[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 4, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50820-50853]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4297]



[[Page 50819]]

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

Part V





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Railroad Administration



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



49 CFR Parts 229, 232, and 238



Electronically Controlled Pneumatic Brake System; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 50820]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Parts 229, 232, and 238

[Docket No. FRA-2006-26175, Notice No. 1]
RIN 2130-AB84


Electronically Controlled Pneumatic Brake Systems

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: FRA proposes revisions to the regulations governing freight 
power brakes and equipment by adding a new subpart addressing 
electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brake systems. The proposed 
regulations are designed to provide for and encourage the safe 
implementation and use of ECP brake system technologies. The proposal 
contains specific requirements relating to design, interoperability, 
training, inspection, testing, handling defective equipment, and 
periodic maintenance related to ECP brake systems. The document also 
identifies provisions of the existing regulations and statutes where 
FRA is proposing to provide flexibility to facilitate the introduction 
of this advanced brake system technology.

DATES: (1) Written comments must be received by November 5, 2007. 
Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent 
possible without incurring additional expenses or delays.
    (2) FRA will hold an oral public hearing on a date to be announced 
in a forthcoming notice.

ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments related to Docket No. FRA-2006-26175, may 
be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: Until September 28, 2007, comments should be 
filed at http://dms.dot.gov. After September 28, 2007, comments should 
be filed at the Federal eRulemaking Portal, http://www.regulations.gov. 
At each site, follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground level of the 
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this 
rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without 
change to http://dms.dot.gov including any personal information. Please 
see the Privacy Act heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 
this document for Privacy Act information related to any submitted 
comments or materials.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov until September 28, 2007, 
to http://www.regulations.gov after September 28, 2007, or to Room W12-
140 on the Ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 
SE., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Wilson, Office of Safety 
Assurance and Compliance, Motive Power and Equipment Division, RRS-14, 
Mail Stop 25, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-6259); or Jason 
Schlosberg, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, Mail Stop 10, 
Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-6032).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Supplementary Information

I. Background
II. Conventional Brake Operations
III. ECP Brake Operations
IV. Interoperability
V. Advantages of ECP Brakes Over Conventional Pneumatic Brakes
    A. Simultaneous Brake Application
    B. Continuous Brake Pipe Charging
    C. Graduated Brake Application and Release
    D. Train Management
    E. Improved Performance
VI. Standards, Approval, and Testing
    A. AAR Standards and Approval Process
    B. FMECA
VII. Market Maturity and Implementation
VIII. Related Proceeding
IX. Legal Impediments and Proposed Relief
X. Additional Issues
    A. Part 229
    B. Dynamic Brake Requirements
    C. Single Car Air Brake Test Approval Procedures and Single Car 
Air Brake Tests
    D. Train Handling Information
    E. Piston Travel Limits
    F. Extended Haul Trains
    G. Part 238
XI. Section-by-Section Analysis
XII. Regulatory Impact and Notices
    A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Federalism Implications
    E. Environmental Impact
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    G. Energy Impact
    H. Privacy Act

I. Background

    Since the inception of automatic air brakes by George Westinghouse 
in the 1870s, brake signal propagation has been limited by the nature 
of air and the speed of sound. Other adjustments have sought to 
alleviate this deficiency, but have left the basic system unaltered. As 
early as 1990, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) has 
investigated more advanced braking concepts for freight railroads, 
including ECP brake systems, which promise to radically improve brake 
propagation by using electrical transmissions of the braking signal 
through the train while still using air pressure in the cylinder to 
apply the force of the brake shoe. During the past 15 years, ECP brake 
technology has progressed rapidly and has been field tested and used on 
various railroads' revenue trains.
    FRA has been an active and consistent advocate of ECP brake system 
implementation. In 1997, FRA participated in an AAR initiative to 
develop ECP brake standards and in 1999, FRA funded, through 
Transportation Technology Center, Inc., a Failure Modes, Effects, and 
Criticality Analysis (FMECA) of ECP brake systems based on the AAR 
standards. FRA also took part in programs to develop and enhance 
advanced components for ECP brake systems.
    To assess the benefits and costs of ECP brakes for the U.S. rail 
freight industry, FRA contracted Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH) in 2005 to 
conduct a study. BAH engaged an expert panel consisting of principle 
stakeholders in ECP brake technology conversion to participate in the 
study. The expert panel made various conclusions relating to 
technological standards, safety, and efficiency. In addition, the final 
BAH report provided a comprehensive analysis and comparison of ECP and 
conventional air brake systems. On August 17, 2006, FRA announced in a 
press release its intention to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to 
revise the federal brake safety standards to encourage railroads to 
invest in and deploy ECP brake technology. In the press release, FRA 
encouraged railroads to submit ECP brake plans before the proposed rule 
changes are completed.

[[Page 50821]]

    In a petition dated November 15, 2006, and filed November 21, 2006, 
two railroads--the BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) and the Norfolk Southern 
Corporation (NS)--jointly requested that FRA waive various sections in 
parts 229 and 232 as it relates to those railroads' operation of ECP 
brake pilot trains. See Docket No. FRA-2006-26435. FRA held a fact-
finding hearing on this matter on January 16, 2007, featuring testimony 
from representatives of the petitioners, air brake manufacturers, and 
labor unions and issued a conditional waiver on March 21, 2007. See id. 
In drafting this proceeding's proposed rules, FRA has considered 
information filed and decisions made in the related, but separate, 
proceeding concerning the petition for waiver filed by BNSF and NS.

II. Conventional Brake Operations

    While the basic operational concept of the automatic air brake 
system, originally conceived by George Westinghouse in the 1870s, 
remains the same, it has seen continuous improvement in practice. An 
air compressor in the locomotive charges a main reservoir to about 140 
pounds per square inch (psi). With controls located in the locomotive, 
the locomotive engineer uses the main reservoir to charge the brake 
pipe--a 1\1/4\ inch diameter pipe--that runs the length of the train 
and is connected between cars with hoses. The brake pipe's compressed 
air--used as the communication medium to signal brake operations and 
the power source for braking action--then charges each car's two-
compartment reservoir to a pressure of 90 psi. Braking occurs through a 
reduction of air pressure in the brake pipe, which signals the valves 
on each car to direct compressed air from the reservoir on each car to 
its respective brake cylinder for an application of brakes. When air 
pressure is supplied to the brake cylinder--which is connected to a 
series of rods and levers that apply and release the brakes--the 
resulting force presses the brake shoes against the wheel, slowing the 
car's speed.
    While brake applications were initially directed by George 
Westinghouse's triple valve, modern applications direct a control 
valve, which directs air from the brake pipe into the air reservoir 
when air pressure is rising in the brake pipe in order to charge the 
auxiliary and emergency reservoir and be ready for a brake application. 
To perform a brake application, the locomotive automatic brake valve 
reduces pressure in the brake pipe by exhausting air, causing the car's 
control valve to direct air from the auxiliary reservoir into the brake 
cylinder. The increase in pressure to the brake cylinder is 
approximately proportional to the drop in brake pipe pressure. A 26 psi 
reduction in brake pipe pressure is equal to a full service brake 
application on a fully charged brake pipe, and should result in a brake 
cylinder pressure adequate to achieve a full service braking effort 
(brake force). While the control valve is directing air into the brake 
cylinder, or holding air in the brake cylinder, it is unable to 
recharge the auxiliary reservoir on each car. The engineer can apply 
the brakes in increments, at few psi at a time, go directly to a full 
service application of 26 psi reduction, or initiate an emergency 
application of the brakes, as explained below.
    Unlike a brake application, the incremental release of brakes on a 
freight train cannot be accomplished. Brakes can only be fully 
released, called a direct release, and the auxiliary reservoirs then 
begin to charge. Brake applications are possible, but are more 
complicated, from undercharged brake pipe and reservoirs. Recharging 
takes more time for a longer train, because the air has to be sent down 
the length of the train's brake pipe--which can be up to a mile and a 
half. In addition, on extremely long trains, the brake pipe pressure on 
the last car may not reach 90 psi due to small leaks throughout the 
brake pipe, and there may be problems getting enough brake pipe 
pressure to fully release the brakes during cold weather.
    Brake pipe pressure is measured by an end-of-train (EOT) device, 
which is electrically and pneumatically connected to the rear of a 
train equipped with conventional pneumatic brakes and sends signals 
(EOT Beacon) via radio indicating the brake pipe pressure to the lead 
locomotive. Current Federal regulations specify the design and 
performance standards for both one-way and two-way EOT devices. See 
Part 232, subpart E. Both EOT device designs comprise of a rear unit 
pneumatically connected to the rear of the train's last car that an EOT 
Beacon to a Head End Unit (HEU)--a brake system control device mounted 
within the locomotive and used to control the ECP brake system by the 
locomotive engineer and containing the fail-safe software for certain 
undesirable conditions. One-way EOT devices can transmit information 
from the rear unit to the HEU. At a minimum, the one-way device must 
transmit the brake pipe pressure to the HEU and display the reading to 
the locomotive engineer. Two-way EOT devices transmit and receive 
information from both the rear end unit and the HEU.
    An emergency brake application can be initiated in several ways. 
The locomotive engineer can initiate the application by moving the 
brake handle to the emergency position, which exhausts air from the 
locomotive end at a faster rate than the service application. Emergency 
brake applications can also be initiated by opening the conductor's 
valve, located in the cab of the locomotive, or by a break-in-two, 
where the train separates between cars and the brake pipe hoses 
separate, exhausting brake pipe pressure. While performing an emergency 
brake application from the locomotive, a locomotive engineer can also 
use a two-way EOT to initiate an emergency brake application at the 
rear of the train. This permits the emergency application to be 
simultaneously initiated from both the front and rear of the trains and 
ensures that the brakes on the cars at the rear of the train apply in 
the event a brake pipe blockage occurs.

III. ECP Brake Operations

    As early as 1990, AAR began investigating a more advanced braking 
concept for freight railroads, the ECP brake system. The ECP brake 
system radically improves the operation of the automatic air brake by 
using electrical transmissions to signal the application and release of 
brakes on each car in a train while still using compressed air to apply 
the force of the brake shoe against the wheel. ECP brakes also greatly 
simplify the brake system by eliminating multiple pneumatic valves used 
by conventional brakes and replacing them with a printed circuit board 
with microprocessor, one electrically activated application valve, and 
one electrically activated release valve, with feedback on brake 
cylinder pressure for control.
    ECP brake technology requires equipping locomotives and cars with 
special valves and equipment that are unique to the operation of ECP 
brakes. While this system still requires a brake pipe to supply 
compressed air from the locomotive to each car's reservoir in a train, 
there are currently two known methods to send the electronic signal for 
ECP brake operations from the locomotive to each car in the train. 
These methods include using a hard wire electrical cable running the 
length of the train or a radio-based technology requiring a transmitter 
and a receiver installed on the cars and locomotives. At this time, it 
appears that the railroad industry has chosen to use a cable-based 
system for ECP brake operation. Therefore, the proposed rules will be

