[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-22222]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: September 16, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Railroad Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



49 CFR Part 229, et al.




Power Brake Regulations; Proposed Rule
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Parts 229, 231, and 232

[FRA Docket No. PB-9; Notice No. 2]
RIN 2130-AA73

 
Power Brake Regulations

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: FRA proposes revisions to regulations governing train and 
locomotive power braking systems. The proposed revisions are designed 
to achieve safety by better adapting the regulations to the needs of 
contemporary railroad operations and better facilitating the 
introduction and use of advanced technologies. These proposed revisions 
are being issued in order to comply with recently enacted legislation, 
to respond to petitions for rulemaking, and to address areas of concern 
derived from experience in the application of existing standards.

DATES: Written Comments: Written comments must be received by December 
31, 1994. Comments received after that date will be considered to the 
extent possible without incurring additional expenses or delay.
    Public Hearings: A series of public hearings will be held on the 
dates and at the locations listed below to provide interested parties 
the opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions contained in the 
NPRM.
    The dates of the public hearings are as follows:

Monday, October 24 and Tuesday, October 25, 1994 at 9 a.m. in 
Washington, DC.
Tuesday, November 1 and Wednesday, November 2, 1994 at 9 a.m. in 
Chicago, Illinois.
Friday, November 4, 1994 at 9 a.m. in Newark, New Jersey.
Wednesday, November 9, 1994 at 9 a.m. in Sacramento, California.

    Any person wishing to participate in a public hearing should notify 
the Docket Clerk at the address provided below at least five working 
days prior to the date of the hearing. This notification should 
identify the hearing in which the person wishes to participate, the 
party the person represents, and the particular subject matter(s) the 
person plans to address. The notification should also provide the 
Docket Clerk with the participant's mailing address. FRA reserves the 
right to limit participation in the hearings of persons who fail to 
provide such notification.

ADDRESSES: (1) Written Comments: Address comments to the Docket Clerk, 
Office of Chief Counsel, RCC-30, Federal Railroad Administration, 400 
Seventh Street SW., Room 8201, Washington, DC 20590. Comments should 
identify the docket and notice number, and five copies should be 
submitted. Persons wishing to receive confirmation of receipt of their 
comments should include a self-addressed, stamped postcard. The Docket 
Clerk will indicate on the postcard the date on which the comments were 
received and will return the card to the addressee. The dockets are 
housed in Room 8201 of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20590. Public dockets may be reviewed between the hours 
of 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays.
    (2) Public Hearings: Hearings to discuss particular issues will be 
held at these locations:
    Washington, DC: Nassif Building, Conference Room 2230, 400 Seventh 
Street SW., Washington, DC.
    Topics: Issues relevant to all operations.
    Chicago: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 12th Floor Conference Room, 
111 North Canal Street, Chicago, Illinois
    Topics: Issues relevant specifically to freight operations.
    Newark: Peter W. Rodino Federal Building, Conference Room 204-205, 
970 Broadway, Newark, New Jersey
    Topics: Issues relevant specifically to passenger and commuter 
operations.
    Sacramento: Clarion Hotel, 700 16th Street, Sacramento, California 
Tel: (800) 443-0880
    Topics: Issues relevant to all operations.
    Persons desiring to participate in any of the hearings should 
notify the Docket Clerk by writing to: Docket Clerk, Office of Chief 
Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, Chief, Motive 
Power and Equipment Division, Office of Safety, RRS-14, Room 8326, FRA, 
400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-366-4094 or 
202-366-9186), or Thomas Herrmann, Trial Attorney, Office of the Chief 
Counsel, FRA, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 
202-366-0628).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

INTRODUCTION

Background

    49 U.S.C. Sec. 20141 (formerly contained in Section 7 of the Rail 
Safety Enforcement and Review Act (RSERA), Pub. L. No. 102-365 
(September 3, 1992), amending Section 202 of the Federal Railroad 
Safety Act (FRSA) of 1970, formerly codified at 45 U.S.C. 421, 431 et 
seq.), by adding a new subsection related to power brake safety which 
states:
    (r) POWER BRAKE SAFETY.--(1) The Secretary shall conduct a review 
of the Department of Transportation's rules with respect to railroad 
power brakes, and not later than December 31, 1993, shall revise such 
rules based on such safety data as may be presented during that review.
    (2) In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall, where 
applicable, prescribe standards regarding dynamic brake equipment.
    (3)(A) The Secretary shall require 2-way end of train devices (or 
devices able to perform the same function) on road trains other than 
locals, road switchers, or work trains to enable the initiation of 
emergency braking from the rear of the train. The Secretary shall 
promulgate rules as soon as possible, but not later than December 31, 
1993, requiring such 2-way end of train devices. Such rules shall at a 
minimum--
    (i) set standards for such devices based on performance;
    (ii) prohibit any railroad, on or after the date that is one year 
after promulgation of such rules, from acquiring any end of train 
device for use on trains which is not a 2-way device meeting the 
standards set under clause (i);
    (iii) require that such trains be equipped with 2-way end of train 
devices meeting such standards not later than 4 years after 
promulgation of such rules; and
    (iv) provide that any 2-way end of train device acquired for use on 
trains before such promulgation shall be deemed to meet such standards.
    (B) The Secretary may consider petitions to amend the rules 
promulgated under subparagraph (A) to allow the use of alternative 
technologies which meet the same basic performance requirements 
established by such rules.
    (C) In developing the rules required by subparagraph (A), the 
Secretary shall consider data presented under paragraph (1).
    (4) The Secretary may exclude from the rules required by paragraphs 
(1), (2), and (3) any category of trains or rail operations if the 
Secretary determines that such an exclusion is in the public interest 
and is consistent with railroad safety. The Secretary shall make public 
the reasons for granting any such exclusion. The Secretary shall at a 
minimum exclude from the requirements of paragraph (3)--
    (A) trains that have manned cabooses;
    (B) passenger trains with emergency brakes;
    (C) trains that operate exclusively on track that is not part of 
the general railroad system;
    (D) trains that do not exceed 30 miles per hour and do not operate 
on heavy grades, except for any categories of such trains specifically 
designated by the Secretary; and
    (E) trains that operate in a push mode. Pub. L. No. 102-365, 
Sec. 7; 45 U.S.C. 431(r).
    On December 31, 1992, FRA published an Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANPRM) concerning the possible revision of the power brake 
regulations (57 FR 62546). The ANPRM provided background information 
and presented questions on various subjects including: the use and 
design of end-of-train (EOT) telemetry devices; the air flow method of 
train brake testing; the additional testing of train air brakes during 
extremely cold weather; the training of employees to perform train 
brake tests and inspections; computer-assisted braking systems; the 
operation of dynamic brakes on locomotives; and other miscellaneous 
subjects relating to conventional brake systems as well as information 
regarding high speed passenger train brakes. The questions presented in 
the ANPRM on the various topics were intended as fact-finding tools and 
were intended to elicit the views of those persons outside FRA charged 
with ensuring compliance with the power brake regulations on a day-to-
day basis.
    Following publication of the ANPRM, FRA conducted four days of 
technical workshops in early 1993 to elicit information and views. 
Workshops were conducted in Kansas City, Missouri on February 17; in 
Chicago, Illinois on March 2 and 3; and in Newark, New Jersey on March 
9. These workshops were attended by at least seventeen railroads, three 
organizations representing railroads, four labor organizations and 
various individual members of the organizations, four manufacturers of 
train brake-related equipment, and several governmental agencies. 
Written comments were received from most of these parties or their 
individual members. In addition to the written comments received from 
the parties that attended the workshops, written comments were also 
received from one other railroad, one state public utilities 
commission, one state transit authority, and one private citizen.
    FRA has carefully considered all of the oral and written comments 
offered by the various parties. The resulting Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) is based on these comments as well as FRA's 
experience with enforcing the current power brake regulations.

Prologue

    FRA's institutional experience in locomotive and train braking 
safety extends backwards in time to creation of the Department of 
Transportation in 1967 (at which time the Bureau of Railroad Safety and 
its functions were transferred from the Interstate Commerce 
Commission), to the passage of the Power or Train Brakes Safety 
Appliance Act of 1958, and ultimately to the passage of the original 
Safety Appliance Act 100 years ago. Current FRA personnel have, during 
prior years, served in a variety of capacities on every major railroad. 
Each of them has been exposed--in their combined Federal and private 
sector careers--to a vastly richer panorama of American railroading 
than most railroad employees will enjoy in a lifetime. These railroad 
safety inspectors, supervisors, and managers contribute daily to the 
rulemaking judgments ultimately expressed by the Federal Railroad 
Administrator, and the agency has made a special effort in this 
proceeding to tap the knowledge that these individuals possess to 
ascertain the means by which public and employee safety may be secured.
    The experience of the agency yields the following broad findings. 
These finding are based upon hundreds of accident investigations, tens 
of thousands of days of inspection activity, and hundreds of thousands 
of contacts with railroad employees, supervisors, and managers, as well 
as the comments to this docket:
     In general, locomotive and train brake safety is good. 
Investments in improved technology offer the possibility of further 
progress in the future.
     However, exceptions to this rule are numerous and 
persistent.
     Exceptions often derive from railroads' attempts to speed 
the provision of efficient transportation services.
     The current structure of the regulations tends to impede 
efficient provision of transportation services, while creating 
incentives to evade the regulations and imposing certain requirements 
that are not effective in practice.
     Accordingly, continuation of the current regulatory 
structure--which with every passing year becomes less well adapted to 
the current realities of the industry--is likely to erode safety over 
time.

Train Brake Inspections

    The principal problems addressed in this notice concern the safety 
of conventional freight trains. In particular, the current regulations 
focus great attention on intensive and often repetitive train brake 
inspections conducted at departure from major terminals and at fixed 
intervals en route. Under these circumstances, tremendous incentives 
exist to ``overlook'' or fail to inspect rigorously for what may be 
viewed as minor defects on individual cars. In some cases, personnel 
have been instructed to disregard defective conditions in order to move 
trains, after which FRA has often been required to resolve (or attempt 
to resolve) disputed claims of responsibility in the context of 
enforcement actions.
    This system encourages railroads to assign inspection duties to 
train crews who--while notably competent and alert in their normal 
duties--have often received little training in inspection of 
increasingly diverse power brake arrangements and other safety-critical 
components of freight equipment. As a result of this and other 
factors,1 the number of qualified mechanical personnel employed by 
the railroads and the number of locations at which such personnel are 
deployed have declined rapidly. In a system that ensures minimum 
economies of scale, repair trucks equipped with an increasing array of 
equipment are then used to provide spot-repair capability at outlying 
points in cases where cars cannot be moved safely prior to repair (or 
where, as in the case of the statutory power brake requirements, 
movement is prohibited by law). Although this process of consolidation 
and adaptation may have been both necessary and healthy in its earlier 
stages, it now threatens to leave the railroads short of qualified 
mechanical forces and excessively dependent on contract repair 
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\FRA is intimately familiar with other factors that complicate 
this analysis. In particular, the competitive environment fostered 
by deregulation of the motor carrier and railroad industries has led 
to intensive cost cutting through rationalization of plant, more 
effective utilization of equipment, substitution of automated 
information systems for manual systems, and reduction of payrolls 
through reductions in force and contracting out of work previously 
performed by railroad employees. For the railroads, reducing 
employment has become an imperative that threatens to drive itself 
out of control. For instance, the Railroad Retirement System depends 
upon employer contributions on behalf of less than 275,000 employees 
to support over 372,000 retirees. With every employee removed from 
the rolls, the likelihood increases that further increases in 
Railroad Retirement Taxes will be required--creating further 
perceived incentives to reduce employment.
    A long-term shift in car ownership has also affected railroad 
employment decisions. Approximately 40 percent of the freight car 
fleet is now privately owned, including virtually all tank cars used 
in revenue service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Adequate deployment of mechanical employees will remain necessary 
for the foreseeable future, both to foster power brake safety and to 
ensure that other components of locomotives and cars are adequately 
inspected and maintained. Federal regulations should encourage this 
process through reasonably structured incentives while avoiding any 
attempt at micromanagement of business decisions. This notice embodies 
a strategy to achieve safety in the short term--train by train--while 
encouraging adequate deployment of mechanical personnel to provide the 
eyes, hands and minds necessary for effective maintenance of railroad 
rolling stock.

General Revision of Standards for Freight and Passenger Service

    Commenters in this proceeding have noted, and FRA agrees, that the 
current regulations fail to adequately delineate between requirements 
for conventional freight braking systems and the more diverse systems 
for various categories of passenger service. FRA also agrees that the 
regulations should be updated to recognize contemporary electronic 
systems that are used to control elements of power brake systems. 
Finally, FRA has learned over years since passage of the Power or Train 
Brakes Safety Appliance Act of 1958, which required adoption of the 
Association of American Railroads' (AAR) recommended practices as 
regulatory text, that improvements in clarity are badly needed.
    Accordingly, FRA proposes a comprehensive revision of the 
regulations that preserves useful elements of the current system in the 
framework of an entirely new document.
    The resulting proposed changes balance the concerns of rail labor 
and management and would increase the effectiveness of the regulations. 
The NPRM includes significant incentives to the railroads to encourage 
the use of qualified mechanical forces to conduct train brake system 
tests at major terminals where long-haul trains originate. The NPRM 
also proposes requirements to check abuses in the single car test 
program. The overall regulatory proposal focuses on safety performance 
rather than micromanagement of the railroads.
    In developing this proposal FRA engaged in a systems approach to 
the power brake regulations. FRA considered all aspects of a railroad 
operation and the effects that the entire operation has on the train 
and locomotive power braking systems. Therefore, these proposed 
requirements not only address specific brake equipment and inspection 
requirements, but also attempt to encompass other aspects of a 
railroad's operation which directly affect the quality and performance 
of the braking system, such as: personnel qualifications; maintenance 
requirements; written procedures governing operation, maintenance, and 
inspection; record keeping requirements; and the development and 
integration of new technologies. Consequently, FRA views this proposal 
as an organic whole, with any one of its individual requirements being 
necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the others.
    As an additional aspect of this systems approach, FRA considered 
the role that shortline railroads have in today's freight industry. FRA 
believes that the current marketplace requires Class I railroads and 
shortline railroads to operate as an integrated system. Many of today's 
shortlines rely on Class I railroads for the training of their 
employees and the maintenance of their equipment. In addition, many 
shortline railroads and Class I railroads interchange and operate each 
others equipment. Therefore, except in limited circumstances, it is 
impossible, from a regulatory standpoint, to separate shortline 
railroads from Class I railroads. Therefore, in order to ensure the 
safety and quality of train and locomotive power braking systems 
throughout the entire freight industry, this proposal generally imposes 
a consistent set of requirements on shortline and Class I railroads as 
a group. Although FRA recognizes that many of the operational benefits 
created by this proposal are not available to most shortline 
operations, FRA feels that the integrated nature of the freight 
industry requires that universally consistent requirements be imposed 
on both shortline and Class I railroads.
    The proposed rule is justified on the basis of operating cost 
savings to the industry as a whole. Cost savings due to accident/
incident prevention were quantified to some extent but were not 
included in the cost impact analysis. See 49 CFR Sec. 225.5. Although 
significant accident/incident reduction will occur due to the proposed 
rule, the benefits were not fully quantified because of the need to 
proceed with satisfaction of the statutory mandate, the already 
positive benefit to cost ratio, and the difficulty associated with 
quantifying the effectiveness of some of the proposals prior to further 
public comment. A detailed discussion regarding the quantifying of 
benefits derived from accident/incident reduction is provided in the 
Regulatory Impact section of the preamble and in the Appendix to the 
Regulatory Analysis.
    FRA recognizes that some of the provisions contained in this 
proposal may affect other FRA regulations currently in existence. For 
example, the provisions regarding Special Notices for Repair for 
freight cars and locomotives contained at Part 216 of this chapter do 
not address nonconformity with the requirements proposed in this part. 
Other FRA regulations that may be affected by these proposed 
requirements are the Freight Car Safety Standards, the signal 
inspection standards, and the Locomotive Engineer Qualification 
Standards contained at Parts 215, 236, and 240 of this chapter 
respectively. Consequently, after issuance of a final rule, FRA will 
make whatever conforming or clarifying changes to FRA's other 
regulations that are deemed necessary.

Discussion of Comments and General FRA Conclusions

    For purposes of discussion, the comments may be grouped in four 
categories by origin: (1) Railroad labor organizations and their 
individual members, (2) railroad management representatives, (3) 
manufacturers of train brake equipment, and (4) other commenters. FRA 
noted both the common themes expressed by members of these groups and 
the many variations on, and exceptions to, those themes. Discussions 
follow with respect to the primary issues addressed by the commenters.

I. EOT Telemetry Devices

    Since the advent of EOT devices, technological advances have been 
made to incorporate ``two-way communication'' into the system. The two-
way EOT device, in addition to the features of the one-way EOT device, 
has the ability of transmitting from the controlling locomotive an 
emergency brake application that begins at the rear of the train. This 
is a desirable feature in event of a blockage in the brake pipe that 
would prevent the pneumatic transmission of the emergency brake 
application throughout the entire train. In 1986, FRA concluded that 
mandating the installation of two-way EOT devices was not warranted. 
However, at that time FRA made a public commitment to monitor 
developments in EOT device technology and to review the subject 
periodically. 51 FR 17300, 17301 (May 9, 1986).
    Since 1986, significant advances have been made in the development 
of two-way EOT devices, and they are now commercially available in the 
market place from two manufacturers. In addition, FRA has received 
recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 
and petitions from the United Transportation Union, the Brotherhood of 
Locomotive Engineers, the Oregon Public Utilities Commission, the 
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, and the Montana 
Public Service Commission to require two-way EOT devices on all 
cabooseless trains operating in certain territories. Furthermore, 49 
U.S.C. Sec. 20141, formerly contained at Section 7 of the RSERA, which 
amends the FRSA by adding a new subsection dealing with power brakes, 
mandates that the Secretary of Transportation promulgate rules 
requiring two-way EOT devices. Section 20141, formerly Section 7 of the 
RSERA, sets out various minimum requirements that any promulgated rule 
must contain. Consequently, based upon the advances in technology, the 
recommendations and petitions received, and the statutory mandate, FRA 
requested comments from interested parties regarding the exception of 
certain operations from any two-way EOT device requirements, the 
operational characteristics of the devices, the en route failure of the 
devices, and the costs associated with equipping trains with the 
devices. 57 FR 62546, 62550-62551 (Dec. 31, 1992).
A. Exceptions and Definitions
    The AAR and several individual railroads recommended that remote 
control operations and operations with helper locomotives located near 
the end of the train be excepted from any two-way EOT device 
requirements. The commenters contended that in these types of 
operations the purpose of the two-way EOT device, to initiate an 
emergency brake application commencing at the rear of the train, 
disappears since either a crew has control of the brakes or the 
locomotive placed near the end of the train is able to initiate a brake 
application from other than the head end of the train. Union Pacific 
Railroad Company also recommended an exception for all empty trains, 
loaded trains used in short turnaround service of sixty miles where 
grade is not a factor, and trains with less than 4,000 trailing tons. 
One commenter also sought an exception for trains equipped with 
secondary, fully independent brake systems that would require the 
development of a unique EOT device to initiate an emergency application 
from the rear of the train. One railroad suggested that no exception 
should be given to any trains currently using one-way devices and that 
all trains except those operating with an occupied caboose should be 
equipped with two-way EOT devices.
    In defining ``mountain grade'' The American Short Line Railroad 
Association (ASLRA) and other commenters recommended that the 
definition should be based on a variety of factors including tonnage, 
length of grade, speed, percent of grade, and grade distance. The ASLRA 
felt that a definition based on these factors would be consistent with 
the intent of Congress not to require every small railroad to fall 
under the legislation. Several other railroad representatives 
recommended that the definition of mountain grade be based on both the 
gradient and distance. Many of the railroad commenters proposed 
definitions of 1.5-2 percent grades for a distance of five miles. Two 
commenters addressed the definition of ``heavy tonnage,'' stating that 
it should be defined as any train weighing over 100 tons per operative 
brake.
    Railroad representatives suggested that the effective date of any 
regulation requiring the use of two-way devices should be extended for 
the full four years permitted under the Act. The commenters felt that 
the later the effective date, the fewer the number of one-way devices 
that would have to be discarded and the longer the time for railroads 
to spread out the costs of the new two-way devices. Railroad commenters 
also recommended a grandfather clause for any two-way equipment 
purchased prior to the issuance of a final rule.
    Labor representatives recommended that two-way devices should be 
required on all cabooseless trains that are not specifically excepted 
in the RSERA. However, these commenters also admitted that grade 
situations are probably the area where the devices are most useful. Two 
labor representatives suggested requiring the use of the devices on 
grades of one percent or greater. The Brotherhood of Locomotive 
Engineers (BLE) wanted ``mountain grades'' defined as areas with one 
percent grades for two miles. One individual conductor felt that two-
way devices should be mandatory on all trains in which the rear is 
unoccupied, with a weight in excess of 2,000 tons, and a length of 
greater than 3,000 feet.
    FRA Conclusions. Based on consideration of Congress' purpose in 
enacting Sec. 7 of the RSERA and after review of the comments received 
and the accidents relied on for support of the use of two-way EOT 
devices, FRA feels that the devices should be required on trains that 
operate at speeds in excess of 30 mph and on trains that operate in 
mountain grade territories. However, FRA believes that certain 
operations, other than those specifically listed in Sec. 7 of the 
RSERA, should also be excepted from the requirements regarding two-way 
EOT devices. FRA recognizes that the safety concerns for requiring two-
way EOT devices are less prevalent in operations (i) of trains having 
the ability to initiate a brake application from other than the front 
end and (ii) of trains equipped with fully independent secondary 
braking systems. FRA further agrees with several of the commenters that 
the definition of ``mountain grade'' must be based on some formula that 
takes into account not only the percent of grade but also the length of 
grade and the speed of the train. FRA thinks that a definition based on 
these factors would sufficiently limit the number of areas covered by 
the definition, so as not to be overly burdensome to the industry, and 
yet would include those areas that would most benefit from the added 
safety provided by the two-way devices. Furthermore, in order to 
provide the industry time to acquire a sufficient number of two-way EOT 
devices and to ease the economic impact of acquiring the devices, FRA 
proposes to mandate compliance with any final regulation requiring the 
use of two-way EOT devices as of January 1, 1997. Requiring earlier 
compliance is not warranted by the marginal safety benefits, and later 
compliance would not be consistent with the spirit of the RSERA (even 
if, as is possible, FRA is unable to issue a final rule by December 31, 
1993).
B. Operational Characteristics
    Burlington Northern Railroad (BN) reported that it has used two-way 
EOT devices for seven years and has had no reports of an emergency 
being initiated from the front end. Although BN experienced some 
problems with undesired emergencies in the beginning, they were due to 
start-up problems. CP Rail Systems reported that it has about 700 two-
way devices in service since 1989 and has had no undesired emergencies 
due to faulty operation of the equipment, nor has it had occasion to 
use the devices.
    Several railroads that currently use either one-way or two-way EOT 
devices stated that they have experienced effective communication 
between the head and rear units in trains as long as 1.5 and 2 miles. 
However, these railroads also reported that they have experienced 
communication problems in several circumstances, such as the following: 
when trains are split by an overpass or viaduct; when trains operate in 
some mountain or tunnel locations; and when trains are in a major yard 
where bridges, power lines, towers, and industrial structures are more 
prevalent.
    Other railroads that have some experience with the devices stated 
that the current two-way EOT devices have many optional features to 
provide information from the rear to the front units, such as the 
distance from front to rear units, monitoring of end- car brake-pipe 
pressure, motion status, marker light status, battery status, loss-of-
communication alarm, automatic and manual communication test, and rear-
of-train emergency braking. The AAR as well as seven of its railroad 
members commented that these additional features should not be 
required, but that each individual railroad should be allowed to 
determine which options are best suited for its particular operations. 
These parties also stated that the statute merely requires that the 
rear end of a train be able to initiate an emergency brake application 
when activated from the front and that there is no evidence available 
to support the need of requiring the transmission of other information. 
Several railroads expressed concern over requiring these additional 
features noting that such features reduce the battery life of the 
device, create additional enroute failure problems, add to the cost of 
the device, and may be eliminated or relocated as technology advances. 
One railroad recommended that failure of any optional feature, other 
than the ability to initiate an emergency brake application, should not 
be treated as an enroute failure. This same railroad also recommended 
that FRA consider replacing the ``flashing lights on EOT devices'' with 
retro-reflectorized material such as that used in Canada. The railroad 
suggested that such a change could significantly alter the cost of two-
way devices, reduce battery requirements, and reduce failure rates. One 
railroad commented on the battery life of current two-way devices, 
indicating that it is about 80 percent that of one-way devices. This 
party also indicated that inspection of the battery must be made at 
initial terminal brake inspections. The AAR commented that the 
telemetry battery life of EOT devices operating in conditions from 40 
degrees below zero to 150 degrees above zero is about 100 hours for 
one-way devices and 80 hours for two-way devices. The AAR also stated 
that the light flasher battery life is about 50 hours.
    Several railroad representatives commented that two-way EOT devices 
need to be ``secured system'' types, which means that an emergency 
application should be obtainable only by someone in the cab of the 
locomotive on that train. These commenters stated that current devices 
are designed so that the front and rear units can be linked together by 
use of a specific code which prevents outside tampering. Once the two 
units are linked, no other front unit will communicate with the rear 
unit. One commenter stated that it would require 38 hours of constant 
contact to get the proper code needed to obtain access to the device.
    Individual members of the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen (BRC) 
commented that the current one-way devices are unreliable and are not 
receiving proper maintenance. These individuals stated that the gauges 
used to calibrate the devices need to be tested. Several carmen 
commented that transmissions from current one-way devices have been 
affected by high tension wires, bridges, and foggy conditions. Labor 
representatives as well as individual members stated that they would 
like to see as many of the additional features now available with two-
way devices required. These commenters felt that any additional 
information that could be made available to train crews regarding the 
condition of the train would be beneficial. One individual conductor 
suggested that the batteries on EOT devices should be checked at all 
brake tests and at all crew change points. This individual also felt it 
should be required that batteries have at least a 75-percent charge 
before the train departs a terminal and that the devices be operational 
at all crew change points.
    A conductor for BN provided information on a new safety device 
invention that would address the problem of trainline blockage and 
turned angle cocks and would be used in connection with EOT devices. 
The device is coupled to the end of the brake pipe and would 
continuously exhaust air at a predetermined rate, which would be 
compensated for by the locomotive air source. Thus, if the trainline is 
blocked, the locomotive air source will not replenish the depleted air, 
and a brake application will take place. The engineer will be warned of 
the loss in pressure at the rear of the train by the EOT device and 
will be able to take corrective action. One manufacturer of EOT devices 
commented that the EOT devices are limited to two watts of power by the 
Federal Communications Commission and that depending on the site, such 
as when a train is half in a tunnel and half out of a tunnel, trains 
may experience brownouts or complete blackouts. The manufacturer stated 
that many of these problems can be eliminated with installation of a 
repeater feature that continuously repeats the transmitted message 
every few seconds. In addition, the manufacturer noted that when an 
emergency application is requested the transmission signal is increased 
to 8 watts, which probably will overcome any site interference. Another 
manufacturer of the devices commented that it did not know of any 
interference due to power lines, but stated that it has received 
comments about losing transmissions in mountainous areas.
    FRA Conclusions. FRA recognizes the benefits provided to the train 
crew by the additional features currently available on two-way EOT 
devices and highly recommends that railroads obtain as many of these 
optional features as they can when purchasing the devices. However, as 
long as the devices meet the minimum operating standards required to 
initiate an emergency brake application from the rear of the train, FRA 
believes that each individual railroad is in the best position to 
determine the type of optional features that are best suited for their 
operations. In addition, FRA does not want to prevent any technological 
advancements which might improve or modify many of the optional 
features currently available.
    Several parties commented on the loss of transmission between the 
front and rear units at various locations. Based on the comments and 
information provided by the manufacturers of the devices, FRA believes 
that railroads should be required to automatically check the 
communication status between the two units on a periodic basis in order 
to alert train crews of any transmission problem. FRA suggests that 
those railroads that experience transmission problems consider the 
installation of a repeater feature recommended by the manufacturers, 
which continuously repeats the transmitted message every few seconds. 
FRA also notes, as one manufacturer commented, that the transmission 
signal requesting an emergency brake application is sent at a higher 
wattage than normal transmissions and should be sufficient to overcome 
any site interference. Furthermore, in order to prevent vandalism and 
avoid the possibility of a train accidentally being placed in emergency 
by an outside transmission, FRA believes that the front and rear units 
should be linked together so that the rear unit will only respond to an 
emergency command from its associated front unit.
    FRA elects not to comment, at this time, on one railroad's 
suggestion that reflectorized material be allowed to be used in place 
of the flashing lights on EOT devices, since this issue would be more 
appropriately addressed under a revision of 49 CFR Part 221 regarding 
rear end markers.2 FRA also finds that the use of the safety 
device, introduced by an individual conductor for Burlington Northern, 
designed to detect blocked trainlines is not feasible at this time 
based on current operating and train handling procedures; however, FRA 
encourages continued testing and development of the device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\Retroreflective panels do not satisfy performance criteria 
for rear end marking devices because of track curvature's effect on 
the projection of the light source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. En route Failures
    The AAR and several of its member railroads commented that a train 
that experiences enroute failure of its two-way EOT device should be 
allowed to continue without delay and without imposition of a speed 
limit. These parties base this position on the fact that little data 
exists that shows the preventive effect of the devices and no railroads 
currently using the devices have reported an incident where the device 
was used. Some railroad commenters suggested that trains that 
experience en route failure should be allowed to continue to 
destination, whereas other railroads suggested that the trains be 
allowed to continue to the next forward point for repairs or 
replacement, just as any other enroute failure. Several railroads also 
contended that if a speed limit were imposed on trains with en route 
failures the cost to the industry would be devastating and would hurt 
the industry's competitiveness due to multiple train delays, missed 
deliveries, and loss of business. Several commenters also suggested 
that imposing speed limits for en route failures would actually 
increase safety risks due to undesirable speed differentials with 
trailing trains and because these slower trains would have to take to 
sidings to let faster trains pass and, thus, the likelihood of 
vandalism is increased. CP Rail Systems noted that Canada requires 
speed to be reduced to 30 mph when failure of the devices occurs en 
route. This commenter also noted that two-way devices have a low 
failure rate, only about 1 in every 400 crew starts. One railroad 
suggested that a 30 mph speed limit be applied only to trains departing 
from an initial terminal with inoperative device.
    FRA Conclusions. FRA believes that, if a train equipped with a two-
way EOT device has an en route failure that causes the train to lose 
the ability to initiate an emergency brake application from the rear of 
the train, the speed of that train should be limited. FRA recognizes 
the railroads' concerns that a speed limitation may cause train delays, 
missed deliveries, and a possible increase in safety risks; however, 
FRA believes that the railroads are overstating these problems. The 
railroads themselves conceded that the EOT devices are very reliable 
and can operate for two to three years without a problem. In fact, two 
railroads commented on the low failure rate of the devices, indicating 
a failure rate of less than one percent. One railroad also mentioned 
that Canada requires speed to be reduced to 30 mph on trains which 
experience enroute failure of the two-way device; however, this 
commenter did not contend that Canada's requirement has produced the 
problems cited by the railroads. Thus, FRA feels the concerns raised by 
the railroads regarding a speed limitation for en route failures of the 
devices are not justified. Furthermore, allowing trains to continue 
with inoperative two-way EOT devices, at speeds that FRA feels require 
the added safety benefits provided by the devices, would expose both 
railroad employees and the public to potential harm that might be 
averted if this relatively new technology is available to the train 
crews. FRA also believes that attaching a material operational 
limitation to a failure of the device will materially increase the 
likelihood that such failures will be prevented through improved design 
and maintenance.
D. Costs and Maintenance
    Both railroad and labor organizations agreed that the cost of new 
two-way EOT devices will be approximately $7,000 per unit, which 
includes both the front and rear units. The AAR and several railroads 
also stated that the cost of current one-way units is approximately 
$3,700 per unit. The AAR estimates that the total cost to the industry 
to replace currently used one-way devices with devices that have two-
way capabilities will be approximately $150 million. Railroad 
representatives stated that existing rear units of one-way devices 
could not be upgraded to two-way capabilities, and although the front 
units of the one-way devices could be upgraded it was not cost 
effective. However, one railroad did state that it could retrofit its 
1,500 existing front-end radio units at a cost of $740 each, for a 
total cost of $1.1 million, but stated that retrofitting the rear units 
was not feasible. Various railroad commenters provided approximate 
figures for equipping their fleets with two-way devices: Union Pacific 
estimated initial costs at $21 million and $2.4 million per year for 
replacement units; BN estimated the cost to replace its 1,400 one-way 
devices at $15 million; CSX Transportation estimated a cost of $17 
million to acquire approximately 1,867 rear units and 2,687 front end 
receivers; Conrail estimated the cost to replace its 1,100 existing 
one-way devices at $10 million; Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe estimated 
the cost to upgrade front units and replace 650 rear one-way units at 
$5.6 million; and Norfolk Southern estimated its cost to convert to 
two-way devices at $2.7 million.
    The AAR estimated the maintenance costs of two-way devices to be 
twice the costs of maintenance on current one-way devices. Based on 
figures presented by one railroad, the AAR stated that in 1989 
maintenance costs of one-way devices were approximately $2,000 annually 
per device; thus, expected maintenance costs for two-way devices will 
be about $4,000 per year per device. The AAR as well as seven railroads 
commented that current regulations regarding one-way EOT devices are 
adequate except that the current calibration period of 92 days is based 
on outdated technology. All of these commenters stated that they have 
used the devices for years and have had little if any problems with 
them. One commenter stated that the most frequent cause of failure of 
these devices is battery failure during periods of extreme cold, which 
could be cured by replacing the batteries at initial terminals. The 
commenters stated that they have rarely, if ever, found one of the 
devices out of calibration within the 92-day period and believe that an 
annual calibration requirement would be more realistic, with all 
related tests being performed at that time. Several railroads also 
commented that based on the performance of current one-way devices 
there is no reason to require calibration of the two-way devices every 
92 days. These commenters believed that the 92-day calibration 
requirement for one-way devices was based on the fact that there was 
little experience with their operation at the time. Since that time, 
experience with the devices has shown that a calibration period of one 
year is more than adequate. One railroad stated that its current one-
way devices operate for two to three years without a problem, and that 
in 1992 it replaced only about 20 of its 1,400 units.
    Several members of the BRC commented on the need to have 
interchangeable battery packs for all the different types of two-way 
devices currently available because at present some railroads are 
unable to charge the devices that come onto their lines from other 
railroads. Various carmen also presented written comments reiterating 
their concerns that the current one-way devices are unreliable, that 
maintenance is not being performed, and that the gauges used to 
calibrate them need to be tested.
    FRA Conclusions. FRA generally agrees with the cost figures 
presented by the commenters. FRA also believes that the 92-day 
calibration period currently imposed on one-way EOT devices is 
outdated. FRA agrees with several of the commenters that the 92-day 
requirement was established at a time when there was little experience 
with these types of devices. Since that time, FRA has received no 
evidence indicating that calibration of the devices is difficult to 
maintain. Furthermore, several railroads attested to the reliability of 
the one-way and two-way devices stating that they rarely find the 
devices out of calibration after 92 days and that the failure rates of 
the devices are very low. Consequently, FRA believes that the 
calibration period for all EOT devices could be extended to one year.
    FRA further believes that one of the major factors affecting the 
reliability of two-way EOT devices is the failure of the batteries on 
the devices while a train is enroute. As several commenters stated, 
battery failure is often the result of a failure to inspect the battery 
charge prior to departure or the inability of one railroad to charge 
the batteries of the devices belonging to another railroad which are 
used on its line. Consequently, in order to ensure that the batteries 
on a two-way EOT device are sufficiently charged to operate the device 
throughout a train's movement and to encourage the development and use 
of interchangeable batteries or battery chargers, FRA proposes to 
prohibit a train equipped with a two-way EOT device from departing from 
a point of origin with the batteries of such device charged to less 
than 75 percent of watt-hour capacity.

II. Air Flow Method

    The air flow method (AFM) of train air brake testing monitors the 
rate of air flow through the automatic brake valve to the brake pipe by 
the means of a brake pipe flow indicator. The AFM of brake testing is a 
more comprehensive test than the present leakage test. The leakage 
method only measures the amount of leakage from the brake and branch 
pipes, whereas the AFM tests the entire brake system including the 
reservoirs and control valves. In addition, the leakage method does not 
test the capability of the pressure-maintaining feature of the 26L 
brake equipment. The AFM, on the other hand, tests the brake system 
just as it is operated, with the pressure-maintaining feature cut in.
    The AFM of qualifying train air brake systems has been allowed in 
Canada as an alternative to the leakage test since 1984. In addition, 
several railroads in the United States have been using the AFM since 
1989 when the AAR's petition for a waiver of compliance was granted 
allowing the AFM as an alternative to the leakage test. In order to 
determine if the AFM of train air brake testing should be included as 
an alternative to the leakage test, FRA in the ANPRM (57 FR 62552) 
requested comments from interested parties regarding the operating 
history of the AFM.
    The AAR and several railroads commented on the operating experience 
of using the AFM. These commenters reported that the AFM is an 
effective and reliable method of qualifying train brakes and that the 
greatest benefit of the method is the information it provides to the 
train crew. CP Rail reported that testing on the AFM started in Canada 
in 1975 and became an alternate method of qualifying train brakes in 
1984. CP Rail as well as several other railroads stated that they have 
experienced no problems with the method. Conrail commented that, 
although it initially experienced problems with sticking pointers, 
defective check valves, and protruding screws on the air flow meters, 
these problems have been eliminated. Conrail also stated that use of 
the AFM has indicated a slight reduction in undesired emergencies. 
Several railroads commented that the AFM provides information to the 
train crew regarding the brake pipe that is not provided by the leakage 
test. Two railroads responded that in all the years they have used the 
AFM they have experienced no instance where a train had to stop because 
the air flow could not be maintained. The AAR maintained that the 
failure rate of the air flow indicators is less than 1 percent. In 
fact, Conrail stated that it performed 9,000 air flow indicator 
calibrations in 1992 and found only 90 defective indicators. Several 
railroads commented that they currently calibrate the air flow meters 
on a 60-day to 92-day basis and have no problem with current 
calibration procedures. Two railroads noted that they initially had 
problems calibrating the devices due to orifice sizes but have since 
cured this problem. One railroad mentioned that it had problems 
calibrating the devices in extremely cold weather until it applied 
condition eight of FRA's waiver to the calibration of the gauge on the 
locomotive as well as the test orifices. (``The air flow indicator 
calibration test orifice shall be calibrated at temperatures of not 
more than 20 degrees Fahrenheit.'')
    Railroad representatives unanimously opposed any requirement that 
would make using the AFM mandatory or the sole method of qualifying 
brake systems. All railroad commenters supported the adoption of the 
AFM as an alternative to the leakage test for qualifying braking 
systems. Most of these commenters suggested that the use of either 
method is an economical or operational decision that should be made by 
each individual railroad. One railroad recommended that trains 
qualified under the AFM should be requalified with the leakage test if 
the air flow indicator fails enroute. The cost figures presented by the 
AAR and several railroads for equipping locomotives with air flow 
meters range from $350 to $1,450 per unit.
    Amtrak and two other passenger and commuter railroads commented 
that due to the short length of passenger trains the AFM is not a 
beneficial means of qualifying the braking systems. They felt that the 
flow rate of 60 cubic feet per minute (CFM) was inappropriate for 
passenger trains because it would allow these shorter trains to operate 
with excessive brake pipe leakage since the AFM measures the ability to 
maintain pressure, not brake pipe leakage. However, these commenters 
did support the use of the AFM as an alternative to the leakage test 
for freight operations.
    Both the Railway Labor Executives' Association (RLEA) and the BRC 
as well as several individual carmen opposed the adoption of the AFM as 
an alternative method of qualifying brake systems. The parties felt 
that the leakage test is the only reliable method for determining the 
integrity of the air brake system and for identifying leaks. These 
commenters stated that the AFM only determines whether the brake pipe 
is compensating for existing leaks and does not identify the severity 
of the leak, and thus, trains would be allowed to operate with leaks 
over 5-psi, which is dangerous especially in cold weather and could 
result in an emergency application or derailment.
    Westinghouse Air Brake Company (WABCO) responded stating that both 
the leakage test and the AFM combined with the 15-psi gradient 
restriction are effective and acceptable methods of qualifying braking 
systems. WABCO commented that the 60-CFM limit required by the AFM and 
the 5-psi limit required by the leakage test are both conservative 
figures in view of today's braking system capabilities, and that the 5-
psi limit was derived long before today's pressure maintaining feature 
which is an integral part of all locomotive brake valves. WABCO stated 
that front-to-rear gradient is the most important element of braking 
performance and that long trains with a 15-psi gradient can be operated 
with no problem. This commenter also mentioned that the 60-CFM limit of 
the AFM would allow higher leakage on shorter trains but nothing that 
would cause a problem in brake operations if the 15-psi gradient is 
maintained.
    FRA Conclusions. FRA believes that if a train contains a locomotive 
equipped with 26L freight locomotive brake equipment and the train is 
equipped with an EOT device, that train should be allowed to be 
qualified using the AFM. FRA also agrees with several commenters that 
the AFM should not be permitted as a means of qualifying braking 
systems on commuter and passenger trains. Due to the shorter length of 
these types of trains the use of the AFM to qualify their brake systems 
might allow these trains to operate with excessive brake pipe leakage. 
The AFM would be an alternative to the leakage test for qualifying 
properly equipped freight train brake systems. FRA recognizes the 
concerns of several labor organization commenters opposing the adoption 
of the AFM; however, FRA believes these commenters' apprehension is 
based on their unfamiliarity with the method. As FRA pointed out in the 
ANPRM (57 FR 62551) and as several commenters confirmed, the AFM is a 
much more comprehensive test than the leakage test. The AFM tests the 
entire brake system just as it is used, with the pressure-maintaining 
feature cut in. The method has been allowed in Canada since 1984 
without any problems. Based on the comments from several railroads and 
information obtained during the method's testing from 1981 to 1988, FRA 
feels the AFM is an effective and reliable alternative method of 
qualifying train brakes. Although FRA is not mandating the use of the 
AFM, FRA does encourage railroads to use the method on all trains, not 
necessarily for qualifying the brake systems, but as a means of 
providing additional information regarding the brake system to the 
train crew. FRA further believes that calibration of the air flow 
indicators should be performed at least every 92 days, based on the 
fact that it is the calibration period required by the current FRA 
waiver granted to the AAR and because most railroads stated that they 
already calibrate the air flow indicators every 60 to 92 days and gave 
no indication that the period should be altered. See 54 FR 5195 (Feb. 
1, 1989).

III. Testing in Cold Weather and on Steep Grades

    FRA has received a recommendation from the NTSB and petitions from 
the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, the United Transportation 
Union, and the Montana Joint Rail Labor Legislative Council to require 
additional train air brake system testing in extremely cold weather and 
mountain grade territory. These parties cite concerns regarding 
existing practices of some railroads in these areas and the general 
problem of assuring sufficient brake pipe pressure during train 
operations in extremely cold weather and on steep, descending grades. 
In the ANPRM (57 FR 62553), FRA sought comments from interested parties 
regarding the need for additional testing of train air brakes in these 
circumstances and the type of additional testing required.
    The AAR and a variety of other railroads opposed the mandating of 
additional testing in cold weather or in mountain grade territory. They 
stated that the accidents that have occurred in cold weather and on 
heavy grades are due to failure of individuals to comply with existing 
procedures and not due to inadequate testing, procedures, or equipment. 
These commenters felt that current brake tests and operating procedures 
are sufficient as long as they are followed and performed properly. 
Several railroads commented that they have installed air dryers on 
their locomotives in order to eliminate the use of alcohol in cold 
weather, which is very detrimental to the rubber components of the 
braking system. In addition, several railroads contended that improved 
equipment, such as welded fittings and ferrule-clamped air hoses, have 
negated the effects of cold weather on leakage and braking. Several 
railroads also suggested that running tests should not be required in 
mountain grade territory since the performance of such tests only 
results in the depletion of the reserve air supply, and thus, 
jeopardizes the effectiveness of the brake system by requiring a train 
to approach a grade with less than a fully charged brake system.
    In addressing the issues of ``feed valve braking'' and use of the 
``Passenger'' position of the 26C brake valve in freight service, the 
AAR stated that the individual railroads have operating rules that 
address these forms of braking and since no safety issue has arisen 
regarding their use there is no justification for removing the 
railroad's discretion in establishing rules appropriate for their 
operations. At least four railroads stated that use of the 
``Passenger'' position in freight service can be performed safely and 
may be needed and wanted in certain circumstances, and that there 
should be no regulation prohibiting its use. Although several railroads 
stated that they do not allow or recommend ``feed valve braking,'' they 
all believed that the current operating rules of the individual 
railroads sufficiently address the issue.
    Two labor organizations and several of their members commented that 
additional tests are not required but that good initial and 
intermediate terminal brake tests are needed. Counsel for the TCU 
suggested that the railroads should consider placing a carman on each 
train. The BRC and several of its carmen commented on the widespread 
use of alcohol and methanol in the trainline during cold weather and 
mentioned the degenerative effect it has on the rubber components of 
the brake system. These commenters felt that the use of these materials 
in the trainline should be addressed by FRA. The Brotherhood of 
Locomotive Engineers (BLE) suggested that the allowable front-to-rear 
gradient be reduced in cold weather from 15-psi to 10-psi. One 
organization recommended a regulation requiring locomotive engineers to 
test the brake pipe pressure prior to passing the summit on a mountain 
grade. The BLE stated that the burden of establishing the safety of 
``feed valve braking'' and the use of the ``Passenger'' position of the 
brake valve should be borne by the railroads rather than using BLE 
members as test pilots. However, one individual engineer felt that both 
methods should continue to be allowed in limited circumstances to 
address unusual conditions that arise from either undesired emergencies 
or faulty maintaining features of the 26C or 30A-CDW brake valves.
    Two brake equipment manufacturers commented that no additional 
testing requirements are needed. They stated that the industry has 
taken dramatic steps to reduce leakage in cold weather by installing 
and using welded pipe fittings, wide lip hose couplings, and ferrule 
clamps. These commenters felt that if brake equipment is properly 
maintained and good terminal brake tests are performed, there is no 
need for additional regulations.
    The NTSB commented that cold weather operations impose additional 
problems regarding brake system leakage due to shrinkage of the brake 
components in extreme cold. This commenter stated that it would like to 
see some type of additional testing to assure that excessive leakage is 
not occurring. The Board acknowledged that, since the original 
recommendation, the railroads have added equipment that performs better 
in cold weather conditions.
    FRA Conclusions. FRA recognizes that few, if any, of the commenters 
supported the mandating of additional testing in cold weather or in 
mountain grade territory. FRA agrees that the development and use of 
welded pipe fittings, wide lip hose couplings, and ferrule clamps has 
greatly reduced the effects of cold weather on the air brake system. 
However, FRA believes that there are several extreme operating 
conditions that involve added safety risks and that need to be further 
addressed by the railroads. These include cold weather and mountain 
territory operations as well as the operation of long and heavy trains. 
FRA feels that each railroad needs to develop detailed operating 
procedures for these types of operations, tailored to the equipment and 
territory of each railroad. Furthermore, FRA believes that the use of 
chemicals in the trainline must be eliminated in order to prevent 
untimely damage and wear to the brake system components. Therefore, FRA 
feels that most trains operating in cold weather should be equipped 
with air dryers. Several railroads commented that they have already 
equipped their locomotives with these devices in order to curb the use 
of alcohol and other foreign substances in the trainlines.

