[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 15, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2494-2519]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27749]

Vol. 85

Wednesday,

No. 10

January 15, 2020

Part II

Department of Transportation

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

Federal Railroad Administration

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

49 CFR Parts 218, 221, and 232

Miscellaneous Amendments to Brake System Safety Standards and
Codification of Waivers; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2020 /
Proposed Rules

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Parts 218, 221, and 232

[Docket No. FRA-2018-0093, Notice No. 1]
RIN 2130-AC67

Miscellaneous Amendments to Brake System Safety Standards and
Codification of Waivers

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: FRA is proposing to revise its regulations governing brake
inspections, tests, and equipment. The proposed changes include the
incorporation of relief from various provisions provided in long-
standing waivers related to single car air brake tests, end-of train
devices, helper service, and brake maintenance. FRA is also proposing
to extend the time that freight rail equipment can be ``off-air''
before requiring a new brake inspection. In addition, FRA is proposing
various modifications to the existing brake related regulations for
clarity and to remove outdated or unnecessary provisions. The proposed
revisions would benefit railroads and the public by reducing
unnecessary costs, creating consistency between U.S. and Canadian
regulations, and incorporating the use of newer technologies
demonstrated to maintain or increase safety. The proposed rule would
reduce the overall regulatory burden on railroads.

DATES: Written comments must be received by March 16, 2020. Comments
received after that date will be considered to the extent possible
without incurring additional expenses or delays.

ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments related to Docket No. FRA-2018-0093 may
be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Website: Comments should be filed at the Federal
eRulemaking Portal, http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground level of the
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov including any personal
information. Please see the Privacy Act heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document for Privacy Act information
related to any submitted comments or materials.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
Room W12-140 on the Ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Zuiderveen, Senior Safety
Specialist, Motive & Power Equipment Division, Office of Technical
Oversight, Federal Railroad Administration, RRS-14, West Building 3rd
Floor, Room W35-204, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590
(telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>); Jason Schlosberg, Senior Attorney, Office of
Chief Counsel, RCC-10, West Building 3rd Floor, Room W31-207, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Supplementary Information

I. Executive Summary
    A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
    B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action
    C. Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Regulatory Action
II. Background
    A. Existing Regulations
    B. FRA Waiver Authority and Process
    C. Current Review of Waivers
    D. Identified Waivers
    E. Incorporating by Reference New and Updated Standards Under 1
CFR 51.5
    F. Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) Advice and Input
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices
    A. E.O. 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and E.O. 13272
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Environmental Impact
    E. Federalism Implications
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    G. Energy Impact
    H. Privacy Act

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    In December 2017, AAR filed a petition for waiver from the rule
that requires a Class I brake test prior to operation if a train is
off-air for a period of more than four hours, contending it is too
restrictive. See Docket No. FRA-2017-0130. The Safety Board denied the
waiver petition, finding that the relief requested was more
appropriately addressed through the rulemaking process and that there
was a lack of supporting data submitted with the waiver request.
Subsequently, in a letter dated July 12, 2018--included in the public
docket to this rulemaking proceeding--AAR submitted a revised petition
for rulemaking including substantially more supporting data than the
waiver request it submitted in December 2017.
    This rulemaking responds to AAR's petition, proposes codification
of existing waivers related to brake systems, and makes technical
amendments to reduce regulatory burdens while maintaining or improving
safety.\1\ This rulemaking is a direct result of FRA's effort to
periodically review its regulations and propose amendments to the
regulations to streamline and update them to reflect technological
advances and lessons learned through feedback from all stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FRA notes that AAR submitted a separate rulemaking petition
in March 2019. That petition proposes amendments to part 232 related
to the industry's development of a rail car electronic air brake
slip system. FRA will address the recommendations in that petition
in a separate rulemaking proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action

    When considering new and novel transportation technologies,
industry stakeholders have often used FRA's waiver process, under
subpart C to 49 CFR part 211, when existing rules do not adequately
address or apply to the use of the technology. FRA has identified
various waivers that warrant consideration for regulatory codification.
In particular, FRA is proposing to incorporate into the regulations
various long-standing waivers providing conditional exceptions to
existing rules concerning air brake testing, end-of-train (EOT)
devices, and helper service. FRA is also proposing to extend the time
that freight rail equipment can be ``off-air'' before requiring a new
brake inspection and is proposing various modifications to the existing
brake related regulations for

clarity and to remove outdated or unnecessary provisions.

C. Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Regulatory Action

    FRA analyzed the economic impacts of this NPRM over a 10-year
period, and estimated its cost savings, costs, and benefits. The total
cost savings are $502.2 million (using a 7% discount rate), and $593.7
million (using a 3% discount rate). The annualized cost savings are
$71.5 million (using a 7% discount rate) and $69.6 million (using a 3%
discount rate). The cost savings of this proposed rule are displayed in
the table below.

                                        Cost Savings Over 10-Year Period
                                              [Values in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Section                  Present value 7%  Present value 3%    Annualized 7%     Annualized 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helper Link.............................              $3.9              $4.5              $0.6              $0.5
D-22 Brake Valve........................               0.5               0.6              0.07              0.07
26-C Brake Valve........................               0.2               0.3              0.04              0.03
24-Hour Off-air.........................             325.6             386.2              46.4              45.3
90 CFM..................................               1.8               2.1               0.3               0.2
Single Car Air Brake Tests (SCT) 24                  150.7             176.1              21.5              20.6
 month..................................
SCT 48 month............................              19.5              23.8               2.8               2.8
Waiver Cost Savings.....................               0.1               0.1              0.01              0.01
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................             502.2             593.7              71.5              69.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA estimates this proposed rule would not impose any costs on the
industry. This NPRM generally increases flexibility for the regulated
entities by codifying waivers. It does not impose any new substantive
requirements. This rule will not negatively impact safety in any aspect
of railroad operations and FRA does not expect any increase in end-of-
train device or brake failures as a result of this rule. As noted in
the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) accompanying this rule, overall
safety may by improved due to railroad employees experiencing less risk
of common injuries such as slips, trips, and falls by having to perform
fewer physical inspections, which would produce positive safety
benefits, though these have not been quantified.
    The quantified net cost savings of this proposed rule are equal to
the total cost savings. The present value of net cost savings are
estimated to be $502.2 million (7% discount rate) and $593.7 million
(3% discount rate). The annualized net cost savings are estimated to be
$71.5 million (7% discount rate) and $69.6 million (3% discount rate).

II. Background

A. Existing Regulations

    FRA regulations require the air brake systems of trains, and the
air brakes of individual freight cars, to be inspected and tested in
certain circumstances. The regulations provide for five primary types
of brake system inspections: Class I (initial terminal inspection),
Class IA (1,000-mile inspection), Class II (intermediate inspection),
Class III (trainline continuity inspection), and an SCT.
    A Class I air brake test, also referred to as an initial terminal
inspection, is a comprehensive inspection of the brake equipment on
each car in an assembled train and is required to be performed at the
location where a train is originally assembled, when the consist is
changed in certain ways (by adding or removing cars), and when a train
is off-air for more than four hours. Class I brake tests are intended
to ensure that a train is in proper working condition and capable of
traveling to its destination with minimal problems en route. A Class I
brake test requires the performance of a leakage test and in-depth
inspection of the brake equipment (on both sides of the freight car) to
ensure that each car's brake system is properly secure, does not bind
or foul, and applies and releases in response to a specified brake pipe
pressure signal. Piston travel must also be inspected and adjusted to a
specified length if found not to be within a certain range of movement.
    A Class IA brake test is required every 1,000 miles. Although it is
less detailed than a Class I inspection, a Class IA brake test includes
all the same elements of a Class I test, but with less stringent piston
travel requirements. The most restrictive car or block of cars in a
train determines the location where Class IA tests must be performed.
For example, if a train travels 500 miles from its point of origination
to a location where it picks up a block of cars that has travelled 800
miles since its last Class I brake test, and the crew does not perform
a Class I brake test when adding the cars, then the entire train must
receive a Class IA brake test within 200 miles even though that
location is only 700 miles from the train's origination.
    Class II brake tests, also referred to as intermediate inspections,
are less detailed inspections used for cars that do not have a
compliant Class I inspection record that are picked up by a train. The
test includes a test for excessive brake pipe leakage, charging the air
brakes to within 15 psi of working pressure, making a 20-psi reduction
in the brake pipe to actuate the brake, restoration of pressure to
working psi, and confirmation that all brakes release and full brake
pipe pressure has been restored to the rear of the train. Cars that
receive a Class II brake test are required to receive a full Class I
brake test at the next forward location where it can be performed.
    A Class III brake test, also known as a trainline continuity
inspection, must be performed any time the brake pipe is opened on an
operating train. The test includes charging the air brakes to working
pressure (no less than 60 psi at rear of train), making a 20-psi
reduction in the brake pipe to actuate the brake on the rear car of the
train, releasing the brake, and ensuring that pressure at the rear of
the train is restored.
    In addition to the types of air brake tests noted above, the
regulations require the brakes of individual cars to be periodically
maintained and tested in certain circumstances. This test is known as
an SCT and is used to validate individual air brake effectiveness. An
SCT is required: At least every 8 years for new or rebuilt freight
cars, at least every 5 years for all other freight cars, and any time a
freight car is on a shop

or repair track, if the car has not had a SCT in the previous 12
months.
    For a substantial summary, history, and analysis of the regulations
affecting Class I, Class IA, Class II, and Class III brake tests,
single car air brake tests, and the operation and testing of end-of-
train devices, please visit the following Federal Register
publications: 66 FR 4104, Jan. 17, 2001; 66 FR 39683, Aug. 1, 2001; and
67 FR 17555, Apr. 10, 2002.

B. FRA Waiver Authority and Process

    For years, FRA has in various instances exercised its delegated
authority to waive compliance with its regulations. See 49 U.S.C. 20103
(``The Secretary [of Transportation] may waive compliance with any part
of a regulation prescribed or order issued under this chapter if the
waiver is in the public interest and consistent with railroad
safety.''); see also 49 CFR 1.89(a). FRA implemented this authority by
issuing the rules under subpart C to 49 CFR part 211, providing a
process and requirements for receiving and responding to waiver
petitions. Each properly filed petition for a permanent or temporary
waiver of a safety rule, regulation, or standard is referred to the FRA
Railroad Safety Board (Safety Board) for decision. See 49 CFR
211.41(a). The Safety Board's decision is typically rendered after a
notice is published in the Federal Register and an opportunity for
public comment is provided. See 49 CFR 211.41(b). If a waiver petition
is granted, the Safety Board may impose conditions on the grant of
relief to ensure the decision is in the public interest and consistent
with railroad safety.
    Activity under a waiver of regulatory compliance may generate
sufficient data and experience to support an expansion of its scope,
applicability, and duration. For instance, in many cases, FRA has
expanded the scope of certain waivers or issued the same or similar
waivers to additional applicants. FRA has also extended various
waivers' expiration dates. A waiver's success and its continued
expansion warrant consideration of regulatory codification. FRA
believes that codifying a waiver, and thereby making its exemptions and
requirements universally applicable, results in industry cost-savings
larger than from the waiver alone.

C. Current Review of Waivers

    FRA is considering codifying waivers of compliance from rules
affecting motive power and equipment (MP&E), including the
aforementioned brake inspection requirements. More specifically, FRA is
proposing changes to the regulations affecting: The use of EOT devices
and Helper Link devices or similar technologies; higher air-flow on
distributed powered (DP) trains; and the performance of Class I air
brake tests and single car air brake tests (SCT). FRA is also proposing
technical corrections to existing regulations.
    The waiver subject matters considered for codification are more
specifically identified below. FRA requests comment on all aspects of
its proposals to incorporate the identified waivers into the
regulations. FRA has attempted to capture and identify the dockets for
all substantially similar waivers affected by this rulemaking. For
purposes of defining the scope of this rulemaking, FRA has identified
each of those waivers by docket number. However, FRA recognizes that
there may be some substantially similar waivers not identified in this
NPRM, but still affected by this rulemaking. All affected waivers,
whether specifically referenced in this NPRM or not, remain in force
for the time being, and FRA does not intend to terminate any waivers
upon the effective date of a final rule even if FRA incorporates the
requirements of a waiver into a final rule. It is possible that there
are exceptions or conditions in some existing waivers that are not
specifically codified in the final rule. FRA believes that terminating
waivers immediately upon the effective date of a final rule may
unnecessarily complicate matters, especially considering many of the
waivers will simply expire soon thereafter. In the event a regulated
entity wishes to continue a waiver's provision not captured by the
final rule in this proceeding beyond the expiration date of that
waiver, that entity could petition the Safety Board for an extension of
that provision. FRA seeks comment on this approach.

