[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 25, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42892-42912]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-15639]



[[Page 42891]]

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

Part III





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Railroad Administration



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



49 CFR Part 238



Passenger Equipment Safety Standards; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2002 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 42892]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 238

[FRA Docket No. PCSS-1, Notice No. 8]
RIN 2130-AB48


Passenger Equipment Safety Standards

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

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document responds to petitions for reconsideration of the 
fire safety portion of FRA's May 12, 1999 final rule establishing 
comprehensive Federal safety standards for railroad passenger 
equipment. This document amends and clarifies the final rule.

DATES: The amendments to the final rule are effective August 26, 2002. 
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the 
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 
26, 2002. The Director of the Federal Register previously approved the 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in Appendix B 
of 49 CFR part 238 as of July 12, 1999 (64 FR 25540, May 12, 1999).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronald Newman, Staff Director, Motive 
Power and Equipment Division, Office of Safety Assurance and 
Compliance, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, Mail Stop 25, Washington, D.C. 
20590 (telephone: 202-493-6300); David Mao, Mechanical Engineer, Motive 
Power and Equipment Division, Office of Safety Assurance and 
Compliance, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, Mail Stop 25, Washington, D.C. 
20590 (telephone: 202-493-6300); or Daniel Alpert, Trial Attorney, 
Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, Mail Stop 10, 
Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6026).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 17, 1996, FRA published an Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANPRM) concerning the establishment of comprehensive safety 
standards for railroad passenger equipment. See 61 FR 30672. The ANPRM 
provided background information on the need for such standards, offered 
preliminary ideas on approaching passenger safety issues, and presented 
questions on various topics including fire safety. Following 
consideration of comments received on the ANPRM and advice from FRA's 
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards Working Group (Working Group), FRA 
published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on September 23, 1997, 
to establish comprehensive safety standards for railroad passenger 
equipment, including fire safety standards. See 62 FR 49728. In 
addition to written comment on the NPRM, FRA also solicited oral 
comment at a public hearing on November 21, 1997. FRA considered the 
comments received on the NPRM and advice from its Working Group in 
preparing a final rule, which was published on May 12, 1999. See 64 FR 
25540.
    Following publication of the final rule, parties filed petitions 
seeking FRA's reconsideration of the rule's requirements. These 
petitions principally related to the following subject areas: 
structural design; fire safety; training; inspection, testing, and 
maintenance; and movement of defective equipment. On July 3, 2000, FRA 
issued a response to the petitions for reconsideration concerning the 
final rule's requirements for the inspection, testing, and maintenance 
of passenger equipment, the movement of defective passenger equipment, 
and other related, miscellaneous provisions. See 65 FR 41284. On April 
23, 2002, FRA responded to all remaining issues raised in the petitions 
for reconsideration other than those concerning the fire safety portion 
of the final rule. See 67 FR 19970.
    FRA is hereby responding to the issues raised in the petitions for 
reconsideration concerning fire safety. FRA has responded by letter to 
certain issues raised in these petitions, and has otherwise provided 
guidance to the regulated community in explaining the rule's 
requirements. This Federal Register notice incorporates FRA's 
announcements and guidance on the rule. The amendments contained in 
this document generally clarify requirements currently contained in the 
final rule or allow for greater flexibility in complying with the rule, 
and are within the scope of the issues and options discussed, 
considered, or raised in the NPRM.
    The specific issues and recommendations raised by the petitioners, 
and FRA's response to their petitions, are discussed in detail in the 
``Section-by-Section Analysis'' portion of the preamble, below. The 
section-by-section analysis also contains a detailed discussion of each 
provision of the final rule which FRA has amended or clarified. This 
will enable the regulated community to more readily compare this 
document with the preamble discussions contained in the final rule and 
will aid in understanding the requirements of the rule.

Section-by-Section Analysis

Amendments to 49 CFR Part 238

Subpart A--General

Section 238.7  Waivers

    This section sets forth the procedures for seeking waivers of 
compliance with the requirements of this part. FRA recognizes that 
circumstances may arise where the operation of passenger equipment that 
does not meet the standards contained in this part is nevertheless 
consistent with railroad safety and in the public interest. With 
respect to FRA's fire safety standards, FRA understands that railroads 
may desire to use materials in their passenger equipment that do not 
comply with the test performance criteria for flammability and smoke 
emission characteristics specified in this part. For instance, a 
railroad may need to use material possessing certain functional 
characteristics, such as flexibility, even though the material is 
otherwise unavailable in a form complying with this part's flammability 
and smoke emission requirements.
    Should it be necessary to file a waiver petition for use of 
material not complying with this part's flammability or smoke emission 
requirements, or both, 49 CFR 211.9(c) requires in particular that 
sufficient information, including relevant safety information, be 
provided to support the request. FRA would expect that each such 
petition include a fire safety analysis demonstrating that use of the 
material is consistent with railroad safety by not creating an 
unacceptable risk of injury to passengers and crewmembers. In making 
such a showing, the analysis should consider the material's size, 
location, exposure to potential ignition sources, contribution to flame 
spread and smoke emission, and variation from the test performance 
criteria specified in this part; the railroad's operating environment; 
the presence or absence of heat/smoke detection and fire suppression 
systems; and the availability of rapid and safe egress to the exterior 
of the vehicle under conditions secure from fire, smoke, and other 
hazards. As railroads are already required by Sec. 238.103 to conduct 
fire safety analyses of both their existing and new passenger cars and 
locomotives, such an analysis should generally not impose a new burden 
on railroads in filing waiver requests. FRA would expect that a 
railroad submit its fire safety analyses of its existing and new 
passenger cars and locomotives, as

[[Page 42893]]

appropriate, with a waiver petition to justify the use of material not 
complying with the flammability or smoke emission requirements of this 
part, or both. The fire safety analyses required by Sec. 238.103 
evaluate the safety of the rail equipment as a whole, and thereby help 
place in context the use of the material that is the subject of the 
waiver request.

Subpart B--Safety Planning and General Requirements

Section 238.103  Fire Safety

    This section specifies the fire safety analysis requirements for 
passenger cars and locomotives, as well as the requirements for the 
materials used in this equipment.
    Paragraph (a). Paragraph (a)(1) concerns the fire safety 
requirements for the materials used in constructing passenger cars and 
cabs of locomotives ordered on or after September 8, 2000, or placed in 
service for the first time on or after September 9, 2002. These 
materials are required to meet the test performance criteria for 
flammability and smoke emission characteristics specified in Appendix 
B, or alternative standards issued or recognized by an expert consensus 
organization after special approval of FRA under Sec. 238.21. Even 
though this paragraph remains unchanged from the final rule, FRA makes 
clear that ``materials used in constructing a passenger car or a cab of 
a locomotive'' include materials used in objects that are either 
permanently or semi-permanently attached to the car or locomotive cab 
structure. Such objects are in effect part of the equipment-in 
distinction to luggage and other transient objects that passengers and 
crewmembers bring onto and remove from the equipment. Should it be 
necessary to file a waiver petition for use of material not complying 
with this part's flammability or smoke emission requirements, or both, 
please see the discussion of Sec. 238.7, above.
    Paragraph (a)(2) concerns the fire safety requirements for 
materials introduced in a passenger car or a locomotive cab on or after 
November 8, 1999, as part of any kind of rebuild, refurbishment, or 
overhaul of the car or cab. These materials are required to meet the 
test performance criteria for flammability and smoke emission 
characteristics specified in Appendix B, or alternative standards 
issued or recognized by an expert consensus organization after special 
approval of FRA under Sec. 238.21.
    The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) petitioned 
FRA for reconsideration of this section, raising concern about its 
member railroads' ability to meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) 
when the testing standards in Appendix B must be used to identify 
compliant materials. As noted in the discussion of Appendix B below, 
APTA and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) both 
raised concerns with the test procedures and performance criteria in 
Appendix B and recommended that the prior version of the Appendix B 
table in the NPRM be substituted for the one contained in the final 
rule until an appropriate industry review is conducted. APTA believed 
that it would be more appropriate to permit commuter railroads to 
continue using their existing inventories of replacement materials 
until those inventories were depleted, unless the materials pose an 
unacceptable risk to safety, and to prohibit new purchases of non-
compliant materials effective November 8, 1999, as evaluated by the 
NPRM table. APTA stated that the public procurement regulations that 
its member railroads operate under generally require them to place 
orders for a year's supply of materials and that this recommended 
change would permit them to conduct the appropriate tests of materials 
to facilitate an orderly transition to the rule's requirements.
    By letter dated November 5, 1999, FRA responded in part to these 
concerns. (A copy of this letter has been placed in the public docket 
for this rulemaking.) For purposes of the requirements of 
Sec. 238.103(a)(2), FRA explained that, for a transitional period, it 
would amend the rule to exclude those materials introduced in a 
passenger car or a locomotive cab from the test procedures and 
performance criteria in Appendix B that were not expressly subject to 
FRA's fire safety guidelines for materials selection. These guidelines 
(1989 FRA guidelines) were last published in the Federal Register on 
January 17, 1989, see 54 FR 1837, and were restated (with four 
typographical errors in the performance criteria column) as Appendix B 
to part 238 in the NPRM. (To be consistent with the 1989 FRA 
guidelines, the performance criteria in the NPRM for ``Panels: HVAC 
Ducting'' should have read ``Ds (4.0) [le]100''; ``Flooring: Covering'' 
should have read ``CRF [ge]0.5 w/cm\2\''; ``Insulation: Thermal'' 
should have read ``Ds (4.0) [le]100''; and ``Insulation: Acoustic'' 
should have read ``Ds (4.0) [le]100,'' as well.) FRA learned that 
passenger railroads, acting in good faith, may have been unable to 
comply with Sec. 238.103(a)(2) as written because of difficulty 
obtaining certain materials--or certification for these materials, or 
both--subject to the requirements of Appendix B that were not expressly 
covered by the 1989 FRA guidelines. FRA acquired particular information 
in this regard at an October 6, 1999 meeting of APTA's PRESS (Passenger 
Rail Equipment Safety Standards) Passenger Systems Group, Fire Safety 
Subgroup. (The minutes of this meeting, as prepared by a designee of 
the group, have been placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.)
    Based on this understanding, FRA believed that it would be 
appropriate to specify a longer transitional period than that provided 
in the rule (originally 180 days from the date of publication) to allow 
railroads to obtain materials from their suppliers--and certification 
for the materials--complying with the fire safety requirements. 
Consequently, FRA stated that it would amend the rule to include, on a 
transitional basis, a new appendix to the rule, designated as Appendix 
B1, comprising Appendix B to part 238 in the NPRM as corrected. This 
would have effectively codified the 1989 FRA guidelines. FRA explained 
that the rule would provide that on or after November 8, 1999, and for 
this transitional period only, materials that were introduced in a 
passenger car or a locomotive cab as part of any kind of rebuild, 
refurbishment, or overhaul of the car or cab meet the test performance 
criteria for flammability and smoke emission characteristics as 
specified in Appendix B or B1 to part 238; or alternative standards 
issued or recognized by an expert consensus organization after special 
approval by FRA under Sec. 238.21. FRA made clear that a railroad would 
be required to follow the test performance criteria for materials in 
either one of the appendices or the other, as a whole, during this 
period--and not choose between the appendices for different materials--
in order to retain the appendices' integrity. By permitting the use of 
Appendix B1 during this period, FRA expected to minimize the impact on 
railroads acting in good faith to comply with the final rule. FRA 
explained that responsible railroads that had followed the 1989 FRA 
guidelines all along in purchasing materials for their passenger fleets 
should seemingly not have had difficulty complying with 
Sec. 238.103(a)(2) as FRA announced it would be amended.
    Since issuing the November 5, 1999 letter, FRA has reexamined this 
issue in general and has decided not to issue an Appendix B1. As 
explained below, FRA is amending Appendix B to address the principal 
concern of passenger railroads that, through the final rule, FRA had 
imposed requirements on materials that

[[Page 42894]]

were not expressly covered by the 1989 FRA guidelines. FRA believes 
that these amendments eliminate the need to add an Appendix B1. 
Furthermore, the presence of two appendices could add confusion at a 
time when FRA is attempting to make the fire safety requirements easier 
to understand and follow. Therefore, paragraph (a)(2) remains unchanged 
from the final rule. Should these technical assumptions prove incorrect 
for reasons FRA does not presently apprehend, FRA will take further 
action, as appropriate, to provide the requested relief.
    FRA is adding paragraph (a)(3) to ensure that railroads may rely on 
the results of tests of materials conducted in accordance with the 
standards and performance criteria for flammabilitiy and smoke emission 
characteristics as specified in Appendix B to part 238 of the May 12, 
1999 final rule, which took effect on July 12, 1999. FRA recognizes 
that materials have already been installed in passenger cars and 
locomotives in reliance on the requirements of the final rule, and 
other materials are now held in inventory or have otherwise been 
ordered in reliance on the requirements of the final rule. Accordingly, 
for purposes of complying with the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) 
and (2), a railroad may rely on the results of tests of material 
conducted in accordance with the standards and performance criteria for 
flammabilitiy and smoke emission characteristics as specified in 
Appendix B to this part in effect on July 12, 1999, if prior to June 
25, 2002 the material is installed in a passenger car or locomotive, 
held in inventory by the railroad, or ordered by the railroad.
    FRA is amending the test standards and performance criteria in 
Appendix B in two principal ways that necessitate adding this 
paragraph. First, as discussed below, FRA is updating Appendix B to 
incorporate newer versions of the test standards referenced therein 
that have been published since the final rule was promulgated. FRA is 
therefore making provision for railroads to rely on the results of 
tests using the earlier versions of the test standards as referenced in 
Appendix B of the May 12, 1999 final rule. Further, as discussed below, 
FRA is amending Appendix B to restore the function of material 
subcategories for thermal and acoustic insulation, as well as for HVAC 
ducting, that were proposed in the NPRM and contained in the 1989 FRA 
guidelines. Because restoration of these subcategories results in 
stricter performance criteria for these materials than specified in the 
May 12, 1999 final rule, FRA is also making provision for railroads to 
rely on the results of tests of these materials conducted in accordance 
with the standards and performance criteria as specified in Appendix B 
of the May 12, 1999 final rule. As noted above, use of these test 
results is limited to material that is installed in a passenger car or 
locomotive, held in inventory by the railroad, or ordered by the 
railroad prior to June 25, 2002.
    Paragraph (b). This paragraph requires railroads to obtain 
certification that a representative sample of combustible materials to 
be used in constructing passenger cars and locomotive cabs or 
introduced into such equipment as part of any kind of rebuild, 
refurbishment, or overhaul of the equipment has been tested and 
complies with the fire safety requirements of paragraph (a) at the time 
it was tested. Although the paragraph remains unchanged from the final 
rule, concern has been raised whether a material must be retested to 
show compliance with the required test performance criteria when such 
material has previously passed an earlier version of a specified test 
procedure. As a result, FRA makes clear that re-certification of the 
material is not necessary if the test procedure(s) and performance 
criteria used to evaluate the material are not less stringent than the 
ones applicable to the material through the requirements of paragraph 
(a). Of course, FRA is concerned that the test results reflect the 
performance of the actual material used in the passenger car or 
locomotive cab--rather than reflect outdated material composition. 
Consequently, in Phase II of the rulemaking FRA will consider whether 
use of tests results should be limited to tests of materials conducted 
within a certain number of years.
    Paragraph (c). This paragraph specifies the fire safety analysis 
requirements for procuring new passenger cars and locomotives. FRA is 
amending the heading of this paragraph to reflect the focus on 
passenger car and locomotive fire safety, consistent with the 
requirements in paragraph (a), instead of on all passenger equipment 
generally. FRA has likewise amended paragraph (d), below. FRA is 
removing the express requirement for railroads to reduce the risk of 
``equipment damage'' caused by fire to an acceptable level in 
conducting their analyses, as stated in the final rule. See 64 FR 
25670. FRA's chief concern is that railroads reduce the risk of 
personal injury caused by fire to an acceptable level, as required by 
the final rule, even if the equipment is damaged in the process. At the 
same time, FRA is amending paragraph (c) to make clear that, in 
ensuring that fire safety considerations and features in the design of 
new passenger cars and locomotives reduce the risk of personal injury 
caused by fire to an acceptable level as determined by the railroad, 
each railroad must consider the operating environment in which this 
equipment will operate. Railroads must consider the presence of other 
passenger equipment (e.g., a baggage or private car) that operates in 
the same trains with the passenger cars and locomotives for purposes of 
evaluating passenger car and locomotive occupant safety. Yet, the focus 
of the required analysis is not on the safety of the other passenger 
equipment itself. Further, in considering the operating environment of 
the passenger cars and locomotives, railroads must pay particular 
attention to whether the equipment will operate in tunnels or on 
elevated structures where passenger egress from--and emergency response 
access to--the equipment is restricted.
    FRA notes that the final rule cited MIL-STD-882C, ``System Safety 
Program Requirements,'' as a formal safety methodology to guide 
railroads in reducing the risks of personal injuries caused by fire to 
an acceptable level. MIL-STD-882 was updated on February 10, 2000, and 
designated as MIL-STD-882D, ``Standard Practice for System Safety,'' 
superceding MIL-STD-882C. Consequently, FRA is amending the rule to 
remove the ``C'' designation to make clear that a railroad may use MIL-
STD-882D or another formal safety methodology as a guide in reducing 
such risks. Further, as a general matter, FRA makes clear that a 
railroad is not required to reduce the risk of personal injuries to 
zero in order to comply with paragraph (c), as such a requirement would 
be impractical.
    FRA is also making some changes to paragraph (c) largely for 
organizational consistency and clarity. First, FRA is re-designating 
paragraph (c)(2) of the final rule as paragraph (c)(1). Next, FRA has 
partially merged paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(8) of the final rule into 
one paragraph, as both are related, and is designating that paragraph 
as (c)(2). FRA recognizes that, as stated in the final rule, a railroad 
acting in good faith may have been unable to comply with the 
requirements of paragraph (c)(1) and that the text of paragraph (c)(8) 
more appropriately stated FRA's intent. Moreover, FRA is making clear 
in revised paragraph (c)(2) that in protecting the equipment's 
occupants from fire, preventing a fire in the first place is logically 
the first priority of a railroad. Further, FRA is making clear in 
revised paragraph (c)(2) that in conducting their analyses of new 
equipment railroads consider, among