IV. Training of Test and Inspection Personnel

    Currently, the regulations require that the initial terminal test 
and inspection be performed by a qualified employee but does not 
provide any guidance as to what type of knowledge these individuals 
should possess. See 49 CFR Sec. 232.12(a)(1). An increasing number of 
train brake tests and inspections are being conducted by train crews 
and FRA has concerns whether or not all personnel performing these 
duties are truly qualified. Consequently, FRA sought comments and 
information from interested parties regarding the type of training that 
is currently provided to individuals charged with inspecting and 
testing train brake systems, and suggestions on the type of training 
these individuals should receive. See 57 FR 62553.
    The AAR and several railroads commented that employees performing 
air brake tests and inspections are adequately trained to perform these 
tasks. However, many of the railroads admitted that they could do a 
better job of training their employees. Several railroads presented 
information regarding their individual training programs. The training 
provided by these commenters ranged from several days to several weeks, 
a portion of which is dedicated to air brake tests and inspections. 
Most of the major railroads stated that their training includes annual 
testing of the employees upon completion of the formal training classes 
and that employees must pass these tests with scores of 85-90 percent. 
Several railroads also mentioned that their training involves a certain 
amount of on-the-job training in addition to the formal classroom 
training and that unannounced site checks are conducted by their 
supervisory personnel. The ASLRA commented that most shortline 
railroads engage in cross-training of their employees so they can 
perform all functions of the operations and that these railroads rely 
heavily on the Class I railroads' training facilities and video tapes. 
Several railroads stated that some type of list of those employees that 
are considered qualified to perform tests and inspections is maintained 
either in the form of a formal list or a list of employees who have 
received the necessary training.
    The AAR and all the other railroads providing comments believed 
that there is no need for FRA to impose training or certification 
requirements. These commenters felt that training is the responsibility 
of the carriers and that carriers are in best position to determine the 
type of training needed for their operation. The AAR contended that the 
decline in train accidents, derailments, fatalities, and injuries over 
the last ten years is a testament to the adequacy of current training 
provided by the railroads. The AAR and several railroads also insisted 
that there is no reason to require those employees performing air brake 
tests and inspections to be as highly trained as a carman and that 
something more reasonable is sufficient. These parties also felt that 
merely being a member of a particular craft should not automatically 
make a person qualified, and the AAR added that any reference contained 
in the regulations designating a particular craft to perform the 
inspections should be eliminated. Many of these commenters also stated 
that there is no need for FRA to certify qualified persons and that 
such a scheme would merely increase the costs to railroads without 
improving the performance of those individuals conducting the tests and 
inspections.
    Several labor organizations commented that the current training 
provided by the railroads to the individuals performing the air brake 
tests and inspections is insufficient. The BLE and various members of 
the United Transportation Union (UTU) stated that the training they 
have received is inadequate to prepare them for making the air brake 
tests and inspections they are currently required to perform. 
Representatives of the BRC and several of its individual members stated 
that train crews lacked the experience and training necessary to 
perform inspections and tests of the air brakes. These individuals also 
contended that only carmen are qualified by training and experience to 
perform these tasks based on the fact that they have completed two- to 
three-year apprenticeships and have completed numerous written exams. 
These commenters stated that elimination of various tests and 
inspections, such as the elimination of cleaning, oiling, testing, and 
stencilling (COT&S) requirements and run-through inspections, and the 
increase of permissible piston travel have placed primary importance on 
the initial terminal inspection, which is not being performed properly 
because train crews are not qualified to perform the tasks. Several 
members of the BRC recommended that carriers be required to have carmen 
perform all initial and intermediate inspections and any other tests or 
inspections required by the FRA.
    Every commenting labor organization and several of their individual 
members recommended that FRA designate qualified inspectors by 
specifying the experience and training that are required for these 
individuals rather than leaving these matters in the railroad's 
discretion. Most of these commenters also suggested that FRA certify 
those employees that are deemed to be qualified to perform these tests 
and inspections. Two labor organizations also suggested that FRA 
require railroads to maintain a list of those individuals deemed 
qualified in order to assure compliance with the regulations.
    FRA Conclusions. FRA believes that the current training provided to 
the individuals charged with performing the required brake tests and 
inspections should be improved in order to ensure that these tests and 
inspections are performed properly. Several labor organizations and 
their individual members explicitly commented that they are not 
sufficiently trained to perform the inspections and tests required of 
them. In addition, several railroads affirmed that the training they 
currently provide could be improved. Increasing reliance on train crews 
to conduct train air brake tests, as a result of the consolidation of 
mechanical forces, means that it is more important than ever before 
that each person responsible for power brake safety be thoroughly 
trained in the functions which that person is called upon to perform.
    FRA recognizes that many railroads are attempting to improve their 
training programs; however, FRA thinks that minimum training and 
experience guidelines need to be established to assure that brake 
inspections and tests are being properly performed in order to protect 
both the public and railroad employees from the operation of equipment 
not meeting FRA requirements. Although there has been a decline in the 
number of train accidents, derailments, fatalities, and injuries over 
the last ten years, FRA believes that the number of these incidents 
will be further reduced if inspections and tests of the brake system 
are performed by individuals who have been instructed in accordance 
with these minimum training and experience guidelines.
    Consequently, FRA proposes broad performance-based qualification 
requirements for individuals that perform brake system inspections and 
tests; individuals that inspect, test, and maintain the electronic and 
mechanical parts of the brake system; and individuals that supervise 
the work of the aforementioned personnel. FRA will supplement these 
performance-based qualification standards by issuing minimum training 
and experience guidelines that will aid the railroads in developing 
training programs sufficient to ensure that individuals are capable of 
meeting the performance-based qualification standards. FRA believes 
that each railroad should be allowed to develop and implement a program 
to train, qualify, and issue credentials to these individuals in 
accordance with these minimum requirements based on each railroad's own 
unique operating conditions and equipment. Furthermore, in order to 
insure that quality inspections, tests, and maintenance are continually 
being performed, FRA believes that periodic spot checks of inspections 
and maintenance should be performed by qualified supervisory personnel.

V. Electronic Brake Systems

    Railroad power brake systems are moving into the computer age, and 
recently, several innovative electronic brake systems have been adopted 
into train service. These electronic brake systems include blended 
brakes, locomotive speed limiters, and microprocessor-controlled 
brakes. Although these braking systems meet present Federal 
regulations, the regulations may be silent in certain areas that need 
to be addressed in order to ensure that braking systems which 
incorporate versions of this new technology maintain the same level of 
safety as conventional power brakes. In order to determine the type of 
regulation that might be needed to assure the ``fail-safe'' nature of 
these types of braking systems FRA requested comments from experienced 
parties regarding the operation of electronic braking systems, the 
sensors utilized by the systems, and the maintenance requirements of 
such systems. See 57 FR 62554.
    A number of passenger and commuter railroads, one State transit 
authority, and several freight carriers commented that technology for 
electronic braking systems is advancing quickly and that performance 
standards need to be developed to address these types of systems. 
Several commenters stated that a power failure in these electronic 
braking types of systems will result in a full service brake 
application being applied through the entire train, with the emergency 
brake valve available to initiate an emergency application at any time.
    The AAR and several railroads discussed the sensors that are, or 
may be, used with these types of systems. Amtrak felt that the 
reliability of the sensors is a key issue for these systems because 
nothing is gained if they fail as often as the equipment being 
monitored. These parties stated that sensors currently manufactured are 
fairly reliable, with advertised reliability rates of 14.6 years or 
failure rates of once every 35-38 million miles of operation. One 
commenter stated that sensors have not yet been developed that would 
indicate when disc brake pads are worn to condemning limits. Commenters 
also contended that sensors that could be used to assist in brake tests 
to determine proper piston travel or whether brakes are applied would 
be very expensive at this time and difficult to install and maintain. 
One commenter suggested that the only way to monitor whether brakes are 
applied would be to install a sensor on every brake head, which would 
be very impractical.
    Several commenters stated that the computer software used with 
these systems is designed to continually self-test not only the 
software controlling the brake system but also the hardware every time 
it is used. Therefore, the parties contend that there is no need to 
require daily testing since the system will identify any defects or 
reduction in performance each time it is used. These commenters also 
suggested that the need for time based COT&S with these systems is 
unnecessary since the computer will indicate when attention is needed. 
Two railroads stated that complete air brake tests should be performed 
when a system component is replaced, whereas other railroads 
recommended following the manufacturer's recommended practice or at a 
minimum running a normal system check to verify the repair.
    Two manufacturers of brake equipment suggested that whatever 
regulations are developed they need to allow for technological 
development. They stated that systems are being developed that will be 
able to monitor all sorts of things and will eliminate the need for 
time-based maintenance and cleaning of brake equipment. These parties 
believed that in the next five years systems will be available that can 
be self-diagnostic and able to report on their operational 
capabilities. Expected future capabilities are: advanced train control 
system (ATCS) compatibility, distributed power, simplicity of design, 
maintainability, accuracy of pressure control, and adaptability to 
complete electronic or radio control throughout freight train 
operation.
    FRA Conclusions. In order to allow for and encourage the 
development of new technology, FRA proposes to provide guidelines 
regarding the tests and procedures required for introducing new brake 
system technology. These guidelines would require the submission of 
design and test plans as well as subsequent operational plans for the 
introduction of new technology. Parties would also be allowed to 
petition the FRA to convert some of the brake system design and 
maintenance requirements into performance-based standards to 
accommodate the use of electronic braking systems.

VI. Dynamic Brakes

    As the result of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company 
accident at San Bernardino, California on May 25, 1989, the NTSB made 
the following two recommendations to FRA concerning dynamic brakes:
    1. Study, in conjunction with the AAR, the feasibility of 
developing a positive method to indicate to the operating engineer in 
the cab of the controlling locomotive unit the condition of the dynamic 
brakes on all units in the train.
    2. Revise regulations to require that if a locomotive unit is 
equipped with dynamic brakes that the dynamic brakes function.
    Dynamic brakes were developed as a ``free'' by-product of the 
diesel-electric drive train. By engaging the dynamic brake, the 
normally powered traction motors on each axle are changed to 
generators, and the power generated is dissipated through resistance 
grids. The effect is similar to that of shifting an automobile to a 
lower gear when descending a steep grade. The additional hardware 
needed to outfit a locomotive with dynamic brakes includes the grids 
and the controls and switches.
    The primary selling point of dynamic brakes has been to save on 
freight car brake shoe wear. The dynamic brake is also useful in 
controlling train slack in lieu of using the locomotive independent 
brake. Furthermore, use of the dynamic brake in controlling train speed 
in lieu of power braking, where the train brake is applied with the 
locomotive under power, is a major factor in fuel savings. Due to these 
benefits, railroads currently emphasize and encourage the use of 
dynamic brakes. In order to determine the types of requirements or 
standards that should be developed regarding the design and use of 
dynamic brakes, FRA requested comments from interested parties 
regarding the reliability, testing, and cost of dynamic brakes as well 
as the types of information that are or could be provided to the 
engineer regarding the availability and operation of the devices. See 
57 FR 62555.
    The AAR and a number of railroads commented that dynamic brakes are 
not safety devices but are economical devices and their operation 
should be governed by the railroads' operating rules and not federal 
regulations. Every railroad commenting on dynamic brakes stated that 
they are not the primary brake and are not used to stop a train. The 
parties considered the devices optional features used to save fuel and 
reduce wear and tear on brake equipment. Therefore, the commenters felt 
that any decision to equip a locomotive with dynamic brakes and any 
specific handling instructions as to their use should be left to each 
individual railroad since their installation and use must be based on 
an individual economic analysis. Several commuter and passenger 
railroads commented that they operate with blended brakes on MU cars 
and, thus, feel that any regulations regarding dynamic brakes need to 
separate these types of operations from conventional freight service.
    Several commenters also stated that dynamic brakes do not have a 
fail-safe feature and can fail at any time. The most common failures 
reported by these parties occur in brake resistors, traction motors, 
grid systems, blowers, and control modules and contactors. However, the 
railroads reported that dynamic brakes are relatively dependable and 
trouble free. Two railroads stated that they had failure rates of less 
than three percent.
    Several commenters stated that the reliability of dynamic brakes is 
influenced by the degree of maintenance they receive. Several railroads 
reported that they perform routine preventive maintenance every 92 
days. One railroad stated that their routine maintenance includes 
visual inspection of equipment, inspection of grid blower brushes, 
verification of trainline continuity, check of MU jumper cable wiring, 
check of main generator voltage regulation, and verification of 
previous dynamic brake operation via recording system playback. This 
railroad and one other carrier also stated that at major servicing 
facilities set up of the dynamic brakes is verified. In addition, these 
railroads commented that dynamic brakes are part of the daily 
inspection and that if enroute failure of dynamic brakes occurs the 
train crew is to complete a form, contained in the locomotive, 
detailing the problem. With regard to pre-departure testing of the 
dynamic brakes, the AAR and several railroads stated that, due to the 
operating efficiency of dynamic brakes, a standing test of the devices 
would merely let the engineer know if the dynamic brakes set up, but 
would not inform him as to whether they will work, and that in order to 
completely test the devices the train must be moving. However, these 
commenters also discouraged the use of running tests since such a test 
would require at least a 10-mph speed, whereas most facilities have 5 
mph speed limits and because creation of slack in a train is 
inadvisable at some locations.
    The AAR and a number of railroads commented that there is no 
equipment available today to monitor the dynamic brakes on trailing 
locomotives. These parties also stated that the monitoring of trailing 
units is really rather useless due to the fact that dynamic brakes can 
fail at any time. One railroad commented that a prototype device 
capable of monitoring the dynamic brakes on trailing locomotives has 
been developed but no production model is available and the cost of the 
device would be $10,000-$15,000 per locomotive. The AAR also provided 
an approximate figure of $100,000 as the cost to retrofit an individual 
locomotive with dynamic brakes.
    The RLEA recommended that dynamic brakes be employed on all trains, 
be in working order, and be tested before all departures and that 
training be provided on their usage. The RLEA would also like mandatory 
installation of a device that would monitor the dynamic effort on 
trailing locomotives. The BLE and BRC did not think that dynamic brakes 
could be monitored and felt that even if they could, it would probably 
not be that effective since dynamic brakes tend to fail while in use. 
The BLE did recommend that railroads be required to maintain the 
equipment. In addition, the BRC and BLE recommended that if dynamic 
brakes are present a running test should be required, even if performed 
at less than 10 mph since such a test would at least indicate whether 
the dynamic brakes are functioning.
    The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) commented that the 
railroads are improperly describing dynamic brakes as a luxury. The 
NTSB stated that railroads preach and encourage the use of the dynamic 
brake and, thus, should ensure at least from the initial terminal that 
the system will work.
    FRA Conclusion. The RSERA requires FRA to issue standards for 
locomotive dynamic brakes, ``where applicable.'' It is clear from this 
qualification and the history of the legislation that it imposes no 
requirement that locomotives be equipped with dynamic brakes. Nor do we 
understand the RSERA to supersede the Act of March 2, 1893, which 
forbids a railroad to ``run any train * * * that has not a sufficient 
number of cars in it * * * equipped with power or train brakes that the 
engineer on the locomotive drawing such train can control its speed 
without requiring brakemen to use the common hand brake for that 
purpose.'' This provision clearly requires that the train brake system 
(which, after 100 years is still pneumatically operated in the case of 
conventional freight equipment) bear the burden of providing a sound 
and serviceable first-order safety system capable of controlling train 
speed and arresting the movement when required.
    It is pertinent to ask why, against this background, FRA is now 
required to address the issue of locomotive dynamic brakes. The mandate 
for dynamic brake safety standards emanated from the investigation, by 
the National Transportation Safety Board, of an accident in which 
normal precautions for use of the primary train air brake system were 
cast to the wind. In brief, excessive tonnage and excessive speed 
cresting the grade led to a train out of control. This, together with 
the disastrous consequences, resulted in examination by the Board of 
whether the availability of fully operational dynamic braking, as a 
secondary safety system, might have saved the day. Report No. RAR-90-02 
(National Transportation Safety Board, 1990).
    It is conceded by most serious observers that locomotive dynamic 
brakes do not offer the technical capability to serve as a primary 
train braking system, since--
    (a) they provide braking force only on powered locomotive axles and 
are incapable of controlling in-train forces in the same manner as the 
automatic braking system;
    (b) they are effective only within a narrow speed range and have no 
capability to actually stop a train;
    (c) they can fail without prior warning; and
    (d) their failure mode is characterized by loss of braking force 
(as opposed to the automatic brake, which, properly employed, initiates 
an emergency brake application upon loss of system integrity).
    FRA thus views as unfortunate, and potentially reckless, the 
increasing number of train handling and power brake instructions issued 
by freight railroads that emphasize use of dynamic brakes without 
including prominent warnings that such systems may not be relied upon 
to provide the margin of safety necessary to stop short of obstructions 
and control points or to avoid overspeed operation. Such instructions, 
while not yet affirmatively misleading to seasoned locomotive 
engineers, threaten to overcome the good judgment of safety critics and 
regulators by leading to excessive reliance upon these systems.
    While FRA is not persuaded that dynamic brakes warrant emphasis as 
the primary safety system, the agency recognizes that the statute 
communicates a valid safety concern, properly construed. That is, to 
the extent significant emphasis is placed on dynamic brakes--either by 
the railroads as a legitimate means of limiting fuel consumption, 
undesired emergency brake applications, and wear to freight car 
components, or by safety critics who do not foresee that hazard of 
reliance on such systems--engineers may in fact be encouraged to make 
errors in judgment that take them beyond prudent safety margins. At 
such a critical point, proper functioning of any secondary safety 
system--however subject to failure--is greatly to be wished. Further, 
dynamic brakes offer a redundant safety feature should the engineer 
make a mistake in judgment leading to excessive speed under the 
prevailing conditions of grade, tonnage, and weather.
    FRA believes that dynamic brakes have become, de facto, a second-
order safety system where employed. While from the point of view of 
logical priorities, dynamic brakes ``back up'' the automatic train 
brake system, in sequence of operational procedures the priority is 
reversed. Stated differently, either the proper functioning of these 
systems, or the provision of reliable information concerning degraded 
functioning of these systems, should prevent locomotive engineers from 
operating trains in a manner that might make recovery through use of 
the automatic brake impossible. As between these two alternatives, 
proper functioning is marginally preferred, since communication, 
perception, and comprehension of information is not a uniformly 
successful enterprise.
    To summarize, although FRA will not require that locomotives be 
equipped with dynamic brakes, FRA does believe that Congress, in 
Sec. 20141 (formerly Sec. 7 of the RSERA), intended for FRA to develop 
meaningful and enforceable standards regarding the safe use and 
operation of dynamic brakes. Furthermore, FRA believes that if the 
devices are available, they should be maintained, and engineers should 
be informed on their safe and proper use and be provided with 
information regarding the amount of dynamic braking effort that they 
have available. Further, FRA believes that railroads operating braking 
systems that include dynamic brakes should have written operating 
rules, tailored to the specific equipment and territory of each 
railroad, governing the safe handling procedures for the use of dynamic 
brakes under all operating conditions, including procedures covering 
the loss of dynamic brakes. FRA also proposes to require railroads to 
inform engineers of the total dynamic brake retarding force available 
on all outbound trains equipped with dynamic brakes. As several 
commenters stated, in order to completely test dynamic brakes the train 
must be moving. Thus, FRA believes that running tests of the dynamic 
brake should be performed whenever the motive power or engine crew is 
changed so that the availability, or lack of availability, of the 
device can be rechecked.
    Currently, the operating rules of most railroads contain limits on 
the amount of dynamic braking force that may safely be used depending 
on the dimensions of the train involved. Most railroad operating rules 
express these limits in terms of the number of axles that engine 
consists are permitted to use in dynamic braking. Railroads generally 
will cut out the dynamic brakes on trailing locomotives, when the train 
is made up, in order to avoid the possibility of excessive dynamic 
braking force being applied, which could result in the buckling of the 
train. However, some operating rules also express dynamic braking 
limits for operating through turnouts, crossovers, and curves in terms 
of dynamic brake amperes, yet, there is currently no way for engineers 
to know the amount of dynamic brake amperage on their train or the 
amperage they are using. Furthermore, although running tests of dynamic 
brakes, as proposed by FRA, provide information to the locomotive 
engineer regarding the availability of dynamic brakes, such tests are 
limited to the specific moment they are performed. Thus, running tests 
do not provide continuous information on the current status of the 
dynamic brakes to the locomotive engineer. Because dynamic brakes could 
fail at any time, FRA feels there should be some way for engineers to 
continuously monitor the operation of their available dynamic brakes. 
Consequently, based on Congress' mandate contained in Sec. 20141 
(formerly Sec. 7 of the RSERA), requiring meaningful standards to 
address the safe use of dynamic brakes, FRA believes that locomotives 
built after January 1, 1996, and equipped with dynamic brakes, should 
be able to (i) test the electrical integrity of the dynamic brake at 
rest and (ii) display the total train dynamic brake retarding force, at 
certain speed increments, in the cab of the controlling locomotive.
    In the ANPRM (57 FR 62555), FRA requested comments from the 
industry on possible methods of providing information regarding the 
status of dynamic brakes to the engineer in the cab of the controlling 
locomotive. The only workable option presented to FRA in the comments 
received was the equipping of locomotives with a dynamic brake display. 
Although FRA recognizes that the technology for dynamic brake displays 
with the ability to provide the type of information sought by FRA is 
not readily available today, several commenters suggested that it is 
currently being developed. FRA believes that the benefits of such an 
indicator would be to alert engineers that they have diminished or 
excessive dynamic capabilities, thus permitting the engineer to control 
the braking of their train in the safest possible manner. However, in 
order to fully evaluate the viability of this proposal, FRA seeks 
comments from all interested parties regarding the following specific 
issues:
    (1) What is the status on the future availability of dynamic brake 
indicators capable of providing the information required by this 
proposal?
    (2) Are FRA's cost estimates regarding this proposal accurate?
    (3) What quantitative and/or qualitative operational or safety 
benefits can be derived from the use of these devices?
    (4) What alternative methods are available for providing the same 
information that a dynamic brake indicator would provide to a 
locomotive engineer?

VII. Miscellaneous Issues

A. Brake Pipe Reduction

    Present regulations require brake-pipe reductions of either 15 
pounds, 20 pounds, or full service depending on which of the required 
train air brake test is being performed. 49 CFR 232.12, 232.13. In the 
ANPRM (57 FR 62556), FRA sought comments from interested parties to 
determine if it is feasible and beneficial for FRA to establish one 
standard brake-pipe reduction for all required train air brake tests.
    The AAR and several railroads recommended that some type of 
performance standard be established so that each railroad could 
determine the amount of reduction that best suits its operation. The 
AAR also suggested that if the reduction amounts were left in the 
discretion of the individual railroads, it would be receptive to a 
requirement that the railroad indicate what reduction rates it would 
use at different locations. Several railroads commented that one 
standard reduction should be required for all tests and inspections and 
that the standard should not require an increase to a full service 
reduction because such a practice could cause undesired releases. These 
commenters also noted that one standardized reduction for all tests 
would simplify air brake tests and make it easier for the railroads to 
train and instruct their employees. Most of the commenting railroads 
suggested a 20-psi reduction if a specific amount were established. Two 
commuter railroads stated that they are unable to comply with 49 CFR 
232.12 as currently written because they are unable to make a service 
rate reduction on some of their equipment.
    Two labor organizations recommended that one standard reduction be 
established by FRA rather than allowing each individual railroad to 
determine their own reductions. This recommendation was based on the 
commenters' concern that varying reduction standards among the 
railroads would cause confusion for train crews since many railroads 
swap trains and operate crews over each other's lines. These commenters 
also felt that one standardized reduction would make training easier.
    FRA Conclusions. FRA agrees with many of the commenters that a 
standardized brake pipe reduction of 20 psi is sufficient for the 
performance of all required brake inspections and tests. FRA believes 
that the adoption of one standard reduction will simplify both the 
performance of the required inspections and the training of employees 
charged with performing these inspections. Under the proposal FRA would 
no longer require full service reductions for any of required 
inspections in order to avoid the possibility of undesired releases. 
FRA feels that the suggestion of several commenters to allow each 
railroad to determine its own brake pipe reduction is not viable. It is 
not uncommon to find train crews operating in several different 
locations or to find the train crew of one railroad operating the 
equipment belonging to another railroad or operating over the lines of 
another railroad. Thus, if various reductions were established by 
different railroads or by one railroad in different locations, it would 
merely cause further confusion in both the performance of the 
inspections and the training of personnel.

B. Performance of Brake Inspections

    To determine whether regulations should be developed specifying how 
certain brake inspections should be performed and whether certain 
currently required inspections are necessary, FRA requested comments 
from interested parties regarding the current methods of performing the 
various required brake inspections and sought comments on how current 
inspections could be improved or eliminated. See 57 FR 62556.
    The AAR and a number of railroads recommended that the specific 
method of performing the various required inspections should be left to 
the discretion of each railroad since the type of inspection required 
depends on the equipment involved and the operating conditions existing 
at various locations. Many of these commenters stated that experience 
has shown that vehicle inspections do not detract from inspections and 
that such inspections are adequate depending on the location performed. 
These parties also stated that their employees are instructed to get 
off their vehicle if they are unable to see the brake equipment from 
the vehicle. Several commenters also endorsed the use of roll-by 
inspections at least to determine release of the brakes. Most of the 
commenters also recommended that inspection of five-pack equipment 
(articulated cars) needs to be looked at since this equipment utilizes 
several different types of braking systems, many of which cannot be 
viewed from one side of the car. Several railroads stated that they 
were in the process of developing specific training for the inspection 
of five-pack equipment. One commenter suggested that if the brakes fail 
to apply on one of the sets of brake equipment contained on multi-
platform cars with multiple brake systems, the car should be considered 
operable and permitted to continue to the first terminal where repairs 
could be made.
    Amtrak commented that the use of package, or unit, brake actuators 
on most modern passenger trains requires an inspection of both sides of 
the train. This commenter also stated that the enshrouding of brake 
actuators, the existence of high-level platforms, and the presence of 
wayside electric power systems make inspection of brake systems on 
passenger trains dangerous. Amtrak recommended an alternative to the 
initial terminal inspection that would allow passenger trains making 
multiple turns in a 24-hour interval to perform a set and release after 
a leakage test is performed at all subsequent departures after a 
complete initial terminal brake inspection if the train remains charged 
and the consist is not broken. The AAR and one railroad stated that the 
use of carside indicators is a reliable method for determining the 
condition of brakes when brake equipment is enshrouded or mounted in-
board or when a train is next to a high-level platform or other 
obstruction. Two other passenger railroads suggested that FRA develop a 
list of parameters that each initial terminal test must address and 
then allow each passenger railroad to submit its test procedures, based 
on its individual operations, to FRA for approval. A number of 
passenger and commuter railroads also commented that many of the 
current inspection requirements contained in the regulations are not 
applicable to multiple unit (MU) cars, specifically noting the leakage 
test requirement, the piston travel regulations, and the requirement to 
keep equipment charged when adding cars. These parties recommended that 
provisions regarding MU cars be separated from provisions on freight 
locomotives and cars.
    The AAR and a number of railroads provided comments on specific 
inspections currently required and on specific elements of various 
inspections. Several of these commenters suggested that the inbound 
brake equipment inspection contained at Sec. 232.14 be eliminated. 
These commenters stated that this inspection requires the ``bottling of 
air'' (the angle cock to be closed following a 20-psi reduction), which 
is contrary to most railroads' operating rule requiring the brake pipe 
to be left open on standing cars. The parties felt that the current 
requirement could result in the train being put in emergency, which 
wastes time because then the train must be recharged, and is 
potentially dangerous because it could cause a train to roll away due 
to a brake release.
    Several parties also mentioned that current piston travel 
requirements are no longer necessary due to the use of automatic slack 
adjusters, which are designed to keep piston travel within certain 
tolerances. Some commenters felt that if slack adjusters were required, 
noting that most cars operating today are already equipped with them, 
the need to constantly measure piston travel would be eliminated.
    Several commenters also suggested that railroads have the option of 
performing a thorough inbound inspection together with a set-and-
release departure inspection in lieu of performing an initial terminal 
inspection, since initial terminal inspections can be an obstacle to 
moving goods quickly because the removal of bad ordered cars once the 
train is assembled can cost considerable time. These parties also 
recommended that cars found with sticking brakes during the departure 
inspection be cut out and tagged and allowed to continue to destination 
as long as the tonnage per operable brakes did not exceed a specified 
amount. One railroad also requested revision Sec. 232.12(i) to allow 
the yard test device to be placed at any location in the train, rather 
than at the end of the train nearest the hauling road locomotive, since 
the results of such a test are not affected by location of the device.
    The AAR and several railroads also suggested that the 85 percent 
requirement contained at Sec. 232.1 should be changed to a performance 
standard based on tonnage per operative brakes. These parties stated 
that it is almost impossible to remake a train while enroute to 
disassociate those cars with inoperative brakes from the rest of the 
train. However, none of these commenters had any major problem with the 
85 percent requirement, and all of them stated that retaining the 
standard is acceptable.
    One air brake manufacturer agreed with the railroads that the 
problem of excessive piston travel has been addressed by the 
development of slack adjusters. This commenter stated that slack 
adjusters automatically adjust piston travel to prevent excessive 
travel and that if slack adjusters are reliable there is no need to 
measure for piston travel. The commenter suggested that new technology 
is being developed to monitor the brake cylinder and that any new 
regulation needs to allow for technology that may do away with 
measuring piston travel.
    Labor organization representatives and several individual members 
believed that FRA should specify how inspections are to be performed. 
Several members of the BRC commented that the only proper inspection is 
a walking inspection on both sides of the train with a set and release. 
However, these commenters suggested that if a walking inspection is 
performed on both sides of a train during a set, then a roll-by 
inspection for the release would be acceptable. Several commenters 
stated that on some cars an adequate inspection could be made from one 
side of the train but that on other cars such as multilevel stack cars 
only 50 percent of the brake equipment can be observed from any one 
side of the cars. Members of both the BRC and the UTU strenuously 
recommended that inspection of five-pack cars not be performed from 
moving vehicles because it is very difficult to observe the brake 
equipment on these cars. A BRC representative also stated that if slack 
adjusters have eliminated the need to measure piston travel then the 
railroads should have no problem complying with a seven-to nine-inch 
piston travel limit. This commenter also stated that unless there are 
regulations governing the proper setting and operation of slack 
adjusters, piston travel must continue to be monitored and measured.
    Several labor organizations and their individual members stated 
that train crews are not qualified to perform initial terminal 
inspections. Various individual carmen commented that many of the 
initial terminal inspections that are currently being performed are 
inadequate because the employees performing the inspections are not 
adequately trained. The BRC maintained that the initial terminal 
inspection could not be separated from the pre-departure inspection 
required under Part 215 and both must be performed by carmen. The BRC 
also mentioned that because the initial terminal inspections are not 
being performed by qualified individuals trains are departing without 
100 percent operable brakes, and thus, believes that the 85 percent 
rule contained at 232.1 should be increased to 90 or 100 percent. This 
party also supported an increase in the 85 percent requirement based on 
the fact that heavier and longer trains are being run today, and 
therefore, better braking is needed. The BLE commented that they do not 
see a problem on today's railroads regarding inoperative brakes and 
felt that unless there was some technical evidence that the requirement 
should be reduced, the 85 percent requirement should remain.
    FRA Conclusions. FRA agrees with several of the railroad commenters 
that it would be practically impossible and far too intrusive for FRA 
to mandate the specific methods for performing various inspections on 
various equipment. FRA feels that each individual railroad is in the 
best position to determine the best method for performing the various 
required inspections based on their operating conditions and equipment. 
However, the method of inspection that is chosen by a railroad should 
ensure that all required equipment is properly inspected and is 
functioning as required by the regulations. FRA will continue to allow 
the use of roll-by inspections of the brake release if train speed does 
not exceed 10 mph. FRA feels that roll-by inspections made at greater 
speeds would not permit sufficient visual inspection of the brake 
equipment.
    FRA recognizes the unique characteristics of some commuter and 
passenger trains that repeat the same trip several times a day without 
breaking up the consist. Because the trains in these types of 
operations are not broken up and remain connected to an air supply 
continuously, it is unlikely that their air brake equipment would 
deteriorate beyond federal requirements in one day if they were in 
proper working order at the beginning of the day. Thus, FRA believes 
that trains that repeat the same trip more than once a day need only be 
required to have an initial terminal brake test, performed by a 
qualified individual, prior to the first departure for that train each 
calendar day.
    FRA also agrees with several commenters that the MU equipment, 
currently used by many commuter operations, is unable to conform to 
many of the standards established for freight operations. Consequently, 
FRA believes that commuter railroads operating MU equipment should 
develop and enforce written inspection, maintenance, and test 
procedures for this equipment to ensure the systems will operate as 
intended.
    FRA further recognizes that the inbound inspection required 
pursuant to Sec. 232.14, which requires the bottling of air, is 
contrary to most railroads' operating procedures requiring the brake 
pipe to be left open on standing cars. FRA feels that this requirement 
is unnecessary in present-day operations and could actually cause a 
train to roll away due to a brake release.
    Although several parties commented that piston travel requirements 
are no longer necessary due to the development and use of automatic 
slack adjusters, FRA believes that piston travel still is an important 
component that must be kept within certain operating limits. If 
automatic slack adjusters function properly, then the railroads should 
have no problem maintaining piston travel within the required limits. 
Currently, the only way to ensure that a slack adjuster is working 
correctly is to measure the component it is adjusting. If a device is 
developed that can reliably monitor the brake cylinder, as one 
manufacturer indicated, then parties can petition the FRA for a change 
in the standards at that time.
    FRA will continue to require 100-percent functional train brake 
systems at initial terminals. As there were no major objections raised, 
FRA proposes to retain the ``85-percent'' requirement previously 
contained at Sec. 232.1. The BRC was the only party which requested 
that the percentage be increased, based on their contention that 
initial terminal inspections were not being performed by qualified 
individuals. However, FRA believes that the qualification standards 
proposed below, adequately address this party's concern. Furthermore, 
as previously stated, FRA does not feel railroads are currently 
performing initial terminal inspections as well as they should be and, 
thus, we do not believe it would be appropriate, at this time, to allow 
alternatives to the initial terminal inspections as requested by 
several commentators.

C. COT&S Requirements

    Prior to January 1, 1992, railroads and car owners were required to 
maintain freight brake equipment in accordance with a periodic clean, 
oil, test, and stencil (COT&S) schedule. This schedule varied from 10 
to 16 years, depending on type of brake control valve. At the 
conclusion of the equipment changeout, a single car test was performed 
to verify the integrity of the entire brake system.
    Prior to 1982, this same single car test was required on each car 
when on a shop or repair track and the date of test so stencilled on 
the car. This was known as an ``In Date Test'' or IDT. Cars which had 
been last tested in less than 90 days were excluded from the test 
requirement. In 1982 the IDT was abolished, and only a simple 
application and release test of the brakes was required when on the 
shop or repair track. Certain brake (sticking, inoperative, etc.) and 
wheel defects (overheated, built-up tread, etc.) did require the single 
car test.
    In 1990, several improvements were made in test procedures to 
reduce the incidence of undesired emergency brake applications and 
leakage which could cause wheel damage. These improvements were 
incorporated into the full single car test and in a new abbreviated 
test, identified as a ``Repair Track Air Brake Test.'' At that time the 
repair track test was required each time a car was on a shop or repair 
track. The full single car test is required when the brake control 
valves are replaced. As these comprehensive tests were phased in, the 
COT&S requirements were abolished. The effectiveness of these new tests 
was evident by the increased replacement of brake components which were 
determined to be defective. Leakage at angle cocks and cutout cocks was 
the primary source of problems. In order to determine whether there is 
a need for time-based COT&S requirements, FRA sought comments, in the 
ANPRM (57 FR 62556), from interested parties regarding the problems 
associated with the elimination of the COT&S requirements for freight 
equipment and whether COT&S requirements are necessary for passenger 
equipment or are alternatives available.
    The AAR and several of its member railroads contended that the new 
single car test is much better than the old time-based COT&S and turns 
up many more defects due to the increase in air pressure to 90 pounds. 
The AAR stated that their studies show that a car is on the repair 
track 1.7 times a year and, thus, on average every car will receive a 
single car or repair track test at least one to two times a year. The 
AAR also stated that in 1992 1.1 to 1.4 million single car or repair 
track tests were performed by the railroads and that three times as 
many brake valves were changed out in 1992 as compared to 1991. In 
addition, the AAR reported that the railroads spent in excess of $7.5 
million to upgrade their equipment to perform the enhanced single car 
test. Several railroads provided figures on the number of cars in their 
fleets receiving single car and repair track tests, and provided data 
comparing the number of brake components that were changed out in 1992 
with the number of components changed out in 1991 under the old COT&S 
requirements. In all cases the data showed an increase in the number of 
components changed out, which the railroads attributed to the 
improvement of the single car test and were presented as support for 
their contention that the improved single car and repair track tests 
are more effective than the old, time-based COT&S requirements. Several 
railroads also commented that there is no need for FRA to establish 
brake maintenance requirements separate from those established by the 
AAR. These commenters stated that significant improvements in brake 
maintenance have been made by the AAR without increased regulation. 
These parties also noted that the AAR has its own engineering staff and 
laboratories and has expertise of all the railroads and, thus, is in 
the best position to determine the best practices for maintaining the 
brake systems.
    Amtrak and two other passenger and commuter railroads provided 
comments regarding COT&S requirements for passenger cars. These 
commenters felt that the brake equipment on passenger cars can be 
maintained by criteria other than time-based COT&S. The parties 
proposed the possibility of requiring that a single car test be 
performed each time a car is on the repair track or each time the car 
comes in for preventive maintenance, about every 120 days. These 
parties would prefer to conduct periodic testing rather than changing 
out valves on a periodic basis. These commenters felt that the current 
three-year COT&S requirement on 26C-based systems is too restrictive. 
Amtrak also commented that the six-year COT&S requirement it employs 
for freight-type brake valves on its passenger cars should be 
considered an internal Amtrak policy.
    The BRC and several of its individual members admitted that the new 
single car test may be very valuable, but contended that the railroads 
are circumventing its use. These commenters stated that railroads are 
eliminating repair tracks all over the nation in order to avoid 
performing these single car tests. Several individuals presented 
examples of how the single car test and repair track test are being 
circumvented, such as making repairs in the field or moving cars to 
expediter tracks for repairs rather than to repair tracks. Therefore, 
the BRC recommended that some type of in-date testing or attention must 
be reinstated, preferably somewhere in the seven- to eight-year range. 
The RLEA also recommended that periodic attention be reinstated, 
contending that acceptance of AAR's unilateral change in the 
maintenance requirements allows the AAR to establish regulations 
without public comment. The BRC and several of its members also 
commented on the three-year COT&S requirement for passenger cars, 
contending that the requirement should be maintained due to 
condensation building up in the trainlines and the fact that 
compressors are not being maintained. The BRC also recommended that any 
change made by the AAR in their recommended maintenance practices 
should be approved by FRA.
    One manufacturer strongly endorsed the new single car test and 
repair track test as the most comprehensive tests ever performed. This 
commenter felt that these tests will ensure more effective brake 
maintenance than the previous application-and-release test and the 16-
year COT&S requirement.
    FRA Conclusions. FRA agrees that the new single car test, which has 
been used industry-wide since January of 1992, is a much better and 
more comprehensive method of detecting and eliminating defective brake 
equipment and components than the old, time-based COT&S requirements. 
FRA believes that performance of the single car test will significantly 
reduce the number of defective components currently found and will 
dramatically increase the reliability of brake equipment. Thus, use of 
the single car test will greatly improve the safety of both railroad 
employees and the general public since brake equipment will be in 
better and safer condition. However, in order to fully benefit from the 
advantages of the single car test, cars must receive the test. Several 
labor commenters admitted that the new test was very valuable, but 
stated that the test is being circumvented by the railroads. These 
commenters provided various examples of how the tests are being 
avoided. Therefore, in order to ensure that all cars receive the new 
single car test, FRA proposes to require the performance of the test on 
a timely basis.
    FRA feels that the single car test should be conducted on any car 
that is on a repair or shop track for various wheel or brake equipment 
defects and that at a minimum freight service equipment should receive 
the test every one or two years depending on whether the equipment is 
high-utilization or non-high-utilization equipment, as defined below, 
and that commuter and passenger service equipment should receive the 
test at least every six months. Freight railroad representatives 
reported that on average a car is currently on the repair track 1.7 
times a year and, thus, receives a full single car or repair track test 
at that time. Commuter and passenger railroad representatives reported 
that their cars are on a shop or repair track every 120 days. 
Therefore, FRA does not feel that requiring the single car test to be 
performed at the proposed time periods would be overly burdensome on 
the industry since, by its own admission, most cars will be on a repair 
or shop track within these time limits. Furthermore, parties would be 
allowed to request a change in the time interval for performing the 
single car test by monitoring their single car tests and conducting a 
statistical analysis of the results. The procedure for requesting a 
change in the time interval is further discussed in the section-by-
section analysis.
    In order to ensure that the single car tests are properly 
performed, FRA believes that only qualified brake system inspectors 
should conduct the tests and that the single car testing devices should 
be tested at least once a day and receive maintenance at least every 92 
days. Furthermore, in order to ensure proper maintenance of brake 
equipment, FRA believes that each railroad should develop and enforce 
written maintenance procedures for all types of brake systems it 
operates which meet or exceed current industry standards and all 
federal train brake system safety requirements. The maintenance 
required by these procedures should only be performed by individuals 
qualified as mechanical or electronic brake system inspectors. Spot 
checks of both the single car tests and the maintenance procedures 
should be conducted by qualified supervisory personnel to make sure the 
procedures are being followed and the tests are properly performed.

D. Charging of Air Brake System.

    Present regulations for air brake testing basically require that 
cars that have previously been tested in accordance with the 
regulations either ``be kept charged until road motive power is 
attached'' or be retested. 49 CFR 232.12(i). Based on longstanding 
administrative interpretation and practice, FRA presumes that a brake 
system is no longer adequately charged if disconnected from the 
charging device (supply of pressurized air) for more than two hours 
before coupling of locomotives; otherwise, retesting is required. In 
the ANPRM (57 FR 62556), FRA requested comments from interested parties 
regarding the viability of this interpretation and sought information 
for developing alternative procedures that would not jeopardize safety.
    The AAR and several railroads stated that there is no reason to 
assume that once a train is charged and tested and then left standing 
without being provided with a source of compressed air that the brake 
system would become defective. These parties suggested that leakage on 
standing trains has been greatly reduced through the use of welded 
brake piping and fittings and ferrule-clamped air hoses. These 
commenters felt that FRA's interpretation of allowing trains to sit 
without air for only two hours is from an era when this new equipment 
was not used. They also stated that FRA's current interpretation costs 
the industry money, fuel, and time and creates pollution because trains 
must be either reinspected or left with a locomotive attached and 
idling in order to avoid performing a full initial terminal test. 
Several railroads suggested that trains could be off air indefinitely 
if the consist is not altered, or at least as long as 24 hours, and 
remain in the same condition. Several commenters recommended that if a 
set of cars is off air for an extended period, all that should be 
required is a set-and-release test to assure the continuity of the 
brake pipe. CP Rail Services mentioned that there is no such two-hour 
rule in Canada and stated that in Canada if cars are off air for any 
length of time a set-and-release continuity test is required. Every 
commenting railroad felt the current two-hour interpretation is onerous 
and unrealistic.
    The BLE, BRC, and several individual carmen felt that the current 
interpretation is reasonable. Most of these commenters expressed 
concern for the integrity of the brake system if a consist were left 
standing for longer than two hours. These concerns were aimed at the 
effect that climate might have on the equipment and the increased 
possibility of vandalism to the equipment if consists sat without air 
for longer periods. One conductor recommended returning to a four-hour 
limit as a minimum.
    FRA Conclusions. FRA agrees that our longstanding administrative 
interpretation, that requires the retesting of cars disconnected from a 
charging device for longer than two hours, was established prior to the 
development of new equipment that has greatly reduced leakage problems, 
such as welded brake piping and fittings and ferrule-clamped air hoses. 
However, contrary to several railroads' assertions FRA does not believe 
that cars should be allowed to be off air for extended periods of time 
without being retested. FRA believes that the longer cars sit without 
air attached the greater the chances are that the integrity of the 
brake system will be compromised. The longer cars sit the more 
susceptible they may be to weather conditions or even vandalism, as 
some commenters suggested. Consequently, based on today's equipment, 
operating practices, and overriding safety concerns, FRA feels that 
cars should not be disconnected from a supply of pressurized air for 
longer than four hours without being retested.

E. Specifications for Power Brake Systems for Freight Service

    Currently, Appendix B of Part 232, entitled ``Specifications and 
Requirements for Power Brakes and Appliances for Operating Power-Brake 
Systems for Freight Service'', contains the specifications for AB 
valves, as were adopted in the early 1930's, and has not been modified 
since, although several deviations have been permitted. No improvements 
or new features, as reflected in present-day control valves, have been 
added to the appendix. Consequently, FRA sought comments from 
interested parties as to how the specifications and requirements 
contained in Appendix B could be updated and changed. See 57 FR 62556.
    The AAR and several railroads recommended that Appendix B be 
eliminated and a reference made to the appropriate AAR specifications. 
These parties felt that the AAR specifications are far more stringent 
than those contained in Appendix B. One railroad suggested that if 
Appendix B were to be rewritten it should encompass operating 
parameters of brake performance, such as transmission speed of service 
and emergency reductions and time periods in which control valves 
should respond to these signals.
    New York Air Brake Company (NYAB) also recommended that Appendix B 
be deleted and reference made to the appropriate AAR specifications, 
which require performance that is far above that contained in the 
appendix. Westinghouse Air Brake Company felt that Appendix B as 
currently written is too restrictive and detailed to allow for 
technological development. This commenter stated that newer valves are 
being developed which are above and beyond the specifications contained 
in the appendix and suggested that more flexibility be incorporated 
into the specifications to allow for the development of new equipment.
    The BRC recommended the possibility of adding some type of addendum 
to Appendix B regarding new technology without eliminating the minimum 
requirements contained in the appendix.
    FRA Conclusions. Contrary to several commenters' views, FRA feels 
that many of the requirements contained in Appendix B for power brake 
systems are still necessary. FRA does recognize that some of the 
requirements are outdated and should be eliminated. Consequently, FRA 
proposes to eliminate Appendix B and incorporate those requirements 
that it feels are still relevant to today's equipment directly into 
various sections of the revised regulation. Furthermore, in order to 
address the concerns of several parties that the requirements contained 
in Appendix B are too restrictive to allow the development of new 
technology, FRA proposes to permit parties to petition the FRA to 
convert some of the train brake system specification and design 
requirements into performance-based safety requirements.

F. The 1,000-Mile Inspection

    FRA's current regulations require intermediate brake inspections at 
points not more than 1,000 miles apart. These inspections are far more 
limited than the currently required initial terminal inspections in 
that the railroad is required only to determine that brake pipe leakage 
is not excessive, the brakes apply on each car, and the brake rigging 
is secure and does not bind or foul. 49 CFR 232.12(b). In the 1982 
revisions to the power brake rules, FRA extended the distance between 
such inspections from 500 miles to 1,000 miles. The industry now 
suggests that modern freight trains can operate at least 5,000 miles 
without a brake test. Consequently, in order to determine whether a 
change in the current 1,000-mile inspection requirement should be 
adopted, FRA requested comments from interested parties regarding 
evidence to support any increase in the current requirement, the costs 
and delays involved with performing these inspections, and any safety 
concerns inherent in increasing the distance beyond what is currently 
permitted. See 57 FR 62556. Several railroads, together with the AAR, 
commented that the current 1,000-mile inspection interval should be 
increased to as much as 5,000 miles. (See Sec. 232.12(b).) These 
parties relied on several factors in recommending such an increase, 
which include the new technology and improved equipment since 1982, the 
1985 study conducted by the AAR, which they contended establishes that 
trains receiving proper initial terminal tests could be operated within 
regulation limits for over 5,000 miles, and the fact that since 1982 
the number of brake-related accidents and derailments and the failure 
rates of brake equipment have declined dramatically. The majority of 
these commenters also stated that the key to increasing the limit is 
quality initial terminal inspections. One railroad commented that in 
Canada en route inspections are required at 1,500-mile intervals and 
felt that these en route inspections do not enhance safety. This 
railroad also stated, based on a small sampling, that only one-half of 
a percent of its cars receiving intermediate inspections are found with 
defective brakes. The AAR also commented that the statistics presented 
by labor organizations, regarding the number of defects they are 
finding at various locations, are meaningless unless presented in terms 
of their effect on safety.
    The AAR and several railroads also provided information regarding 
the costs of performing these inspections. These parties estimated that 
the current 1,000-mile inspection requires the industry to perform 
these inspections on 15 percent of the total number of road trains, 
which amounts to about 240,000 intermediate inspections annually. They 
estimated the total cost of performing these inspections at 
approximately $90-$130 million. One railroad estimated the cost at $550 
per inspection. Another railroad estimated that if the distance 
required for these inspections were increased to 2,000 miles the 
industry would save $47 million. Several railroads also commented that 
if FRA reinstated a 500-mile inspection their costs and the industry's 
cost of performing intermediate inspections would at least double.
    Labor organizations and individual members opposed any increase in 
the 1,000-mile intermediate inspection interval and argued that FRA 
should reinstate the 500-mile requirement. The RLEA stated that labor's 
agreement to extend the intermediate test to 1,000 miles in 1982 was 
based upon a promise by the railroads that complete and perfect initial 
terminal tests would be performed. The RLEA contends that the 
performance of initial terminal inspections has been terrible and that 
they are being performed by unqualified operating crews. The BRC, the 
UTU, the BLE, and several individual carmen reiterated RLEA's 
contention that proper initial terminal inspections are not being 
performed. These parties also stated that the inspections being 
performed at 1,000 miles are also inadequate. They stated that many of 
these inspections are being performed by train crews that are not 
qualified to conduct these inspections properly. The BRC and several of 
its individual members contended that numerous defects are being found 
at the 1,000-mile inspections and that the main reason for this is that 
quality initial terminal inspections are not being performed. These 
commenters also provided statistics as to the number of defects being 
found at various 1,000-mile inspection points. They claim that their 
members have found approximately 50,000 defects per year at these 
locations and that the statistics used by the carriers to support an 
increase to 5,000 miles are faulty. These parties feel that independent 
data needs to be developed before any increase in the distance is 
considered.
    FRA Conclusions. In 1982, when FRA extended the 500-mile inspection 
interval to 1,000 miles, FRA intended that quality initial terminal 
brake inspections would be performed by the railroads. FRA feels that 
railroads have not conducted the excellent initial terminal inspections 
that were contemplated in 1982. Furthermore, contrary to the railroads' 
contention, FRA feels that many initial terminal brake inspections are 
being performed by individuals who are not sufficiently qualified or 
trained. FRA recognizes that since 1982 new technology and improved 
equipment have been developed that allow trains to operate for longer 
distances with fewer defects. However, the key to achieving this 
improved capability is to ensure the proper operation and condition of 
the equipment at initial terminals. The best way of ensuring the proper 
operation and condition of equipment is to perform quality initial 
terminal brake inspections and to conduct proper equipment maintenance. 
Consequently, in order to ensure that a train is in safe and proper 
condition to travel a prescribed distance without further inspection, 
FRA believes that a sliding-scale approach should be adopted that bases 
the allowable distance a train may travel on a variety of factors 
including the quality of the initial terminal brake inspection, the 
maintenance practices of the railroad, and the type of equipment 
operated and installed on the train.
    FRA proposes to establish a power brake inspection scheme in which 
various stated factors determine the distance that a freight or 
passenger train is allowed to travel without additional inspection. 
These factors include: the qualifications of the employee performing 
the initial terminal brake inspection; the extent of performance of 
supervisory spot checks of maintenance and inspection activity; the 
presence or absence of a single car test program on the railroad; the 
power brake defect ratio on outbound trains for the railroad; and the 
type of equipment used and installed on the train. Based on the 
conditions that are satisfied by the railroad, a train may be allowed 
to travel anywhere between 500 and 3,500 miles from the point of 
initial terminal without additional power brake tests or inspections. 
Furthermore, in order to ensure that initial terminal brake tests are 
being performed, FRA proposes to require railroads to maintain a record 
of all initial terminal tests that shall contain the name of the person 
who conducted the test, when appropriate. The factors and mileage 
limits mentioned above will be discussed in more detail below.

