions are raised. FRA is mindful of the concern that FRA not unduly delay testing, and at the same time recognizes that safety is better and more efficiently served by identifying potential safety issues early in the qualification process. FRA therefore encourages those planning to conduct qualification testing to approach FRA prior to the submission of their test plans should they have any questions or concerns about the testing and approval process.

As proposed, the test program would establish a program of tests that permit identification of the operating limits of the vehicle/track system and would include, as identified in the following proposed paragraphs: under (e)(1), a description of the representative segment of the route over which the vehicle is intended to be operated; under (e)(2), consideration of the operating environment during qualification testing, including operating practices and conditions, the signal system, highway-rail grade crossings, and trains on adjacent tracks; under (e)(3), identification of the maximum angle found on the gage face of the designed (newly profiled) wheel flange referenced to the axis of the wheelset (the wheel flange angle would be used to determine the Single Wheel L/V Ratio safety limit specified in § 213.333); under (e)(4), identification of the target maximum testing speed in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section and the maximum testing cant deficiency; and under (e)(5), the results of vehicle/track performance simulations required by this section.

Proposed paragraph (f) would contain the requirements for conducting the two-stage qualification testing upon FRA approval of the qualification test plan. The two-stage testing approach permits assessment of safe vehicle operation on tangent and curved track segments individually as the test speed is incrementally increased.

Stage-one testing, proposed under paragraph (f)(1), would require that for testing on tangent track (proposed under paragraph (f)(1)(i)), test speed is incrementally increased from maximum speeds corresponding to each track class to the target maximum test speed. Under paragraph (f)(1)(ii), testing speeds for curved track would start at that speed necessary to produce 3 inches of cant deficiency and would be incrementally increased until the maximum testing cant deficiency is achieved. The target maximum test speed and maximum testing cant deficiency are specified in the test plan. Incrementally increasing the testing speed would allow for assessment of the dynamic response of the vehicle with respect to the vehicle/track interaction safety limits specified in § 213.333 of this chapter and establish the maximum safe speed and cant deficiency.

Under paragraph (f)(2), FRA proposes requirements for stage-two testing of the vehicle over the representative segment of the route. As proposed, stage-two testing can begin only when stage-one testing has successfully demonstrated a maximum safe operating speed and cant deficiency. Under these proposed requirements, two round-trips over the representative segment of the route are required: the first is at the speed for which the railroad is seeking FRA approval for service (which may be limited by the results of stage-one testing); the second is performed at 5 mph above this speed. The orientation of the equipment (in the direction of travel) is to be reversed for each leg of the round-trip.

Under proposed paragraph (f)(3), if during stage-one and -two testing, any of the monitored safety limits are exceeded on any segment of track, testing may continue provided that the track location(s) where any of the limits are exceeded be identified and test speeds be limited at the track location(s) until corrective action is taken. Corrective action may include making an adjustment in the track, in the vehicle, or in both of these system components.

Proposed paragraph (f)(4) would require that Track Geometry Measurement System (TGMS) equipment be operated over the intended test route (the representative segment of the route) within 30 days prior to the start of the testing, to help ensure the integrity of the test results.

Proposed paragraph (g) would contain the requirements for reporting to FRA's Associate Administrator the results of the qualification testing program. The qualification test report must include all results obtained during the qualification test program. When simulations comprise a portion of the report, comparisons of the simulated accelerations to those measured during the testing must be submitted to demonstrate model validation. For purposes of model validation, the report should also include comparisons that demonstrate the accuracy of the model under various conditions, specifically: predicting the transfer of wheel loads when a vehicle is unbalanced, the transfer of wheel loads when the primary suspension is deflected to simulate twist or warp, and the frequency and damping ratio associated with dominant vehicle modes. FRA invites comment whether FRA should make these expectations explicit in the regulatory text for MCAT model validation under this part, and potentially under part 213 of this chapter as well. The qualification test report must be submitted no less than 60 days from the date the railroad intends to operate the equipment in revenue service.

Under paragraph (h)(1), FRA proposes to approve a maximum train speed and value of cant deficiency for revenue service, based on the test results and all other required submissions. FRA intends to provide an approval decision normally within 45 days of receipt of all the required information in the form of the qualification test report. FRA may impose conditions, as necessary, to help ensure safe operations at the maximum train speed and value of cant deficiency approved for revenue service.

Proposed paragraph (h)(2) would consider vehicle types previously qualified in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section for operations at Class 2 through 5 speeds, or at curving speeds producing up to 6 inches of cant deficiency, on one route to be approved for operation on another route at the same maximum speed and cant deficiency.