[[Page 42895]]

other factors, potential ignition sources; the type, quantity, and 
location of the materials used in the equipment; and availability of 
rapid and safe egress to the exterior of the equipment under conditions 
secure from fire, smoke, and other hazards. These considerations, among 
others, are expressly stated in paragraph (d) for purposes of analyzing 
existing passenger equipment, and logically apply in conducting 
analyses of new equipment as well. FRA is correcting paragraph (c)(7) 
by deleting the phrase ``the railroad shall'' so that it is more 
consistent with the structure of the other items in paragraph (c). 
Further, FRA is re-designating paragraph (c)(9) of the final rule as 
paragraph (c)(8), removing the express requirement to address ``cost 
and performance issues'' and instead focusing the paragraph exclusively 
on safety issues, and adding the words ``selection of materials'' to 
make clear that selecting materials is part of the design process. FRA 
is also revising paragraph (c)(8) of the final rule due to the partial 
merger of final rule paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(8), and re-designating 
the paragraph as (c)(9). Paragraph (c) requires that the fire safety 
analysis be in writing, and paragraph (c)(9) further serves to make 
this clear.
    Paragraph (d). This paragraph specifies the fire safety analysis 
requirements for existing railroad passenger cars and locomotives. As 
noted above, FRA is amending this paragraph to reflect the focus on 
passenger car and locomotive fire safety, consistent with the 
requirements in paragraph (a), instead of on all passenger equipment 
generally. Accordingly, in the heading to paragraph (d) and throughout 
paragraphs (d)(1)-(5), FRA has substituted the phrase ``passenger cars 
and locomotives'' for ``passenger equipment'' and ``equipment,'' as 
appropriate. Railroads must consider the presence of other passenger 
equipment (e.g., a baggage or private car) that operates in the same 
trains with the passenger cars and locomotives for purposes of 
evaluating passenger car and locomotive occupant safety. Yet, the focus 
of the required analyses is not on the safety of the other passenger 
equipment itself.
    As provided in the final rule, each passenger railroad was required 
to complete a preliminary fire safety analysis for each category of its 
existing rail equipment and rail service no later than July 10, 2000. 
For any category of equipment and service identified during the 
preliminary fire safety analysis as likely presenting an unacceptable 
risk of personal injury, the final rule required a full analysis and 
any necessary remedial action to abate such unacceptable risks no later 
than July 10, 2001. The final rule further required a full fire safety 
analysis for all categories of equipment and service, and any necessary 
remedial action to abate unacceptable risks of personal injury, no 
later than July 10, 2003.
    APTA petitioned FRA for reconsideration of this paragraph, stating 
that FRA had provided little guidance as to what constitutes good 
practice for performing fire safety analyses and how to classify a risk 
as acceptable or not. APTA's petition explained that these are 
necessarily somewhat subjective judgments and that railroads would need 
additional guidance in making these determinations--particularly those 
railroads without in-house engineering staffs. APTA recommended that 
FRA grant the industry an additional six months to develop a 
recommended practice for performing fire safety analyses in order to 
provide for more consistency across the industry, and volunteered its 
PRESS Task Force to work expeditiously to complete a suitable standard 
practice. APTA committed that, during this additional six months, 
commuter railroads would begin reviewing maintenance records to 
identify car components that have a history of incidents that could 
indicate a fire hazard and conduct a top-level review of railcar 
interiors to identify items of potential risk.
    By letter dated October 8, 1999, FRA announced that it would amend 
the rule to provide railroads an additional six months (until January 
10, 2001) to complete the preliminary fire safety analysis for each 
category of existing rail equipment and service as required by 
Sec. 238.103(d)(1). (A copy of this letter to APTA has been placed in 
the public docket for this rulemaking.) This Federal Register notice 
amends the rule accordingly. For any category of existing passenger 
cars and locomotives and rail service identified in the preliminary 
fire safety analysis as likely presenting an unacceptable risk of 
personal injury, Sec. 238.103(d)(2) continues to require railroads to 
have completed a full analysis and taken any necessary remedial action 
to abate unacceptable risks no later than July 10, 2001. Further, 
Sec. 238.103(d)(3) continues to require railroads to complete a full 
fire safety analysis for all categories of existing passenger cars and 
locomotives and rail service, and take any necessary remedial action to 
abate unacceptable risks no later than July 10, 2003. Railroads may 
complete any necessary remedial action required by paragraph (d) ahead 
of the deadlines for taking such action; FRA has encouraged railroads 
to do so as resources permit.
    FRA and Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) 
staff have served as advisors to the APTA PRESS Fire Safety Subgroup of 
the Passenger Systems Group that focused on developing a model fire 
safety analysis to guide railroads in complying with paragraph (d) and 
more uniformly implement its requirements across the nation's passenger 
railroads. From FRA's initial involvement with the Subgroup following 
publication of the final rule, FRA learned that most commuter railroads 
intended to conduct full fire safety analyses for all categories of 
their rail equipment and service by the date required in paragraph 
(d)(1), instead of availing themselves of the additional time provided 
by paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) to complete the analyses in stages. FRA 
had recognized the efficiency of the commuter railroads' intended 
approach but structured the rule to require railroads to focus more 
immediately on apparent personal injury risks uncovered by preliminary 
fire safety analyses and then address such risks before requiring them 
to complete more detailed fire safety analyses on all their equipment 
and rail service. Nevertheless, FRA makes clear that a railroad, to be 
in compliance with the rule as amended, need have performed only one 
fire safety analysis if it was completed by January 10, 2001, and fully 
covered all categories of the railroad's passenger cars and locomotives 
and rail service.
    On November 1, 2000, the APTA Press Task Force approved 
``Recommended Practice for Fire Safety Analysis of Existing Passenger 
Rail Equipment,'' APTA-RP-PS-005-00. (A copy of this document as 
approved by APTA's Commuter Rail Executive Committee on January 8, 
2001, has been placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.) In 
addition to guiding railroads in complying with paragraph (d), this 
recommended practice is also intended to be incorporated into the 
passenger railroads' system safety programs as a permanent safety tool. 
Among other things, the recommended practice helps to differentiate 
between levels of personal injury risks for purposes of taking remedial 
action to reduce those risks, as appropriate.
    Nevertheless, as to APTA's concern that FRA had provided little 
guidance in the rule as to what constitutes good practice for 
performing fire safety analyses and how to classify a personal injury 
risk as acceptable or not, FRA referred APTA in the October 8, 1999 
letter to the definition of a category of

[[Page 42896]]

rail equipment and current rail service for purposes of paragraph (d). 
As stated in paragraph (d)(5), as amended, a ``category of existing 
passenger cars and locomotives and rail service'' is itself dependent 
on an analysis that includes consideration of relevant fire safety 
risks, such as available ignition sources, presence or absence of heat/
smoke detection and fire suppression systems, known variations from the 
required material test performance criteria or alternative standards 
approved by FRA, and availability of rapid and safe egress to the 
exterior of a vehicle under conditions secure from fire, smoke, and 
other hazards. As a result, any analysis required under paragraph (d) 
must include these considerations, albeit to differing and 
progressively greater degrees of scrutiny to comply with the 
requirements of paragraphs (d)(1) through (3). Additionally, paragraph 
(d) provides that a railroad is not required to replace material found 
not to comply with the test performance criteria for flammability and 
smoke emission characteristics required by part 238 if the risk of 
personal injuries from the material is negligible based on the 
railroad's operating environment and the material's size, or location, 
or both. (See paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(A) and (d)(3)(ii)(A).) FRA also 
makes clear that a railroad is not required to reduce the risk of 
personal injuries to zero in order to comply with paragraph (d), as 
such a requirement would be impractical. Moreover, as FRA explained in 
its October 8, 1999 letter, railroads should consider, as appropriate, 
the elements contained in paragraph (c) for purposes of analyzing the 
fire safety of their existing rail equipment under paragraph (d). 
Paragraph (c) specifies fire safety analysis considerations that 
reflect good, commonly used engineering practices.

Appendix B--Test Methods and Performance Criteria for the Flammability 
and Smoke Emission Characteristics of Materials Used in Passenger Cars 
and Locomotive Cabs

    The test standards and performance criteria in this Appendix are 
based on guidelines originally developed by the Volpe Center for the 
Urban Mass Transportation Administration (now the Federal Transit 
Administration) in the 1970s, and last published by FRA in 1989. In the 
NPRM, FRA generally proposed making the 1989 FRA guidelines mandatory 
for materials used in the construction of new railroad passenger 
equipment as well as in the refurbishment of existing equipment. See 62 
FR 49803. In the final rule, FRA revised the table of test methods and 
performance criteria for the flammability and smoke emission 
characteristics of materials used in railroad passenger cars and 
locomotive cabs, and clarified the application of the required tests 
and performance criteria as well. See 64 FR 25555. In issuing the final 
rule, FRA sought to maintain the high level of safety provided by FRA's 
1989 guidelines while addressing concerns related to their adoption as 
a regulation. See 64 FR 25647.
    As noted above in the discussion of Sec. 238.103(a)(2), APTA's 
petition for reconsideration raised concern with the table of test 
methods and performance criteria contained in Appendix B, stating that 
the final rule contains several changes but fails to explain why these 
changes were made and that the changes were not approved by the 
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). APTA raised particular 
concern that the final rule would degrade safety standards for smoke 
densities and flame spread in several areas, and did not wish to adopt 
changes that would reduce passenger and employee safety. APTA believed 
that without more data concerning the impact of the final rule's 
standards on safety and rail car design, and until the industry 
completes its review, the standards presented in the NPRM should be 
adopted instead. APTA added that consideration of new fire safety test 
methods and performance criteria should be identified as the first item 
in Phase II of the rulemaking. Amtrak likewise stated that the NPRM 
table was technically appropriate but that changes made in the final 
rule appeared to have caused substantial, unintended results. Amtrak 
recommended that FRA revert to using the NPRM table pending an 
appropriate industry review of the table contained in the final rule. 
Bombardier Transportation (Bombardier) similarly recommended in its 
petition for reconsideration that FRA return to the specific standards 
proposed in the NPRM and make any refinements in Phase II of the 
rulemaking. Bombardier raised particular concern that the final rule 
covered all materials used in constructing or refurbishing passenger 
cars and locomotive cabs, and was not limited to materials used in 
constructing or refurbishing the interiors of such equipment.
    In response to these petitions as a whole, FRA has decided not to 
revert in full to the 1989 guidelines as they appeared in Appendix B of 
the NPRM. To do so would cause the removal of Note 3 of the final rule, 
for instance, which provides for the testing of seat and mattress 
assemblies as integrated units to alternative test performance 
criteria. As discussed below, seat assemblies tested in such manner 
have been placed in Amtrak's Acela trainsets. Nevertheless, FRA has 
revised Appendix B and believes that these revisions effectively 
address the principal concerns raised by these petitioners, while at 
the same time retaining elements of the final rule related to the 
adoption of the guidelines as an FRA regulation. The revisions to 
Appendix B are discussed in detail below.
    FRA notes that the requirements of Appendix B should be considered 
in light of the fire safety requirements specified in Sec. 238.103 as a 
whole, which together comprise different aspects of a systems approach 
to fire safety. This systems approach incorporates basic, generally 
accepted fire protection engineering practices and principles, and is 
consistent with the advisory text included by the American Society for 
Testing and Materials (ASTM) in introducing its test procedures that 
are referenced in Appendix B. The ASTM cautions that test results 
``should be used to measure and describe the response of materials, 
products, or assemblies to heat and flame under controlled conditions, 
and should not be used to describe or appraise the fire-hazard or fire-
risk of materials, products, or assemblies under actual fire 
conditions.'' The ASTM also advises that the test results ``may be used 
as elements of a fire-hazard assessment or a fire-risk assessment which 
takes into account all of the factors which are pertinent to an 
assessment of the fire hazard or fire risk of a particular end use.''
    FRA believes that the test performance criteria specified in 
Appendix B provide important information as to the resistance of 
materials to ignition, and their rates of flame spread and smoke 
emission, albeit under controlled conditions. This information should 
not be examined in a ``vacuum'' but rather as part of a fire safety 
analysis of a passenger rail vehicle in its end use, such as that 
required for new passenger cars and locomotives by Sec. 238.103(c). 
Nevertheless, the use of materials complying with the requirements of 
Appendix B serves to limit the overall risk of fire in a vehicle and 
promote the time available for passenger and crew evacuation if a fire 
does occur. FRA intends to evaluate in Phase II of the rulemaking 
whether alternative test methods and performance criteria should be 
specified for all materials in Appendix B. The National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST), on behalf of FRA, is investigating the 
use