VIII. High Speed Passenger Train Brakes

    High speed passenger trains (up to 200 mph) require braking systems 
which far exceed the capabilities of those presently installed on North 
American trains. The energy required to be dissipated in a stop from 
200 mph is well over one billion foot-pounds. To achieve this braking 
capability, more advanced methods of train braking must be utilized; 
such as, electro-pneumatic braking systems, microprocessor-controlled 
braking, or advanced train speed control systems. In the ANPRM (57 FR 
62557), FRA requested comments, information, and suggestions regarding 
the operation of these types of advanced braking systems, the equipment 
required for their operation, and the kinds of regulatory requirements 
that are needed to ensure the safe operation of trains equipped with 
these advanced braking systems.
    The AAR and several passenger railroads provided information 
regarding high speed passenger operations. These commenters suggested 
that any specifications developed for these types of operations need to 
be performance standards based on stopping distances for specified 
speeds. Amtrak stated that the hardware exists today that can probably 
be used at speeds of 150 mph or below, such as a combination of disc, 
tread, and blended brakes. Amtrak also mentioned that in order to 
operate at speeds in excess of 180 mph a regenerative-type braking 
system is probably required combined with a friction-type system. This 
commenter also suggested that operations of over 150 mph need to be 
dedicated systems where the train and track are designed as a unit. 
Amtrak said it would like to form a committee to work with FRA to 
develop regulations and specifications for these types of systems. 
Another railroad recommended that any passenger service operating over 
90 mph should operate on separate dedicated rights of way, physically 
removed from any freight service traffic.
    The AAR and two commuter railroads suggested that if economical and 
reliable sensors can be developed they will be essential in monitoring 
these systems, but should not be applied in high shock areas that would 
make them vulnerable to failure. These commenters also stated that 
diagnostic programs incorporated into computer software must be used to 
monitor the braking systems. They also stated that these programs would 
eliminate the need for time-based maintenance since they would 
continuously monitor the system's components and store information on 
any operating defects occurring while a train is in use. These 
commenters also felt that back-up or stand-by computers were 
unnecessary because the systems are designed to stop the train if a 
failure occurs and a mechanical override would be sufficient to allow 
movement of the consist.
    FRA Conclusions. FRA feels that passenger trains that operate at 
speeds in excess of 125 mph should be classified as high speed 
operations. FRA recognizes the unique designs and features that the 
braking systems of these types of operations may incorporate. FRA 
agrees with several of the commenters that the types of train brake 
systems used by these operations should be controlled by some type of 
automated computer system. These computer systems should be able to run 
diagnostic programs capable of self-testing the brake system and 
detecting faults in the system and should have the ability of either 
alerting the engineer of these faults or taking automatic corrective 
action. In addition, the computer software of these systems should be 
analyzed to determine the safety impacts of software failures and to 
ensure the software is fail-safe and functions as intended. FRA also 
believes that if these types of trains are equipped with on-tread 
brakes they should be designed to prevent application of the tread 
brakes at speeds greater than 80 mph. Furthermore, in order to allow 
technological advances in this area of train braking, railroads may 
petition FRA to convert some of the train brake system design and 
maintenance requirements into performance-based safety requirements.
    Due to the unique characteristics of brake systems for these types 
of trains, FRA believes that operators of high speed passenger trains 
should develop train brake system inspection, maintenance, and test 
plans tailored to the specific train brake systems they use. These 
plans would become part of the safety standards for the operation of 
the trains and equipment to which the plans apply and would be 
enforceable by FRA. Due to the complex designs and operations of these 
types of brake systems, FRA feels that all maintenance and that initial 
terminal train brake tests should be conducted by qualified mechanical 
and electrical train brake inspectors. FRA also believes that the 
various designs of these pieces of equipment may require inspectors to 
occupy dangerous positions in order to inspect them directly. If that 
is the case, FRA feels that the brake systems should be equipped with 
sensors that give a reliable indication of the application and release 
of the brakes, visible to an inspector on the platform or along the 
side of the track.

Section-by-Section Analysis

    FRA contemplates dividing this rule into subparts, each of which 
would contain multiple sections. This proposal contains all of the 
anticipated subparts, including those that are being reserved for 
future proposals.

Subpart A

    This subpart of the proposal contains the general provisions of the 
rule.
    Section 232.1. This section contains a formal statement of the 
proposed rules' purpose and scope. FRA intends the rules to cover all 
brake system requirements, including those relevant to non-steam 
locomotives previously contained in Part 229 of this chapter.
    Section 232.3. As a general matter, FRA proposes that these rules 
apply to all railroads that operate on the general railroad system of 
transportation. In addition, FRA proposes that many of these rules 
apply to non-insular passenger railroads operating outside the general 
railroad system of transportation. Consequently, FRA proposes that many 
of these proposed regulations apply to non-insular tourist, excursion, 
and scenic railroads.
    FRA's regulatory authority permits it to amend the current 
applicability sections of its various regulations so as to expand or 
contract the populations of railroads covered by a particular set of 
regulations. FRA has had jurisdiction over all railroads since the 
Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 was enacted. There is a very wide 
range of operations that could be considered tourist, excursion, or 
scenic railroads under the broadest reading of the term ``railroad.'' 
Tourist, excursion, and scenic railroads have written several letters 
to members of Congress questioning the basis for FRA's assertion of 
jurisdiction. Additionally, FRA recently received a petition from the 
Berkshire Scenic Railway Museum, Incorporated on behalf of tourist, 
excursion, and scenic railroads requesting the need for legislative and 
regulatory action for new regulations tailored specifically to the 
tourist rail industry. Pursuant to FRA's letter of September 28, 1993, 
in response to that petition, FRA has considered the suggestions made 
by those parties to the extent they pertained to power brakes in 
drafting these proposed regulations.
    In an effort to clarify the proper extent of the exercise of FRA's 
jurisdiction, FRA recently settled on several principles that will be 
used as current FRA guidelines. FRA will exercise jurisdiction over all 
tourist, excursion, and scenic railroads, whether or not they operate 
over the general railroad system, except those that are (1) less than 
24 inches in gage and/or (2) insular.
    To determine insularity, FRA looks at various criteria that measure 
the likelihood that a railroad's operations might affect a member of 
the public. FRA has concluded that a tourist, excursion, or scenic 
railroad is insular if its operations are limited to a separate enclave 
in such a way that there is no reasonable expectation that the safety 
of any member of the public (except a business guest, a licensee of the 
tourist operation or an affiliated entity, or a trespasser) would be 
affected by the operation. A railroad is not considered insular if one 
or more of the following exists on its line: (a) A public highway-rail 
crossing that is in use; (b) an at-grade rail crossing that is in use; 
(c) a bridge over a public road or waters used for commercial 
navigation; or (d) a common corridor with a railroad, i.e., its 
operations are within 30 feet of those of any railroad.
    Thus, the mere fact that the trackage of a railroad is not 
connected to the general system does not make the railroad insular 
under these criteria. While these criteria tend to sort out the insular 
theme parks and museums, a need to do case-by-case analysis in certain 
close situations still exists.
    Therefore, FRA has concluded that the requirements contained in 
this part should apply to a non-general system, non-insular passenger 
railroad that confines its operations to an installation that is not 
part of the general system (i.e., it is a stand-alone with no freight 
traffic but has one or more features that preclude its being considered 
insular).
    In Sec. 232.3(b), FRA proposes to except various train operations 
from the requirements of this part. These exceptions are taken directly 
from Sec. 6 of the Safety Appliance Acts (45 U.S.C. Sec. 6, recodified 
at 49 U.S.C. Secs. 20301, 21302, and 21304). It is noted that the word 
``freight'' has been added to the exceptions in order to remain 
consistent with Congress' intent when the statutory exceptions were 
created. At the time Congress provided an exception from the 
requirements of the Acts, Congress did not and could not envision that 
the equipment used in these operations would be modified for the 
purposes of hauling passengers, which FRA has discovered with regard to 
four-wheel coal cars. Consequently, FRA will only except freight 
operations which employ the types of equipment contained in this 
paragraph.
    Section 232.5. This section contains an extensive set of 
definitions to introduce the regulations. FRA intends these definitions 
to clarify the meaning of important terms as they are used in the text 
of the proposed rule. The proposed definitions are carefully worded in 
an attempt to minimize the potential for misinterpretation of the rule. 
Several of the definitions introduce new concepts or new terminologies 
which require further discussion.
    The proposed definitions classify trains by their maximum operating 
speed. Trains with a maximum operating speed of 79 mph or less are 
defined as ``conventional trains.'' Trains with a maximum operating 
speed of more than 79 mph but less than or equal to 125 mph are defined 
as ``intermediate speed trains.'' Trains with a maximum operating speed 
greater than 125 mph but less than or equal to 160 mph are defined as 
``high speed trains.'' FRA proposes these definitions because as the 
operating speed of a train increases a greater variety of safety-
related conditions and equipment need to be addressed.
    The definition of ``excursion train'' is intended to encompass 
those trains operated by what are referred to in the industry as 
``tourist,'' ``excursion,'' and ``scenic'' railroads. When the term 
``excursion train'' is used in these proposed rules, it is intended to 
refer to those non-insular tourist, excursion, and scenic railroads as 
explained in the discussion of Sec. 232.3. For purposes of these 
proposed rules, FRA feels that the trains operated by these types of 
railroads can be sufficiently dealt with as a group. FRA defines 
``train brake system'' to encompass any and all of the components 
involved to apply a retarding force to decelerate a train. This 
definition is a key to FRA's approach to treat train brakes as a 
complex system of inter-related components that must function in 
harmony to safely slow and stop a train. The definition clearly 
includes computer programs or other forms of software used to control 
or test braking functions as part of the train brake system.
    The definition of ``train brake information system'' introduces a 
new concept. FRA proposes to require railroads to develop and implement 
a set of procedures to ensure that as train crews take responsibility 
for a train they have accurate and timely information on board the 
train, which includes the recent brake test history of the train and 
the current status of the brakes on all locomotives and cars comprising 
the train. FRA feels that this information is necessary to allow trains 
to proceed for greater distances between required train brake system 
tests. FRA concludes that this information is essential in order for 
railroads to know if their trains are in compliance with federal safety 
regulations. Furthermore, placing the information in the hands of the 
train crew increases railroad safety because the train crews are in the 
best position to make decisions based on the information to eliminate 
or reduce brake-related safety problems.
    The definition of ``train brake system monitoring'' also introduces 
a new concept. FRA proposes to require railroads to develop and 
implement procedures to be used by the engineer to monitor the en route 
performance and status of the train brake system. FRA believes that 
these procedures will encourage railroads to take advantage of new 
sensor technology that can both increase safety and reduce operating 
costs.
    The definition of ``power brake defect'' is critical to a 
railroad's ability to take advantage of the incentives allowing trains 
to travel greater distances between required train brake system tests. 
For purposes of Sec. 232.311 ``power brake defect'' is intended to be 
any condition of equipment not in compliance with this Part that could 
cause the retarding force applied by the power brake system of the 
train to be reduced that is found by FRA or state inspectors on a train 
declared ready for departure by the operating railroad. Power brake 
defects include:
    (a) Brake rigging that binds or fouls;
    (b) A brake that does not apply or does not release;
    (c) Piston travel that is outside limits;
    (d) A brake shoe or pad that is worn past limits;
    (e) A brake shoe or pad that is damaged or missing;
    (f) A brake shoe or pad that is over-ridden;
    (g) An end-of-train device that is not installed or not functioning 
correctly;
    (h) A car that is past due for a scheduled periodic freight brake 
test or single car test; and
    (i) A failure to perform a Class 1 or Class 2 brake test when 
required. One defect for each car on which the test was not performed.
    Understanding the way FRA defines ``power brake defect ratio'' for 
the purpose of these proposed rules is crucial to railroads wishing to 
take advantage of the proposed incentives to allow trains to travel 
greater distances between required train brake system tests. The 
testimony provided by the railroads reflected a strong plea to FRA to 
develop train brake system performance requirements. However, this 
appeal was invariably general. No railroad proposed specific 
performance requirements for train brake systems. The definition of 
``power brake defect ratio'' forms the basis for a strong performance-
related incentive to the railroads. If railroads can limit their power 
brake defect ratio to specified levels, they may be allowed to operate 
trains greater distances between required train brake system tests. FRA 
proposes that a movement of the train need not take place for the power 
brake defect to be counted against the power brake defect ratio used to 
qualify the railroad to operate trains longer distances between 
required brake system tests.
    The definition of ``mountain grade territory'' attempts to address 
the opinions of several commenters that mountain grade is a function of 
both grade percentage and grade distance. In addition, FRA believes 
that the definition of ``mountain grade territory'' should become more 
stringent as the speed of the train increases. Thus, FRA developed an 
empirical relationship to define mountain grade territory, which takes 
into account all three factors. An explanation of the formula to be 
used in determining mountain grade territory and a graph illustrating 
its application are contained in Appendix C.
    The definitions of ``Class 1'' and ``Class 2 train brake system 
tests'' introduce new terminology. The FRA proposes the Class 1 test to 
fulfill the intent of the existing initial terminal test and the Class 
2 test to fulfill the intent of the existing intermediate terminal 
test. See 49 CFR 232.12, 232.13. This proposed new terminology attempts 
to eliminate controversy over what is an initial or intermediate 
terminal. The new terminology allows the tests to be easily imposed at 
points other than terminal points.
    Minimum qualifications for supervisors, mechanical and electronic 
forces, and train crew members responsible for safe operation of train 
brake systems are another key feature of FRA's proposal. The 
definitions offered for qualified personnel introduce this important 
requirement.
    Section 232.7. This section sets forth the procedures for seeking 
waivers of compliance with the requirements of this rule. Requests for 
such waivers can be filed by any interested party. In reviewing such 
requests, FRA conducts investigations to determine if a deviation from 
the general criteria can be made without compromising or diminishing 
rail safety.
    Section 232.9. General compliance and recordkeeping requirements 
are stated in this section. In accordance with the ``use or haul'' 
language contained in the Safety Appliance Acts and with FRA's general 
rulemaking authority under the FRSA, FRA proposes that a train, 
railroad car, or locomotive will be considered ``in use'' prior to 
departure but after it receives or should have received the necessary 
tests and inspections required for movement. FRA would no longer 
necessarily wait for a piece of equipment with a power brake defect to 
be hauled before issuing a violation, a practice frequently criticized 
by the railroads. FRA believes that this approach will increase FRA's 
ability to prevent the movement of defective equipment that creates a 
potential safety hazard to both the public and railroad employees. FRA 
does not feel that this approach increases the railroads' burden since 
equipment should not be operated if it is found in defective condition 
in the pre-departure tests and inspections, unless permitted by the 
regulations.
    This section also clarifies FRA's position that the requirements 
contained in the proposed rules are applicable to any ``person,'' as 
broadly defined in Sec. 232.11, that performs any function required by 
the proposed rules. Although various sections of the proposed rule 
address the duties of a railroad, FRA intends that any person who 
performs any action on behalf of a railroad or any person who performs 
any action covered by the proposed rule is required to perform that 
action in the same manner as required of a railroad or be subject to 
FRA enforcement action. For example, private car owners and contract 
shippers that perform duties covered by these proposed regulations 
would be required to perform those duties in the same manner as 
required by a railroad.
    Section 232.11. This section contains the penalty provisions of the 
proposed rule, stating that all persons who violate the standards of 
the proposed rule or cause the violation of such standards are subject 
to a civil penalty, and explains the circumstances under which an 
individual may be assessed a penalty. The definition of ``person'' 
incorporates the expanded language contained in section 9 of the Rail 
Safety Enforcement and Review Act, which amended the definition of 
``person'' contained in the Safety Appliance Acts and the FRSA. The 
clarified definition of ``person'' includes, but is not limited to, 
such entities as manufacturers and lessors of railroad equipment and 
independent contractors. Congress' purpose in amending the definition 
of ``person'' was to clarify the Secretary's existing power over 
entities whose activities relate to rail safety by explicitly defining 
that authority. See 1992 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 879. 
Congress made it clear that the included list of ``persons'' subject to 
the Secretary's authority was intended to be illustrative and not 
exhaustive.
    Section 232.13. This section contains a general provision 
concerning the preemptive effect of the proposed rule. The provision is 
based on the preemption clause contained in 49 U.S.C. Sec. 20106, 
formerly codified in the FRSA at 45 U.S.C. Sec. 434.
    Section 232.15. This section contains general requirements that are 
applicable to all train brake systems. FRA proposes to specifically 
include basic train brake system practices and procedures that form the 
foundation for the safe operation of all types of trains. Some of these 
basic principles are so obvious that they have not been specifically 
included in past rules. The most basic safety requirements for all 
train brake systems include the ability to stop a train within signal 
spacing, establishing an integral train brake communication line, and 
having the train brake system respond as intended to signals from the 
brake communication line. Several of the general requirements contained 
in this section are addressed in later sections of this proposed rule 
and will be discussed in further detail in those sections.
    FRA proposes to continue the requirement that prior to departure 
from an initial terminal point all trains shall have 100 percent 
functional train brake systems. Although a few commenters suggested the 
departure of trains from initial terminals with less than 100 percent 
functional brakes, based on a standard of tons per operative brake, 
none of the commenters provided any further guidance for developing 
such a standard. Furthermore, FRA and most of the commenters agree that 
having 100 percent functional brakes at initial terminal points is 
necessary for allowing trains to travel long distances between brake 
system tests. Since FRA is proposing incentives to allow railroads to 
increase the distances trains may travel between train brake system 
tests, this basic requirement takes on even greater importance in the 
proposed new rule. Requiring 100 percent functional brakes prior to 
departure from an initial terminal point sets the proper tone for the 
quality and thoroughness FRA expects from the industry on train brake 
system inspections, maintenance, and tests.
    FRA proposes a clear and absolute prohibition on train movement if 
more than 15 percent of the cars in a train have their brakes cut out 
or have otherwise defective brakes. This has long been an industry 
interpretation of the hauling-for-repair provision of 45 U.S.C. 13, 
recodified at 49 U.S.C. Secs. 20303, 21302, and 21304, and has 
withstood the test of time. No major objections to this limitation on 
the hauling of cars with power brake defects for repair were raised by 
any of the commenters.
    FRA also intends to prohibit the movement of cars with cut-out or 
ineffective brakes beyond points where repairs to the defective 
condition could be made. FRA will consider a car's brakes ineffective 
if the piston travel exceeds 1.5 inches less than the total possible 
piston travel for that car.
    FRA plans to require each railroad to develop a formal program to 
train and to qualify personnel, including contract personnel, 
responsible for the inspection, testing, and maintenance of train brake 
systems. The detailed requirements are stated in Subpart C of the rule 
text. The contemplated program is similar to programs being instituted 
voluntarily by several of the major railroads. The vast majority of the 
comments and the experience of FRA inspectors support the contention 
that many of the people inspecting and testing train brake systems do 
not have the training and background to understand what they are doing 
and why they are doing it. As part of these programs, railroads will be 
required to notify employees and contractors of their current 
qualification status and to require periodic requalification. Railroads 
will be expected to update their training programs as they introduce 
new train brake system technology.
    FRA proposes that first-line supervisors should be required to 
perform frequent and random spot checks of train brake system 
inspections, maintenance, and tests. FRA intends to get supervisors out 
of the office on to the shop floor, outside to repair tracks and repair 
points, and off site to locations where train brake system inspections 
are performed. Only by active involvement can these supervisors improve 
the quality and effectiveness of their railroad's train brake system 
inspection, maintenance, and test program. Performing and keeping 
records of these spot checks are required if a railroad wishes to take 
advantage of the flexibility built into the proposed rule to allow 
trains to travel much greater distances between train brake system 
tests. Requiring spot checks is a means that FRA will use to ensure 
supervisors are jointly responsible with the employees they supervise 
for the correct performance of safety critical train brake system 
inspection, test, and maintenance tasks.
    Based on FRA experience and the statements of several commenters, 
it is evident that the use of chemicals in the trainline causes 
untimely wear and tear to brake system components and has a long-term 
detrimental effect on train air brakes. Comments provided to FRA 
indicate that air dryers on locomotives are very effective in improving 
the performance of train brake systems particularly under cold weather 
conditions and generally eliminate the need to use alcohol and other 
foreign substances in the trainline. Several railroads commented that 
they have already equipped their locomotives with air dryers in order 
to curb the use of chemicals in the trainline. Furthermore, several 
railroads frequently operating under extreme cold weather conditions 
commented that they have prohibited chemicals from being placed in 
brake air systems to prevent freeze-up. These railroads stated that 
they have been able to operate trains in cold weather without resorting 
to chemicals, such as alcohol.
    Based on these comments and experiences, FRA intends to ban the use 
of anti-freeze chemicals in train air brake systems. In addition, FRA 
proposes that all new and rebuilt locomotives be equipped with air 
dryers with a capacity that can be achieved by current commercially 
available equipment, unless the new or rebuilt locomotive will not be 
operated in cold weather conditions, will power only trains limited to 
30 mph or less, or will power only trains of 20 cars or less. FRA 
believes that exception from the requirement to equip new and rebuilt 
locomotives with air dryers for these types of operations is warranted 
based on the comments received and on FRA's experience that moisture in 
the brakeline in these types of operations has never been a problem.
    Comments received by FRA heavily favored the single car test as an 
effective tool for ensuring the safe operation of railroad equipment. 
Rail labor representatives acknowledged the value of the single car 
test, but suggested that railroads are establishing special expediter 
or light repair tracks in place of repair tracks to avoid the current 
requirement to perform single car tests. The experience of FRA 
inspectors in the field supports this contention. Consequently, FRA 
proposes to require single car tests whenever any one of a specific 
list of components of the air brake system on a car is removed, 
repaired, or replaced. FRA also plans to require periodic freight brake 
tests and single car tests at calendar intervals. These requirements 
are independent of the type track or facility where the cars are worked 
on.
    Experience of FRA indicates a proliferation of equipment with other 
than standard ten-inch brake cylinders. As a result, mechanical forces 
and train crew members performing brake system inspections often do not 
know the acceptable range of brake piston travel for this non-standard 
equipment. In an attempt to improve this situation, FRA intends to 
require badge plates or stencilling of cars with the acceptable range 
of piston travel.
    Section 232.17. These proposed conditions for the movement of 
equipment with defective brakes without civil penalty liability 
incorporate the stringent conditions stated in the proviso to Sec. 13 
of the Safety Appliance Acts (45 U.S.C. 13, recodified at 49 U.S.C. 
Secs. 20302, 20303, 21302, and 21304). Except for cars or locomotives 
having their brakes cut out en route and except for defective 
locomotives moving lite or dead within a yard at less than 10 mph, FRA 
proposes that all cars or locomotives found with defective braking 
equipment be required to be tagged as bad ordered and determined safe 
for movement by a qualified person. An important clarification has been 
made in an attempt to eliminate misinterpretation of the regulation. 
FRA clearly states that equipment with defective brakes shall not pass 
a location where repairs to the defective condition can be made. 
Consequently, if a car or locomotive is found with defective brakes 
during a Class 1 or Class 2 inspection and that inspection is performed 
at a location where repairs of the type that are needed can be 
performed, that car or locomotive may not be moved from that location 
until such repairs are performed. However, if repairs to the defective 
condition cannot be performed at the location where the defect is 
discovered, or should have been discovered, this proposal will require 
a railroad to drop off the equipment with defective brakes at the 
nearest point on its line where the defective brakes could be repaired. 
A location that has been visited within the last 365 days by a repair 
truck or vehicle, capable of making repairs of the type required, will 
be considered the nearest point where repairs could be effectuated.
    This section also provides specific restrictions on the movement of 
equipment with defective brakes onto the line of a connecting railroad. 
Hence, the delivery of defective equipment in interchange would be 
covered by these restrictions. In addition to fulfilling the other 
requirements set out in this section, the railroad seeking relief from 
civil penalty liability must show that the connecting railroad has 
elected to accept the non-complying equipment and that the point of 
repair on the connecting railroad's line, where the equipment will be 
repaired, is no further than the point where the repairs could have 
been made on the line where the equipment was first found to be 
defective.

Subpart B

    This proposed subpart contains design standards that apply to all 
train brake systems as well as design standards that apply to specific 
types of operations and equipment.
    Section 232.101. This section contains general design standards 
that apply to all trains and equipment. The railroad industry expressed 
a strong desire for FRA to develop future safety regulations based on 
performance requirements rather than having specific design 
requirements specified by the regulations. FRA recognizes that 
requirements based on specific design standards may be overly 
restrictive. Furthermore, FRA has no objection to performance-based 
requirements as long as the performance requirements contribute to 
improve safety, and are able to be measured and enforced. 
Unfortunately, the railroad industry had little to offer in the way of 
specific and enforceable performance requirements for train brake 
systems either at the public workshops or in the written comments 
preceding this proposal. However, in Sec. 232.901(c), FRA has made an 
attempt to move toward performance-based safety requirements by 
encouraging railroads and equipment developers to submit proposed 
performance requirements to FRA for new train brake system technology. 
FRA feels that developing performance standards for designs already in 
production would be a backward approach and believes that it is much 
easier to develop and implement these types of standards for newly 
developed designs. FRA has also attempted to integrate performance 
standards into several of these proposed regulations.
    FRA believes that Interstate Commerce Commission Order 13528, as 
amended (codified in existing Sec. 232.3 and Appendix B to Part 232), 
is no longer completely relevant or necessary. FRA proposes to revoke 
the Order and incorporate its relevant portions into this section. 
Therefore, proposed Sec. 232.101(c) contains a list of equipment to 
which the Order's specifications and requirements for operating power-
brake systems for freight service do not apply.
    In Sec. 232.101(e), FRA proposes to require that all new equipment 
built after January 1, 1995 be designed and constructed so that an 
individual inspecting the equipment can observe brake actuation and 
release from a safe position beside the equipment. This proposed 
requirement stems from the brake system design of double-stack 
equipment. Several parties commented that the functioning of the brakes 
on this type of equipment cannot be observed without inspectors placing 
themselves in potentially dangerous positions. In addition, a complete 
inspection of the brake equipment and systems used on double-stack 
equipment is time consuming. Consequently, inspectors are reluctant to 
conduct a complete brake inspection test on departing trains that 
contain this type of equipment. FRA feels that double-stack equipment 
is becoming a mainstay of the freight railroad industry and that this 
design deficiency must be corrected. FRA has attempted to make this a 
performance requirement by simply specifying how the equipment must 
function and allowing the industry to determine the method of 
compliance.
    In Sec. 232.101(f), FRA proposes to require that all train brake 
systems have an emergency application feature that increases the 
train's deceleration rate by 15 percent over the rate of a full-service 
application. Most existing train brake systems already meet this 
requirement. The intent of FRA is to ensure that this practice, which 
time has proven effective, continues into the future. This is also a 
performance standard since the method of achieving the desired increase 
in deceleration rate is left entirely to industry.
    Regarding proposed Sec. 232.101(g)-(h), wheel cracks due to thermal 
overstress are a dangerous consequence of extreme wheel heating by the 
operation of friction brakes. Wheels with on-tread brakes are 
particularly vulnerable. Research performed by the John A. Volpe 
National Transportation System Center and the AAR indicates that wheels 
with on-tread brakes will form thermal cracks if the wheel tread 
surface temperature remains above 600 degrees F. As a result, FRA 
proposes to require that future train brake systems with on-tread 
brakes be designed so that wheel-tread surface temperature does not 
exceed 600 degrees F during normal applications of the brake. FRA also 
intends to require that future train brake systems that include disc 
brakes be designed so the disc-pad rotor surface temperature does not 
exceed 750 degrees F during a normal brake application. This 
requirement is also supported by research data from the AAR and the 
John A. Volpe National Transportation System Center.
    In Sec. 232.101(i)-(j), FRA proposes to require that all 
locomotives be equipped with automatic wheel slip/slide detection 
systems and with handbrakes. Wheel slip/slide systems are required 
because they tend to maximize the retarding force available to stop the 
train. Handbrakes are required to minimize the chance of a car or 
locomotive moving while unattended.
    Section 232.103. This section contains design standards for 
conventional locomotive air brakes. The intent of this proposed section 
is to preserve the time-proven performance of the conventional 
locomotive air brake. Most of the design standards contained in this 
section were copied directly from Secs. 229.47 through 229.57 of this 
chapter. Those provisions of Part 229 that are incorporated into this 
part will be removed from Part 229. Since these design standards apply 
totally to existing systems, they are very specific and leave little 
room for flexibility based on performance.
    The language regarding the emergency brake valve previously 
contained in Sec. 229.47 is changed to permit the brake pipe valve to 
be located under the console and to be operated manually by the use of 
an extension.
    Section 232.103(e) proposes a significant new design standard 
requiring that after January 1, 1996, certain new and rebuilt 
locomotives and yard air sources be equipped with air dryers. As noted 
in the discussion of cold weather operations and the analysis of 
Sec. 232.15(j), several parties commented on the widespread use of 
methanol and other alcohols in the trainline during cold weather 
operations. Although most railroads have operating rules banning the 
use of such chemicals, it is apparent that there is frequent use of 
these chemicals. Based on FRA experience and the statements of several 
commenters, it is evident that the use of chemicals in the trainline 
causes untimely wear and tear to brake system components and has a 
long-term detrimental effect on train air brakes. Consequently, FRA in 
Sec. 232.15(j)(2) proposes to ban the use of chemicals in the train air 
brake system. Furthermore, based on the comments of several parties, 
FRA believes that phasing in the use of air dryers in cold weather 
conditions will generally eliminate the perceived need to use alcohol 
and other foreign substances in the trainline and improve the 
performance of air brake systems in cold weather. Several railroad 
commenters indicated that air dryers are very effective in improving 
the cold weather performance of train air brake systems. In addition, 
several railroads commented that the benefits of air dryers justified 
making them standard on all their locomotives.
    As the accumulation of water in the air brake system has not been a 
problem with shorter trains, trains operated at lower speeds, or trains 
operated in warmer climates, FRA intends to except from the 
requirements of this section new and rebuilt locomotives that power 
trains and yard air sources that service trains operated exclusively in 
service that meets any of the following criteria:
    (a) The locomotive powers or the yard air source services only 
trains limited to speeds of 30 mph or less;
    (b) The locomotive powers or the yard air source services only 
trains of 20 or fewer cars; or
    (c) The locomotive powers or the yard air source services only 
trains not operated under cold weather conditions.

Shortline and excursion railroads rarely, if ever, purchase new 
locomotives and rebuild very few locomotives that operate outside the 
exceptions noted above. Furthermore, based on the information gathered 
by FRA, there are virtually no shortline railroads that use or possess 
any yard air sources which service trains not excepted by this 
requirement. Due to the limited number of cars transported by most 
shortline railroads, these types of operations tend to use locomotives 
in their yards to charge the trainlines of cars awaiting 
transportation. Consequently, the economic impact of this requirement 
on shortline and excursion railroads is mitigated substantially. The 
performance required of the air dryer is within the performance 
capabilities of commercially available air dryers. In order to further 
develop and evaluate this proposal, FRA seeks comments from all 
interested parties regarding the following specific issues:
    (1) How effective are air dryers in reducing braking problems in 
cold weather by reducing moisture build-up in brake equipment?
    (2) How many locomotives currently used on mainline or interchange 
operations are equipped with air dryers?
    (3) Would the use of air dryers be more effective if all 
locomotives were required to be equipped with the devices, rather than 
just those specific locomotives covered by this proposal?
    (4) Are the costs identified by FRA regarding this proposal 
accurate?
    (5) Are there shortline railroads that use or possess any yard air 
sources which would be required to be equipped with an air dryer in 
accordance with this proposal? If so, how many?
    (6) What quantitative and/or qualitative safety and operational 
benefits can be derived from equipping the locomotives and yard air 
sources covered by this proposal with air dryers?
    (7) What maintenance costs are associated with air dryers?
    (8) What is the reliability of automatic drain valves?
    (9) What procedures are currently in place to ensure that automatic 
drain valves are operating properly?
    (10) Can aftercoolers, ranging from the sixty feet of two-inch 
radiating pipe design to other commercially available designs, or other 
similar equipment provide adequate cooling to prevent trainlines from 
freezing in extreme cold weather?
    Section 232.105. This section contains design standards for 
conventional train air brakes except for trains propelled by MU 
locomotives. FRA intends to preserve the basic conventional train air 
brake technology that has long been an industry standard. Several 
commenters recommended that the specifications and requirements for 
power brake systems for freight service contained in Appendix B to Part 
232 be eliminated because they are too restrictive and detailed to 
allow for technological development. Contrary to these commenters' 
views, FRA feels that many of the requirements contained in Appendix B 
for power brake systems are still necessary. FRA does recognize that 
some of the requirements are outdated and should be eliminated. 
Therefore, as previously stated in the discussion of Sec. 232.101, FRA 
proposes to eliminate Appendix B and incorporate those requirements 
that it feels are still relevant to today's equipment directly into 
various sections of the revised regulation. Consequently, this section 
contains the general requirement that air brake system components be 
adequately sealed to prevent contamination by foreign material and also 
contains provisions regarding the control valve's compatibility with 
other air brake systems. Furthermore, in order to address the concerns 
of several parties that the requirements contained in Appendix B are 
too restrictive to allow the development of new technology, FRA in 
Sec. 232.901 proposes to permit parties to petition FRA to grant 
waivers or convert some of the train brake system specification and 
design requirements into performance-based safety requirements.
    Section 232.107. This section contains standards unique to 
passenger trains. In this section FRA proposes to preserve the 
requirement currently contained in Sec. 229.47(b) regarding emergency 
brake valves in MU locomotives and cab car locomotives. FRA also 
proposes to require a clearly marked emergency brake at each end of 
passenger coaches in order to ensure quick and available access to the 
devices if necessary.
    Section 232.109. This section contains design standards for blended 
brakes. Blended brakes are becoming increasingly prevalent, 
particularly in passenger and commuter operations. Blended brakes 
combine the retarding forces of dynamic brakes and friction brakes to 
produce the desired overall braking effect. FRA proposes to require 
that the blending of the two retarding forces be done automatically and 
that the friction portion of the braking system be capable of safely 
stopping the train in the event of a power loss or other failure of the 
dynamic portion of the train brake system. Most, if not all, existing 
blended braking schemes meet these two requirements.
    Section 232.111. This section involves design standards for dynamic 
brakes. Most, if not all, of the railroads that provided comments 
stated that they do not consider dynamic brakes to be a safety device. 
However, these same commenters stated that they promote and encourage 
the use of dynamic brakes for purposes of fuel efficiency and to avoid 
wear to brake components. Due to this encouragement, dynamic brakes are 
relied on to control train speed and to provide assistance in 
controlling trains on heavy grades. Contrary to the comments of several 
labor representatives, FRA does not feel that locomotives should be 
required to be equipped with dynamic brakes, FRA believes that the 
decision to equip a locomotive with dynamic brakes is mainly an 
economic one, best determined by each individual railroad. However, in 
order to prevent accidents and injuries that may result from an over-
reliance on the dynamic brake, which may fail at any time, FRA believes 
that if the devices are available, engineers should be informed on 
their safe and proper use and be provided with information regarding 
the amount of dynamic braking power actually available on their 
respective trains. FRA believes that by providing an engineer with as 
much information as possible on the status of the dynamic brakes on a 
train, a railroad better enables that engineer to operate the train in 
the safest and most efficient manner.
    As previously discussed, the operating rules of most railroads 
currently contain limits on the amount of dynamic braking force that 
may safely be used depending on the dimensions of the train involved. 
Most railroad operating rules express these limits in terms of the 
number of axles that engine consists are permitted to use in dynamic 
braking. Railroads generally will cut out the dynamic brakes on 
trailing locomotives, when the train is made up, in order to avoid the 
possibility of excessive dynamic braking force being applied, which 
could result in the buckling of the train. However, some operating 
rules also express dynamic braking limits for operating through 
turnouts, crossovers, and curves in terms of dynamic brake amperes, 
yet, there is currently no way for engineers to know the amount of 
dynamic brake amperage on their train or the amperage they are using. 
Furthermore, although running tests of dynamic brakes, as proposed by 
FRA, provide information to the locomotive engineer regarding the 
availability of dynamic brakes, such tests are limited to the specific 
moment they are performed. Thus, running tests do not provide 
continuous information on the current status of the dynamic brakes to 
the locomotive engineer. Because dynamic brakes could fail at any time, 
FRA feels there must be some way for engineers to continuously monitor 
the operation of their available dynamic brakes.
    In Sec. 7 of the RSERA, recodified at 49 U.S.C. 20141, Congress 
mandated that the Secretary ``prescribe standards regarding dynamic 
brake equipment.'' FRA interprets this mandate to require the 
development of meaningful and enforceable standards to address the safe 
use of dynamic brakes. As stated previously, FRA believes that any 
meaningful standards regarding dynamic brakes must include provisions 
for providing the locomotive engineer with continuous information on 
the current status of the dynamic brakes. Currently, the only means of 
providing this continuous information to the engineer is some type of 
dynamic brake display in the cab of the locomotive. Consequently, in 
order to comply with Congress' mandate requiring meaningful standards 
to address the safe use of dynamic brakes, FRA proposes that 
locomotives built after January 1, 1996, and equipped with dynamic 
brakes, be able to (i) test the electrical integrity of the dynamic 
brake at rest and (ii) display the total train dynamic brake retarding 
force, at certain speed increments, in the cab of the controlling 
locomotive.
    In the ANPRM (57 FR 62555), FRA requested comments from the 
industry on possible methods of providing information regarding the 
status of dynamic brakes to the engineer in the cab of the controlling 
locomotive. The only workable option presented to FRA in the comments 
received was the equipping of locomotives with a dynamic brake display. 
Although FRA recognizes that the technology for dynamic brake displays 
with the ability to provide the type of information sought by FRA is 
not readily available today, several commenters suggested that it is 
currently being developed. FRA believes that the benefits of such an 
indicator would be to alert engineers that they have diminished or 
excessive dynamic capabilities, thus permitting the engineer to control 
the braking of their train in the safest possible manner. However, in 
order to fully evaluate the viability of this proposal, FRA seeks 
comments from all interested parties regarding the following specific 
issues:
    (1) What is the status on the future availability of dynamic brake 
indicators capable of providing the information required by this 
proposal?
    (2) Are FRA's cost estimates regarding this proposal accurate?
    (3) What quantitative and/or qualitative operational or safety 
benefits can be derived from the use of these devices?
    (4) What alternative methods are available for providing the same 
information that a dynamic brake indicator would provide to a 
locomotive engineer? What are the costs?
    (5) What are the operating and maintenance experiences of the 
dynamic brake monitoring devices currently used on high speed passenger 
trains?
    (6) Would automatic blending between friction and dynamic brakes 
prevent an engineer from overrelying on dynamic brakes and provide the 
same safety benefit as monitoring the status of the dynamic brake?
    (7) Are there other available measures that would fulfill the 
requirement of Section 7 referred to above? If so, please provide 
information or analysis regarding their cost, effectiveness, 
practicability, and enforceability.
    Section 232.113. This section proposes design standards for 
intermediate speed and high speed train brakes. FRA recognizes that 
much of the equipment covered by these proposed standards is still in 
the developmental stages of existence; however, FRA recognizes that the 
operation of higher speed trains will occur in the near future. FRA 
feels, therefore, that steps need to be taken now to ensure the safe 
operation of this type of equipment. In addition, most of the proposed 
standards are either general in nature or are performance-oriented and, 
thus, would not impede the development of new technologies. 
Furthermore, the proposed standards would not apply to intermediate 
speed passenger equipment that entered service prior to January 1, 
1995. FRA does not intend to disrupt existing passenger service in the 
Northeast Corridor or in other high speed corridors; however, as new 
service is developed or new equipment is put into service on these 
corridors, it would become subject to the design requirements proposed 
in this section.
    FRA feels that trains that operate at speeds in excess of 79 mph 
but not exceeding 125 mph should be classified as intermediate speed 
operations and that trains that operate at speeds in excess of 125 mph 
but not exceeding 160 mph should be classified as high speed 
operations. Pursuant to the statutory mandate, which requires two-way 
EOT devices on all trains exceeding 30 mph (with stated exceptions), 
FRA intends to require that all intermediate speed freight trains be 
equipped with two-way EOT devices, with no exceptions. FRA also 
proposes to require dynamic brakes on all locomotive and power cars 
used in intermediate speed or high speed service. FRA feels that as 
speed increases, the need for retarding force beyond that available 
from friction brakes alone also increases. Dynamic brakes also provide 
a valuable means of decreasing brake heating of wheels and/or axles. 
FRA also intends to require a means of monitoring the enroute 
performance and status of the dynamic brake on intermediate and high 
speed trains. Although the technology for this equipment is not 
currently available, several commenters suggested that it is in the 
process of being developed.
    FRA feels that, as train speed increases, limiting the number of 
responses required from the locomotive engineer will increase overall 
train safety. As a result, FRA proposes to require that intermediate 
and high speed train brake systems be computer controlled. FRA 
recognizes the unique designs and features that the braking systems of 
these types of operations may incorporate and, thus, FRA agrees with 
several of the commenters that the train brake systems used by these 
operations should be controlled by some kind of automated computer 
system. FRA proposes to require that these computer systems have the 
ability to run diagnostic programs capable of self-testing the brake 
system and detecting faults in the system and have the ability of 
either alerting the engineer to these faults or taking automatic 
corrective action. In addition, FRA requires that the computer software 
of these systems be analyzed to determine the safety impacts of 
software failures and to ensure that the software is fail-safe and 
functions as intended. Due to the unique designs that intermediate and 
high speed braking systems may incorporate, the inspectors of the 
equipment may be required to place themselves in dangerous positions in 
order to inspect the equipment. If that is the case, FRA feels that the 
brake systems should be equipped with sensors that give a reliable 
indication of the application and release of the brakes, visible to an 
engineer in the cab and to an inspector on the platform or along the 
side of the track. FRA proposes general design guidelines for several 
types of train brake system sensors. FRA intends to encourage the 
development of brake system sensor technology in order to improve train 
brake system tests and inspections while reducing the risk of personal 
injury.
    Section 232.115. This section proposes design standards for one-way 
EOT devices that are largely unchanged from the standards currently 
stated in Sec. 232.19. Since these standards have proven effective, FRA 
sees no reason to change them. The only major change to the current 
requirements is the extension of the calibration period for all EOT 
devices from 92 days to 365 days. FRA bases this proposed extension not 
only on its own experience but also on the comments received from 
several parties that the devices are fairly reliable and can operate 
for years without calibration problems. Although several labor 
representatives commented on the unreliability of the devices, these 
comments generally addressed the failure of the railroads to properly 
perform the calibrations or the misuse of the devices. Furthermore, FRA 
believes that the 92-day calibration period was established at a time 
when there was little experience with these devices. Since that time, 
not only has calibration of the devices not proven to be a problem, but 
technology has further improved the reliability of the devices. These 
proposed rules result in one-way EOT devices being gradually phased out 
of use as they are replaced by two-way EOT devices.
    Section 232.117. This section provides design standards for two-way 
EOT devices. No design standards for two-way EOT devices currently 
exist; however, the two-way devices currently in production meet the 
design requirements for one-way EOT devices and also provide two-way 
communication and the ability to make an emergency brake application 
from the rear of the train. The currently available two-way devices 
have several optional features that could prove very beneficial to 
railroads. Although FRA recommends that railroads obtain as many of the 
optional features as they can when purchasing the devices, FRA does not 
intend to mandate their use and feels that each railroad is in the best 
position to determine which features best suit its operation. FRA 
proposes to apply the one-way device design requirements to two-way 
devices as well as a set of specific requirements intended to ensure 
the existence of two-way communication and the ability to make an 
emergency brake application from the rear of the train. In order to 
prevent vandalism and to avoid the possibility of a train accidentally 
being placed in emergency, FRA proposes to require that the front and 
rear units be linked together so that the rear unit will only respond 
to its associated front unit. Although these proposed design 
requirements essentially specify a specific two-way EOT device design, 
FRA encourages the development of alternate equivalent or better 
technologies.