D. Identified Waivers

    For the public's convenience, below is a list of waiver petition
dockets, organized by subject matter, which FRA is proposing to codify
into its regulations. As noted, this list is not necessarily all-
inclusive. The public docket for each listed waiver may be accessed at
www.regulations.gov.
Air Flow Method
 Permit 90 cubic feet per minute (CFM) air flow and Railroad
Operating Rules (49 CFR 232.205(c)(1)(ii))
    [cir] BNSF Railway (BNSF), Canadian National Railway (CN), et. al.,
Docket No. FRA-2012-0130
End-of-Train (EOT) Device
 Power Source (49 CFR 232.403(g)(3))
    [cir] Wabtec Corporation (Wabtec), Docket No. FRA-2001-9270
    [cir] Quantum Engineering, Inc (Quantum) (n.k.a. Siemens Industry,
Inc. (Siemens)), Docket No. FRA-2006-25794
 Calibration (49 CFR 232.409(d))
    [cir] Wabtec, Docket No. FRA-2004-18895
    [cir] Ritron, Inc. (Ritron), Docket No. FRA-2009-0015
    [cir] DPS Electronics, Inc. (DPS), Docket No. FRA-2012-0096
    [cir] Siemens, Docket No. FRA-2015-0044
 Helper Service (49 CFR 232.219(c))
    [cir] BNSF, Docket No. FRA-2006-26435
    [cir] Montana Rail Link (MRL), Docket No. FRA-2014-0013
 Marker Lamp Height (49 CFR 221.13(d))
    [cir] DPS, Docket No. FRA-2015-0023
    [cir] Siemens, Docket No. FRA-2017-0093
 Utility Person and Battery Changes (49 CFR 218.22(c)(5))
    [cir] BNSF, Docket No. FRA-2001-10660
    [cir] Canadian Pacific Railway (CP), Docket No. FRA-2004-17989
Single Car Test
 Update Incorporation by Reference to Association of American
Railroads (AAR) Standard S-486-18 (49 CFR 232.305(a))
    [cir] AAR, Docket No. FRA-2018-0011
 Add Incorporation by Reference for AAR Standard S-4027-18 (49
CFR 232.305(a))
    [cir] BNSF and Union Pacific Railroad (UP), Docket No. FRA-2013-
0030
Automated Single Car Test
 24-Month Testing, Automated (AAR Standard S-4027) (49 CFR
232.305(b)(2))
    [cir] BNSF and UP, Docket No. FRA-2013-0030
 48-Month Testing, Four-Pressure Test (AAR Standard S-4027) (49
CFR 232.305(b)(2))
    [cir] BNSF and UP, Docket No. FRA-2013-0030
Clarifying Appendix B (Potentially Recodifying as Subpart H)
 Change AAR Standard S-045 to AAR Standard S-4045-13 (appx B,
II, Sec.  232.17(b)(2))
    [cir] AAR, Docket No. FRA-2013-0063

E. Incorporating by Reference New and Updated Standards Under 1 CFR
51.5

    As required by 1 CFR 51.5, FRA has summarized the standards it is
proposing to incorporate by reference in the section-by-section
analysis in this preamble. The AAR standards

summarized herein, and listed in the table directly below for
convenience, are reasonably available to all interested parties for
inspection. Copies can be obtained from the Association of American
Railroads, 425 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20024, telephone: (202)
639-2345, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>website: https://aarpublications.com. They are also available for inspection at the
Federal Railroad Administration, Docket Clerk, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590.

                           AAR Standards Incorporated By Reference in 49 CFR Part 232
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Year or      Section affected
       Identification No.                           Title                         edition          in 49 CFR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S-469-01.......................  Performance Specification for Freight                  2006  Sec.   232.103(l).
                                  Brakes.
S-486-18.......................  Code of Air Brake System Tests for Freight             2018  Sec.   232.305(a).
                                  Equipment.
S-4027-18......................  Automated Single-Car Test Equipment,                   2018  Sec.   232.305(a).
                                  Conventional Brake Equipment-Design and
                                  Performance Requirements.
S-4045-13......................  Passenger Equipment Maintenance                        2013  Sec.
                                  Requirements.                                                232.17(b)(2) in
                                                                                section I of
                                                                                Appendix B, part
                                                                                232. (proposed
                                                                                Sec.
                                                                                232.717(b)(2)).
S-4200.........................  Electronically Controlled Pneumatic (ECP)              2014  Sec.   232.603.
                                  Cable-Based Brake Systems--Performance
                                  Requirements.
S-4210.........................  ECP Cable-Based Brake System Cable,                    2014  Sec.   232.603.
                                  Connectors, and Junction Boxes--
                                  Performance Specifications.
S-4230.........................  Intratrain Communication (ITC)                         2014  Sec.   232.603.
                                  Specification for Cable-Based Freight
                                  Train Control System.
S-4250.........................  Performance Requirements for ITC Controlled            2014  Sec.   232.603.
                                  Cable-Based Distributed Power Systems.
S-4260.........................  ECP Brake and Wire Distributed Power                   2008  Sec.   232.603.
                                  Interoperability Test Procedures.
N/A............................  2020 Field Manual of the AAR Interchange               2020  Sec.   232.717.
                                  Rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule text already incorporates by reference the latest versions
of the following AAR standards, so no updates are currently proposed:
S-4220, ECP Cable-Based Brake DC Power Supply--Performance
Specification (2002); S-4240, ECP Brake Equipment--Approval Procedure
(2007); and S-4270, ECP Brake System Configuration Management (2008).

F. Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) Advice and Input

    FRA received substantial advice and feedback from the RSAC on the
contents of this rule. FRA first established the RSAC in March 1996
under Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L.
92-463) to provide a forum for stakeholder groups to provide advice and
recommendations to the FRA on railroad safety matters. In April 1996,
the RSAC formed the Tourist and Historic Railroads and Private
Passenger Car Working Group (THRWG). Since that time, the THRWG has
considered numerous issues affecting tourist and historic rail
operations and in August 2013, the THRWG accepted Task No. 13-01 to
consider the applicability of FRA's regulations to historical or
antiquated equipment that is used only for excursion, educational,
recreational, or private transportation purposes. The THRWG met in
Washington, DC on April 9-10, 2014, and reviewed, among other things,
the safety glazing standards (49 CFR part 223) regarding the treatment
of certain equipment; regulatory treatment under the freight car safety
standards (49 CFR part 215) of non-commercial freight cars over 50
years old; and the scope and application of appendix B of 49 CFR part
232 (freight power brake standards). The THRWG also identified other
issues involving FRA's regulatory treatment of tourist, scenic,
historic, excursion, educational or recreational rail operations or
private passenger rail car operations and equipment in other chapters
of title 49, which FRA anticipates will be addressed in subsequent
rulemakings. On December 4, 2014, the full RSAC accepted the THRWG's
report. See RSAC Meeting Minutes, p. 12, https://rsac.fra.dot.gov/radcms.rsac/File/DownloadFile?id=44. The updates to part 232, appendix
B (proposed Subpart H--Tourist, Scenic, Historic, and Excursion
Operations Braking Systems) of this NPRM are based on the THRWG's
report.

III. Section-by-Section Analysis

    Unless otherwise noted, all section references below refer to
sections in title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). FRA
seeks comments on all proposals in this NPRM.

Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part 218

Section 218.22 Utility Employee
    As stated in the 1993 rule initialing adopting Sec.  218.22, the
intent of this section is to define the circumstances under which a
utility employee may be permitted to function as a member of a train or
yard crew without the need for establishing blue signal protection. See
58 FR 43293, 43290, Aug. 16, 1993. The Blue Signal regulations are
found in Subpart B of part 218 (Sec. Sec.  218.21-218.41). Despite this
stated intent, existing paragraph (c) of Sec.  218.22 provides that
``under certain conditions . . . a utility employee [may] be assigned
to and serve as a member of a train or yard crew without the protection
otherwise required by subpart D to 49 CFR part 218.'' (Emphasis added).
Subpart D of part 218 (Sec. Sec.  218.51-218.61) contains FRA's
regulations prohibiting tampering with safety devices and, thus, the
reference makes no sense. In addition, paragraphs (c)(5) and (h) of
Sec.  218.22 specify conditions under which certain provisions of
subpart B (e.g., Sec. Sec.  218.23-218.30) must be complied with when a
utility employee is performing certain functions normally executed by a
train crew. Accordingly, FRA is proposing to amend the incorrect
reference to ``Subpart D'' in paragraph (c) to ``Subpart B,'' as this
reference is clearly a typographical error.
    In addition, FRA proposes amending the list of functions provided
in paragraph (c)(5) that do not require a utility employee to establish
blue signal protection to include battery change-out on rear-end
marking devices or end-of-train devices if the change-out is
accomplished without the use of tools.
    This relief has already been provided to BNSF and CP. See Docket
No. FRA-2001-10660; Docket No. FRA-2004-

17989. In their waiver petitions, BNSF and CP stated that potential
safety benefits would likely include an estimated 80% reduction in
safety-sensitive task completion time and significantly lighter loads
for service and utility employees to lift and handle. For instance,
when changing a battery, employees would no longer have to unhook the
air hose from the device, remove the device from the coupler, carry it
to a safe location and set it on the ground to change the battery, then
pick up the device, walk back to the end of the train and reinstall the
device. Instead, the employee would simply open a latch, slide out and
replace the battery, and refasten the latch.
    FRA granted those waiver petitions over a decade ago and each
railroad's record of operations under those waivers demonstrates that
the relief provided is safe. Accordingly, FRA believes codifying these
existing waivers would improve efficiency and is consistent with
railroad safety. FRA seeks comments on this proposal.
    FRA also seeks comment on the use of the term ``change out'' or
``change'' in paragraph (c). FRA understands that to ``change out''
batteries means to swap or replace them. This is certainly what FRA
intended when it granted the associated waivers. However, when
codifying this relief, FRA does not want to prohibit or otherwise
suppress future innovation. For instance, FRA believes removable or
non-removable rechargeable batteries or other similar technology could
one day suit the purpose of this proposal. Accordingly, FRA proposes to
use the broader term ``change'' (as opposed to change out) in the
proposed revision to paragraph (c).
    In proposing these changes to paragraph (c), FRA considered whether
other similar tasks could be reasonably excluded from the Blue Signal
requirements. FRA identified no such tasks. FRA also considered the
feasibility of establishing a performance standard (e.g., based on
time, complexity of task, or some other measure). After consideration
of these issues, FRA is not proposing any additional changes to
paragraph (c), but FRA invites commenters to identify other tasks that
may justify being added to the list of exceptions from the blue signal
requirements in the paragraph. Further, FRA seeks comment on the
utility and feasibility of establishing a performance-based requirement
in paragraph (c), as an alternative to listing specific tasks excluded
from the Blue Signal requirements.

Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part 221

Section 221.13 Marking Device Display
    Section 221.13 includes EOT marking device display requirements.
Paragraph (d) requires each marking device's centroid to be located at
a minimum of 48 inches above the top of the rail. In 2015 and 2017,
DPS, and Siemens Industry Inc. (``Siemens''), respectively, filed
similar waiver petitions requesting that the marker height measurement
be reduced to 41 and 42 inches, respectively. See Docket No. FRA-2015-
0023; Docket No. FRA-2017-0093. In their petitions, both DPS and
Siemens noted that newer designs of their marker lights weighed less
than previous designs and were designed to be mounted lower than 48
inches from the top of the rail. DPS and Siemens asserted that the
smaller dimensions and weight of the marker lights would reduce the
risk of injury to personnel handling the devices. Moreover, for marker
lights mounted at 36, 42, and 48 inches above the top of the rail, DPS
and Siemens provided supporting field test video data showing no
discernable visibility difference up to one mile away. In reviewing the
petitions and data, the Safety Board agreed that changing the marker
light height by several inches would not result in a significant
difference in visibility, especially since EOT marker lights are
typically viewed from distances of a half-mile or greater. FRA seeks
comment on the height standards proposed in this section.
    In addition to considering visibility over distances, FRA also
seeks comment on marker device visibility from varying angles. Viewing
angles may vary minutely due to natural variation in eye height from
one human observer to another. In addition, when considering DPS's and
Siemen's petitions, FRA performed a simplified trigonometric analysis
and determined that only a minimal number of negative scenarios would
result from cases in which a marker light would be mounted at 40
inches. See Docket No. FRA-2015-0023; Docket No. FRA-2017-0093.
    FRA granted DPS's and Siemen's waiver petitions based on evidence
showing that the difference in heights would not affect visibility of
the marker lights. Since granting the petitions, no accidents
attributed to a lowered marker lamp height permitted under these
waivers have been reported through the FRA accident reporting system.
Accordingly, FRA proposes codifying the waiver's exemptions and
conditions. FRA seeks comments and any information gleaned from
railroad experience relevant to this proposal.
    FRA believes that this change would allow the use of lighter weight
EOT devices, which will likely result in a lower risk of injury and
improved safety. Since the coupler is usually 38'' from the ground, and
the lamp height is currently required to be at least 48'' from the
ground, to make up the space, manufacturers created a 10'' tall box,
which doubles as heavy battery storage. With the introduction of air
turbine electricity to replace the need for batteries and a
consideration of reducing the 48'' height requirement, the size and
weight of this equipment could permissibly be reduced, resulting in
ergonomic benefits such as less awkward handling.
    FRA also understands that there has been a recent shift in the
industry from the use of incandescent to LED bulbs within marker
lights. FRA seeks comment on the effect this change has had and will
have on visibility. Further, to allow for flexibility over time as EOT
device technology and design changes, FRA also seeks comments on the
utility and feasibility of establishing a performance-based standard in
lieu of the specific height requirements of this section.
Appendix A to Part 221 Procedures for Approval of Rear End Marking
Devices
    To correct typographical errors, FRA is modifying ``perscribed'' to
``prescribed'' in paragraph (a)(1)(2)(ii) and ``peformed'' to
``performed'' in paragraph (b)(3)(ii).

Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part 232

Section 232.1 Scope
    Paragraph (b) of Sec.  232.1 describes how the scope of part 232
would change in phases after the January 2001 publication of a final
rule that created part 232. Paragraph (c) and the final phrase of
paragraph (d) includes similarly antiquated instructions. Those dates,
and their associated options, have since passed and the scope of part
232 has been fully realized under Sec.  232.1. Since these dates and
former options provide no guidance for current or future compliance,
FRA proposes removing paragraph (b)'s historical schedule, paragraph
(c) in its entirety, and the final phrase in paragraph (d) providing
for earlier optional compliance. FRA also proposes moving paragraph (d)
to paragraph (c). FRA seeks comment on these changes.
Section 232.5 Definitions
    Section 232.5 defines certain terms as they are used in part 232.
In this

section, FRA is proposing to update the definition of the term ``Air
Flow Indicator, AFM'' and add definitions for ``air repeater unit'' and
``APTA.'' All new air brake systems are equipped with digital AFM
indicators, and many analog AFM indicators are being replaced by
digital versions. FRA is clarifying the definition of the ``Air Flow
Indicator, AFM'' to acknowledge the use of digital versions, and to
specify that a digital version must have markings of equivalent or
finer resolution to that specified by FRA for an analog device.
    FRA proposes to add the term ``air repeater unit'' in Sec.
232.205, and define that term as ``a car, container or similar device
that provides an additional brake pipe air source by responding to air
control instructions from a controlling locomotive using a
communication system such as a distributed power system.'' FRA
understands a specialized car, other rolling equipment, or containers
in well cars can be used for this purpose. The communications must be
akin to a distributed power system to ensure accurate and sufficient
responses. These existing systems are identified here merely for
illustration. Ultimately, it is the purpose and use of the technology,
not its physical description, that determines whether the item is an
air repeater unit. FRA purposefully recognizes this distinction to
avoid limiting innovation and future options. FRA seeks comments on the
accuracy and sufficiency of this definition.
    FRA also proposes adding a definition for ``APTA'', the American
Public Transportation Association, since the organization is referenced
often as a source for standards and input.
Section 232.11 Penalties
    This section contains provisions regarding penalties. Since the
section was last amended, DOT has issued a final rule, in accordance
with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990
(FCPIAA), as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation
Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Act),\2\ that provides
the 2018 inflation adjustment to civil penalty amounts that may be
imposed for violations of certain DOT regulations. See 83 FR 60732
(Nov. 27, 2018). To avoid the need to update this section every time
the civil penalty amounts are adjusted for inflation, FRA has changed
this section by replacing references to specific penalty amounts with
general references to the minimum civil monetary penalty, ordinary
maximum civil monetary penalty, and aggravated maximum civil monetary
penalty. FRA has also added language to this section referring readers
to 49 CFR part 209, appendix A, where FRA will continue to specify
statutorily provided civil penalty amounts updated for inflation and to
FRA's website at www.fra.dot.gov which contains a schedule of civil
penalty amounts used in connection with this part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The FCPIAA and the 2015 Act require federal agencies to
adjust minimum and maximum civil penalty amounts for inflation to
preserve their deterrent impact. See 83 FR 60732, Nov. 27, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 232.103 General Requirements for all Train Brake Systems
    In a 2001 rulemaking, FRA incorporated by reference AAR Standard S-
469-47 (``Performance Specification for Freight Brakes'') \3\ into
Sec.  232.103(l). FRA subsequently also referenced S-469-47 in Sec.
232.603. Later in 2001, however, AAR updated S-469-47 for style and
format with no change in substance and reissued it as S-469-01. After
briefly being out-of-print, in 2006 AAR permanently returned S-469-01
to its Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In 1945, FRA's predecessor agency, the Interstate Commerce
Commission (ICC), and AAR agreed on certain power brake and draw bar
standards, which ICC partially memorialized in Interstate Commerce
Commission Order No. 13528, Investigation of Power Brakes and
Appliances for Operating Power-Brake Systems, 10 FR 6787, June 6,
1945 (``ICC Order 13528''). ICC Order 13528 referenced an appendix
that was not published until months later in a Supplement to the
Code of Federal Regulations. See 49 CFR part 132 (Power Brakes and
Draw Bars (Railroad)), Appendix (Specifications and Requirements for
Power Brakes and Appliances for Operating Power Brake Systems for
Freight Service) (Supp. 1945). While this late-published appendix to
ICC Order 13528 was the regulation requiring compliance, in 1947 AAR
published an identical AAR Standard S-469-47. Eventually, the ICC
Order 13528 appendix was moved into appendix B of 49 CFR part 232.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    S-469 is the AAR's identical publication of the Interstate Commerce
Commission Order 13528, originally published in 1945. Between 1947 and
2000, S-469 and Order 13528 were simultaneously published in the AAR
Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices and as appendix B in 49
CFR part 232. The 2001 revision of part 232 ceased to publish Order
13528 as appendix B, and refers the public to obtain this document from
the AAR. The purpose of the document is to define and prescribe
requirements for power brakes and appliances for operating power brake
systems.
    Accordingly, FRA proposes updating the citation to the presently
available S-469-01. FRA also will correct AAR's address. FRA seeks
comments on these updates.
Section 232.205 Class I Brake Test-Initial Terminal Inspection
    Section 232.205 contains the requirements for conducting Class I
brake tests-initial terminal inspections. Section 232.205 requires a
train to receive a Class I brake test (as described in paragraph (c) of
the section) at certain times. For example, Sec.  232.205 requires a
Class I brake test be performed when a train is initially assembled,
when the consist is changed in certain ways (by adding or removing
cars), and when a train is off-air for more than four hours.\4\ FRA
proposes to revise this section to extend the four-hour off-air
limitation to 24 hours. FRA also proposes changes to brake pipe leakage
requirements during certain Class I air brake tests, and requirements
associated with AFM indicator calibration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Earlier rules required the performance of Class I air brake
test on equipment left off air for only two hours or more. The four
hours referenced in the existing rule reflects a compromise
subsequently recommended by industry stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the existing regulation, if a train or equipment (e.g.,
individual cars) is left unattached to any air source (e.g.,
locomotive, yard air) for more than four hours, it must receive a Class
I brake test prior to further operation of the train. See 49 CFR
232.205(a)(3). Moreover, to ensure that its air brake system did not
degrade, and to allow a railroad to delay a full-train Class I test in
many circumstances, equipment off-air for more than four hours may
require a Class I or II test prior to being added to an en route train,
and will require a Class III brake test prior to being operated in
revenue service. See 49 CFR 232.209(a)(1) and 232.211(a)(3)-(a)(5).
This requirement also affects yard air applications. See Sec.
232.217(c)(1). For a more substantial history and analysis of the off-
air requirement, see 66 FR 4103, 4122, Jan. 17, 2001.
    In December 2017, AAR filed a petition for waiver from the 4-hour
rule, contending it is too restrictive. See Docket No. FRA-2017-
0130.\5\ Subsequently, in a letter dated July 12, 2018--included in the
public docket to this rulemaking proceeding--AAR submitted a petition
for rulemaking mirroring the waiver request it submitted in December
2017. See Docket No. FRA-2018-0093, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FRA-2018-0093-0002. To support its
filing, AAR supplied data provided by its member railroads and a
Failure Modes and Effect Analysis

(FMEA). According to AAR, the data provided in its petition for
rulemaking supports the conclusion that time off-air does not correlate
with higher failure rates. Page one of Appendix 7 of AAR's petition
includes data submitted by seven (7) Class 1 railroads from the period
between March 1, 2017, and March 1, 2018. According to AAR, the data
shows that line of road failures (expressed as emergency brake
applications), for which a specific mechanical cause is not found,
occurred 0.20 times per million car miles in Canada, where a valid air
brake inspection may remain off-air for 24 hours or longer; while the
equivalent line of road failure rate on US railroads is 0.27 times per
million car miles, where a valid air brake inspection may only remain
off-air for four hours. AAR contends safety improvements in air brake
technology should further mitigate safety concerns and support allowing
cars to be kept off-air for extended periods of time, well beyond 24
hours, without requiring a Class I brake test. For example, AAR states
that leakage on standing trains has been greatly reduced by welded
brake piping and fittings and ferrule-clamped air hoses (the rail
industry no longer uses grip type fittings, in accordance with
interchange rules). In addition, AAR cites continuous improvements in
car control valves since the last regulatory change as well as industry
adoption of federal requirements to perform biannual inspections on
yard air systems and oil and contaminant separators to keep the
compressed air clean. AAR also contends that providing a 24-hour off-
air period would help harmonize US and Canadian regulations, as
Canadian regulations currently permit cars to be off-air for up to 24
hours without the equivalent of a Class I brake test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Safety Board denied the waiver petition finding that the
relief requested was more appropriately addressed through the
rulemaking process and that there was a lack of supporting data
submitted with the waiver request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this NPRM, FRA is responding to AAR's petition for rulemaking by
proposing to change the off-air requirements. As noted above, AAR's
petition, and its included data sets, have been placed in the docket to
this proceeding. FRA finds that the supporting information provided by
AAR demonstrates that a reasonable extension of time permitted under
the off-air requirement could improve railroad efficiency and would not
impact the safety of railroad operations. FRA agrees that the
technological improvements cited by AAR have been beneficial in
improving the overall health of brake systems. In addition, when
considering an extension of permissible off-air time, FRA finds the
data provided by AAR in Appendix 7 of its petition, comparing Canadian
and U.S. operations, supportive of AAR's request. The data provided by
AAR shows a lower, yet statistically insignificant, rate of line-of-
road failures (i.e., failures found en route on an operating train, not
by inspectors or otherwise while standing still) attributed to air
brakes in Canada (allowing 24 hours off-air) than in the United States
(allowing only 4 hours off-air). The data also includes same-railroad
results (based on CN and CP data) showing fewer undesired and
unintended emergency brake applications occurring in Canada than in the
United States. See AAR Petition for Rulemaking, July 12, 2018, Appendix
7, Slide 4. FRA seeks comments and information as to what reasons there
may be for Canada's lower rates of air-brake-related failures that
would better inform FRA of the off-air requirement's impact.
    Furthermore, by extending the time that equipment is permitted to
remain off-air without requiring additional brake testing, the AAR
predicts a significant reduction in tests performed for this reason,
decreasing wait times, and increasing network velocity. AAR states an
extension of the off-air requirement will also reduce locomotive idling
times spent providing a source of compressed air and will allow
railroads to eliminate older sources of yard air, but will also ensure
that brakes are inspected often enough to ensure they are in proper
working condition. Accordingly, in this NPRM, FRA proposes to extend
the off-air limitation from 4 hours to 24 hours in Sec. Sec.  232.205,
232.209, 232.211, and 232.217. FRA seeks comments on this proposal. FRA
also seeks comments on the accuracy and sufficiency of the data
supplied by AAR to support this relief.
    In the 2001 final rule revising the regulations governing power
brake systems, FRA extended the time from two hours to four hours
during which equipment may remain off-air without additional
inspection. In its conclusion to limit the amount of time that
equipment may be off-air to four hours, FRA noted its concern that in
certain circumstances, the length of time that equipment is off air can
impact the equipment's air brake system particularly in cold weather or
in areas where the potential for vandalism is high due to the equipment
left standing. Further, FRA stated:

    [I]f equipment were allowed to be off-air for an excessive
amount of time, it would be virtually impossible for FRA to ensure
that equipment is being properly retested as it would be extremely
difficult for FRA to determine how long a particular piece of
equipment was disconnected from a source of compressed air. In order
to make such a determination, FRA would have to maintain observation
of the equipment for days at a time.