[[Page 42897]]

of alternative testing methodologies and computer hazard analysis 
models to identify and evaluate approaches to passenger train fire 
safety. See 64 FR 25554. As FRA has explained, NIST has previously 
found that individual components of a passenger rail car may perform 
differently in an actual fire from that experienced in small-scale 
tests (particularly when large ignition sources are involved) due to 
vehicle geometry and materials interaction. Id.
    FRA's use of standards established by other organizations, such as 
ASTM, is a means of establishing technical requirements without 
increasing the volume of the Code of Federal Regulations. See 1 CFR 
part 51. Following publication of the final rule, ASTM advised FRA that 
it had updated certain of its test standards that are referenced in the 
rule. For example, ASTM standard E 662-97 (the 1997 version of standard 
E 662) was incorporated into the May 12, 1999 final rule; the newer 
version of this ASTM standard is E 662-01 (the 2001 version of standard 
E 662). The newer version of the standard bears the same general 
technical content as the standard currently incorporated but has been 
reviewed by an ASTM committee and revised. In other cases, ASTM has 
reviewed standards and affirmed them as unchanged. During the review of 
the standards, changes occur-or not-by consensus of ASTM committee 
members. This process provides the opportunity for members of industry, 
government, and academia to participate, and FRA considers the updated 
standards to have been adequately reviewed and be technically sound.
    FRA is incorporating by reference such updated ASTM test standards 
into the rule. In addition to ASTM E 662, these updated standards 
consist of ASTM C 1166, ASTM D 3675, ASTM E 119, ASTM E 648, ASTM E 
1354, and ASTM E 1537. FRA understands that industry practice is to use 
the updated versions of the ASTM standards. Since Federal law requires 
that a publication incorporated by reference be identified by its 
title, date, edition, author, publisher, and identification number, see 
1 CFR 51.9(b)(2), FRA is amending the rule to incorporate the updated 
standards so as to expressly permit their use. Further, FRA intends to 
regularly update the rule to incorporate newer versions of the test 
standards referenced herein, as they are periodically revised. 
Nevertheless, as discussed in detail above, FRA is adding paragraph 
(a)(3) to provide a means for railroads, under certain conditions, to 
rely on the results of tests conducted using the earlier versions of 
the ASTM standards as cited in the May 12, 1999 final rule for the 
purpose of showing compliance with the requirements of Appendix B.
    FRA notes that LTK Engineering Services (LTK) also petitioned for 
reconsideration of the fire safety standards, raising a number of 
specific issues which are identified below. LTK explained that very few 
materials were capable of meeting the 1989 FRA (and earlier FTA and 
FRA) guidelines when they were first published, but since that time 
products intended for use in railcars have been reformulated to meet 
and often exceed the performance criteria. LTK raised concern that the 
final rule did not seem to reflect the improvements made to materials 
over the past 20 years and placed no burden on the industry to improve 
further the performance of the materials. LTK stated that, over the 
years, it has witnessed many attempts by product manufacturers to 
provide rail car buyers with materials of lesser quality and 
performance, and believed that the new regulations would perpetuate 
this practice.
    Bay State Marketing Consultants (Bay State) raised similar concerns 
in a petition for reconsideration, noting that products such as seat 
foam, elastomers, thermal and acoustic insulation, vacuum foaming and 
wall lining materials have been reformulated to exceed the 1989 FRA 
guidelines. Bay State believed that the final rule ignores the improved 
materials and products on the market today, and reflects an essential 
unfamiliarity with both the relevance of the test methods and the 
operating environment encountered by the majority of passenger rail 
cars, such as those operating in the New York City tunnel system. 
Specifically, the petitioner believed that the rule should be 
continually revised until all products used in rail car construction 
comply with a smoke (or specific optical) density limit (Ds) of 100 at 
4 minutes using the ASTM E 662 test procedure. The petitioner stated 
that an acceptance level of 200 provides little protection, and 
maintained that the smoke emitted from one fully combusted window mask 
complying with a Ds of 200 will completely obscure human vision beyond 
a distance of two feet, disabling people and preventing them from 
locating emergency exits. The petitioner believed that the standard 
would not be tolerated by anyone who actually stood in a room with such 
a smoke density.
    As FRA has explained, the final rule is the first of a two-phased 
rulemaking. See 64 FR 25554. In the second phase, FRA will examine the 
need for further refinements to the test procedures and performance 
criteria following, in particular, a review of the results of ongoing 
fire safety research conduct by NIST. FRA has acknowledged that since 
the FRA guidelines were originally developed in the 1970s, a greater 
number of materials has become available that exceed the stated test 
performance criteria. Had FRA made the test performance criteria in the 
final rule more stringent on the basis of the concerns raised by these 
two petitioners, the final rule would indeed have been a marked 
departure from the NPRM. However, this was not the case.
    LTK also raised concern that the rule specifies no requirements for 
the toxicity of gasses emitted from burning materials, noting that many 
commuter rail car specifications contain such requirements. FRA 
recognizes this concern, and has identified this as an issue to examine 
in Phase II of the rulemaking. FRA has not previously recommended any 
specific performance standards for material toxicity. However, 
preliminary research conducted by NIST has shown that, for currently 
used materials within a rail car, the heat generated by burning the 
materials may prove fatal to occupants before the occupants are 
overcome by toxic gases within the vehicle.

Cushions and Mattresses

    As noted in the preamble to the final rule, ``Cushions, 
Mattresses'' is a new category in the table which was listed in the 
1989 FRA guidelines and the NPRM under the function of material column 
and included under the category, ``Passenger seats, Sleeping and dining 
car components.'' 64 FR 25648. In its petition for reconsideration, LTK 
maintained that cushions and mattresses today can meet a Ds of 150 at 4 
minutes--lower than the Ds of 175 in the final rule. Bay State stated 
in its petition that since seat foams constitute one of the major 
sources of fuel in a car interior, FRA should strongly consider 
limiting seat foam smoke emission standards generally to 150 at 4 
minutes and even to 100 at 4 minutes for those vehicles operating in 
tunnels or on elevated structures. The petitioner noted that smoke 
inhalation is the major source of passenger disablement and death in a 
fire, and that smoke is the primary obstacle to locating emergency 
exits.
    Because FRA did not intend to make the smoke emission performance 
criteria for cushions and mattresses more stringent in Phase I of this 
rulemaking, the final rule imposed the same smoke emission performance 
criteria as those recommended in the 1989 guidelines. Nonetheless, the 
concerns raised by

[[Page 42898]]

these petitioners to adopt stricter smoke emission performance criteria 
for cushions and mattresses merit consideration in Phase II of the 
rulemaking.
    Note 1 remains unchanged from the final rule. Note 2 remains 
unchanged except for the reference to ASTM E 662-01. As discussed 
above, certain of the ASTM test standards referenced in the rule, such 
as ASTM E 662, have been updated.
    As explained in the final rule, FRA has been investigating the 
testing of assemblies of materials for performance in a fire, rather 
than individually testing the materials which comprise such assemblies, 
to reflect more realistically the interaction of materials in a fire. 
See 64 FR 25648. As part of the FRA-sponsored fire safety research 
program managed by the Volpe Center, six full-scale alternative seat 
assemblies being considered for Amtrak's high-speed trainsets were 
tested in March, 1997, using a furniture calorimeter. Among other 
things, the test results showed that fire blocking layers can 
significantly prevent fire ignition and limit flame spread, fire 
growth, and smoke generation. Note 3 of the final rule permitted the 
testing of seat and mattress assemblies as an integrated unit, in the 
alternative to individually testing the components that comprise the 
seat or mattress assembly, using ASTM E 1537 (``Standard Test Method 
for Fire Testing of Upholstered Seating Furniture'') and the pass/fail 
criteria specified in California Technical Bulletin (Cal TB) 133 
(``Flammability Test Procedure for Seating Furniture for Use in Public 
Occupancies''). FRA noted that Cal TB 133 has a successful history of 
use at state and municipal levels for high-hazard occupied places such 
as nursing homes and that results of the March, 1997 tests showed that 
certain seat assemblies met the Cal TB 133 test performance criteria, 
did not spread any flame, and exhibited low rates of heat and smoke 
release. Id. Moreover, data from Amtrak-funded tests showed that seat 
assemblies selected for use on Amtrak's high-speed trainsets passed 
both the ASTM D 3675 and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ``oil 
burner'' tests for cushions and fabrics, in addition to passing the 
ASTM E 1537 and E162 tests specified in the final rule.
    In its petition for reconsideration, LTK expressed concern that 
Note 3 would allow the use of urethane materials in seat cushions and 
that such materials would otherwise not meet the test performance 
criteria for flammability and smoke emission. The petitioner believed 
this represented a potential fire hazard since it perceived that the 
rule did not require the assembly tested to continue to be subject to 
integrity requirements for the life of the assembly, even in the case 
the assembly covering (fire blocking layer(s)) were cut due to accident 
or vandalism. In addition, the petitioner believed that no dynamic 
cycling tests were imposed on seat assemblies by the final rule, adding 
that such tests were necessary to simulate real-world wear.
    FRA stated in Note 3 that use of the alternative test performance 
criteria for seat and mattress assemblies is dependent on the condition 
of the assemblies' components remaining unchanged or, if they were 
replaced, possessing at least equivalent fire performance properties to 
the original components tested to provide for necessary quality control 
of the components. Further, Note 3 requires an accompanying fire hazard 
analysis that considers the operating environment within which seat and 
mattress assemblies will be used in relation to the risks of vandalism, 
puncture, cutting, or other such acts or external forces which may 
expose the individual components of the assemblies to a source of 
ignition. Although seats and mattresses may contain foams that would 
not otherwise meet the test performance criteria if tested 
individually, such foams are required to be protected by a robust 
blocking layer or layers (as used to meet FAA fire seat regulations) 
resistant to both fire and vandalism, puncture, cutting, and other such 
acts and external forces. FRA noted in the final rule that the U.S. 
Coast Guard has issued a Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 
(NAVIC) for structural fire protection which permits the use of fire 
blocking layers if tested according to Cal TB 133; the NAVIC states 
that these fire blocking materials have proven effective in protecting 
combustible foams from becoming involved in a fire. See 64 FR 25648, 
note 13. Such blocking layers must be applied in a manner which seals 
the seams (e.g., using bonding or ceramic thread with binding tape) and 
ensures that the foam is not exposed to an ignition source. In 
evaluating the risk that the integrity of an assembly may be 
compromised so that its foam is exposed to an ignition source, a 
railroad must consider the frequency of its inspections of such 
assemblies to verify their condition. A fire blocking layer that is 
cut, torn, or punctured so that the integrity of the assembly is 
compromised must be repaired or replaced to ensure continued compliance 
with Note 3. FRA makes clear that the assembly tested continues to be 
subject to the requirements of Note 3 for the life of the assembly. 
Further, FRA has amended the rule to make clear that Notes 5, 6, 7, and 
8 apply to the surface layers of seat and mattress assemblies tested in 
accordance with Note 3, to simulate real-world wear.
    Separately, GBH International (GBH) petitioned FRA for 
reconsideration of Note 3, stating that mattresses cannot be tested 
according to the ASTM E 1537 test procedure because it is specific to 
chairs and sofas and the testing apparatus is too small to accommodate 
the mattress sample. According to the petitioner, the ASTM E 1590 test 
procedure is the corresponding test for mattresses. However, GBH added 
that it is not clear whether mattress combinations for passenger rail 
applications would be suitably tested by the ASTM E 1590 test 
procedure, maintaining that the exposure is intended for a lower risk 
fire environment and that a small increase in ignition source intensity 
can easily have a significant effect on the fire hazard. GBH therefore 
recommended that passenger rail mattresses be tested to the same pass-
fail criteria as Cal TB 133 but with an ignition source similar to the 
FAA oil burner test used for aircraft seat cushion flammability in the 
same room environment as the ASTM E 1590 test procedure. The petitioner 
likewise noted that testing of seat applications in passenger rail cars 
will likely suffer from similar problems as the testing of mattresses 
and recommended using an ignition source for seat testing similar to 
the FAA oil burner test in the same room environment as the ASTM E 1537 
test procedure using Cal TB 133 performance criteria.
    FRA agrees that ASTM E 1590 is the more appropriate test procedure 
for a mattress assembly, and is effectively the corresponding test to 
ASTM E 1537 for a larger object. As a result, FRA has amended the rule 
to require use of the ASTM E 1590 test procedure for purposes of 
testing mattress assemblies in accordance with the alternative 
standards specified in Note 3. However, FRA has also amended the rule 
to require that mattress assemblies tested using the ASTM E 1590 test 
procedure be evaluated against the performance criteria contained in 
Cal TB 129--not Cal TB 133. Cal TB 129 describes performance criteria 
for mattress assemblies and contains, in effect, the corresponding 
performance criteria to those for seat assemblies in Cal TB 133. FRA 
recognizes that the FAA oil burner test for aircraft seat cushions, 
which is found at 14 CFR part 25, Appendix F,

[[Page 42899]]

Part II, addresses the risk of fuel-fed fires. However, FRA has noted 
that certain seat assemblies tested for placement in Amtrak's high-
speed trainsets using the ASTM E 1537 test procedure also passed the 
FAA's oil burner test. In Phase II of the rulemaking, FRA will further 
examine the petitioner's recommendation to use the oil burner as an 
ignition source during the ASTM E 1537 and 1590 tests.
    Note 4 remains unchanged from the final rule. FRA makes clear that 
Note 4 applies to both seat cushion and mattress testing.
    Note 5 requires the dynamic testing of seat cushions and mattresses 
to help ensure that they retain their fire retardant characteristics 
after they have been in service for a period of time. As provided in 
the final rule, Note 5 expressly subjected seat cushions and mattresses 
to an endurance test specified in ASTM D 3574, Test I2 
(Dynamic Fatigue Test by the Roller Shear at Constant Force) or Test 
I3 (Dynamic Fatigue Test by Constant Force Pounding) both 
using Procedure B. Following publication of the final rule, a railroad 
stated that the size of the samples required to be tested differed for 
the ASTM D 3675 flammability test procedure specified for cushions and 
mattresses and the ASTM D 3574 dynamic test procedure specified in Note 
5. Accordingly, FRA has revised Note 5 to make the samples the same 
size so that flammability testing may be conducted on the same sample 
that has undergone dynamic testing.
    Notes 6, 7, and 8 remain unchanged from the final rule. These 
notes, along with Note 5, are now expressly referenced in Note 3 to 
make clear that they apply to seat and mattress assembly testing as 
specified in Note 3.