Proposed paragraph (i) makes clear that the documents required by this section must be provided to FRA by either: (1) the track owner; or (2) a railroad that provides service with the same vehicle type over trackage of one or more track owner(s), with the written consent of each affected track owner. For example, Amtrak is a railroad that provides passenger service over trackage often owned by other entities, usually freight railroads. Under this example, Amtrak would need the consent of the freight railroad (the affected track owner) to conduct the testing. This is to ensure that the track owner is fully apprised as to the status of the track owner's track in case any anomalies during testing should arise. In another example, Amtrak is also a track owner over whose trackage numerous passenger railroads operate, such as the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) and New Jersey Transit (NJT); under this scenario, Amtrak, as the track owner, would not need the consent of these railroads, but these railroads would

need Amtrak's consent when seeking vehicle/track system qualification under this section.

Section 238.201 Scope/Alternative Compliance

FRA is proposing to revise paragraph (a)(1) of this section to harmonize the language with other changes being proposed to part 238. Specifically, FRA would harmonize the language referencing the Safety Appliance Act (49 U.S.C. ch. 203) in an effort to make clear that Tier I equipment may follow either the current, legacy safety appliance requirements (49 CFR part 231, and §§ 238.229 and 238.230), or the proposed requirements under § 238.791. So, while the requirements of the Safety Appliance Act would continue to remain applicable, other means would be provided for complying with those statutory requirements.

Additionally, FRA proposes to correct a typographical error. Currently, this paragraph references § 232.2, which does not exist. FRA would correct that reference instead to § 232.3, the applicability section of part 232.

Section 238.230 Safety Appliances—New Equipment

FRA proposes to amend paragraph (a) of this section to clarify that a Tier I alternative passenger trainset that complies with the requirements of proposed § 238.791 is not subject to the requirements of this section.

Section 238.235 Safety Appliances for Non-Passenger Carrying Locomotives Used in Passenger Service

FRA is proposing to revise this section to identify the design standards for safety appliances on non-passenger carrying locomotives used in passenger service, in an effort to provide clarity and to remove the need for interpretation for the various requirements contained in 49 CFR part 231. Specifically, paragraph (a) proposes to clarify that these requirements are intended to apply to locomotives used in passenger service that utilize monocoque, semi-monocoque, or carbody construction common to most passenger road locomotives. FRA is inviting comment on this paragraph generally and, in particular, whether specific implementation dates are necessary (and, if so, what the implementation dates should be).

Because many of these proposed requirements were developed when the PSWG developed the safety appliances standards for Tier III trainsets (contained in proposed § 238.791), there is considerable overlap between the proposed requirements. Accordingly, FRA references proposed § 238.791 when provisions under this section are identical to those under § 238.791. In such situations, FRA relies on the analysis provided under § 238.791, rather than repeat it here.

Proposed paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section address attachment, fatigue life, handholds, and sill steps. The requirements proposed under each of these paragraphs are identical to the requirements under proposed § 238.791(b) through (e).

Proposed paragraph (f) contains the requirements for ground level access to (or egress to ground level from) the locomotive cab and other carbody side doors on a non-passenger carrying locomotive. This proposed paragraph contains the general requirement that exterior side locomotive cab access doors and other carbody side doors be equipped with appropriate safety appliances to permit safe access to the locomotive cab by employees and other authorized personnel from ground level. Because many passenger road locomotives do not utilize switching steps and platforms with external walkways, access to the locomotive cab or other compartments, or the locomotive's B end, is usually provided by an external door accompanied with a ladder and handhold arrangement. Accordingly, this proposed paragraph would provide the requirements for how such arrangements should be applied properly, based on the governing elements of part 231 and contemporary practice on diesel-electric and electric locomotives.

Proposed paragraph (f)(1) would provide the requirements for the number, location, dimension, and clearance for handholds at each ground level access location to the locomotive cab and other carbody side doors on a non-passenger carrying locomotive. These requirements would mirror similar provisions under proposed § 238.791(f). Additionally, proposed paragraph (f)(2) would make the requirements of proposed § 238.791(e)(2) and (3) applicable to steps at each of these locations.

Under proposed paragraph (g), concerning couplers on non-passenger carrying locomotives, FRA would make the coupler requirements of § 238.791(g) applicable to these locomotives.

Proposed paragraph (h) would provide requirements for uncoupling levers. As these requirements would very closely mirror similar requirements under proposed § 238.791(h), FRA relies on the same, supporting analysis. However, there is a notable difference between the two sections that should be highlighted. If a non-passenger carrying locomotive is equipped with a manual uncoupling lever, that lever must be operative from both sides of the locomotive, rather than just the left side of the equipment as proposed under § 238.791(h).

Proposed paragraph (i) would permit the coupler, end handholds, and uncoupling mechanism on the leading and trailing ends of a non-passenger carrying locomotive to be stored within a removable shroud to reduce aerodynamic effects. This mirrors the same requirement proposed under § 238.791(i).