Subpart C

    This proposed subpart includes qualification requirements for 
personnel who inspect, maintain, and test train brake systems and 
individuals who supervise the work of the aforementioned personnel. FRA 
believes that the current training provided to the individuals charged 
with performing brake maintenance, tests, and inspections should be 
greatly improved in order to ensure that train brake system 
maintenance, tests, and inspections are performed properly. Several 
labor organizations and their individual members explicitly commented 
that they are not sufficiently trained to perform the inspections and 
tests required of them. In addition, several railroads admitted that 
the training they currently provide could be improved. FRA recognizes 
that many railroads are attempting to improve their training programs; 
however, FRA thinks that minimum training qualifications need to be 
established to assure that brake inspections and tests are being 
properly performed in order to protect both the public and railroad 
employees from the operation of equipment that does not meet Federal 
standards. Although there has been a decline in the number of train 
accidents, derailments, fatalities, and injuries over the last ten 
years, FRA believes that the number of these incidents will be further 
reduced if maintenance, inspections, and tests of the brake system are 
performed by individuals who have received this minimum training.
    Railroads continue to consolidate mechanical work to fewer and 
fewer locations on the railroad. This trend places an increasing 
premium on the ability of train crews to conduct meaningful inspections 
and tests of the power brake system. Although features of this proposal 
offer incentives for proper deployment of mechanical forces, increases 
in train speeds and increased pressure on operating personnel due to 
growing traffic density will continue to make it critical for train 
crews to discharge their duties with respect to power brake systems 
both diligently and effectively even under the most optimistic of 
scenarios with respect to the operation of incentives.
    In this rulemaking FRA proposes to allow significant increases in 
the maximum distances trains may travel between brake system 
inspections where mechanical forces perform the inspection function 
(including a complete inspection under 49 CFR Part 215). The latitude 
that would be provided under this rule would result in fewer 
inspections per distance traveled and reduce the number of 
opportunities that will exist for a serious defect to be found before 
it could result in a train accident. It is imperative, therefore, that 
each inspection be of uniformly high quality. Meaningful and 
enforceable qualification requirements for personnel will help raise 
the overall quality of inspections.
    Technological change presents an additional reason for placing 
strong emphasis on qualifications of personnel. Train crews and 
mechanical personnel alike are confronted with an increasing variety of 
power brake arrangements and features. Recently, the Association of 
American Railroads has announced an intensified effort to develop and 
deploy electronic braking systems on freight equipment. These trends 
will make it important for personnel to be fully familiar with the 
systems that they are required to inspect and maintain. FRA recognizes 
that although technological advancements may increase the need for more 
qualified maintenance forces, they may also reduce the complexity and 
extent of the inspecting and testing requirements for certain equipment 
with the emergence of brake indicators and sensors or the development 
of more reliable equipment.
    Consequently, FRA proposes to establish broad qualification 
requirements and issue specific training and experience guidelines 
based on the type of inspections, maintenance, or tests an individual 
employee performs. Several railroad commenters suggested that there is 
no reason for individuals who solely perform pre-departure air brake 
tests and inspections to be as highly trained as a carman. FRA tends to 
agree with these commenters since carmen perform many other duties 
which involve the maintenance and repair of equipment in addition to 
brake inspections. Therefore, the proposed training guidelines are less 
stringent for those individuals that perform only brake inspections and 
tests. FRA intends for these training guidelines to apply not only to 
railroad personnel but also to contract personnel and personnel in 
plants that build cars and locomotives that are responsible for brake 
system inspections, maintenance, or tests.
    The American Public Transit Association (APTA) suggested that FRA 
provide broad training and experience guidelines and allow each 
railroad to develop its own qualification and certification program, 
which FRA would then review and approve if it met the general 
guidelines. This method provides significant flexibility to each 
railroad, but would require complex and timely evaluation of a 
potentially large number of disparate plans. FRA's experience with this 
``review-and-approval'' approach (e.g., the locomotive engineer 
certification program) indicates that FRA's limited resources are 
severely overburdened when FRA is required to approve individual plans 
for over 600 railroads and many contract facilities that perform work 
subject to the regulations. This could result in some plans not being 
finally reviewed and approved for several years. While providing 
latitude for innovation, this approach could also become a source of 
costly disputes.
    FRA believes that the approach contained in this proposal may avoid 
many of the problems inherent in an approach similar to that suggested 
by APTA while preserving its advantages. FRA intends to propose broad 
performance-based standards in the rule text for various individuals 
depending on the type of brake work they perform. Due to the 
significant proposed incentives that are being offered to railroads 
that use personnel meeting the proposed qualification requirements for 
mechanical and electrical inspectors to perform brake work, FRA must be 
able to determine uniformly if sufficient training and experience have 
been afforded to those individuals deemed qualified by a railroad. 
Consequently, FRA also intends to issue specific training and 
experience guidelines that FRA believes, based on its considered 
judgement, a railroad's training program must contain in order to 
ensure individuals possess the minimum knowledge and skills necessary 
to perform the duties required of them. FRA believes that this approach 
will allow each individual railroad the flexibility to develop and 
implement a program to train and qualify employees and issue 
credentials based on its own unique operating conditions and equipment, 
while ensuring that a minimum level of competence is maintained 
throughout the industry. Although FRA is proposing that specific 
training and experience requirements be issued as guidelines, at this 
time, FRA recognizes that the purpose and need for these requirements 
may be better served if these guidelines were part of the rule text and 
will consider this option when drafting the final rule. Therefore, FRA 
solicits comments from interested parties regarding not only FRA's 
proposed approach to this issue and the specific training and 
experience guidelines contained therein, but also any comments or 
opinions as to whether the specific training and experience guidelines 
should be contained in the text of the final rule.
    FRA also recognizes that there may be other approaches that are 
equally viable. Consequently, FRA seeks comments from interested 
parties regarding alternative methods and approaches for ensuring that 
properly qualified individuals are performing brake inspections, tests, 
and maintenance. Commenters are requested to identify alternative 
criteria for training programs and to specify present or planned 
approaches that might be unduly constrained by the text of the proposed 
rule.
    FRA also has some concerns regarding the application of the 
proposed experience and training guidelines to newly hired train-
service employees. There is a current trend toward the use of smaller 
train crews, and thus, heavy reliance will in some cases be placed on a 
single ground employee with little training and experience. In order to 
avoid this pitfall, FRA specifically solicits comments regarding 
various methods and approaches for structuring training programs to 
ensure that the proposed training and experience guidelines can be met 
by newly hired train-service employees prior to their being assigned 
duties for which the training and experience are required.
    Section 232.201. This section contains general requirements 
regarding the development of formal training programs. FRA proposes to 
require each railroad to develop a formal program to train and to 
qualify personnel, including contract personnel, responsible for the 
inspection, testing, and maintenance of train brake systems. The 
contemplated program is similar to programs being instituted 
voluntarily by several of the major railroads. The vast majority of the 
comments and the experience of FRA inspectors support the contention 
that many of the people inspecting and testing train brake systems do 
not have the training and background to understand what they are doing 
and why they are doing it. As part of these programs, railroads will be 
required to notify employees and contractors of their current 
qualification status and to require periodic requalification. Railroads 
will be expected to update their training programs as they introduce 
new train brake system technology.
    In order for a railroad to institute a training program without 
prior FRA approval, a railroad will be required to certify to FRA that 
its training program incorporates the training and experience 
guidelines established by FRA for train brake system supervisors, 
mechanical inspectors, electronic inspectors, and train crew members. 
The specific training and experience guidelines, contained in the 
preambles for Secs. 232.205-232.211 were developed by FRA based upon 
its expertise and experience in the railroad industry. They represent 
FRA's best judgement as to what is currently necessary in order to meet 
the broad qualification standards contained in the aforementioned 
sections of the rule. If, based on the comments received and after 
further consideration, FRA elects to adopt the approach proposed in 
this notice, the specific training and experience guidelines will be 
contained in a separate appendix to this part in the final rule. FRA 
recognizes that more stringent guidelines may be required or that the 
guidelines may need to be specifically contained in the text of the 
rule. FRA also recognizes that there may be alternative methods of 
providing training and experience, not yet known to FRA, that might 
achieve the same level of skill and knowledge. Consequently, in order 
to further develop and evaluate this proposal, FRA seeks comments from 
all interested parties regarding the following issues:
    (1) Are the guidelines proposed by FRA, in the preamble to this 
subpart, an accurate assessment of the minimum training and experience 
required for individuals to adequately perform the duties required of 
them? If not, what should the minimum guidelines include?
    (2) Should the proposed minimum training and/or minimum experience 
guidelines be raised or lowered? Explain.
    (3) Should the training and experience requirements proposed to be 
in guidelines be included in the text of the final rule instead?
    (4) Are there alternative criteria or approaches for ensuring that 
qualified individuals are performing brake tests, inspections, and 
maintenance?
    This section also requires that if a railroad develops a training 
program inconsistent with the training and experience guidelines 
established by FRA, the railroad must submit the program to FRA for FRA 
approval prior to implementing the program. A program will be 
considered inconsistent with the training and experience guidelines if 
it permits the qualification of any individual with less than the 
training or experience provided for in the guidelines. Railroads are 
encouraged and permitted to develop training programs with more 
extensive training and experience requirements without seeking FRA's 
approval. FRA recognizes that future technological developments and 
innovations, not yet apparent to FRA, might result in a reduced 
necessity for certain training or experience requirements. Thus, a 
railroad submitting an inconsistent program for FRA approval must 
provide detailed information regarding their rationale for deviating 
from the proposed training and experience guidelines (e.g., 
technological improvements, equipment reliability, innovative or 
intensive training techniques) and explain how their programs ensure 
that qualified individuals will be performing tests, inspections, and 
maintenance of brake systems as required by this part. While a program 
is being reviewed by FRA, the railroad submitting the program will be 
unable to take advantage of the incentives offered to railroads for 
using qualified employees to perform various tests, inspections, and 
maintenance of train brake systems, unless the railroad has a training 
program in effect which incorporates the specific training and 
experience guidelines.
    Section 232.202. This section outlines the general qualification 
requirements for train brake system maintenance personnel. FRA believes 
a higher level of knowledge and skill is required to perform brake 
system maintenance than is required to perform brake system inspections 
and tests. Therefore, the general requirements for brake system 
maintenance personnel should be more stringent than the requirements 
for personnel performing only brake system inspections and tests. FRA 
considers train brake system maintenance an essential element of 
overall railroad safety. The knowledge and skill of the personnel 
responsible for train brake system maintenance are the keys to an 
effective maintenance program. Therefore, FRA proposes a set of general 
minimum qualification requirements for all personnel, including 
contract personnel, responsible for train brake system maintenance.
    Section 232.203. This section contains the general qualification 
requirements for train brake system inspection and test personnel. FRA 
believes that individuals performing train brake system inspections or 
tests do not require the depth of knowledge required of those 
individuals performing train brake system maintenance. FRA proposes 
several general requirements that are aimed at ensuring that 
individuals performing brake system inspections and tests must, at a 
minimum, be able to perform the specific tests or inspections required 
by Federal regulations on the type of brake systems for which they are 
responsible. Broad performance-based qualification requirements for 
``mechanical inspectors,'' ``electronic inspectors,'' and ``qualified 
train crew members'' are set forth at Secs. 232.207, 232.209, and 
232.211, respectively.
    Section 232.205. This section contains the qualification 
requirements for train brake system supervisors. The first-line 
supervisor of personnel responsible for train brake system inspections, 
tests, and maintenance must provide much of the quality control exerted 
over this work. This makes the train brake system supervisor a central 
player in the scheme to ensure the safe operation of trains. The 
supervisor performs this quality control function by performing spot 
checks of the work done by subordinates. To perform effective spot 
checks, the supervisor must have an extensive background in the 
inspections, tests, and maintenance required for train brake systems 
for which the supervisor is responsible. Consequently, FRA believes 
that, in order for a railroad to designate an individual as a qualified 
train brake system supervisor, that person must receive instruction in 
accordance with the following minimum training and experience 
guidelines:
    (a) Have a minimum of two years' experience testing, inspecting, 
and maintaining the type of train brake systems for which he or she is 
responsible.
    (b) Have successfully completed 24 hours of training including 
eight hours of ``hands on'' training within the past three years on the 
Train Brake System Safety Standards. ``Successful completion'' means 
that the supervisor has been able to pass an examination on the Train 
Brake System Safety Standards conducted by the railroad.
    (c) Have successfully completed 80 hours of training, including 40 
hours of ``hands on'' training within the past three years, and an 
intensive technical course on the operation, inspection, and 
maintenance of brake systems typical of those installed on the type of 
equipment for which the supervisor has responsibility. ``Successful 
completion'' means that the supervisor has been able to pass an 
examination covering inspection, test, and maintenance of the specific 
brake equipment with which the employees supervised work. This test 
shall be conducted by the railroad.
    (d) Have a thorough knowledge of the employing/operating railroad's 
procedures and policies on train brake system inspection, maintenance, 
and test.
    Section 232.207. This section addresses the qualification 
requirements for brake system mechanical inspectors. The ``mechanical 
inspector'' is not necessarily qualified to perform only mechanical 
inspections. For the purposes of these regulations, the mechanical 
inspector is considered to have the knowledge and skill necessary to 
maintain the mechanical components of train brake systems as well as to 
perform brake system inspections and tests. The proposed specific 
training and experience guidelines represent what FRA considers the 
minimum necessary for the mechanical inspector to be effective. Several 
sections of these new regulations propose incentives for railroads who 
use qualified mechanical inspectors to perform train brake system 
mechanical work. Consequently, in order for a railroad to designate an 
individual as a qualified train brake system mechanical inspector, that 
person must receive instruction in accordance with the following 
minimum training and experience guidelines:
    (a) Have a minimum of two years' experience testing, inspecting, 
and maintaining the type train brake mechanical subsystems on which he 
or she is assigned to work. One year of experience as a train crew 
member inspecting and testing brake systems may count toward one year 
of the required experience. However, at least one year of experience is 
required that includes hands-on maintenance of train brake systems.
    (b) Have successfully completed 24 hours of training including 
eight hours of ``hands on'' training within the past three years on the 
Train Brake System Safety Standards. ``Successful completion'' means 
that the Inspector has been able to pass an examination on the Train 
Brake System Safety Standards conducted by the railroad.
    (c) Have successfully completed 80 hours of training including 40 
hours of hands on training within the past three years and an intensive 
technical course on the operation, test, inspection, and maintenance of 
brake systems typical of the type of equipment with which the Inspector 
works. ``Successful completion'' means that the Inspector has been able 
to pass an examination covering inspection and maintenance of the 
specific brake equipment with which the inspector works. This test 
shall be conducted by the railroad.
    Section 232.209. This section includes the qualification 
requirements for brake system electronic inspectors. The ``electronic 
inspector'' is not necessarily qualified to perform only electronic 
inspections. For the purposes of these proposed regulations, the 
electronic inspector will be considered to have the knowledge and skill 
to maintain the electronic components, including computer control 
components, of train brake systems as well as the ability to perform 
brake system inspections and tests. The electronic inspector will play 
an increasingly important role in train safety as brake system 
technology continues to advance. The proposed specific training and 
experience guidelines represent what FRA considers the minimum 
necessary for the electronic inspector to be effective. Several 
sections of these new regulations propose incentives for railroads who 
use qualified electronic inspectors to perform train brake system 
electronic work. Consequently, in order for a railroad to designate an 
individual as a qualified train brake system electronic inspector that 
person must receive instruction in accordance with the following 
minimum training and experience guidelines:
    (a) Have a minimum of three years' experience inspecting, testing, 
and maintaining the type of train brake electronic subsystems on which 
he or she is assigned to work.
    (b) Have successfully completed 32 hours of training including 
eight hours of ``hands on'' training within the past three years on the 
Train Brake System Safety Standards. ``Successful completion'' means 
that the Inspector has been able to pass an examination on the Train 
Brake System Safety Standards conducted by the railroad.
    (c) Have successfully completed 80 hours of training including 40 
hours of ``hands on'' training within the past three years and an 
intensive technical course on the operation, test, inspection and 
maintenance of brake electronics typical of the type of equipment with 
which the Inspector works. ``Successful completion'' means that the 
Inspector has been able to pass an examination covering inspection, 
test, and maintenance of the specific brake equipment on which the 
inspector works. This test shall be conducted by the railroad.
    Section 232.211. This section contains the qualification 
requirements for train crew members. Although FRA discourages the 
practice of using train crew members to perform brake system 
inspections and tests, FRA recognizes that situations exist where 
railroads must use crew members to perform this work. Numerous comments 
were provided by several labor organizations and their individual 
members to support the position that, on a whole, train crew members 
are not sufficiently trained to perform brake system inspections and 
tests. The experience of FRA inspectors in the field also supports this 
position. At the same time, it is clear that most train crew members 
are capable of acquiring and applying the pertinent knowledge to 
perform train brake inspections; and many have demonstrated this 
capability in the past. Consequently, in order for a railroad to 
designate an individual as a qualified train crew member capable of 
performing train brake system inspections and/or tests, that person 
must receive instruction in accordance with the following minimum 
training and experience guidelines:
    (a) Have a minimum of six months of experience inspecting and 
testing the type of train brake systems that he or she is assigned to 
inspect.
    (b) Have successfully completed 24 hours of training including 
eight hours of ``hands on'' training within the past three years on the 
Train Brake System Safety Standards. ``Successful completion'' means 
that the crew member has been able to pass an examination conducted by 
the railroad on the provisions of the Train Brake System Safety 
Standards that apply to work performed by that crew member.
    (c) Annually demonstrate proficiency in conducting Class 1 and 
Class 2 tests on the type of freight equipment in the trains to which 
the crew member is assigned. ``Demonstrating proficiency'' means that 
each year the crew member must pass a substantially different written 
test conducted by the railroad on how to perform these brake system 
tests. Also, the crew member must perform each type of test to the 
satisfaction of a qualified train brake system supervisor.
    Section 232.213. This section contains the requirements for 
maintaining personnel qualification records and for the notification of 
personnel of their qualification status. FRA proposes to require that 
railroads keep personnel qualification records for all personnel 
responsible for the inspection, testing, and maintenance of train brake 
systems. This section also specifically requires that railroads 
maintain these types of records for all contract personnel who perform 
brake system inspections, tests, or maintenance. Most railroads already 
keep records of this type. These records may be used by FRA to assess 
the adequacy of a railroad's qualification program determining whether 
properly qualified personnel are performing the necessary inspections, 
tests, and maintenance of train brake systems. As a means of ensuring 
that only properly qualified individuals are performing only those 
tasks for which they are qualified, FRA proposes to require railroads 
to promptly notify personnel of changes in their qualification status.
    Section 232.215. This section proposes requirements regarding which 
individuals may perform the various required tests, inspections, and 
maintenance. FRA intends to provide strong incentives to railroads and 
to set down clear restrictions on which individuals may perform which 
tasks in order to ensure that only qualified individuals perform brake 
system work and to ensure that only high-quality tests, inspections, 
and maintenance of train brake systems are performed. FRA has attempted 
to limit the use of train crew members in the performance of brake 
system inspections and tests. FRA proposes to require that train crew 
members meeting the qualification requirements stated in Sec. 232.211 
be allowed to perform Class 1 and Class 2 train brake system tests only 
on conventional freight trains restricted to 500 miles between train 
brake system tests. All other Class 1 tests and all maintenance would 
be performed by mechanical and/or electronic inspectors meeting the 
requirements of Secs. 232.207 or 232.209. FRA also proposes to require 
that spot checks of train brake system work be performed only by 
supervisors that meet the qualification requirements of Sec. 232.205. 
FRA thinks that the largest improvement railroads can make in safe 
train operation is ensuring that properly supervised and trained 
personnel perform all safety-critical train brake system work.

Subpart D

    This proposed subpart provides inspection and test standards for 
conventional freight train brake systems. The standards contained in 
this subpart are applicable to all conventional freight locomotives and 
trains.
    Section 232.303. This section proposes the inspection and test 
standards for conventional freight locomotives. As stated previously, 
FRA wishes to consolidate all brake-related regulations into Part 232. 
Consequently, the requirements regarding periodic, annual, biennial, 
main reservoir, and leakage tests on locomotive brake components 
contained in Secs. 229.25 through 229.31 and Sec. 229.59 would be 
removed from Part 229 and incorporated into this section with minor 
editorial changes. It should be noted that the requirements concerning 
aluminum main reservoirs contained in Sec. 229.31(d) would be 
eliminated since they applied only to a specific reservoirs which are 
no longer in service. Transducer-driven air gauge displays would be 
added to the requirements for testing air gauges since they are 
considered equal to air gauges and must be tested at the same 
frequency. The chart in paragraph (f) of this proposed section displays 
the intervals at which various types of equipment are to be cleaned, 
repaired, and tested. Type 26-L brake equipment devices are required to 
be cleaned, repaired, and tested at least every 1,104 days. This 
requirement applies only to 26-L brake equipment devices that were 
tested under H-80-7 or derivatives of such valves. The following 
specific devices are included: 26-C brake valve, 30-CDW brake valve, 
MU-2A valve, SA-26 Ind brake valve, 26-D and 26-F control valve, F-1 
selector valve, J-type relay valve, A-1 charging cutoff pilot valve, 
No. 8 or KM vent valve, BP strainer, MR safety valve, foot valves, MR 
check valve, double check valves, magnet valves, H-type relay air 
valves, reducing valves, and P-2-A brake application valve. FRA 
recognizes that the test methods described in this section represent 
old technology. FRA proposes that the new regulations encourage the 
development of new non-destructive test methods as alternatives to the 
methods described in this section to ensure brake system components 
will safely function as designed.
    Section 232.305. This section contains general requirements 
regarding the development of written procedures for conventional 
freight train brake system tests. FRA believes that the foundation of 
any good test and inspection plan is the written procedures that 
provide detailed guidance on how to properly conduct the various 
required tests and inspections. FRA feels that the thinking process 
involved in developing written procedures requires a railroad to 
consider all aspects of the inspection and testing process, which 
should result in more efficient and thorough inspections. FRA agrees 
with many of the commenters that it would be far too intrusive and 
practically impossible for FRA to mandate specific methods for 
performing the various required inspections on various equipment. FRA 
feels that each railroad is in the best position to determine the 
method of inspection that best fits its operating conditions and 
equipment. However, the method of inspection developed by the railroad 
should ensure that all equipment is properly inspected and functioning 
in accordance with these regulations. A railroad is required to develop 
written procedures that are tailored to the types of trains and 
equipment operated by that railroad. The procedures should contain 
step-by-step instructions for performing the various train brake system 
tests required by this proposed rule, which include: Class 1, Class 2, 
transfer train, and running tests. Written procedures will also be 
required for the testing and inspecting of equipment that incorporates 
new brake system technology. Furthermore, written procedures will be 
required that explain the method and means for maintaining records of 
brake system tests aboard the train.
    Section 232.307. This section describes the circumstances that 
would trigger the requirement to perform a Class 1 train brake system 
test. FRA proposes to require that a Class 1 brake test be performed at 
all initial terminal points for that train. FRA defines ``initial 
terminal point'' for a conventional freight train as (i) that point 
where the train is originally assembled and (ii) each point where the 
train is required to have a new Class 1 brake test due to the fact that 
it has travelled the maximum permissible distance since its last Class 
1 brake test. As will be further explained in the discussion of 
Sec. 232.309, FRA proposes to eliminate the current 1,000-mile 
inspection requirement and implement a program that allows trains to 
travel anywhere from 500 miles to 3,500 miles depending on such factors 
as the quality of the inspection performed on the train.
    The 1,000-mile test, like its predecessor the 500-mile test, has 
failed to live up to its intended role in the power brake safety 
regime. An increasing number of such tests are conducted by train 
crews. In some cases locations designated for these tests are on line 
of haul and not conducive to careful scrutiny of the train braking 
system. Increasingly, FRA finds that some railroads appear to alter the 
location of tests to frustrate enforcement. At the same time, little 
evidence has accumulated to support the proposition that the 1,000-mile 
test is critical to safety.
    FRA is aware of statistics offered by the BRC indicating that a 
large number of ``bad order'' cars have been identified in 1,000-mile 
inspections conducted at Salt Lake City, Utah and North Platte, 
Nebraska. FRA recognizes that these statistics argue against the 
elimination of 1,000-mile inspections. However, FRA believes many of 
these ``bad orders'' at 1,000-mile inspections were due to problems 
that should have been uncovered during the initial terminal brake test. 
FRA proposes to address this problem by requiring minimum 
qualifications for both train crew members and other employees that 
perform brake inspections and tests and that these inspections and 
tests be spot checked by qualified supervisors. Trains inspected by 
crew members will be limited to 500 miles of travel between Class 1 
brake system tests. Only trains initially inspected and tested by 
qualified brake inspectors will be allowed to travel more than 500 
miles between required brake system inspections and tests.
    Furthermore, many of the problems uncovered at 1,000-mile 
inspections were not defects under Part 232 and would not have affected 
the operation of the train brake system. FRA proposes to address these 
type problems by requiring a mechanical safety inspection as part of 
the Class 1 brake system test for trains that are to travel more than 
500 miles between Class 1 brake system tests. FRA believes these 
proposed provisions of the new regulations eliminate the need for the 
1,000-mile test. Accordingly, FRA believes that reliance should be 
placed on the more thorough Class 1 test (the functional equivalent of 
the current initial terminal test) at whatever point a new inspection 
of the train braking system is required.
    This section requires that certain records be maintained by a 
railroad in order for a train to travel in excess of 500 miles. The 
method for maintaining these records is not specified because FRA 
believes that each railroad is in the best position to determine the 
most efficient and accurate method for acquiring and storing the 
information. However, FRA intends that no matter what method is chosen 
by a railroad, the required information must be available to FRA upon 
request in order to allow FRA to monitor train movement and ensure 
compliance with these proposed regulations.
    This section also requires that a Class 1 brake test be performed 
on all cars added to a train that have not yet received a Class 1 brake 
test and on all cars disconnected from a source of compressed air for 
longer than four hours. FRA agrees with several commenters that our 
longstanding administrative interpretation of only allowing cars to be 
``off air'' for two hours was established prior to the development of 
new equipment that has greatly reduced leakage problems. Contrary to 
several commenters' contentions, FRA does not believe that cars should 
allowed to be ``off air'' for extended periods without being retested. 
FRA believes that the longer cars sit without a compressed air supply 
attached, the greater the chances are that the integrity of the system 
will be compromised, either by weather conditions or vandalism. FRA 
believes that four hours is the maximum time that cars should be 
disconnected from a source of compressed air without compromising 
safety.
    Section 232.309. This section details the required tasks comprising 
a Class 1 brake system test on conventional freight trains. A proper 
Class 1 brake test ensures that a train is capable of traveling to its 
destination with minimal problems enroute. Specific tasks of the Class 
1 brake test include most of the tasks currently required in initial 
terminal brake tests with some modification in the interest of 
standardization.
    FRA proposes a standardized brake-pipe reduction of 20 psi for all 
brake inspections and tests. FRA agrees with both labor and management 
commenters that a standard brake-pipe reduction will simplify train 
brake tests and will make it easier to train workers. The 20-psi 
standardized reduction was suggested by both labor and management 
commenters.
    The brake-pipe leakage test would continue to be a valid method of 
qualifying brake systems. However, FRA proposes that the air flow 
method of testing the condition of the brake pipe become an acceptable 
alternate to the brake-pipe leakage test. The air flow method would 
only be an alternative for trains equipped with 26-L freight locomotive 
brake equipment and outfitted with an EOT device. The maximum allowable 
flow would be 60 CFM. FRA believes that the air flow method is a much 
more comprehensive test than the leakage test. Although FRA is not 
proposing to mandate the use of the air flow method, it does recommend 
that railroads use the method when possible, not just to qualify brake 
systems, but in order to provide additional information regarding the 
brake system to the train crew. The air flow method has been approved 
for use by AAR member railroads after extensive testing, and the method 
has been available in Canada as an alternate means of qualifying train 
brakes since 1984.
    The brake-pipe gradient of 15 psi has been retained for both the 
leakage and air flow method of train brake testing; however, the 
minimum rear-car pressure has been increased to 75 psi, which will 
require a locomotive brake-pipe pressure of 90 psi. FRA feels that the 
added margin of braking power justifies the increase in pressure.
    Comments received by FRA indicated a high reliability of the rear-
car pressure transducers used in reporting brake-pipe pressure by an 
EOT device. Consequently, FRA feels justified in allowing the use of 
EOT devices in establishing the rear car pressure for Class 1 brake 
tests. This proposed Class 1 brake test also requires that EOT devices 
be inspected. The pressure display on the front unit would be verified 
with that of the rear unit at the time of installation on the train. 
The emergency function would be tested after installation on the train 
by closing the angle cock at the rear car, to isolate it from the 
train, and then actuating the emergency switch on the front unit. After 
verifying of the emergency application on the rear car, the angle cock 
must be opened to reestablish trainline continuity.
    FRA proposes to continue to allow railroads the option of 
performing a complete Class 1 test or a leakage/application-and-release 
test on cars picked up at a point other than a terminal. Cars receiving 
the abbreviated test shall be given a complete Class 1 test at the next 
terminal where facilities are available for such attention.
    FRA proposes to continue to allow ``roll-by'' inspections of the 
brake release but to limit their speed to 10 mph, since roll-by 
inspections made at greater speeds would not permit sufficient visual 
inspection of the brake equipment.
    Some pieces of equipment currently being used by railroads that 
incorporate several different types of brake systems with piston travel 
limits which differ greatly from the 7-9 inch limits found on standard 
brake cylinders. Inspectors of this equipment may not know the piston 
travel limits for this equipment and, thus, may perform a cursory 
inspection of the pistons assuming the travel is correct. Therefore, in 
order to aid inspectors in performing quality inspections, FRA proposes 
that the piston travel limits of non-standard brake cylinders be 
displayed on a badge plate or stencil.
    Section 232.311. This section contains the guidelines for 
determining the distance a train is allowed to travel between Class 1 
train brake system tests. The requirements proposed in this section 
were carefully constructed to enhance safety both with respect to sound 
functioning of train braking systems and other mechanical components 
(particularly of railroad freight cars). The approach balances the 
conflicting concerns of railroads and railroad labor organizations. FRA 
agrees with railroad commenters, that if the brake systems on today's 
trains are properly tested, inspected, and maintained, the trains are 
capable of safely operating for greater distances between brake system 
tests than currently permitted. However, FRA also agrees with the 
position presented by labor organizations that proper brake system 
inspections and maintenance are not being performed by the railroads. 
Consequently, FRA would provide railroads with the incentive of 
permission to travel distances that are in excess of what is currently 
permitted if quality tests, inspections, and maintenance are performed. 
In addition, if a railroad fails to perform the tasks required for 
extended movement, by merely performing the minimum required tests and 
inspections that FRA finds necessary for the safe operation of a train, 
then its trains would not be permitted to be moved beyond 500 miles 
without another Class 1 brake test. FRA believes that the proposed 500-
mile reduction from the 1,000-mile limit currently allowed is justified 
based on the fact that the 1,000-mile inspection was extended from 500 
miles in 1982 based on a commitment by the railroads to perform high 
quality tests and inspections at initial terminals, which based on FRA 
experience and the comments received, has not been fulfilled.
    The requirements proposed in this section offer the railroads 
important flexibility while imposing firm requirements. A railroad may 
elect to conduct a Class 1 test utilizing train crew members trained in 
the requirements of the power brake regulations. In that case, the 
railroad may operate the train no more than 500 miles.
    Alternately, the railroad may utilize more highly skilled and 
experienced mechanical forces to perform the test, yielding an 
important increment of increased quality with respect to detection of 
brake system problems (including those that have not yet led to any 
diminution of train braking effectiveness). Choice of this option must 
also be accompanied by use of mechanical personnel to perform a more 
thorough inspection for other defects under the Freight Car Safety 
Standards (49 CFR 215.13(b)). In exchange for the greater investment in 
inspection effort, and in recognition that this effort is more likely 
to be fully effective in ensuring the safety of the movement against 
both existing and incipient problems, the railroad would be allowed to 
move the train for greater distances without an additional train 
braking system test. Additional requirements would apply, as discussed 
below.
    Freight trains would be allowed to operate distances of up to 1,500 
miles between train brake system tests if the operating railroad 
complied with the conditions given in paragraph (b) of this section. An 
important proposed performance requirement to earn the right to operate 
trains 1,500 miles or more between tests is a low power brake system 
defect ratio on trains inspected by FRA immediately after they have 
been declared ready for departure by the railroad. This power brake 
defect ratio will be calculated by FRA on a quarterly basis as defined 
in Sec. 232.5 (e.g., January 1 to March 31; April 1 to June 30; etc.). 
The power brake defect ratio for a particular railroad will be 
calculated by dividing the total number of cars found to have power 
brake defects, as defined in Sec. 232.5, by the total number of cars 
inspected. FRA estimates that it will take no more than 30 days from 
the end of any quarter for FRA to assemble and calculate these defect 
ratios. Consequently, any limitation on a railroad's ability to operate 
trains for extended distances, due to a high defect ratio in a quarter, 
will not begin until 30 days after the completion of any quarter and 
will continue until 30 days after the completion of a quarter in which 
the railroad has a defect ratio below the prescribed limit. FRA intends 
that any restriction on a railroad's ability to operate trains for 
extended distances only continue until that railroad can establish a 
quarterly defect ratio that falls below the prescribed limit. For 
example, the defect ratios for the quarter ending on March 31 will not 
be available until April 30, and thus, any restriction on train 
movement, due to a high defect ratio for that quarter, will begin on 
April 30 and will only apply until July 30 (30 days after the 
completion of the quarter ending June 30), if the railroad improves its 
defect ratio so that it falls below the prescribed limit during the 
quarter ending June 30. FRA recognizes the difficulty of drafting 
enforceable performance-based standards and realizes that there may be 
problems connected with this proposed standard which are not 
immediately discernable. Consequently, FRA requests comments or advice 
from interested parties regarding the implementation or enforcement of 
this proposed requirement. The 1992 power brake defect ratios for five 
major railroads are contained in Graph 1 below.

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P

TP16SE94.000


BILLING CODE 4910-06-C
    Other extremely important proposed conditions are that the Class 1 
brake test must be performed by a qualified mechanical or electronic 
brake system inspector and that a pre-departure freight car safety 
inspection in accordance with Sec. 215.13(b) must be performed by 
inspectors meeting the qualifications contained in Sec. 215.11. As the 
distance a train is allowed to travel increases, the mechanical 
condition of the equipment is a key factor in ensuring the proper and 
safe operation of the train brake system throughout the entire trip. 
FRA would also require that a record of all brake tests performed on 
the train be available to the crew, that frequent spot checks of Class 
1 tests are conducted by a qualified supervisor, and that the railroad 
have a quality single car test program in place. Furthermore, trains 
traveling up to 1,500 miles might add only one block of previously 
tested cars. The purpose of all these requirements is to ensure that 
trains being allowed to operate longer distances are part of proven 
safety-conscious operation and are in the best condition possible, from 
a safety standpoint, prior to departure from their originating 
terminals.
    FRA would offer additional incentive by proposing to allow freight 
trains to travel up to 2,500 miles between brake system tests if all 
the conditions for travelling 1,500 miles between tests are met and the 
configuration of the train remains unchanged except for setting out 
defective cars or changing motive power. As an incentive to encourage 
the continued development of improved train brake system technology, 
FRA proposes to permit trains to travel up to 3,500 miles between train 
brake system tests if those trains meet all the conditions required of 
2,500-mile trains and they are equipped with the type of new technology 
or its equivalent described in paragraph (d) of this section.
    FRA believes these new and inevitably controversial proposals offer 
a significant opportunity for railroads and railroad labor 
organizations to cooperate to improve both the competitiveness and the 
safety of the industry. Railroad employees will benefit from the better 
training and higher quality brake system inspection, testing, and 
maintenance programs they commented were generally lacking in the 
industry. In addition, if railroads use this proposed flexibility to 
become more competitive with other modes of transportation, railroad 
jobs will be preserved. Furthermore, railroads will save costs and 
improve delivery times by the elimination of the 1000-mile inspection 
and the authorization of railroads to operate trains longer distances 
between brake system tests. Other incidental benefits will include 
better quality inspections for Freight Car Safety Standard defects. 
Finally, the public will benefit from better freight service and 
improved safety.
    Section 232.313. This section describes the circumstances that 
would trigger the duty to perform a Class 2 train brake system test. 
Basically, FRA proposes to require the performance of a Class 2 brake 
test whenever a train changes configuration that does not require the 
performance of a Class 1 brake test. This section also proposes to 
require that a Class 2 brake test be performed on freight trains that 
provide repetitive service, such as unit coal trains, after each cycle 
of that repetitive service. For purposes of this section, a cycle will 
be deemed completed when the train returns to the point from which it 
started.
    Section 232.315. This section describes the tasks comprising a 
Class 2 train brake system test. The proposed Class 2 test continues 
the long-established procedure of verifying trainline continuity after 
it has been disturbed by switching moves. Based on the multitude of 
comments attesting to the reliability and accuracy of EOT devices, FRA 
proposes to permit the use of EOT devices to verify trainline 
continuity as an alternative to the rear-car application-and-release 
test.
    Section 232.317. This section proposes the required steps that make 
up a transfer train brake test. The proposed test requirements for 
transfer trains are no different from what is currently required; 
however, new definitions, in Sec. 232.5, would exclude ``yard trains'' 
from the definition of ``transfer trains.'' ``Yard train'' would be 
clearly defined in proposed Sec. 232.5 as a train that only performs 
switching functions within a single yard complex. Movement by ``yard 
trains'' would not require a transfer train air brake test. ``Transfer 
train'' is defined in Sec. 232.5 as a train that travels between a 
point of origin and a point of destination without intermediate 
switching. FRA's determination of whether the movement of cars is a 
``train movement,'' subject to the requirements of this section, or a 
``switching movement'' is and will be based on the voluminous case law 
developed by various courts of the United States.
    FRA's general rule of thumb as to whether a trip constitutes a 
``train movement'' requires five or more cars traveling a distance of 
at least one mile without a stop to set off or pick up a car and not 
moving for the purpose of assembling or disassembling a train. However, 
FRA may consider movements of less than one mile ``train movements'' if 
various circumstances exist. In determining whether a particular 
movement constitutes a ``train movement,'' FRA conducts a multi-factor 
analysis based upon the discussions contained in various court 
decisions on the subject. See e.g., United States v. Seaboard Air Line 
Railroad Co., 361 U.S. 78 (1959); Louisville & Jeffersonville Bridge 
Co. v. United States, 249 U.S. 543 (1919). The following factors are 
taken into consideration by FRA: the purpose of the movement; the 
distance travelled without a stop to set out or pick up cars; the 
number of cars hauled; and the hazards associated with the particular 
route travelled (e.g., the existence of public or private crossings 
with or without crossing protection, the steepness of the grade, the 
existence of curves, any other conditions that minimize the locomotive 
engineer's sight distance, and any other conditions that may create a 
greater need for power brakes during the movement). The existence of 
any of these hazards would tend to weigh towards the finding of a 
``train movement,'' since these are the types of hazards against which 
the power brake provisions of the Safety Appliance Acts were designed 
to give protection.
    Section 232.319. This section involves the performance of running 
tests on trains equipped with dynamic brakes. As discussed earlier, 
although FRA does not feel that dynamic brakes should be required, FRA 
does feel that if the devices are present the engineer should be 
informed of their status. In addition, every commenter stated that in 
order to completely test dynamic brakes the train must be moving. 
Consequently, in order to provide the engineer with as much information 
as possible on the performance of dynamic brakes, FRA proposes to 
require that a running test of the dynamic brake be made when the speed 
of the train permits on those trains equipped with dynamic brakes. FRA 
is aware that train handling considerations may make this difficult or 
even impossible at certain locations and solicits comments on 
fashioning a fully practicable requirement.
    Section 232.321. This section contains the requirements for 
performing the ``freight single car test'' and the ``periodic freight 
brake test'', which cite to the current AAR manual covering single car 
tests on freight cars. The ``periodic freight brake test'' is basically 
what the industry currently refers to as a ``repair track test.'' FRA 
has changed the terminology in order to avoid confusion over where and 
when this type of test is to be performed. See the analysis of subpart 
G for a further discussion of these tests.
    Section 232.323. This section proposes the requirements for 
performing train brake system tests using yard air, which are basically 
unchanged from what is currently required. An important factor for 
maintaining the train brake system in proper condition is the quality 
of the air used in charging the train. Since a large majority of train 
brake systems are charged and tested from yard air plants, FRA feels 
that this air should be as free of contaminants as practical. One way 
to ensure this is the use of air dryers in the yard system. 
Consequently, FRA proposes to require that all equipment used to 
produce yard air after January 1, 1996 be equipped with air dryers. 
Furthermore, in order to ensure proper testing when using yard air, FRA 
intends to require the periodic calibration of all yard test devices 
and gauges.

Subpart E

    This subpart contains the inspection and test standards for 
conventional passenger, commuter, and excursion train brake systems. 
This subpart was developed in order to address the concerns of 
railroads that operate passenger-type trains. These commenters stated 
that the current regulations do not cover many aspects of their 
operations and that many of the currently existing freight standards 
are not applicable to passenger-type equipment. Consequently, many of 
the requirements contained in this proposed subpart mirror the 
requirements applicable to conventional freight trains but are tailored 
toward passenger service operations.
    Section 232.401. The test and inspection standards proposed for 
conventional passenger locomotives are identical to the standards 
proposed for conventional freight locomotives (Sec. 232.303). Thus, 
Sec. 232.401 refers to the standards stated in that section.
    Section 232.403. This section contains general requirements 
regarding the development of written procedures for conventional 
passenger, commuter, and excursion train brake system tests. The 
proposed requirements contained in this section are similar to those 
contained in Sec. 232.305 regarding conventional freight trains. 
Consequently, the discussion contained at Sec. 232.305 is equally 
applicable to this section.
    Section 232.405. This section contains general requirements 
regarding Class 1 brake tests on conventional passenger trains. Since 
these types of trains are responsible for hauling large numbers of 
members of the general public and because the brake systems used in 
these operations tend to be more complex than those used in 
conventional freight trains, FRA proposes to require that all Class 1 
brake tests on conventional passenger trains be conducted by qualified 
brake system inspectors. Consequently, unlike conventional freight 
trains, brake system tests on passenger trains shall not be conducted 
by qualified crew members. FRA intends that a Class 1 brake test be 
conducted on all conventional passenger trains prior to departure from 
an initial terminal point.
    Section 232.407. This section outlines the tasks comprising a Class 
1 train brake test for conventional passenger trains. Many of the tasks 
required in this section are identical to those required for 
conventional freight trains (see Sec. 232.309). However, FRA has 
eliminated the air flow method as an alternative method of qualifying 
brake systems on passenger and commuter trains. Due to the short length 
of passenger and commuter trains, the use of the air flow method would 
allow these trains to operate with excessive brake pipe leakage. 
Furthermore, in order to bring the regulation into line with current 
industry practice, FRA proposes to require that the minimum rear-car 
pressure for passenger trains be increased from 70 psi to 85 psi. In 
addition, FRA will require that a pre-departure mechanical inspection 
equivalent to the freight car inspection required by Sec. 215.13(b) of 
this chapter be performed by qualified inspectors. As trains are 
permitted to travel longer distances between brake system tests, FRA 
believes that the mechanical condition of a train plays a major role in 
ensuring that the brake system on a train remains in safe working 
condition for the entire distance travelled. FRA also believes that 
these mechanical inspections are necessary to ensure that these trains, 
which are responsible for the movement of large numbers of people, are 
in quality condition, from a safety standpoint, prior to departing an 
initial terminal point.
    Sections 232.409, 232.411, and 232.413. These sections contain the 
provisions regarding the distance between required Class 1 brake system 
tests, the general requirements for performing Class 2 brake system 
tests, and the required tasks of Class 2 brake system tests for 
conventional passenger trains. The requirements proposed in these 
sections essentially parallel the requirements stated in Secs. 232.311, 
232.313, and 232.315 regarding conventional freight trains. 
Consequently, the discussions of those sections are applicable to these 
sections.
    Section 232.415. This section proposes the requirements for the 
performance of running tests on conventional passenger trains, which 
are identical to the current requirements. FRA received no comments or 
recommendations for changing the current requirements.
    Section 232.417. This section contains the general requirements 
regarding the performance of single passenger car or single passenger 
train set tests. FRA proposes to eliminate the periodic ``clean, oil, 
test and stencil'' (COT&S) requirement for passenger-type brake 
equipment as was done with freight brakes in 1992. In its stead, FRA 
proposes that a periodic single car test be performed no less 
frequently than every six months. FRA also proposes that a single car 
test be performed when certain wheel or brake equipment is removed, 
repaired, or replaced. The details of these tests will be further 
developed in the discussion of the proposed single car testing 
requirements contained in subpart G. Several passenger and commuter 
railroads requested that FRA do away with the time-based COT&S 
requirement and suggested that in its place a single car test be 
required each time a car is on the repair track or each time a car 
comes in for preventive maintenance, which they stated was about every 
120 days. The proposed single car test requirements are based not only 
on those recommendations, but also upon the belief of the industry and 
FRA that the single car test is a much better and more comprehensive 
method of detecting and eliminating defective brake equipment and 
components than the time-based COT&S requirement. The various 
individual tests that FRA proposes as part of any single passenger car 
test are derived directly from the current AAR manual covering the 
performance of single car tests on passenger cars. FRA expects that 
operators of passenger cars will establish a preventive maintenance 
program for the brake equipment that will coincide with other scheduled 
maintenance.
    Section 232.419. This section contains the requirements for 
performing a conventional passenger train brake system test using yard 
air, which are identical to the requirements contained in Sec. 232.323 
regarding the performance of brake tests with yard air on conventional 
freight trains. Consequently, the discussion related to Sec. 232.323 is 
equally applicable to this section.
    Section 232.421. This section outlines the requirements for 
performing Class 1 brake system tests on repetitive conventional 
passenger and commuter trains. FRA recognizes the unique 
characteristics of some commuter and passenger trains that repeat the 
same trip several times a day without breaking up the consist. Because 
the trains in these types of operations are not broken up and remain 
connected to an air supply continuously, it is highly unlikely that 
their air brake equipment would deteriorate beyond Federal requirements 
in one day if they were in safe and proper working order at the 
beginning of the day. Therefore, FRA proposes to require that 
conventional passenger and commuter trains that repeat the same trip 
more than once a day need only be required to have an initial terminal 
brake test, performed by a qualified individual, prior to the first 
departure of that train each calendar day.
    FRA intends to require that Class 1 brake tests of repetitive 
conventional passenger and commuter trains include requirements for 
inspection of the same components as those imposed on conventional 
passenger trains in Sec. 232.407. FRA agrees with the assertions of 
several commenters that the current power brake regulations do not 
address the inspection of MU equipment. FRA also recognizes that many 
of the trains covered by this section are operated with MU equipment. 
Consequently, in order to provide inspection guidance for this type of 
equipment, FRA proposes specific tasks that must be performed on the 
brake systems of MU equipment as part of the Class 1 brake test.
    Section Sec. 232.423. This section addresses the additional brake 
system tests for repetitive conventional passenger and commuter trains. 
The proposed requirements for the performance of Class 2 brake tests, 
running tests and single car tests are identical to the requirements 
proposed for conventional passenger trains contained at Secs. 232.411 
through 232.417. However, this section does contain requirements 
regarding the performance of Class 2 brake tests on MU equipment. 
Furthermore, this section requires that a Class 2 brake test on 
repetitive trains be performed after the trains complete one cycle or 
reach a turnaround point.
    Section 232.425. This section contains the requirements for 
performing Class 1 train brake system tests on excursion trains. 
Although FRA recognizes the unique operations in which these trains are 
used and the often limited resources of those operations, FRA feels 
that the performance of a Class 1 brake test is necessary for any type 
of train service to ensure the safe operation of trains. Consequently, 
FRA intends to require that Class 1 brake tests on excursion trains 
include the requirements applicable to conventional passenger trains 
contained at Sec. 232.407.
    FRA recognizes that some tourist and excursion train operations do 
not have the resources to obtain personnel with the qualifications of 
those employed by passenger and freight railroads. FRA also 
acknowledges that these trains do not travel at the speeds or the 
distances that are maintained by conventional passenger or commuter 
trains. Thus, FRA does not intend to impose the minimum personnel 
qualification requirements contained at subpart C of these proposed 
regulations on excursion train operations. However, because the 
personnel qualification requirements will not be applicable to these 
trains and due to the age of the equipment generally operated in these 
types of trains, FRA proposes to require that excursion trains not be 
operated in excess of 30 mph and that such trains receive a Class 1 
brake inspection at least every 250 miles. If a tourist, excursion, or 
scenic railroad intends to operate its trains in excess of 30 mph, then 
those trains will be required to follow all the proposed regulations 
applicable to conventional passenger trains.
    Section 232.427. This section contains the requirements for the 
performance of additional brake system tests on excursion trains. FRA 
proposes to require that Class 2 brake tests, running tests, and single 
car tests on excursion trains be conducted in accordance with the 
standards applicable to conventional passenger trains contained in 
Secs. 232.411 through 232.417 respectively.

Subpart F

    This subpart proposes that railroads be given the flexibility to 
develop the inspection and test standards for intermediate speed and 
high speed trains. These could be performance-based standards that 
serve the same purpose and provide equivalent assurance that the brake 
system will function as intended as the conventional train standards. 
These standards must take into account the increased risk of operating 
trains at higher speeds.
    Sections 232.501 through 232.507 contain general requirements for 
the performance of Class 1 and Class 2 brake tests, as well as running 
tests and single car tests. These sections would apply to freight and 
passenger trains that exceed 79 mph. FRA recognizes that at this time 
there are a number of passenger and commuter trains that operate at 
speeds over 79 mph, and up to 125 mph. These types of operations 
currently employ braking equipment that can be sufficiently regulated 
by the proposed standards applicable to conventional passenger trains. 
Furthermore, neither the industry nor FRA foresees a significant change 
in the type of braking technology used by these operations within the 
next few years. Consequently, FRA proposes to require that intermediate 
speed passenger and commuter equipment that entered service prior to 
January 1, 1995 adhere to the brake inspection and test standards 
applicable to conventional passenger contained at Secs. 232.403 through 
232.411.
    FRA also recognizes that presently there are no freight trains 
operating over 79 mph and that there are very few passenger or commuter 
trains currently operating in excess of 125 mph. FRA realizes that the 
braking systems needed for these types of operations will most likely 
require the development of new types of braking systems that are 
currently unknown or are merely in the developmental stages at this 
point. FRA is also aware that advanced braking systems are being 
developed for high speed passenger and commuter trains. Thus, in order 
to allow for the development of this new technology and ensure its safe 
operation, FRA proposes to require that railroads that operate either 
intermediate speed freight trains, intermediate speed passenger or 
commuter trains in service after January 1, 1995, or high speed 
passenger or commuter trains develop train brake system tests and 
inspections tailored to the specific technology employed.