Fabrics

    In the final rule, the ``Fabrics'' category included fabrics used 
in seat upholstery, mattress ticking and covers, and curtains. These 
items were formerly identified in the function of material column for 
the category ``Passengers seats, Sleeping and dining car components'' 
in the 1989 FRA guidelines and the NPRM. The word ``All'' under 
function of material in the final rule eliminated confusion as to what 
must be tested; window shades, draperies and also wall coverings were 
required to be tested if composed of fabric. See 64 FR 25648-25649. 
Nevertheless, instead of stating that the test performance criteria 
apply to ``All'' fabrics, FRA has amended the table so that the 
criteria apply to fabrics used in or for items expressly identified in 
the guidelines and NPRM--that is, seat upholstery, mattress ticking and 
covers, and curtains--as well as in those items discussed in the 
preamble to the final rule--draperies, wall coverings, and window 
shades. This amendment is intended to make the rule more consistent 
with the format of FRA's fire safety guidelines, while clearly 
addressing the potential contribution to fire and smoke posed by fabric 
window shades and wall coverings, and avoiding any terminology 
confusion between ``curtains'' and ``draperies.''
    As noted in the preamble to the final rule, the 1989 FRA guidelines 
limited smoke emission performance for ``coated'' fabrics, typically 
vinyl-based upholstery, to a Ds of 250 and ``uncoated'' fabrics to a Ds 
of 100--both at 4 minutes. See 64 FR 25649. It was determined that a 
uniform Ds limit of 200 at 4 minutes for smoke emission would be 
appropriate for both classes of fabrics, based in part on the known 
performance of the range of fabrics available and the definition of 
coated and uncoated used by the ASTM. Moreover, FRA noted that allowing 
a higher smoke emission performance standard for coated fabrics--more 
than twice that allowed for uncoated fabrics--provides an inconsistent 
level of safety on the basis of the fabric used and that an NFPA 130 
committee had accepted a recommendation for the identical change in its 
own standard. Id.
    In its petition for reconsideration, LTK raised concern that smoke 
emission limits for ``uncoated'' fabrics have been increased for seat 
upholstery, mattress ticking, covers and curtains to a Ds of 200 at 4 
minutes. LTK believed that this represented a significant increase in 
allowable smoke emission, noting the amount of fabric (bedding, 
curtains, chairs) contained in a sleeping car or intercity coach. LTK 
stated that the original guidelines recognized the performance 
difference between cloth and vinyl upholstery, and that the distinction 
must remain. LTK did recommend changing the terminology from ``coated'' 
and ``uncoated'' as used in the 1989 FRA guidelines to ``cloth'' and 
``vinyl,'' respectively, citing confusion and attempts by suppliers to 
have materials accepted at higher smoke emission levels. Bay State 
raised similar concerns, noting in particular that raising the smoke 
emission limit for cloth fabrics could double the allowable smoke 
emission in sleeping cars, potentially allowing the introduction of 
more toxic fumes.
    FRA continues to believe that allowing a higher smoke emission 
limit for fabrics based on the type of fabric used provides an 
inconsistent level of safety. Further, since an ASTM test procedure is 
specified for evaluating smoke emission, it has been considered 
appropriate to use the ASTM definition of ``coated'' material, i.e., a 
flexible material composed of a textile fabric and an adherent 
polymeric material applied to one or both surfaces. This definition is 
more inclusive than one essentially describing a ``coated'' fabric as 
vinyl, thereby creating the possibility that a greater number of 
materials would be evaluated against the higher Ds limit of 250. 
Moreover, as part of NIST's ongoing fire safety research, NIST 
evaluated test data from samples of fabrics intended for use in an 
Amtrak passenger car and found a variation of Ds levels from 57 to 175 
at 4 minutes. (See ``Fire Safety of Passenger Trains: Phase I Material 
Evaluation (Cone Calorimeter),'' DOT/FRA/ORD-99/01-DOT-VTNSC-FRA-98-26, 
January 1999, cited in the final rule at 64 FR 25554, note 1.) Overall, 
NIST found a variation of Ds levels for all materials (not just 
fabrics) of between 12 and 509, with nearly half of the materials 
tested falling between 100 and 200. Consequently, requiring a Ds of 100 
at 4 minutes may eliminate the use of many currently used materials in 
rail passenger cars, including certain cloth material. Although FRA is 
leaving the smoke emission limits unchanged from the final rule, the 
petitioners concerns may be examined further in Phase II of the 
rulemaking.

Other Vehicle Components

    Through the final rule FRA established the category ``Vehicle 
Components'' to include the majority of those materials used in items 
formerly listed in the 1989 FRA guidelines and NPRM under the 
categories of ``Panels,'' ``Flooring'' (except structural), 
``Insulation,'' ``Elastomers,'' ``Exterior Plastic Components,'' and 
``Component Box Covers.'' The final rule also introduced the 
subcategory ``All [vehicle components] except flexible cellular foams, 
floor coverings, light transmitting plastics, and items addressed under 
other specific categories'' that effectively required all materials 
under the ``Vehicle Components'' category to meet specific flammability 
and smoke emission performance criteria, unless exempted by Note 10. 
Following publication of the final rule, however, passenger railroads 
raised concern that requiring the testing of all materials 
significantly departed from FRA's proposal in the NPRM.
    As an initial matter, FRA is renaming the ``Vehicle Components'' 
category, ``Other Vehicle Components.'' Everything identified in the 
table is a vehicle component, of course; but FRA

[[Page 42900]]

is generally retaining the category's name to maintain the format of 
the final rule's table as far as practicable for the benefit of the 
regulated community.
    More important, FRA recognizes that the final rule expanded the 
flammability and smoke emission performance testing requirements for 
rail car components, consistent with the intent of part 238 to cover 
all aspects of passenger equipment fire safety. On reconsideration, 
however, FRA is generally limiting the application of such test 
performance criteria to materials expressly identified in the 1989 FRA 
guidelines and the NPRM. FRA is largely doing so by amending the 
subcategory of ``All [vehicle components] except flexible cellular 
foams, floor coverings, light transmitting plastics, and items 
addressed under other specific categories'' to specifically identify 
the type of items subject to the required flammability and smoke 
emission test performance criteria. Most of these items were included 
in Note 9 to the final rule and were formerly identified in the 
category and function of material columns of the 1989 FRA guidelines 
and NPRM Appendix B table. These amendments restore these items to the 
body of the table following their removal due to the reorganization and 
streamlining of the table for purposes of the final rule. These items 
consist of materials used as, in, or for seat and mattress frames; wall 
and ceiling panels; seat and toilet shrouds; tray and other tables; 
partitions; shelves; opaque windscreens; end caps; roof housings; and 
component boxes and covers. In the final rule, Note 9 also identified 
``HVAC ducting'' and ``thermal and acoustic insulation'' as items 
subject to testing. However, these items are now addressed elsewhere in 
the table due to differing test performance criteria, as discussed 
below.
    FRA notes that it has expressly amended the rule as stated in 
revised Note 9 to exclude signage from any specific flammability or 
smoke emission test performance criteria. This exclusion applies to all 
signage, whether or not the signage conveys emergency or safety 
information or is semi-permanently affixed to the car as, e.g., a wall 
panel. As stated in a December 13, 2000 letter to APTA and Amtrak, FRA 
determined that members of the public could have been confused as to 
whether the NPRM would make signage used in railroad passenger cars and 
locomotive cabs subject to specific Federal performance standards for 
flammability and smoke emission. (A copy of this letter has been placed 
in the public docket for this rulemaking.) FRA is therefore amending 
the rule to exclude signage from any such specific performance 
standards at this time, pending further public input in Phase II of the 
rulemaking.
    None of the changes discussed above alter the pre-existing, fire 
safety analysis requirements of Sec. 238.103 to consider the safety of 
a rail car as a whole and identify and address potential fire safety 
hazards, pursuant to which railroads are still required to consider the 
flammability and smoke emission performance characteristics of the 
materials that they place in their passenger equipment, including 
signage. As a result, railroads remain responsible for considering the 
fire safety characteristics of the signage that they place in their 
equipment to ensure that the type, size, and location of the signage, 
exposure of the signage to potential ignition sources, the railroad 
operating environment, and other factors do not create an unacceptable 
fire safety risk. FRA is likewise making clear elsewhere in this Notice 
that, pursuant to Sec. 238.103, railroads are still required to 
consider the fire safety characteristics of other materials used in 
their passenger equipment, even if the materials are no longer 
specifically addressed by the requirements of Appendix B, to avoid 
creating an unacceptable fire safety risk. FRA intends to establish 
specific flammability and smoke emission performance requirements for 
signage in Phase II of the rulemaking.
    Note 10 provides that testing of miscellaneous, discontinuous small 
parts is not required if such parts do not contribute materially to 
fire growth and the surface area of any individual small part is less 
than 16 square inches (100 cm2) in end use configuration. A 
fire hazard analysis is required that considers both the quantity of 
the parts (e.g., limited) and the location of the parts (e.g., at 
discontinuous or isolated locations, or both), as well as the 
vulnerability of the parts to ignition and contribution to flame 
spread. In the preamble to the final rule, FRA cited grommets used on 
seats or window shades as examples of small, discontinuous parts that 
present an insignificant fire threat and could logically and safely be 
exempted from testing. See 64 FR 25649. In contrast, FRA explained that 
materials such as those used to produce wire ties of which hundreds or 
thousands may be included in a single car to mount power and low 
voltage cable bundles are not exempted from testing. Id.
    In its petition for reconsideration, LTK advised against describing 
a small part by its surface area alone (less than or equal to 16 square 
inches) and recommended that mass also be considered, citing the number 
of wire ties in a rail car. Bay State shared LTK's concern, noting in 
particular that tie wraps for wires number in the thousands in a rail 
car and are fabricated for the general construction industry from 
polymers that exhibit flaming running and dripping. The petitioner also 
stated that the rule should set a total limit on the weight of 
unregulated elastomeric material permitted per vehicle, noting that 
elastomers can emit a significant amount of smoke when combusted. 
However, neither petitioner recommended any specific limits relating to 
weight or mass. In contrast to the concern of these petitioners, 
Bombardier stated in its petition for reconsideration that it is 
unclear how such small individual parts like tie wraps that are 
distributed throughout a rail car can play such a significant role as 
to contribute to a localized fire.
    FRA makes clear that consideration of the mass of small parts for 
purposes of Note 10 is required by the fire hazard analysis specified 
in the Note. However, FRA has not imposed a more specific requirement 
concerning the weight or mass of small parts, and thus will continue to 
allow a railroad to make an appropriate determination based on its own 
fire hazard analysis. As a separate matter, due to the revisions to the 
table, ties that are used to bundle, wrap, or, literally, tie wires and 
cables are no longer subject to the flammability and smoke emission 
standards specified in Appendix B. Nevertheless, use of such ties shall 
continue to be evaluated by a railroad, as appropriate, in accordance 
with the fire safety analysis requirements in Sec. 238.103. FRA is 
concerned about the sheer numbers of such ties in a rail car and their 
potential to ignite other materials and contribute to fire growth, 
overall. Such ties are commonly made of plastic, because of plastic's 
non-conductive nature, and may also be made of other material such as 
cloth.
    In the final rule Note 11 was intended to permit use of the ASTM E 
1354 test procedure to measure flammability characteristics for small 
parts as an alternative to the test procedures otherwise specified in 
the table for measuring flammability characteristics, such as ASTM E 
162. Consequently, the use of the word ``shall,'' instead of ``may,'' 
in Note 11 of the final rule, was incorrect. The ASTM E 1354 test 
procedure is only intended to be an alternative--not a required-test 
procedure. FRA has amended the rule accordingly. In addition, FRA has 
merged Note 12 of the final rule with Note 11. Note 12 permitted use of 
the

[[Page 42901]]

ASTM E 1354 test procedure to measure smoke generation for small, 
discontinuous parts as an alternative to the ASTM E 662 test procedure 
otherwise specified in the table. See 64 FR 25703. As amended, Note 11 
more clearly states FRA's intent to permit use of the ASTM E 1354 test 
procedure for small parts as an alternative to both the flammability 
and smoke emission test procedures otherwise specified in the table. 
Such small parts may be evaluated for flammability and smoke emission 
according to either Note 11, as amended, or the test procedures 
otherwise specified in the table. Of course, small parts may be exempt 
from testing pursuant to Note 10.
    The test procedure referenced in Note 11 is ASTM E 1354, ``Standard 
Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and 
Products Using an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter'' (i.e., Cone 
Calorimeter). This measures heat release rate at a prescribed heat flux 
using oxygen depletion techniques and produces information including 
data for time of ignition (tig) and peak heat release rate 
(q//max). The quotient of tig/
q//max has been evaluated as part of the current 
FRA-funded NIST research program, as well as in other research, and has 
been shown to reliably predict ignitability. Ignitability is an 
important consideration for certain small parts used in rail passenger 
cars. Because of their small size and end uses, small parts may be more 
significant from an ignition perspective than from a flame spread 
perspective. See 64 FR 25649. The final rule required that small parts 
tested in accordance with ASTM E 1354 meet the pass/fail criterion: 
tig/q//max is less than or equal to 
1.5 under stipulated exposure conditions.
    In its petition for reconsideration, Bombardier noted that a 
material that neither ignites nor burns would nevertheless fail the 
performance criterion specified in Note 11 of the final rule. According 
to Bombardier, if the time to ignition (tig) approaches 
infinity (i.e., does not ignite) and the peak heat release rate 
(q//max) is minimal (i.e., does not burn) then 
the ratio tig/q//max becomes 
significantly larger than 1.5. Bombardier therefore recommended 
revising this performance criterion and proposed other changes to Note 
11. In its petition for reconsideration, GBH pointed out that the 
performance criterion cited in Note 11 was proper except that FRA had 
inverted a key figure, recommending that materials tested in accordance 
with ASTM E 1354 should meet the performance criterion: tig/
q//max is greater than or equal to 1.5, not less 
than or equal to 1.5.
    FRA agrees that the performance criterion was incorrectly stated in 
Note 11 and has revised the Note accordingly. As amended, Note 11 
states that materials tested in accordance with ASTM E 1354 shall meet 
the heat release rate performance criterion of 
q//180 [le] 100 kW/m2. That is, the 
average heat release rate over 180 seconds 
(q//180) shall be less than or equal to 100 
kilowatts per square meter. This heat release rate criterion, and the 
smoke emission criterion discussed below, are based on the results of 
NIST research on a range of materials in current use in passenger rail 
cars as part of Phase I of the FRA-sponsored fire safety research study 
of passenger rail cars, discussed above and at 64 FR 25554. These 
performance criteria use comparable measures to the 1989 FRA guideline 
and NPRM performance criteria. For all of the materials tested by NIST 
which met the original guideline criteria, the average heat release 
rate over a 180-second period was 86 kW/m2. Consequently, 
FRA believes that specifying a heat release rate acceptance criterion 
of q//180 [le] 100 kW/m2 is 
appropriate for testing materials used in small parts. FRA has amended 
the rule accordingly.
    As noted above, FRA has combined Note 12 of the final rule with 
Note 11 since the intent is to permit the testing of small parts using 
ASTM E 1354 as an alternative to both ASTM E 162 (or the flammability 
test procedure otherwise specified in the table) and ASTM E 662 for 
smoke generation. In their petitions for reconsideration, Bombardier 
and LTK observed that Note 12 in the final rule did not define a pass/
fail criterion for smoke generation using the ASTM E 1354 test 
procedure. In addition, Bay State maintained in its petition that ASTM 
E 1354 should not be used to measure smoke generation until its results 
are correlated with ASTM E 662 or the FRA provides an acceptance 
standard. Nevertheless, the petitioner did state that ASTM E 1354 
should be adopted as a governing standard in that it provides 
qualitative heat release and smoke emission data.
    FRA acknowledges that the final rule did not expressly define a 
pass/fail criterion for smoke generation of small parts in Note 12. 
ASTM E 1354 smoke generation data is stated in terms of ``specific 
extinction area,'' which is a measure of the attenuation of light by 
soot particles in a flowing system using a monochromatic light beam. 
The primary benefit of specific extinction area is that it can be used 
in calculations of smoke density (and thus visibility) within a 
passenger car for purposes of an emergency evacuation. Specific optical 
density cannot be used as effectively in this way. As part of the NIST 
research using the ASTM E 1354 test procedure to evaluate materials 
used in passenger rail cars, discussed above, NIST found that for all 
of the materials tested which met the 1989 FRA guideline criteria, the 
average specific extinction area ([sigma]f) over a 180-
second period was 468 m2/kg. Consequently, FRA believes that 
limiting the overall average specific extinction area in this time 
period to 500 m2/kg is appropriate for testing materials 
used in small parts. FRA has amended the rule accordingly to specify 
this pass/fail criterion. FRA notes that, while it should be possible 
to correlate specific extinction area data with specific optical 
density data from the ASTM E 662 test procedure, FRA believes that it 
is premature to do so here but will consider it in Phase II of the 
rulemaking.
    Finally, GBH stated in its petition for reconsideration that if 
floor coverings are to be tested using the ASTM E 1354 test procedure, 
the applied heat flux should not be 50 kW/m2 as specified in 
Note 11. The petitioner maintained that such a heat flux will not be 
encountered by a floor environment until well after flashover, which 
the petitioner defined as the moment when the heat flux to the floor 
reaches 20 or 25 kW/m2. According to the petitioner, a more 
realistic heat flux would be 25 kW/m2, which can be 
encountered by floor covering materials just when flashover occurs and 
is consistent with studies of fire performance of carpeting materials. 
FRA believes that because use of the ASTM E 1354 test procedure in Note 
11 is limited to materials less than 16 square inches in end use 
configuration and floor covering in a passenger car or a locomotive cab 
will most likely have a greater surface area in end use, it is unlikely 
that the option to use the ASTM E 1354 test procedure will apply to the 
testing of floor covering. As a separate mater, FRA notes that the 
requirement for a retainer frame for specimens tested according to ASTM 
E 1354 was inadvertently omitted from the final rule. FRA has amended 
the rule accordingly.