[[Page 50822]]

limited to operations involving cable-based ECP brake systems.
    ECP brake systems still employ the automatic air brake system's 
basic concept where the locomotive supplies compressed air to each 
car's reservoir via the conventional brake pipe. Each car's brake valve 
reacts to a signal to apply the brakes by directing compressed air from 
the reservoir to the brake cylinder or to release the brakes by 
releasing air from the brake cylinder. The similarities between the 
conventional pneumatic and ECP brake systems end here. Instead of 
utilizing reductions and increases of the brake pipe pressure to convey 
application and release signals to each car in the train, ECP brake 
technology uses electronic signals, resulting in an almost 
instantaneous application and release of brakes on each car in the 
entire train. Since the brake pipe pressure no longer serves as the 
communication medium in ECP braked trains, the brake pipe is constantly 
supplied or charged with compressed air from the locomotive regardless 
of whether the brakes are applied or released. In addition, ECP brake 
equipped trains offer graduated release, where a partial brake release 
command provides a partial, proportional brake release.
    The basic ECP brake system is controlled from the HEU and each car 
is equipped with a Car Control Device (CCD), an electronic control 
device that replaces the function of the conventional pneumatic service 
and emergency portions during electronic braking. The CCD acknowledges 
and interprets the electronic signals from the HEU and controls the 
car's service and emergency braking functions and brake releases. The 
CCD also controls reservoir charging and sends a warning signal to the 
locomotive in the event any component fails to appropriately respond to 
a braking command. Each CCD has a unique electronic address located in 
the Car ID Module, which is keyed to a car's reporting mark and number.
    Each car connects to the locomotive via special connectors and 
junction boxes. More specifically, an ECP brake equipped train's train 
line cable--a two-conductor electric cable (8 A-WG and a 
shield)--connects the locomotive and cars and carries train line power 
to operate all CCDs and ECP brake system's end-of-train (ECP-EOT) 
device and communicates network signals via the power voltage. A Power 
Supply Controller (PSC)--mounted within the locomotive and providing 
230 VDC of electricity--interfaces with the train line cable's 
communication network, provides power to all connected CCDs and ECP-EOT 
devices, and controls the train line power supply as commanded by the 
HEU. Under the AAR standards, a single power supply shall be capable of 
supplying power to an ECP brake equipped train consisting of at least 
160 CCDs and an ECP-EOT device.
    Under the existing regulations, the conventional pneumatic brake 
system's EOT device can lose communication for 16 minutes and 30 
seconds before the locomotive engineer is alerted. See 49 CFR 
232.407(g). After the message is displayed, the engineer must restrict 
the speed of the train to 30 mph or stop the train if a defined heavy 
grade is involved. Per the regulations, railroads must calibrate each 
conventional two-way EOT devices every 365 days and would likely incur 
additional maintenance and cost expenses while replacing its batteries. 
Further, a conventional EOT device is heavy and presents a potential 
for personal injury when applied to the rear of the train.
    By contrast, an ECP-EOT device uniquely monitors both brake pipe 
pressure and operating voltages and sends an EOT Beacon every second 
from its rear unit to its HEU on the controlling locomotive. The HEU 
will initiate a full service brake application should brake pipe 
pressure fall below 50 psi or an emergency brake application should a 
communication loss occur for five consecutive seconds or the electrical 
connection break. An ECP-EOT device may not require calibration and its 
battery, only a back-up for the computer, is charged by the train line 
cable and is much lighter in weight than the conventional EOT device 
battery. Physically the last network node in the train, the ECP-EOT 
device also contains an electronic train line cable circuit--a 50 ohm 
resistor in series with 0.47 micro-farad capacitor--and must be 
connected to the network and transmit status messages to the HEU before 
the train line cable can be powered continuously.
    ECP brake systems have a great advantage of real-time monitoring 
the brake system's health. In normal operation, the HEU transmits a 
message/status down the train line cable to each car. If an individual 
car's brakes do not respond properly to the HEU's brake command, or if 
air pressures are not within the specified limits for operation, a 
message indicating the problem and the applicable car number is sent 
back to the HEU, which in turn notifies the locomotive engineer. The 
ECP brake system can identify various faults, including, but not 
limited to: low brake pipe pressure; low reservoir pressure; low train 
line cable voltage; low battery charge; incorrect brake cylinder 
pressure; and offline or cut out CCDs.
    Emergency or full service brake applications--enabled by compressed 
air propagating pneumatic pressure signals through the brake pipe--
automatically occur when the ECP brake system software detects certain 
faults. For instance, if the HEU detects that the percentage of 
operative brakes falls below 85 percent, a full service brake 
application will automatically occur. In addition, the brakes will 
automatically apply when the following occurs: (1) Two CCDs or the ECP-
EOT report a ``Critical Loss'' within 5 seconds; (2) the train line 
cable indicates low voltage with less than 90 percent operative brakes; 
(3) the ECP-EOT reports a low battery charge; (4) the train moves 
during set-up; (5) the train line cable becomes disconnected; or (6) 
the train exceeds 20 mph in Switch Mode. Under the AAR standards, the 
ECP brake system shall also have a pneumatic back-up system on each car 
for an emergency brake application in the event of a vented brake pipe 
or a train separation. These features preserve the fail safe feature of 
conventional pneumatic brake systems.

IV. Interoperability

    Due to control methodology differences, ECP brake systems are not 
functionally compatible with conventional pneumatic air brake systems. 
For instance, while conventional pneumatic air brake systems command a 
brake application by reducing the air pressure in the brake pipe, ECP 
brake systems command a brake application through a digital 
communications link transmitted on the electrical train line cable. 
Further, conventional freight cars are not equipped with an electrical 
train line cable and must depend on the pneumatic brake pipe for the 
brake command.
    Manufacturers have developed application strategies to address 
issues relating to car and locomotive fleet interchangeability. In 
particular, they have proposed three major schemes of ECP brake design: 
stand-alone systems using only ECP brakes; overlay (dual mode) systems 
capable of operating in either conventional or ECP brake mode; and 
emulation systems, also capable of operating in either conventional or 
ECP brake mode.
    Since cars with stand-alone ECP brake systems do not include a 
fully pneumatic brake control valve, they are incompatible with 
conventionally braked cars and must be operated in complete ECP brake 
equipped train sets. Stand-alone ECP brake systems cannot

[[Page 50823]]

intermix in the same train with conventional pneumatic braked cars 
unless those cars are transported as cars with inoperative brakes. 
While the stand-alone ECP brake system is the least expensive 
alternative of the three design types, its incompatibility with 
conventional pneumatic brake systems requires train segregation, 
potentially posing significant operational problems until the entire 
car fleet is converted to ECP brakes.
    Overlay configurations--cars equipped with both ECP CCDs and 
conventional pneumatic control valve portions--allow cars to operate 
with either ECP or conventional pneumatic air brakes. To operate in ECP 
brake mode, compatible ECP equipment must be installed on the 
locomotive as well as on the freight car. While an overlay system's 
dual mode capability provides significant flexibility, railroad 
operators must purchase, install, and maintain equipment to support 
both types of brake systems for as long as dual mode capability is 
required.
    Emulation configurations use a CCD capable of operating in either 
ECP or conventional mode without requiring conventional pneumatic 
controls. One manufacturer has provided an emulation ECP brake valve 
that monitors both the digital communications cable and the brake pipe 
for a brake command. If an electrical signal is present, the ECP brake 
valve operates in ECP brake mode. If the electrical brake command 
signal is not present, then the valve will monitor the changes in the 
brake pipe pressure like a conventional pneumatic control valve and the 
CCD will use a software program to emulate the function and response of 
a conventional pneumatic valve. This mode is called limited emulation 
and is meant to be used for small cuts of cars hauled short distances 
at slow speeds with a non-ECP brake equipped locomotive. An emulation 
ECP brake system can be operated in any train with any mix of emulation 
ECP and conventional brake systems. In a mixed train, the emulation ECP 
brake system will monitor the brake pipe for pressure changes and set 
up brake cylinder pressure like a conventional pneumatic valve. 
Currently, FRA does not propose any rules uniquely regulating trains or 
cars equipped with emulation ECP brake systems. However, FRA seeks 
comments on whether or how it should regulate such systems differently 
than what is proposed herein.
    Manufacturers have also addressed ECP brake compatibility with 
conventional pneumatic brake equipped locomotives, which must be 
equipped with a HEU unit to operate the brakes on ECP brake equipped 
cars. For instance, one manufacturer has developed a portable unit that 
will allow a non-ECP brake equipped locomotive to operate an ECP brake 
equipped train by converting the air pressure changes in the brake pipe 
to digital command signals that are transmitted to the freight cars 
through the electrical train line cable. The locomotive engineer 
operates the brakes with the conventional automatic brake valve in the 
control cab. The brakes, however, will respond instantaneously and 
provide all of the benefits of an ECP brake system.

V. Advantages of ECP Brakes Over Conventional Pneumatic Brakes

    ECP brake technology overcomes many of the physical limitations 
inherent in conventional pneumatic brake technology. Field testing of 
AAR compliant ECP brake systems over the past decade has not revealed 
any indication of a catastrophic event that could be caused by an ECP 
brake system malfunctioning. With a high level of confidence, the ECP 
brake stake holders support the implementation of ECP brake systems on 
the Nation's railroads. FRA concludes that the advantages of ECP brake 
technology will significantly improve the safety and the performance of 
train operations. Examples of such benefits include better train 
handling through simultaneous brake applications, continuous brake pipe 
charging, and graduated brake operation. ECP brake benefits also 
include electronic train management and improved performance.

A. Simultaneous Brake Application

    The conventional pneumatic brake system uses compressed air as the 
source for braking power and as the medium for communicating brake 
application and release commands and communicates brake commands by 
changing brake pipe pressure through the use of the locomotive 
automatic brake control valve. These commands begin at the front of the 
train and propagate to the rear of the train at the speed of the air 
pressure moving from car to car. This slow propagation of the brake 
command contributes to uneven braking, excessive in-train and run-in 
forces, train handling challenges, longer stopping distances, safety 
risks of prematurely depleting air brake reservoirs, and a 
corresponding low brake rate until all cars in the train receive and 
fully respond to the brake command. FRA recognizes that the slow 
application and release of brakes in a train causes excessive in-train 
forces, which have the potential to cause derailments when they occur 
in curves, cross-overs, or when heavier cars are placed at the rear of 
the train. When the brakes on the rear of the train release much more 
slowly than the brakes on the front of the train, the potential for a 
``string-line'' derailment--where the train stretches out until one or 
more wheels are lifted off the inside of a curve--increases.
    The ECP brake system reduces these problems by enabling cars to 
brake simultaneously at the command of an electronic signal. The 
electronic signal's speed ensures an instantaneous, simultaneous, and 
even activation of each car's brake valves, significantly reducing 
braking distances--40 to 60 percent for the longest trains--and 
minimizing the consequences of collisions or derailments by reducing 
the collision speed and slowing the non-derailed portion of the train.

B. Continuous Brake Pipe Charging

    Propagating a brake command signal through the induction or 
reduction of air pressure in the brake pipe represents a significant 
limitation of conventional pneumatic brakes. The same brake pipe air 
used to propagate brake commands also charges reservoirs on each 
freight car. As a result, the brake pipe must be fully charged to 
restore full braking capacity to depleted reservoirs. Partially 
depleted air from the brake pipe, which occurs during the initial stage 
of braking, prohibits repeat applications of brakes until the brake 
pipe can be recharged. A brake pipe can only be recharged once the 
brakes have been fully released. This characteristic of conventional 
pneumatic brakes contributes to the risk of run-away trains caused by 
prematurely depleted brake pipe pressure, particularly on steep grades.
    The ECP brake system reduces this risk by continuously charging the 
brake pipe. Since ECP brakes do not use the brake pipe as a brake 
command medium, the brake pipe is constantly being charged, allowing 
the locomotive engineer to operate the brake system more aggressively. 
With ECP brake systems, it is unnecessary to apply hand brakes on steep 
grades to recharge the brake pipe after the train stops on the grade.

C. Graduated Brake Application and Release

    The conventional pneumatic brake system's inability to operate 
freight trains in graduated release has long hampered train operations 
and has increased fuel consumption. The conventional pneumatic brake 
system

[[Page 50824]]

can only operate in direct release, preventing locomotive engineers 
from reducing the braking effort without completely releasing and 
resetting the brakes. In other words, after a direct release brake 
application with a conventional pneumatic brake system, braking effort 
can be increased but not decreased without fully releasing the brakes. 
In many cases, direct release leads to unnecessary train stops and 
insufficient initial brake applications. ECP brake systems overcome 
this deficiency by operating in graduated release, which enables the 
operator to reduce braking effort to a lower level after making an 
initial brake application without fully releasing the brakes. As a 
result, the operator can accurately adjust the braking level as each 
situation requires, eliminating the stops required to recharge and 
reset the brakes after excessive brake applications and prior to 
negotiating hills and valleys.