Proposed paragraph (j) contains the requirement for a non-passenger carrying locomotive to be equipped with an efficient hand brake. This proposed paragraph also includes the term “parking” brake, acknowledging the brake's primary role on a locomotive as a device used to hold a locomotive or train at a static location, as opposed to a means to brake (slow or stop) the train, as applied to railcars before the wide adoption of pneumatic braking systems. In this respect, the proposed performance requirement based on a 3 percent grade, or the railroad's maximum grade (if greater), was also added to reflect common practice. This proposed requirement would mirror § 238.791(j).

Proposed paragraph (k)(1) provides for the arrangement of safety appliances on non-passenger carrying locomotives to facilitate certain maintenance tasks. Should a locomotive be equipped with appurtenances such as headlights, windshield wipers, marker lights, and other similar items required for the safe operation of the locomotive that are designed to be maintained or replaced from the exterior of the locomotive, then the locomotive must be equipped with handholds and steps meeting the requirements of this section to allow for the safe maintenance and replacement of these appurtenances. However, under proposed paragraph (k)(2), the requirements under proposed paragraph (k)(1) would not apply if railroad operating rules require, and actual practice entails, the maintenance and replacement of these components by maintenance personnel in locations that are protected by the requirements of subpart B of part 218 of this chapter and equipped with ladders and other tools to safely repair or maintain those appurtenances. The requirements of this proposed paragraph (k) mirror similar requirements proposed under § 238.791(k).

Paragraph (l) would require that any safety appliances installed at the option of the railroad must be approved pursuant to § 238.110.

Subpart H—Specific Requirements for Tier III Passenger Equipment

Section 238.701 Scope

This subpart contains requirements for railroad passenger equipment operating in a shared right-of-way at speeds not exceeding 125 mph and in an exclusive right-of-way without grade crossings at speeds exceeding 125 mph but not exceeding 220 mph. FRA proposes to revise the scope of this subpart by adding a reference to proposed § 238.110, to help clarify the compliance demonstration and approval process for this Tier III passenger equipment. FRA is also proposing to remove the undesignated center headings in this subpart (“Trainset Structure,” “Glazing,” “Brake System,” “Interior Fittings and Surfaces,” “Emergency Systems,” and “Cab Equipment”) to accommodate proposed additions and other changes.

Section 238.719 Trucks and Suspension

In this section, FRA proposes safety performance standards for Tier III suspension systems. These performance standards would require a suspension system design that reasonably prevents wheel climb, wheel unloading, rail rollover, rail shift, and vehicle overturn to ensure safe, stable performance and ride quality. The proposed requirements are consistent with the general standards for high-speed trainsets adopted by the railroad industry and regulatory bodies around the world, and the overall approach is based on the suspension system safety provisions in existing §§ 238.227 and 238.427.

Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would explain the general requirements applicable to Tier III trucks and suspension systems and describe the different track conditions and characteristics that must be taken into account when determining compliance with these requirements. Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would clarify the applicability of part 213 to Tier III trucks and suspension systems subject to this section, both while in general operation and during the pre-revenue service qualification and revenue service operation stages of operations.

Paragraph (b) would prohibit Tier III trainsets from operating under conditions that result in a steady-state lateral acceleration greater than 0.15g, as measured parallel to the car floor inside the passenger compartment. This paragraph would also require that Tier III trainsets comply with the carbody acceleration limits specified in § 213.333.

Paragraph (c) describes the proposed lateral acceleration performance standards, with specific reference to the appropriate train monitoring system response to the detection of truck hunting and explains that compliance with this paragraph would be subject to the limits defined in § 213.333.

Paragraph (d) proposes limits for wheelsets based on the distances between wheel flanges. Notably, paragraph (d)(3) proposes that the 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 § 229.123 of this chapter, with slight modifications to address the unique characteristics of Tier III passenger equipment and operations. The most significant difference between the proposed requirements for pilots, snowplows, and end plates on Tier III passenger equipment and similar requirements in § 229.123 would be the increase in the maximum clearance from six inches to nine inches for a lead vehicle equipped with an obstacle deflector or truck (bogie)-mounted wheel guard. FRA is proposing this modification based on industry input to address the greater vertical movement of the lead vehicle during higher-speed passenger operations.

Section 238.725 Overheat Sensors

Proposed section 238.725 would make applicable to Tier III trainsets the same minimum requirements for the use and placement of overheat sensors currently applicable to Tier II trainsets under § 238.428. Section 238.428 requires overheat sensors for each Tier II equipment wheelset journal bearing, placed either onboard the equipment or at reasonable intervals along the railroad's right-of-way. FRA invites comment on this proposed application to Tier III trainsets to monitor wheelset journal overheating.