Flexible Cellular Foams Used in Armrests and Seat Padding; Thermal and 
Acoustic Insulation; and HVAC Ducting

    In the final rule, flexible cellular foam products not used for 
cushion and mattress applications were included in the ``Flexible 
cellular foams'' subcategory to address their unique fire-related 
properties. These foam products are used for armrests, seatback 
``crash''

[[Page 42902]]

padding, and thermal and acoustic insulation. In the preamble to the 
final rule, FRA noted in particular that NIST researchers in 1983 had 
found that foam armrests assisted flame spread from seat cushions to 
wall liners, and Note 8 of the 1989 FRA guidelines recommended that 
foam armrests be tested to the same performance criteria applicable to 
seat cushions to limit flame spread. See 64 FR 25649-50. Thermal and 
acoustic insulation materials not made from flexible cellular foams 
were permitted to be tested under the final rule to the less stringent 
test performance criteria applicable to the ``All [vehicle components] 
except flexible cellular foams * * *'' subcategory. See 64 FR 25702. 
Thermal and acoustic insulation materials were previously included as a 
separate category in the 1989 FRA guidelines with a recommended smoke 
emission (Ds) limit at 4 minutes of 100 using the ASTM E 662 test 
procedure. However, the NPRM did not expressly propose a smoke emission 
limit at 4 minutes for thermal and acoustic insulation materials, see 
62 FR 49823, and FRA incorrectly stated in the final rule that the Ds 
limit for these materials at 4 minutes was intended to be 200 in the 
NPRM, when it should have been 100 to be consistent with the 
guidelines.
    In their petitions for reconsideration, LTK and Bay State raised 
concern that FRA had degraded the test performance criteria for car 
body insulation from the 1989 FRA guidelines. Noting in particular the 
potential doubling of allowable smoke emission, the petitioners 
believed this to be significant because car body insulation represents 
a substantial amount of material in a railcar's floors, walls, 
ceilings, and air distribution ducts. They also found equally troubling 
that the smoke emission limit for HVAC ducting had been doubled from 
the guidelines as well, citing the importance of limiting the amount of 
smoke generated by a ventilation system in order to prevent the spread 
of smoke throughout a car. The final rule permitted HVAC ducting to 
have a Ds limit at 4 minutes of 200; whereas the 1989 FRA guidelines 
limited Ds to 100 at 4 minutes.
    On reconsideration of the final rule, FRA agrees with the concerns 
raised by these petitioners as to the potential degradation from the 
guidelines of the test performance criteria for thermal and acoustic 
insulation, as well as for HVAC ducting. Consequently, FRA has amended 
the rule by restoring the function of material subcategories ``Thermal 
and acoustic insulation'' and ``HVAC ducting'' from the guidelines. The 
test performance criteria for these materials are now the same as those 
specified in the guidelines and are what FRA intended in the NPRM. FRA 
makes clear that these materials may no longer be evaluated to the 
criteria contained in another function of material subcategory. 
However, as discussed above, FRA is adding Sec. 238.103(a)(3) to make 
provision for railroads that have relied on Appendix B of the May 12, 
1999 final rule and already installed, ordered, or hold in inventory 
materials that meet the test performance criteria specified therein for 
acoustic and thermal insulation, as well as for HVAC Ducting. See the 
discussion of Sec. 238.103(a)(3) for a fuller explanation.
    As a separate matter, FRA is limiting the applicability of the 
flexible cellular foam test performance requirements to flexible 
cellular foams used in armrests and seat padding, to be more consistent 
with the guidelines and the NPRM. FRA is also making clear that Notes 4 
and 6 apply to the revised flexible cellular foam subcategory.

Floor Covering

    Note 12 relates to the use of carpet on walls and ceilings. Two 
petitioners observed that Note 12, formerly Note 13 of the final rule, 
stated only that carpeting used as a wall or ceiling covering be tested 
as a vehicle component, which did not convey any additional meaning 
since carpeting was already classified as a vehicle component. See 64 
FR 25703. The purpose of this Note is to test in a different manner 
carpeting used to cover a wall or ceiling as opposed to carpeting used 
to cover a floor, due to differing safety concerns associated with the 
location of the carpet. For example, carpeting adhered to a vertical 
surface or a ceiling has been shown to promote flame spread in tests 
conducted by NIST of Amtrak car materials. FRA makes clear that 
carpeting applied to a wall or ceiling must be tested in accordance 
with the test methods and performance criteria generally applicable to 
wall and ceiling materials, instead of the test methods and performance 
criteria otherwise specified for floor covering. This is the same 
principle that was recommended in the 1989 FRA guidelines and proposed 
in the NPRM, but was inadvertently changed in the final rule text. 
Accordingly, carpeting used as a wall or ceiling covering shall be 
tested according to the ASTM E 162 and 662 test procedures utilizing 
the respective performance criteria of Is less than or equal 
to 35 and Ds (1.5) less than or equal to 100 and 
Ds (4.0) less than or equal to 200, with application of 
Notes 1 and 2.
    Note 13, formerly Note 14 of the final rule, remains unchanged, 
except for the reference to the newer version of ASTM E 648. FRA is 
incorporating such newer versions of the ASTM test standards referenced 
in the rule, as discussed above.

Light Diffusers, Windows and Transparent Plastic Windscreens

    In the final rule, FRA established a new ``Light transmitting 
plastics'' function of material subcategory. Although the preamble to 
the final rule indicated that FRA considered light transmitting 
plastics to be windows, light diffusers and transparent plastic 
windscreens (effectively interior windows), consistent with 
construction industry and building code terminology, FRA did not 
expressly define the term in the rule text. See 64 FR 25650, 25702. In 
light of some confusion arising after publication of the final rule as 
to what materials were subject to the light transmitting plastics test 
performance criteria, FRA has amended the final rule by renaming the 
subcategory ``Light diffusers, windows, and transparent plastic 
windscreens.'' FRA makes clear that the flammability test performance 
criteria specified for this subcategory are applicable only to these 
identified items, as the criteria are less stringent than those 
applicable to any other vehicle component.
    As stated in the Volpe Center report explaining the development of 
the original fire safety guidelines, the flammability ``acceptance 
limit recommends that all window and light diffuser glazing have an 
(Is) [flame spread index] of 100 or less. This Is 
is not consistent with the Is of 35 or less required for all 
other sheet and panel materials but is necessary to allow for window 
and light diffuser glazing materials other than glass.'' (See 
``Rationale for Recommended Fire Safety Practices for Rail Transit 
Materials Selection'' (``Volpe Center Report''), at p. 20, cited at 64 
FR 25647, note 7, and placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.) 
At the time of the Volpe Center report, available clear plastic 
material could not comply with the more stringent flammability 
performance criteria generally specified for other materials, see Volpe 
Center Report at p. 21, including the prohibition on flame running and 
dripping. The use of plastic material in light diffusers and windows is 
desirable because it allows railroads to take advantage of the impact 
and shatter resistant qualities of plastics. In particular, windows in 
rail passenger cars and locomotive cabs are subject to specific impact 
resistance requirements

[[Page 42903]]

under the Safety Glazing Standards-Locomotives, Passenger Cars and 
Cabooses, 49 CFR part 223. The purpose of the Safety Glazing Standards 
is ``to provide minimum requirements for glazing materials in order to 
protect railroad employees and railroad passengers from injury as a 
result of objects striking the windows of locomotives, caboose and 
passenger cars.'' See 49 CFR 223.1; 44 FR 77352, Dec. 31, 1979. FRA has 
also noted the importance of glazing material toughness in helping to 
retain persons within the vehicles in the case of a derailment. When 
struck by an object, untreated glass windows could not only allow entry 
of the object into the passenger car or locomotive cab, posing a 
missile hazard to railroad passengers and employees, but the glass 
could shatter and thereby harm these persons. Similarly, untreated 
glass light diffusers would pose a hazard in a train derailment, for 
example, if they became dislodged from their assemblies and shattered.
    In developing the final rule, FRA recognized that the 1989 FRA 
guidelines expressly subjected the same plastic material to differing 
performance criteria depending on whether the material was used as a 
``windscreen,'' or as a ``window'' or ``light diffuser'' glazing 
material. For example, if classified as a ``windscreen,'' the 
guidelines limited the permissible flame spread to 35; if classified as 
a glazing material, the guidelines permitted flame spread as high as 
100. (See ``Recommendations for revising the fire safety performance 
requirements in Federal Railroad Administration Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) for Passenger Equipment,'' at p. 7, cited at 64 FR 
25647, and placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.) However, 
FRA understood that railroads logically interpreted the guidelines to 
apply the same performance criteria to transparent plastics used in 
windscreens as to those in light diffusers and windows, as transparent 
windscreens are effectively interior windows. FRA removed the 
subcategory ``windscreen'' in preparing the final rule as part of FRA's 
effort to streamline the guideline and NPRM tables and eliminate 
differences in categorizing products that had led to the same product 
being acceptable if classified under one (sub)category but not 
acceptable if classified under another. Although opaque windscreens 
continue to be subject to the same performance criteria as recommended 
in the guidelines and proposed in the NPRM, FRA has clarified Appendix 
B to expressly accord transparent plastic windscreens the same 
treatment as windows and light diffusers.
    As a related matter, Bay State's petition for reconsideration 
repeated a concern it had raised in commenting on the NPRM that the 
allowable performance criteria for window glazing and lighting lenses 
are too lenient, citing the location of these objects, their ease of 
ignition, and the Btu content of polycarbonate material. See 64 FR 
25555. The petitioner as well as LTK raised particular concern that 
Note 14, formerly Note 15 of the final rule, excludes an exterior 
glazed window pane from any specific test performance criteria. These 
petitioners stated that this is especially problematic for vehicles 
that operate in tunnels or on elevated structures because an underfloor 
fire could produce flames which rise up the sides of a vehicle and 
ignite exterior window panels. Bay State recommended that for rail cars 
operating in tunnels inner window panes should be of a non-combustible 
material such as glass and outer window panes should be required to 
meet the specified performance criteria, believing that this would 
address FRA's impact resistance concerns for windows and promote fire 
safety at the same time.
    FRA notes that, because of their thickness, rail car windows are 
not as easily ignitable when exposed to a heat source as a thinner 
material and believes that, during the time necessary for a window to 
fully combust, able-bodied vehicle occupants would be able to evacuate 
the vehicle if a means of escape were readily available. Of course, not 
all occupants may be able-bodied, especially after a collision or a 
derailment, nor may there be a means of immediate escape. Although FRA 
did not intend to make the performance criteria more stringent for 
window glazing than those recommended in the 1989 FRA guidelines, FRA 
does intend to examine the appropriateness of these criteria in Phase 
II of the rulemaking, taking into consideration the availability of 
materials that can comply with more stringent performance criteria and 
also possess favorable impact and shatter-resistant characteristics.

Elastomers

    FRA has amended the rule by removing ``Elastomers'' as a function 
of material subcategory and restoring it as a category consistent with 
the 1989 guidelines and the NPRM. Likewise, FRA has restored the 
function of material subcategory for elastomers that identifies window 
gaskets, door nosings, diaphragms, and roof mats as items required to 
be tested. In addition, FRA has expressly identified seat springs as 
subject to the performance testing requirements as well, as stated in 
the preamble to the final rule. See 64 FR 25650.
    FRA notes that LTK and Bay State recommended in their petitions for 
reconsideration that FRA provide guidance as to the application of the 
requirements of the final rule to elastomeric materials used in 
coupling mechanisms and truck suspensions (chevron springs, air bags, 
snubbers, etc.). LTK stated that these components do not meet the 1989 
FRA guideline criteria, yet they represent a significant amount of 
combustible material under a vehicle's floor. However, as touched on 
above, FRA is amending the rule to limit application of the required 
test performance criteria only to certain elastomeric materials, as 
part of FRA's general response to the concern of passenger railroads 
that FRA significantly expanded the class of materials subject to 
specific flammability and smoke emission testing requirements. As a 
result, the rule does not subject all elastomeric material to specific 
test criteria, such as elastomeric material in coupling mechanisms and 
truck suspensions. For those railroads that have sought in good faith 
to comply with the final rule and generally subject all elastomeric 
material to flammability and smoke emission performance criteria, the 
products of such efforts should be considered favorably in the fire 
safety analyses required by Sec. 238.103 to help demonstrate the safety 
of their vehicles. FRA will examine in Phase II of the rulemaking the 
concerns of the petitioners to specify standards for elastomeric 
materials used in coupling mechanisms, truck suspensions, and other 
elastomeric components not now addressed in Appendix B.
    As stated in the preamble to the final rule, the flammability test 
method for elastomers was revised to reference ASTM C 1166-not ASTM C 
542 as proposed in the NPRM. See 64 FR 25650. However, FRA incorrectly 
stated that ASTM C 1166 ``superseded'' ASTM C 542. Id. ASTM C 542, 
``Standard Specification for Lock-Strip Gaskets,'' references ASTM C 
1166, ``Standard Test Method for Flame Propagation of Dense and 
Cellular Elastomeric Gaskets and Accessories,'' as containing the flame 
propagation test procedure for lock-strip gaskets. Consequently, in the 
final rule FRA cited ASTM C 1166 as the direct source of the flame test 
procedure, removing the intermediate reference to ASTM C 542. 
Nevertheless, by removing the reference to ASTM C 542, FRA 
unintentionally removed the reference to the flame test performance