D. Train Management

    The use of a train line cable allows real-time self-diagnostic 
functions to be incorporated in the brake system. The initial check of 
brake system conditions on each car and continuous monitoring of each 
car's braking functions provides immediate communication to the 
locomotive engineer of certain brake failures. The continuous 
monitoring of each car's braking functions and real-time diagnostics of 
the train's brake system is a significant advantage to the locomotive 
engineer for the operation of the train and provides justification to 
eliminate the need for some of the required physical inspections of the 
train and supports regulatory change to operate cars with non-
functioning brakes out of the initial terminal. When the ECP brake 
system diagnostics detect a serious problem, including when the brake 
pipe pressure falls below 50 psi, the ECP brake system will 
automatically command a penalty brake application. ECP brake systems 
also eliminate the conventional pneumatic brake system's inability to 
apply all brakes in the train when there is a blockage in a brake pipe, 
which is handled through the use of a two-way EOT telemetry device not 
required by all trains. This failure will not affect brake applications 
in ECP brake systems, because each car is provided a braking command 
through a train line cable, not solely through the reduction of brake 
pipe pressure, which would not be propagated through the consist if the 
brake pipe is blocked. Therefore, ECP brake systems incorporate 
features that make them inherently safer than conventional pneumatic 
brakes. Using sensor-based technology to maintain a continuous feedback 
loop on train conditions for the crew and any centralized monitoring, 
the electrical communication cable network can also serve as a platform 
for the gradual addition of other train performance monitoring and 
management controls, including distributed power locomotive control, 
automatic activation of hand brakes, hot bearing detection, and truck 
oscillation and vibration. These and other train management features 
will increase the reliability and overall safety of train operations.

E. Improved Performance

    Ultimately, ECP brake technology also provides improved 
performance, which will contribute to safer train operations and 
significant cost savings over time. Since ECP brake operated trains can 
operate in graduated release, instead of direct release, of the brakes, 
fuel will not be wasted while dragging trains against a brake 
application. Further, because all of the cars' ECP brakes release 
instantaneously, fuel will not be wasted on initial start-ups and 
power-ups after a brake application.
    Operations utilizing ECP brake systems also promise increased 
average train speeds and decreased trip times. ECP brake systems allow 
the locomotive engineer to modulate the brake applications in 
territories with descending grades, thus increasing overall trip 
average speeds and reaching destinations sooner. While the slow release 
of the rear cars' brakes on conventional pneumatic braked trains cause 
drag, the brakes on ECP brake equipped trains release simultaneously, 
improving start-up and acceleration times. Further, due to its shorter 
stopping distances, trains equipped solely with ECP brake systems may 
potentially permit higher train speeds within existing signal spacing, 
which will increase average system velocity, or permit use of shorter 
``blocks'' between signals, facilitating greater system capacity.
    The instantaneous application and release of ECP brakes will result 
in more uniform braking, thus improving wheel wear and lengthening 
brake shoe life. In a conventional pneumatically braked train, the 
brake pipe gradient and slower response time causes the first third of 
the train's cars to provide the majority of the braking action, thus 
applying additional pressure and heat on those cars' wheels. Since ECP 
brake systems provide instantaneous braking on all cars, such pressure 
will be more uniformly distributed along the train, thus eliminating 
the uneven braking force on the wheels of those leading cars. The ECP 
brake system also self-monitors each car's brake cylinder pressure and 
maintains the prescribed pressure, thus reducing the potential for 
creating shelling and flat spots on wheels.
    Due to minimized wheel defects, and their accompanying vibrations, 
freight cars and brake components will enjoy increased life. Further, 
instantaneous braking will also prevent draft gear assemblies from 
receiving the constant pressure caused by trains equipped with 
conventional pneumatic brake systems and will reduce lading damage by 
eliminating slack action and in-train forces caused by uneven braking. 
ECP brake systems will also reduce the number of brake parts and rubber 
diaphragms required by conventional pneumatic brake systems.

VI. Standards, Approval, and Testing

    During the past 17 years, FRA has monitored the progression of ECP 
brake technology and has observed field testing on various revenue 
trains, both freight and passenger. In 1997, FRA participated in an AAR 
initiative to develop ECP brake standards and in 1999, FRA funded, 
through the Transportation Technology Center, Inc., an FMECA of the ECP 
brake system based on AAR's Standards and Recommended Practices, S-4200 
Series. FRA also participated in programs to develop and enhance 
advanced components for ECP brake systems. After all of these efforts, 
FRA has decided that the AAR S-4200 Series of standards is appropriate 
substantively and legally for adoption by reference in this rule and 
that the AAR Air Brake Systems Committee is an appropriate vehicle to 
rely upon in the implementation of ECP brake technology and this rule.
    FRA acknowledges that ECP brakes are an attractive, viable, and 
enabling technology with the potential to substantially improve the 
operational efficiency of trains and that by complying with AAR 
Standard S-4200, ECP-braked trains offer significant safety and 
efficiency benefits in freight train handling, car maintenance, fuel 
savings, network capacity, self-monitoring, and fail-safe operation. 
FRA proposes that all suppliers obtain AAR approval for ECP brake-
equipped-trains intended for use on U.S. railroads.
    AAR administers the existing industry ECP brake standards through 
its Air Brake Systems Committee--consisting of representatives from the 
major railroads, brake manufacturers, and FRA--which requires 
demonstrated proof of compatibility, safety, and reliability of air 
brake systems to receive AAR approval. FRA is satisfied that the

[[Page 50825]]

existing AAR S-4200 specifications, AAR approval procedures, and 
continuing oversight by the AAR Air Brake Systems Committee will best 
ensure the safety and reliability of ECP brake systems. An ECP brake 
monitoring system complying with AAR Standard S-4200 Series increases 
safety by communicating information on the location and quantity of 
defective equipment and by providing for the safe movement of equipment 
over longer distances and periods of time.

A. AAR Standards and Approval Process

    In order to assure the safety and the interoperability of ECP brake 
system designs, AAR developed the S-4200 Series of standards. The first 
five standards (S-4200, S-4210, S-4220, S-4230, and S-4250)--issued in 
1999 and updated in 2002 and 2004--specify the functional, operational, 
and interface requirements for cable-based ECP brake systems. AAR 
issued two additional standards in January 2007, specifying ECP brake 
equipment approval procedures (S-4240) and interoperability testing 
requirements (S-4260). AAR has not completed specifications for radio-
based ECP brakes, which it considers technically immature and 
unsuitable. The purposes of the standards are to ensure that AAR-
approved electronic brake systems are interoperable between different 
manufacturers and meet high standards of safety and reliability. The 
analysis of the S-4200 Series of standards indicates that the 
performance specifications for the cable-based ECP brake concept are 
complete.
    The AAR Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices (MSRP) 
contains the following standards for cable-based ECP brake systems:
     S-4200, ECP Cable-Based Brake Systems--Performance 
Requirements;
     S-4210, ECP Cable-Based Brake System Cable, Connectors, 
and Junctions Boxes--Performance Specifications;
     S-4220, ECP Cable-Based Brake DC Power Supply--Performance 
Specification;
     S-4230, Intratrain Communication Specification for Cable-
Based Freight Train Control System;
     S-4240, ECP Brake Equipment--Approval Procedure;
     S-4250, Performance Requirements for ITC Controlled Cable-
Based Distributed Power Systems; and
     S-4260, ECP Brake and Wire Distributed Power 
Interoperability Test Procedures.
    The main standard, S-4200, ensures that the functionality and 
performance of freight ECP brake systems are uniform and consistent 
among equipment from different manufacturers, that cars equipped with 
AAR-approved ECP brake systems from different manufacturers are 
interoperable, and that AAR-approved electronic brake systems meet a 
high standard of safety and reliability. This standard defines ECP 
brake system elements, specifies their functionality in different 
implementation schemes--such as stand-alone, overlays, and emulators-- 
and sets the requirements for all system functions. It covers all 
primary functions of ECP brakes, including graduated brake application 
and releases, continuous reservoir charging, adjustment of braking 
level to car load, continuous fault detection, equipment status 
monitoring, and pneumatic backup. It also specifies requirements for 
all modes of train operation and provides an extensive description of 
fault response and recovery functions for all possible faults of the 
system components. The standard also establishes environmental 
requirements for the designed systems, in-service testing, and rigorous 
approval procedures for certification process of new ECP brake 
equipment.
    Other standards in the AAR S-4200 Series (S-4210, S-4220, S-4230, 
S-4250, and S-4260) contain requirements for critical ECP brake system 
components and communication protocols. Standard S-4210 contains the 
performance specifications and qualification test procedures for ECP 
brake system cables, connectors, and end-of-car junction boxes. The 
required testing verifies that the designed components have high 
reliability, will withstand harsh environmental conditions, and will 
have at least an 8-year operating life.
    Standard S-4220 contains performance specifications for the DC 
power supply system through the hard-wired train line cable for ECP 
brake controllers and other electronic freight car components. Since a 
DC power supply conductor will also send communication control commands 
between a locomotive and its attached cars, the standard requires 
reliable separation and absence of interference between the DC power 
supply and the communication circuits.
    Standard S-4230 contains the requirements related to intra-train 
communication systems on freight equipment used in revenue interchange 
service. The standard facilitates interoperability between freight cars 
and locomotives without limiting the proprietary design approaches used 
by individual suppliers. The communication protocol was developed for 
control of ECP brakes and multiple remote units, including distributed 
power locomotives, and for safety reporting of various car and 
locomotive components.
    Standard S-4250 contains the methodology and communication flow 
requirements for controlling the operation of multiple locomotives in a 
freight consist through the intra-train communication network that is 
shared with the ECP brake system. The locomotive control through the 
intra-train communication line is an alternative method of locomotive 
control, which was not available before the introduction of ECP brake 
system technology. The controlled locomotives can either trail a lead 
locomotive or be remotely located (i.e., separated by cars) in a train. 
The standard establishes protocols for different types of locomotive 
controls through the intra-train line cable, depending on the location 
of the consist's multiple locomotives.
    Standard S-4260 contains the test procedures that must be completed 
by ECP brake suppliers to establish interoperability baselines among 
ECP brake and wire distributed power (WDP) systems in compliance with 
the S-4200 standards series. The test procedures validate the 
functional interoperability of ECP brake and WDP systems developed by 
different manufacturers.
    The AAR approval process and the work of the Air Brake Systems 
Committee has been the primary method of ensuring the safety and 
reliability of railroad brake systems and components for decades. FRA 
proposes that meeting all the requirements of the AAR ECP brake 
standards and obtaining AAR approval will be a prerequisite for any new 
ECP brake system to be employed on U.S. railroads. Through its 
participation on the Air Brake Systems Committee, FRA can monitor any 
safety or reliability issues that may develop with ECP brake systems. 
In the event of a serious safety issue with a supplier's ECP brake 
system, FRA can appropriately respond by invoking its authority to 
intervene with additional rulemaking or an emergency order. FRA does 
not expect to use this authority, because the AAR Air Brake Systems 
Committee already has the authority to rescind AAR approval for brake 
systems that do not perform safely or reliably.
    Standard S-4240 contains the acceptance procedure for seeking AAR 
approval of ECP brake equipment. The standard requires a manufacturer 
to apply for approval by submitting certain information under 
Administrative Standard S-060. Following review and