66 FR 4103, 4122, Jan. 17, 2001. FRA recognizes that it may verify off-
air duration through train and car movement records, the presence of
any ground air sources, and witness interviews. However, FRA remains
concerned about how to easily and accurately determine the length of
time equipment may have been disconnected from an air source,
particularly given the proposal to increase the permissible off-air
duration. FRA believes that since 2001, there have been numerous
technological and operational advances that provide railroads with the
ability to track the amount of time equipment is left off a source of
compressed air and that railroads should be able to track the 24-hour
off-air period in some manner so that FRA can exercise appropriate
oversight where necessary. Rather than propose a specific requirement
regarding such tracking, FRA seeks comment on whether such tracking is
necessary or whether there are other means by which FRA can determine
the amount of time equipment is left off a source of compressed air. In
addition, FRA seeks comment on what types of tracking systems or
methods might be available to the industry related to this issue and
how tracking data should be maintained. FRA requests that commenters
also include quantified information on how such a tracking system may
burden or benefit each railroad. FRA also seeks comment on how to
codify any such requirements.
    FRA also recognizes that Canada has permitted equipment to remain
off-air without a brake inspection for as long as 48 hours upon
notification to Transport Canada (TC). See Railway Freight and
Passenger Train Brake Inspection and Safety Rule section 11.2(b),
Transport Canada, Oct. 27, 2014, available at https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/rules-tco0184-139.htm#section11 (``A No.1 brake test is not
required on: A block swap of cars that have been off-air for no more
than 24 hours or 48 hours after notifying the department.''). In
practice, FRA understands TC receives only a small number of such
notifications per year, almost exclusively during the holidays or
special situations such as a labor strike. At most, TC states that two
locations provide such notifications up to 1-2 times per month.
    While not specifically proposing a similar provision, FRA requests
comments on whether to extend the off-air limitation to 48 hours under
certain

circumstances and conditions, including appropriate, sufficient, and
timely notification to FRA. FRA seeks comment on how often this
provision is utilized in Canada and under what circumstances it is used
and, if FRA were to adopt a similar provision, under what circumstances
it should be available, how often it would be utilized, and whether a
provision requiring FRA notification of a railroad's use of the
provision would be justified. More specifically, FRA seeks proposals
concerning the documentation, contents, timing, delivery,
acknowledgment, and memorialization of any potential notification
requirement. FRA recognizes that Sec. Sec.  232.207(c)(2) and
232.213(a)(1) already include notification procedures and seeks
comments on those provisions' potential applicability in this instance.
    FRA also requests comment on potential regulatory alternatives to a
time-off-air limit that would address the same safety risks and ensure
that, despite equipment being off air for any length of time, that
equipment's air brakes are in proper working condition. FRA recognizes
that time off-air may not be directly linked to brake failures, but
given the multitude of variables that can affect brake system integrity
(e.g., environmental factors such as temperature and humidity,
operational factors (e.g., use of power braking, time taken to inspect
equipment, quality of compressed air from locomotives or yard air
plants), age, and overall condition of the equipment), FRA has not
identified a feasible alternative to the off-air requirement. Despite
the many technical advancements in air brake technology, with the
exception of certain specialized air brake systems such as
electronically-controlled pneumatic brakes, the structure of air brake
systems on rail equipment involves many connections, which by nature
cause the systems to experience gradual leaks once removed from an air
source. For example, in its investigation of the 2013 Lac-
M[eacute]gantic, Quebec accident, the Transportation Safety Board of
Canada (TSB), cited two instances of air brake failures where brake
systems of rail equipment failed after being left off-air for
approximately one hour. In the first instance, TSB cited weather
conditions as the cause of the failure and in the second instance, TSB
cited the condition of the equipment itself. See TSB Railway
Investigation Report R13D0054 (available at tsb.gc.ca). Accordingly,
FRA recognizes that a time-off-air requirement does not directly
protect against all air brake failures, but FRA has not yet identified
an effective alternative. FRA requests comments on whether any
potential alternatives to the off-air requirement exist that are
potentially less burdensome and more efficient, while ensuring the same
level of safety. FRA also invites comment on what, if any, additional
changes to the off-air requirement could be made to make the
requirement even less burdensome than proposed in this rule, including,
but not limited to, extending the proposed 24-hour window to longer
windows (e.g., 36 or 48 hours and under what conditions such extensions
would be warranted). FRA asks that commenters specifically explain how
any alternatives identified would meet the statutory requirement of 49
U.S.C. 20302(d)(2) requiring any changes to the regulations governing
the ``installing, inspection, maintaining, and repair'' of train air
brakes be made ``only for the purpose of achieving safety.''
    Existing Sec.  232.205 provides two methods for conducting Class I
brake tests on pressure-maintaining brake valves such as the standard
26-L brake valve: (1) A leakage test; or (2) an air flow method test.
See Sec.  232.205(c)(1)(i), (ii). It is physically impossible to
prevent all leakage from a train's brake pipe given the mechanical
connections between cars' air hoses (i.e., a certain amount of air will
always leak through the mechanical connections) and each method of
testing measures the pressure drop in a train's brake pipe in different
ways. The leakage test measures the amount of compressed air leaking
from the brake pipe, while the air flow test method measures the amount
of compressed air the pressure maintaining valve is putting back into
the brake pipe in order to maintain the line's pressure. Regardless of
the test method employed, existing Sec.  232.205 requires the pressure
at the rear of the train to be within 15 psi of the pressure that the
train will be operated at (known as the ``pressure taper'').
    When conducting a Class I test using the air flow method, existing
paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(B) prohibits brake pipe leakage from exceeding 60
cubic feet per minute (CFM). FRA proposes increasing the limit to 90
CFM when distributed power (DP) or an air repeater unit is utilized.
    The traditional air flow test is measured from a single point of
air flow, at the controlling locomotive of the train. In other words,
the traditional air flow test method is measuring the amount of air the
controlling locomotive's brake system is putting back into the train's
brake pipe. Because the air originates at a single source (the
controlling locomotive) and travels sequentially through each car's air
brake system, each connected via a mechanical air hose, gradually the
pressure in the train's airline tapers off. DP trains have locomotives
located at two or more locations in the train, providing a uniform
distribution of power to reduce unwanted in-train forces, and providing
for multiple supplies of air brake pressure and control. Similarly, air
brake repeater boxcars or containers mounted in well cars have been
used to provide multiple sources of air brake pressure and control.
When DP locomotives or air repeater units are used to conduct Class I
brake tests, air in the train line is controlled from each of those
sources, resulting in the pressure through the brake pipe being better
maintained.
    Canadian railroads have operated with the higher air flow limit of
90 CFM on DP trains since 2011. In 2013, BNSF demonstrated on a train
of 110 grain cars that, when air pressure is provided at each end of
the train consist through DP, a maximum 90 CFM air flow would only
reduce the brake pipe pressure by 8 psi, well within the 15 psi
pressure taper limit of Sec.  232.205(c)(1)(i)(A). Brake propagation
rates were found to be comparable to 60 CFM levels. After consideration
of BNSF's data and test findings, the Safety Board permitted a test
waiver to test the concept and develop data on the use of 90 CFM
airflow on DP trains. See Docket No. FRA-2012-0091.
    Under this waiver, BNSF, CN, CP, and UP operated test trains with
oversight by a test committee comprised of railroad representatives,
AAR brake committee members, affected labor representatives, air brake
and DP equipment manufacturers, an FRA test monitor, and others
involved with the operation of DP trains at higher CFM air flows (over
60 CFM, but less than 90 CFM). All testing procedures and parameters
were subject to a consensus of the entire test committee, and the
approval of the FRA test monitor. Between December 5, 2013, and January
13, 2017, the test committee supervised operation of 68 trains. All 68
trains operated safely and without incident. One unintentional brake
release occurred that the test committee concluded was an anomaly and
not related to the test. FRA subsequently granted these railroads a
standard waiver without the need for test committee supervision under
Docket No. FRA-2012-0091.
    In light of the proven safety and efficacy of the waiver, FRA
proposes the use of a 90 CFM air flow limit on distributed power and
air brake repeater equipped trains. See proposed