[[Page 42904]]

criteria specified in that standard. ASTM C 1166 does not contain flame 
propagation performance criteria itself, and the final rule did not 
specify flame propagation performance criteria other than ``Pass.'' As 
a result, FRA is amending the rule to specify what constitutes a 
passing test. For both dense and cellular elastomeric material, average 
flame propagation shall not exceed 4 inches (100 mm). This performance 
criterion is specified in ASTM C 542 and is thereby identical to that 
which was proposed in the NPRM. FRA has also corrected the rule by 
adding Note 1 to the ``Elastomers'' category, consistent with the 1989 
FRA guidelines and the NPRM. Note 1 was unintentionally omitted from 
the final rule, as noted by FRA in a November 5, 1999 letter to Amtrak 
and APTA, cited above.
    In their petitions for reconsideration, Bay State and LTK also 
recommended that Note 2 be applied to the requirements for elastomers. 
However, unlike the omission of Note 1, Note 2 was neither expressly 
proposed to apply to elastomeric material in the NPRM nor expressly 
applied to elastomers in the 1989 FRA guidelines when its text was 
formerly contained in Note 5. See, e.g., 62 FR 49823-4. In developing 
the original fire safety guidelines, the Volpe Center wrote: 
``Elastomers that meet the ASTM C-542 flammability standard have not, 
at present, been formulated to have low smoke emission properties. 
Therefore, no acceptance limit for smoke emission has been specified.'' 
See ``Volpe Center Report,'' at p. 24, noted above. Consequently, no 
smoke emission acceptance criteria for elastomers were specified in 
FRA's 1984 fire safety guidelines, see 49 FR 44584, and when FRA did 
recommend smoke emission acceptance criteria for elastomers in the 1989 
FRA guidelines, FRA did not expressly reference the cautionary text in 
then-Note 5.
    FRA recognizes that the ASTM E 662 test procedure for evaluating 
smoke emission provides that three tests are to be conducted under 
flaming exposure and three tests under non-flaming exposure (for a 
total of six tests). See paragraph 10.1 of the test procedure. Note 2 
states that the specified smoke emission performance criteria apply to 
the exposure that produces the most smoke. However, FRA is not 
requiring that smoke emission performance for elastomers be limited to 
the exposure which generates the most smoke, in light of the seemingly 
uncertain historical basis for such a requirement. FRA understands the 
petitioners' concerns that the elastomer industry is able to supply 
elastomers that comply with Note 2, and in Phase II of the rulemaking 
FRA will consider the recommendation to apply Note 2 to elastomers.
    FRA has eliminated as unnecessary former Note 16 of the final rule. 
As specified in the first sentence of former Note 16, only elastomeric 
parts with surface areas equal to or more than 16 square inches in end 
use configuration were required to be tested using ASTM C 1166; 
elastomeric parts with smaller surfaces areas were not required to be 
tested using this procedure. See 64 FR 25703. However, as FRA is making 
clear above, Note 10 provides that certain vehicle components less than 
16 square inches in end use configuration may be exempt from 
performance testing, and Note 11 specifies alternative testing 
requirements for small parts less than 16 square inches in end use. The 
first sentence of former Note 16 has therefore been eliminated as 
redundant. The second sentence of former Note 16 has likewise been 
eliminated as redundant because the items formerly listed there are now 
expressly identified in the function of material subcategory for 
``Elastomers.''

Wire and Cable

    In the final rule, FRA addressed the subject of wire and cable by 
adding a new category in the table which required smoke and 
flammability emission screening for wire and cable insulation. The 
preamble to the final rule cited the category's importance due to the 
greater quantities of wire and cable used in electrically-powered 
intercity and commuter rail passenger cars, and was subdivided between 
requirements for ``Low voltage wire and cable'' and ``Power cable.'' 
The division of wire and cable into low voltage and power usages is 
common and reflects the fact that low voltage wire and cable (for 
communication or control uses, e.g.) carry insufficient energy to 
ignite the wire or cable under a general fault condition. Thus, low 
voltage wires and cables constitute a fuel when exposed to an external 
ignition source but not otherwise an ignition hazard in themselves. 
Because of their low energy, low voltage wires and cables generally 
operate near ambient temperatures (as elevated temperatures affect 
their performance). In contrast, power cables generally carry 
sufficient energy to ignite under fault or overload conditions and 
usually operate at higher temperatures up to the rating of the 
insulating materials used. As a result, most electrical installations 
require that low voltage cables be physically separated from power 
cables or that all cables be insulated for the highest voltages 
present. The fire performance test methods specified in the final rule 
by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), 
Insulated Cable Engineers Association (ICEA), National Electrical 
Manufacturers Association (NEMA), and Underwriters Laboratories Inc. 
(UL) have been specified in NFPA 130 since 1983.

Smoke Emission

    Concern has been raised as to the unavailability of wire and cable 
complying with the smoke emission performance requirements in the final 
rule. In a letter to FRA, the Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter 
Railroad Corporation (Metra) stated that it has been unable to find 
cables meeting the smoke emission performance criteria specified in the 
final rule for all control and communications applications in 300 new 
passenger cars it is purchasing. (A copy of this letter has been placed 
in the public docket for this rulemaking.) Metra specifically 
identified four types of cables that are used to transfer electric 
power or for electrical communication between the cars: 480 Volt power 
cable; door signal cable; communications cable; and 27 pin jumper 
cable. Metra explained that, although it has been informed that the 
cables meet the flammability test performance criteria of ANSI/IEEE 
Std. 383, the cables exceed the ASTM E 662 smoke emission performance 
criteria specified in the final rule for non-flaming exposure. 
According to Metra, the cables were observed to have Ds levels between 
160 and 180; whereas the final rule limited non-flaming Ds levels to 
75. See 64 FR 25702. Metra added that the cable manufacturer is working 
to develop cables meeting the final rule's smoke emission performance 
requirements, but noted that cables developed for fire safety 
compliance may be ill-suited electrically and mechanically for 
application in trains.
    Upon reconsideration of the final rule, FRA recognizes that the 
test performance criteria for smoke emission may not codify a settled 
industry standard in the way FRA had believed. FRA does note that in 
1991 APTA published ``Performance Specifications for Electric Wire and 
Cable Used in Underground Transit Systems' (``Performance 
Specifications'') to limit wire and cable smoke, flammability, and 
toxicity characteristics under fire conditions. These specifications 
had been developed in cooperation with the International Union of 
Public Transport (UTIP) and contain similar tests and performance 
criteria, including the ASTM E 662 smoke emission test, to

[[Page 42905]]

those in the final rule. (A copy of the Performance Specifications, 
which is in two parts, has been placed in the public docket for this 
rulemaking.) Yet, the APTA/UTIP Performance Specifications may allow 
higher smoke emission levels than those specified in the final rule. 
(See Performance Specifications, Part 1-Requirements, Table 6.2, p. 
23.) FRA also recognizes that smoke emission performance requirements 
for wire and cable were not expressly proposed in the NPRM, and FRA did 
not have the benefit of expressly inviting public comment on the 
appropriateness of the standards.
    Consequently, FRA has decided to amend the rule to remove specific 
smoke emission performance requirements for wire and cable from 
Appendix B. FRA believes it more appropriate to establish specific 
requirements in Phase II of the rulemaking with the advice of the 
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards Working Group. Moreover, as part 
of the fire safety research effort previously described that is being 
conducted by NIST, wire and cable fire performance specifications and 
standards will be reviewed to provide further guidance and information 
to FRA for consideration during Phase II of the rulemaking. In the 
interim, FRA will allow each railroad to determine appropriate smoke 
emission performance criteria for wire and cable as part of its fire 
safety analyses of its passenger equipment pursuant to Sec. 238.103. In 
this regard, Metra stated that it had conducted a system-wide fire 
safety analysis and that its car manufacturer had conducted a fire 
safety analysis for the new cars being procured. In both of these 
analyses, Metra explained that the trainline cabling was found to be 
acceptable for use.
    FRA notes that it is important for overall safety design to 
recognize, as the above APTA/UTIP specifications do in particular, that 
wire and cable must not be solely evaluated with respect to their 
characteristics under fire conditions. Wire and cable should also be 
evaluated with respect to their intended applications including 
standard electrical, mechanical, environmental, and installation 
requirements. See Performance Specifications, Part 1--Requirements, at 
p. 6. Moreover, requirements for electrical system safety are specified 
in Secs. 238.225 and 238.425 of the final rule. The passenger cars 
Metra is purchasing are subject to the Tier I passenger equipment 
electrical system safety requirements in Sec. 238.225, which addresses 
the safety of conductors, the main battery system, power dissipation 
resistors, and electromagnetic interference and compatibility.
    Further, although the 1989 FRA guidelines did not include specific 
tests and performance criteria for wire and cable flammability and 
smoke emission, the guidelines did cite two series of research reports 
sponsored by the FTA related to wire and cable combustibility which 
contain information pertinent to the selection and specification of 
electrical insulation. These reports have been placed in the public 
docket for this rulemaking, and were cited in the FTA's 1984 fire 
safety guidelines, see 49 FR 32482; Aug. 14, 1984. Extensive test 
programs were conducted; however, these studies did not develop or 
recommend specific fire safety performance criteria for wire or cable 
insulation. The authors did note that the size and construction of the 
wire and cable themselves have a significant impact on flame spread and 
smoke emission characteristics and therefore provided relative rankings 
on wire and cable fire safety.
    FRA notes that the potential contribution of wire and cable to 
smoke emission was raised by Albemarle Corporation and Equistar 
Chemicals, L.P., in letters to FRA following publication of the final 
rule. (Copies of both letters have been placed in the public docket for 
this rulemaking.) Both companies stated that the amount of wire and 
cable in rail cars is increasing and that it is important to ensure 
that wires and cables meet some smoke emission limit, recommending use 
of the ASTM E 662 smoke emission test procedure. Yet, citing the 
National Electrical Code, they suggested that cables that are already 
listed as ``limited smoke'' (by UL 1685) or ``low smoke'' (by NFPA 262) 
be permitted for use without additional individual testing. FRA makes 
clear that a railroad may use, as appropriate, wire and cable complying 
with UL 1685 or NFPA 262, as recommended above, for purposes of 
evaluating smoke emission. In light of the need to limit smoke emission 
from wire and cable, FRA intends to establish specific smoke emission 
performance limits for wire and cable in Phase II of the rulemaking.

Flammability

    Particular concern has been raised as to the flammability test 
performance standards for low voltage wire and cable specified in the 
final rule. In its letter to FRA, Metra stated that joint standard NEMA 
WC 3/ICEA S-19 was rescinded in 1996 and that neither NEMA nor ICEA 
offer an alternative. Metra contended that this standard is unavailable 
for use in the wire and cable industry and has been of no benefit in 
complying with the fire safety performance criteria. Further, Metra 
stated that standard UL 44 does not apply to its application as it 
deals with CPE rubber cabling exclusively, and that standard UL 83 does 
not apply to wires smaller than 14AWG through 200KC MIL wire. Metra 
explained that these concerns have made it impossible for it to define 
the proper test method for small size wires and cables such as digital 
computer cables and antenna cables.
    As touched on above, the flammability requirements concerning wire 
and cable in the final rule are virtually identical to those specified 
in NFPA 130. (See Section 4-2.5, Electrical Insulation, 1995 Edition; 
section 5-2.5, 1997 Edition). The scope of NFPA 130 has been expanded 
to include passenger rail cars as well as rail transit vehicles, and a 
revised NFPA 130 was published in 2000 with the same wire and cable 
fire performance requirements as when NFPA 130 was first published in 
1983 for fixed guideway transit systems. (See Section 5-2.5 of the 2000 
Edition, a copy of which has been placed in the public docket for this 
rulemaking.) In promulgating the final rule, FRA believed that it was 
codifying a settled industry standard by incorporating these NFPA wire 
and cable fire performance requirements. However, information available 
to FRA indicates that joint standard NEMA WC 3/ICEA S-19, as referenced 
by the NFPA, has been withdrawn.
    FRA understands that NEMA and the ICEA have replaced NEMA WC 3/ICEA 
S-19 with other standards, the most similar of which for consideration 
here is NEMA WC 70/ICEA S-95-658, ``Standard for Nonshielded Power 
Cables Rated 2000 Volts or Less for the Distribution of Electrical 
Energy.'' (A copy of this standard has been placed in the public docket 
for this rulemaking.) This NEMA/ICEA standard applies to materials, 
constructions, and testing of 2000 Volt and below nonshielded 
thermoplastic, crosslinked polyethylene, and crosslinked rubber 
insulated wires and cables which are used for the transmission and 
distribution of electrical energy. Paragraph 6.8 of the standard 
concerns flame tests and specifies two vertical flame tests. Of these 
tests, vertical flame test type B as specified in paragraph 6.8.3 is 
virtually identical to the flame test specified in paragraph 6.19.6 of 
NEMA WC 3/ICEA S-19, as referenced in the final rule.
    Nevertheless, FRA recognizes that the final rule's flammability 
performance

[[Page 42906]]

requirements for wire and cable were not expressly proposed in the 
NPRM. As a result, even though FRA incorporated flammability 
performance standards specified in NFPA 130, FRA did not have the 
benefit of expressly inviting public comment on whether such standards 
were appropriate as Federal requirements. Although information 
available to FRA indicates that most of the concern as to the 
appropriateness of these flammability standards relates to low voltage 
wire and cable, and not to power cable, FRA has decided to amend the 
rule to remove specific flammability performance requirements for wire 
and cable from Appendix B, as well. FRA intends to establish specific 
fire safety performance requirements for wire and cable in Phase II of 
the rulemaking with the advice of the Passenger Equipment Safety 
Standards Working Group. In the interim, FRA will allow each railroad 
to determine appropriate flammability performance criteria for wire and 
cable as part of its fire safety analyses of its passenger cars and 
locomotives pursuant to Sec. 238.103. For purposes of conducting these 
analyses, FRA advises railroads to use the test methods specified in 
NEMA WC 70/ICEA S-95-658, paragraph 6.8.3; UL 44 and 83; and ANSI/IEEE 
Std. 383, section 2.5, as appropriate in evaluating the flammability 
performance of the wire and cable they use in their passenger cars and 
locomotives. Of course, as mentioned above, it is important for overall 
safety design to recognize that wire and cable must not be solely 
evaluated with respect to their characteristics under fire conditions. 
Railroads should also be mindful that requirements for passenger 
equipment electrical system safety continue to apply as specified in 
Secs. 238.225 and 238.425 of the final rule.