Subpart G

    This subpart contains the provisions covering the requirements for 
the performance of single car tests, periodic freight brake tests, and 
single passenger train set tests. As stated earlier, FRA believes that 
the new repair track test and single car test, which have been used 
industry-wide since January of 1992, are a much better and more 
comprehensive method of detecting and eliminating defective brake 
equipment and components than the old, time-based COT&S requirements. 
FRA believes that performance of these tests will significantly reduce 
the number of defective components currently found and will 
dramatically increase the reliability of brake equipment. Thus, use of 
the repair track and single car tests will greatly improve the safety 
of both railroad employees and the public since brake equipment will be 
in better and safer condition. However, in order to fully benefit from 
the advantages of these tests, cars must receive the tests. Several 
labor commenters admitted that the new tests were very valuable, but 
stated that the tests were being circumvented by the railroads. 
Therefore, in order to ensure that all cars receive the new repair 
track test or single car test, FRA proposes to require the performance 
of the test on any car that receives repairs for various wheel or brake 
equipment problems, but in any event, at set intervals.
    In the near future, specialized passenger train sets that have been 
designed to operate for long periods of time as a single unit are 
likely to come into operation. Examples include the X-2000 and Inter-
City Express train sets. FRA intends to allow railroads operating such 
train sets the flexibility to develop a single passenger-train-set test 
that is equivalent to the single car test, but that allows the train 
set to be tested as a unit rather than as individual cars.
    Section 232.601. This section provides the general requirements 
regarding single car tests, periodic freight brake tests, and single 
passenger-train-set tests. In order to ensure that railroads engage in 
the thought process of developing comprehensive test plans and to 
ensure that employees are provided sufficient guidance for the 
performance of these tests, FRA intends to require that railroads 
develop written, detailed step-by-step procedures for performing these 
tests. FRA believes that these written procedures can be an invaluable 
training tool and can serve as a check list for supervisory personnel 
performing spot checks.
    Section 232.603. This section contains a reference to the tasks 
required in performing these tests. For freight cars, FRA would require 
the ``periodic freight brake test'' on a time-based schedule and for 
deficiencies in certain peripheral brake components. A ``freight single 
car test'' is required for certain wheel defects and when brake control 
valve portions are replaced. The ``periodic freight brake test'' is 
essentially what the industry currently refers to as a ``repair track 
brake test.'' Periodic freight brake tests would be performed in 
accordance with AAR Standard S-486, Section 3.0, contained in AAR's 
``Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices'' as revised in 
November of 1992. Freight single car tests would be performed in 
accordance with AAR Standard S-486, Section 4.0, contained in the same 
manual. For passenger cars, the standard passenger car single car test 
would be performed in accordance with AAR Standard S-044, contained in 
AAR's ``Instruction Pamphlet No. 5039-4, Supp. 3'' as revised in April 
of 1991. FRA will incorporate these AAR rules as revised on the dates 
previously specified into the federal rule.
    Section 232.605. This section provides the instances when 
unscheduled freight or passenger single car tests, periodic freight 
brake tests, or single passenger train set tests would be required. FRA 
proposes to require the performance of an unscheduled single car test 
or periodic freight brake test based upon the type of wheel defect 
involved or the piece of braking equipment that is removed, repaired, 
or replaced. FRA has included certain wheel defects as a basis for 
performing a single car test because FRA feels that these wheel defects 
are indicative of some type of braking equipment problem. FRA's 
rationale for changing the current standard, requiring a single car 
test whenever a car is sent to the ``repair track'' for a brake 
problem, is that many railroads are avoiding single car tests by 
calling repair tracks something other than repair tracks. Consequently, 
FRA is attempting to close this loophole by basing the requirement to 
perform the single car test on the type of defect involved rather than 
where the defect is repaired. FRA feels that these proposed 
requirements will have little or no impact on railroad operations. 
Although these proposed requirements may increase the number of single 
car tests being performed, FRA believes that such an increase will be 
due to the elimination of the loophole used by railroads to avoid the 
performance of single car tests which should be performed even under 
the current requirements.
    Section 232.607. This section contains the requirements for the 
performance of scheduled periodic freight brake tests and single car 
tests. Under the current scheme for doing repair track or single car 
tests on freight cars, an individual car can conceivably go 
indefinitely without receiving either test. In order to increase the 
quality of equipment by ensuring that cars are not used for extended 
periods without receiving the benefits of these tests, FRA proposes to 
require ``periodic freight brake tests'' on a timely basis. For freight 
equipment, this periodic basis will be once every two years for 
conventional equipment and once every year for high utilization 
equipment. The performance of an ``unscheduled single car test'' will 
set the clock back to zero for that piece of equipment. Thus, if a car 
receives a freight single car test due to having part of its brake 
equipment removed, repaired, or replaced, that car will not be due for 
``periodic freight brake test'' for two years from that date. The AAR 
and several of its member railroads estimated that a freight car 
currently receives a repair track air brake test or single car test on 
the average of 1.7 times a year. The proposed change to require 
periodically scheduled freight brake tests will not change this 
average, it will only ensure that some small number of cars do not 
continue in service for extended periods of time without receiving a 
test. Consequently, FRA predicts that the impact on freight railroad 
operation will be minimal.
    FRA also proposes to require a single car test on equipment used in 
conventional passenger and commuter trains at least once every six 
months. The required interval is reduced to once every four months for 
equipment used in intermediate speed trains and to once every three 
months for equipment used in high speed trains. The interval is reduced 
as train speed increases because of the heavier wear and duty cycle 
imposed on the brake system as train speed increases. FRA intends for 
the periodic single car test to replace various COT&S requirements that 
currently exist for passenger and commuter equipment. Several passenger 
and commuter railroads recommended some type of periodic testing in 
lieu of the current periodic COT&S, suggesting, in particular, periodic 
single car tests every 120 days. FRA believes that the proposed 
requirement for frequent, comprehensive single car tests will detect 
and cause to be corrected the same type of brake system problems that 
the current COT&S program is designed to prevent. However, due to the 
very long COT&S cycles, the periodic single car tests should detect the 
problems earlier than the current COT&S program. Replacing COT&S with 
periodic single car tests has the potential of saving passenger and 
commuter railroads a significant amount in operating expenses. 
Furthermore, the proposed required single car test intervals are not 
radically different from what is now the voluntary policy of many 
passenger and commuter railroads.
    Section 232.609. This section outlines the requirements regarding 
the phase-in period for performing ``periodic freight brake tests'' and 
single car tests. FRA intends to allow a phase-in period for the 
requirement to perform periodic repair track air brake tests. The 
proposed phase-in periods are two years for non-high utilization 
freight equipment and one year for high utilization freight and for 
passenger and commuter equipment. The phase-in period should allow 
railroads time to establish an effective and efficient program and to 
conduct the first required test on each piece of equipment in their 
inventory.
    Section 232.611. This section contains the general requirements for 
changing the required intervals for performing periodic freight brake 
tests and single car tests. FRA proposes a statistical process which 
will allow railroads or other interested parties a means to justify a 
change in the period of time between required periodic freight brake 
tests or single car tests. FRA intends to provide an incentive for 
railroads to develop a test, inspection, and maintenance program for 
brake systems that keeps failure rates of the periodic freight brake 
test or single car test below a target value. The incentive provides a 
method for increasing the allowable time between required periodic 
freight brake tests or single car tests based on a statistical analysis 
that shows the measured test failure rate for scheduled tests is below 
the target value. FRA intends for this statistical analysis to be a 
two-way process. This means that if the analysis shows that the target 
failure rate is being exceeded, the railroad will be required to reduce 
the time between periodic freight brake tests or single car tests by 
the increment of change. Railroads may start to use this statistical 
process one year after the phase-in period for required periodic repair 
track air brake test is completed. Railroads may apply this process to 
only their own equipment, or groups of railroads may team and apply the 
methodology to a larger population. Appendix B of this proposed rule 
and the discussion relevant to that appendix provide a more detailed 
analysis of the statistical analysis and provide examples of how the 
method will be applied.
    Section 232.613. This section contains the qualification 
requirements for inspectors performing periodic freight brake tests, 
single car tests, or single passenger train brake tests. The periodic 
freight brake test and single car test will become the main quality 
control tool to indicate whether brake system repairs to a single car 
have been made correctly. In addition, these tests are designed to keep 
the power brake defect ratio of equipment acceptably low. Consequently, 
FRA feels that since these tests are safety-critical they should be 
performed only by qualified train brake system inspectors and should be 
spot checked by qualified train brake system supervisors.
    Section 232.615. This section contains the recordkeeping and 
stencilling requirements related to periodic freight brake tests and 
single car tests. FRA proposes to require that railroads keep minimum 
records to document that their periodic freight brake and single car 
test programs meet the requirements stated in this subpart. FRA 
believes that this documentation should include (i) a certification 
that the periodic freight brake and single car tests were done by a 
qualified inspector, (ii) a certified description of the repairs made 
to get the car to pass the test, and (iii) a certification that all the 
required steps of the appropriate test were completed and that the 
equipment performed correctly during each step of the test. Railroads 
opting to use the statistical process described in Sec. 232.611 will 
need to keep adequate records of their testing programs in order to 
obtain the information necessary for completion of the statistical 
analysis of the failure rates.
    FRA also plans to require railroads to stencil the location where 
the most recent periodic freight brake test or single car test was 
performed and the date the next test is due on each car. The due date 
will tell both railroad and FRA personnel whether or not the car is in 
compliance with the regulation's time limits on the interval between 
periodic freight brake or single car tests. The location where the last 
test was performed will also be a valuable piece of information in 
tracking down recurring problems or in detecting patterns in brake 
system problems.
    Section 232.617. This section provides the requirements for 
maintaining the equipment and devices used in performing periodic 
freight brakes, single car, or single passenger train set tests. The 
devices and equipment used to perform these tests are safety-critical 
items. FRA feels strongly they must be kept accurate and functioning 
properly. The calibration and test requirements proposed in this 
section are based on past experience with test equipment used in the 
railroad operating environment. FRA believes that the requirements 
contained in this section are the minimum necessary to keep the 
equipment in good working order.

Subpart H

    This proposed subpart contains general requirements regarding the 
development of train brake system maintenance standards. In 
Sec. 232.701, FRA proposes to require railroads to develop written 
maintenance procedures for each of the types of train brake systems 
operated by that railroad. The purpose of requiring these written 
procedures is to force railroads to carefully think through the 
maintenance process, with an emphasis on those steps that are safety-
critical. FRA feels that these written procedures should be very 
valuable, both as a training tool to qualify new train brake system 
inspectors and as a check list for supervisors performing spot checks 
of train brake system maintenance work.
    FRA intends for the written procedures to become the railroad's 
policy for good train brake system maintenance practice. FRA expects 
the railroads to follow their written procedures, but FRA will actively 
enforce only those procedures identified by the railroad as safety-
critical. FRA believes that proper train brake system maintenance is 
crucial to overall railroad operating safety. FRA contends that the 
single most important factor in achieving a quality brake system 
maintenance program is the knowledge and skills of the people 
performing the maintenance. For this reason, FRA intends to require 
that all train brake system maintenance work be performed by qualified 
train brake system inspectors.
    FRA also proposes to require that railroads wishing to use new 
train brake system technology develop a maintenance plan that describes 
how the new system will be inspected, tested, and maintained. 
Similarly, the purpose of this proposal is to require a railroad to 
carefully think through the safety ramifications that the introduction 
of the new technology will cause.
    FRA further proposes that these written maintenance procedures be 
enforced for brake system test, inspection, and maintenance work 
performed by contract employees not employed by railroads. FRA will 
consider the railroad that contracts out brake system work to be 
responsible for ensuring that the contractor performs the work in 
accordance with the procedures developed by the railroad. FRA 
recommends that a railroad include their maintenance procedures in the 
statement of work for the contractor and closely monitor the 
performance of the contractor to be sure that the procedures are 
followed by the contractor.

Subpart I

    This proposed subpart contains operating requirements for train 
brake systems. Unless otherwise noted, this subpart is applicable to 
all trains. Section 232.801 provides a general requirement that 
railroads develop written, detailed operating requirements governing 
the safe operation of train brake systems over their rail lines under 
all operating conditions. FRA believes that the development of written 
standard operating requirements forces a railroad to analyze the safety 
impacts of the various ways to handle potentially dangerous situations. 
For the most part, these operating requirements formalize what is 
already being practiced by most railroads. FRA believes that the 
forethought required to develop these procedures will preempt many 
mistakes that cause dangerous situations to occur.
    Section 232.803. This section contains the operating requirements 
for the handling of train information. The purpose of these train-
information handling requirements is to ensure that train crews are 
given accurate information on the condition of the train brake system 
and other factors that affect the performance of the train brake system 
when they assume responsibility for the train. This section contains a 
list of the specific information FRA proposes to require railroads to 
furnish train crew members about the train's brake system as they take 
over the train. FRA believes that train crews need this information in 
order to avoid potentially dangerous train handling situations and to 
be able to comply with various Federal safety standards. Some of these 
proposed requirements require railroads to inform the train crew of the 
operational status of all dynamic brakes. Although FRA will not require 
dynamic brakes to be functional on a conventional train equipped with 
them, FRA does intend that the train crew be informed at the time they 
take over the train as to the amount of operational dynamic brakes they 
have at that point. Railroads will also be required to provide an 
estimate of the total retarding force available from dynamic brakes in 
five-mph increments for the speed range of the train. Consequently, if 
only fifty percent of the dynamic brakes are operational on a train at 
the time a crew takes over the train, then the train crew should be 
given a close estimate of the retarding force available from those 
fifty percent operational dynamic brakes in five-mph increments. FRA 
recognizes that railroads will need some time to develop a system for 
calculating this information, and, thus, FRA proposes not to require 
the conveyance of this information until January 1, 1995. As with all 
the requirements in this section, FRA has left the method in which 
railroads will convey the required information to the train crews since 
FRA feels that each individual railroad is in the best position to 
determine the method in which to dispense the required information 
based on the individual characteristics of its operations. However, the 
means for conveying the required information will be part of the 
written operating requirements, and railroads will be require to follow 
their own requirements.
    Section 232.805. This section contains the operating requirements 
for monitoring train brake systems. FRA proposes to require that 
railroads develop written operating requirements for monitoring the 
performance of the train brake system while the train is en route. This 
section lists several specific monitoring activities that should be 
included in these procedures. As brake system sensor technology 
continues to improve, many more en route monitoring capabilities will 
become available to railroads. Procedures need to be developed to take 
maximum advantage of the ability of this technology to improve train 
safety. Close attention to the en route condition of the train brake 
will allow the train crew to take action to mitigate the effects of 
train brake system failures.
    Paragraph (a)(1) of this section requires an engineer to monitor 
the air flow rate on locomotives equipped with air flow indicators. As 
stated earlier, FRA encourages the use of air flow indicators on all 
locomotives as a means of providing additional information regarding 
the brake system to the train crews. Although FRA is not mandating the 
use of air flow indicators in this proposed rule, FRA reserves the 
right to reconsider the issue when drafting the final rule. 
Consequently, FRA requests comments on the costs and benefits of 
requiring air flow indicators on all locomotives, especially new or 
rebuilt locomotives.
    Section 232.807. This section outlines the operating requirements 
for air brakes. This section contains general requirements regarding 
the setting and releasing of handbrakes prior to releasing the air 
brake and after the air brake is charged. This section also imposes on 
railroads the responsibility for determining maximum air brake system 
working pressure and maximum brake pipe pressure. FRA plans to continue 
to allow individual railroads the wide latitude currently permitted in 
determining these pressures.
    Section 232.809. This section details the operating requirements 
for trains equipped with tread brakes. The intent of these operating 
requirements is to minimize the potential for thermal damage to wheels 
due to continuous or drag braking to counter the acceleration due to 
gravity when a train descends a grade. A second set of operating 
requirements for tread brakes is given for non-emergency stop braking. 
These requirements should keep the thermal stresses in wheels caused by 
frequent stop-and-start cycles typical of commuter operations below the 
threshold for the development of thermal cracks that lead to wheel 
failure. The maximum average brake horsepower limits were determined by 
research done at the Transportation System Center and are in general 
agreement with the guidelines provided by the AAR to its member 
railroads.
    Section 232.811. This section contains the operating requirements 
for trains equipped with dynamic brakes. The operating requirements 
contained in this section attempt to address the controversy over the 
role of dynamic brakes in overall train safety. Most railroads 
commented that dynamic brakes are a secondary system that plays no role 
in train safety. However, most railroads admitted that dynamic brakes 
are an integral part of their safe train handling procedures. For the 
reasons presented previously in the discussions of Secs. 232.111 and 
232.803, FRA does not plan to require dynamic brakes on conventional 
trains, nor does FRA plan to require that the dynamic brakes be 
functional if a conventional train is equipped with them. However, 
since railroads have become somewhat dependent on dynamic brakes for 
normal train handling procedures, and this dependency gives rise to the 
likelihood of overreliance, FRA proposes to require that railroads 
using dynamic brakes have written operating requirements governing how 
dynamic brakes are to be used to safely handle trains under the 
operating conditions and over the territory covered by that railroad. 
These operating requirements must sufficiently cover the loss of 
dynamic brakes or other non-friction brakes and must be fundamentally 
based on the use of friction brakes to safely stop a train under all 
operating conditions. Consequently, the railroad, in its operating 
requirements, can provide for the continuation of such trains to the 
next point where a Class 1 brake is required after an en route failure 
of the dynamic brake or other non-friction brake component. 
Furthermore, as explained earlier in the discussion of Sec. 232.113, 
FRA proposes to require dynamic brakes on intermediate speed and high 
speed trains due to the need for increased brake system retarding force 
as train speed increases.
    Section 232.813. This section specifies which conventional freight 
trains are required to be operated with two-way EOT devices. Based on 
Section 7 of the RSERA and after review of the comments received and 
the accidents relied on for support of the use of two-way EOT devices, 
FRA proposes that the devices be required on trains that operate at 
speeds in excess of 30 mph and on trains that operate in mountain grade 
territories. (A detailed discussion of mountain grade territory is 
contained in the discussion of appendix C.)
    FRA proposes to except several types of trains from the 
requirements regarding the use of two-way EOT devices. In addition to 
those trains specifically excluded in the statute, FRA believes that 
there are other operations that should also be excepted. FRA recognizes 
that the safety reasons for requiring two-way EOT devices are less 
compelling in two types of operations (i) freight trains having the 
ability to initiate a brake application from other than the front end 
and (ii) trains equipped with fully independent secondary braking 
systems. In order to provide the industry with time to acquire a 
sufficient number of two-way EOT devices and to ease the economic 
impact of acquiring the devices, FRA proposes not to mandate compliance 
with any regulation requiring the use of two-way EOT devices until 
January 1, 1997. This section also establishes the calibration and 
stenciling requirements for two-way EOT devices. FRA agrees with 
several of the commenters that the 92-day calibration period currently 
required for one-way devices is outdated and was established at a time 
when there was little experience with these types of devices. Since 
that time, FRA has received no evidence indicating that the calibration 
of the devices is difficult to maintain. Furthermore, several railroads 
attested to the reliability of the one-way and two-way devices, 
contending that the failure rates of the devices are extremely low. 
Consequently, FRA proposes that two-way EOT devices be calibrated at 
least once a year. In order to ensure timely calibration of these 
devices, the date the next calibration is due shall be marked on both 
the front and rear units.
    Based on the statutory mandate contained in Sec. 7 of the RSERA, 
recodified at 49 U.S.C. 20141, and after consideration of Congress' 
purpose in enacting the provisions contained in that section, FRA finds 
no safety or public interest justification at this time to exclude any 
categories of trains or rail operations, other than those specifically 
enumerated in this section, from the requirements regarding two-way EOT 
devices. Due to the clear statutory mandate and because there is little 
data currently available regarding the operational and safety benefits 
specifically attributable to two-way EOT devices, FRA has not provided 
any benefits to offset the cost of this provision in our cost/benefit 
analysis. However, FRA is aware of several recent incidents that might 
have been avoided had the involved trains been equipped with two-way 
EOT devices. Among these incidents are the following:
     On May 17, 1990, near Nampa, Idaho, a Union Pacific train 
was involved in a side collision, probably due to a crimped train line 
hose, resulting in the retardation of the brake pipe pressure reduction 
and preventing an emergency brake application throughout the train. The 
estimated damage of this incident was in excess of $130,000.
     On September 18, 1991, near Spague, Washington, a 
Burlington Northern train derailed, probably because a trespasser 
closed an angle cock, causing interference with the air brake system. 
The derailment resulted in the release of hazardous materials and the 
evacuation of four people from the area. Damages to railroad property 
were estimated at over $3.8 million.
     On March 7, 1992, near Kansas City, Missouri, a Kansas 
City Southern train was involved in a railroad at grade crossing 
accident, probably due to a closed angle cock on the trailing end of 
the first car in the train resulting in inadequate braking ability. The 
incident resulted in the derailment of several locomotives and freight 
cars, and damage was estimated at over $930,000.
     On October 1, 1993, near Keystone, Nebraska, a loaded 
Union Pacific coal train collided head on with an empty Union Pacific 
coal train. The suspected cause of the incident was a closed angle cock 
at about the 15th car, which prevented application of the brakes beyond 
that point. Property damage was estimated at over $2 million, and some 
members of the crew sustained serious personal injuries.
     On December 25, 1993, near Seward, Nebraska, a Burlington 
Northern train was involved in a rear-end collision and the train's 
crewmen were forced to jump from the moving train. Subsequent 
investigation of the incident revealed that the sixth car in the train 
had a kinked air hose and ice in the hose couplings. Property damage 
was estimated at over $1.2 million.
    The two most recent incidents cited above involved unit coal trains 
that encountered blockages in the brake pipe near the front cars in the 
trains, resulting in an inability of the brakes to set from those cars 
to the rear of the train. Due to these incidents both of the involved 
carriers are in the process of equipping their unit coal trains with 
two-way EOT devices. In the incidents cited above, it appears that the 
actual damage incurred and the potential damage to life and property 
might have been avoided had the trains involved been equipped with two-
way EOT devices. Thus, FRA believes some safety benefits may be 
achieved by mandating the use of these devices; however, FRA is not 
able to provide quantifiable data regarding the safety benefits of the 
devices. Consequently, FRA requests comments and information from 
interested parties regarding other recent incidents that might have 
been avoided if trains covered by this proposal were equipped with two-
way EOT devices. FRA also requests comments from interested parties 
detailing the quantitative and qualitative safety and operational 
benefits derived from the use of two-way EOT devices.
    Section 232.815. This section provides the operating requirements 
for dealing with en route failures of various train brake system 
components. (It should be noted that in order to avoid civil penalty 
liability, a railroad must also comply with the limitations stated in 
Sec. 232.17.) The proposed general guiding principles for handling en 
route failures of train brake system components are: (i) the railroad 
shall reduce the maximum operating speed of the train to the extent 
necessary to safely compensate for the loss in available retarding 
force due to the en route failure and (ii) a train shall not proceed 
beyond the next point where brake system repairs can be made to restore 
the full available brake system retarding force if a train experiences 
an en route brake system failure that reduces the total available 
retarding force. FRA feels adherence to these two general guiding 
principles will allow railroads to continue to move freight and 
passengers safely when brake system failures occur.
    FRA also proposes to require that railroads limit the speed of 
trains to 30 mph when an en route failure occurs to a two-way EOT, or 
equivalent device, that would prevent that device from initiating a 
brake application from the rear of the train. FRA's rationale for this 
limitation is that two-way EOT devices are not required on trains that 
travel less than 30 mph. Thus, operating with a non-functional two-way 
EOT device is the same as not having a device; consequently, trains 
operating with failed two-way EOT devices should be subjected to this 
same limitation. Furthermore, FRA feels that the concerns raised by 
several railroads regarding train delays, missed deliveries, and safety 
are not justified. The AAR as well as several railroads commented that 
these devices are very reliable and have an extremely low failure rate. 
In addition, Canada currently requires a 30-mph speed limit for an en 
route failure of these devices, and no one commented that this 
requirement has produced the problems raised by the railroads. 
Consequently, FRA believes that the concerns of the railroads are 
outweighed by the potential harm to both the public and railroad 
employees caused by trains being allowed to operate without the devices 
at speeds which Congress and FRA feel require the added safety benefits 
provided by these devices.
    Section 232.817. This section contains the requirements for 
operating in the event of an undesired emergency brake application. FRA 
believes that undesired emergency brake applications pose a safety 
hazard to both the public and railroad employees that needs to be 
addressed. Therefore, FRA proposes to require that a train crew attempt 
to pinpoint the car causing the undesired application and drop that car 
off at the next point where repairs can be made to that car's brake 
system. FRA recognizes that identifying a car as source of an undesired 
emergency brake application is not always possible.
    Section 232.819. This section contains the requirements for 
developing operating requirements for extreme meteorologic, 
topographic, or other conditions. FRA recognizes that neither railroad 
or labor representatives supported the mandating of additional testing 
in cold weather or in mountain grade territory. FRA agrees that the 
development and use of welded pipe fittings, wide-lip hose couplings, 
and ferrule clamps have greatly reduced the effects of cold weather on 
the air brake system. However, FRA believes that there are several 
extreme operating conditions that involve added safety risks and that 
need to be further addressed by the railroads. These include cold 
weather and mountain territory operations as well as the operation of 
long and heavy trains. Although FRA does not intend to mandate 
additional tests or procedures to cover these extreme operating 
conditions, FRA does expect each railroad to develop detailed operating 
procedures for these types of operations, tailored to the equipment and 
territory of that railroad. FRA believes that requiring the development 
of written operating procedures will require railroads to go through 
the thought process necessary to analyze their operations under these 
extreme conditions in order to determine the inherent safety hazards 
involved and develop procedures to minimize these hazards.
    Section 232.821. This section contains operating requirements 
specific to conventional freight trains. FRA proposes to prohibit the 
use of ``feed valve braking,'' in which reductions and increases in the 
brake pipe pressure are affected by manually adjusting the feed valve. 
``Feed valve braking'' has been recognized by both the railroad 
industry and FRA as an unsafe practice. Most railroads already have 
some type of operating rule prohibiting this type of braking. In 
addition, FRA proposes to prohibit the use of the ``passenger'' 
position on the locomotive brake control stand on conventional freight 
trains when the trailing equipment is not designed for graduated brake 
release. The ``passenger'' position was intended only for use with 
equipment designed for graduated brake release. Consequently, use of 
the ``passenger'' position with other equipment can lead to potentially 
dangerous situations.
    FRA also proposes to prohibit ``bottling the air'' when detaching a 
locomotive from a train. This procedure involves closing the angle cock 
on the standing cars after making a brake application. The purpose in 
doing so is to save air in the brake pipe but can lead to an 
unintentional release of the brakes and a runaway. FRA will require 
that the brake pipe be left open on standing cars.
    Section 232.823. This section contains operating requirements 
specific to intermediate speed freight trains. FRA believes that the 
operation of freight trains at speeds in excess of 79 mph will occur in 
the near future. Although these types of operations do not yet exist, 
FRA feels that these proposed regulations are an appropriate context 
for FRA to establish some general operating limitations for such 
operations. FRA proposes to require that an intermediate speed freight 
train be limited to a maximum weight of 8,000 tons and a maximum length 
of 5,000 feet and be made up of zero-slack or limited-slack equipment. 
FRA is proposing these limitations in order to counteract the increased 
safety risk assumed as the speed of a freight train is increased. FRA 
would also like to implement specific train make-up requirements for 
intermediate speed freight trains that minimize the potential for 
dangerous train handling situations created by the manner in which the 
weight of the train is distributed along the length of the train. As 
there are no intermediate speed freight trains currently in operation, 
FRA requests comments and suggestions from the industry regarding these 
proposed limitations and any additional limitations or requirements 
that may be applicable to these types of trains.

Subpart J

    This proposed subpart contains the tests and procedures required to 
introduce new train brake system technology into revenue service. 
Several parties commented that the technology necessary for the 
introduction of advanced braking systems is quickly developing. These 
new technologies include various forms of electronic braking systems, a 
variety of braking sensors, and computer-controlled braking systems. In 
order to allow for and encourage the development of new technology, FRA 
proposes guidelines regarding the tests and procedures required for 
introducing new brake system technology. These proposed guidelines 
require the submission of design and test plans as well as subsequent 
operational plans for the introduction of new technology. Parties will 
also be allowed to petition FRA to convert some of the brake system 
design and maintenance requirements into performance-based standards to 
accommodate the use of electronic braking systems. Comment is urgently 
sought as to means by which new technology may be qualified and 
regulated without the delay normally associated with rulemaking.
    Section 232.901. This section contains the general parameters as to 
what type of new train brake equipment and technology may be introduced 
pursuant to the tests and procedures contained in this section. This 
section is only applicable to new train brake system technology that 
comply with the statutory mandates contained in 49 U.S.C. Secs. 20102, 
20301-20304, 20701-20703, 21302, and 21304, formerly codified in the 
Locomotive Inspection Act at 45 U.S.C. 22-34 and the Safety Appliance 
Acts at 45 U.S.C. 1-14, 16, but which are not specifically covered by 
these proposed regulations. Any type of new equipment which requires an 
exemption from the requirements of the Locomotive Inspection Act or the 
Safety Appliance Acts in order to be operated in revenue service cannot 
be introduced into service pursuant to this section. In order to grant 
a waiver of the Safety Appliance Acts, FRA is required to follow the 
procedures contained in 45 U.S.C. Sec. 1013 as well as any FRA 
procedural requirements contained in this chapter.
    Section 232.903. This section details the requirements for pre-
revenue service tests of new brake system technology. The purpose of 
requiring pre-revenue service tests is to thoroughly demonstrate in a 
controlled fashion that new train brake system technology is capable of 
operating safely in the railroad environment. FRA proposes to require 
an extensive information-exchange and planning period to prepare for 
pre-revenue service tests of new train brake system technology. FRA 
must have adequate information and lead time to determine that the 
proper safeguards are being taken to conduct the tests safely. FRA must 
be assured the tests are designed to adequately and clearly demonstrate 
the technology is capable of safe operation in the railroad 
environment. FRA intends to create a thorough and well documented 
planning process that produces not only a plan for pre-revenue service 
tests, but also an inspection, test, and maintenance program as well as 
training and qualification requirements for the new technology.
    Section 232.905. This section contains the requirements for 
introducing new brake system technology into revenue service. Prior to 
introducing new train brake system technology to revenue service, FRA 
proposes to require a thorough analysis of the pre-revenue service test 
results. FRA also intends to require that railroads submit proposed 
performance standards to serve as the basis of safety regulations for 
the new technology. FRA views this as a potentially effective means to 
move toward the performance-based safety regulations that the industry 
desires but has been unable to achieve. In addition, FRA proposes to 
require the development of detailed and well thought-out operating 
plans, training and qualification programs, and inspection, test, and 
maintenance programs based on the lessons learned during the pre-
revenue service tests. FRA feels this formal process for the 
introduction of new train brake system technology will help ensure any 
safety problems caused by the introduction of the new equipment are not 
serious.
    Section 232.907. This section provides the requirements for 
following up on new brake system technology introduced into revenue 
service. FRA believes that railroads should be required to carefully 
monitor the performance of new train brake system technology for the 
first two years after its introduction to revenue service. The careful 
planning and caution required by the process of testing prior to 
revenue service test and of later introducing the technology to revenue 
service may not catch all the safety-related problems with new systems 
and equipment. Vigilance is required until adequate operating 
experience is obtained.

Appendix A

    This Appendix is being reserved until the final rule. At that time 
it will contain a penalty schedule similar to those issued by FRA for 
all of its existing rules. Because such penalty schedules are 
statements of policy, notice and comment are not required prior to 
issuance. (See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A)). Nevertheless, interested parties 
are welcome to submit their views on what penalties may be appropriate.

Appendix B

    This Appendix contains the proposed procedures for requesting a 
change in the required time interval for periodic brake tests. As 
stated in the discussion of Sec. 232.611, FRA proposes to provide an 
incentive for railroads to develop quality programs for the test, 
inspection, and maintenance of brake systems that will keep the failure 
rate of periodic freight brake tests and single car tests below a 
certain target value. The method for increasing the time between the 
required tests will be based on a statistical analysis that establishes 
that the failure rate for these scheduled tests is below a target 
value. The target average failure rates, the required confidence bands 
around these target value rates, and the increment of change per 
statistical analysis period are contained in Table 1 below.

               Table 1.--Statistical Analysis Information               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Target                            
                        Initial      average    Statistical    Allowed  
    Type service        interval     failure     confidence   increment 
                       (months)        rate       desired     of change 
                                    (percent)    (percent)    (months)  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Freight           24            5           95            3
High Utilization                                                        
 Conventional                                                           
 Freight............           12            5           95            2
High Speed Freight..            6            3           95            1
Conventional                                                            
 Passenger/Commuter.            6            3           95            1
High Speed Passenger/                                                   
 Commuter...........            4            2           95            1
Very High Speed                                                         
 Passenger..........            3            1           95            1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA has attempted to develop a valid statistical process that is 
simple and easy for railroads or other organizations to use to justify 
a change in the time interval between required periodic freight brake 
tests for freight equipment or between required single car tests for 
passenger or commuter equipment. To keep the process simple, an 
understanding of the complex, rigorous statistics that were used to 
develop the periodic freight brake test or single car test versus 
sample size charts given in Appendix B of the rule text is not 
necessary to use the charts. The rigorous statistical treatment behind 
the development of these charts is given in a paper titled 
``Statistical Analyses of Inspection Interval and Quality Control 
Strategy'' published by the John A. Volpe National Transportation 
Systems Center.
    The methodology is designed to ensure that over time the measured 
periodic freight brake or single car test failure rate approaches the 
target acceptable failure rate tied to the type of service being 
provided by the equipment with a 95 percent degree of confidence. In 
theory, the better the brake test, inspection, and maintenance program, 
the longer the time between required periodic brake tests can be 
extended. Three examples of how to apply this statistical analysis 
follow.

Example 1

    A private car owner operates a fleet of 2,400 double stack cars. 
Due to the high mileage these cars accumulate each year, they meet the 
definition of ``high utilization equipment.'' The private car owner has 
completed the phase-in period for his fleet required by Sec. 232.609. 
For a one-year period the private car owner keeps the records of his 
periodic freight brake test program required by Sec. 232.615 to use the 
statistical process to justify a change. During this one-year period a 
total of 2,400 periodic freight brake tests are conducted, and a total 
of 133 failures of the freight control valve to pass the periodic 
freight brake test are recorded.
    The failure rate is calculated as 133/2,400=.055. The failure rate 
of .055 versus the sample size of 2,400 is plotted on Table B-2 from 
Appendix B to Part 232. This table and the plotted data are given in 
Table 2.

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P

TP16SE94.001


BILLING CODE 4910-06-C

    For this example, since the plotted failure rate versus sample size 
falls below the band of no change, the private car owner would be 
allowed to increase the time between required periodic freight brake 
tests by two months, a change from one year to fourteen months. This is 
approximately a 17% increase in the time between required tests.

Example 2

    A commuter railroad operates a fleet of 600 passenger cars in 
conventional service. This fleet of cars has completed the phase-in 
period required by Sec. 232.609. The commuter railroad keeps the single 
car test records required by Sec. 232.615 for a period of one year. 
Since initially conventional passenger equipment is required to receive 
a single car test once every six months, the commuter railroad conducts 
a total of 1,200 scheduled, single car tests during this period. During 
this period, the commuter railroad records a total of 48 failures of 
the brake control valve or the relay valve to pass the passenger single 
car test. The test failure rate is calculated as 48/1,200=.040. The 
failure rate versus sample size is plotted on Table B-3 of Appendix B 
to Part 232. This data is shown in Table 3.

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P

TP16SE94.002


BILLING CODE 4910-06-C

    Since, for this example, the plotted results of the single car test 
program fall within the ``no change'' band, no change in the time 
between required single tests would be allowed or required.

Example 3

    A passenger railroad operates a fleet of 600 cars that are used in 
intermediate speed service. The phase-in period required by 
Sec. 232.609 has been completed for this fleet of cars. FRA becomes 
concerned over the quality of the brake inspection, test, and 
maintenance program used by this railroad. As a result, FRA requires 
the railroad to keep the records described in Sec. 232.615 that are 
normally optional. FRA monitors the scheduled single car test program 
for a period of one year. Since a single car test is required once 
every four months for cars used in intermediate speed passenger 
service, 1,800 scheduled single car tests are conducted by the railroad 
resulting in 126 failures of the brake control valve or the relay valve 
to pass the passenger car single car test. The test failure rate is 
calculated as 126/1,800=.07. The failure rate of .07 versus the sample 
size of 1,800 is plotted on Table B-5 from Appendix B to Part 232. This 
table with plotted results is given as Table 4.

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P

TP16SE94.003


BILLING CODE 4910-06-C

    Since, for this example, the plotted results of the single car test 
fall in the region requiring a decrease in the time interval between 
required tests, the FRA would require the passenger railroad to 
decrease the time between required single car tests by one month, from 
four months to three months.

Appendix C

    This Appendix contains the proposed definition of ``mountain grade 
territory'':

(30/V)2G2D12

G=average grade x 100
D=distance in miles over which average grade is taken
V=speed of train

Also included is a graph illustrating application of the definition. 
Several commenters provided various opinions on how ``mountain grade 
territory'' should be defined. Most of these commenters suggested some 
type of formula based on a variety of factors including train tonnage, 
speed, length of grade, percent of grade, and distance of grade. FRA 
has developed an empirical relationship to define ``mountain grade 
territory'' based on train speed, percentage of grade, and distance of 
grade. ``Mountain grade territory'' was selected to be an algebraic 
function of the square of the grade because grade was determined to be 
a more important perameter than the distance over which the grade 
occurs. The ratio of 30 mph divided by the actual velocity of the train 
was selected because 30 mph is the threshold speed for requiring two-
way EOT devices and this ratio makes the definition more stringent as 
the velocity of the train increases. This relationship is squared 
because the kinetic energy of the train varies as the square of the 
velocities increases. Thus, in actuality the relationship is really a 
ratio of kinetic energies as opposed to a ratio of velocities. The 
number 12 was selected because it yields a range of reasonable results 
for the definition.

Regulatory Impact

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This proposed rulemaking has been evaluated in accordance with 
existing regulatory policies and procedures and is considered to be 
significant under DOT policies and procedures (44 FR 11304) because of 
Congressional and public interest in promoting rail safety. 
Consequently, FRA has prepared a regulatory evaluation addressing the 
economic impact of the proposed rule. The regulatory evaluation 
estimates the economic costs and consequences of this proposed rule as 
well as its anticipated benefits and impacts. This regulatory 
evaluation has been placed in the docket and is available for public 
inspection and copying during normal business hours in Room 8201, 
Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20590. Copies may also be obtained by submitting a written request 
to the FRA Docket Clerk at the above address.
    The proposed rule passes the benefit-to-cost test on the basis of 
industry cost savings alone. In terms of total costs and benefits over 
twenty years (at a 7 percent discount rate for both), FRA estimates 
that the proposed rule will cost approximately $1.13 billion while 
returning benefits of approximately $1.61 billion. Resulting in a 
benefit-to-cost ratio to the industry of 1.42 to 1.
    For freight railroads and Amtrak, the benefits of the proposed rule 
significantly outweigh its estimated costs. Shortline, commuter, and 
excursion railroads will see slightly higher net costs. However, the 
actual net costs to many of these operations could be substantially 
less than that currently calculated by FRA since FRA did not fully 
quantify the safety benefits obtained by this proposal, and because the 
figures used by FRA to calculate the costs of the proposed single car 
testing requirements are very conservative. Furthermore, although the 
net costs to many shortline operations may increase somewhat due to the 
fact that most of these types of operations are not able to take 
advantage of the operational benefits created by this proposal, FRA 
feels that the integrated nature of the freight industry requires that 
universally consistent requirements be imposed on shortline and Class I 
railroads as a group. In some areas of the proposed rule, individual 
railroads are offered a choice between meeting higher standards and 
thereby being allowed to reap major cost savings, or continuing current 
practices at current costs. The benefit-to-cost numbers reflect an 
assumption that railroads, being economically rational, will choose the 
higher standards/lower costs option.
    Because this proposed rule passes the benefit-to-cost test on 
operational savings alone, FRA did not fully quantify the savings that 
will accrue to the industry due to accidents/incidents that are 
prevented by the proposed rule. Although FRA believes that the proposed 
rule will significantly enhance safety, it is very difficult to 
quantify that improvement. However, FRA did develop a method by which 
such savings could be quantified. The method has been described in the 
Appendix to the Regulatory Analysis, and FRA solicits comments and 
information from the industry on how to improve the method.
    FRA searched the railroad accident/incident data base for the most 
recent five-year period. The search consisted of sorting the data base 
by cause code using a set of causes judged to have high potential for 
at least some reduction due to the provisions of the proposed rule. See 
FRA Guide to Preparing Accident/Incident Reports. The set of cause 
codes selected included:
    (a) Air hose burst/disconnected;
    (b) Obstructed brake pipe;
    (c) Handbrake broken/defective/not set;
    (d) Brake rigging down/dragging;
    (e) Brake valve malfunction;
    (f) Other brake wear/damage;
    (g) Other brake defects;
    (h) Over heated roller bearing;
    (i) Broken wheel flange;
    (j) Broken wheel plate;
    (k) Broken wheel hub;
    (l) Worn wheel flange;
    (m) Worn wheel tread;
    (n) Wheel tread flat;
    (o) Built-up wheel tread; and
    (p) Loose wheel.

Although some of the causes are not directly related to the brake 
system. These causes were selected because they are either an 
indication of a possible brake system problem or because a better 
trained brake system inspector (as required by the proposed rule) 
conducting a more thorough mechanical and brake inspection (as required 
by the proposed rule) should detect more problems with car components 
that are highly visible during brake system inspections (wheels and 
bearings).
    For each of these accident/incident causes, FRA used the collective 
judgment of experienced individuals to estimate the fraction that would 
be prevented by the proposed rule. For example, requiring air dryers 
will reduce the incident of brake pipe blockage due to ice. Thus, some 
percentage of the obstructed brake pipe incidents will be prevented. 
The percentage estimates ranged from 10 percent to 50 percent, with an 
average of about 20 percent. A detailed discussion of this method and 
its application has been included in the Appendix to the Regulatory 
Analysis.
    In its effort to estimate the cost savings that would be produced 
by an avoidance of a percentage of these accidents/incidents, FRA's 
analysis of the accident/incident costs has been limited to data 
supplied by the industry. The accident/incident information supplied by 
the industry under the heading, ``railroad property damage,'' does not 
include costs such as wreck clearance, damage to lading, train delay, 
emergency response, environmental clean-up, or other associated costs 
which may be very substantial in some accidents. To the extent that 
these additional costs are relevant, the benefits of this proposed rule 
may be underestimated. Consequently, FRA encourages commenters to 
provide any information that they have as to the extent of FRA's 
underestimation in this analysis, and any suggestions they may have for 
capturing, or estimating, the full costs of these accidents/incidents.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. Sec. 601 et seq.) 
requires a review of proposed rules to assess their impact on small 
entities. In reviewing the economic impact of the rule, FRA concluded 
that it will have a minimal economic impact on small entities. There 
are no direct or indirect economic impacts for small units of 
government, businesses, or other organizations; therefore, it is 
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities under the provisions of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains proposed information collection 
requirements. Because the policy of the Federal Government is to 
minimize the regulatory record keeping burden placed on private 
industry, a separate analysis of the record keeping burden resulting 
from the proposed regulations was performed. The new rules were 
designed to require only records that are good business practice that 
have value to the railroads beyond merely meeting Federal requirements. 
Although FRA recognizes that the proposed rules impose a significant 
record keeping burden on the industry, FRA believes that the written 
procedures and record keeping requirements are an integral part of this 
proposal and are necessary to its overall effectiveness. FRA feels that 
it would be impossible to reduce or eliminate any of the proposed 
written procedures or record keeping requirements without seriously 
undermining the entire approach taken by FRA in developing these 
proposed rules. Most of the records required are a form of, or 
supplement to, what is now being kept by the railroads voluntarily for 
their own purposes. Many of the requirements to keep records are 
optional, but are necessary to take advantage of the financial 
incentives offered by the new rules.
    The analysis of the cost impact done by FRA includes a 
recommendation for the industry to develop an industry-wide standard 
system for record keeping and data reporting. Such a system could 
provide significant competitive advantages for the industry, including 
more efficient utilization of equipment, better knowledge of location 
of equipment and freight, more efficient deployment of mechanical 
forces, more accurate and timely equipment trouble reporting, and more 
accurate and timely interchange accounting as well as reducing the cost 
of regulatory record keeping.
    FRA will submit these information collection requirements to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Persons 
desiring to comment regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect 
of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing 
this burden, should submit their views in writing to: Ms. Gloria 
Swanson, Office of Safety, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 400 
Seventh Street, S.W., Room 8314, Washington, D.C. 20590; and to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, ATTN: Desk Officer for FRA (OMB No. 2130-New), New Executive 
Office Building, 726 Jackson Place, N.W., Room 3201, Washington, D.C. 
20503. Copies of any such comments should also be submitted to the 
Docket Clerk, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration, 
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 8201, Washington, D.C. 20590.

Environmental Impact

    FRA has evaluated these proposed regulations in accordance with its 
procedures for ensuring full consideration of the environmental impact 
of FRA actions, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act 
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and related directives. This notice meets the 
criteria that establish this as a non-major action for environmental 
purposes.

Federalism Implications

    This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has 
been determined that the proposed rule does not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism 
Assessment.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 232

    Railroad safety, Railroad power brakes.

49 CFR Part 229

    Railroad safety, Railroad locomotive safety.

49 CFR Part 231

    Railroad safety, Railroad safety appliances.

Request for Public Comments

    FRA proposes to adopt a new Part 232 and amend Parts 229 and 231 of 
Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below. FRA solicits 
comments on all aspects of the proposed rules whether through written 
submissions, or participation in the public hearings, or both. FRA may 
make changes in the final rules based on comments received in response 
to this notice.

The Proposal

    In consideration of the foregoing, FRA proposes to amend chapter 
II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 229--[AMENDED]


Sec. 229.2  [Amended]

    1. and 2. In Sec. 229.25, paragraph (a) is removed, and paragraphs 
(b) through (e) are redesignated as paragraphs (a) through (d), 
respectively.
    3. Section 229.27 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 229.27  Annual tests.

    Each locomotive shall be subjected to the tests and inspections 
included in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section at intervals that do 
not exceed 368 calendar days.
    (a) Load meters shall be tested. Errors of less than five percent 
do not have to be corrected. The date and place of the test shall be 
recorded on Form FRA F 6180-49A, and the person conducting the test and 
that person's supervisor shall sign the form.
    (b) Each steam generator that is not isolated as prescribed in 
Sec. 229.23(b) shall be subjected to a hydrostatic pressure at least 25 
percent above the working pressure and the visual return water-flow 
indicator shall be removed and inspected.


Sec. 229.29  [Removed]

    4. Section 229.29 is removed.


Sec. 229.31  [Removed]

    5. Section 229.31 is removed.
    6. Section 229.46 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 229.46  Brakes: General.

    Additional requirements regarding the brake system on locomotives 
can be found at Secs. 232.103, 232.107, and 232.303 of this chapter.


Sec. 229.47  [Removed]

    7. Section 229.47 is removed.


Sec. 229.49  [Amended]

    8. In Sec. 229.49, paragraphs (a)(1), (b), and (c) are removed, and 
the paragraph designation for paragraph (a)(2) is removed.


Secs. 229.53-229.57  [Removed]

    9. Sections 229.53 through 229.57 are removed.


Sec. 229.59  [Amended]

    10. In Sec. 229.59, paragraphs (a) through (c) are removed, and the 
paragraph designation for paragraph (d) is removed.
    11. Appendix B to Part 229 is amended by removing the penalty 
entries for Secs. 229.29, 229.46, 229.47, and 229.53 through 229.57 and 
by revising the penalty entries for Secs. 229.31 and 229.49 to read as 
follows: 

           Appendix B to Part 229--Schedule of Civil Penalties          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Willful 
                      Section                       Violation  violation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
                                  *****                                 
229.31Main reservoir test.........................     2,500      5,000 
                                                                        
                                                                        
                                  *****                                 
229.49Main reservoir system.......................     2,500      5,000 
                                                                        
                                                                        
                                  *****                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 231--[AMENDED]

    12. Section 231.0 is amended by adding paragraphs (b) (3) through 
(5) and paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec. 231.0  Applicability and penalties.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) A train of four-wheel coal cars.
    (4) A train of eight-wheel standard logging cars if the height of 
each car from the top of the rail to the center of the coupling is not 
more than 25 inches.
    (5) A locomotive used in hauling a train referred to in paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section when the locomotive and cars of the train are 
used only to transport logs.
* * * * *
    (f) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, 
Sec. 231.31 also applies to 24-inch and 36-inch gage railroads.
    13. Part 231 is further amended by adding Sec. 231.31 to read as 
follows:


Sec. 231.31  Drawbars for freight cars; standard height.