Sec.  232.205(c)(ii)(B). The waivers permitted this flexibility subject
to various conditions to ensure safety. FRA recognizes that the
conditions in those waivers may be railroad- or territory-specific. To
ensure the same level of safety intended by FRA when establishing the
conditions applicable to each railroad's waiver operations, but to
allow for continued flexibility, FRA proposes requiring that each
railroad implement operating rules to ensure compliant operation of a
train if air flow exceeds these parameters after the Class I brake test
is completed. See proposed Sec.  232.205(c)(1)(ii)(B). In other words,
an operating plan amended in accordance with this proposal would
replace many of the restrictions and conditions of an associated
waiver. A railroad may consider using the applicable waiver's
conditions as a template or starting point when drafting their
operating rules on this subject. FRA seeks comments on this proposal.
    Current Sec.  232.205(c)(1)(iii) requires air flow indicator
calibration at least every 92 days and prohibits the calibration of air
flow test orifices at temperatures below 20 degrees Fahrenheit. These
standards were developed during a 1998 rulemaking incorporating into
regulation the conditions from a previous waiver. See 63 FR 48294,
48305, Sept. 9, 1998. However, in that rulemaking, FRA noted one
railroad's report that it had problems calibrating the devices in
extremely cold weather until it calibrated both components of the
devices used (the AFM indicator and the test orifice) at temperatures
of 20 degrees Fahrenheit and above. See 63 FR 48294, 48305, Sep. 9,
1998. In other words, to accurately calibrate the devices, the entire
AFM system--not just the test orifices--must be calibrated at not less
than 20 degrees Fahrenheit.
    However, in the 1998 rule, FRA failed to specify that both the AFM
indicator and the test orifice must be calibrated at temperatures of 20
degrees Fahrenheit or above. Currently, BNSF is conducting a test
waiver to study the safety and efficacy of extending the AFM
calibration period to 184 days. During that proceeding, the AFM Test
Waiver Committee determined that an air flow indicator (not calibration
test orifice) calibrated at below 20 degrees F will not be able to
maintain the required 3 CFM accuracy at high (i.e., > 90
degrees F) ambient temperatures. See Docket No. FRA-2016-0086. The
Committee brought this to FRA's attention when it was effectively
reminded of this original 1998 comment by the poor results of
calibrating the AFM at lower temperatures.
    Under the law of volumes (also known as Charles's Law), when the
pressure on a sample of dry gas (ideally dry and without condensation
or other contaminants) is held constant, the Kelvin temperature and the
volume will be in direct proportion. This also means that as the
temperature rises and the volume expands, the flow through the
calibration orifice will change. Because of Charles's Law, when train
brake air pressure is calibrated at very low temperatures, the
temperature-volume relationship will cause air flow at high ambient
temperatures to be outside the permitted accuracy of 3 CFM.
Therefore, FRA proposes clarifying that the temperature of the AFM
indicator and the test orifices, must be considered during calibration
to insure accuracy.
    FRA proposes new paragraph (c)(1)(v) to codify long-standing FRA
guidance regarding the compliant handling of an inoperative or out-of-
calibration AFM indicator. As noted above, because Sec.  232.205 allows
railroads to choose between two methods of performing Class 1 brake
tests: (1) The traditional leakage test; or (2) the air flow method
using an AFM indicator, the installation and use of an AFM indicator is
optional and the primary method of the leakage test (a test that does
not require an AFM indicator) is always available.
    Under the Locomotive Inspection Act (the ``Act''; 49 U.S.C. 20701),
a locomotive and its ``appurtenances'' must be ``in proper condition
and safe to operate'' before it can be placed in service. FRA's
Locomotive Safety Standards (49 CFR part 229) implement the Act. Under
the Act, if a locomotive or appurtenance of a locomotive does not meet
the ``in proper condition and safe to operate'' standard, it may not be
placed in service. See 49 CFR 229.7. Because the use of an AFM
indicator is optional and is not necessary for a locomotive to be ``in
proper condition and safe to operate'', an AFM indicator is not an
appurtenance to the locomotive under the Act. Accordingly, the daily
inspection requirements of part 229 do not apply to an AFM indicator.
    To clarify the rules applicable to noncompliant or out of
calibration air flow indicators, FRA proposes to add a new paragraph
(c)(1)(v) addressing AFM indicators. This proposed new paragraph would
prohibit the use of an AFM indicator not in compliance with part 232,
require a noncompliant AFM indicator to be tagged under Sec.
232.15(b), with the tag to be placed in a conspicuous location of the
controlling locomotive cab. Furthermore, FRA recognizes that part 229
(at Sec.  229.29(g)) currently requires the date of a locomotive's AFM
indicator's calibration to be recorded on the locomotive's blue card
(i.e., the Locomotive and Inspection Repair Record (FRA Form F
6180.49A)). FRA believes this requirement has merit and will complement
the proposal in this rule to tag noncompliant AFM indicators under
Sec.  232.15(b). To consolidate the rules related to AFM indicators,
FRA may consider removing this requirement from part 229 and moving it
to part 232 in this or a future rulemaking to consolidate the rules
related to AFM indicators. FRA seeks comments on this proposal.
Section 232.209 Class II Brake Tests--Intermediate Inspection
    FRA proposes amending the off-air requirements of this section.
Please refer to the off-air requirements analysis provided for Sec.
232.205.
Section 232.211 Class III Brake Tests-Trainline Continuity Inspection
    FRA proposes amending the off-air requirements of this section.
Please refer to the off-air requirements analysis provided for Sec.
232.205.
Section 232.213 Extended Haul Trains
    Under existing Sec.  232.213, a railroad may be permitted to move a
train up to, but not exceeding, 1,500 miles between brake tests and
inspections if the railroad designates a train as an extended haul
train and the train meets certain requirements. On March 1, 2019, AAR
submitted a petition for rulemaking that, if granted, would allow rail
cars with a valid electronic air brake slip system (``eABS'') record to
travel up to 2,500 miles between brake tests and inspections. In this
NPRM, FRA is addressing only foundational requirements, such as the 24-
hour off-air proposal, that could support the full implementation of
eABS. However, FRA intends to address eABS in a future proceeding.
    For a train to qualify as an extended haul train, paragraph (a)(1)
requires the railroad to, in writing, designate the train as an
extended haul train and provide certain information to FRA, including
``[t]he type or types of equipment the train will haul.'' See 49 CFR
232.213(a)(1)(iii). This provision requiring a train description was
issued in lieu of requiring specific identification of every train and
is necessary to facilitate FRA's ability to independently monitor a
railroad's operation of these extended haul trains. The applicable
NPRM, to which the final rule stated it was not making changes,
indicated that the requirement was to also help ensure ``that a train
is

in safe and proper condition to travel a prescribed distance without
further inspection.'' 59 FR 47676, 47693, Sept. 16, 1994.
    Since the final rule was published, railroads have periodically
supplied FRA with spreadsheets identifying their extended haul trains
and providing the required information. Over time, some railroads have
changed the format of their spreadsheet submissions and FRA has
generally accepted an abbreviated identification of each train type as
long as it is sufficiently descriptive. However, recently railroads
have included very generic equipment type references on their
submissions (e.g., ``general merchandise,'' ``manifest,'' ``any'').
These very generic descriptions are not adequate to inform FRA what the
type of equipment a train is hauling and FRA is taking this opportunity
to remind railroads of the need to identify with sufficient clarity the
type of equipment being hauled in extended haul trains. FRA seeks
comments and information on how to achieve such clarity on what level
of description FRA should expect. Given that this provision is intended
to ensure FRA can differentiate extended haul trains from non-extended
haul trains for oversight purposes, FRA also seeks comments on whether
there is a better way to differentiate such trains. FRA considered
alternatives to the requirement for railroads to designate trains to
FRA in advance as extended haul trains, but short of developing
recordkeeping and retention requirements which would necessarily
include more detailed information than currently required so that FRA
could distinguish between extended haul and non-extended haul trains
and determine whether brake tests and other inspections were performed
as required, FRA did not identify any less burdensome method. FRA
requests comments, however, on any potential alternatives that would
achieve the same result as the designation currently required.
    When designating the train in writing to FRA, paragraph (a)(1)(iv)
also requires the railroad to identify ``the locations where all train
brake and mechanical inspections and tests will be performed.'' In
other words, the submission must include the location of every expected
brake and mechanical inspection, not only the Class I inspections
performed by a qualified mechanical inspector, on the designated train.
A failure to notify FRA of the locations the required initial or
intermediate brake tests are performed could result in a violation for
non-compliance. FRA has previously exercised enforcement discretion and
has not objected to railroads changing the designated locations of
brake tests and mechanical inspections of extended haul trains provided
the railroad utilizes the notification procedures applicable to Class
IA inspections (Sec.  232.207(c)(2)), or if the railroad provides an
updated electronic spreadsheet identifying the locations. FRA believes
that this notification procedure is appropriate for extended haul
trains in the event of an emergency that alters normal train operations
such as a derailment. Accordingly, FRA proposes to add a new paragraph
(a)(8) mirroring the notification procedure of Sec.  232.207(c)(2) that
would allow railroads the flexibility to designate different inspection
and test locations for extended haul trains under certain
circumstances. FRA believes that codification of this practice would
provide the railroads a flexible reporting procedure, and ultimately
regulatory certainty, to address emergency circumstances involving
extended haul operations. FRA seeks comment on this proposal.
    Section 232.213 previously provided for an inbound inspection of
all extended haul trains. Certain related requirements sunset on April
1, 2007, without further FRA action, and FRA formally removed those
requirements in 2008. See 73 FR 61511, 61523, 61553, Dec. 15, 2008.
Nevertheless, several other references to the inbound inspection
remain. FRA proposes to edit paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6) and modify
numbering, where necessary, to provide clarity and to remove language
that is no longer applicable. FRA seeks comments on this proposal.
    FRA also requests comments on potential regulatory alternatives to
the existing extended haul provisions of Sec.  232.213, potential
improvements that could be made to the section to clarify or expand the
provision, or whether this provision could be eliminated by the
adoption of certain alternative standards or requirements. For example,
the section currently distinguishes between inspections conducted by
``qualified mechanical inspectors'' and ``qualified persons'' (both of
which are defined in Sec.  232.5). FRA requests comments and data on
whether this distinction is still justified and necessary. FRA also
requests comments on the utility and feasibility of extending the
mileage limits between brake inspections the section contains and what,
if any, safety data would support extensions of those limits. As noted
above, FRA intends to address issues such as mileage limitations
between brake tests in a separate rule addressing eABS as requested by
AAR.
Section 232.217 Train Brake Tests Conducted Using Yard Air
    FRA proposes amending the off-air requirements of this section.
Please refer to the off-air requirements analysis provided for Sec.
232.205.
Section 232.219 Double Heading and Helper Service
    Section 232.219 provides regulations for the operation of double
headed and helper locomotives in a train including when Helper Link or
a similar technology is used to control the emergency brake function on
helper locomotive consists. The rule, as written, is appropriate for a
train with an EOT device; however, the rule is not compatible with
trains that are not equipped with traditional EOT devices, including
ECP-brake operated trains and trains with DP units in lieu of an EOT
device. To address this issue, BNSF and MRL both sought regulatory
relief from the requirements in 49 CFR 232.219. See Docket Nos. FRA-
2014-0013 and FRA-2006-26435. BNSF originally sought relief for ECP
brake-configured train consists, and MRL sought relief for DP consists
with one or more DP (non-helper) locomotives on the rear. FRA
conditionally granted both waiver requests. Since granting this relief,
there has been no known negative impact on safety involving these
operations.
    FRA believes that codifying BNSF's and MRL's respective waiver
requests would improve efficiency and is consistent with railroad
safety. As such, FRA proposes new paragraph (d) permitting use of a
properly installed and tested EOT device on the helper locomotive that
is cut-in to the train line air supply. However, each railroad would
ensure its safe operation by developing and implementing an associated
operating rule consistent with parts 221 (concerning marker light
display) and 232 (concerning EOT device installation and testing) and
the conditions established in the waivers discussed above. FRA seeks
comments on this proposal.
Section 232.305 Single Car Air Brake Tests
    For conducting the single car air brake tests prescribed by Sec.
232.305(b), FRA has incorporated by reference AAR Standard S-486-04.
AAR Standard S-486-04 was issued by AAR in 2004 and incorporated by
reference into Sec.  232.305(a) by FRA in 2008. See 73 FR 61553, 61522,
61553, Oct. 16, 2008. Under the processes outlined in Sec.  232.307--
which allows the industry to request FRA approval of modifications to a
currently acceptable single car air