Additional Issues for Phase II

    For purposes of advancing discussion of wire and cable flammability 
performance standards in Phase II of the rulemaking, FRA notes that 
GBH, in its petition for reconsideration of the low voltage wire and 
cable requirements, stated that NEMA WC 3/ICEA S-19, paragraph 6.19.6, 
is limited to a fire test on a single wire, while there are many 
requirements in the UL 44 and UL 83 test procedures. The petitioner 
sought clarification whether the final rule subjected low voltage wire 
and cable to all of the requirements of the UL 44 and UL 83 test 
procedures, or only to the fire tests. FRA intended that only the fire 
performance tests apply.
    Further, the petitioner stated that the NEMA/ICEA test procedure is 
much less severe than the ANSI/IEEE test procedure specified for power 
cables in the final rule. The petitioner explained that, although the 
latter test is sometimes unsuitable for very thin wires, such thin 
wires are desirable because they weigh less and occupy less space. The 
petitioner stated that the National Electrical Code accepts the 
principle of allowing cables to meet more severe fire tests in lieu of 
less severe specified tests, and that NFPA 130 also permits such 
substitutions. The petitioner therefore recommended that FRA allow a 
cable meeting the requirements for a more severe test such as the ANSI/
IEEE standard to substitute for a cable meeting a small-scale vertical 
test such as that specified in the NEMA/ICEA standard. The petitioner 
believed that this would ensure that fire safety is not dependent on 
cable thickness alone but rather on actual fire performance. FRA notes 
that the flammability test for power cables in the final rule was 
intended to address the greater hazard posed by the higher voltages 
running through the cables rather than the source of fuel that the 
cables possess. The test is necessarily more severe. As a result, FRA 
intended that a low voltage wire or cable meeting the flammability test 
performance standards specified in the final rule for a power cable 
would comply with the wire and cable flammability test performance 
standards.
    Moreover, with regard to the final rule's requirements for power 
cables, GBH stated that although ANSI/IEEE Std. 383 is correct in 
principle, as it is a medium to large scale test assessing flame 
spread, it has three disadvantages: (1) It is an older version of the 
same test better addressed in ASTM D 5424 (for flame spread and smoke 
release) and ASTM D 5537 (for flame spread and heat release), or by UL 
1685, and ANSI/IEEE Std. 383 can be conducted using an ``oily rag'' as 
the ignition source (instead of a well-characterized gas burner); (2) 
it measures only flame spread (instead of heat and smoke release); and 
(3) it cannot fully differentiate between those cables possessing good 
fire performance and those possessing only mediocre fire performance in 
that it measures only flame spread. The petitioner believed that the 
ASTM pair of tests can be conducted together in a single burn and 
better differentiate product performance by assessing smoke and heat 
release rates. Thus, the petitioner recommended replacing the ANSI/IEEE 
Std. 383 and ASTM E 662 tests with the ASTM D 5424 and 5537 test 
procedures and specified pass/fail criteria. This recommendation will 
be considered in specifying appropriate standards in Phase II of the 
rulemaking.
    Additionally, GBH stated that in Note 18 of the final rule, section 
2.5 of ANSI/IEEE Std. 383 describes neither a circuit integrity test 
nor the means for testing circuit integrity. GBH mentioned that transit 
authority specifications have not included circuit integrity 
requirements with the flame test and that cables used in rail transit 
applications often do not meet the circuit integrity requirements. The 
petitioner recommended that the rule include a test that requires one 
conductor of the cable to continue transmitting electricity during the 
first 5 minutes of the test, as verified by a flashlight bulb remaining 
lit for the entire period, or otherwise specify a fully developed 
circuit integrity test. FRA notes that maintaining circuit integrity 
during fire exposure is only important for cables that have or affect a 
safety function, such as braking control and emergency lighting or 
communication. However, a test that demonstrates that circuit 
continuity is maintained (e.g., as verified by a lit flashlight bulb) 
may not be appropriate to test circuit integrity for a cable used to 
transmit data, which, when exposed to fire, would need to continue 
carrying a data stream without dropping enough bits of data to corrupt 
the communication. Since the circuit integrity test requirements in the 
final rule applied only to power cables--and not to lower voltage wire 
and cable used to transmit data--FRA believes that the flashlight bulb 
performance standard recommended by the petitioner would have been 
appropriate. However, FRA did not intend to impose a more specific 
circuit integrity test method, as the requirement was virtually 
identical to the power cable circuit integrity test standard contained 
in NFPA 130, which also does not specify a test method. In considering 
wire and cable flammability performance requirements in Phase II of the 
rulemaking, FRA will examine whether a specific circuit integrity test 
requirement should be applied to low voltage wire and cable, in 
addition to power cable.
    As a final issue, Bay State maintained that the final rule did not 
apply flammability standards to wire and cable designed to carry 
electrical current between 64 Volts and high voltage power cable, 
noting that rail cars contain wire and cable that carry power with 
voltages between 120 and 440. The petitioner's reference to both 64 
Volts and 120 Volts is not clear, however, since both are seemingly 
suggested as the voltage cut-off for classifying a wire or cable as low 
voltage. As explained above, the wire and cable fire

[[Page 42907]]

performance standards in the final rule closely followed the wire and 
cable fire performance standards specified in NFPA 130. NFPA 130 itself 
identifies low voltage wire and cable as carrying voltages less than 
100V ac and 150V dc (see Section 5-2.5 Electrical Insulation, 1997 and 
2000 Editions) and references the National Electrical Code (NFPA 70). 
FRA did not intend to vary from the electrical classification of wire 
and cable specified by the NFPA. To the extent any wire or cable was in 
fact not subject to specific fire performance standards in Appendix B, 
it is because such wire or cable is not subject to specific fire 
performance standards by NFPA 130. Appropriate classifications for wire 
and cable will be considered further in Phase II of the rulemaking.

Structural Components

    In the final rule, FRA established the new category ``Structural 
Components'' to address the structural integrity of floor assemblies 
and other structural elements. See 64 FR 25650. This category and Notes 
19, 20, and 21 of the final rule originated from the structural 
flooring function of material subcategory in the 1989 FRA guidelines, 
as well as Note 6 of the guidelines. Note 19 of the final rule 
specified that ``[p]enetrations (ducts, etc.) shall be designed to 
prevent fire and smoke from entering a vehicle, and representative 
penetrations shall be included as part of test assemblies.'' See 64 FR 
25703. In seeking reconsideration of the final rule, Bay State and LTK 
requested that FRA specify what constitutes ``prevent[s] * * * smoke 
from entering a vehicle'' within the meaning of this Note. In 
particular, Bay State raised concern that if it means anything less 
than no smoke then FRA must specify a test method and standard for 
acceptance for purposes of clarity.
    FRA notes that the wording of Note 19 of the final rule is similar 
to that recommended in the 1989 FRA guidelines and proposed in the 
NPRM, which state that penetrations ``be designed against acting as 
passageways for fire and smoke.'' NFPA 130 also uses similar wording, 
substituting the term ``conduits'' for ``passageways.'' FRA has revised 
this Note, now Note 15, using the original wording recommended in the 
guidelines and proposed in the NPRM. FRA is not imposing here a more 
detailed test method or standard for acceptance, however, believing it 
best to explore such matters in Phase II of the rulemaking. 
Nevertheless, this requirement is necessarily connected to a railroad's 
fire safety analysis of a vehicle, such as required by Sec. 238.103(c), 
in which safety determinations are influenced by the particular 
circumstances of the railroad's operating environment. In any event, 
the fact that fire or smoke, or both, may ultimately pass through a 
penetration into the passenger compartment in an actual incident would 
not, in itself, indicate noncompliance with this requirement. Bay State 
added in its petition that the rule should prohibit smoke penetration 
into the passenger compartment through passages in all walls and floors 
that separate passengers from major sources of ignition, combustion, or 
fuel. FRA makes clear that Notes 15 and 17 (formerly Note 21 of the 
final rule, discussed below) require that penetrations in portions of 
the vehicle body such as roofs and walls be designed against acting as 
passageways for fire and smoke.
    Further, in their petitions for reconsideration addressing Note 20 
of the final rule (now Note 16) Bay State and LTK stated that the 
nominal fire endurance test period specified for structural flooring 
assemblies should be 30 minutes instead of 15 minutes, especially for 
vehicles operating in tunnels or on elevated structures, to protect 
passengers from under-car fires. In particular, LTK stated that a 30-
minute fire endurance period for flooring is typical and achievable by 
car builders without hardship, even noting that a one-hour floor fire 
endurance period is not uncommon. LTK believed that under a worst-case 
scenario 30 minutes can easily be expended in stopping a rail car, 
shutting down power so that emergency personnel can safely approach the 
car once they arrive, and evacuating passengers safely from the car. 
Bay State questioned the manner in which the ASTM E 119 floor structure 
test is conducted, noting in particular that cinder blocks used during 
testing could act as heat sinks and lead to false temperature readings. 
The petitioner also stated that ``passing'' temperatures for the test 
are too high to afford any meaningful thermal protection for 
passengers.
    FRA makes clear that the 15-minute nominal test period specified 
for floor fire endurance is not a safety minimum under all 
circumstances. Each railroad must determine an appropriate fire 
endurance test period based on its operating environment--and that 
period may be greater than 15 minutes. Note 16 requires that the floor 
endurance test period be at least twice the maximum expected time to 
stop the train from its maximum operating speed, plus the time to 
safely evacuate all passengers from the vehicle under normal 
conditions. Note 16 also specifies that this floor endurance test 
period must be consistent with the safe evacuation of a full load of 
passengers from the vehicle under worst-case conditions. FRA notes that 
guidance for determining an appropriate floor endurance test period is 
included in a study by the Volpe Center of Bay Area Rapid Transit 
District (BART) ``C'' rail transit car fire safety characteristics. 
(See in particular Appendix B of ``Review of Bart ``C'' Car Fire Safety 
Characteristics,'' UMTA-MA-06-0178-87-1, DOT-TSC-UMTA-87-5, September 
1987. FRA has placed a copy of this report in the public docket for 
this rulemaking.) The necessary endurance time could vary depending on 
factors such as the time needed to evaluate the situation and make a 
decision to evacuate, the time needed to announce the evacuation, rail 
car capacity and number of door exits, and whether the train is located 
at a station platform or in a tunnel. The nominal 15-minute test period 
specified in Note 16 is the same as that in Note 6 of the 1989 FRA 
guidelines and proposed in the NPRM, and FRA did not intend to change 
it in Phase I of the rulemaking. However, in Phase II FRA intends to 
examine in particular what floor fire endurance test periods are being 
specified by car builders and railroads, for purposes of deciding 
whether to modify the nominal test period.
    In administering the final rule, an issue arose as to whether 
former Note 20, now Note 16, applied to more than the floor structure 
that separates a vehicle's interior from its undercarriage. 
Specifically, FRA was asked whether this Note applied to the floor 
structure separating the passenger compartment in the second level of a 
bi-level passenger car from the passenger compartment in the first 
level below. FRA did not intend that this Note apply to such an 
intermediate floor structure; rather, FRA intended that the fire safety 
of such a floor structure be addressed in former Note 21 of the final 
rule, now Note 17. FRA has amended the rule accordingly to make this 
clear. In accordance with Note 17, railroads must consider the fire 
safety characteristics of the floor structure separating the levels of 
a bi-level passenger car, for example, to address the risk that a fire 
may spread from one level of the car to another as well as address the 
hazard posed by the availability of materials to fuel a fire. Note 17 
also addresses the fire endurance of other rail car elements that 
separate major ignition sources, energy sources, or sources of fuel-
load from vehicle interiors. Examples of these elements include 
extensive HVAC or

[[Page 42908]]

power-conditioning equipment installed on roofs, or electrical 
equipment lockers which may become involved in fires resulting from 
mechanical failures or electrical insulation breakdown.
    Finally, in its petition for reconsideration, LTK raised the 
concern that former Note 21 of the final rule, now Note 17, indicated 
that ``Other'' portions of a vehicle were required to be tested using 
the ASTM E 119 test method, while the Note alluded to a fire hazard 
analysis with no minimum test period. Bay State added that standard 
practice is to use the ASTM E 119 test method on other structural 
components with the proviso that walls and roofs be tested in their 
mode of use. Bay State also stated that this Note should address the 
penetration of smoke into passenger compartments, maintaining that for 
vehicles operating in tunnels and on elevated structures no smoke 
penetration should be observed during testing.
    FRA makes clear that the rule does not require the ASTM E 119 test 
method to be applied to ``Other'' structural components of a vehicle in 
testing the fire endurance of such components, and FRA has amended the 
rule accordingly. Nor does the rule specify a minimum test performance 
period for purposes of demonstrating fire endurance. The appropriate 
test method and performance criteria vary depending on the fire hazard 
posed and shall be determined by the railroad through a fire hazard 
analysis in accordance with Note 17. The penetration of smoke into 
passenger compartments is addressed in both this Note and Note 15, 
discussed earlier.

Regulatory Impact

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This action has been evaluated in accordance with Executive Order 
12866 and DOT policies and procedures. Although the final rule met the 
criteria for being considered a significant rule under these policies 
and procedures, the amendments contained in this action are not 
considered significant in the same way because they generally clarify 
requirements currently contained in the final rule or allow for greater 
flexibility in complying with the rule. These amendments and 
clarifications will, overall, reduce the cost of complying with the 
rule. However, this cost reduction has not specifically been 
calculated. FRA believes that these amendments and clarifications will 
have a minimal net effect on FRA's original analysis of the costs and 
benefits associated with the final rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
requires a review of rules to assess their impact on small entities. 
FRA certifies that this action does not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Because the amendments contained 
in this document generally clarify requirements currently contained in 
the final rule or allow for greater flexibility in complying with the 
rule, FRA has concluded that there are no substantial economic impacts 
on small units of government, businesses, or other organizations 
resulting from this action.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not change the information collection requirements 
contained in the original final rule.

Environmental Impact

    FRA has evaluated this action in accordance with its ``Procedures 
for Considering Environmental Impacts'' (64 FR 28545; May 26, 1999) as 
required by the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.), other environmental statutes, Executive Orders, and related 
regulatory requirements. FRA has determined that this action is not a 
major FRA action requiring the preparation of an environmental impact 
statement or environmental assessment because it is categorically 
excluded from detailed environmental review pursuant to section 4(c) of 
FRA's Procedures.

Federalism Implications

    Executive Order 13132 provides in part that, to the extent 
practicable, no agency shall promulgate any regulation that has 
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs on State and local governments, and that is not required by 
statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to 
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local 
governments, or the agency consults with State and local officials 
early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. See 64 FR 
43255; Aug. 10, 1999. FRA believes that this regulatory action will not 
have federalism implications that impose substantial direct compliance 
costs on State and local governments, and that this action is in 
compliance with Executive Order 13132. The amendments contained in this 
document generally clarify requirements currently contained in the 
final rule or allow for greater flexibility in complying with the rule.
    FRA does note that States involved in the State Participation 
Program, pursuant to 49 CFR part 212, may incur minimal costs 
associated with the training of their inspectors involved in the 
enforcement of the rule. Nonetheless, representatives of States were 
consulted in the development of the rule, in particular through the 
participation of the American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials in the Passenger Equipment Safety Standards 
Working Group. See 64 FR 25541. FRA also considered and addressed 
comments on the rulemaking from the New York Department of 
Transportation, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Washington 
State Department of Transportation, and the State of Vermont Agency of 
Transportation.
    In any event, Federal preemption of a State or local law occurs 
automatically as a result of the statutory provision contained at 49 
U.S.C. 20106 when FRA issues a regulation covering the same subject 
matter as a State or local law unless the State or local law is 
designed to reduce an essentially local safety hazard, is not 
incompatible with Federal law, and does not place an unreasonable 
burden on interstate commerce. See 49 CFR 238.13. It should be noted 
that the potential for preemption also exists under various other 
statutory and constitutional provisions, including the Locomotive 
Inspection Act (now codified at 49 U.S.C. 20701-20703) and the Commerce 
Clause of the United States Constitution.

Energy Impact

    Executive Order 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a 
Statement of Energy Effects for any ``significant energy action.'' 66 
FR 28355; May 22, 2001. Under the Executive Order a ``significant 
energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates 
or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or 
regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed 
rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any 
successor order, and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse 
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is 
designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. FRA has evaluated 
this response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule in 
accordance with Executive Order 13211, and has determined that this 
regulatory action is not a ``significant energy action'' within the 
meaning of the Executive Order.

