through Class 5 track speeds and 6 inches of cant deficiency, and for
previously qualified equipment through Class 6 track speeds and 6
inches of cant deficiency by adding, as an alternative, requirements
for demonstrating compliance through dynamic testing over a
representative segment of the route and minimally compliant analytical
track (MCAT) simulations.
    As discussed elsewhere, this section presents two paths for
demonstrating compliance with the safety limits of Sec.  213.333, as
part of the pre-revenue service acceptance testing process. A railroad
could elect to measure carbody and truck accelerations over the
entirety of the system the vehicle is intended to operate (which is
what is currently required), or it could measure those same
accelerations over a representative segment of the system coupled with
MCAT simulations. If a railroad elects the former, the resultant
qualification would be applicable only for the territory over which
compliance was demonstrated. If a railroad elects the latter path, then
that resultant qualification under this section would be transferable
to a new territory so long it was for the same FRA track class and cant
deficiency. With that said, however, should a vehicle be subject to
high-speed qualification testing under Sec.  213.345, those
requirements in Sec.  213.345 apply regardless of the path chosen under
this section.
    FRA invites comment whether this section should cross-reference the
suspension system safety requirements in Sec.  238.227, whether Sec.
238.227 requires any conforming changes, or whether any other changes
are necessary in establishing the requirements proposed in this new
section, including changes to part 213 of this chapter. FRA also
invites comment on the nature of any such changes and, as appropriate,
may provide for them in the final rule.
    Under paragraph (a), FRA proposes that, for qualification purposes,
the safety of the equipment must be demonstrated in an overspeed
condition not to exceed 5 mph above the maximum proposed operating
speed as specified in paragraph (a)(1). Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would
require that the testing be conducted on track meeting the track safety
requirements specified under part 213 for the class of track over which
the equipment would operate, with an allowance for qualification
testing to be conducted at a speed greater than that specified for the
class of track should the combination of the proposed maximum operating
speed and overspeed testing requirement exceed the maximum authorized
speed for that track class.
    Paragraph (b) would address the qualification of existing vehicle
types and provide that such vehicle types previously qualified or
permitted to operate be considered qualified under the requirements of
this section for operation at the previously operated speeds and cant
deficiencies over the previously operated track segment(s). FRA makes
clear that this qualification applies only for operation over the
previously operated track segment(s) and does not confer
transferability of such qualification. To operate such vehicle types
over new routes (even at the same track speeds and cant deficiencies),
the qualification requirements contained in other paragraphs of this
section must be met, in addition to any other applicable testing and
qualification requirements.
    Proposed paragraph (c) would contain the requirements for
qualifying new vehicle types (or vehicle types previously qualified
according to paragraph (b) for operation over new track segments). For
clarity, FRA intends that vehicles being qualified under this proposed
paragraph be tested under the requirements of this section through
track Class 5 speeds and 6 inches of cant deficiency in addition to any
testing required under part 213 of this chapter. This means that the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V. Regulatory Impact and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272

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

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

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Total annual         Average time per     Total annual                     Total cost
            CFR section               Respondent universe         responses              responses         burden hours      Wage rate      equivalent
                                                            (A)..................  (B)..................     (C) = A * B        (D) \30\     (E) = C * D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
229.47(a)-(b)--Emergency Brake       FRA anticipates zero submissions for stencils and markings.
 Valve--Marking brake pipe valve as
 such.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238.7--Waivers.....................  34 railroads.........  12.00 waivers........  6 hours..............           72.00          $77.44       $5,575.68
238.15(b)--Movement of passenger     34 railroads.........  1,000.00 tags........  3 minutes............           50.00           77.44        3,872.00
 equipment with power brake
 defects--Limitations on movement
 of passenger equipment containing
 a power brake defect at the time a