brake test procedure--FRA approved the use of AAR Standard S-486-18 in
May 2018. See Docket No. FRA-2018-0011.
    The purpose of S-486 is to provide a means of making a general
check on the condition of the brake equipment on cars as called for in
the Filed Manual of the AAR Interchange Rules. Only Sections 4 and 5
are codified as these are the tests that ensure safe operation of
individual freight car brakes to comply with the Safety Appliance Act.
Other sections of the Standard contain supplemental information that
are not codified to provide flexibility to be updated without meeting
Federal requirements. These include troubleshooting guidance and
information on the maintenance and construction of the physical testing
devices.
    AAR Standard S-486-18 is the industry's current, most updated
standard for conducting single car air brake tests, and includes
provisions for testing valves equipped with brake cylinder maintaining
features that the 2004 version does not. In this rulemaking, FRA
proposes to update the rule text to reflect these approved changes.
More specifically, FRA proposes that paragraph (a) incorporate by
reference AAR Standard S-486-18.
    In addition to updating the referenced version of AAR Standard S-
486, FRA also proposes incorporating by reference AAR Standard S-4027,
which provides for a more automated version of the single car air brake
test. For example, while the manual test is dependent upon the visual
acuity of the carmen performing the inspection to read an analog gage
to within 1 psi, an automated test can digitally measure and record a
pressure to within the more exact 0.1 psi and does not require the same
visual acuity on the part of the carmen performing the inspection. The
testing device also provides electronic prompts and feedback to the
carmen, ensuring that the test is performed in a consistent manner.
    BNSF and UP jointly petitioned FRA to allow use of AAR Standard S-
4027, ``Automated Single-Car Test Procedure, Conventional Brake
Equipment,'' in lieu of AAR Standard S-487. See Docket No. FRA-2013-
0030. AAR Standard S-4027, while based on the requirements of AAR
Standard S-486, includes automated processes to perform a single car
air brake test with an automated single car test device (ASCTD). More
specifically, the standard produces performance uniformity between each
ASCTD regardless of manufacturer and describes the SCT procedure and
the minimum performance that must be demonstrated to achieve AAR
approval. Sections 3 and 4 are codified as they pertain to an automated
tester connected to the end of a freight car, while section 13 pertains
to an automated test performed from the side of a car using the four-
pressure manifold. These sections include the tests that ensure safe
operation of individual freight car brakes to comply with the Safety
Appliance Act. AAR most recently updated AAR Standard S-4027 in 2018.
    To be clear, FRA proposes to formally update the incorporated by
reference AAR Standard S-486-04 to S-486-18, which has already gone
through the Sec.  232.307 approval process. That standard concerns
traditional single car air brake tests. In the alternative, if a
railroad wishes to perform an automated single car air brake test, FRA
proposes to incorporate by reference AAR Standard S-4027-18.
    In 2013, FRA granted a conditional test waiver permitting a two-
year period between automated single car testing procedures and
establishing a test committee comprised of representatives from the air
brake manufacturers, affected labor representatives, FRA, railroad
representatives, AAR brake committee members, and others involved in
ASCTD manufacture and operations. See Docket No. FRA-2013-0030. Under
the consensus procedures established by the test committee and an FRA
test monitor, BNSF, CN, CSX, and UP tested more than 800,000 freight
cars over 4.5 years. The results appear to support the railroads'
original test thesis that ASCTD testing would provide an average 11.5
percentage point reduction in repeat failures (measured as failure
occurring within one year of a single car test). The actual testing
showed small differences between manual and automated tests initially
but increasing differences over time. After one year, the rate of
repeat failures for ASCTD-tested cars was 5 percentage points lower
than manually-tested cars, and 12 percentage points lower after 4.5
years. Moreover, while a traditional SCT device has a single hose
connecting to the brake system to measure all functions, an ASCTD may
utilize separate hoses to independently measure test pressures at their
original sources on cars equipped with a four-pressure manifold for a
more precise test (i.e., a four-pressure automated test). Freight cars
tested with a four-pressure automated test provided a repeat failure
rate of only about 5%, representing a 12-percentage point improvement
over a traditional single car test after one year. After 4.5 years,
four-pressure tested cars widened their margin over manually-tested
cars by 42 percentage points, or about a 58% reduction in the rate of
repeat failures. The test committee also found that ASCTDs generally
identify more relevant air brake system defects in the categories of
air components, control valves and pipe brackets, valves and
subsystems, and other tests. Lastly, the test waiver data has shown
that a car tested with an ASCTD is 26% less likely to have an AAR-
condemnable wheel impact load detector (WILD) indication, with four-
pressure showing an even better 70% improvement. Docket No. FRA-2013-
0030 contains a summary of the test committee's findings. FRA seeks
comments on the above assessments and the applicability and sufficiency
of those findings.
    With the knowledge gained under the test waiver, FRA believes AAR
Standard S-4027 improves efficiencies and overall brake system health
and is consistent with railroad safety. Therefore, FRA believes the
standard is sufficiently mature and ripe for regulatory consideration
as a standalone-standard under paragraph (a). FRA seeks comments on
this proposal.
    Paragraph (b) identifies the events triggering a required single
car air brake test. For instance, under paragraph (b)(2), ``a railroad
shall perform a single car air brake test on a car when a car is on a
shop or repair track . . . for any reason and has not received a single
car air brake test within the previous 12-month period.'' Based on the
results performed by the tests under Docket No. FRA-2013-0030, and the
ability of the subject technology to provide a more comprehensive
testing of the braking system, FRA feels it is warranted to propose an
extension of time between single car air brake tests using this
technology. Accordingly, FRA proposes relaxing the requirements under
paragraph (b)(2) by only requiring a single car air brake test on ASCTD
tested cars appearing on a shop or repair track within the past 24
months; and extend the period for cars tested with the four-pressure
ASCTD test to 48 months. FRA believes the data found under the test
waiver supports this change. FRA seeks comments on this proposal.
    FRA also requests comments on the need to maintain the dual
timeframes for conducting single car air brake tests in paragraphs
(b)(2) and (c). Recognizing this framework was originally established
based on an industry request to replace mandatory system overhaul with
more frequent qualification testing, and that there are certain
efficiencies gained by performing the single car air brake tests when
they are already on a

repair track, FRA specifically requests comments on whether the repair
yard provision of paragraph (b)(2) should be eliminated so that a
single car air brake test would be required only every five years or
when the brake system is impacted as contemplated under paragraph
(b)(4). FRA understands that, on a daily basis, thousands of individual
freight cars (out of the approximately 1.2 million freight cars in the
North American fleet) are overdue for their single car air brake test.
FRA requests comment on the effect the potentially eliminating the
repair track provision of paragraph (b)(2) may have on this statistic
and any policies to mitigate this potential issue.
Section 232.403 Design Standards for One-Way End-of-Train Devices
    Section 232.403 includes design standards for one-way EOT devices.
More specifically paragraphs (d)(6) and (f)(4) include shock
requirements for the rear unit and front unit, respectively, referring
to a 0.1 second window.
    FRA technical staff believes a time window of 0.1 seconds is too
large for maintaining a peak shock threshold and is likely a
typographical or other error from a previous rulemaking. FRA proposes
harmonizing the shock requirements in paragraphs (d)(6) and (f)(4) with
the 0.01 second peak shock threshold in AAR Standards S-9152 and S-
9401. FRA seeks comments on this proposal.
    Since traditional EOT devices rely on batteries as a power source,
paragraph (g)(2) requires a minimum EOT device battery life of 36 hours
at 0 [deg]C. Manufacturers have developed EOT devices that rely less on
batteries and more on an internal air-powered generator. The air-
powered generator converts mechanical energy--created by the brake pipe
air pressure--into electricity used to power the EOT device.
    FRA has provided conditional waivers providing relief from this
requirement for EOT devices using an air-powered generator as a power
source. See Docket Nos. FRA-2006-25794 and FRA-2001-9270. In the
interest of railroad safety, FRA required each subject EOT device to
include a back-up battery--with a minimum operating life of 12 hours at
0 [deg]C--in the event the air-powered generator stops functioning. FRA
further required each subject railroad to submit annual reports
providing the number of units provided to the railroad, identifying any
device modifications, and summarizing air-powered generator-powered EOT
device performance.
    To date, FRA has not received any reports of accidents due to EOT
device operations under these waivers. The railroads initially provided
annual reports with EOT device data supplied by their manufacturers.
However, after the safety of air turbines was well-established, the
reports were reduced to a summary provided every five years along with
the waiver renewal request. See Docket No. FRA-2001-9270. Upon review,
FRA believes that the conditions originally applied to the waiver are
no longer necessary to ensure railroad safety due to the railroad
industry's continued safe operation with air-driven, alternator-
equipped EOT devices. Accordingly, FRA proposes codifying the waivers
in proposed new paragraph (g)(3) to provide for use of an air-powered
generator as a primary power source as long as it operates with a
backup battery with a minimum of 12 hours of continuous power at 0
[deg]C. FRA believes this change would improve efficiency and is
consistent with railroad safety. FRA seeks comments on this proposal.
Specifically, FRA seeks comments on (1) what factors should be used to
determine which source should be considered the primary power supplier
and how FRA and the industry should quantify measuring those sources to
determine primacy; (2) whether the proposal to require any backup
battery to have a minimum of 12 hours of continuous power at 0 [deg]C
is sufficient; (3) whether the reference temperature of 0 [deg]C is
appropriate or if another reference temperature would be more
appropriate; and (4) the best methods for FRA and the industry to
accurately measure each battery's initial charge at installation.
Section 232.407 Operations Requiring Use of Two-Way End-of-Train
Devices; Prohibition on Purchase of Nonconforming Devices
    Section 232.407(f)(2) deals with battery charging requirements for
two-way EOT devices. This requirement applies to a main battery storing
the energy necessary to power the EOT device. However, with an air-
powered generator, the energy created is used to either directly power
the EOT device, charge the back-up battery, or both. FRA proposes
adding language to the end of paragraph (f)(2) requiring the testing of
air-powered generator-equipped devices to determine the residual charge
of the back-up battery before initiating operation. This requirement is
meant to ensure that the generator back-up battery has a minimal
residual charge, which will ensure that it is working properly and is
capable of temporarily powering the EOT device should the air-powered
generator fail.
Section 232.409 Inspection and Testing of End-of-Train Devices
    Section 232.409 includes requirements for EOT device inspection and
testing. More specifically, existing paragraph (d) requires each EOT
device's telemetry equipment be tested at least every 368 days for
accuracy and calibrated, if necessary, in accordance with the
manufacturer's specifications and procedures.
    The need for periodic telemetric equipment calibration has been
reduced by technological advances that include continuous feedback such
as phase-lock loop (PLL). FRA has granted multiple waiver requests,
providing conditional relief from the 368-day calibration requirement
when using PLL or a similar feedback loop technology. In the interest
of railroad safety, FRA required vendors to apply a weather-resistant
label on each EOT device covered under the applicable dockets and the
waiver recipients--e.g., DPS, Ritron, Siemens, and Wabtec--to file
annual reports indicating the number of covered EOT devices purchased
and the number that failed to operate as intended. See, e.g., Docket
Nos. FRA-2015-0044; FRA-2012-0096; FRA-2009-0015; and FRA-2004-18895.
    FRA has received no reports of PLL-equipped radios not failing in a
fail-safe manner. When a PLL-equipped radio is turned on and does not
complete its ``sum check'' function--the initializing software routine
to check system health--because frequency cannot be verified, it simply
will not operate. Based on data garnered from the required annual
reporting on these waivers, summarized in the renewal applications
contained in the applicable dockets, FRA believes incorporating the
waivers into the regulations is consistent with railroad safety and
will provide railroads added flexibility to improve the efficiency of
their operations. Accordingly, FRA proposes revising paragraph (d) to
require telemetry equipment to be ``tested for accuracy and calibrated
if necessary according to the manufacturer's specifications and
procedures,'' effectively codifying the existing waivers from paragraph
(d)'s calibration requirement. FRA seeks comments on this proposal.
    While Sec.  232.409 includes EOT device inspection and testing
requirements, including testing of ``radio frequencies and modulation
of the device,'' it does not include calibration requirements for EOT
device air pressure sensors (i.e., air gauges or transducers in lieu of
gauges).