[[Page 42909]]

Compliance With the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) each Federal agency ``shall, unless otherwise prohibited by law, 
assess the effects of Federal Regulatory actions on State, local, and 
tribal governments, and the private sector (other than to the extent 
that such regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth 
in law).'' Sec. 201. Section 202 of the Act further requires that 
``before promulgating any general notice of proposed rulemaking that is 
likely to result in promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal 
mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 
$100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year, 
and before promulgating any final rule for which a general notice of 
proposed rulemaking was published, the agency shall prepare a written 
statement * * *'' detailing the effect on State, local and tribal 
governments and the private sector. This action will not result in the 
expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, 
and thus preparation of a statement was not required.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 238

    Fire prevention, Incorporation by reference, Passenger equipment, 
Penalties, Railroad Safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The Rule

    In consideration of the foregoing, chapter II, subtitle B of title 
49, Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 238--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 238 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20133, 20141, 20302-20303, 
20306, 20701-20702, 21301-21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 
CFR 1.49.

Subpart B--Safety Planning and General Requirements

    2. Section 238.103 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(3), revising 
the heading and introductory text of paragraph (c), revising paragraphs 
(c)(1), (2), (7), (8), and (9), revising the heading of paragraph (d), 
and revising paragraphs (d)(1), (2)(i), (3)(i), (4) and (5) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 238.103  Fire safety.

    (a) * * *
    (3) For purposes of complying with the requirements of this 
paragraph, a railroad may rely on the results of tests of material 
conducted in accordance with the standards and performance criteria for 
flammabilitiy and smoke emission characteristics as specified in 
Appendix B to this part in effect on July 12, 1999 (see 49 CFR parts 
200-399, revised as of October 1, 1999), if prior to June 25, 2002 the 
material is--
    (i) Installed in a passenger car or locomotive;
    (ii) Held in inventory by the railroad; or
    (iii) Ordered by the railroad.
    (c) Fire safety analysis for procuring new passenger cars and 
locomotives. In procuring new passenger cars and locomotives, each 
railroad shall ensure that fire safety considerations and features in 
the design of this equipment reduce the risk of personal injury caused 
by fire to an acceptable level in its operating environment using a 
formal safety methodology such as MIL-STD-882. To this end, each 
railroad shall complete a written fire safety analysis for the 
passenger equipment being procured. In conducting the analysis, the 
railroad shall--
    (1) Identify, analyze, and prioritize the fire hazards inherent in 
the design of the equipment.
    (2) Take effective steps to design the equipment and select 
materials which help provide sufficient fire resistance to reasonably 
ensure adequate time to detect a fire and safely evacuate the 
passengers and crewmembers, if a fire cannot be prevented. Factors to 
consider include potential ignition sources; the type, quantity, and 
location of the materials; and availability of rapid and safe egress to 
the exterior of the equipment under conditions secure from fire, smoke, 
and other hazards.
* * * * *
    (7) On a case-by-case basis, analyze the benefit provided by 
including a fixed, automatic fire-suppression system in any unoccupied 
train compartment that contains equipment or material that poses a fire 
hazard, and determine the proper type and size of the automatic fire-
suppression system for each such location. A fixed, automatic fire-
suppression system shall be installed in any unoccupied compartment 
when the analysis determines that such equipment is practical and 
necessary to ensure sufficient time for the safe evacuation of 
passengers and crewmembers from the train.
    (8) Explain how safety issues are resolved in the design of the 
equipment and selection of materials to reduce the risk of each fire 
hazard.
    (9) Describe the analysis and testing necessary to demonstrate that 
the fire protection approach taken in the design of the equipment and 
selection of materials meets the fire protection requirements of this 
part.
    (d) Fire safety analysis for existing passenger cars and 
locomotives. (1) Not later than January 10, 2001, each passenger 
railroad shall complete a preliminary fire safety analysis for each 
category of existing passenger cars and locomotives and rail service.
    (2) Not later than July 10, 2001 each such railroad shall--
    (i) Complete a final fire safety analysis for any category of 
existing passenger cars and locomotives and rail service evaluated 
during the preliminary fire safety analysis as likely presenting an 
unacceptable risk of personal injury. In conducting the analysis, the 
railroad shall consider the extent to which materials comply with the 
test performance criteria for flammability and smoke emission 
characteristics as specified in Appendix B to this part or alternative 
standards approved by FRA under this part.
* * * * *
    (3) Not later than July 10, 2003, each such railroad shall--
    (i) Complete a final fire safety analysis for all categories of 
existing passenger cars and locomotives and rail service. In completing 
this analysis, the railroad shall, as far as practicable, determine the 
extent to which remaining materials comply with the test performance 
criteria for flammability and smoke emission characteristics as 
specified in Appendix B to this part or alternative standards approved 
by FRA under this part.
* * * * *
    (4) Where possible prior to transferring existing passenger cars 
and locomotives to a new category of rail service, but in no case more 
than 90 days following such a transfer, the passenger railroad shall 
complete a new fire safety analysis taking into consideration the 
change in railroad operations and shall effect prompt action to reduce 
any identified risk to an acceptable level.
    (5) As used in this paragraph, a ``category of existing passenger 
cars and locomotives and rail service'' shall be determined by the 
railroad based on relevant fire safety risks, including available 
ignition sources, presence or absence of heat/smoke detection systems, 
known variations from the required material test performance criteria 
or alternative standards approved by FRA, and availability of rapid and 
safe egress to the exterior of

[[Page 42910]]

the vehicle under conditions secure from fire, smoke, and other 
hazards.
* * * * *

    3. Appendix B to part 238 is revised to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 238--Test Methods and Performance Criteria for the 
Flammability and Smoke Emission Characteristics of Materials Used in 
Passenger Cars and Locomotive Cabs

    This appendix contains the test methods and performance criteria 
for the flammability and smoke emission characteristics of materials 
used in passenger cars and locomotive cabs, in accordance with the 
requirements of Sec. 238.103.
    (a) Incorporation by reference.
    Certain documents are incorporated by reference into this 
appendix with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register 
in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may 
inspect a copy of each document during normal business hours at the 
Federal Railroad Administration, Docket Clerk, 1120 Vermont Ave., 
N.W., Suite 7000 or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North 
Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. The documents 
incorporated by reference into this appendix and the sources from 
which you may obtain these documents are listed below:
    (1) American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr 
Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
    (i) ASTM C 1166-00, Standard Test Method for Flame Propagation 
of Dense and Cellular Elastomeric Gaskets and Accessories.
    (ii) ASTM D 2724-87, Standard Test Methods for Bonded, Fused, 
and Laminated Apparel Fabrics.
    (iii) ASTM D 3574-95, Standard Test Methods for Flexible 
Cellular Materials-Slab, Bonded, and Molded Urethane Foams.
    (iv) ASTM D 3675-98, Standard Test Method for Surface 
Flammability of Flexible Cellular Materials Using a Radiant Heat 
Energy Source.
    (v) ASTM E 119-00a, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of 
Building Construction and Materials.
    (vi) ASTM E 162-98, Standard Test Method for Surface 
Flammability of Materials Using a Radiant Heat Energy Source.
    (vii) ASTM E 648-00, Standard Test Method for Critical Radiant 
Flux of Floor-Covering Systems Using a Radiant Heat Energy Source.
    (viii) ASTM E 662-01, Standard Test Method for Specific Optical 
Density of Smoke Generated by Solid Materials.
    (ix) ASTM E 1354-99, Standard Test Method for Heat and Visible 
Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products Using an Oxygen 
Consumption Calorimeter.
    (x) ASTM E 1537-99, Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of 
Upholstered Furniture.
    (xi) ASTM E 1590-01, Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of 
Mattresses.
    (2) General Services Administration, Federal Supply Service, 
Specification Section, 470 E. L'Enfant Plaza, S.W., Suite 8100, 
Washington, D.C., 20407. FED-STD-191A-Textile Test Method 5830, 
Leaching Resistance of Cloth; Standard Method (July 20, 1978).
    (3) State of California, Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau 
of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation, 3485 Orange Grove 
Avenue, North Highlands, CA 95660-5595.
    (i) California Technical Bulletin (Cal TB) 129, Flammability 
Test Procedure for Mattresses for Use in Public Buildings (October, 
1992).
    (ii) Cal TB 133, Flammability Test Procedure for Seating 
Furniture for Use in Public Occupancies (January, 1991).
    (b) Definitions. As used in this appendix--
    Average heat release rate (q//180) means, 
as defined in ASTM E 1354-99, the average heat release rate per unit 
area in the time period beginning at the time of ignition and ending 
180 seconds later.
    Critical radiant flux (C.R.F.) means, as defined in ASTM E 648-
00, a measure of the behavior of horizontally-mounted floor covering 
systems exposed to a flaming ignition source in a graded radiant 
heat energy environment in a test chamber.
    Flame spread index (Is) means, as defined in ASTM E 
162-98, a factor derived from the rate of progress of the flame 
front (Fs) and the rate of heat liberation by the 
material under test (Q), such that Is = Fs x 
Q.
    Flaming dripping means periodic dripping of flaming material 
from the site of material burning or material installation.
    Flaming running means continuous flaming material leaving the 
site of material burning or material installation.
    Heat release rate means, as defined in ASTM E 1354-99, the heat 
evolved from a specimen per unit of time.
    Specific extinction area ([sigma]f) means, as defined 
in ASTM E 1354-99, specific extinction area for smoke.
    Specific optical density (Ds) means, as defined in 
ASTM E 662-01, the optical density measured over unit path length 
within a chamber of unit volume, produced from a specimen of unit 
surface area, that is irradiated by a heat flux of 2.5 watts/
cm2 for a specified period of time.
    Surface flammability means the rate at which flames will travel 
along surfaces.
    (c) Required test methods and performance criteria. The 
materials used in locomotive cabs and passenger cars shall be tested 
according to the methods and meet the performance criteria set forth 
in the following table and notes:

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P

[[Page 42911]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JN02.000

BILLING CODE 4910-06-C

[[Page 42912]]

    \1\ Materials tested for surface flammability shall not exhibit 
any flaming running or dripping.
    \2\ The ASTM E 662-01 maximum test limits for smoke emission 
(specific optical density) shall be measured in either the flaming 
or non-flaming mode, utilizing the mode which generates the most 
smoke.
    \3\ Testing of a complete seat assembly (including cushions, 
fabric layers, upholstery) according to ASTM E 1537-99 using the 
pass/fail criteria of Cal TB 133, and testing of a complete mattress 
assembly (including foam and ticking) according to ASTM E 1590-01 
using the pass/fail criteria of Cal TB 129 shall be permitted in 
lieu of the test methods prescribed herein, provided the assembly 
component units remain unchanged or new (replacement) assembly 
components possess equivalent fire performance properties to the 
original components tested. A fire hazard analysis must also be 
conducted that considers the operating environment within which the 
seat or mattress assembly will be used in relation to the risk of 
vandalism, puncture, cutting, or other acts which may expose the 
individual components of the assemblies to an ignition source. Notes 
5, 6, 7, and 8 apply.
    \4\ Testing is performed without upholstery.
    \5\ The surface flammability and smoke emission characteristics 
shall be demonstrated to be permanent after dynamic testing 
according to ASTM D 3574-95, Test I 2 (Dynamic Fatigue 
Test by the Roller Shear at Constant Force) or Test I 3 
(Dynamic Fatigue Test by Constant Force Pounding) both using 
Procedure B, except that the test samples shall be a minimum of 6 
inches (154 mm) by 18 inches (457 mm) by the thickness of the 
material in its end use configuration, or multiples thereof. If Test 
I 3 is used, the size of the indentor described in 
paragraph 96.2 shall be modified to accommodate the specified test 
specimen.
    \6\ The surface flammability and smoke emission characteristics 
shall be demonstrated to be permanent by washing, if appropriate, 
according to FED-STD-191A Textile Test Method 5830.
    \7\ The surface flammability and smoke emission characteristics 
shall be demonstrated to be permanent by dry-cleaning, if 
appropriate, according to ASTM D 2724-87.
    \8\ Materials that cannot be washed or dry-cleaned shall be so 
labeled and shall meet the applicable performance criteria after 
being cleaned as recommended by the manufacturer.
    \9\ Signage is not required to meet any flammability or smoke 
emission performance criteria specified in this Appendix.
    \10\ Materials used to fabricate miscellaneous, discontinuous 
small parts (such as knobs, rollers, fasteners, clips, grommets, and 
small electrical parts) that will not contribute materially to fire 
growth in end use configuration are exempt from flammability and 
smoke emission performance requirements, provided that the surface 
area of any individual small part is less than 16 square inches (100 
cm2) in end use configuration and an appropriate fire 
hazard analysis is conducted which addresses the location and 
quantity of the materials used, and the vulnerability of the 
materials to ignition and contribution to flame spread.
    \11\ If the surface area of any individual small part is less 
than 16 square inches (100 cm2) in end use configuration, 
materials used to fabricate such a part may be tested in accordance 
with ASTM E 1354-99 as an alternative to both (a) the ASTM E 162-98 
flammability test procedure, or the appropriate flammability test 
procedure otherwise specified in the table, and (b) the ASTM E 662-
01 smoke generation test procedure. Testing shall be at 50 kW/m 
2 applied heat flux with a retainer frame. Materials 
tested in accordance with ASTM E 1354-99 shall meet the following 
performance criteria: average heat release rate (q// 
180) less than or equal to 100 kW/m\2\, and average 
specific extinction area ([sigma]f) less than or equal to 
500 m2/kg over the same 180-second period.
    \12\ Carpeting used as a wall or ceiling covering shall be 
tested according to ASTM E 162-98 and ASTM E 662-01 and meet the 
respective criteria of I s less than or equal to 35 and D 
s (1.5) less than or equal to 100 and D s 
(4.0) less than or equal to 200. Notes 1 and 2 apply.
    \13\ Floor covering shall be tested with padding in accordance 
with ASTM E 648-00, if the padding is used in the actual 
installation.
    \14\ For double window glazing, only the interior glazing is 
required to meet the requirements specified herein. (The exterior 
glazing is not required to meet these requirements.)
    \15\ Penetrations (ducts, etc.) shall be designed against acting 
as passageways for fire and smoke and representative penetrations 
shall be included as part of test assemblies.
    \16\ A structural flooring assembly separating the interior of a 
vehicle from its undercarriage shall meet the performance criteria 
during a nominal test period as determined by the railroad. The 
nominal test period must be twice the maximum expected time period 
under normal circumstances for a vehicle to stop completely and 
safely from its maximum operating speed, plus the time necessary to 
evacuate all the vehicle's occupants to a safe area. The nominal 
test period must not be less than 15 minutes. Only one specimen need 
be tested. A proportional reduction may be made in the dimensions of 
the specimen provided it serves to truly test the ability of the 
structural flooring assembly to perform as a barrier against under-
vehicle fires. The fire resistance period required shall be 
consistent with the safe evacuation of a full load of passengers 
from the vehicle under worst-case conditions.
    \17\ Portions of the vehicle body which separate major ignition 
sources, energy sources, or sources of fuel-load from vehicle 
interiors, shall have sufficient fire endurance as determined by a 
fire hazard analysis acceptable to the railroad which addresses the 
location and quantity of the materials used, as well as 
vulnerability of the materials to ignition, flame spread, and smoke 
generation. These portions include equipment carrying portions of a 
vehicle's roof and the interior structure separating the levels of a 
bi-level car, but do not include a flooring assembly subject to Note 
16. A railroad is not required to use the ASTM E 119-00a test 
method.

    Issued in Washington, DC on June 17, 2002.
Allan Rutter,
Federal Railroad Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-15639 Filed 6-24-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P