    (a) Except on cars specified in paragraph (b) of this section--
    (1) On standard gage (56\1/2\-inch gage) railroads the maximum 
height of drawbars for freight cars (measured perpendicularly from the 
level of the tops of the rails to the centers of the drawbars) shall be 
34\1/2\ inches, and the minimum height of drawbars for freight cars on 
such standard gage railroads (measured in the same manner) shall be 
31\1/2\ inches.
    (2) On 36-inch gage railroads the maximum height of drawbars for 
freight cars (measured from the level of the tops of rails to the 
centers of the drawbars) shall be 26 inches, and the minimum height of 
drawbars for freight cars on such 36-inch gage railroads (measured in 
the same manner) shall be 23 inches.
    (3) On 24-inch gage railroads the maximum height of drawbars for 
freight cars (measured from the level of the tops of rails to the 
centers of drawbars) shall be 17\1/2\ inches, and the minimum height of 
drawbars for freight cars on 24-inch gage railroads (measured in the 
same manner) shall be 14\1/2\ inches.
    (b) This section shall not apply to a railroad all of whose track 
is less than 24 inches in gage.
    14. Appendix B of Part 231 is added to read as follows: 

   Appendix B to Part 231--Schedule of Civil Penalties in the Code of   
                           Federal Regulations                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Willful 
                      Section                       Violation  violation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
231.31Drawbars, standard height...................     2,500      5,000 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. Part 232 is revised to read as follows:

PART 232--TRAIN BRAKE SYSTEM SAFETY STANDARDS

Subpart A--General

Sec.
232.1  Purpose and Scope.
232.3  Applicability.
232.5  Definitions.
232.7  Waivers.
232.9  Responsibility for Compliance; Recordkeeping Requirements.
232.11  Civil Penalties.
232.13  Preemptive Effect.
232.15  General Requirements for All Train Brake Systems.
232.17  Movement of Trains with Defective Brakes.

Subpart B--Design Standards for Train Brake Systems

232.101  General Standards that Apply to All Trains and Equipment.
232.103  Conventional Locomotive Air Brake Standards.
232.105  Conventional Train Air Brake Standards.
232.107  Standards Unique to Passenger Trains.
232.109  Blended Brake Standards.
232.111  Dynamic Brake Standards.
232.113  Intermediate Speed and High Speed Train Standards.
232.115  One-Way End-of-Train Device Standards.
232.117  Two-Way End-of-Train Device Standards.
Subpart C--Qualifications for Personnel Who Inspect, Maintain, and Test 
Train Brake Systems
232.201  Train Brake System Training Program Requirements.
232.202  General Qualifications for Train Brake System Maintenance 
Personnel.
232.203 General Qualifications for Train Brake System Inspection and 
Test Personnel.
232.205  Specific Qualifications for Train Brake System Supervisor.
232.207  Specific Qualifications for Train Brake System Mechanical 
Inspector.
232.209  Specific Qualifications for Train Brake System Electronic 
Inspector.
232.211  Specific Qualifications for Train Crew Member.
232.213  Personnel Qualification Records and Notification.
232.215  Performance of Tests, Inspections, and Maintenance.
Subpart D--Inspection and Test Standards for Conventional Freight Train 
Brake Systems
232.301  Applicability.
232.303  Locomotive Inspection and Test Standards.
232.305  Written Procedures for Conventional Freight Train Brake 
System Tests.
232.307  Events Requiring Performance of a Class 1 Train Brake 
System Test.
232.309  Required Tasks of Class 1 Train Brake System Test.
232.311  Distance Between Class 1 Train Brake System Tests.
232.313  Events Requiring the Performance of a Class 2 Train Brake 
System Test for Conventional Freight Trains.
232.315  Required Tasks of Class 2 Train Brake System Test for 
Conventional Freight Trains.
232.317  Transfer Train Test for Conventional Freight Trains.
232.319  Running Test for Conventional Freight Trains.
232.321  Freight Single Car Test and Periodic Freight Brake Test for 
Conventional Freight Trains.
232.323  Train Brake System Test for Conventional Freight Trains 
Conducted Using Yard Air.
Subpart E--Inspection and Test Standards for Conventional Passenger, 
Commuter, and Excursion Train Brake Systems
232.401  Test and Inspection Standards for Conventional Passenger 
Locomotives.
232.403  Written Procedures for Conventional Passenger, Commuter, 
and Excursion Train Brake System Tests.
232.405  General Requirements of Class 1 Train Brake System Test for 
Conventional Passenger Trains.
232.407  Required Tasks of Class 1 Train Brake System Test for 
Conventional Passenger Trains.
232.409  Distance Between Required Class 1 Brake System Tests for 
Conventional Passenger Trains.
232.411  General Requirements of Class 2 Train Brake System Test for 
Conventional Passenger Trains.
232.413  Required Tasks of Class 2 Train Brake System Test for 
Conventional Passenger Trains.
232.415  Running Test for Conventional Passenger Trains.
232.417  Conventional Passenger Car Single Car Test or Single 
Passenger Train Set Tests.
232.419  Conventional Passenger Train Brake System Tests Conducted 
Using Yard Air.
232.421  Class 1 Train Brake System Test for Repetitive Conventional 
Passenger and Commuter Trains.
232.423  Additional Brake System Tests for Repetitive Conventional 
Passenger and Commuter Trains.
232.425  Class 1 Train Brake System Test for Excursion Trains.
232.427  Additional Brake System Tests for Excursion Trains.
Subpart F--Inspection and Test Standards for Intermediate Speed and 
High Speed Train Brake Systems
232.501  Class 1 Train Brake System Test for Intermediate Speed and 
High Speed Trains.
232.503  Class 2 Train Brake System Test for Intermediate Speed and 
High Speed Trains.
232.505  Running Test for Intermediate Speed and High Speed Trains.
232.507  Single Car or Single Passenger Train Set Test for 
Intermediate Speed and High Speed Trains.
Subart G--Requirements for Periodic Freight Brake Tests, Single Car 
Tests, and Single Passenger Train Set Tests
232.601  General Requirements.
232.603  Required Tasks.
232.605  Unscheduled Tests.
232.607  Scheduled Tests.
232.609  Phase-In Period.
232.611  Requirements for Changing the Required Interval for the 
Single Car Test or Periodic Freight Brake Test.
232.613  Inspector Qualifications.
232.615  Record Keeping and Stenciling Requirements.
232.617  Periodic Freight Brake Test, Single Car Test, or Single 
Unit Train Test Equipment and Devices.

Subpart H--Maintenance Standards for Train Brake Systems

232.701  General Requirements.

Subpart I--Operating Requirements for Train Brake Systems

232.801  General.
232.803  Train Information Handling.
232.805  Train Brake System Monitoring.
232.807  Air Brakes.
232.809  Tread Brakes.
232.811  Dynamic Brakes.
232.813  Two Way End-of-Train Devices.
232.815  En Route Failures of Train Brake System Components.
232.817  Undesired Emergency Brake Application.
232.819  Extreme Operating Conditions.
232.821  Operating Requirements Specific to Conventional Freight 
Trains.
232.823  Operating Requirements Specific to Intermediate Speed 
Freight Trains.
Subpart J--Tests and Procedures to Introduce New Train Brake System 
Technology
232.901  General.
232.903  Pre-Revenue Service Tests of New Train Brake System 
Technology.
232.905  Introduction of New Train Brake System Technology to 
Revenue Service.
232.907  Follow-Up to Introduction of New Train Brake System 
Technology to Revenue Service.

Appendix A--Schedule of Civil Penalties (Reserved)

Appendix B--Procedures for Changing the Required Time Interval for 
Periodic Brake Tests

Appendix C--Definition of ``Mountain Grade Territory''

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102, 20301-20304, 21301-21302, and 21304, 
formerly codified at 45 U.S.C. 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-14, and 16; 49 U.S.C. 
20102, 20103, 20107, 20108, 20110-20112, 20114, 20131-20143, 21301, 
21302, 21304, 21311, 24902, and 24905, formerly codified at 45 
U.S.C. 431, 437, and 438; 49 U.S.C. 20102, 20701-20703, 21302, and 
21304, formerly codified at 45 U.S.C. 22-34; 49 U.S.C. 103; 49 
U.S.C. 20302, 20701-20703, and 21302, formerly codified at 49 App. 
U.S.C. 1655(e); Pub. L. 103-272 (1994); and 49 CFR 1.49(c), (g), and 
(m).

Subpart A--General


Sec. 232.1  Purpose and scope.

    (a) This part prescribes the minimum Federal safety standards for 
train brake systems in current use.
    (b) This part prescribes the minimum Federal safety requirements 
for the introduction of new railroad train brake system technology.
    (c) This part prescribes the minimum Federal safety requirements 
for brake systems on all locomotives except those propelled by steam 
power.


Sec. 232.3  Applicability.

    (a) This part applies to all railroads except--
    (1) A railroad that exclusively operates freight trains only on 
track inside an installation which is not part of the general railroad 
system of transportation, whether or not that installation is insular 
within the meaning of paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
    (2) Rapid transit operations in an urban area that are not 
connected with the general railroad system of transportation.
    (3) A railroad that operates trains only on track inside an 
installation that is insular; i.e., if its operations are limited to a 
separate enclave in such a way that there is no reasonable expectation 
that the safety of the public--except a business guest, a licensee of 
the tourist operation or an affiliated entity, or a trespasser--would 
be affected by the operation. An operation will not be considered 
insular if one or more of the following exists on its line:
    (i) A public highway-rail crossing that is in use;
    (ii) An at-grade rail crossing that is in use;
    (iii) A bridge over a public road or waters used for commercial 
navigation; or
    (iv) A common corridor with a railroad, i.e., its operations are 
within 30 feet of those of any railroad.
    (b) In addition to the trains operated by railroads specifically 
excepted in paragraph (a) of this section, this part does not apply 
to--
    (1) A freight train of four-wheel coal cars.
    (2) A freight train of eight-wheel standard logging cars if the 
height of each car from the top of the rail to the center of the 
coupling is not more than 25 inches.
    (3) A locomotive used in hauling a train referred to in paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section when the locomotive and cars of the train are 
used only to transport logs.


Sec. 232.5  Definitions.

[The final rule may contain a directory of the definitions]

    Air Flow Indicator means a device used to indicate the flow of air 
from the locomotive brake valve into the brake pipe.
    Air Flow Indicator, AFM means a specific air flow indicator 
required by the air flow method. The AFM Air Flow Indicator is a 
calibrated air flow measuring device which is clearly visible and 
legible in daylight and darkness from the engineer's normal operating 
position. The indicator face displays (1) markings from 10 cubic feet 
per minute (CFM) to 80 CFM, in increments of 10 CFM or less, and (2) 
numerals indicating 20, 40, 60, and 80 CFM for continuous monitoring of 
air flow. The AFM Air Flow Indicator must be used when performing the 
Air Flow Method of train brake testing.
    Air Flow Method (AFM) means an alternate method of measuring the 
leakage of air from a train brake system by use of an AFM air flow 
indicator. The controlling locomotive on the train must be equipped 
with 26-L Freight Locomotive Brake Equipment, or equivalent, and the 
train equipped with an end-of-train device.
    Bind means restrict the intended movement of one or more brake 
system components by reduced clearance, by obstruction, or by increased 
friction.
    Blending Valve means a device which combines the maximum available 
dynamic brake retarding force with supplemental air brake retarding 
force.
    Block of Cars means one or more cars coupled together for the 
purpose of being added to, or removed, from a train as a unit.
    Block of Cars, Previously Tested means a block of cars that 
received a Class 1 brake system test as a block, that have not been off 
air for more than four hours and is eligible for further travel before 
its next required Class 1 brake system test.
    Brake, Air means a combination of devices operated by compressed 
air, arranged in a system, and controlled manually or pneumatically, by 
means of which the motion of a car or locomotive is retarded or 
arrested.
    Brake Control System means the components, including software that 
either automatically, or under the control of the engineer, cause 
changes in the retarding force applied to the train by the brake 
system.
    Brake, Conventional Air means an air brake system designed in 
accordance with the current Manual of Standards and Recommended 
Practices of the Association of American Railroads.
    Brake, Disc means a retardation system used on some rail vehicles, 
primarily passenger equipment, that utilizes flat metal discs as the 
braking surface instead of the wheel tread.
    Brake, Disc Friction means a wheel-mounted or axle-mounted disc 
that provides a braking surface for the friction shoes.
    Brake, Dynamic means a train braking system whereby the kinetic 
energy of a moving train is used to generate electric current at the 
locomotive traction motors, which is then dissipated through banks of 
resistor grids in the locomotive car body or back into the catenary or 
third rail system.
    Brake, Eddy Current means a magnetic brake that does not make 
contact with the track and operates independently of the coefficient of 
adhesion between the wheel and the rail. An eddy current brake is 
suited for use as a service brake.
    Brake, Effective means a brake that is capable of producing its 
required design retarding force on the train.
    Brake, Extended Range Dynamic means a dynamic brake system which 
maintains a high retarding effect at speeds from approximately 25 miles 
per hour (mph) to 8 mph before rapidly tapering off.
    Brake, Hand means a manually-operated system installed on 
individual railroad cars and locomotives to provide a means to apply 
brakes independently of power brakes.
    Brake Horsepower Per Wheel means the retarding force (in pounds) 
times speed (in feet per second) divided by 550.
    Brake, Hydraulic/Pneumatic means a braking system that utilizes 
compressed air to control the action of a hydraulic piston that 
ultimately applies braking force to the wheels.
    Brake Indicator means a plunger type device, directly actuated by 
brake cylinder pressure, which indicates that brakes are applied or 
released.
    Brake, On-Tread Friction means a braking system that uses a brake 
shoe (usually made of a composition material) that acts on the tread of 
the wheel to retard the vehicle.
    Brake Pipe means the system of piping (including branch pipes, 
angle cocks, cutout cocks, dirt collectors, hose, and hose couplings) 
used for connecting locomotives and all cars for the passage of air to 
control the locomotive and car brakes.
    Brake, Rheostatic means a form of dynamic brake in which the 
maximum retarding force can be maintained over the entire speed range.
    Brake Shoes/Pads Aligned with Tread/Disc means that the brake shoe/
pad surface engages the wheel tread or disc surface with no more than a 
1/4 inch overhang on locomotives and passenger equipment and no more 
than 1/2 inch on freight equipment.
    Brake System Software means the onboard programmable computer 
commands to drive the brake system.
    Brake, Track means a friction block that acts upon the rail to 
provide a retarding force. The block may be either magnetically 
actuated or forced by an air cylinder. It is usually used only in 
emergency.
    Brake Valve, Automatic means a manually operated device positioned 
by the engineer (1) to control the flow of air into the equalizing 
reservoir and brake pipe for charging and releasing a brake application 
and (2) to provide a reduction of pressures in the equalizing reservoir 
and brake pipe at either a service or an emergency rate of brake 
application.
    Braking, Drag means a continuous application of the train brakes to 
balance the effects of gravity on a descending grade.
    Braking, Feed Valve/Regulating Valve means controlling brake pipe 
pressure reductions and increases by manually adjusting the feed or 
regulating valve.
    Braking, Stop means an application of the train brakes to stop the 
train.
    Car, Freight means a vehicle designed to carry freight, or railroad 
personnel, by rail.
    Car, Passenger means a rail vehicle designed and used to transport 
passengers.
    Change the Configuration of a Train means performing any operation 
that involves uncoupling an element of a train or that involves 
breaking the continuity of the train brake pipe or brake actuation 
communication line of the train.
    Class 1 Train Brake System Test means a test and inspection (as 
further specified in this part) by visual observation of each component 
of the air brake system on each car in a train to ensure the air brake 
system is 100 percent effective.
    Class 2 Train Brake System Test means a test (as further specified 
in this part) of brake pipe integrity and continuity from controlling 
locomotive to rear car, after the brake pipe has been extended or 
divided by adding or removing cars or locomotives at an intermediate 
terminal.
    Cold Weather Operation means operation of trains when the ambient 
temperature drops below 10 degrees Fahrenheit (F) (-12.2 degrees 
Celsius (C)).
    Control Valve means that part of the air brake equipment on each 
car or locomotive that controls the charging, application, and release 
of the air brakes.
    Disc Brake Rotor means a rotating disc attached to a wheel or axle 
which absorbs friction braking energy.
    Effective Brake Shoe/Pad Limits means a condemning thickness of on-
tread brake shoes of 3/8 inch for cast metal and 1/4 inch for 
composition shoes/pads.
     Emergency Application means a brake application resulting in the 
maximum retarding force available from the train brake system.
    End-of-Train Device, One-way means a telemetry device that fully 
complies with Federal regulations and that transmits rear-of-train 
brake pipe pressure to a display unit visible to the engineer in the 
cab of the controlling locomotive.
    End-of-Train Device, Two-way means a device having front-of-train 
and rear-of-train elements that fully comply with Federal regulations 
and that are capable of transmitting specific information or commands 
to each other. The rear unit transmits the rear-of-train brake pipe 
pressure to a front-of-train display and initiates braking from the 
rear of the train upon receipt of an appropriate command from the front 
element. The front element shall be capable of receiving and displaying 
rear-of-train brake pipe pressure from the rear element and 
transmitting an emergency brake command to the rear device.
    Equalizing Reservoir means a small reservoir containing a small 
volume of air whose pressure is controlled by the automatic brake valve 
and which, in turn, pilots the pressure to the brake pipe.
    Emergency Reduction means a depletion of brake-pipe pressure at a 
rate sufficiently rapid to move the operating valve to emergency 
position.
    Foul means restrict the intended movement of one or more brake 
system components because it snagged, entangled, or twisted.
    Full Service Application means a brake application which results 
from one or more brake-pipe reductions sufficient in amount to cause a 
full service reduction.
    Full Service Reduction means a service reduction sufficient in 
amount to cause equalization of pressure in brake cylinder with 
pressure in the reservoir from which compressed air is supplied to the 
brake cylinder.
    High Speed Service means revenue service provided by trains that 
operate at a maximum speed of greater than 79 mph but less than or 
equal to 125 mph.
    High Utilization Equipment means railroad equipment that meets one 
or more of the following criteria:
    (1) Is highway equipment adapted to ride on rails.
    (2) Travels 90,000 miles or more per year in train movements.
    Initial Terminal means a point where a Class 1 test of a train 
brake system is required. An initial terminal point includes any one of 
the following:
    (1) The point of origin of a train, the point where a train is 
initially made up (assembled).
    (2) A point where a Class 1 brake system test is required on cars 
added to the train.
    (3) A point where a train is required to have a new Class 1 brake 
system test because that train has travelled the maximum permissible 
distance since its last Class 1 train brake system test.
    (4) A point where cars that have not been connected to a supply of 
compressed air (that have been ``off air'') for more than four hours 
are added to a train.
    Locomotive means a piece of on-track equipment other than hi-rail, 
specialized maintenance, or other similar equipment--
    (1) With one or more propelling motors designed for moving 
equipment;
    (2) With one or more propelling motors designed to carry freight or 
passenger traffic or both; or
    (3) Without propelling motors but with one or more control stands.
    Locomotive Cab means compartment or space aboard a locomotive where 
the control stand is located and is normally occupied by the engineer 
when the locomotive is being operated.
    Locomotive, Control Cab means a locomotive without propelling 
motors but with one or more control stands.
    Locomotive, Controlling means the locomotive from which the 
engineer exercises control over the train.
    Locomotive, Road means a locomotive used to power trains over main 
track.
    Mountain Grade Territory means a section of track of distance, D, 
with an average grade of 1.5 percent or more over that distance which 
satisfies the relationship described in Appendix C of this part.
    Off Air means a block of cars that is not connected to a source of 
compressed air.
    Operating Valve means a device on each car, the operation of which 
result in (1) admission of air to brake cylinder, (2) release of air 
from brake cylinder, and (3) charging of one or more reservoir.
    Previously Tested Block means a block of cars that received and 
passed a Class 1 brake system test as a block.
    Piston Travel means the amount of linear movement of the air brake 
hollow rod (or equivalent) or piston rod when forced outward by 
movement of the piston in the brake cylinder or actuator and limited by 
the brake shoes being forced against the wheel or disc.
    Point of Origin, Commuter Train means departure yard associated 
with the terminal where passengers may board a commuter train for the 
first time that calendar day.
    Point of Origin, Freight Train means the point where a train is 
originally made up (assembled).
    Point of Origin, Passenger Train means the departure associated 
with the terminal where the initial passengers may board for a 
departing passenger train.
    Power Brakes means all apparatus or components used to be operated 
by power sources to produce the necessary retarding force to safely 
decelerate a train.
    Power Brake Defect means an equipment defect that could adversely 
affect the ability of a train's power brake system to apply a retarding 
force to the train that is discovered by an FRA or State inspector 
during an inspection of an outbound train declared ready for departure 
by the railroad. Power brake defects include: brake rigging that is 
damaged, binds, or fouls; piston travel outside the effective range; a 
brake shoe or pad that is damaged or excessively worn, or that 
overrides; a brake that does not set or release; an inoperative two-way 
end-of-train device; a car that is past due for a scheduled periodic 
freight brake test or single car test; and a failure to perform a 
proper Class 1 or Class 2 brake test when required.
    Power Brake Defect Ratio means the total number of cars determined 
to have power brake defects, divided by the total number of cars 
inspected for a specified period of time. The inspections will be 
conducted by Federal or State inspectors on outbound trains declared 
ready for departure by the railroad.
    Power Brake Defect Ratio, Quarterly means the system wide composite 
power brake defect ratio for a railroad, taken over the period of a 
calendar quarter starting January 1, April 1, July 1 or October 1.
    Qualified Train Brake System Electronic Inspector means a person 
who has demonstrated the knowledge and skills necessary to inspect, 
test, and maintain the electronic parts of train brake systems to FRA 
standards. A Qualified Brake System Electronic Inspector meets the 
minimum requirements of Sec. 232.209.
    Qualified Train Brake System Mechanical Inspector means a person 
who has demonstrated the knowledge and skills necessary to inspect, 
test, and maintain the mechanical parts of train brake systems to FRA 
standards. A Qualified Brake System Mechanical Inspector meets the 
minimum requirements of Sec. 232.207.
    Qualified Train Brake System Supervisor means a person who has 
demonstrated the knowledge and skills necessary to supervise the work 
of personnel who test, inspect, and maintain train brake systems. A 
qualified Train Brake System Supervisor meets the minimum requirements 
of Sec. 232.205.
    Qualified Train Crew Member means a person who has demonstrated the 
knowledge and skills necessary to inspect or to test the mechanical 
parts of train brake systems to FRA standards. A Qualified Train Crew 
Member meets the minimum qualifications for performing train brake 
system inspections and tests given in Sec. 232.211.
     Railroad means all forms of non-highway ground transportation that 
run either on rails with a gage of greater than or equal to 24 inches 
or on electromagnetic guideways, including (1) commuter or other short-
haul rail passenger service in a metropolitan or suburban area and (2) 
high speed ground transportation systems that connect metropolitan 
areas, without regard to whether they use new technologies not 
associated with traditional railroads. Such term does not include rapid 
transit operations within an urban area that are not connected to the 
general railroad system of transportation.
    Respond as Intended means to produce the result that a device or 
system is designed to produce.
    Running Test means a test of a brake system (air, dynamic, etc.) 
while in motion to verify the retarding force of the brake.
    Semi-permanently Coupled means coupling and uncoupling of each unit 
in a train can only be performed safely while at a maintenance or shop 
location where personnel can safely get under or between units in order 
to operate the coupler.
    Sensor, Brake Application Force means a device that measures and 
indicates the actual force between a friction element (e.g., brake 
shoe, disc pad) and the wheel or disc.
    Sensor, Brake Pad Thickness means a device that measures and 
indicates the thickness of a brake shoe or disc brake pad.
    Sensor, Piston Travel means a device that measures and indicates 
the linear movement of a brake cylinder piston or brake actuator.
    Sensor, Reliable Train Brake System means a sensor that is fail-
safe and has a failure rate of less than 2 percent with a 98-percent 
level of confidence in the time interval between required single car 
tests for the car on which the sensor is installed.
    Sensor, Wheel Heating means a device that measures and indicates 
the temperature of the wheel tread.
    Service Application means a brake application that results from one 
or more service reductions.
    Service Reduction means a decrease in brake pipe pressure, usually 
from 6 to 25 pounds per square inch (psi) at a rate sufficiently rapid 
to move the operating valve to service position, but at a rate not 
rapid enough to move the operating valve to emergency position.
    Single Car Test means a comprehensive test of the functioning of 
all critical brake system components installed on an individual car. 
Single car tests may be conducted within a predefined period of time 
and/or when components of the brake system are removed, repaired, or 
replaced.
     Single Car Test, Conventional Freight Brake means a comprehensive 
``Freight Single Car Test'' of the air brake system on a freight car in 
accordance with the AAR Standard S-486, Section 4.0, contained in the 
AAR ``Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices, Section E, Part 
II'' (November 1992). The test is required when certain repairs as 
defined in Sec. 232.605 are made to the brake system.
    Single Car Test, Conventional Passenger Car means a comprehensive 
test of a conventional brake system on a passenger car in accordance 
with the AAR Standard S-044, contained in the AAR ``Instruction 
Pamphlet 5039-4, Supp. 3'' (April 1991). The test is required on a 
periodic basis and when components of the brake system are removed, 
repaired, or replaced.
    Single Car Test, Conventional Periodic Freight Brake means a 
``Periodic Freight Brake Test'' of the brake system on a freight car in 
accordance with the Association of American Railroads (AAR) Standard S-
486, Section 3.0, contained in the AAR ``Manual of Standards and 
Recommended Practices, Section E, Part II'' (Nov. 1992). The test is 
required on a periodic basis depending on car utilization.
    Single Car Test Device means a device capable of controlling the 
application and release of the brakes on a single car through defined 
orifices and of measuring air flow.
    Single Passenger Train Set Test means a test equivalent to the 
single car test, but conducted on a passenger train set as a unit 
rather than a car at a time.
    Slack Adjuster, Automatic means an appliance for automatically 
adjusting brake cylinder piston travel to a predetermined length.
    Spot Checks means random checks of train brake system inspections, 
tests, or maintenance operations conducted by qualified train brake 
system supervisors.
    Switching Service means the classification of cars according to 
commodity or destination; assembling of cars for train movements; 
changing the position of cars for purposes of loading, unloading, or 
weighing; placing of locomotives and cars for repair or storage; or 
moving of rail equipment in connection with work service that does not 
constitute a road movement.
    Track, Main means a track, other than an auxiliary track, extending 
through yards or between stations, upon which trains are operated by 
timetable or mandatory directives or both, or the use of which is 
governed by a signal system.
    Train means one or more locomotives coupled with one or more rail 
cars, except during switching operations or where the operation is that 
of classifying rail cars within a railroad yard for the purpose of 
making or breaking up trains.
    Train Air Brake System means an arrangement of air brake equipment 
wherein (1) air is stored in reservoirs on cars and locomotives; (2) an 
operating valve, such as a control valve causes the brakes to apply and 
release through changing the brake-pipe pressure; and (3) a reduction 
in the brake-pipe pressure tends to cause a brake application, and an 
increase in the brake-pipe pressure tends to cause a brake release.
    Train Brake Communication Line means the communication link between 
the locomotive and cars by which the brake commands are transmitted. 
This may be a pneumatic pipe, electrical line, or radio signal.
    Train Brake Information System means the set of procedures 
developed by a railroad to ensure all information on the present status 
of a train brake system is communicated to the crew of the train as 
they take responsibility for the train.
    Train Brake System means all apparatus or components involved to 
produce a retarding force to decelerate a train. The train brake system 
includes, but is not limited to:
    (1) Brake controls,
    (2) Brake system software,
    (3) Brake sensors or monitors,
    (4) All air brake components,
    (5) All forms of dynamic brake components,
    (6) All inter-connecting communication lines or data links,
    (7) Hand brakes, and
    (8) All other apparatus required to or involved in producing a 
retarding force on a train.
    Train Brake System Inspection means a visual inspection and 
observation of the functioning of train brake system components in 
yards by a qualified train brake system inspector or a qualified train 
crew member to determine that brakes are being applied and released 
correctly.
    Train Brake System Monitoring means the procedures used by an 
engineer to monitor the status of the train brake system while the 
train is enroute.
    Train Brake System Test means a process or series of procedures 
performed to determine the operational status of a train brake system. 
Train Brake System Tests include:
    (1) Class 1 Tests,
    (2) Class 2 Tests,
    (3) Running Tests, and
    (4) Transfer Tests.
    Train, Commuter means a train used to transport passengers on a 
daily basis to and from major centers of employment.
    Train, Conventional means a train that operates at 79 mph or less.
    Train, Excursion means a train that carries passengers on 
recreational runs, often using antiquated equipment, with conveyance of 
the passengers to a particular destination not being the principle 
purpose.
    Train, Freight means any train using a portion of the general 
railroad system comprised only of cars designed to haul freight of some 
type.
    Train, Heavy means a train of more than 8,000 total trailing tons.
    Train, High Speed means a train that operates at speeds greater 
than 125 mph but not exceeding 160 mph.
    Train, Intermediate Speed means a train that operates at speeds 
greater than 79 mph but not exceeding 125 mph.
    Train, Local means a train that travels between a point of origin 
and a point of final destination, assigned to perform switching service 
enroute.
    Train, Long means a train exceeding a total length of 5,000 feet.
    Train, MU Commuter means a commuter train madeup of electrically 
self-propelled cars with provisions made to control all the propulsion 
motors in the train from a single controller.
    Train, Passenger means a train (using a portion of the general 
railroad system) to transport passengers excluding excursion and 
commuter trains. If a train is composed of a mixture of passenger and 
freight equipment, that train is a passenger train for the purposes of 
this part.
    Train, Revenue Service means a train that provides service to the 
customers of a railroad, whether or not compensation is received by the 
railroad.
    Train, Road means a train that travels over main track.
    Train Set, Passenger means a passenger train including the 
locomotive(s) or power car(s) and passenger cars that are semi-
permanently coupled to operate as a single unit. The individual 
components are uncoupled only for emergencies or maintenance.
    Train, Transfer means a train that travels between a point of 
origin and a point of final destination located less than 20 miles 
apart, without intermediate switching.
    Train, Unit Freight means a train composed of cars of a common type 
or purpose that normally remain coupled that is used to transport a 
single commodity from a single point of origin to a single destination.
    Train, Work means a non-revenue service train used for the 
administration and upkeep service of the railroad.
    Train, Yard means a train used only to perform switching functions 
within a single yard area.
    Wheels Free of Cracks means freight car and conventional passenger 
car wheels with no visible cracks in the tread surface or flange of the 
wheel.
    Worst Case Adhesion Conditions means the minimum available wheel-
to-rail adhesion irrespective of speed, condition of the rail, or 
condition of the wheel.
    Yard means a system of tracks within defined limits provided for 
the making up of trains, storing of cars, and other purposes.
    Yard Air Test means a train brake system test conducted using a 
source of compressed air other than a locomotive.
    Zero Slack means slack action between each two units in a train is 
less than one inch.


Sec. 232.7  Waivers.

    (a) Any person may petition the Federal Railroad Administration for 
a waiver of compliance with any requirement prescribed in this part.
    (b) Each petition for a waiver under this section must be filed in 
the manner and contain the information required by part 211 of this 
chapter.
    (c) If the Administrator finds the waiver of compliance is in the 
public interest and is consistent with railroad safety, the 
Administrator may grant the waiver subject to any conditions the 
Administrator deems necessary.


Sec. 232.9  Responsibility for compliance; recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) A railroad subject to this part shall not use, haul, permit to 
be used or hauled on its line, offer in interchange, or accept in 
interchange any train, railroad car, or locomotive with one or more 
conditions not in compliance with this part; however, a railroad shall 
not be liable for a civil penalty for such action if such action is in 
accordance with Sec. 232.17. For purposes of this part, a train, 
railroad car, or locomotive will be considered in use prior to 
departure but after it has received, or should have received, the 
inspection required for movement and is deemed ready for service.
    (b) Although many of the requirements of this part are stated in 
terms of the duties of a railroad, when any person performs any 
function required by this part, that person (whether or not a railroad) 
is required to perform that function in accordance with this part.
    (c) Whenever a railroad is required to perform a duty or task 
pursuant to this part, the railroad shall develop and implement written 
procedures covering the performance of those duties or tasks.
    (d) Whenever a railroad is required to develop and maintain written 
records or procedures pursuant to this part, the railroad shall make 
those written records or procedures available to FRA upon request.


Sec. 232.11  Civil Penalties.

     Any person (including but not limited to a railroad; any manager, 
supervisor, official, or other employee or agent of a railroad; any 
owner, manufacturer, lessor, or lessee of railroad equipment, track, or 
facilities; any employee of such owner, manufacturer, lessor, lessee, 
or independent contractor) who violates any requirement of this part or 
causes the violation of any such requirement is subject to a civil 
penalty of at least $500, but not more than $10,000 per violation, 
except that: Penalties may be assessed against individuals only for 
willful violations, and, where a grossly negligent violation or a 
pattern of repeated violations has created an imminent hazard of death 
or injury to persons, or has caused death or injury, a penalty not to 
exceed $20,000 per violation may be assessed. Each day a violation 
continues shall constitute a separate offense. Appendix A contains a 
schedule of civil penalty amounts used in connection with this part.


Sec. 232.13  Preemptive effect.

    (a) Under 49 U.S.C. 20106, formerly contained in section 205 of the 
Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 and codified at 45 U.S.C 434, 
issuance of this part preempts any State law, rule, regulation, order, 
or standard covering the same subject matter, except for a provision 
directed at a local safety hazard if that provision is consistent with 
this part and that does not impose an undue burden on interstate 
commerce.
    (b) FRA does not intend by issuance of this part to preempt 
provisions of State criminal law that impose sanctions for reckless 
conduct that leads to actual loss of life, injury, or damage to 
property, whether such provisions apply specifically to railroad 
employees or generally to the public at large.


Sec. 232.15  General requirements for all train brake systems.

    (a) A train brake system shall be capable of stopping the train 
with a service application from its maximum operating speed, under the 
worst case adhesion conditions, within the signal spacing existing on 
the track over which the train is operating.
    (b) If a train brake communication line uses other than solely 
pneumatic technology, the integrity of the train line shall be 
monitored by the brake control system. If the integrity of the 
communication line is broken, the train shall be stopped.
    (c) A train brake system shall respond as intended to signals from 
the train brake line.
    (d) Prior to departure from an initial terminal point or point of 
origin, a train shall have a 100 percent functional train brake system.
    (e) At points other than an initial terminal point, no train shall 
move if more than 15 percent of the cars in that train have brakes cut 
out. A car has its brakes cut out if the brakes on one or more axles of 
that car are cut out.
    (f) Each car in a train shall have its air brakes in effective 
operating condition unless the car is being moved for repairs in 
accordance with Sec. 232.17. A car's air brakes are not in effective 
operating condition if its brakes are cut out or inoperative or if the 
piston travel exceeds:
    (1) 10\1/2\ inches for cars equipped with nominal 12-inch stroke 
brake cylinders;
    (2) The piston travel limits indicated on the badge plate for that 
brake cylinder; or
    (3) 12.5 percent less than the total possible piston travel for 
that brake cylinder.
    (g) The emergency application feature of the train brake system 
shall be available at all times.
    (h) Each railroad shall develop, implement, and make available to 
FRA upon request a written program to train and qualify all personnel, 
including contract personnel, responsible for the inspection, testing, 
and maintenance of train brake systems pursuant to the requirements 
contained in subpart C of this part.
    (i) Each railroad shall develop, implement, and make available to 
FRA upon request a written program to have qualified train brake system 
supervisors perform random spot checks of inspection and maintenance of 
train brake systems. As part of this program, each railroad shall--
    (1) Conduct spot checks daily at each location and during each 
shift where a qualified train brake system supervisor is regularly 
scheduled to work.
    (2) Conduct spot checks weekly at locations or on shifts where a 
qualified train brake system supervisor is not normally scheduled to 
work.
    (3) Conduct the spot checks randomly.
    (4) Establish a means to document to FRA that spot checks are being 
performed as required. This documentation shall include a record of--
    (i) The qualified supervisor's name.
    (ii) The supervisor's current qualification status.
    (iii) The date, place, and time of the spot check.
    (iv) What was spot checked.
    (v) The findings of the spot check.
    (j) The following requirements apply to cold weather operations:
    (1) After January 1, 1996, all new and rebuilt locomotives 
operating under cold weather conditions that do not meet any of the 
conditions contained in Sec. 232.103(e) (1) and (2) shall be equipped 
with brake air system air dryers capable of a 30 degrees F. air dew 
point depression at a 100 cfm air flow rate.
    (2) No chemicals shall be placed in the train air brake system.
    (k) A single car or single passenger-train-set test shall be 
performed whenever any part of the train brake system has been removed, 
repaired, or replaced.
    (l) Except cars equipped with nominal 12-inch stroke (8\1/2\ and 
10-inch diameters) brake cylinders, all cars shall be stencilled or 
shall be equipped with a badge plate with the permissible brake 
cylinder piston travel range for that car. The badge plate shall be 
located so that it may be easily read and understood by a person 
positioned safely beside the car or locomotive.
    (m) Train brake system brake shoes and disc pads shall have at 
least the minimum thickness necessary to safely travel the maximum 
distance the train is allowed to travel between Class 1 brake system 
tests. The following shall be the minimum thicknesses measured at any 
location on the shoe:
    (1) For 500-mile trains, \1/2\ inch for cast metal and \3/8\ inch 
for composition shoes/pads.
    (2) For 1,500-mile trains, \1/2\ inch for cast metal and \3/8\ inch 
for composition shoes/pads.
    (3) For 2,500-mile trains, \9/16\ inch for cast metal and \7/16\ 
inch for composition shoes/pads.
    (4) For 3,500-mile trains, \5/8\ inch for cast metal and \1/2\ inch 
for composition shoes/pads.
    (n) Railroad or contractor supervisors shall be held jointly 
responsible with inspectors and train crew members for the condition 
and proper functioning of train brake systems.


Sec. 232.17  Movement of cars or locomotives with defective brakes for 
repairs.

    (a) General provision. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this 
section, a railroad car or locomotive with one or more conditions not 
in compliance with this part may be used or hauled without civil 
penalty liability under this part only if all of the following 
conditions are met:
    (1) The defective car or locomotive is properly equipped in 
accordance with the Safety Appliance Acts and the requirements of this 
part.
    (2) The car or locomotive becomes defective while it is being used 
by the railroad on its line or becomes defective on the line of a 
connecting railroad and is properly accepted in interchange for repairs 
in accordance with paragraph (a)(7) of this section.
    (3) The railroad first discovers the defective condition of the car 
or locomotive prior to moving it for repairs.
    (4) The movement of the defective car or locomotive for repairs is 
from the location where the car or locomotive is first discovered 
defective by the railroad.
    (5) The defective car or locomotive could not be repaired at the 
place where the railroad first discovers it to be defective.
    (6) The movement of the car or locomotive is necessary to make 
repairs to the defective condition.
    (7) The repair point to which the car or locomotive is being taken 
is the nearest available repair point on the line of the railroad where 
the car or locomotive was first found to be defective or is the nearest 
available repair point on the line of a connecting railroad if:
    (i) The connecting railroad elects to accept the defective car or 
locomotive for such repair; and
    (ii) The nearest available repair point on the line of the 
connecting railroad is no farther than the nearest available repair 
point on the line of the railroad where the car or locomotive was found 
defective.
    (8) The movement of the defective car or locomotive for repairs is 
not by a train that is departing the initial terminal or point of 
origin for that train.
    (9) The movement of the defective car or locomotive for repairs is 
not by a train having more than 15 percent of the cars in the train 
with the brakes cut out.
    (10) The defective car or locomotive is not subject to a Special 
Notice for Repair under part 216 of this chapter, unless the movement 
of the defective car is made in accordance with the restrictions 
contained in the Special Notice.
    (11) Except for cars or locomotives with brakes cut out enroute and 
locomotives not in compliance with this part moving light or dead 
within a yard at speeds that do not exceed 10 mph, the following 
additional requirements are met:
    (i) A qualified person shall determine--
    (A) That it is safe to move the car or locomotive; and
    (B) The maximum speed and other restrictions necessary for safely 
conducting the movement.
    (ii) The person in charge of the train in which the car or 
locomotive is to be moved shall be notified in writing and inform all 
other crew members of the presence of the defective car or locomotive 
and the maximum speed and other restrictions determined under paragraph 
(a)(11)(i)(B) of this section. A copy of the tag or card described in 
paragraph (a)(11)(iii) of this section may be used to provide the 
notification required by paragraph (a)(11)(ii) of this section.
    (iii) A tag or card bearing the words ``bad order'' or ``home shop 
for repairs'' shall be securely attached to each side of a defective 
car, or in the case of a defective locomotive a tag or card bearing the 
words ``non-complying locomotive'' shall be securely attached to the 
control stand on each MU locomotive or cab control locomotive and to 
the isolation switch or near the engine start switch on every other 
type of locomotive. These tags or cards shall be readable and contain 
the following information:
    (A) The car or locomotive number;
    (B) The name of the inspecting railroad;
    (C) The inspection location and date;
    (D) The nature of each defect;
    (E) Movement restrictions;
    (F) The destination for shopping or repair; and
    (G) The signature of the person making the determinations required 
by this paragraph.
    (b) Movement for unloading or purging of defective cars. If the 
defective car is loaded or contains hazardous material residue, it may 
not be placed for unloading or purging unless unloading or purging is 
consistent with determinations made and restrictions imposed under 
paragraph (a)(11)(i) of this section and unloading or purging is 
necessary for the safe repair of the car.

Subpart B--Design Standards for Train Brake Systems


Sec. 232.101  General standards that apply to all trains and equipment.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, all 
equipment shall be equipped with power brakes which meet the 
specifications and requirements for power brakes and appliances set 
forth in this part.
    (b) Interstate Commerce Commission Order 13528, of May 30, 1945, as 
amended, is hereby revoked.
    (c) The provisions formerly contained in Interstate Commerce 
Commission Order 13528, of May 30, 1945, as amended, are codified in 
this section, which provides that the specifications and requirements 
for power brakes and appliances for operating power-brake systems used 
for freight service, set forth in this part, are not applicable to the 
following equipment:
    (1) Scale test weight cars;
    (2) Locomotive cranes, steam shovels, pile drivers, and similar 
construction and maintenance machines built prior to September 21, 
1945;
    (3) Export, industrial, and other than railroad-owned cars which 
are not to be used in service, except for movement as shipments on 
their own wheels to given destinations. Such cars shall be properly 
identified by a card attached to each side of the car, signed by the 
shipper, stating that such movement is being made under the authority 
of this section.
    (4) Industrial and other than railroad-owned cars which are not to 
be used in service except for movement within the limits of a single 
switching district (i.e. within the limits of an industrial facility);
    (5) Narrow-gauge cars; and
    (6) Cars used exclusively in switching operations and not used in 
train movements within the meaning of the Safety Appliance Acts (45 
U.S.C. 1-14, 16).
    (d) Loss of propelling power shall not reduce the rate of safe 
deceleration of a train.
    (e) All equipment built on or after January 1, 1995 shall have 
train brake systems designed so that an inspector can observe from a 
safe position the piston travel or an accurate indicator which shows 
piston travel. The design shall not require the inspector to place 
himself/herself on, under, or between components of the equipment to 
observe brake actuation or release.
    (f) All trains shall be equipped with a train brake system 
emergency application feature capable of increasing the train's 
deceleration rate a minimum of 15 percent over the deceleration rate 
created by a full service brake application.
    (g) Train brake systems that include on-tread friction brakes shall 
be designed so that in normal application of the tread brake, the 
surface temperature of the wheel tread does not exceed 600 degrees F.
    (h) Train brake systems that include disc friction brakes shall be 
designed so that in normal application, the disc pad rotor surface 
temperature does not exceed 750 degrees F.
    (i) All locomotives shall be equipped with a means to automatically 
detect wheel slip or slide or automatically adjust propulsion or 
retarding forces to minimize wheel slip or slide.
    (j) Each car and each new locomotive shall be equipped with a 
handbrake. The handbrake shall:
    (1) Be capable of being applied by hand or by heavy duty springs;
    (2) Be capable of being released by hand;
    (3) Be capable of holding the car when fully loaded or locomotive 
on a three-percent descending grade; and
    (4) Be associated and in harmony with the primary brake system used 
to control the movement of the car or locomotive.


Sec. 232.103  Conventional locomotive air brake standards.

    (a) This section includes the locomotive air brake system standards 
previously contained in the Locomotive Safety Standards (49 CFR Part 
229).
    (b) Emergency brake valve. (1) Each road locomotive shall be 
equipped with a brake pipe valve designed to actuate an emergency brake 
application. The emergency brake valve handle or handle extension shall 
be easily accessible to a crew member other than the engineer from that 
crew member's normal position in the cab.
    (2) On car body locomotives, a means to actuate an emergency brake 
application shall be provided adjacent to each end exit door.
    (3) All emergency brake actuating devices shall be legibly 
stenciled or marked with the words ``Emergency Brake Valve''.
    (c) Main reservoir system. The main air reservoir of each 
locomotive shall be equipped with at least one safety relief valve set 
to vent at a pressure no greater than 15 pounds per square inch (psi) 
above the maximum train air brake system working pressure determined by 
the chief mechanical officer of the railroad operating the locomotive.
    (d) Air compressors. (1) Each locomotive shall be equipped with an 
air compressor capable of supplying the pressure and volume of air 
required to meet the safety standards contained in this part.
    (2) Air compressors shall be equipped with a governor that:
    (i) Stops or unloads the compressor at a pressure no greater than 
the maximum working pressure set by the railroad.
    (ii) Starts or loads the compressor at a pressure no less than 10 
psi below the maximum working pressure set by the railroad.
    (e) Air dryers. After January 1, 1996, all new and rebuilt 
locomotive brake air systems and all yard air sources shall be equipped 
with an air dryer capable of producing an air dew point depression of 
at least 30 degrees F. at an air flow rate of 100 cfm except new and 
rebuilt locomotives that power trains and yard air sources that service 
trains used exclusively in service that meets any of the following 
criteria:
    (1) The locomotive powers or the yard air source services only 
trains limited to speeds of 30 mph or less;
    (2) The locomotive powers or the yard air source services only 
trains of 20 or fewer cars; or
    (3) The locomotive powers or the yard air source services only 
trains not operated under cold weather conditions.
    (f) Air brake pressure gauges. (1) At a minimum, locomotives shall 
be equipped with pressure gauges to monitor main reservoir pressure, 
brake cylinder pressure, equalizing reservoir pressure, and brake pipe 
pressure.
    (2) All gauges used to brake the train shall be illuminated and 
located so as to be easy to read by the engineer seated at his/her 
normal location.
    (3) All pressure gauges shall be accurate to within 3 
psi.
    (g) Brake cylinder piston travel. (1) Minimum brake cylinder piston 
travel shall be sufficient to provide brake shoe/pad clearance when 
brakes are released.
    (2) The brake cylinder control pressure shall be no less than 30 
psi.
    (3) When brakes are applied on a standing locomotive, the brake 
cylinder piston travel shall not exceed 80 percent of the total 
possible piston travel for that cylinder or as stencilled on the 
locomotive. The total possible piston travel shall be entered on Form 
FRA 6180-49A.
    (h) Foundation brake gear. (1) All brake foundation gear pins shall 
be secured in place with cotter pins, split keys, or nuts.
    (2) Brake shoes shall be fastened with a brake shoe key and aligned 
with tread to prevent localized thermal stress of the wheel.


Sec. 232.105  Conventional train air brake standards.

    (a) This section applies to trains--except those propelled by MU 
locomotives--equipped with the conventional air brake technology that 
has long been the industry standard for American railroads.
    (b) The air brake system components that control brake application 
and release shall be adequately sealed to prevent contamination by 
foreign material.
    (c) Control valves. (1) The control valve shall be capable of 
reliably applying and releasing the brakes when intermingled with 
various types of air brake equipment.
    (2) The control valve shall be designed with adjustable brake 
cylinder control pressure to ensure compatibility with present and 
future train air brake systems.


Sec. 232.107  Standards unique to passenger trains.

    (a) Passenger coaches shall be designed with a clearly marked 
emergency brake actuation device at each end of the coach.
    (b) MU and control cab locomotives operated in road service shall 
be equipped with a means of applying the emergency brake that is 
accessible to a crew member, other than the engineer, located in the 
vestibule or passenger compartment.


Sec. 232.109  Blended brake standards.

    (a) Blended train brake systems shall be designed so that the 
blending of friction and dynamic brake to obtain the correct retarding 
force is automatic.
    (b) Blended train brake systems shall be designed so that when 
power is lost or the dynamic portion of the brake system is disabled, 
the friction brake acting alone is adequate to safely stop the train 
under all operating conditions.


Sec. 232.111  Dynamic brake standards.

    The following dynamic brake standards apply to all locomotives, 
including power cars, used only for conventional service built or 
rebuilt on or after January 1, 1996 that are equipped with dynamic 
brakes:
    (a) The design shall include a provision to test the electrical 
integrity of the dynamic brake at rest.
    (b) The design shall include provisions to display the available 
total train dynamic brake retarding force at each speed in 5-mph 
increments in the cab of the controlling locomotive.