Section 238.745 Emergency Communication

FRA is proposing to add this section to address communication systems, to provide requirements for public address (PA) and intercom systems for Tier III trainsets. By adding these requirements, which FRA had intended to include in the 2018 final rule, FRA would harmonize the emergency communication requirements for Tier III trainsets with similar emergency system requirements (

i.e.,

emergency lighting) already established.

With one exception, the proposed emergency communication requirements for Tier III trainsets would be the same as the existing emergency communication requirements in § 238.121 for passenger trainsets, as stated in proposed paragraph (a). The exception would be for emergency communication back-up power systems, permitting alternative crash loadings instead of those required in § 238.121(c)(2). This proposed exception is detailed in paragraph (b), under which a railroad may seek to use the loading requirements defined in Section 6.1.4, “Security of furniture, equipment and features,” of Railway Group Standard GM/RT2100, Issue Four, “Requirements for Rail Vehicle Structures,” Rail Safety and Standards Board Ltd., December 2010, which FRA proposes to incorporate by reference in this paragraph. In particular, these loading requirements are the same as those for alternatively demonstrating adequate attachment strength of emergency lighting back-up power systems in Tier III trainsets discussed in the 2016 NPRM and 2018 final rule under § 238.743.

21

Accordingly, both the interior lighting fixtures and their emergency back-up power systems would be subject to the same alternative loading requirements. As in § 238.743, use of the alternative loading requirements would be carried out consistent with any conditions identified by the railroad, as approved by FRA.

21

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

Section 6.1.4 contains requirements for securement of furniture, on-board equipment, and other trainset features to help mitigate against injuries to passengers and crew from secondary impacts within the occupied volume. GM/RT2100 is available to all interested parties online at

www.rgsonline.co.uk/Railway_Group_Standards.

Additionally, FRA would maintain a copy available for review.

Section 238.747 Emergency Roof Access

In this section, FRA proposes requirements for emergency roof access to the cabs of Tier III trainsets. These requirements aim to ensure that the trainset design allows for proper roof access for rescue access purposes for cab occupants in Tier III trainsets. This emergency roof access point would be required only if trainset design does not allow cab occupants access to emergency roof access locations otherwise required in the passenger compartment of the trainset. The proposed requirements would also define the dimensions for the emergency roof access location while making specifically applicable paragraphs (b), (d), and (e) of § 238.123 (Emergency roof access).

Should train crewmembers occupying the Tier III cab have ready access to emergency roof access locations in the passenger compartment that comply with § 238.123, then the railroad would not need to comply with the requirements of this section, as the intent of the requirement (access to the roof of the trainset for cab occupants in emergency situations to facilitate rescue access) would be fulfilled. FRA also clarifies that the location of the emergency roof access point under this proposed section would not need to be directly over or into the cab, and could be a location behind the cab, so long as cab occupants have access.

Section 238.755 General Safety Requirements

Proposed § 238.755 is based on existing §§ 229.13, 229.41, and 229.45. Specifically, proposed paragraph (a) would cross-reference the requirements of § 229.41 for protection from personal injury. Proposed paragraph (b) would cross-reference the requirements of § 229.45, requiring that a Tier III trainset be free from conditions that would endanger the safety of the passengers, crew, or equipment. Moreover, FRA makes clear that it does not intend for this provision to be limited to the list of conditions identified under § 229.45. FRA would view other conditions not listed but still endangering the safety of passengers, crew, or equipment to be covered by this provision. Proposed paragraph (c) would make applicable the requirements of § 229.13 when multiple Tier III trainsets are coupled in remote- or multiple-control. FRA reiterates that although the term “locomotive” is used under § 229.13, the substantive requirements of this proposed paragraph are intended to be applied to Tier III trainsets, and thus should be read as such.

Section 238.757 Cab, Floors, and Passageways

Under § 238.757, FRA is proposing requirements for Tier III trainset cabs, floors, and passageways, and is basing these proposed requirements on § 229.119. Proposed paragraph (a), based on § 229.119(a) and (i), contains the requirements for Tier III trainset cab doors. This paragraph proposes that such trainset cab doors be equipped with a secure and operable device to lock the doors from both the inside and outside without impeding egress from the cab.

Proposed paragraph (b), based on § 229.119(b), would require that Tier III end-facing windows located in the leading end of the trainset be free of cracks, breaks, or other conditions that obscure the view of the right-of-way for the crew from their normal positions in the operating cab.

Proposed paragraph (c) would make applicable to Tier III trainsets the requirements of § 229.119(c).

Proposed paragraph (d), based on § 229.119(g) and (h), would require that cabs of Tier III trainsets shall be 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 § 238.759, FRA is proposing requirements to address trainset cab noise, which are based on § 229.121. Proposed paragraph (a), based on § 229.121(a), would establish a maximum noise threshold that occupants of a Tier III trainset may be subjected to (85 A-wei

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.