[[Page 50826]]

approval of the initial application data and test plan by the AAR Air 
Brake Systems Committee, a manufacturer maintains the burden of 
establishing compliance with Standards S-4200, S-4210, S-4220, S-4230, 
S-4250, and S-4260 to obtain conditional approval.
    For laboratory testing, an AAR representative will select 150 CCDs 
from a lot of 200 and will select HEUs, train power supplying units 
(TPSs), and ECP-EOTs from lots of four each. The testing will be 
performed on a 150-car test rack configured in accordance with AAR 
specifications. The manufacturer will provide for AAR evaluation of the 
test results, which shall include a requirements traceability and 
compliance matrix for each AAR standard and all necessary test reports, 
and then conduct interoperability laboratory testing between new ECP 
brake equipment and AAR-approved ECP brake equipment in accordance with 
standard S-4260.
    Upon satisfactory completion of the aforementioned laboratory 
tests, AAR will consider conditional approval for field testing of ECP 
brake equipment. If conditional approval is granted, 150 ECP brake CCDs 
shall be selected from a production lot of 200 test-approved CCDs, and 
100 of those selected, plus at least two ECP brake equipped locomotives 
and one ECP-EOT device, must be placed in railroad service for 24 
months. Under conditional approval, at least 1,000 cars must be 
allotted for use.
    Within those 24 months, all in-service tests must be conducted. 
After those 24 months, the Air Brake Systems Committee continues to 
monitor the product for reliability and safety concerns. If a problem 
with any brake component is discovered, the Committee will discuss the 
issue and may either demand further tests or withdraw AAR approval.
    Full AAR approval shall be provided after 4 years if during that 
time a manufacturer furnishes AAR at specified intervals various 
service reports, which must include accurate ECP brake equipment 
malfunction records. FRA agrees with AAR's assessment that 4 years are 
needed to collect a history of reliable data with minimum failures. In 
addition, the manufacturer must provide to AAR a semiannual report 
containing any repair material for the test ECP brake equipment. Under 
the draft standard, AAR reserves the right to withdraw conditional test 
approval if it determines that safety is impaired, reliability 
degrades, or incompatibility of ECP brake operation develops, and may 
require any additional testing or performance evaluations it deems 
necessary. Standard S-4240 also contains specific procedures that must 
be followed when a manufacturer intends to change certain ECP brake 
equipment physical characteristics, software, or electronics.
    FRA supports this effort as a timely measure for AAR to strengthen 
the regulatory package for ECP brake systems. Overall, FRA considers 
AAR approval a valuable step to ensure the reliability and safety of 
ECP brake systems and a minimum requirement for initial application of 
ECP brake systems on the Nation's railroads. However, FRA fully intends 
to monitor the application and safety of ECP and may, at its 
discretion, require additional safety analysis to be performed to 
confirm the safety of ECP brake systems installed and operating in 
revenue service. FRA reserves the right to witness the AAR approval 
testing of the product.

B. FMECA

    AAR Standard S-4200 Series was developed to support the design of a 
safer, more reliable ECP braking system when compared with conventional 
air brakes. Once the standard was created, the railroad industry 
identified the need to perform a safety and reliability assessment of 
an ECP brake system built in accordance with this standard. Since 
actual S-4200 ECP brake systems did not yet exist, the industry decided 
to conduct a FMECA for a hypothetical ECP brake system that satisfied 
all the requirements of the standard. At FRA's insistence, the FMECA on 
AAR Standard S-4200 was performed in 1999 by DEL Engineering with 
participation of AAR, FRA and a number of experts with significant 
experience in the development and application of ECP brake systems.
    The FMECA team began the analysis by identifying all major ECP 
brake system components and their intended functions. The analysis 
examined each component and function and identified associated failure 
modes and effects. The failure modes were analyzed to determine 
severity, frequency of occurrence, and effectiveness of detection. The 
FMECA team created a numeric ranking criterion and determined and 
prioritized the level of risk posed by each failure mode. High risk 
failure modes were identified and appropriate mitigation strategies 
were developed to decrease the risk.
    The FMECA team analyzed the failure modes of all ECP brake 
components, including: CCDs with the battery; HEUs on the head 
locomotive; ECP-EOT devices; train line cables, communication and power 
supplies; power supply controllers; head end line terminators; car ID 
modules; locomotive ID modules; and operative brakes. The analysis 
included different types of ECP brake systems, including stand alone, 
overlay (dual mode), and emulator and all system functional 
requirements and operating modes, including Initialization, Switch, 
Run, and Cut-out. The FMECA failure log contained about 1,500 failure 
modes. For each high-risk failure mode, the FMECA team identified 
action items and offered recommendations on how to mitigate the 
consequences of component failures or system functional failures. The 
team primarily examined single-point failures but also identified and 
evaluated some cases of combined failures that had significant safety 
consequences.
    The FMECA results confirmed that the ECP brake concept offers the 
potential for improved performance, reliability, and safety over that 
of conventional pneumatic brake systems. The FMECA concluded that no 
failure mode of an AAR-compliant ECP brake system exists that can cause 
a catastrophic accident due to single-point failure of the system 
itself. The AAR standards, as written, eliminate or mitigate critical 
outcomes of single-point failure of ECP brake systems.
    The FMECA team encouraged manufacturers to pursue ECP brake 
technology, because the potential safety and efficiency benefits will 
far outweigh any disadvantages. If designed and maintained properly, 
ECP brakes will be substantially safer and more reliable than the 
conventional pneumatic brake system they are intended to replace.
    AAR and the brake manufacturers indicated that they were completely 
satisfied that ECP brake systems are significantly safer than 
conventional pneumatic systems. They accepted the results of the FMECA 
and concluded that no modifications were necessary to the AAR standards 
related to ECP brake systems.

VII. Market Maturity and Implementation

    The U.S. market for ECP brake systems is mature enough to begin 
implementation of ECP brake technology. The equipment manufacturers 
have made a significant investment in the technology and have completed 
the preliminary design work and field testing of ECP brakes. For 
instance, they have provided technical solutions for different ECP 
brake implementation strategies, enabling non-ECP and ECP brake 
equipped cars to run in combined trains and, in some cases, allowing 
ECP-equipped freight cars to run in ECP brake mode using locomotives 
with conventional

[[Page 50827]]

pneumatic brake systems. In addition, they are ready to supply fully 
operational stand-alone ECP brake systems, overlays, and emulators for 
the U.S. market, easing the industry's migration process. A commitment 
by the railroad industry to change over to ECP brakes is necessary to 
inspire additional technological initiatives by the manufacturers.
    ECP brake systems from three U.S. manufacturers--all in different 
stages of AAR approval and testing in revenue service--have been built 
with the intention of complying with the AAR S-4200 Series of 
standards, proven safe through field testing, designed using fail-safe 
principles, and accommodated the industry's need for a different 
implementation scheme. The AAR S-4200 Series standards are intended to 
assure the necessary level of safety, reliability, interoperability, 
and, ultimately, the applicability of this equipment in the U.S. 
market. The equipment of all three suppliers relies on the conventional 
pneumatic emergency brake system as a backup in case of failure of the 
ECP brake control. In most cases, ECP brake systems will support 
enhanced safety even if the electronics fail, because continuous 
recharging of the brake pipe will ensure availability of an emergency 
application. Therefore, the ECP brake system reduces the risk caused by 
depleted air in the case of an emergency. There is no instance of a 
malfunctioning ECP brake system that resulted in a catastrophic or 
critical event.
    To assess the benefits and costs of ECP brakes for the U.S. rail 
freight industry, FRA contracted BAH in 2005 to conduct a study. An ECP 
brake expert panel of principal stakeholders in the conversion of the 
U.S. freight car fleet to ECP brake technology, including suppliers, 
railroads, private car owners, AAR, and FRA was assembled to 
participate in the study. The expert panel supports the conclusion that 
the AAR standards are sufficient for the ECP brake system designer to 
achieve a system safety level adequate for a safety-critical system. In 
particular, an AAR-compliant system, while providing a significant 
increase in safety and efficiency, does not introduce extra risks 
associated with single-point failure of the ECP system itself.
    The final BAH report provided a comprehensive analysis and 
comparison of ECP and conventional air brake systems. BAH acknowledged 
that while trains with ECP brake systems have been run in North 
America, South America, and Australia, U.S. implementation has been 
stalled due to the absence of an acceptable implementation plan for 
conversion and hard data to support a sound economic analysis, limited 
interoperability with traditionally braked trains, and insufficient 
capital investment required for conversion. It concluded that although 
the barriers to implementation are formidable, ECP brake systems are 
economically and technically ripe for adoption and should be 
implemented in phases over the course of 2 to 4 years to collect hard 
data supporting further implementation. BAH posits that implementing 
ECP brakes on 2,800 locomotives and 80,000 cars in the Powder River 
Basin (PRB) would cost the industry approximately $432 million. 
However, according to BAH, the annual $157 million in anticipated 
benefits--resulting from saved fuel, improved wheel and brake shoe 
life, and a reduction in necessary brake inspections--will allow 
railroads to recover those costs in less than three years. To justify 
the investment, the BAH report says, conversion must be focused first 
on the high-mileage, unit-train-type services that would most benefit 
from its use.
    FRA acknowledges that BAH's fuel cost estimates are substantially 
underestimated due to subsequently rising prices and that the benefits 
from improved wheel life require re-evaluation since BAH was privy to 
insufficient hard data. It is notable that BAH did not attempt to 
quantify potential savings relating to capacity increases or emissions 
decreases due to the difficulty in arriving at acceptable values. 
Accordingly, the report's estimated internal rate of return should be 
viewed as conservative.

VIII. Related Proceeding

    In a petition dated November 15, 2006, and filed November 21, 2006, 
BNSF and NS jointly requested that FRA waive various sections in parts 
229 and 232 as it relates to those railroads' operation of ECP brake 
pilot trains. See Docket No. FRA-2006-26435. The FRA Safety Board held 
a fact-finding hearing on this matter on January 16, 2007, featuring 
testimony from representatives of the petitioners, air brake 
manufacturers, and labor unions. On March 21, 2007, the Safety Board 
granted the petitioners' request, in part, subject to various 
conditions designed to ensure that trains subject to the waiver will be 
as safe as trains operated without benefit of the waiver. See Id. FRA 
will closely monitor compliance with the waiver and verify brake system 
and component performance characteristics using unannounced inspections 
of trains subject to the waiver.

IX. Legal Impediments and Proposed Relief

    ECP brake operation provides for continuous electronic monitoring 
of air brake system components condition and brake pipe pressure, 
potentially limiting the need for certain physical brake inspections 
currently required under part 232. Accordingly, FRA proposes modifying, 
relaxing, or removing certain requirements, including intermediate 
terminal inspections (Sec.  232.209), single-car air brake tests (Sec.  
232.305), and the required percent of operable brakes at initial 
terminal departure (Sec.  232.103(d)), as they apply to trains 
operating in ECP brake mode.
    The rail industry's implementation of ECP brakes is frustrated by 
such inapplicable and inefficient statutory and regulatory 
requirements. Without a large-scale proliferation and implementation of 
ECP brake technologies, the industry will not be able to enjoy 
economies of scale and to overcome the industry-wide limits caused by 
interoperability problems. FRA seeks to improve market efficiency by 
providing reliable and suitable standards and procedures that will 
support investments in ECP brake technology.
    The current statutory and regulatory requirements, however--
including those concerning brake inspections and the operation of 
trains with defective equipment--may reduce or eliminate incentives for 
railroads to implement new ECP brake technology and take advantage of 
its operational and safety benefits. For example, 49 U.S.C. 20303 
presents an obstacle to cost-saving, safe, and efficient long hauls 
promised by ECP brakes. To avoid incurring civil penalties, operators 
are required under 49 U.S.C. 20303 to transport rail vehicles with 
defective or insecure equipment ``from the place at which the defect or 
insecurity was first discovered to the nearest available place at which 
the repairs can be made.''
    When the defective equipment is an ECP brake, stopping for a 
physical inspection is not necessary, as it does not increase the safe 
operation of the train. If more than 15 percent of the train's AAR 
approved ECP brakes become inoperable, the train automatically stops. A 
train with 85 percent operative ECP brakes will have 15 percent less 
overall braking capacity than a conventional pneumatic train with 100 
percent operative brakes--an important concern when operating on long 
grades. However, a train with 85 percent operative ECP brakes will 
still