Sec. 232.113  Intermediate speed and high speed train standards.

    (a) This section applies to:
    (1) All equipment delivered for use in intermediate speed service 
after January 1, 1995 and
    (2) All equipment used in high speed service.
    (b) All intermediate speed freight trains shall be equipped with a 
two-way end-of-train device or an equivalent means for the train brake 
system to be applied from the rear of the train.
    (c) The following dynamic brake standards apply to locomotives and 
power cars used for intermediate speed or high speed service:
    (1) The locomotive or power car shall be equipped with dynamic or 
rheostatic brakes.
    (2) The train operator shall have a means to determine the present 
status or effectiveness of the dynamic or rheostatic portion of the 
train's brake system at all times.
    (d) The following requirements apply to train brake control 
systems:
    (1) Train brake systems shall be controlled by computer or an 
equivalent automated system.
    (2) Train brake control systems shall run diagnostic programs or 
software capable of performing self tests of the train brake system.
    (3) The train brake control system shall be equipped with separate 
stand-by or reserve power and have a manual override feature to protect 
against power loss or malfunction of the automatic features of the 
system.
    (4) The train brake control system shall be capable of detecting 
faults with the train brake system as they occur and either alerting 
the engineer or taking automatic corrective action.
    (5) The train brake control system shall be capable of logging a 
permanent record of detected train brake system faults. The fault log 
shall be protected against unauthorized access or changes.
    (6) A thorough fault tree analysis shall be conducted as part of 
train brake control system software design to determine the ways in 
which the software could possibly fail and produce unexpected results.
    (7) A thorough hazard analysis shall be conducted as part of train 
brake control system software design to determine the safety impacts of 
software failures.
    (8) A thorough validation and verification shall be conducted as 
part of train brake control system software design to ensure the 
software is fail-safe and will function reliably as intended.
    (9) Documentation of the train brake system control software design 
shall be maintained as long as the brake system is in use and shall be 
made available to the FRA upon request.
    (e) The following requirements apply to brake system sensors:
    (1) If inspection or test of the brake system in yards for 
application or release of the brakes requires the inspector to be 
placed in a dangerous position on, under, or between the equipment, the 
brake system shall be equipped with sensors that give a reliable 
indication of application and release of the brakes clearly visible to 
the inspector standing alongside the truck being inspected.
    (2) If the design of an intermediate speed or high speed train 
brake system includes effective and reliable piston travel sensors, 
brake shoe/pad thickness sensors, brake application force sensors, or 
wheel heating sensors, the railroad operating the equipment may propose 
simplified or automated Class 1 brake system test procedures based on 
the output of the sensors.
    (3) Brake system sensors shall be designed to remain accurately 
calibrated for a period of no less than one year.
    (4) Piston travel sensors shall be accurate to within 
\1/8\ inch.
    (5) Brake pad thickness sensors shall be accurate to within 
\1/16\ inch.
    (6) Brake force application sensors shall be accurate to within 
25 pounds.
    (7) Wheel heating sensors shall be accurate to within 
25 degrees F.
    (f) Tread friction brakes shall be designed so that they will not 
apply at train speeds above 80 mph except for emergency brake 
application.


Sec. 232.115  One-way end-of-train device standards.

    (a) Components. A one-way end-of-train device shall be comprised of 
a rear-of-train unit (rear unit) located on the last car of a train and 
a front-of-train unit (front unit) located in the cab of the locomotive 
controlling the train.
    (b) Rear unit. The rear unit shall be capable of determining the 
brake pipe pressure on the rear car and transmitting that information 
to the front unit for display to the locomotive engineer. The rear unit 
shall be:
    (1) Capable of measuring the rear car brake pipe pressure with an 
accuracy of 3 psig and brake pipe variations of 
1 psig;
    (2) Equipped with a ``bleeder valve'' that permits release of any 
air under pressure from the rear unit or the associated air hoses prior 
to detaching the rear unit from the brake pipe;
    (3) Designed so that an internal failure will not cause an 
undesired emergency brake application;
    (4) Equipped with either an air gauge or a means of visually 
displaying the rear unit's brake pipe pressure measurement; and
    (5) Equipped with a pressure relief safety valve to prevent 
explosion from a high pressure air leak inside the rear unit.
    (c) Reporting rate. Multiple data transmissions from the rear unit 
shall occur immediately after a variation in the rear car brake pipe 
pressure of 2 psig and at intervals of not greater than 70 
seconds when the rear car brake pipe pressure variation over the 70-
second interval is less than 2 psig.
    (d) Operating environment. The rear unit shall be designed to meet 
its performance requirements under the following environmental 
conditions:
    (1) At temperatures from -40  deg.F to +140  deg.F (-40  deg.C to 
60  deg.C);
    (2) At a relative humidity of 95 percent noncondensing at 122 
deg.F (50  deg.C);
    (3) At altitudes of zero to 12,000 feet above mean sea level;
    (4) During vertical and lateral vibrations of 1 to 15 hertz (Hz.), 
with 0.5 g. peak to peak, and 15 to 500 Hz., with 5 g. peak to peak;
    (5) During the longitudinal vibrations of 1 to 15 Hz., with 3 g. 
peak to peak, and 15 to 500 Hz., with 5 g. peak to peak; and
    (6) During a shock of 10 g. peak for 0.1 second in any axis.
    (e) Unique code. (1) Each rear unit shall have a unique and 
permanent identification code that is transmitted along with the 
pressure message to the front-of-train unit.
    (2) A code obtained from the Association of American Railroads, 50 
F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036 shall be deemed to be a unique code 
for purposes of this section. A unique code also may be obtained from 
the Office of Safety Enforcement [RRS-10], Federal Railroad 
Administration, Washington, DC 20590.
    (f) Front unit. (1) The front unit shall be designed to receive 
data messages from the rear unit and shall be capable of displaying the 
rear car brake pipe pressure in not more than one-pound increments.
    (2) The display shall be clearly visible and legible in daylight 
and darkness from the engineer's normal operating position.
    (3) The front unit shall have a means for entry of the unique 
identification code of the rear unit being used. The front unit shall 
be designed so that it will display a message only from the rear unit 
with the same code as entered into the front unit.
    (4) The front unit shall be designed to withstand and operate 
during the following environmental conditions:
    (i) At temperatures from 32  deg.F to +140  deg.F (0  deg.C to 60 
deg.C);
    (ii) During a vertical or lateral shock of 2 g. peak for 0.1 
second; and
    (iii) During a longitudinal shock of 5 g. peak for 0.1 second.
    (g) Radio equipment. (1) The radio transmitter in the rear unit and 
the radio receiver in the front unit shall comply with the applicable 
regulatory requirements of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 
and use a transmission format acceptable to the FCC.
    (2) If power is supplied by one or more batteries, the operating 
life shall be a minimum of 36 hours at -4  deg.F (-20  deg.C).
    (h) Inspection and testing. (1) After each installation of either 
the front or rear unit of an end-of-train device, or both, the railroad 
shall determine that the identification code entered into the front 
unit is identical to the unique identification code on the rear-of-
train unit.
    (2) After each installation, the functional capability of the end-
of-train device shall be determined at the point of installation, after 
charging the train, by comparing the quantitative value displayed on 
the front unit with the quantitative value displayed on the rear unit 
or on an air gauge. The end-of-train device shall not be used if the 
difference between the two readings exceeds three psi.
    (3) The telemetry equipment shall be calibrated for accuracy 
according to the manufacturer's specifications at least every 365 days. 
A weather resistant sticker or other durable means to mark the device 
with the date of the last calibration, the location where the 
calibration was made, and the name of the person doing the calibration 
shall be affixed to the outside of both the front unit and the rear 
unit.


Sec. 232.117  Two-way end-of-train device standards.

    In addition to the features of the one-way end-of-train device 
described in Sec. 232.115, except those included in Sec. 232.115(b)(3), 
a two-way end-of-train device shall include the following features:
    (a) An emergency brake application command from the front unit 
shall activate the emergency air valve at the rear of the train within 
one second.
    (b) The rear unit shall send an acknowledgment message to the front 
unit immediately upon receipt of a brake application command. The front 
unit shall listen for this acknowledgment and repeat the brake 
application command if the acknowledgment is not correctly received.
    (c) The rear unit, on receipt of a properly coded command, shall 
open a valve in the brake line and hold it open for a minimum of 15 
seconds. This opening of the valve shall cause the brake line to vent 
to the exterior.
    (d) The valve opening and hose diameter shall have a minimum 
diameter of \3/4\ inch to effect an emergency brake application.
    (e) Restoring of the braking function (recharging the air brake 
system) shall be enabled automatically by the rear equipment, no more 
than 60 seconds after it has initiated an emergency.
    (f) The front unit shall have a manually operated switch which, 
when activated, shall initiate an emergency brake transmission command 
to the rear unit. The switch shall be labelled ``Emergency'' and shall 
be protected so that there will exist no possibility of accidental 
activation.
    (g) The availability of the front-to-rear communications link shall 
be checked automatically at least every 10 minutes.
    (h) Means shall be provided to confirm availability and proper 
functioning of the emergency valve.
    (i) Means shall be provided to arm the front and rear units to 
ensure the rear unit responds only to an emergency command from its 
associated front unit.

Subpart C--Qualifications for Personnel Who Inspect, Maintain, and 
Test Train Brake Systems


Sec. 232.201  Train brake system training program requirements.

    (a) Except as provided by paragraph (c) of this section, each 
railroad shall develop, implement, and make available to FRA upon 
request a written program to train and qualify all personnel, including 
contract personnel, responsible for the inspection, testing, and 
maintenance of train brake systems. This program shall:
    (1) Incorporate the minimum training and experience guidelines 
issued by FRA for employees and contract personnel who inspect, test, 
and maintain train brake systems.
    (2) Be tailored to the specific operating conditions of each 
railroad;
    (3) Be tailored to the specific equipment operated by each 
railroad;
    (4) Specify the railroad's refresher training requirements for 
employees to remain qualified;
    (5) Keep accurate records on the current qualification status of 
employees and contract personnel that inspect, test, or maintain train 
brake systems;
    (6) Notify employees and contract personnel of their current 
qualification status;
    (7) Be made available for review by FRA upon request; and
    (8) Be updated to include new train brake system technology as it 
is introduced by the railroad.
    (b) Before implementing a training program under paragraph (a) of 
this section, a railroad shall certify to FRA in writing that its 
training program complies with paragraph (a).
    (c) Railroads developing train brake system training programs which 
are inconsistent with the minimum training and experience guidelines 
issued by FRA shall submit those programs to FRA's Office of Safety and 
receive FRA's written approval prior to implementing the programs.


Sec. 232.202  General qualifications for train brake system maintenance 
personnel.

    (a) All personnel, including contractor personnel, responsible for 
the repair or preventive maintenance of a specific train brake system 
shall have the following technical knowledge:
    (1) A comprehensive technical knowledge of how the specific train 
brake system functions;
    (2) An in-depth, comprehensive knowledge of how to troubleshoot, 
test, and repair the specific train brake system; and
    (3) An understanding of the manufacturer's technical literature 
that applies to the specific train brake system.
    (b) All personnel, including contractor personnel, responsible for 
the repair or preventive maintenance of a specific train brake system 
shall know how the Train Brake System Safety Standards contained in 
this part apply to the specific train brake systems that they maintain.


Sec. 232.203  General qualifications for train brake system inspection 
and test personnel.

    (a) The general qualifications for all personnel, including 
contractor personnel, responsible for train brake system inspections 
and tests on trains permitted to travel farther than 500 miles between 
train brake system tests are identical to those contained in 
Sec. 232.202.
    (b) All personnel performing Class 1 and Class 2 tests on 
conventional freight trains restricted to 500 miles between required 
train brake system tests shall, at a minimum:
    (1) Have a broad, general understanding of how the specific train 
brake system being inspected and tested functions;
    (2) Know how the Train Brake System Safety Standards contained in 
this part apply to the specific train brake system; and
    (3) Know how to properly perform Class 1 and Class 2 tests of the 
equipment to which they are assigned; and
    (4) At a minimum possess the qualifications set forth in 
Sec. 232.211.


Sec. 232.205  Qualifications for train brake system supervisor.

    A qualified train brake system supervisor shall have demonstrated 
the knowledge and skills necessary to supervise the work of personnel 
who test, inspect, and maintain train brake systems by successfully 
completing a training program designed in accordance with the minimum 
training and experience guidelines issued by FRA or a training program 
approved by FRA under Sec. 232.201(c).


Sec. 232.207  Qualifications for train brake system mechanical 
inspector.

    A qualified brake system mechanical inspector shall have 
demonstrated the knowledge and skills necessary to test, inspect, and 
maintain the mechanical parts of train brake systems as required in the 
Train Brake System Safety Standards by successfully completing a 
training program designed in accordance with the minimum training and 
experience guidelines issued by FRA or a training program approved by 
FRA under Sec. 232.201(c).


Sec. 232.209  Qualifications for train brake system electronic 
inspector.

    A qualified brake system electronic inspector shall have 
demonstrated the knowledge and skills necessary to inspect, test, and 
maintain the electronic parts of train brake systems as required in the 
Train Brake System Safety Standards by successfully completing a 
training program designed in accordance with the minimum training and 
experience guidelines issued by FRA or a training program approved by 
FRA under Sec. 232.201(c).


Sec. 232.211  Specific qualifications for train crew member.

    A qualified train crew member shall have demonstrated the knowledge 
and skills necessary to inspect or to test the mechanical parts of 
train brake systems as required in the Train Brake System Safety 
Standards by successfully completing a training program designed in 
accordance with the minimum training and experience guidelines issued 
by FRA or a training program approved by FRA under Sec. 232.201(c).


Sec. 232.213  Personnel qualification records and notification.

    (a) Railroads shall keep adequate records to demonstrate the 
current qualification status of all of its personnel--including 
contract personnel--assigned to inspect, test, or maintain train brake 
systems. These records shall include the following information 
concerning each such employee of the railroad or of a contractor for 
the railroad:
    (1) The name of the railroad employee or contractor employee;
    (2) The dates that each training course was completed;
    (3) The content of each training course completed;
    (4) The scores on each test taken to demonstrate proficiency;
    (5) A description of how experience guidelines are met;
    (6) A record that the railroad employee or contractor employee was 
notified of his or her current qualification status and of any 
subsequent changes to that status;
    (7) The type of equipment the person is qualified to inspect, test, 
or maintain;
    (8) A statement signed by the railroad's chief mechanical officer 
that the person meets the minimum qualification standards as set forth 
in this subpart; and
    (9) The date that the person's status as qualified expires due to 
the need for refresher training.
    (b) Railroads shall notify all personnel described in paragraph (a) 
of this section of their current qualification status.


Sec. 232.215  Performance of tests, inspections, and maintenance.

    (a) Qualified train crew members are permitted to perform Class 1 
or Class 2 tests only on:
    (1) Conventional freight trains restricted to 500 miles between 
required train brake system tests; or
    (2) Excursion trains restricted to a maximum operating speed of 30 
mph and a maximum travel distance of 250 miles between required train 
brake system tests.
    (b) Only qualified train brake system mechanical or electronic 
inspectors shall perform single car tests or single unit train tests.
    (c) Only qualified train brake system mechanical or electronic 
inspectors shall perform Class 1 tests on passenger trains, commuter 
trains, and intermediate speed freight trains.
    (d) Only qualified train brake system mechanical or electronic 
inspectors shall perform Class 1 tests on conventional freight trains 
that qualify to travel more than 500 miles between required train brake 
system tests.
    (e) Only qualified train brake system supervisors shall perform 
spot checks of train brake system inspections, tests, and maintenance.
    (f) Only qualified train brake system mechanical and electronic 
inspectors shall maintain train brake systems.

Subpart D--Inspection and Test Standards for Conventional Freight 
Train Brake Systems


Sec. 232.301  Applicability.

    This subpart applies to all conventional freight locomotives and 
trains.


Sec. 232.303  Locomotive brake inspection and test standards.

    (a) Railroads shall maintain locomotive brake systems in a safe and 
suitable condition for service.
    (b) As part of each locomotive Calendar Day Inspection required 
under Sec. 229.21(a) of this chapter, an inspection of the locomotive 
brake system shall be made. At a minimum, this inspection shall 
determine that:
    (1) The automatic, independent brake valve shall function as 
intended;
    (2) Gauges shall operate as intended;
    (3) Brake rigging shall operate as intended;
    (4) Brakes shall be properly adjusted;
    (5) When released, brake pads or shoes shall not be in contact with 
braking surfaces;
    (6) All cutout cocks, valves, and related cables or hoses shall be 
in good condition and in the correct position for operation;
    (7) All air brake pressures shall be properly regulated;
    (8) The air brake system shall properly respond to an emergency 
application; and
    (9) Air compressors shall stop, start, unload, and load at no more 
than five psi greater than the maximum working pressure set by the 
railroad.
    (c) Main reservoirs.
    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, before 
it is put in service and at intervals that do not exceed 736 calendar 
days, each main reservoir other than an aluminum reservoir shall be 
subjected to a hydrostatic pressure of at least 25 percent more than 
the maximum pressure fixed by the chief mechanical officer. The test 
date, place, and pressure shall be recorded on Form F 6180.49A, and the 
person performing the test and that person's supervisor shall sign the 
form.
    (2) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, each 
main reservoir other than an aluminum reservoir shall be hammer tested 
over its entire surface while the reservoir is empty, at intervals that 
do not exceed 736 calendar days. The test date and place shall be 
recorded on Form F 6180.49A, and the person performing the test and 
that person's supervisor shall sign the form.
    (3) Each welded main reservoir originally constructed to withstand 
at least five times the maximum working pressure fixed by the chief 
mechanical officer may be drilled over its entire surface with telltale 
holes that are three-sixteenths of an inch in diameter. The holes shall 
be spaced not more than 12 inches apart, measured both longitudinally 
and circumferentially, and drilled from the outer surface to an extreme 
depth determined by the formula:

D=(.6PR/(S=0.6P)) where:

D=extreme depth of telltale holes in inches but in no case less than 
one-sixteenth inch;
P=certified working pressure in psi;
S=one-fifth of the minimum specified tensile strength of the material 
in psi; and
R=inside radius of the reservoir in inches.

One row of holes shall be drilled lengthwise of the reservoir on a line 
intersecting the drain opening. A reservoir so drilled does not have to 
meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section, 
except the requirements for a hydrostatic test before it is placed in 
service. Whenever any such telltale hole shall have penetrated the 
interior of any reservoir, the reservoir shall be permanently withdrawn 
from service. A reservoir now in use may be drilled in lieu of the 
tests provided for in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section, but 
it shall receive a hydrostatic test before it is returned to use.
    (4) Railroads may develop equivalent non-destructive tests for main 
reservoirs. If approved by the FRA, railroads may use the equivalent 
tests in place of the main reservoir tests described in Sec. 232.303 
(c)(1), (c)(2) and (c)(3).
    (d) Air gauges. (1) All gauges or transducer-driven displays of air 
gauges used by the engineer for braking the train or locomotive, except 
load meters used in conjunction with an auxiliary brake system, shall 
be tested by comparison with a dead-weight tester or a test gauge 
designed for that purpose.
    (2) Tests shall be performed not less frequently than once each 92 
days.
    (e) Trip tests. A locomotive engineer shall know before each trip 
that the locomotive brakes and devices for regulating all pressures, 
including but not limited to the automatic and independent brake 
valves, operate as intended and that the water and oil have been 
drained from the air brake system.
    (f) Brake system maintenance. (1) Locomotive brake equipment shall 
be cleaned, repaired and tested at intervals not to exceed the 
following schedule: 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    368     736    1104 
                     Device                        days    days    days 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brake system filters/dirt collectors in main      X                     
 reservoir system.                                                      
26-L Brake Equipment devices....................  ......  ......  X     
Other than 26-L brake cylinder relay valves,      X                     
 main reservoir safety valves, feed and reducing                        
 valves (including related dirt collectors and                          
 filters).                                                              
All other brake system operating portions and     ......  X             
 related dirt collectors and filters.                                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) The date and place of the cleaning, repairing, and testing 
shall be recorded on Form FRA 6180-49A, and the person performing the 
work and that person's supervisor shall sign the form. A record of the 
parts of the air brake system that are cleaned, repaired, and tested 
shall be kept in the railroad's files or in the cab of the locomotive.
    (3) At its option, a railroad may fragment the work required by 
paragraph (f) of this section. In that event, a separate air brake 
record shall be maintained under a transparent cover in the cab. The 
air brake record should include the locomotive number, a list of the 
air brake components, and the date and place of the inspection and test 
of each component. The signature of the person performing the work and 
the signature of that person's supervisor shall be included for each 
component. A duplicate record shall be maintained in the railroad's 
files.
    (g) Leakage. (1) Leakage from the main reservoir and related piping 
may not exceed an average of 3 psi per minute for 3 minutes after the 
pressure has been reduced to 60 percent of the maximum pressure.
    (2) Brake pipe leakage may not exceed 5 psi per minute after a 
reduction of 20 psi has been made from brake pipe air pressure of not 
less than 80 psi.
    (3) With a 20-psi brake pipe reduction at maximum brake pipe 
pressure and with communication to the brake cylinders closed, the 
brakes shall remain applied at least 5 minutes.
    (h) Handbrakes. On locomotives so equipped, handbrakes, parts, and 
connections shall be inspected every 368 days, and necessary repairs 
made. The date of inspection shall be recorded on Form FRA 6180-49A.


Sec. 232.305  Written procedures for conventional freight train brake 
system tests.

    A railroad shall develop, implement, and make available to FRA upon 
request written test procedures for correctly performing all train 
brake system tests for conventional freight trains operated by that 
railroad. At a minimum, these procedures shall include:
    (a) Instructions for performing the tasks contained in 
Sec. 232.303(e) regarding locomotive brake inspection and tests.
    (b) Instructions for performing the tasks contained in 
Sec. 232.309(a) regarding Class 1 brake system tests.
    (c) Instructions for performing the tasks contained in 
Sec. 232.315(a) regarding Class 2 brake system tests.
    (d) Instructions for performing the tasks contained in Sec. 232.317 
regarding transfer brake system tests.
    (e) Instructions for performing the tasks contained in Sec. 232.319 
regarding running tests.
    (f) The steps outlined in Sec. 232.905(d) for equipment that 
includes new brake system technology.
    (g) The procedures for maintaining records of brake system tests 
aboard the trains.


Sec. 232.307  Events requiring the performance of a Class 1 train brake 
system test.

    (a) All conventional freight trains shall receive a Class 1 brake 
system test as described in Sec. 232.309 prior to departing any initial 
terminal point for that train. Initial terminal points include the 
following:
    (1) The point of origin of the train; and
    (2) A point where the train is required to have a new Class 1 test 
because the train has travelled the maximum permissible distance since 
its last Class 1 train brake system test.
    (b) All cars added to a train that have not had a Class 1 test as a 
block or have been disconnected from a charging device (a source of 
compressed air) for more than four hours shall be subjected to a Class 
1 test when added to the train. A Class 2 test shall then be performed 
on the entire new train.
    (c) The following criteria shall be used to determine when the next 
new Class 1 test is required for a train:
    (1) If a railroad does not maintain adequate records to determine 
the most stringent criteria that apply to a train, the train shall not 
travel more than 500 miles between required Class 1 tests. To be 
``adequate,'' these records shall include:
    (i) When and where each block of cars is added to the train.
    (ii) When and where the last Class 1 brake system test was 
performed on each block of cars.
    (iii) The name and qualifications of the brake system inspector 
performing the most recent Class 1 brake system test on each block of 
cars.
    (iv) The distance each block of cars has travelled since its last 
Class 1 test.
    (v) The limitations each block of cars places on the distance the 
train may travel until its next Class 1 brake system test is required.
    (2) If the configuration of the train changes, the most stringent 
criteria that applies to a subset of the cars comprising the train 
shall apply to the train as a whole.
    (3) The criteria given in Sec. 232.311(a) shall be used to 
determine if a train is eligible to travel only 500 miles between Class 
1 train brake system tests.
    (4) The criteria given in Sec. 232.311(b) shall be used to 
determine if a train is eligible to travel up to 1,500 miles between 
Class 1 train brake system tests.
    (5) The criteria given in Sec. 232.311(c) shall be used to 
determine if a train is eligible to travel up to 2,500 miles between 
Class 1 train brake system tests.
    (6) The criteria given in Sec. 232.311(d) shall be used to 
determine if a train is eligible to travel up to 3,500 miles between 
Class 1 train brake system tests.


Sec. 232.309  Required tasks of Class 1 train brake system test.

    (a) Class 1 brake tests of conventional freight train air brake 
systems shall be conducted at locations described in Sec. 232.305, and 
shall at a minimum consist of the following tasks and requirements:
    (1) Brake pipe leakage shall not exceed 5 psi per minute or air 
flow greater than 60 cubic feet per minute (CFM).
    (i) The brake pipe leakage test shall be conducted as follows:
    (A) Charge the air brake system to within 15 psi of the setting of 
the feed or regulating valve on the locomotive, but to not less than 75 
psi, as indicated by an accurate gauge or end-of-train device at the 
rear end of train;
    (B) Upon receiving the signal to apply brakes for test, make a 20-
psi brake pipe service reduction; and
    (C) With the brake valve lapped and the pressure maintaining 
feature cut out (if so equipped) and after waiting 45-60 seconds, note 
the brake pipe leakage as indicated by the brake-pipe gauge in the 
locomotive.
    (ii) When locomotives are equipped with a 26-L brake valve or 
equivalent, a railroad may use the Air Flow Method Test as an alternate 
to the brake pipe leakage test. Perform the Air Flow Method (AFM) Test 
as follows:
    (A) Charge the air brake system to within 15 psi of the setting of 
the feed-regulating valve, but to not less than 75 psi, as indicated by 
an accurate gauge or device at rear end of train; and
    (B) Measure air flow as indicated by a calibrated air flow 
indicator.
    (iii) The air flow indicator shall be calibrated for accuracy at 
periodic intervals not to exceed 92 days. The air flow indicator 
calibration test orifices shall be calibrated at temperatures of not 
more than 20 degrees Fahrenheit. Air flow indicators shall be accurate 
to within  3 standard cubic feet per minute (cfm).
    (2) The inspector shall position himself/herself, taking positions 
on each side of the car if necessary, so as to be able to examine and 
observe the functioning of all moving parts of the brake system on each 
car.
    (3) Angle cocks shall be properly positioned.
    (4) The brakes shall apply and remain applied until a release of 
the air brakes has been initiated.
    (5) Piston travel shall be within 7 to 9 inches for 8\1/2\-inch and 
10-inch diameter brake cylinders or within the piston travel stencilled 
or marked on car or badge plate for other types.
    (6) Brake rigging shall not bind or foul so as to impede the force 
delivered to the brake shoes.
    (7) All parts of the brake equipment shall be properly secured. On 
freight cars where the bottom rod passes through the truck bolster or 
is secured with cotter keys equipped with a locking device to prevent 
their accidental removal, bottom rod safety supports are not required.
    (8) Brake shoes/pads shall be aligned with the tread of the wheel 
or the disc-brake bearing surface.
    (9) Brake shoes/pads shall have adequate wear material to complete 
the intended trip in accordance with Sec. 32.15(m).
    (10) Wheels shall be free of cracks as defined in Sec. 232.5.
    (11) When release signal is given, the brake on each car shall be 
inspected to verify that it did release. Train speed shall not exceed 
10 MPH if a ``roll-by'' inspection of the brake release is performed.
    (12) The empty/load device shall respond as intended.
    (13) If the train is equipped with an end-of-train device, the 
device shall respond as intended.
    (14) If the train is equipped with an end-of-train device, a 
comparison check shall be made to ensure that the head-end pressure 
reading is within  3 psi of the rear-end pressure reading. 
The rear unit of the end-of-train device shall be installed on the rear 
of the train when this check is performed.
    (b) Prior to departure of a train, a railroad shall determine that 
the locomotive brakes and train brake control devices operate as 
intended.
    (c) Prior to departure of a train, a railroad shall determine that 
oil and water have been drained from the air brake system.
    (d) Class 1 tests of new brake system technology shall be conducted 
in accordance with the Class 1 test procedures developed in accordance 
with the process given in Subpart J of this part for that technology.
    (e) A train equipped with a two-way end-of-train device or its 
equivalent shall not depart from a point of origin unless:
    (1) The device is capable of initiating a power brake application 
from the rear of the train, and
    (2) The batteries of the device are charged to at least 75 percent 
of watt-hour capacity.
    (f) When cars which have not been previously charged and tested as 
prescribed by paragraph (a) (1) through (14) of this section are added 
to a train, such cars shall either be given inspection and tests in 
accordance with paragraph (a)(1) through (14) or tested as prescribed 
by paragraph (a) (1) through (4) of this section prior to departure in 
which case these cars must be inspected and tested in accordance with 
paragraph (a) (1) through (14) at the next terminal where facilities 
are available for such attention.


Sec. 232.311  Distance between required Class 1 train brake system 
tests.

    (a) 500-mile train movement. A train shall not be operated for more 
than 500 miles from a point where it receives a Class 1 brake test if 
any one or more of the following conditions exist:
    (1) The Class 1 brake test is performed by a qualified train crew 
member who meets the qualifications given in Sec. 232.211. This option 
is available only for conventional freight trains. Class 1 brake tests 
on all other types of trains shall be performed by fully qualified 
brake system inspectors who meet the qualification requirements of 
Sec. 232.207 and Sec. 232.209, as applicable.
    (2) Spot checks, meeting the frequency requirements of 
Sec. 232.15(i), of the Class 1 test are not performed by qualified 
train brake system supervisor who meets the qualification requirements 
of Sec. 232.205.
    (3) The railroad, system wide, has a quarterly power brake defect 
ratio, as defined in Sec. 232.5, for the most recently completed 
calendar quarter, of greater than five percent.
    (4) The train picks up individual cars enroute or more than one 
block of previously tested cars is added to the train.
    (5) The train contains a block of cars whose previous Class 1 brake 
system test was performed by a qualified train crew member.
    (6) The railroad does not have a periodic freight brake and single 
car test program in place that meets all the requirements of this part.
    (b) 1,500-mile train movements. A train may be operated up to 1,500 
miles from a point where it receives a Class 1 brake test if all of the 
following conditions are met:
    (1) The Class 1 brake test on that train is performed by a 
qualified train brake system inspector who meets the requirements of 
Sec. 232.207 (for mechanical inspectors) or Sec. 232.209 (when an 
electronic inspector is required).
    (2) For freight trains only, a pre-departure freight car safety 
inspection is performed in accordance with Sec. 215.13(b) of this 
chapter by an inspector meeting the qualifications of Sec. 215.11 of 
this chapter. This inspection shall be performed on all cars.
    (3) A record of all brake tests performed on the train is available 
to the train crew.
    (4) A Qualified Train Brake System Supervisor, meeting the 
qualification requirements of Sec. 232.205, performs frequent spot 
checks of the Class 1 tests in accordance with Sec. 232.15(i).
    (5) The railroad, system wide, has a quarterly power brake defect 
ratio, as defined in Sec. 232.5, for the most recently completed 
calendar quarter of less than five percent on outbound trains.
    (6) The train configuration remains unchanged for the entire trip 
except for:
    (i) At most, the addition of a single block of previously tested 
cars (where the previous Class 1 test was performed by qualified brake 
system inspector) that has been disconnected from a charging device for 
less than four hours. The block of cars added shall not have travelled 
a distance from the point of its last Class 1 inspection that, when 
added to the remaining distance of haul for the train picking it up, 
exceeds 1,500 miles; or
    (ii) The removal of defective cars in accordance with Sec. 232.17.
    (7) The railroad can demonstrate a quality periodic freight brake 
and single car test program according with Sec. 232.319 which meets all 
the requirements of this part. Each car in the train shall be 
stencilled with the date that the next periodic freight brake test is 
due, in accordance with subpart G of this part, and no car shall be 
past due for a periodic freight brake test.
    (8) If the train is to proceed beyond 1,500 miles, a new Class 1 
brake test shall be performed.
    (c) 2,500-mile train movements. A train may be operated up to 2,500 
miles from a point where it receives a Class 1 brake test if all of the 
following conditions are met:
    (1) All the requirements stated in paragraph (b) of this section 
necessary to qualify the train to travel 1,500 miles between required 
train brake system tests are met.
    (2) The train configuration remains unchanged for the entire trip 
except for, at most, the changing of motive power and the removal of 
defective cars in accordance with Sec. 232.17.
    (3) The railroad informs FRA in writing, prior to movement of the 
train, of its intention to operate a train up to 2,500 miles between 
required Class 1 train brake systems tests. For each train, the 
information provided to FRA Office of Safety Enforcement shall include:
    (i) The nature of the service to be provided;
    (ii) The type of equipment to be used;
    (iii) The frequency of the service and estimated annual mileage for 
the equipment used; and
    (iv) A description of how the criteria to qualify the train will be 
met.
    (4) If the train is to proceed beyond 2,500 miles, a new Class 1 
brake test shall be performed.
    (d) 3,500-mile train movements. A train may be operated up to 3,500 
miles from a point where it receives a Class 1 brake test if all of the 
following conditions are met:
    (1) All the requirements stated in paragraph (c) of this section 
necessary to qualify the train to travel 2,500 miles between required 
train brake system tests are met.
    (2) The train is equipped with reliable brake-pad thickness sensors 
that are in current calibration, that are operational, and that provide 
a warning to the train brake control system when brake pads reach the 
wear limit.
    (3) The train is equipped with reliable brake-application force 
sensors that are in current calibration, that are operational, and that 
provide a warning to the train brake control system when brake 
application force is not adequate for effective brakes.
    (4) The train brake system is computer controlled, and the computer 
is capable of conducting automated tests and monitoring of the train 
brake system. See Sec. 232.113.
    (5) The railroad uses the brake system sensors and controlling 
computer to conduct an automated initial terminal inspection of the 
train. See Sec. 232.113(f).
    (6) The automated tests are supplemented with human inspection to 
do spot check verification of the results of the automated tests.
    (7) The onboard computer controlling the brake system continuously 
monitors and reports the status of the train brake system.
    (e) A railroad that opts to operate a train up to 1,500 miles, 
2,500 miles, or 3,500 miles between required Class 1 train brake system 
tests shall maintain adequate test records on each such train to 
demonstrate that the conditions specified in paragraph (b), (c), or (d) 
of this section have been met. These records shall be retained for a 
period of no less than one year and shall be made available to FRA upon 
request.


Sec. 232.313  Events requiring the performance of a Class 2 train brake 
system test.

    Class 2 brake tests shall be performed to test the train brake 
system of trains that have changed configuration. Class 2 tests shall 
be performed under any of the following conditions:
    (a) Where a locomotive or a caboose is changed, or where a block of 
cars is cut off from the rear end or head end of a train and the 
configuration of the train is otherwise unchanged;
    (b) After the Class 1 test when one or more blocks of cars are 
added to a train;
    (c) Where blocks of cars that are eligible for further travel since 
receiving their last Class 1 test and have not been off air for more 
than four hours are added to a train otherwise eligible for further 
travel since its last Class 1 test; or
    (d) Where a train, providing repetitive service, otherwise eligible 
for further travel before requiring a Class 1 test, completes a cycle 
of that repetitive service.


Sec. 232.315  Required tasks of Class 2 train brake system test.

    (a) Class 2 train brake system tests shall be performed at 
locations described in Sec. 232.313 and shall, at a minimum, include 
the following:
    (1) The train brake system shall be charged to within 15 psi of the 
feed-valve setting on the locomotive, but not less than 75 psi, as 
indicated at the rear of the train by gauge or telemetry device.
    (2) A 20-psi brake pipe reduction shall be made.
    (3) An inspection shall be made to determine that the brakes on the 
rear car apply and release.
    (4) As an alternative to the rear car brake application and release 
test, it shall be determined that brake pipe pressure of the train is 
being reduced (as indicated by a rear car gauge or end-of-train device) 
and then that brake pipe pressure of the train is being restored (as 
indicated by a rear car gauge or end-of-train device). When a device is 
used to comply with any test requirement in this section, the phrase 
``brake pipe pressure of the train is being reduced'' means a pressure 
reduction of at least 5 psi, and the phrase ``brake pipe pressure of 
the train is being restored'' means a pressure increase of at least 5 
psi.
    (5) The train shall not proceed until communication of brake pipe 
pressure changes is verified at the end of the train.
    (b) Class 2 tests of new brake system technology shall be conducted 
in accordance with the Class 2 test procedures developed for that 
technology in accordance with the procedures given in subpart J of this 
part.


Sec. 232.317  Transfer train brake system test.

    (a) Transfer train movements of less than 20 miles shall receive a 
test that, at a minimum, includes the following:
    (1) The air brake hoses shall be coupled between all cars.
    (2) After the brake system is charged to not less than 60 psi, a 
20-psi service brake pipe reduction shall be made.
    (3) An inspection shall be made to determine that the brakes apply 
on each car before releasing them and proceeding.
    (b) A train movement exceeding 20 miles or that is not a transfer 
train as defined in Sec. 232.5 shall have a Class 1 brake test in 
accordance with Sec. 232.309 prior to movement.


Sec. 232.319  Running test.

    When motive power or engine crew has been changed, a running test 
on each locomotive in the train equipped with dynamic brakes shall be 
made, to determine the condition of the dynamic brake, as soon as the 
speed of the locomotive or train permits.


Sec. 232.321  Freight single car test and periodic freight brake test.

    (a) A freight single car test or periodic freight brake test, as 
defined in Sec. 232.5, shall be conducted on each car with conventional 
air brakes as required in subpart G of this part.
    (b) A railroad introducing new train brake system technology shall 
follow the procedures given in Subpart J of this part to develop a 
freight single car and periodic freight brake test for the new 
technology equivalent to the ``freight single car test'' or ``periodic 
freight brake test'' defined in Sec. 232.5. The periodic freight brake 
test and freight single car test shall:
    (1) Provide air brake testing equivalent to the tests defined in 
this section and Sec. 232.5;
    (2) Provide tests of any new train brake system technology used 
that is not covered in Sec. 232.15;
    (3) Ensure the car or train set brake system is 100 percent 
effective and is functioning as designed; and
    (4) Incorporate train brake system performance standards developed 
under the guidance of Sec. 232.901 where applicable.


Sec. 232.323  Train brake system tests conducted using yard air.

    (a) After January 1, 1996, all equipment used to produce yard air 
shall be equipped with an operative air dryer capable of producing a 
30-degree F dew-point depression at a flow rate of 100 cfm.
    (b) When a train air brake system is tested from a yard test plant, 
an engineer's brake valve or a suitable test device must be used to 
provide any increase or reduction of brake pipe air pressure at the 
same, or slower, rate as an engineer's brake valve, and the yard test 
plant must be connected to the end of the train or cut of cars that 
will be nearest to the hauling road locomotive.
    (c) When a yard test plant is used, the train air brake system must 
be charged and tested as prescribed by Sec. 232.309(a) and when 
practicable should be kept charged until road motive power is coupled 
to train, after which, an automatic brake application and release test 
of air brakes on the rear car shall be made.
    (1) If the cars are disconnected from a supply of compressed air 
for more than four hours, before these cars may be added to a train, 
they shall be retested in accordance with Sec. 232.309(a).
    (2) Yard test plant air pressure must be 90 psi.
    (d) Yard test devices and gauges shall be calibrated annually. 
Gauges or other devices providing air-pressure control shall be 
accurate to within 3 psi.
    (e) If used to test a train, a yard air test device and any yard 
air test equipment shall be accurate and function as intended.

Subpart E--Inspection and Test Standards for Conventional 
Passenger, Commuter, and Excursion Train Brakes Systems


Sec. 232.401  Test and inspection standards for conventional passenger 
locomotives.

    The inspection and test standards for brake systems of standard 
passenger locomotives are identical to the standards for conventional 
freight locomotives stated in Sec. 232.303.


Sec. 232.403  Written procedures for conventional passenger, commuter, 
and excursion train brake system tests.

    A railroad shall develop, implement, and make available to FRA upon 
request written test procedures for correctly performing all train 
brake system tests for conventional passenger, commuter, and excursion 
trains operated by that railroad. At a minimum, these procedures shall 
include:
    (a) Instructions for performing the tasks stated in Secs. 232.407, 
232.421 and 232.425, when applicable, regarding Class 1 brake system 
tests.
    (b) Instructions for performing the tasks stated in Sec. 232.413 
regarding Class 2 brake system tests.
    (c) Instructions for performing the tasks stated in Sec. 232.415 
regarding running tests.
    (d) The steps outlined in Sec. 232.905(d)(1)(i) for equipment that 
includes new brake system technology.
    (e) The procedures for maintaining records of brake system tests 
aboard the trains.


Sec. 232.405  General requirements of Class 1 train brake system tests 
for conventional passenger trains.

    (a) Conventional passenger train Class 1 brake system tests shall 
be performed only by qualified brake system inspectors meeting the 
requirements contained in Sec. 232.207 or Sec. 232.209.
    (b) A Class 1 brake system test shall be performed on conventional 
passenger trains prior to departing any initial terminal point as 
defined in Sec. 232.5.


Sec. 232.407  Required tasks of Class 1 train brake system tests for 
conventional passenger trains.

    (a) The following tasks and procedures shall be required as part of 
the Class 1 brake system test of a conventional passenger train:
    (1) Brake pipe leakage shall not exceed 5 psi per minute. The brake 
pipe leakage test shall be conducted as follows:
    (i) Charge the air brake system to within 15 psi of the setting of 
the feed or regulating valve on the locomotive, but to not less than 
85-psi at the rear end of train;
    (ii) Upon receiving the signal to apply brakes for test, make a 20-
psi brake pipe service reduction;
    (iii) With the brake valve lapped and the pressure maintaining 
feature cut out (if so equipped) and after waiting 45-60 seconds, note 
the brake pipe leakage as indicated by the brake pipe gauge in the 
locomotive.
    (2) The inspector shall position himself/herself, taking positions 
on each side of the car if necessary, so as to be able to examine and 
observe the functioning of all moving parts of the brake system.
    (3) Angle cocks shall be properly positioned.
    (4) The brakes shall apply and remain applied until release is 
called for on each car.
    (5) Piston travel shall be within 7-9 inches for 8\1/2\- and 10-
inch diameter brake cylinders or within the piston travel as stencilled 
or marked on car or badge plate for other types.
    (6) Brake rigging shall not bind or foul so as to impede the force 
delivered to the brake shoes.
    (7) All parts of the brake equipment shall be properly secured.
    (8) Brake shoes/pads shall be aligned with the tread of the wheel 
or the disc-brake bearing surface of the axle.
    (9) Brake shoes/pads shall have adequate wear material to complete 
the intended trip.
    (10) Short stroke brake actuators (tread brake units/disc brake 
cylinders) shall have adequate brake shoe/disc pad clearance with 
brakes released and, when applied, shall respond as intended for the 
application of the tread/disc against the braking surface. Brake 
indicators which are clearly visible by a positioned inspector may be 
used to determine the brake status.
    (11) When release signal is given, it shall be verified that each 
brake did release.
    (12) Wheels shall be free of cracks as defined in Sec. 232.5.(b).
    (b) For each passenger car, a pre-departure car mechanical safety 
inspection equivalent to the freight car inspection required by 
Sec. 215.13(b) of this chapter is performed by an inspector meeting the 
qualifications of Sec. 215.11 of this chapter. At a minimum this 
inspection shall include:
    (1) A visual inspection of draft gears and couplers or uncoupling 
arrangements for any unsafe conditions.
    (2) A close examination of trucks, bearings, and wheels for any 
unsafe conditions.
    (3) A close examination of all high voltage components of the 
electrical system for any unsafe conditions.
    (c) Class 1 tests of new brake system technology shall be conducted 
in accordance with the Class 1 test procedures developed in accordance 
with the process described in subpart J of this part for that 
technology.


Sec. 232.409  Distance between required Class 1 brake system tests for 
conventional passenger trains.

    (a) 500-mile train movements. A conventional passenger train shall 
not be operated for more than 500 miles from a point where it receives 
a Class 1 brake test if any one or more of the following conditions 
exist:
    (1) Spot checks of the Class 1 test are not performed by qualified 
train brake system supervisors who meet the qualification requirements 
of Sec. 232.205.
    (2) The railroad, system wide, has a quarterly power brake defect 
ratio, as defined in Sec. 232.5, for the most recently completed 
calendar quarter of greater than three percent on outbound trains 
inspected by the FRA (at the same location as the inspection conducted 
by the railroad) after the railroad has completed a Class 1 test.
    (3) More than one block of previously tested cars is added to the 
train.
    (4) The railroad does not have a single car test program in place 
that meets all the requirements of this part.
    (b) 1,500-mile train movements. A conventional passenger train may 
be operated up to 1,500 miles from a point where it receives a Class 1 
brake system test if all of the following conditions are met:
    (1) A record of all brake tests performed on the train is available 
to the train crew.
    (2) A Qualified Train Brake System Supervisor, meeting the 
qualification requirements of Sec. 232.205, performs frequent spot 
checks of the Class 1 brake tests.
    (3) The railroad, system wide, has a quarterly power brake defect 
ratio, as defined in Sec. 232.5, for the most recently completed 
calendar quarter of less than three percent on outbound trains 
inspected by Federal or State Inspectors (at the same location as the 
inspection conducted by the railroad) after the railroad has completed 
a Class 1 brake system test.
    (4) The train configuration remains unchanged for the entire trip 
except for, at most, the addition of a single block of previously 
tested cars (where the previous Class 1 test was performed by a 
qualified brake system inspector as defined in Sec. 232.207 or 
Sec. 232.209) that has been disconnected from a source of compressed 
air for less than four hours.
    (5) The railroad can demonstrate that it has a high-quality single 
car test program which meets all the requirements of this part. Each 
car in the train shall be stencilled with the date that the next single 
car test is due, in accordance with subpart G of this part, and no car 
shall be past due for a single car test.
    (6) If the train is to proceed beyond 1,500 miles, a new class 1 
brake test shall be performed.
    (c) 2,500-mile train movements. A conventional passenger train may 
be operated up to 2,500 miles from a point where it receives a Class 1 
brake system test if all of the following conditions are met:
    (1) All the requirements stated in paragraph (b) of this section 
necessary to qualify the train to travel 1,500 miles between required 
train brake system tests are met.
    (2) The train configuration remains unchanged for the entire trip 
except for, at most, the changing of motive power and when motive power 
is changed a Class 2 test is performed.
    (3) The railroad informs FRA in writing, prior to movement of the 
train, of its intention to operate a train up to 2,500 miles between 
required Class 1 train brake systems tests. For each train, the 
information provided to FRA shall include:
    (i) The nature of the service to be provided;
    (ii) The type of equipment to be used;
    (iii) The frequency of the service, schedule and estimated annual 
mileage for the equipment used;
    (iv) Origin and destination of the train;
    (v) Train number; and
    (vi) A description of how the criteria to qualify the train will be 
met.
    (4) If the train is to proceed beyond 2,500 miles, a new class 1 
brake test shall be performed.
    (d) 3,500-mile train movements. A conventional passenger train may 
be operated up to 3,500 miles from a point where it receives a Class 1 
brake system test if all of the following conditions are met:
    (1) All the criteria stated in paragraph (c) of this section 
necessary to qualify a train to travel 2,500 miles between required 
train brake system tests are met.
    (2) The train is equipped with reliable brake-pad thickness sensors 
that are in current calibration, that are operational, and that provide 
a warning to the train brake control system when brake pads reach the 
wear limit.
    (3) The train is equipped with reliable brake-application force 
sensors that are in current calibration, that are operational, and that 
provide a warning to the train brake control system when brake 
application force is not adequate for effective brakes.
    (4) The train brake system is computer controlled, and the computer 
is capable of conducting automated tests and monitoring of the train 
brake system.
    (5) The railroad uses the brake system sensors and controlling 
computer to conduct an automated initial terminal inspection of the 
train.
    (6) The automated tests are supplemented with human inspection to 
do spot check verification of the results of the automated tests.
    (7) The onboard computer controlling the brake system continuously 
monitors and reports the status of the train brake system.
    (e) A railroad that opts to operate a train up to 1,500 miles, 
2,500 miles, or 3,500 miles between required Class 1 brake system tests 
shall maintain adequate test records on each such train to demonstrate 
that the conditions specified in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this 
section have been met. These records shall be made available to FRA 
upon request.


Sec. 232.411  General requirements of Class 2 train brake system tests 
for conventional passenger trains.

    Class 2 brake tests shall be performed only to test the train brake 
system of trains that have changed configuration and do not require a 
Class 1 brake test. Class 2 tests shall be performed in lieu of the 
Class 1 test only under the following conditions:
    (a) Where a locomotive or a caboose is changed, or where a block of 
cars is cut off from the rear end or head end of a train and the 
configuration of the train is otherwise unchanged.
    (b) Where blocks of cars that are eligible for further travel since 
receiving their last Class 1 test and have not been off air for more 
than four hours are added to a train eligible for further travel since 
its last Class 1 test.
    (c) Where a train, providing repetitive service, eligible for 
further travel before requiring a Class 1 test completes a cycle of 
that repetitive service.