FRA proposes new paragraph (e) to address this apparent omission.
    FRA's locomotive safety standards (49 CFR part 229) currently
require annual calibration of those electronic gauges that are part of
the locomotive equipment or otherwise used to perform single car tests
or train brake tests conducted using yard air. See 49 CFR 229.27(b),
232.217(d), and 232.309(c). Specifically, paragraphs (a) and (b) of
Sec.  229.27 require each device that: (1) Engineers use to aid in the
control or braking of a train or locomotive; and (2) provides an
indication of air pressure electronically, to be tested by comparison
at least every 368 days with a test gauge or self-test designed for
this purpose. While FRA believes that, as written, Sec.  229.27 applies
to the air pressure sensor in an EOT device since the air pressure
reading at the EOT device is used to control the train, FRA believes
this requirement should be more explicit. Accordingly, in proposed new
paragraph (e), FRA proposes to cross-reference Sec.  229.27. FRA seeks
comments on this proposal.
    FRA is concerned with the safety risks associated with loss of
communications events between the controlling locomotive and the EOT
device, including both those exceeding 16 minutes and 30 seconds (``en
route failure''), thereby prompting a notification to the locomotive
engineer, and those not exceeding the en route failure threshold but go
unreported to the engineer. Under Sec.  232.405(b), the front unit must
listen for acknowledgment of a signal from the rear unit and must
repeat the brake application command if the acknowledgment is not
correctly received. However, recent reports indicate various
controlling locomotives have failed to send an emergency application
signal to the EOT device after 2-minutes of not receiving a signal from
the rear end unit. Initial field reports indicate that some railroads
remain unaware of the level of communication loss experienced.
Accordingly, FRA seeks comments on the frequency and duration of
communications losses; what operational and technological solutions for
communication loss the industry has considered and implemented; what
should be done to ensure an emergency signal is sent and received by
the system when needed even in the event of a temporary communications
loss; and what has and should be done to alert the locomotive engineer
that a loss of communication has occurred. FRA encourages the use of
modern event, fault, and data logging technology now contained in many
onboard systems and, accordingly, FRA is particularly interested in
comments on the feasibility and availability of these types of
technology to address the issue of temporary communications loss.
Section 232.603 Design, Interoperability, and Configuration Management
Requirements
    FRA is revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (g) to meet the
formatting and structure requirements for incorporation by reference
under 1 CFR part 51. FRA proposes to update the standards in paragraphs
(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(6), and (a)(7). The purposes of the
standards are as follows: S-4200 ensures uniform and consistent
functionality and performance of ECP freight brake systems from
different manufacturers; S-4210 provides the qualification test
procedure to verify that the designed components have high reliability,
will withstand harsh environmental conditions, and have a minimum 8-
year operating life; S-4230 facilitates freight car and locomotive
interoperability without limiting the proprietary design approaches
used by individual suppliers and defines the requirements for an
intratrain communications (ITC) system for freight equipment in revenue
interchange service; S-4250 ensures uniform, consistent, and
interoperable functionality and performance between devices developed
by different manufacturers, by defining the high-level performance
requirements to operate multiple locomotives via an ITC network; and S-
4260 identifies the test procedure that individual suppliers would
complete to establish the interoperability baseline among ECP/WDP (wire
distributed power) systems that comply with the AAR S-4200 series of
standards.
    The standard referenced in paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(5), and (a)(8)
are the most updated versions, so FRA does not propose to revise those
paragraphs.
    FRA seeks comments on these updates.
Subpart H--Tourist, Scenic, Historic, and Excursion Operations Braking
Systems
    FRA proposes to create a new subpart H and move appendix B, with
some revisions, to that new subpart. Appendix B was created to preserve
part 232 as it existed prior to the 2001 final rule and was intended to
apply to tourist, scenic, historic, and excursion operations.\6\ To
retain the historic integrity of the text, FRA made subsequent changes
in a separate appendix narrative titled ``Clarifications.'' FRA
recognizes that such a regulatory solution may be confusing and
eventually, unwieldy and, therefore, is proposing to move the
requirements of appendix B into a new subpart H. FRA seeks comments on
this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ On May 31, 2001, FRA issued an update to part 232. Some of
the prior rule text was preserved in section I of appendix B to part
232, which remains applicable to tourist, scenic, historic, or
excursion railroads on the general system of transportation, who
have not been required to operate under present parts 232 or 238.
See Sec. Sec.  232.1(d) and 232.3(c)(5); 66 FR 4104, 4145-46, 4214,
Jan. 17, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the most part, proposed subpart H reflects the exact text of
appendix B. However, when converting Sec.  232.17 in appendix B to
proposed Sec.  232.717, FRA proposes to add paragraph (b)(2) to
reference AAR Standard S-4045-13, which establishes for passenger
equipment cars operating in the U.S. and Canada standard maintenance
practices and operating requirements, including the periodic inspection
requirements for air brake cleaning, repairing, lubricating, and
testing (known in the industry as ``clean, oil, test, and stencil'' or
``COT&S'').
    This proposed addition would change the brake inspection
requirements from AAR Standard S-045 to S-4045-13 which would extend
the timeline related to periodic brake valve inspections, based upon
the safety experience of the waiver at Docket No. FRA-2013-0063 and
experience with the extended period for inspections at 49 CFR
238.309(d)(2) and (3) for conventional passenger equipment.\7\
Railroads using 26-C type valves would now be required to test those
valves every 60 months (instead of 48 months). Similarly, railroads
using D-22 type valves would now be required to test those valves every
48 months (instead of 36 months). FRA seeks comments on codifying this
AAR standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ AAR Standard S-045 contains the periodic COT&S inspection
requirements for air brakes. However, AAR Standard S-045 has been
out-of-print since 1985 and is no longer supported by AAR. FRA
discovered that many railroads not governed by part 238 (Passenger
Equipment Safety Standards) were utilizing the periodic attention
requirements of section 238.309 instead of the correct requirements
under part 232, appendix B. FRA suspects the confusion of
applicability and compliance may be partly due to AAR Standard S-045
cited in appendix B being out of print. In 2013, upon notification
of this situation, AAR updated and reissued the standard as AAR
Standard S-4045-13. In December 2013, FRA issued a waiver to permit
the use of AAR Standard S-4045-13 in lieu of the specified and out-
of-print AAR Standard S-045 as incorporated by reference in section
232.17(b)(2) to appendix B. See Docket No. FRA-2013-0063.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA also proposes to amend paragraph (b)(3) to provide AAR and
APTA's updated addresses.

    FRA proposes to add paragraph (c) to allow tourist, scenic,
historic, and excursion railroads to develop a compliant plan for
servicing obsolete brake equipment. Under this proposal, these
railroads--when utilizing equipment not covered by an applicable,
available, and incorporated AAR standard--would only have to maintain
the equipment in a safe and suitable condition for service according to
a railroad's written maintenance plan. A compliant maintenance plan,
including its COT&S component and a periodic attention schedule, must
be based upon a standard appropriate to the equipment. For example, a
compliant plan might utilize a recognized industry standard or a former
AAR interchange standard to the extent it is modified to account for
the unique operating conditions of the particular tourist railroad
operation. The railroad must make its written maintenance plan
available to FRA upon request.
    While FRA expects some individual railroads may develop their own
written maintenance plans, FRA understands that HeritageRail Alliance,
or a similar industry organization, may develop a consensus industry
standard for the periodic maintenance of this brake equipment. FRA does
not anticipate developing a formal special approval procedure for these
written maintenance plans in order to allow flexibility in their
development. However, when informally evaluating maintenance plans, FRA
will consider the appropriate AAR-published standard in the last year a
valve appeared in the Code of Rules or the Field Manual, the usage of
the equipment, scheduled interim single car tests, and the railroad's
past history of compliance.
    FRA recognizes that there may not be a sufficient regulatory
understanding of what it means to be a tourist, scenic, historic, or
excursion railroad. FRA seeks comments on the applicability of this
section and potential definition to capture the intended regulatory
entities.
    FRA proposes paragraph (d) to provide a means by which parties may
seek approval of updated, revised, or alternative standards currently
incorporated into appendix B and to be recodified under subpart H. FRA
further proposes to include in paragraph (d) a streamlined public
notice process for future modifications to those incorporated
references. FRA proposes that this text mirror the standard air brake
document modification language found in current Sec. Sec.  232.307 and
232.603(f). FRA believes these proposed additions would: (1) Implement
appropriate safety measures better tailored to small operations; (2)
make permanent presently granted relief in Docket No. FRA-2013-0063;
and (3) significantly decrease the burden of hours spent on waiver
documentation and uncertainty of continued use, while maintaining
appropriate safety. FRA seeks comments on this proposal.
    Based on the proposed amendments, FRA believes that the text in
Sec.  232.3, proposed subpart H, and elsewhere may require additional
amendments other than those proposed in this rule for clarity and
cross-referencing purposes. FRA seeks suggestions and comments on such
changes.
    FRA recognizes that some of the requirements in current appendix B
also exist elsewhere in part 232. For instance, the requirements of
paragraphs (c) through (e) to Sec.  232.0 in appendix B, proposed to be
recodified as Sec.  232.700(c) through (e), may already be covered
under Sec. Sec.  232.5, 232.9, and 232.11, and that the requirements of
Sec.  232.3 in appendix B, proposed to be recodified as Sec.  232.703,
may already be covered by Sec.  232.103(l). FRA seeks comments on
whether these or similar requirements are duplicative and should not be
included in subpart H. FRA also seeks comments on how to otherwise
streamline and clarify appendix B as it is recodified as subpart H.
    Appendix B makes various references to AAR Code of Rules and AAR
Code of Tests.\8\ FRA understands that the titles of documents have
since been changed to the Field Manual of the AAR Interchange Rules and
the Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices, respectively. While
FRA addresses this change in proposed Sec.  232.717(c), FRA seeks
comments on how to better revise proposed subpart H to account for this
change. FRA also seeks comments on how manage future changes to such
AAR documents while ensuring future compliance with 1 CFR part 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ FRA notes that the introductory text of section II, along
with other places in sections I and II of appendix B to part 232,
references AAR's ``Code of Tests,'' ``Code of Rules,'' and ``Manual
of Standards and Recommended Practices.'' The Power or Train Brakes
Safety Appliance Act of 1958 required that FRA's predecessor, the
Interstate Commerce Commission, adopt as its own certain AAR rules,
standards, and instructions. See Public Law 85-375, 72 Stat. 86
(Apr. 11, 1958), available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-72/pdf/STATUTE-72-Pg86.pdf, and codified at 23 FR 3150, May 13,
1958. Some of those AAR standards were commonly referred to as AAR's
``Code of Tests'' or ``Code of Rules.'' AAR subsequently changed the
Code of Rules to the ``Field Manual of the AAR Interchange Rules,''
and incorporated the Code of Tests into the ``AAR Manual of
Standards and Recommended Practices.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices

A. E.O. 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This NPRM is a significant regulatory action in accordance with
existing policies and procedures under E.O. 12866. The scope of this
analysis is limited to the revisions that FRA is proposing to make to
the parts 218, 221, and 232. FRA concluded that because this NPRM
generally includes only voluntary actions or alternative action by
designated entities that would be voluntary, this NPRM does not impart
additional burdens on regulated entities.
    In accordance with these Executive Orders, FRA identified various
waivers that warrant consideration for regulatory codification. In
particular, FRA is proposing to incorporate into regulations several
motive power and equipment waivers providing conditional exceptions to
existing rules concerning air brake testing, EOT devices, brake valves,
and helper service. More specifically, FRA is proposing changes to the
regulations affecting the use of EOT devices, Helper Link devices or
similar technologies, and the performance of Class I air brake tests
and single car air brake tests (SCT). FRA is also proposing to extend
the time freight rail equipment can be ``off-air'' before requiring a
new brake inspection. Furthermore, FRA is also proposing technical
corrections to existing regulations.
    FRA estimated the cost savings of this proposed rule. The cost
savings of this proposed rule are provided in the table below.

                                        Cost Savings Over 10-Year Period
                                              [Values in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Section                  Present value 7%  Present value 3%    Annualized 7%     Annualized 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helper Link.............................              $3.9              $4.5              $0.6              $0.5

D-22 Brake Valve........................               0.5               0.6              0.07              0.07
26-C Brake Valve........................               0.2               0.3              0.04              0.03
24-Hour Off-air.........................             325.6             386.2              46.4              45.3
90 CFM..................................               1.8               2.1               0.3               0.2
SCT 24 month............................             150.7             176.1              21.5              20.6
SCT 48 month............................              19.5              23.8               2.8               2.8
Waiver Cost Savings.....................               0.1               0.1              0.01              0.01
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................             502.2             593.7              71.5              69.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over a 10-year period of analysis, the total cost savings are
$502.2 million (using a 7% discount rate), and $593.7 million (using a
3% discount rate). The annualized cost savings are $71.5 million (using
a 7% discount rate) and $69.6 million (using a 3% discount rate).
    By way of explaining the above table, among the EOT device waivers
incorporated into the NPRM, the waiver allowing a Helper Link (or
similar technology) equipped train to use an alternative air brake test
procedure will result in cost savings. The Helper Link technology
reduces the employees' time in uncoupling the helper locomotive from
the train so that it may be turned around to help other trains ascend
steep grades. FRA bases its estimate of cost savings on this reduced
labor time. For the 26-C and D-22 type brake valves, FRA is extending
the time before these types of valves need to be inspected and cleaned,
resulting in fewer tests and labor savings. FRA is also extending the
time before a Class I brake test must be conducted on rail equipment
that is not connected to a source of compressed air prior to being
operated in a train again, from 4 hours to 24 hours. FRA estimates
railroads will accrue savings from performing fewer brake tests, less
locomotive idling time to keep rail cars on compressed air (including
reduced fuel consumption), and less use of yard air sources. This
provision will result in annualized cost savings of $46 million (using
a 7% discount rate), the largest category of cost savings.
    Similar to the flexibility provided by other waivers, permitting an
increase in brake pipe leakage to 90 CFM under certain conditions will
allow railroads to conduct air brake tests without having to wait for
additional crews (to test in higher daytime temperatures), or run
shorter trains. The efficiencies gained through codifying the 90 CFM
waiver are monetized in the table above. Finally, FRA expects large
cost savings by increasing the time between single car air brake tests
from 12 to 24 months for automated tests, and to 48 months for
automated tests using a four-pressure receiver. FRA estimates the
longer interval between tests for rail cars using automated tests
(about 1.1 million freight cars out of 1.6 million freight cars in
service) will result in the monetized time savings shown in the table.
    Separately, FRA expects the regulated community to submit fewer
waiver requests, and requests for waiver extensions to FRA for the
regulatory parts subject to this NPRM. FRA generally approves waivers
for five years and may extend them upon request. Given the NPRM
codifies these waivers, railroads and suppliers will save the cost of
applying and re-applying for these waivers. These collective savings
are represented in the Waiver Cost Savings category in the table.
    FRA estimates this proposed rule would not impose any costs on the
industry. This NPRM generally increases flexibility for the regulated
entities by codifying waivers. It does not impose any new substantive
requirements. Railroads and suppliers may choose voluntarily to take
advantage of the flexibilities under this NPRM. However, under proposed
Sec.  232.409(e), FRA is clarifying the EOT device air pressure sensor
needs to be tested annually. As this section clarifies an existing
regulatory requirement, FRA is not accounting for these costs in the
overall analysis for this rulemaking, but acknowledges railroads may
incur a burden to calibrate the air pressure sensor on the EOT device.
The burdens are further described in the regulatory evaluation
accompanying this NPRM.
    Therefore, the net cost savings of this proposed rule are equal to
the cost savings. The table below shows the total net cost savings
(values in millions).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Present value 7%   Present value 3%    Annualized 7%      Annualized 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Cost Savings....................            $502.2             $593.7              $71.5              $69.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The net cost savings are $502.2 million (7% discount rate) and
$593.7 million (3% discount rate). The annualized net cost savings are
$71.5 million (7% discount rate) and $69.6 million (3% discount rate).
    As is discussed in the NPRM above, FRA does not believe that these
provisions would have a negative impact on the safety of railroad
operations. In fact, codifying several of the waivers may result in
positive safety benefits for railroad employees. In general, the EOT
device waivers, appendix B updates, 24-hour off-air, and automated
single car tests will all reduce the frequency of air brake tests and
inspections. Fewer brake tests and inspections will reduce the time
employees are walking on potentially uneven ground such as track
ballast (typically crushed stone), and reduce their chances of
slipping, tripping, or falling. Also, railroad employees may reduce
their chances of injury because they would spend less time moving in
and around rail cars while connecting and disconnecting equipment for
the brake test and checking equipment such as the brake pipe. For air
brake tests conducted in yards, less frequent brake tests would likely
result in employees reducing their exposure to adjacent train