[[Page 50828]]

have shorter stopping distances than a conventional pneumatic braked 
train with 100 percent operative brakes. Considering the technology's 
continuous self-monitoring and constant communication with the 
engineer, it is highly unlikely that a train will ever reach such a 
level of inoperability. Further, FRA believes that an ECP brake 
operated freight train may travel non-stop to its destination, not to 
exceed 3,500 miles, because foundation brake rigging and brake shoes 
will safely operate over this distance and redundant intermediate brake 
inspections for an ECP brake operated train moving that distance do not 
increase ECP brake system safety. As an added benefit, the increased 
mileage allowance would provide for coast-to-coast travel. In the 
related proceeding, Docket No. FRA-2006-26435, FRA's Safety Board 
granted the request of BNSF and NS to allow the non-stop movement of an 
ECP brake operated train to its destination, each not to exceed 3,500 
miles. FRA believes that the proposed rule should codify this 
regulatory relief so that it applies universally.
    Nevertheless, 49 U.S.C. 20303 requires trains with defective 
equipment, including brakes, to travel to the nearest repair location. 
If the nearest available repair location is in a direction other than 
that in which the train is traveling, the train with defective 
equipment must switch the defective car out of the train and add it to 
another train traveling in the direction of the repair location, 
sometimes requiring a ``backhaul.'' ECP brake implementation has been 
complicated by the ECP brakes system's technological incompatibility 
with conventional pneumatic brake systems. To switch a car equipped 
with ECP brakes into a technologically incompatible train operating 
with conventional pneumatic brakes, however, will create additional 
safety hazards for that train.
    The potential risks involved in combining cars with incompatible 
braking systems coupled with the hazards normally associated with 
switching cars in the field, likely outweigh the potential harm of 
keeping the defective car in its existing ECP braked train and 
traveling to a repair location that is further away. In circumstances 
where the defective safety appliance is a non-brake defect, it may be 
safer and more efficient to allow ECP brake equipped trains with non-
brake defective equipment to travel to the nearest forward repair 
station. Moreover, due to the ability of ECP brake systems to 
continuously monitor the brakes on each car in a train and to provide 
specific information to the locomotive engineer regarding the location 
of any car with inoperative brakes and the inherent design of such 
systems to prohibit operation with less than 85 percent operative 
brakes, the need to immediately set-out and handle cars with defective 
brakes for repair is unnecessary. There is also no safety need to 
require a railroad to incur the expense and delay involved with cutting 
the defective car out of the train. Currently, freight cars with 
defective mechanical conditions are permitted to be hauled long-
distances for repair. See 49 CFR 215.9. In light of the technological 
advances provided by ECP brake systems, it appears logical and 
necessary to permit more flexibility in moving equipment with defective 
brakes when equipped with ECP brakes and hauled in a train operating in 
ECP brake mode. However, the language of 49 U.S.C. 20303, prevents FRA 
from providing this flexibility.
    The aforementioned requirements governing conventional pneumatic 
braked trains may offset the increased safety and efficiency benefits 
afforded by ECP brakes, thus eliminating the incentives for rail 
operators to implement ECP brake technologies. To encourage 
implementation without hindering safety, FRA proposes to invoke its 
discretionary authority under 49 U.S.C. 20306 to exempt ECP brake 
equipped trains from the specific statutory requirements contained in 
49 U.S.C. 20303. The requirements for moving defective equipment were 
created over a century ago, during the infancy of pneumatic brakes and 
before all cars were equipped with power brakes. With many more reasons 
to stop train operation along tracks with frequent repair shops and 
exponentially more employees, the legislative drafters of that time 
could not have envisioned the type of safer and more efficient 
technologies available today.
    Recognizing the importance of upgrading rail technologies, Congress 
in 1980 passed the Rock Island Railroad Transition and Employee 
Assistance Act (the ``Rock Island Act''), which, inter alia, provides 
statutory relief for the implementation of new technologies. More 
specifically, when certain statutory requirements preclude the 
development or implementation of more efficient railroad transportation 
equipment or other transportation innovations, the applicable section 
of the Rock Island Act, currently codified at 49 U.S.C. 20306, provides 
the Secretary of Transportation with the authority to grant an 
exemption to those requirements based on evidence received and findings 
developed at a hearing.
    According to Senate Report No. 96-614, ``This section fosters rail 
technological improvements by giving the Federal Railroad 
Administration discretionary authority to grant exemptions from the 
Safety Appliances Acts' mandatory requirements when those requirements 
preclude the development or implementation of new rail technology.'' 
Senate Comm. on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, S. Rep. No. 96-
614, at 8-9 (Mar. 4, 1980) (emphases added). The House version of the 
bill includes no similar provision, but the Conference substitute adds 
that the authority granted FRA in this section must be exercised after 
a hearing, absent an agreement between labor representatives and the 
developers or operators of the new equipment or technology. Joint 
Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference, H. Conf. Rep. No. 
96-1041, Sec.  117, at 30 (May 20, 1980).
    Under 49 CFR 1.49(v), the Federal Railroad Administrator is 
delegated authority to carry out the functions vested in the Secretary 
by the Rock Island Act. Under this authority, FRA intends to schedule a 
hearing to be set at a date established in a forthcoming notice, at 
which the Administrator or his delegated representative may preside, to 
receive evidence and develop findings to determine whether FRA should 
invoke 49 U.S.C. 20306. The scope of the hearing will include the 
following questions:
     Will allowing an ECP braked train with defective brakes to 
travel to its destination, not to exceed 3,500 miles, decrease, 
maintain, or exceed the level of safety provided for a conventional 
pneumatic braked train receiving a Class 1A brake inspections every 
1,000 miles?
     What safety hazards, if any, will be caused by switching 
an ECP braked car into a technologically incompatible train equipped 
with conventional pneumatic brakes?
     What is safer for an ECP braked car with defective non-
brake parts: Switching it into a train equipped with conventional 
pneumatic brakes--rendering the switched car's ECP brakes ineffective--
for backhauling to the nearest repair station or allowing it to 
continue to the nearest forward repair location in the ECP brake 
equipped train with more than 85 percent effective and operative 
brakes?
     Does 49 U.S.C. 20303 provide a disincentive sufficient to 
preclude implementation of ECP brake technology?

[[Page 50829]]

X. Additional Issues

A. Part 229

    In the related proceeding, Docket No. FRA-2006-26435, BNSF and NS 
seek relief from various provisions of parts 229 and 232. In relation 
to part 229, BNSF and NS seek relief from the requirements relating to 
daily locomotive inspections and electronic record keeping. At this 
point in time, FRA believes that there is insufficient information 
available to consider any exceptions to part 229 for operations using 
ECP brake systems. In any event, FRA seeks comments and information 
relating to this issue.

B. Dynamic Brake Requirements

    At the public hearing conducted in the related proceeding, BNSF 
requested relief from some of the dynamic brake requirements contained 
in 49 CFR part 232. FRA is unclear of what specific relief is requested 
regarding dynamic brakes. Section 232.109 provides for the continued 
operation of a locomotive found with inoperative dynamic brakes for a 
period of up to 30 calendar days. FRA does not see how more flexibility 
in this area is necessary. However, FRA invites interested parties to 
comment on the requested relief or clarify the necessity of such 
relief.

C. Single Car Air Brake Test Approval Procedures and Single Car Air 
Brake Tests

    The proposed rules include a provision requiring the submission and 
approval of single car air brake test procedures for cars with ECP 
brake systems in accordance with the special approval procedures in 
Sec.  232.17. At this time, the proposed rules do not modify Sec.  
232.17. However, FRA reserves the right to modify Sec.  232.17 to make 
clear the applicability of proposed subpart G, including, but not 
limited to, adding cross-references.
    Section 232.305(a) provides that a single car air brake test may be 
performed partially in accordance with ``Section 4.0, `Special Tests,' 
of the Association of American Railroads Standard S-486-01, `Code of 
Air Brake System Tests for Freight Equipment,' contained in the AAR 
Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices, Section E (January 1, 
2001).'' That standard has since been amended and FRA has approved the 
use of the new Standard S-486-04 as the procedure to use when 
performing a single car air brake test. Accordingly, FRA proposes to 
amend Sec.  232.305(a) by replacing the directly preceding quoted text 
with the following: ``Section 4.0, `Special Tests,' of the Association 
of American Railroads Standard S-486-04, `Code of Air Brake System 
Tests for Freight Equipment,' contained in the AAR Manual of Standards 
and Recommended Practices, Section E (January 1, 2004).''

D. Train Handling Information

    Section 232.111 requires railroads to adopt and comply with written 
procedures ensuring that railroad train crews receiving trains are 
provided accurate information concerning the train's condition. The 
continuous monitoring capabilities of ECP brake systems provide 
information regarding the location of equipment with inoperative or cut 
out brakes. At this time, however, FRA does not see any reason for 
excepting any portion of or provision contained in Sec.  232.111. FRA 
believes that, if anything, ECP brake systems' continuous monitoring 
capabilities will assist railroads in complying with the train handling 
information rules in Sec.  232.111 by monitoring defects and 
potentially allowing for the manual input of defects not monitored 
electronically and then electronically providing such information to 
subsequent train crews. FRA seeks comments and information on this 
issue.

E. Piston Travel Limits

    For cars equipped with 8\1/2\-inch or 10-inch diameter brake 
cylinders receiving either a Class I brake test or a periodic 
inspection while on a shop or repair track, Sec. Sec.  232.205(c)(5) 
and 232.303(c) currently limit piston travel to 7 to 9 inches. An 
industry-wide waiver currently in effect, however, permits piston 
travel limits to range from 6 to 9 inches. FRA proposes to incorporate 
that waiver into the rules by amending Sec. Sec.  232.205(c)(5) and 
232.303(c) accordingly. FRA seeks comments and information on this 
issue.

F. Extended Haul Trains

    Section 232.213(a)(6) requires inbound inspections for extended 
haul trains and states that, ``After April 1, 2007, the inbound 
inspection described in this paragraph shall not be required unless FRA 
provides notification to the industry extending the requirement to 
perform inbound inspections on extended haul trains.'' Section 
232.213(a)(7) requires railroads to maintain a record of all defective, 
inoperative, or ineffective brakes and all conditions not in compliance 
with parts 215 and 231 of discovered during train movement. In 
addition, that section says that, ``After April 1, 2007, the records 
described in this paragraph need not be maintained unless FRA provides 
the notification required in paragraph (a)(6) of this section extending 
the requirement to conduct inbound inspections on extended haul 
trains.''
    FRA proposes to amend Part 232 by deleting Sec. Sec.  232.213(a)(6) 
and (a)(7) from the regulations. These regulations ``sunsetted'' on 
April 1, 2007, without further FRA action. Accordingly, they serve no 
purpose remaining in the CFR. FRA seeks comments on this proposal.

G. Part 238

    Amtrak has informally expressed interest in potentially using ECP 
brake system technology for its Auto Train that runs from Lorton, 
Virginia to Sanford, Florida. Amtrak has previously employed overlay 
ECP braking on that train, and presumably would benefit from some 
additional flexibility with respect to the conduct of intermediate 
inspections. However, since FRA does not currently have sufficient 
information regarding the use of ECP brake systems on passenger trains 
and passenger equipment, FRA does not propose in this rulemaking to 
amend 49 CFR part 238. The functions of freight and passenger trains 
and cars, evidenced by the varied rules applicable to each, are too 
disparate to provide a one-size-fits-all solution for ECP brake 
integration and use. FRA may consider Part 238's applicability to ECP 
brake systems in another rulemaking or in other proceedings. If 
comments appropriate to this rulemaking are submitted, FRA reserves the 
right to include provisions addressing those issues at the final rule 
stage. Further, FRA would consider requests for waivers relating to the 
regulation of freight trains and freight cars equipped with ECP brake 
systems for passenger trains on a case-by-case basis.