Sec. 232.413  Required tasks of Class 2 train brake system tests for 
conventional passenger trains.

    (a) Class 2 train brake system tests for passenger trains shall 
include the following:
    (1) The train brake system shall be charged to within 15 psi of the 
feed valve setting on the locomotive, but not less than 85 psi at the 
rear of the train.
    (2) A 20-psi brake pipe reduction shall be made.
    (3) An inspection shall be made to determine that the brakes on the 
rear car apply and release as indicated by the position of brake shoes 
or brake indicator.
    (4) As an alternative to the application-and-release brake test on 
the rear car (specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section), it shall 
be determined that the brake pipe pressure of the train is being 
reduced as indicated by a rear-car gauge or end-of-train device and 
then that the brake pipe pressure of the train is being restored as 
indicated by a rear-car gauge or end-of-train device. When a device is 
used to comply with any test requirement in this section, the phrase 
``brake pipe pressure of the train is being reduced'' means a pressure 
reduction of at least 5 psi, and the phrase ``brake pipe pressure of 
the train is being restored'' means a pressure increase of at least 5 
psi.
    (5) The train shall not proceed until communication of brake pipe 
pressure changes at the rear of the train is verified.
    (b) Class 2 tests of new brake system technology shall be conducted 
in accordance with the Class 2 test procedures developed for that 
technology in accordance with the procedures described in subpart J of 
this part.


Sec. 232.415  Running test for conventional passenger trains.

    (a) A running test of train air brakes on a conventional passenger 
train shall be made as soon as the speed of the train permits (by use 
of an automatic brake if operating in automatic brake operation) when 
any of the following events occurs:
    (1) When motive power is changed;
    (2) When an engine crew or train crew is changed;
    (3) When an angle cock is closed, except in the process of cutting 
off one or more cars from the rear end of train.
    (b) A running test shall be made by applying the train air brakes 
with sufficient force to ascertain whether or not the brakes are 
operating properly. Power must not be shut off unless required. If the 
air brakes do not properly operate, the train must be stopped, the 
cause of failure ascertained and corrected, and the running test 
repeated.
    (c) When motive power or engine crew is changed, a running test on 
each locomotive equipped with dynamic brakes shall be made to determine 
the condition of the dynamic brake, as soon as the operating speed of 
the train permits.


Sec. 232.417  Conventional passenger car single car or single passenger 
train set test.

    (a) A Conventional Passenger Car Single Car Test, as defined in 
Sec. 232.5, shall be conducted on each passenger car with conventional 
air brakes as required in subpart G of this part.
    (b) If a railroad operates a passenger train set, the railroad may 
develop and implement an equivalent Single Passenger Train Set Test in 
lieu of the Single Car Test. The test shall be submitted to FRA upon 
request.


Sec. 232.419  Conventional passenger train brake system test conducted 
using yard air.

    (a) After January 1, 1996, all equipment used to produce yard air 
shall be equipped with an air dryer capable of producing a 30-degree F 
dew point depression at a flow rate of 100 cfm.
    (b) When a train air brake system is tested from a yard test plant, 
an engineer's brake valve or an equivalent suitable test device must be 
used to provide any increase or reduction of the brake pipe air 
pressure at the same, or slower, rate as with an engineer's brake valve 
and the yard test plant must be connected to the end of the train or 
cut of cars which will be nearest to the hauling road locomotive.
    (c) When a yard test plant is used, the train air brake system must 
be charged and tested as prescribed by Sec. 232.407, and when 
practicable should be kept charged until road motive power is coupled 
to train, after which, an automatic brake application and release test 
of air brakes on the rear car shall be made.
    (1) If the cars are disconnected from a supply of compressed air 
for more than four hours, before these cars may be added to a train 
they shall be retested in accordance with Sec. 232.407.
    (2) Yard test plant air pressure shall be 100 psi.
    (d) Yard test devices and gauges shall be calibrated annually. 
Gauges shall be accurate to within 3 psi.
    (e) Railroads shall ensure that yard air test devices and yard air 
equipment are accurate and function as intended.


Sec. 232.421  Class 1 train brake system test for repetitive 
conventional passenger and commuter trains.

    (a) Class 1 train brake system tests for repetitive conventional 
passenger and commuter trains shall be performed only by qualified 
train brake system inspectors meeting the requirements of Sec. 232.207 
and Sec. 232.209.
    (b) The tasks stated in Sec. 232.407(a) (1) through (11) regarding 
conventional passenger trains shall be performed as part of the Class 1 
train brake system test on the pneumatic brake systems of repetitive 
conventional passenger and commuter trains.
    (c) Wheels shall have no cracks greater than \1/2\ inch long in the 
center area of the tread surface and no crack within \1/2\ inch of the 
edge of the tread or flange.
    (d) The following tasks shall be performed as part of the Class 1 
brake system test of MU equipment with P-wire brake control:
    (1) A brake pipe leakage test is not required.
    (2) The engineer shall release and reapply the brakes and ensure 
that brake-release and brake-application lights illuminate.
    (3) A qualified inspector shall inspect the train to determine that 
brakes apply on each car and shoes or pads are tight against the tread 
or disc.
    (4) Short-stroke brake actuators (tread brake units/disc brake 
cylinders) shall have adequate brake shoe/disc pad clearance with 
brakes released, and when brakes are applied, shall respond as intended 
for the application of the tread/disc against the braking surface. 
Brake indicators which are clearly visible by a positioned inspector 
may be used to determine the brake status.
    (5) The brake shoes shall be aligned with the wheels.
    (6) The brake system shall be properly secured.
    (7) The brake equipment shall not drag or hang.
    (8) When the release signal is received, the engineer shall place 
the controller handle in ``Coast.'' Each brake shall be inspected for 
proper release.
    (9) The deadman feature shall be activated, and 0 psi shall be 
observed on the rear end pressure gauge.
    (10) The most recent engineer's reports shall be checked for any 
indication of dynamic brake problems, and any problems shall be 
repaired.
    (e) The pre-departure car mechanical safety inspection stated at 
Sec. 232.407(b) shall be performed on passenger cars of repetitive 
conventional passenger and commuter trains as part of the Class 1 brake 
system test.
    (f) A Class 1 train brake system test shall be conducted daily 
prior to the first departure each calendar day for repetitive 
conventional passenger and commuter trains.


Sec. 232.423  Additional brake system tests for repetitive conventional 
passenger and commuter trains.

    (a) Class 2 train brake system test. (1) A Class 2 train brake 
system test shall be performed each time that a repetitive conventional 
passenger or commuter train completes one cycle or reaches a turnaround 
point in a repetitive schedule.
    (2) Class 2 train brake system tests for repetitive conventional 
passenger and commuter trains with pneumatic brake systems shall 
include the following tasks:
    (i) The train brake system shall be charged to the feed valve 
setting of the locomotive.
    (ii) A 20-psi brake pipe reduction shall be made.
    (iii) An inspection shall be made to determine that the brakes on 
the rear car apply and release as indicated by position of the brake 
shoes or brake indicator.
    (3) Class 2 train brake system tests for repetitive conventional 
passenger and commuter trains with P-wire brake control or equivalent 
train brake communication line shall include the following tasks:
    (i) A qualified person in the rear operating cab shall determine 
that rear car brakes apply and release in response to the engineer's 
commands as indicated by the brake cylinder gauge or brake indicator in 
the rear cab.
    (ii) The train shall not proceed until communication of the brake 
application and release has been verified by a qualified person in 
accordance with paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section.
    (b) Running tests. Running tests on repetitive conventional 
passenger and commuter trains shall be performed in accordance with the 
requirements stated in Sec. 232.415 regarding conventional passenger 
trains.
    (c) Single passenger car or single passenger train set tests. A 
single car test on repetitive conventional passenger and commuter train 
cars shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements stated in 
Sec. 232.417 regarding conventional passenger train cars.


Sec. 232.425  Class 1 brake system tests for excursion trains.

    (a) A Class 1 train brake system test shall be performed on an 
excursion train prior to departure of the train from an initial 
terminal point.
    (b) A Class 1 train brake system test shall be performed on cars 
added to excursion trains at points other than initial terminal point.
    (c) Excursion trains that are inspected in accordance with this 
section shall not operate over 30 mph nor travel more than 250 miles 
between required Class 1 train brake system tests.
    (d) The tasks stated in Sec. 232.407 regarding conventional 
passenger trains shall be performed as part of the Class 1 train brake 
system test on excursion trains.
    (e) The pre-departure car mechanical safety inspection contained in 
Sec. 232.407(b) shall be performed on passenger cars of excursion 
trains as part of the Class 1 inspection.


Sec. 232.427  Additional train brake system tests for excursion trains.

    (a) Class 2 brake system test. (1) A Class 2 brake test shall be 
performed on an excursion train whenever motive power or pretested cars 
are added or cars removed.
    (2) A Class 2 train brake system test for an excursion train 
includes the tasks stated in Sec. 232.413 regarding conventional 
passenger trains.
    (b) Running test. A running test shall be performed on an excursion 
train in accordance with the requirements contained in Sec. 232.415 
regarding conventional passenger trains.
    (c) Single passenger car test. A single car test on excursion train 
cars shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements stated in 
Sec. 232.417 regarding conventional passenger train cars. This test 
shall be conducted on each car of an excursion train with conventional 
air brakes prior to service each calendar year.

Subpart F--Inspection and Test Standards for Intermediate Speed and 
High Speed Trains


Sec. 232.501  Class 1 train brake system test for intermediate speed 
and high speed trains.

    (a) Railroads shall develop, implement, and make available to FRA 
upon request written Class 1 train brake system test procedures for 
intermediate speed freight trains that meet or exceed the requirements 
for the Class 1 test for conventional freight trains given in 
Sec. 232.307 and Sec. 232.309. Railroads shall use the process 
described in subpart J of this part to develop the Class 1 brake system 
test for high speed freight trains. Railroads shall conduct all Class 1 
brake tests on high speed freight trains in accordance with the 
procedures developed pursuant to this paragraph.
    (b) Intermediate speed passenger or commuter service utilizing 
equipment delivered on or before January 1, 1995 shall adhere to the 
Class 1 brake system test standards for conventional passenger trains 
described in Secs. 232.405 and 232.407.
    (c) For (i) all high speed passenger service and (ii) all 
intermediate speed passenger and commuter service utilizing equipment 
delivered on or after January 1, 1995, railroads shall develop, 
implement, and make available to FRA upon request written Class 1 train 
brake system test procedures that are tailored to the specific 
intermediate or high speed technology employed. Railroads shall use the 
process described in subpart J of this part to develop the Class 1 test 
procedures. Railroads shall conduct all Class 1 brake tests on 
intermediate and high speed passenger and commuter trains in accordance 
with the procedures developed pursuant to this paragraph.


Sec. 232.503  Class 2 train brake system test for intermediate speed 
and high speed trains.

    (a) A Class 2 train brake system test shall not be performed on 
intermediate speed freight trains. All pre-departure brake tests shall 
be Class 1 tests.
    (b) Intermediate speed passenger or commuter service utilizing 
equipment delivered on or before January 1, 1995 shall adhere to the 
Class 2 brake system test standards for conventional passenger trains 
described in Secs. 232.411 and 232.413.
    (c) For all high speed passenger service and all intermediate speed 
passenger and commuter service utilizing equipment delivered after 
January 1, 1995, railroads shall develop, implement, and make available 
to FRA upon request written Class 2 train brake system test procedures 
that are tailored to the specific intermediate or high speed technology 
employed. Railroads shall use the process described in subpart J of 
this part to develop the Class 2 test procedures. Railroads shall 
conduct all Class 2 brake tests on intermediate and high speed 
passenger and commuter trains in accordance with the procedures 
developed pursuant to this paragraph.


Sec. 232.505  Running test.

    Railroads operating intermediate and high speed passenger and 
commuter trains shall develop, implement, and make available to FRA 
upon request written running test procedures. Running tests shall be 
conducted in accordance with the procedures developed pursuant to this 
paragraph to determine the condition of the train brake system as soon 
as the speed of the train permits.


Sec. 232.507  Single car or single passenger train set test.

    (a) Railroads operating intermediate speed freight trains shall 
develop, implement, and make available to FRA upon request written 
single car test procedures tailored to the specific brake technology 
used. The single car test procedures shall meet or exceed the 
procedures for the single car test on conventional freight trains 
described in subpart G of this part. Railroads shall use the process 
described in subpart J of this part to develop the single car test 
procedures for intermediate speed freight trains. Railroads shall 
conduct all single car tests on intermediate speed freight equipment in 
accordance with the procedures developed pursuant to this paragraph.
    (b) Intermediate speed passenger or commuter service utilizing 
equipment delivered on or before January 1, 1995 shall adhere to the 
single car or single passenger train set test standards for 
conventional passenger trains described in Sec. 232.417.
    (c) For all high speed passenger service and all intermediate speed 
passenger and commuter service utilizing equipment delivered after 
January 1, 1995, railroads shall develop and make available to FRA upon 
request written single car or single passenger train set test 
procedures that are tailored to the specific intermediate and high 
speed technology employed. Railroads shall use the process described in 
subpart J of this part to develop the test procedures.
    (d) Railroads shall conduct single car or single passenger train 
set tests at the intervals given in subpart G of this part.
    (e) Railroads shall use the process described in subpart G of this 
part to change the interval between required single car or single 
passenger train set tests.

Subpart G--Single Car Test, Periodic Freight Brake Test, and Single 
Passenger Train Set Test Requirements


Sec. 232.601  General requirements.

    (a) All railroads shall conduct comprehensive periodic freight 
brake tests, single car tests, or single passenger train set tests to 
demonstrate that single car or unit train brake systems function as 
intended.
    (b) Railroads shall develop, implement, and make available to FRA 
upon request detailed written test procedures for all periodic freight 
brake, single car or single passenger train set tests that include the 
following:
    (1) Step-by-step instructions for performing the test.
    (2) Description of any special test equipment or test devices 
required to perform the tests.
    (3) Expected results or range of acceptable values for each step of 
the test.
    (4) Instructions on how to proceed in the event of a failure of a 
step of the test.
    (c) Periodic freight brake, single car and single passenger train 
set test procedures shall be adequate to demonstrate that all 
components of the car or train set brake system function as intended by 
their design.
    (d) Railroads operating passenger trains sets shall have the option 
to develop a single train set test that is the equivalent of performing 
a series of single car tests on the cars comprising the train set.


Sec. 232.603  Required tasks.

    (a) Periodic freight brake test. Periodic freight brake tests shall 
be performed in accordance with the Association of American Railroads 
standard S-486, Section 3.0, contained in the AAR ``Manual of Standards 
and Recommended Practices, Section E, Part II'' (November 1992).
    (b) Freight brake single car test. Freight brake single car tests 
shall be performed in accordance with the Association of American 
Railroads standard S-486, Section 4.0, contained in the AAR ``Manual of 
Standards and Recommended Practices, Section E, Part II'' (November 
1992).
    (c) Passenger car single car test. Passenger car single car tests 
shall be performed in accordance with the Association of American 
Railroads standard S-044, contained in the AAR ``Instruction Pamphlet 
5039-4, Supp. 3'' (April 1991).
    (d) New technology or unconventional brake equipment. Tests on cars 
or passenger train sets equipped with new brake system technology or 
unconventional brake equipment shall be adequate to demonstrate that 
equipment is capable of applying its designed retarding force to 
decelerate the train.


Sec. 232.605  Unscheduled tests.

    (a) A single car test (passenger or freight) or a single passenger 
train set test of the brake system shall be performed prior to further 
operation--
    (1) When a car has one or more of the following wheel defects:

(i) Built-up tread,
(ii) Wheel slid flat,
(iii) Wheel with thermal cracks, or
(iv) Discolored wheel;

    (2) When one or more of the following conventional air brake 
equipment items is removed, repaired or replaced:

(i) Service portion,
(ii) Emergency portion, or
(iii) Pipe bracket.

    (b) A periodic freight brake test or a passenger single car test of 
the brake system shall be performed prior to further operation when one 
or more of the following conventional air brake equipment items is 
removed, repaired or replaced:

(1) Brake reservoir,
(2) Brake cylinders,
(3) Piston assemblies,
(4) Retaining valve,
(5) Vent valve,
(6) Quick service valve,
(7) Empty/load equipment,
(8) Brake cylinder release valve (AB type),
(9) Modulating valve or slack adjuster, or
(10) Relay valves;
(11) When a passenger coach is placed in service after having been out 
of service for 90 days or more; or
(12) When a car or passenger train set equipped with new or 
unconventional brake technology is sent to a shop or repair track
    (i) To remedy a defect that could affect the ability of the new or 
unconventional brake technology to provide its designed retarding force 
to decelerate the train or
    (ii) To remove, repair, or replace a brake system component.


Sec. 232.607  Scheduled tests.

    (a) Scheduled periodic freight brake tests, single passenger car 
tests and single passenger train set tests shall be conducted at the 
following intervals:
    (1) No less than once every 24 months for non-high utilization 
equipment used in conventional freight trains.
    (2) No less than once every 12 months for high utilization 
equipment used in conventional freight trains.
    (3) No less than once every 6 months for equipment used in 
intermediate speed freight trains.
    (4) No less than once every 6 months for equipment used in 
conventional commuter trains.
    (5) No less than once every 4 months for equipment used in 
intermediate speed commuter trains.
    (6) No less than once every 6 months for equipment used in 
conventional passenger trains.
    (7) No less than once every 4 months for equipment used in 
intermediate speed passenger trains.
    (8) No less than once every 3 months for equipment used in high 
speed passenger trains.
    (b) If equipment is used in more than one type of train, that 
equipment shall be subject to the test interval of the train type 
requiring the most frequent test.
    (c) An unscheduled periodic freight brake test or single car test 
may be used to meet the requirement for conducting a scheduled test 
within a given time period.


Sec. 232.609  Periodic freight brake test or single car test phase-in 
period.

    (a) A railroad shall develop and implement a phase-in program so 
that all non-high utilization equipment operated by that railroad 
receives a periodic freight brake test or single car test within two 
years from [THE EFFECTIVE DATE of the final rule].
    (b) A railroad shall develop and implement a phase-in program so 
that all high utilization equipment operated by that railroad receives 
a periodic freight brake test or single car test within one year from 
[THE EFFECTIVE DATE of the final rule].
    (c) A railroad shall develop and implement a phase-in program so 
that all passenger and commuter equipment operated by that railroad 
receives a single car test within one year from [THE EFFECTIVE DATE of 
the final rule].
    (d) A railroad shall have all equipment stencilled with the due 
date of its next required periodic freight brake or single car test 
within the time periods given in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this 
section for the types of equipment it operates.


Sec. 232.611  Requirements for changing the required interval for 
periodic brake tests.

    (a) Interested parties may request a change in the time between 
required periodic freight brake tests or single car tests by:
    (1) Following the procedure given in Appendix B of this part to 
initiate a program to monitor periodic freight brake or single car test 
results; and
    (2) Performing a valid statistical analysis of the results of the 
monitoring program.
    (b) A minimum of two years after the phase-in of non-high 
utilization freight equipment is completed, interested parties may 
request changes to the interval between required periodic freight brake 
tests for non-high utilization equipment.
    (c) A minimum of one year after the phase-in of all other equipment 
is completed, interested parties may request changes to the interval 
between required periodic freight brake or single car tests for that 
equipment.
    (d) A single organization shall not petition the FRA to change the 
time interval between required periodic freight brake or single car 
tests for the same or substantially the same equipment population more 
than once every two years.


Sec. 232.613  Qualifications of inspectors.

    (a) Periodic freight brake tests and single car tests shall be 
performed only by qualified brake system inspectors who meet the 
qualification requirements of Sec. 232.207.
    (b) Periodic freight brake tests and single car tests shall be spot 
checked by qualified train brake system supervisors who meet the 
qualification requirements of Sec. 232.205.


Sec. 232.615  Record keeping and stencilling requirements.

    (a) If a railroad opts to use the statistical methods given in 
Appendix B of this part to justify an increase in the time between 
required periodic freight brake, single car, or single unit train 
tests, the railroad shall keep records of the tests that include the 
following:
    (1) A certification by the railroad that each periodic freight 
brake or single car test was done only by qualified brake system 
inspectors.
    (2) A description of any repairs made to enable the equipment to 
pass the periodic freight brake or single car test.
    (3) A certification by the railroad that all the tasks required by 
periodic freight brake or single car tests were completed and the 
equipment successfully passed each of the required steps of the test.
    (b) The location the most recent periodic freight brake or single 
car test was performed and the date the next test is due shall be 
clearly stencilled, marked or labelled in two-inch high letters or 
numerals on the side of the equipment.


Sec. 232.617  Periodic freight brake test, single car test, or single 
unit train test equipment and devices.

    (a) All test equipment and devices shall be tested for correct 
operation at least once each calendar day of use.
    (b) Mechanical test devices such as pressure gauges, flow meters, 
orifices, etc. shall be calibrated once every 92 days.
    (c) Electronic test devices shall be calibrated at least once every 
365 days.
    (d) All test equipment and devices shall be tagged or labelled with 
the date its next calibration is due.
    (e) The single car test device must be disassembled, cleaned, and 
tested not less frequently than every 92 days.

Subpart H--Maintenance Standards for Train Brake Systems


Sec. 232.701  General requirements.

    (a) A railroad shall develop, implement and make available to FRA 
upon request written maintenance procedures for all types of train 
brake systems that the railroad operates. The written maintenance 
procedures shall:
    (1) Meet or exceed current industry standards for brake system 
maintenance;
    (2) Meet or exceed all requirements of this part; and
    (3) Clearly identify those items or procedures that are safety 
critical.
    (b) A railroad shall conduct maintenance in accordance with the 
procedures developed in paragraph (a) of this section. FRA shall 
enforce those items identified as safety critical.
    (c) Train brake system maintenance shall be performed only by an 
individual qualified as a mechanical or electronic train brake system 
inspector who meets the qualification requirements of Sec. 232.207 and 
Sec. 232.209 or a person apprenticed to such an inspector acting under 
the inspector's direct supervision.
    (d) A qualified train brake system supervisor who meets the 
qualification requirements of Sec. 232.205 shall perform frequent spot 
checks of all train brake system maintenance operations.
    (e) Prior to commencing revenue service of new train brake system 
technology, a railroad shall develop the maintenance plans and complete 
the tests and the demonstrations required by subpart J of this part.
    (f) A railroad proposing high speed service shall develop a train 
brake system inspection, maintenance, and test plan. This plan shall 
provide adequate technical detail on the train brake system inspection, 
maintenance and test procedures to be used to ensure safe train 
operation and to ensure the performance of the brake system does not 
deteriorate over time. The plan shall be submitted to FRA one year 
prior to planned commencement of revenue service. The plan is intended 
to be used as the basis for a set of safety standards tailored to the 
specific train brake system to be used. Such planned revenue service 
may not begin until FRA has approved the plan in writing. The plan 
shall be changed only when specifically agreed to by FRA. The plan 
shall become part of the safety standards that apply to the operation 
of the specific intermediate speed or high speed train to which the 
plan applies. FRA shall enforce compliance with the safety critical 
items identified in the plan.

Subpart I--Operating Requirements for Train Brake Systems.


Sec. 232.801  General.

    (a) A railroad shall develop, implement, and make available to FRA 
upon request written detailed operating requirements governing the safe 
operation of train brake systems over its railroad under all operating 
conditions.
    (b) Railroads shall determine speed restrictions and issue train 
handling instructions based on air brake performance, tonnage and 
grade. Dynamic brake retarding force shall not be considered in 
determining speed restrictions.
    (c) The operating requirements contained in Sec. 232.803 to 
Sec. 232.811 and in Sec. 232.815 to Sec. 232.819 are applicable to all 
trains subject to this part.


Sec. 232.803  Train information handling.

    (a) A railroad shall develop, implement, and make available to FRA 
upon request written procedures to ensure that a train crew employed by 
the railroad is given accurate information on the condition of the 
train brake system and train factors affecting brake system performance 
and testing when such crew takes over responsibility for the train. At 
a minimum, the procedures shall provide that each train crew coming on 
duty be informed of:
    (1) On trains operating over 20 mph, the operational status of all 
dynamic brakes, including:
    (i) The number of locomotive axles with operational dynamic brakes 
and their location in the train.
    (ii) An estimate of the total retarding force available from the 
dynamic brakes (as a function of speed in five mph increments covering 
the operational speed range of the train). Railroads shall develop and 
implement an accurate means to make this estimate by January 1, 1995.
    (2) The total weight and length of the train.
    (3) Any special weight distribution that would require special 
train handling procedures.
    (4) The number and location of cars whose brakes are cut out.
    (5) The distance that the train has travelled since its last Class 
1 brake system test.
    (6) If a Class 1 brake system test is required prior to the next 
crew change point, the location at which that test shall be performed.
    (7) A record of train configuration changes since the last Class 1 
test.
    (8) Any train brake system problems encountered by the previous 
crew.
    (b) A railroad shall communicate this information to a train crew 
coming on duty in accordance with the procedures developed in paragraph 
(a) of this section.


Sec. 232.805  Train brake system monitoring.

    (a) A railroad shall develop, implement, and make available to FRA 
upon request written procedures requiring its engineers to monitor the 
performance of the train brake system enroute. At a minimum, the 
engineer shall:
    (1) On trains equipped with an air flow indicator or a two-way end-
of-train device, frequently monitor the brake pipe pressure gradient, 
the air flow rate to the brake pipe and the response of the rear car to 
service brake applications. If unusual changes occur, the engineer 
shall investigate the cause.
    (2) On trains equipped with dynamic brakes, monitor the amperage 
produced or any other indicators of dynamic brake performance when the 
dynamic brake is applied. If the amperage produced indicates a less 
than fully functional dynamic brake, the engineer shall use appropriate 
train handling procedures that compensate for the reduced dynamic brake 
performance.
    (3) On trains equipped with wheel-temperature sensors, brake 
application force sensors, brake pad/shoe thickness sensors, or other 
technology that monitors performance of the train brake system, the 
output of the sensors shall be displayed in the cab of the controlling 
locomotive and monitored by the engineer. If the sensors detect a train 
brake system problem, the engineer shall take the corrective action 
required in the railroad's written procedures.
    (b) Any problems uncovered by train brake system monitoring shall 
be reported by the train information handling procedures described in 
Sec. 232.803.


Sec. 232.807  Air brakes.

    (a) The automatic air brake shall not be depended upon to hold 
equipment standing on a grade (including a locomotive, cars, or train 
whether a locomotive is attached or detached from the cars or train). A 
sufficient number of handbrakes shall be applied to hold such equipment 
before the air brakes may be released, and the handbrakes shall not be 
released until it is known that the air brake system is properly 
charged.
    (b) A railroad shall set the maximum main reservoir working 
pressure.
    (c) The maximum brake pipe pressure shall not be greater than 15 
psi less than the air compressor governor starting or loading pressure.


Sec. 232.809  Tread brakes.

    (a) Tread brakes shall be operated so that all continuous-drag 
braking applications limit the average brake horsepower (Bhp) input per 
wheel to the following amounts:
    (1) 20 Bhp or less for equipment with 28-inch diameter wheels.
    (2) 25 Bhp or less for equipment with 33-inch diameter wheels.
    (3) 30 Bhp or less for equipment with 36-inch diameter wheels.
    (4) 35 Bhp or less for equipment with 38-inch diameter wheels.
    (5) 40 Bhp or less for equipment with 40-inch diameter wheels.
    (b) Tread brakes shall be operated so that all non-emergency stop 
braking applications limit the average brake horsepower input per wheel 
to the following amounts:
    (1) 80 Bhp or less for equipment with 28-inch diameter wheels.
    (2) 100 BHp or less for equipment with 33-inch diameter wheels.
    (3) 120 Bhp or less for equipment with 36-inch diameter wheels.
    (4) 140 Bhp or less for equipment with 38-inch diameter wheels.
    (5) 160 Bhp or less for equipment with 40-inch diameter wheels.


Sec. 232.811  Dynamic brakes.

    (a) A railroad operating a train with a brake system that includes 
dynamic, blended, or other forms of non-friction (tread or disc) brakes 
shall develop, implement, and make available to FRA upon request 
written operating rules governing safe train handling procedures using 
these non-friction brakes under all operating conditions, which shall 
be tailored to the specific equipment and territory of the railroad.
    (b) A railroad's operating rules shall be based on the ability of 
friction brakes alone to safely stop the train under all operating 
conditions.
    (c) The operating rules may provide that a train may continue to 
operate to the next point where a Class 1 test is required after an 
enroute failure of the dynamic or other non-friction component of the 
train brake system.


Sec. 232.813  Two-way end-of-train devices.

    (a) A railroad shall calibrate a two-way end-of-train device in 
accordance with manufacturer's specifications annually. The date that 
the next calibration is due shall be clearly marked on both the head-
end and the rear-end units of the end-of-train device.
    (b) Effective December 31, 1996, all road trains not specifically 
excepted shall use either a two-way end-of-train device meeting the 
requirements of Sec. 232.117 or alternate technology device performing 
the same function.
    (c) All end-of-train devices purchased by railroads after December 
31, 1994 shall be two-way end-of-train devices.
    (d) All two-way end-of-train devices acquired prior to [THE 
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] shall be deemed to meet the design 
requirements contained in Sec. 232.117.
    (e) The following types of trains are excepted from the requirement 
for the use of a two-way end-of-train device:
    (1) Trains with a locomotive capable of making a brake application 
located in the rear third of the train length;
    (2) Trains operating in the push mode;
    (3) Trains with a manned, operational caboose;
    (4) Trains operating with a secondary, fully independent braking 
system capable of safely stopping the train in the event of failure of 
the primary system;
    (5) Trains that do not operate in mountain grade territory and do 
not exceed 30 mph;
    (6) Local trains that do not exceed 30 mph;
    (7) Work trains that do not exceed 30 mph;
    (8) Trains that operate exclusively on track that is not part of 
the general railroad system; and
    (9) Passenger trains with emergency brakes.


Sec. 232.815  En route failures of train brake system components.

    (a) Speed reduction. When an en route failure of a train brake 
system component occurs that reduces the retarding force available to 
stop the train, the speed of the train shall be reduced in order that 
the train can be safely operated within the signal spacing with 
remaining available brake system retarding force.
    (b) A train with an en route brake system failure that reduces the 
retarding force available to stop the train shall not proceed beyond 
the next point where brake system repairs can be made to restore the 
full brake system retarding force.
    (c) Subject to the requirements contained in Sec. 232.17, an en 
route train may pick up a car with a power brake defect for the purpose 
of moving it to the nearest available point where repairs to that 
defect can be made; however, that train shall have the brakes 
operational and effective on no less than 85% of the cars in the train. 
That train shall not proceed beyond the point where its next Class 1 
brake test is due with a car containing a power brake defect still part 
of the train.
    (d) Air flow indicator. When a train is equipped with an air flow 
indicator calibrated in cubic feet per minute, if the air flow exceeds 
80 cfm, the engineer shall stop the train to determine the cause.
    (e) Excessive pressure gradient. When a train is equipped with an 
end-of-train or equivalent device, if the gradient exceeds 20 psi after 
recharging following a brake application, the engineer shall stop the 
train to determine the cause. If unable to make repairs the crew should 
arrange to set out defective cars and/or proceed at reduced speed and 
with due caution to the next location where corrective action can be 
taken.
    (f) Two-way end-of-train device. If a two-way end-of-train or 
equivalent device is unable to initiate an emergency brake application 
from the rear of the train, the speed of that train shall be limited to 
30 mph. This limitation shall be applied to any device that uses an 
alternate technology to serve the purpose of a two-way end-of-train 
device.


Sec. 232.817  Undesired emergency brake application.

    (a) If an undesired emergency brake application occurs on a train, 
the train shall not proceed until the crew has inspected the entire 
train to determine that it is safe to do so.
    (b) A car causing the undesired emergency application due to a 
mechanical defect may be moved only if necessary for repair of the 
defect and only to the nearest available point where repairs to that 
defect can be made.
    (c) A railroad shall have written procedures requiring written 
notification of the appropriate mechanical department official(s) that 
the car is a source of an undesired emergency brake application and 
shall be repaired.


Sec. 232.819  Extreme operating conditions.

    (a) A railroad shall develop and make available to FRA upon request 
detailed written operating procedures tailored to the equipment and 
territory of that railroad to cover safe train handling for the 
following operations:
    (1) Cold weather operation.
    (2) Mountain territory operation.
    (3) Operation of heavy trains.
    (4) Operation of long trains.
    (b) FRA may impose additional operating limitations on a railroad 
if--
    (1) A railroad does not have written operating procedures for the 
operations listed in paragraph (a) of this section,
    (2) The procedures are inadequate, or
    (3) The procedures are not enforced.


Sec. 232.821  Operating requirements specific to conventional freight 
trains.

    (a) A conventional freight train operating under cold weather 
conditions shall be hauled by a controlling locomotive that is equipped 
with a 26-C brake valve or equivalent.
    (b) Feed valve braking is prohibited.
    (c) Unless the trailing equipment is designed for graduated brake 
release, the passenger position on the locomotive brake control stand 
shall not be used.
    (d) When a locomotive is detached from a train and the standing 
cars are not coupled to an air supply, the brake pipe pressure in the 
standing cars must be depleted.


Sec. 232.823  Operating requirements specific to intermediate speed 
freight trains.

    (a) Operation of heavy trains. Heavy trains shall not be operated 
at speeds greater than 79 mph.
    (b) Operation of long trains. Long trains shall not be operated at 
speeds greater than 79 mph.
    (c) Train make-up requirements. Except for locomotives, high speed 
freight trains shall be made up of zero slack equipment only.

Subpart J--Tests and Procedures To Introduce New Train Brake System 
Technology


Sec. 232.901  General.

    (a) A railroad or other person subject to this part shall adhere to 
the procedures prescribed in this subpart and receive FRA approval 
before using, hauling, or permitting to be used or hauled on its line 
any equipment that employs a new train brake system technology that 
complies with the statutory requirements contained at 49 U.S.C. 20102, 
20301-20304, 20701-20703, 21302, and 21304, formerly codified in the 
Locomotive Inspection Act at 45 U.S.C. 22-34 and the Safety Appliance 
Acts at 45 U.S.C. 1-14, 16, but that is inconsistent with or is not 
specifically addressed by the safety standards contained in this part.
    (b) A railroad introducing new train brake system technology 
requiring an exemption from the requirements of the Safety Appliance 
Acts in order to be operated in revenue service shall follow the 
procedures stated in Sec. 117 of the Rock Island Railroad Transition 
and Employee Assistance Act, 45 U.S.C. 1001, 1013 et seq., and any 
procedural requirements contained in this chapter.
    (c) A railroad planning to introduce new train brake system 
technology may file a petition with FRA requesting to convert some of 
the design requirements used to develop the technology into 
performance-based safety standards to become part of the regulations in 
this part.
    (1) Such petitions shall contain the following information:
    (i) The proposed performance standard;
    (ii) The means by which compliance with the standard is to be 
measured or the means by which the standard can be enforced; and
    (iii) A technical analysis that demonstrates whether the 
performance standard is met and whether the train brake system will 
function as intended, for all possible brake applications and failure 
conditions, to safely stop the train.
    (2) FRA will treat the petition as either a waiver petition or a 
petition for rulemaking, depending upon the nature and scope of the 
petition, and will address the petition in accordance with the 
procedural requirements contained in this chapter.


Sec. 232.903  Pre-revenue service tests for new train brake system 
technology.

    (a) Before a railroad uses a new train brake system technology in 
revenue service, the railroad shall plan and conduct pre-revenue 
service tests adequate to thoroughly demonstrate safe performance of 
the new train brake system technology. This pre-revenue service 
planning and testing shall include:
    (1) Design description. Nine months prior to the planned start of 
the pre-revenue service tests, the railroad shall submit to FRA a 
complete design description of the new technology to be tested. This 
design description shall include:

(i) Design performance requirements,
(ii) Description of how the new technology operates,
(iii) Description of interfaces with other train systems,
(iv) Engineering analysis of the performance of the new technology, and
(v) Results of simulations or tests that demonstrate the performance of 
the new technology.

    (2) Test plan. Six months prior to the planned start of the pre-
revenue service tests, the railroad shall submit to the FRA a detailed 
test plan that includes:
    (i) An identification of any waivers of FRA safety regulations 
required.
    (ii) A clear statement of test objectives. One of the test 
objectives shall be to demonstrate the new technology is safe and 
effective in the environment in which it is to be used.
    (iii) A planned schedule for conducting the tests.
    (iv) Stopping distances at various speeds up to the maximum 
expected revenue service operating speed and for each brake system 
separate and combined.
    (v) Tests of the required fail safe features of the new technology.
    (vi) A description of the railroad facilities or property to be 
used to conduct the tests.
    (vii) A detailed description of how the tests are to be conducted.
    (viii) A description of any special instrumentation to be used.
    (ix) A description of the information or data to be obtained.
    (x) A description of the criteria to be used to measure the success 
or failure of the tests.
    (xi) A description of any special safety precautions to be 
observed.
    (xii) A written set of standard operating procedures to be used by 
the people conducting the tests to ensure the tests are done safely.
    (3) Inspection, maintenance and test plan. Six months prior to 
planned start of the pre-revenue service tests, the railroad shall 
submit a plan to FRA describing in detail the inspection, maintenance, 
and test procedures to be used during the tests.
    (4) Training and qualification program plan. Six months prior to 
the planned start of the pre-revenue service tests, the railroad shall 
submit to the FRA a plan describing the specific knowledge and skills 
necessary to safely conduct the test. The plan shall describe the 
training to be done to be sure the persons conducting the test have the 
necessary knowledge and skills.
    (b) [Reserved.]


Sec. 232.905  Introduction of new train brake system technology to 
revenue service.

    (a) Reporting of pre-revenue service test results. Six months prior 
to the planned start of revenue service, the railroad shall submit a 
written report analyzing the results of its pre-revenue service tests 
to the FRA. The report shall emphasize the safety implications of the 
test results.
    (b) Suggested amendments to the Train Brake System Safety 
Standards. Four months prior to the planned start of revenue service, 
the railroad shall recommend in writing to the FRA any performance 
requirements of the new technology that it believes should be 
incorporated into the Train Brake System Safety Standards. This 
recommendation shall include:
    (1) The proposed performance standard;
    (2) The means by which the standard is to be measured or enforced;
    (3) A technical analysis that demonstrates the train brake system 
safety benefit of enforcing the standard; and
    (4) A technical analysis that demonstrates that if the performance 
standard is met, the train brake system will function as intended to 
safely stop the train.
    (c) Operating plan. Six months prior to the planned start of 
revenue service, the railroad shall submit to FRA a written operating 
plan that describes in detail how the railroad intends to use the new 
brake technology in revenue service.
    (d) Inspection, Maintenance and Test Program. Six months prior to 
the planned start of revenue service, the railroad shall submit to FRA 
a written Inspection, Maintenance, and Test Program Plan that 
demonstrates how proper functioning of the system will be assured over 
its service life under all conditions that may be encountered in the 
proposed application(s) of the new brake system technology.
    (e) Training and qualification program. (1) Four months prior to 
the planned start of revenue service, the railroad shall submit to FRA 
a written description of the knowledge and skills the railroad will 
require of its employees to be qualified to inspect, maintain, and test 
the new brake system technology being introduced.
    (2) Four months prior to the planned start of revenue service, the 
railroad shall submit to FRA a written description of the training 
program the railroad will implement to ensure its employees have the 
knowledge and skills necessary to inspect, maintain, and test the new 
brake system technology.
    (f) The FRA shall use the information supplied by the railroad in 
response to the requirements of Sec. 232.905 (a) through (e) as a basis 
for granting or denying approval for revenue service of the new brake 
technology.


Sec. 232.907  Follow-up to introduction of new train brake system 
technology to revenue service.

    (a) A railroad shall carefully monitor the performance of new train 
brake system technology for the first two years that the railroad 
operates the new technology in revenue service.
    (b) Within 30 days after the two years have passed, the railroad 
shall notify FRA in writing of any operational problems it encountered 
with the new train brake system technology during the first two years 
of revenue service. This notification shall include:
    (1) A description of the problem and the circumstances that brought 
it on.
    (2) The suspected root cause or causes of the problem.
    (3) The safety implications of the problem.
    (4) The steps to be taken to eliminate the problem.

Appendix A to Part 232--Schedule of Civil Penalties (Reserved)

Appendix B to Part 232--Procedure for Requesting a Change to the 
Required Periodic Freight Brake or Single Car Test Interval

1.0  Statistical Definitions

    Confidence Level means the degree of assurance that a 
statistical analysis done on a sample accurately reflects the 
characteristics of the larger population from which the sample was 
drawn.
    Periodic Freight Brake Test Failure means a failure of the 
freight control valve to pass the tests required by AAR Standard S-
486-91, Section 3: Service, Stability, Minimum Application and Quick 
Service Limiting Valve, Slow Release and Emergency Tests.
    Population means all the individual members of a class or type 
of railroad equipment.
    Random Sample means a sample drawn from a population so that 
each member of the population has an equal chance of being selected 
as a member of the sample.
    Sample means a subset of a larger population analyzed to 
estimate or predict characteristics of the entire population.
    Single Car Test Failure means a failure of the brake control 
valve or relay valve to pass the Passenger Car Single Car Test in 
accordance with AAR Standard S-044 (Instruction Pamphlet No. 5039-4, 
Sup. 3).
    Statistical Analysis means using proven statistical methods to 
predict the characteristics of a large population based on an 
analysis of a smaller sample of that population.
    Valid Statistical Analysis means a statistical analysis based on 
a truly random sample of large enough size to produce meaningful 
predictions of the characteristics of a larger population.

2.0  General

    (a) An interested party (the FRA itself could be such a party) 
shall advise the FRA by letter of its intent to initiate a periodic 
freight brake or single car test monitoring program with the intent 
to request a change to the required periodic freight brake or single 
car test interval. The party shall carefully define the equipment 
population to which the monitoring program applies. Defined 
populations may be a specific type of car or cars equipped with a 
specific type of brake system or air brake system component.
    (b) No cars receiving single car tests due to inspections or 
repairs made prior to their required periodic freight brake or 
single car test due date shall be included in the population.
    (c) The request shall be based on a valid statistical analysis 
of the periodic freight brake or single car test failure rate of the 
population. The statistical analysis shall be based on the entire 
population or a random sample size of the population large enough to 
give a 95% confidence levels that the periodic freight brake, single 
car, or single unit train test failure rate of the sample accurately 
reflects the failure rate of the population as a whole.

3.0  Outline of Overall Statistical Analysis Procedure

    (a) Objective. To determine and readjust, as necessary, an 
inspection interval that ensures with 95% confidence that less than 
the following percentages of in-service units have a defect that 
would cause failure to pass the periodic freight brake or single car 
test at any point in time (population percent defective).
    (1) 5% for conventional freight equipment.
    (2) 3% for intermediate speed freight equipment.
    (3) 3% for conventional passenger or commuter equipment.
    (4) 2% for intermediate speed passenger or commuter equipment.
    (5) 1% for high speed passenger equipment.
    (b) Procedure. The following procedure shall be used to perform 
a statistical analysis to justify a change in the time interval 
between required periodic freight brake tests or single car tests of 
an equipment population:
    (1) Define the population to which the analysis applies and 
notify the FRA in writing of the intent to request a change in the 
time interval between required tests.
    (2) The phase in period required by Sec. 232.609 shall be 
completed for the population selected for analysis before the 
sampling period starts.
    (3) The records of the results of required scheduled single car 
tests or required scheduled periodic freight brake tests described 
in Sec. 232.615(a) shall be kept. The results of unscheduled tests 
shall not be included in the analysis. These records shall be kept 
for the following minimum sampling period:
    (i) Two years for populations of non-high utilization freight 
equipment.
    (ii) One year for high utilization freight equipment.
    (iii) Six months for all other types of equipment.
    (4) At the end of the sampling period, the total sample size 
(total number of units tested) and the total number of test failures 
(total number of units that failed the periodic freight brake test 
or single car test) shall be determined.
    (5) The failure rate for the sample shall be determined by 
dividing the total number of units failing the test by the total 
number of units tested.
    (6) The failure rate versus sample size shall be plotted on one 
of the following charts: (these charts ensure the required 95% 
confidence level is achieved)
    (i) Chart B-1 for non-high utilization conventional freight 
equipment.
    (ii) Chart B-2 for high utilization freight equipment.
    (iii) Chart B-3 for conventional passenger or commuter 
equipment.
    (iv) Chart B-4 for intermediate speed freight equipment.
    (v) Chart B-5 for intermediate speed passenger or commuter 
equipment.
    (vi) Chart B-6 for high speed passenger equipment.
    (c) Determination of New Required Test Interval. The following 
method shall be used to determine the new required test interval for 
the selected population:
    (1) The party requesting the change shall submit a summary of 
the testing and sampling program including the appropriate completed 
chart from Part 232 Appendix B (b)(6).
    (2) The FRA shall review the summary to determine:
    (i) The correct method was used;
    (ii) The sample was truly random or the entire population was 
used as the sample;
    (iii) The sample size was large enough; and
    (iv) The sample time was sufficient.
    (3) If the submitted statistical analysis meets the requirements 
of Part 232 Appendix B (c)(2), the FRA shall determine it to be 
valid.
    (4) If the plotted result of the valid statistical analysis 
falls on or between the limits of the control band on the 
appropriate chart given in paragraph (b)(6) of this appendix, the 
time between required periodic freight brake or single car tests 
shall remain unchanged for that population of equipment.
    (5) If the plotted result of the valid statistical analysis 
falls below the control band on the appropriate chart given in 
paragraph (b)(6) of this appendix, the time between required 
periodic freight brake or single car tests for that population of 
equipment shall be increased by the following amounts without 
further rulemaking:
    (i) 3 months for non-high utilization equipment used in 
conventional freight trains.
    (ii) 2 months for high utilization equipment used in 
conventional freight trains.
    (iii) 1 month for equipment used in intermediate speed freight 
trains.
    (iv) 1 month for equipment used in conventional passenger or 
commuter trains.
    (v) 1 month for equipment used in intermediate speed passenger 
or commuter trains.
    (vi) 1 month for equipment used in high speed passenger trains.
    (6) If the plotted result of the valid statistical analysis 
falls above the control band on the appropriate chart given in 
paragraph (b)(6) of this appendix, the time between required 
periodic freight brake or single car tests for that population of 
equipment shall be decreased by the following amounts:
    (i) 3 months for non-high utilization equipment used in 
conventional freight trains.
    (ii) 2 months for high utilization equipment used in 
conventional freight trains.
    (iii) 1 month for equipment used in intermediate speed freight 
trains.
    (iv) 1 month for equipment used in conventional passenger or 
commuter trains.
    (v) 1 month for equipment used in intermediate speed passenger 
or commuter trains.
    (vi) 1 month for equipment used in high speed passenger trains.

4.0  Limitations on Use

    (a) Application of the statistical process shall not be repeated 
for the same or nearly the same equipment population more than once 
every two years.
    (b) Repeated application of the statistical analysis shall not 
cause the time interval between required periodic freight brake 
test, single car test or single unit train tests to be less than:
    (1) 6 months for non-high utilization equipment used in 
conventional freight trains.
    (2) 6 months for high utilization equipment used in conventional 
freight trains.
    (3) 3 months for equipment used in intermediate speed freight 
trains.
    (4) 3 months for equipment used in conventional passenger or 
commuter trains.
    (5) 2 months for equipment used in intermediate speed passenger 
or commuter trains.
    (6) 1 month for equipment used in high speed passenger trains.
    (c) Repeated application of the statistical analysis shall not 
cause the time interval between required periodic freight brake 
test, single car test or single unit train tests to be greater than:
    (1) 60 months for non-high utilization equipment used in 
conventional freight trains.
    (2) 60 months for high utilization equipment used in 
conventional freight trains.
    (3) 36 months for equipment used in intermediate speed freight 
trains.
    (4) 24 months for equipment used in conventional passenger or 
commuter trains.
    (5) 12 months for equipment used in intermediate speed passenger 
or commuter trains.
    (6) 6 months for equipment used in high speed passenger trains.

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P

TP16SE94.004


TP16SE94.005


TP16SE94.006


TP16SE94.007


TP16SE94.008


TP16SE94.009

BILLING CODE 4910-06-C

Appendix C to Part 232--Definition of ``Mountain Grade Territory''

    ``Mountain Grade Territory'' means a section of track of distance, 
D, with an average grade of 1.5 percent or more over that distance 
which satisfies the relationship:

(30/V)2G2D12

Where

G=average grade x 100
D=distance in miles over which average grade is taken
V=Speed of train

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P

TP16SE94.010

BILLING CODE 4910-06-C


    Issued in Washington D.C. on September 1, 1994.
Jolene M. Molitoris,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-22222 Filed 9-15-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P