traffic. FRA has not quantified these safety benefits because it does
not have injury data specifically from conducting brake tests. FRA
invites comment on the potential safety benefits from codifying these
waivers.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and E.O. 13272

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and
E.O. 13272 (67 FR 53461, Aug. 16, 2002) require agency review of
proposed and final rules to assess their impacts on small entities. An
agency must prepare an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
unless it determines and certifies that a rule, if promulgated, would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. FRA has not determined whether this proposed rule would have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Therefore, FRA seeks comment on the potential small business
impacts of the requirements in this NPRM. FRA prepared an IRFA, which
is included as an appendix to the accompanying Regulatory Impact
Analysis and available in the docket for the rulemaking (FRA 2018-
0093), to aid the public in commenting on the potential small business
impacts of the requirements in this NPRM.

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, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
sections that contain the new and current information collection
requirements and the estimated time to fulfill each requirement is as
follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total
                                                                                annual
         CFR section              Respondent       Total annual      Average time     Total annual      dollar
                                   universe          responses      per  response     burden hours    equivalent
                                                                                cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
229.27--Annual tests.........  30,000            120,000 forms/    15 minutes.....  30,000 hours...   $2,160,000
                                locomotives.      filling.
232.3--Applicability--Export,  741 railroads...  8 cards.........  10 minutes.....  1 hour.........           72
 industrial, & other cars not
 owned by railroads-
 identification.
232.7--Waivers...............  741 railroads...  2 petitions.....  160 hours......  320 hours......       23,360
232.15--Movement of Defective  1,620,000 cars..  128,400 tags/     2.5 minutes....  5,350 hours....      385,200
 Equipment--Tags/Records.                         records.
    --Written Notification...  1,620,000 cars..  25,000 notices..  3 minutes......  1,250 hours....       92,500
232.17--Special Approval
 Procedure
    --Petitions for special    741 railroads...  1 petition......  100 hours......  100 hours......        7,300
     approval of safety-
     critical revision.
    --Petitions for special    741 railroads...  1 petition......  100 hours......  100 hours......        7,300
     approval of pre-revenue
     service acceptance plan.
    --Service of petitions...  741 railroads...  1 petition......  20 hours.......  20 hours.......        1,460
    --Statement of interest..  Public/railroads  4 statements....  8 hours........  32 hours.......        2,336
    --Comment................  Public/railroads  13 comments.....  4 hours........  52 hours.......        3,796
232.103--Gen'l requirements--  114,000 cars....  70,000 stickers.  10 minutes.....  11,667 hours...      840,024
 all train brake systems--
 stickers.
(n)(7)--RR Plan identifying    741 railroads...  1 revised plans.  10 hours.......  10 hours.......          730
 specific locations or
 circumstances where
 equipment may be left
 unattended.
    --Notification to FRA      741 railroads...  1 notice........  30 minutes.....  1 hour.........           73
     when RR develops and has
     plan in place or
     modifies existing plan.
    --Inspection of Equipment  741 railroads...  12 inspections/   4 hours........  48 hours.......        3,456
     by Qualified Employee                        records.
     after Responder Visit.
232.107--Air source            10 new railroads  1 plan..........  40 hours.......  40 hours.......        2,920
 requirements and cold
 weather operations--
 Monitoring Plan (Subsequent
 Years).
    --Amendments/Revisions to  50 railroads/     10 revisions....  20 hours.......  200 hours......       14,600
     Plan.                      plans.
    --Recordkeeping..........  50 railroads/     1,150 records...  20 hours.......  23,000 hours...    1,679,000
                                plans.
232.109--Dynamic brake         741 railroads...  1,656,000         4 minutes......  110,400 hours..    8,059,200
 requirements--status/record.                     records.
    --Inoperative dynamic      30,000            6,358 records...  4 minutes......  424 hours......       30,528
     brakes: Repair record.     locomotives.
    --Tag bearing words        30,000            6,358 tags......  30 seconds.....  53 hours.......        3,816
     ``inoperative dynamic      locomotives.
     brakes''.
    --Deactivated dynamic      8,000             10 markings.....  5 minutes......  1 hour.........           72
     brakes (Sub. Yrs.).        locomotives.
    --Operating rules          5 new railroads.  5 rules.........  4 hours........  20 hours.......        1,460
     (Subsequent Years).
    --Amendments/Revisions...  741 railroads...  15 revisions....  1 hour.........  15 hours.......        1,095
    --Requests to increase 5   741 railroads...  5 requests......  30 min. + 20     103 hours......        7,519
     mph overspeed                                                  hours.
     restriction.
    --Knowledge criteria--     5 new railroads.  5 amendments....  16 hours.......  80 hours.......        5,840
     locomotive engineers--
     Subsequent Years.
232.111--Train handling        5 new railroads.  5 procedures....  40 hours.......  200 hours......       14,600
 information.
    Sub. Yrs.--Amendments/     100 railroads...  100 revisions...  20 hours.......  2,000 hours....      146,000
     Revisions.
    --Report requirements to   741 railroads...  2,112,000         10 minutes.....  352,000 hours..   25,696,000
     train crew.                                  reports.
232.203--Training              15 railroads....  5 programs......  100 hours......  500 hours......       36,500
 requirements--Tr. Prog.--Sub
 Yr.
    --Amendments to written    741 railroads...  695 revisions...  8 hours........  5,560 hours....      405,880
     program.
    --Training records.......  741 railroads...  67,000 records..  8 minutes......  8,933 hours....      652,109
    --Training notifications.  741 railroads...  67,000 notices..  3 minutes......  3,350 hours....      244,550
    --Audit program..........  741 railroads...  1 plan + 695      40 hours/1 min.  52 hours.......        3,796
                                                  copies.
    --Amendments to            741 railroads...  50 revisions....  20 hours.......  1,000 hours....       73,000
     validation/assessment
     program.
232.205--Initial terminal      741 railroads...  383,840 notices/  45 seconds.....  4,798 hours....      355,052
 inspection: Class I brake                        records.
 tests and notifications/
 records.
(c)(1)(ii)(B)--RR Development/ 741 railroads...  10 revised        8 hours........  80 hours.......        5,840
 implementation of operating                      operating rules.
 rules to ensure compliant
 operation of train if air
 flow exceeds stipulated
 section parameters after
 Class I brake test is
 completed (New Requirement).

(c)(1)(iii)--Form 49A          741 railroads...  88,000 notations  2 minutes......  2,933 hours....      214,109
 notation/certification of
 last date of Air Flow Method
 (AFM) indicator calibration
 (Formally under 229.29b).
232.207--Class 1A brake        741 railroads...  1 list..........  1 hour.........  1 hour.........           73
 tests--Designation Lists
 Where Performed.
Subsequent Years: Notice of    741 railroads...  250 notices.....  10 minutes.....  42 hours.......        3,066
 Change to.
232.209--Class II brake tests- 741 railroads...  159,740 comments  3 seconds......  133 hours......        9,709
 intermediate ``Roll-by
 inspection--Results to train
 driver.
232.213--Written Designation   83,000 long       250 letters.....  15 minutes.....  63 hours.......        4,599
 to FRA of Extended haul        dist. Movements.
 trains.
    --Notification to FRA      10 railroads....  250 notices.....  10 minutes.....  42 hours.......        3,066
     Associate Administrator
     for Safety/FRA Regional
     Administrator of a
     change in the location
     where an extended haul
     brake test is performed
     (New Requirement).
232.219--Double heading and    2 railroads.....  50 recording of   2 minutes......  2 hours........          148
 helper service: Testing/                         calibrations.
 calibration/records of
 Helper Link devices used by
 locomotives (New
 Requirement).
232.303--General               1,600,000 frgt.   5,600 tags......  5 minutes......  467 hours......       33,624
 requirements--single car       cars.
 test: Tagging of Moved
 Equipment.
    --Last repair track brake  1,600,000 frgt.   240,000 markings  2 minutes......  8,000 hours....      576,000
     test/single car test--     cars.
     Stenciled on Side of
     Equipment.
232.307--Modification of       AAR.............  1 request + 3     20 hours + 5     20 hours.......        1,460
 single car air brake test                        copies.           minutes.
 procedures: Requests.
    --Affirmation Statement    AAR.............  1 statement + 4   30 minutes + 5   1 hour.........           73
     on Mod. Req. To Employee                     copies.           minutes.
     Representatives.
    --Comments on              Railroad/Public.  2 comments......  8 hours........  16 hours.......        1,168
     Modification Request.
232.309--Repair track brake    640 shops.......  5,000 tests.....  2 minutes......  167 hours......       12,024
 test.
232.403--Unique Code.........  245 railroads...  12 requests.....  5 minutes......  1 hour.........           73
232.409--Inspection/Tests/     245 railroads...  447,500 notices/  30 seconds.....  3,729 hours....      268,488
 Records EOTs.                                    record.
    --Telemetry Equipment--    245 railroads...  17,000 recording  2 minutes......  567 hours......       40,824
     Testing/Calibration/Rcds                     of calibrations.
     (Revised Requirement).
232.503--Process to introduce  741 railroads...  1 letter........  1 hour.........  1 hour.........           73
 new brake technology.
    --Special approval.......  741 railroads...  1 request.......  3 hours........  3 hours........          219
232.505--Pre-revenue svc       741 railroads...  1 procedure.....  160 hours......  160 hours......       11,680
 accept test plan--Submission
 of maintenance procedure.
    --Amendments to            741 railroads...  1 revision......  40 hours.......  40 hours.......        2,920
     maintenance procedure.
    --Design description.....  741 railroads...  1 petition......  67 hours.......  67 hours.......        4,891
    --Report to FRA Assoc.     741 railroads...  1 report........  13 hours.......  13 hours.......          949
     Admin. for Safety.
    --Brake system technology  741 railroads...  1 description...  40 hours.......  40 hours.......        2,920
     testing.
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Totals...............  741 railroads...  5,608,433.......  N/A............  578,268........   42,159,140
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions;
searching existing data sources; gathering or maintaining the needed
data; and reviewing the information. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits comments concerning: Whether these
information collection requirements are necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of FRA, including whether the information
has practical utility; the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of
the information collection requirements; the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and whether the burden of
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, may be minimized. For information or a copy of
the paperwork package submitted to OMB, contact Ms. Hodan Wells,
Information Clearance Officer, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Ms. Kimberly Toone
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
collection of information requirements should direct them to Ms. Hodan
Wells or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20590. Comments may also be
submitted via email to Ms. Hodan Wells or Ms. Toone at the following
addresses<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and 450e2c28272037293c6b112a2a2b2005212a316b222a33.
    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information requirements contained in this proposed rule between 30 and
60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.