XI. Section-by-Section Analysis

Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part 232

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

Subpart A--General

    This subpart of the proposal contains amendments to the definitions 
listed in subpart A of part 232.
Section 232.5 Definitions
    FRA proposes to amend Sec.  232.5 by adding an extensive set of 
definitions to introduce the regulatory relief and regulations 
applicable to ECP brake systems. FRA has worded these definitions to 
mirror, to the extent possible, the definitions provided in

[[Page 50830]]

existing AAR standards. FRA intends these definitions to clarify the 
meaning of important terms that are used in the text of the proposed 
rule. The proposed definitions are carefully worded in an attempt to 
minimize the potential for misinterpretation of the rule. Some of the 
definitions introduce new concepts or new technologies which require 
further discussion.
    The proposed definitions acknowledge the two general types of ECP 
brake systems--dual mode and stand-alone. The definition of a dual mode 
ECP brake system, which means a brake system that can work either as a 
conventional pneumatic brake system or an ECP brake system, intends to 
cover both an overlay ECP brake system and an ECP brake system equipped 
with an emulator CCD. The definition of CCD is intended to describe an 
important and necessary part of ECP brake system technology.

Subpart G--Electronically Controlled Pneumatic (ECP) Braking Systems

    FRA proposes to add a new subpart G to Part 232. This proposed 
subpart contains the design and operational requirements that will 
provide regulatory relief and modifications to allow implementation of 
ECP brake systems on the Nation's railroads and to ensure the safety of 
such operations.
Section 232.601 Scope
    This section contains a formal statement of the proposed rules' 
purpose and scope. The proposed rules contain specific requirements 
relating to the operation of freight trains and freight cars equipped 
with ECP brake systems and operating in ECP brake mode. The proposed 
provisions also intend to provide specific exceptions from various 
requirements contained in part 232 for ECP brake equipped freight 
trains and freight cars.
Section 232.602 Applicability
    As a general matter, this section proposes that these rules apply 
to all railroads that operate ECP brake equipped freight trains or 
freight cars on track which is part of the general railroad system of 
transportation. The proposed rules will apply to freight trains 
operating in ECP brake mode, freight cars equipped with ECP brake 
systems, and conventionally braked freight trains and freight cars when 
operated in conjunction with ECP brake equipment.
    The regulatory relief contemplated by this NPRM and the need to 
ensure the safe operation of trains and vehicles equipped with this 
advanced technology requires that exception of certain existing Part 
232 provisions be afforded. Many of the provisions for which FRA 
proposes an exception either apply awkwardly or should otherwise not 
apply to ECP brake systems due to the new technology's design or 
additional safety benefits. Similarly, the addition of various 
requirements directly related to ECP brake systems is necessary to 
ensure that the equipment is properly inspected, tested, maintained, 
and safe to operate.
    To fulfill these goals and to avoid an excess of confusing cross-
references, FRA proposes to except specific provisions and an entire 
subpart of Part 232 from application to ECP brake systems. Each section 
of this proposed subpart contains specific exceptions from various 
provisions contained in other portions of Part 232 or contain 
appropriately rewritten provisions directly applicable to ECP brake 
systems. Those portions and sections of Part 232 not specifically 
excepted by the provisions proposed in this NPRM remain applicable to 
ECP brake equipped freight trains and freight cars.
Section 232.603 Design, Interoperability, and Configuration Management 
Requirements
    In order to ensure the safety and interoperability of ECP brake 
systems, this section proposes to incorporate by reference the existing 
AAR standards and approval procedures for ECP brake systems. The AAR, 
its member railroads, and various brake manufacturers have invested 
considerable time and effort in developing industry standards 
addressing the design, performance, and interoperability of ECP brake 
systems. FRA has reviewed the industry standards it proposes to 
incorporate in this rule and has determined that the standards 
effectively address and ensure the safe and proper operation of the 
brake system technology. As noted in the preamble, FRA funded a FMECA, 
which validated the safety and applicability of AAR's ECP brake system 
standards for freight railroads.
    FRA believes that compliance with the AAR standards identified in 
proposed paragraph (a) will ensure the safety and efficiency of ECP 
brake equipped freight trains and freight cars. Implementation of ECP 
braking systems complying with these standards will bring benefits and 
efficiencies encompassing train handling, car maintenance, fuel 
savings, network capacity, self-monitoring, fail-safe operation, 
accurate and instantaneous brake commands throughout the train, and 
continuous, real-time self-diagnostics. Paragraph (a) proposes to 
require all suppliers to meet existing AAR standards when developing 
and installing ECP brake systems.
    Paragraph (a) proposes the incorporation of the most recent AAR 
standards related to ECP brake systems. FRA recognizes that ECP brake 
systems are a growing technology and realizes that the existing AAR 
standards may need to change as the technology advances. Accordingly, 
FRA proposes two methods the incorporated industry standards may be 
changed. Proposed paragraph (a) permits the submission of an alternate 
standard under the special approval procedures contained in Sec.  
232.17. In addition, proposed paragraph (f) permits the AAR or other 
authorized representative of the railroad industry to seek modification 
of the incorporated industry standards through the modification 
procedures contained in Sec.  232.307. The modification procedures in 
Sec.  232.307 were developed to permit modification of the incorporated 
AAR single car test standard and FRA believes that the procedures are 
equally applicable to these proposed regulations. The industry has 
successfully utilized both these methods to change or modify other 
industry standards incorporated in part 232 and FRA believes it is 
appropriate and necessary to provide this latitude for the standards 
related to ECP brake systems and components.
    Paragraph (b) proposes that all ECP brake systems receive 
conditional or final approval under AAR's recently adopted Standard S-
4240 prior to use and that they maintain such approval while in use. In 
this paragraph, FRA intends to prohibit the use of ECP brake systems 
that do not receive conditional or final AAR approval or that cease to 
comply with the incorporated AAR standards relating to ECP brake 
systems. FRA has reviewed the approval procedures contained in AAR 
Standard S-4240 and believes that they provide an appropriate review 
process to ensure the safe and proper operation of ECP brake systems. 
FRA believes that AAR is in the best position to approve those ECP 
brake systems that will be used by its member railroads and, over time, 
other non-member railroads interchanging traffic on the general rail 
system.
    In paragraph (c), FRA proposes that all ECP brake systems meet the 
configuration management requirements contained in an FRA-recognized 
industry approved standard. FRA believes that configuration management 
of ECP brake system hardware and software components is an absolute 
requirement to ensure the

[[Page 50831]]

interchangeability, interoperability, compatibility and continued 
proper and safe operation of ECP brake systems. Compatibility of ECP 
hardware and software will have a direct effect on the safety and 
reliability of ECP brake systems running on the Nation's railroads.
    The AAR approval process and Air Brake Systems Committee requires 
various procedures to ensure the interoperability and 
interchangeability of AAR approved ECP brake systems and their 
components. These same requirements and procedures have been used for 
many years to successfully manage the configuration of conventional 
pneumatic AAR approved air brake valves. Therefore, FRA believes that 
responsibility for the configuration management of AAR approved brake 
systems and their components should continue to reside with AAR and its 
Air Brake Systems Committee.
    AAR standards, including its S-4200 Series of standards for ECP 
brake systems, however, do not provide requirements for hardware and 
software configuration management plans. AAR is in the process of 
developing standards related to ECP brake system configuration 
management, as evidenced by, among other things, standards S-4240, 
Sec. Sec.  5.1 and 5.2, which require ECP brake manufacturers to obtain 
AAR approval for changes to approved hardware and software.
    If a configuration management standard is completed and issued 
prior to the publication of this notice, FRA seeks comments during this 
proposed rule's comment period on the incorporation of the respective 
standard into the rules by reference. If it is published subsequent to 
the publication of this notice, FRA still seeks comments during this 
proposed rule's comment period and FRA will also consider other forums 
for receiving comments, including, but not limited to, the public 
hearing that will be held in connection with this proposal or by 
issuance of a supplemental notice informing interested parties of the 
standard's availability. In anticipation of AAR issuing such a standard 
in the near future, FRA proposes to incorporate that standard by 
reference in the final rule; provided FRA's review of the standard 
determines it is acceptable.
    Although FRA prefers that the industry develop, adopt, and comply 
with a recognized industry configuration management standard, FRA 
recognizes that such a standard does not yet exist. Accordingly, 
paragraph (c) proposes that, in lieu of compliance with an AAR software 
configuration management standard, railroads may submit to FRA an 
alternate configuration management plan for approval. FRA seeks 
comments and information on what minimum requirements or guidelines 
should be considered for such submitted plans. FRA believes that 
configuration plans must be submitted for approval under Sec.  232.17 
and must be structured in accordance with accepted configuration 
management standards such as IEEE Std 28-1990, IEEE Standard for 
Software Configuration Management Plans, American National Standards 
Institute, 1990; or IEEE Std 1042-1987, IEEE Guide to Software 
Configuration Management, American National Standards Institute, 1987. 
FRA seeks comments on these suggested structures or any other standard 
structures. FRA intends that no train shall be operated in ECP brake 
mode in revenue service unless it is using an ECP brake system that 
complies with a configuration management plan incorporated into the 
final rule or another configuration management plan otherwise approved 
by FRA.
    FRA believes that any ECP brake configuration standards should 
consider issues beyond initial approval. For instance, use of improper 
or out-of-date software versions for microprocessor controlled systems 
has been an issue in a variety of industries. Therefore, FRA cautions 
that more robust configuration management processes beyond those 
already included in AAR standard S-4200 may be needed to adequately 
control ECP brake system components, especially as more manufacturers 
apply for AAR approval of ECP brake systems. Further, safety or 
reliability issues may dictate that hardware or software configurations 
be changed once ECP brake systems are put in service on a large scale 
in the U.S. FRA encourages AAR, railroads, and manufacturers to ensure 
their ability to continually monitor and respond to hardware and 
software issues affecting ECP brake systems after initial approval.
    FRA believes that AAR is capable of setting appropriate 
configuration management standards and related approval procedures. FRA 
intends to rely on AAR to monitor ECP brake component approval, 
configuration and compatibility. However, FRA, in its federal oversight 
role will monitor the activities of the Air Brake Systems Committee and 
the AAR ECP brake approval process to ensure that any safety or 
reliability issues that may emerge are addressed promptly and 
comprehensively. FRA will also issue additional configuration 
management requirements for the operation of ECP brake systems if, in 
the sole opinion of the FRA, the oversight of the AAR and the AAR Air 
Brake Systems Committee proves inadequate for the continued safe 
operation of ECP brake systems. In this case, FRA may take a variety of 
approaches including requiring railroads and car owners to develop 
their own configuration management plans for monitoring ECP brake 
system interchangeability, interoperability and compatibility. FRA 
seeks comments on how the rules can ensure continued monitoring of 
hardware and software issues affecting ECP brake systems after initial 
approval.
    Paragraph (d) of this section proposes to except a freight car or 
freight train equipped with ECP brakes from certain existing provisions 
contained in Part 232. FRA recognizes that Part 232 requires compliance 
with other AAR standards not applicable to ECP brake systems. For 
instance, section 232.103(l) requires compliance with AAR Standard S-
469-47 (``Performance Specification for Freight Brakes''), which 
specifies a train's air brakes must respond to the decrease and 
increase of brake pipe pressure. However, ECP brake systems respond to 
an electronic signal, not brake pipe pressure, rendering S-469-47 
inapplicable to ECP brake systems. Accordingly, paragraph (d) proposes 
to except ECP brake systems from the requirements of AAR Standard S-
469-47.
    Subpart F of part 232 contains general requirements for introducing 
new brake system technologies. More specifically, it requires, inter 
alia, a pre-revenue acceptance testing plan. As FRA views existing ECP 
brake system technology to be a fully mature and well tested 
technology, FRA does not believe the provisions contained in subpart F 
are applicable to this existing technology. When subpart F was 
originally added to part 232, ECP brake technology was just beginning 
to gain prominence. Since that time, experience with the technology is 
far more developed and the technology is being used on many different 
trains around the world. Moreover, FRA believes that its proposal to 
require ECP brake systems to initially and continually comply with AAR 
standards and to be approved in accordance with AAR's approval 
procedures prior to being placed in service obviates the need for 
existing ECP brake system technology to comply with the requirements 
under subpart F. Accordingly, paragraph (d)(2) proposes an exception 
from the requirements contained in subpart F freight trains and freight 
cars equipped with existing ECP brake system technology that has been 
conditionally or finally approved by

[[Page 50832]]

AAR in accordance with its approval procedures prior to the effective 
date of the final rule in this proceeding. FRA has limited the 
exception to ECP brake system technologies approved by AAR as of the 
effective date of a final rule to provide an incentive to the industry 
to move the introduction of the technology along in a timely fashion.
    In anticipation of future ECP brake technologies not currently 
contemplated within the scope of the incorporated AAR standards or not 
approved by AAR prior to the effective date of a final rule in this 
proceeding, FRA proposes paragraph (e), which provides a procedure for 
introducing such technologies without going through the pre-revenue 
testing procedures contained in subpart F. Paragraph (e) permits a 
party interested in using new ECP brake system technologies or using an 
ECP brake system technology not approved by AAR prior to the effective 
date of a final rule in this matter to file a written request with the 
FRA seeking an exception from subpart F. FRA would expect any such 
request to include a comprehensive narrative statement and any evidence 
or facts justifying the exception of the new ECP brake technology from 
the testing and demonstration requirements of subpart F. The material 
should fully explain the testing or demonstration that will be 
conducted pursuant to an FRA-recognized industry standard and ensure 
that FRA is able to monitor such testing or demonstration. FRA's 
Associate Administrator may revoke the exception in writing for any 
reason after providing an opportunity for the affected party or parties 
to respond.
Section 232.605 Training Requirements
    The general training requirements for railroad and contractor 
employees for performing the inspection, testing, and maintenance on 
brake systems are contained in Sec.  232.203. FRA proposes paragraph 
(a) of this section to make clear that the training requirements 
contained in Sec.  232.203 are applicable to ECP brake system 
operations and to ensure that railroads update their training, 
qualification, and designation programs to include provisions for these 
operations. Thus, FRA proposes to require that railroad and contract 
personnel responsible for performing brake system inspections, tests, 
and maintenance on ECP brake systems be trained, tested, and designated 
in accordance with the requirements contained in Sec.  232.203 on the 
ECP brake systems they will be required to inspect, test, and maintain.
    FRA continues to believe that railroads and contractors are in the 
best position to determine the precise method of training that is 
required for the personnel they use to conduct required brake system 
inspections, tests, and maintenance. Although FRA provides railroads 
and contractors with broad discretion to develop training programs 
specifically tailored to their operations and personnel, FRA will 
expect railroads and contractors to fully comply with the training and 
qualification plans they adopt as they apply to ECP brake operations. A 
critical component of this training requires ensuring that employees 
have knowledge of the specific Federal requirements that govern their 
work. Accordingly, FRA proposes to require the training and 
qualification plans mandated under Sec.  232.203 to include provisions 
applicable to the inspection, testing, and maintenance of ECP brake 
systems.
    Section 232.203(c) contains general requirements or elements which 
must be part of any training and qualification plan adopted by a 
railroad or contractor. FRA continues to believe that the elements 
contained in this section are specific enough to ensure high quality 
training and broad enough to permit a railroad or contractor to adopt a 
training plan that is best suited to its particular operation. FRA 
continues to believe that the required training must provide employees 
with the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform the 
tasks required for the various types of brake systems the individual 
employee will be required to inspect, test, or maintain. Since FRA 
expects only a limited number of employees will be involved with ECP 
brake operations, a railroad or contractor may tailor its training 
programs only for those individuals involved with ECP brake systems, 
based on the tasks that employee will be required to perform on those 
specific systems.
    Section 232.203(e) contains record keeping requirements, the 
cornerstone of the training requirements. FRA continues to believe that 
such records should be kept for employees inspecting, testing, and 
maintaining ECP brake equipped freight cars and freight trains. Because 
Sec.  232.203 and proposed Sec.  232.605 allow each railroad and 
contractor the flexibility to develop a training program that best fits 
its operation and does not impose specific curriculum or experience 
requirements, FRA continues to believe it is vital for railroads and 
contractors to maintain detailed records on the training they provide. 
Such documentation will allow FRA to judge the effectiveness of the 
training provided and will provide FRA with the ability to 
independently assess whether the training provided to a specific 
individual adequately addresses the skills and knowledge required to 
perform the tasks that the person is deemed qualified to perform. 
Moreover, requiring these records will deter railroads and contractors 
from circumventing the training requirements and discourage them from 
attempting to utilize insufficiently trained personnel to perform the 
inspections and tests required by this rule. FRA also intends to make 
clear that the required records may be maintained either electronically 
or on paper in the same manner as required under Sec.  232.203.
    Paragraph (a) also proposes continued compliance with Sec.  
232.203(f), which requires that each railroad or contractor adopt and 
comply with a plan to periodically assess the effectiveness of its 
training program. Although FRA agrees that a formal audit process may 
not be necessary, FRA also continues to believe that railroads and 
contractors should periodically assess the effectiveness of their 
training programs that would include an assessment of the training 
related to ECP brake systems. FRA continues to believe that periodic 
assessments may be conducted through a number of different means and 
each railroad or contractor may have a need to conduct the assessment 
in a different manner. Paragraph (a) proposes that a railroad or 
contractor institute a plan to periodically assess its training program 
regarding ECP brake systems and permit the use of efficiency tests or 
periodic review of employee performance as methods for conducting such 
review. FRA continues to believe that many railroads, due to their 
small size, are capable of assessing the quality of the training their 
employees receive by conducting periodic supervisory spot checks or 
efficiency tests of their employees' performance. However, FRA also 
continues to believe that on larger railroads the periodic assessment 
of a training program should involve all segments of the workforce 
involved in the training. FRA believes it is vital that labor be 
intrinsically involved in the assessment process, from beginning to 
end. For example, evaluation of training techniques might best be 
approached through a ``team'' method, where several observers, 
including labor representatives, periodically evaluate course or 
``hands-on'' training content and presentation.
    Paragraph (b) proposes to require each railroad to appropriately 
amend or modify its operating rules to include safe train handling 
procedures when

[[Page 50833]]

utilizing ECP braking systems. The developed operating rules should 
address the equipment and territory operated by the railroad. FRA 
continues to believe that training on proper train handling procedures 
is essential to ensuring that locomotive engineers can properly handle 
their trains with or without ECP braking systems.
    FRA also continues to believe that it should not specify the 
specific knowledge, skill, and ability criteria that a railroad must 
adopt into its locomotive engineer training program. FRA believes that 
each railroad is in the best position to determine what these criteria 
should be and what training is necessary to provide that knowledge, 
skill, and ability to its employees operating ECP brake equipped 
trains. However, to ensure that the railroads and contractors provide 
and complete training, paragraph (c) proposes to require each to adopt 
and comply with such criteria and training procedures and to 
incorporate them into its locomotive engineer certification program 
required by 49 CFR part 240.
Section 232.607 Inspection and Testing Requirements
    Except for transfer trains, the existing Part 232 regulations 
require that a train receive a Class I brake test at its initial 
terminal and when certain events occur en route, a Class IA brake test 
every 1,000 miles and Class III brake tests when the train line cable 
continuity is interrupted. When operating as an extended haul train, 
the existing regulations require that a Class I brake test be performed 
at the train's initial terminal and at the train's 1,500-mile location 
consist, if operating further than 1,500 miles. In addition, under 
certain circumstances, cars and solid blocks of cars are required to 
receive either a Class I or a Class II brake test when they are added 
to a train. Each of these inspections is expensive and time-consuming.
    An ECP brake system's self-monitoring capabilities, fail-safe 
operation, and enhanced safety and performance provide railroads the 
ability to reduce the number of physical inspections on a train and 
will reduce the number of repairs to the brake system. In a letter 
dated January 26, 2007, filed in the related waiver proceeding, BNSF 
and NS assert that ``This performance-based technology supercedes [sic] 
the need for a scheduled inspection based on the amount of mileage that 
can be accumulated within the boundaries of the U.S. rail system.'' 
Docket No. FRA-2006-26435. Similarly, in the same docket, two ECP brake 
manufacturers, Wabtec and New York Air Brake, state that when a ECP 
brake system enters ``Run'' mode, it provides diagnostics, continuous 
monitoring, and fault reporting to the locomotive display. According to 
the manufacturers, ECP brakes provide to the locomotive monitoring and 
feedback of the most important brake data and ``while it is not 
economically practical to monitor for all potential brake system 
failures, the increased level of monitoring and data reporting should 
allow safely extending the distance between inspection points, coupled 
with revised railroad procedures.'' Letter dated January 29, 2007 in 
Docket No. FRA-2006-26435.
    FRA continues to believe that if a train is properly and thoroughly 
inspected, with as many defective conditions being eliminated as 
possible, then the train is capable of traveling distances much greater 
than 1,000 miles between brake inspections. FRA's experience with 
extended haul trains over the last three years has established that 
trains with conventional pneumatic brake systems that are inspected by 
highly qualified individuals can safely operate up to 1,500 miles 
between brake inspections. FRA is not aware of any significant incident 
or derailment related to a brake or mechanical component on an extended 
haul train. Accordingly, in paragraph (g), FRA proposes to except 
trains operating exclusively in ECP brake mode from the Class IA and 
Class II brake inspections currently required under Sec. Sec.  232.207 
and 232.209. FRA also proposes to except such trains from en route 
Class I inspections under Sec.  232.205(a) and (b). Paragraph (g) also 
proposes to except Sec.  232.211(a), which governs the locations where 
Class III brake inspections must be performed. For clarity, FRA 
proposes to include the events requiring the performance of a Class III 
brake test for trains operating in ECP brake mode in this section of 
the regulation. Accordingly, FRA proposes to except that section and 
instead include paragraph (e), which is analyzed below.
    Paragraph (a) proposes continued compliance with Sec.  232.205(c)--
which describes the tasks and requirements of a Class I brake test--for 
an ECP brake equipped train at its initial terminal. To offset safety 
concerns regarding the proposed exceptions to intermediate inspections, 
FRA proposes that Class I brake tests at initial terminals be performed 
by a qualified mechanical inspector. FRA continues to believe that a 
Class I brake test performed on a train at its initial terminal needs 
to be as in-depth and comprehensive as possible and, thus, should be 
performed by an individual possessing the knowledge not only to 
identify and detect a defective condition in all of the brake equipment 
required to be inspected, but also to recognize the interrelated 
workings of the equipment and the ability to trouble-shoot and repair 
the equipment. Similarly, FRA proposes that all of the mechanical 
inspections required to be performed on a train at its initial terminal 
be conducted by an inspector designated pursuant to 49 CFR 215.11 in 
order to ensure that all mechanical components are in proper condition 
prior to the train's departure.
    FRA believes that the regulatory relief proposed by paragraph (g) 
is justified by the increased safety level provided by ECP brake 
technologies and the proposed requirement under paragraph (a) that a 
Class I brake test of an ECP brake equipped car be performed by a 
qualified mechanical inspector at its initial terminal. The exceptions 
proposed in paragraph (g), in conjunction with the requirements of 
paragraph (a), would allow most ECP brake equipped and operated trains 
to travel to their destinations without stopping for any required 
intermediate inspections. The regulatory relief provided by the 
proposed elimination of intermediate brake tests would significantly 
reduce operating and train delay costs.
    In paragraph (b), FRA proposes to permit a train operating in ECP 
brake mode to travel up to 3,500 miles or to its destination, whichever 
is less, without an additional Class I brake inspection. FRA believes 
that 3,500 miles allows virtually all ECP brake operated trains to 
travel to their respective destinations and provides for coast-to-coast 
travel. FRA also bases this mileage amount on the facts that foundation 
brake rigging and brake shoes will safety operate this distance and 
redundant intermediate inspections would not increase ECP brake system 
safety. Because many unit or cycle trains operate in a continuous loop 
with multiple loading and unloading locations, FRA has not included the 
destination of the train as a limiting factor for them. FRA is 
specifically making this distinction in order to prevent 
misinterpretation of the proposal as it relates to unit or cycle 
trains. As these trains may have multiple destinations, a strict 
application of destination could result in Class I brake tests being 
performed more frequently than intended by this proposed rule. Thus, in 
paragraph (b)(2), FRA proposes to treat unit and cycle trains 
differently by only requiring them to receive Class I brake inspections 
by

[[Page 50834]]

qualified mechanical inspectors at least once every 3,500 miles. To be 
clear, under the proposed rules, no ECP brake equipped freight car or 
freight train would be allowed to travel more than 3,500 miles without 
receiving a Class I brake inspection by a qualified mechanical 
inspector.
    Currently, no extended haul train is permitted to travel more than 
1,500 miles without receiving a brake inspection. For ECP brake 
equipped trains, FRA proposes to more than double the currently allowed 
distance to 3,500 miles. FRA acknowledges that in the related 
proceeding, Docket No. FRA-2006-26435, the Safety Board has provided 
for the movement of ECP brake equipped trains up to 3,500 miles. FRA 
proposes to codify this relief so that it would apply universally. 
Accordingly, during the pendency of this rulemaking, FRA will closely 
monitor those trains' operations and will collect information on the 
equipment operated in those trains. FRA reserves the right to make 
appropriate modifications in the final rule based on any further data 
then available.
    FRA acknowledges, however, that notwithstanding the proposed 
allowance of an ECP brake equipped and operated train to travel up to 
3,500 miles without an additional brake inspection, instances exist 
where certain trains would require the performance of a Class I brake 
inspection en route. For instance, the current regulations require that 
certain tests be performed when a car is off a source of compressed air 
for more than 4 hours. FRA acknowledges that an ECP brake equipped 
train's on board diagnostics reduce concerns relating to cars remaining 
off air for too long a period. Accordingly, FRA believes that an 
expansion of the time allowed off air is justified and proposes to 
modify this requirement for ECP brake equipped cars. For trains 
operating in ECP brake mode, FRA proposes in paragraph (c) to require a 
Class I brake test by a qualified person if that train is off air for 
more than 24 hours. FRA continues to believe that dangers, although 
reduced, remain when an ECP brake equipped train remains off air for 
too long. FRA proposes to limit off-air time to 24 hours since cars 
moving in service generally have a dwell time of 24 hours or less and 
to provide sufficient flexibility while allowing the industry to move 
equipment without impacting timely inspections and maintaining an 
acceptable level of safety. FRA also proposes that, for trains 
operating in ECP brake mode and off air for more than 24 hours, the 
Class I brake inspection be performed by a qualified person. FRA 
acknowledges that while a qualified mechanical inspector may be 
stationed at each route's initial terminal and destination, it may not 
be favorable at this time to require one at each location a train 
operating in ECP brake mode is off air for more than 24 hours. 
Requiring a qualified mechanical inspector at each point such a train 
is off air for more than 24 hours may provide a significant 
disincentive for a railroad to equip its trains with ECP brake systems.
    FRA intends this requirement to also apply to trains operating in 
ECP brake mode, located at its initial terminal, and off air for more 
than 24 hours. In other words, under proposed paragraph (c), if at an 
initial terminal a qualified mechanical inspector performs a Class I 
brake test on a train operating in ECP brake mode and that train then 
goes off air for more than 24 hours before departing from the initial 
terminal, a qualified person must perform another Class I brake test 
prior to departure. FRA believes that requiring a qualified mechanical 
inspector at an initial terminal to perform a Class I brake test twice 
on the same train would be unnecessary, since the second testing would 
merely be a verification of the previous inspection, and possibly too 
onerous. FRA does not expect this situation to occur often, since 
trains rarely sit off air for more than 24 hours at its initial 
terminal after receiving a Class I brake test.
    FRA's intent in proposing this narrow expansion of the 4-hour rule 
is not to alter the basic tenet that equipment should be retested when 
it is removed from a source of compressed air for any lengthy period of 
time. The proposed 24 hour off-air requirement would apply equally to 
any ECP brake equipped train, regardless of whether it is a unit or 
cycle train, and would replace the 4 hour off-air requirement under 
Sec.  232.205(a), which would be excepted under proposed paragraph (g), 
as discussed above.
    This proposed 24-hour allowance gives railroads flexibility to 
perform switching operations while ECP brake equipped trains are en 
route and provides flexibility to efficiently move cars from one ECP 
brake equipped train to another when necessary, yet retains the concept 
that such be retested when left disconnected from a source of 
compressed air for longer periods of time. The 24-hour time frame is 
also consistent with the general dwell time that cars experience while 
en route. FRA further believes that a limitation on the amount of time 
that such equipment may be off air is necessary for ensuring that such 
equipment is inspected in a timely and predictable manner. If no time 
limit were imposed or if too much time was permitted, an ECP brake 
equipped car could lawfully sit for days at various locations while en 
route to its destination and be switched in and out of numerous trains 
without ever being reinspected. Such an approach would drastically 
reduce the number of times that the brake systems on such equipment 
would ever be given a visual inspection from what is currently required 
and, in FRA's view, would seriously degrade the safety of the trains 
operating with such equipment in its consist.
    Furthermore, if an ECP brake equipped train was allowed to be off-
air for an excessive amount of time, it would be virtually impossible 
for FRA to ensure that equipment is being properly retested as it would 
be extremely difficult for FRA to determine how long a particular piece 
of equipment was disconnected from a source of compressed air. In order 
to make such a determination, FRA would have to maintain observation of 
the equipment for days at a time. Consequently, the proposed rule 
proposes a 24-hour limit on the amount of time equipment can be 
disconnected from a source of compressed air as it maintains current 
levels of safety and provides an enforceable and verifiable time limit 
that FRA believes provides the railroads some additional benefit over 
what is currently required both in terms of operational efficiency and 
cost savings.
    In paragraph (d), FRA proposes to require that a Class I brake test 
be performed by a qualified person on ECP brake equipped cars added en 
route to a train operating in ECP brake mode. However, FRA believes 
that this requirement may not be necessary if other safety precautions 
are taken. Thus, FRA also proposes to allow such cars to not receive a 
Class I brake test when being added to a train operating in ECP brake 
mode if the car had previously received a Class I brake test, the train 
crew is provided documentation of that test, the car has not been off 
air for more than 24 hours, and a proper visual inspection is performed 
prior to use or departure.
    Except in limited circumstances, the current regulations require a 
Class I brake test on each car added to a train at the location it is 
added to a train. See 49 CFR 232.205(b). Although FRA proposes to 
except ECP brake equipped trains and cars from Sec.  232.205(b), as 
discussed above, FRA also proposes to retain the basic requirement that 
all cars added en route shall receive a Class I test by a qualified 
person unless they

[[Page 50835]]

have previously received a Class I brake test by a qualified mechanical 
inspector. A proper Class I brake test ensures that a car is in proper 
working condition and is capable of traveling to its destination with 
minimal problems en route.
    Accordingly, if a ECP brake equipped car has received a Class I 
brake test by a qualified mechanical inspector within the last 3,500 
miles, documentation of that test is provided to the train crew, the 
car has not been off air for more than 24 hours, and a proper visual 
inspection is conducted when the car is added to the train, FRA 
proposes with paragraph (d) that it would be unnecessary to require an 
additional Class I brake test when that car is added to an en route 
train operating in ECP brake mode. However, to account for those cars 
that have not received a Class I brake test by a qualified mechanical 
inspector within the last 3,500 miles and that will be added to a train 
operating in ECP brake mode, FRA proposes paragraph (d), which would 
require a Class I brake test under those circumstances. Paragraph (d) 
would be necessary in light of proposed paragraph (g) excepting 
compliance with section 232.205(b). FRA contemplates that this 
requirement would likely only apply to cars with overlay ECP brake 
equipment that had been operating in pneumatic mode. Unless a car 
operating in ECP brake mode is off air for more than 24 hours, it would 
not require a Class I brake test when it is added to a new train, since 
the proposed rules contemplate that the car would have already received 
a Class I brake test within the previous 3,500 miles or at its initial 
terminal. The documentation would be required to ensure that a Class I 
brake test by a qualified mechanical inspector will be performed every 
3,500 miles. Under paragraph (d), any ECP brake equipped car being 
added to a train operating in ECP brake mode would require a Class I 
brake test when the car has been off air for more than 24 hours for the 
same reasons stated above concerning proposed paragraph (c).
    FRA believes that a visual inspection of the car's brake components 
is a suitable replacement for an additional Class I brake test when the 
car or cars added in these circumstances have received a Class I brake 
test by a qualified mechanical inspector within the last 3,500 miles. 
The visual inspection proposed in this paragraph could be performed 
while the car is off air and could be conducted in conjunction with the 
mechanical inspection required under part 215 whenever a car is added 
to a train. Thus, FRA believes that the visual inspection proposed in 
this paragraph would not impose any significant burden on the railroads 
as they are already required to visually inspect the mechanical 
components on any car added to a train under part 215. FRA also 
acknowledges that the brake systems on cars not equipped with ECP 
brakes would be inoperative after being added to a train operating in 
ECP brake mode. To ensure the safe operation of such equipment and 
trains, FRA proposes that the transfer of cars equipped solely with 
conventional brake systems into trains operating in ECP brake mode also 
be given a visual inspection to ensure their safe operation and to 
ensure compliance with Sec.  232.15.
    FRA anticipates that placing a car equipped with conventional 
pneumatic brakes into an ECP brake equipped train may be awkward at 
best, requiring use of an electrical ``run around cable'' and manual 
inputs into the locomotive control system. In a letter dated February 
5, 2007, AAR provided a list of recommended ``enhancements and 
modifications'' to Part 232 to facilitate the use of ECP brakes. A copy 
of this document has been placed in the docket of this rulemaking. In 
that communication, the AAR stated that railroads ``do not plan to 
commingle non-ECP equipment in stand-alone ECP trains.'' However, FRA 
believes that foreseeable--though rare--circumstances should be 
considered in this rulemaking to the extent possible. Accordingly, FRA 
seeks comments and information on what requirements may be necessary to 
safely allow the addition of cars equipped with conventional pneumatic 
brakes into an ECP brake equipped train, including, but not limited to, 
the placement and securement of cables along cars equipped with 
conventional pneumatic brakes to preserve their continuity between non-
consecutive cars equipped with ECP brakes and the appropriate placement 
in the consist of cars equipped with conventional pneumatic brakes.
    In the event that a car would be required to receive a Class I 
brake test when added to an en route train, FRA proposes that the Class 
I brake test be performed by a qualified person for the same reasons 
stated in the above analysis. To be clear, although any car added to a 
train en route may receive a Class I inspection by a qualified person, 
the entire train's travel distance is limited to its destination or the 
distance remaining until the train or any individual car picked up en 
route has traveled 3,500 miles since its last Class I brake inspection 
performed by a qualified mechanical inspector, whichever is less. A 
Class I brake inspection by a qualified person does not reset the 
mileage clock for the entire train.
    FRA intends to continue to require Class III brake tests for trains 
operating in ECP brake mode. However, due to the changes related to 
adding cars en route and for purposes of clarity, FRA is including the 
triggering events for when a Class III brake test would be required in 
paragraph (e) of this section. As previously mentioned, for trains 
operating in ECP brake mode, FRA proposes in paragraph (g) to except 
Sec.  232.211(a), which governs the locations where Class III brake 
inspections must be performed. Through paragraph (e), FRA intends to 
require Class III tests on trains operating in ECP brake mode where a 
locomotive or caboose is changed, a car or block of cars is added to or 
removed from the train, and whenever the ECP brake system's continuity 
is compromised when the train consist has not changed. FRA acknowledges 
that there has been confusion in unique circumstances where a Class III 
brake test may or may not be required. For instance, a Class III brake 
test would not be required when a consist is cut in half, but otherwise 
may remain unchanged, such as when blocking a crossing. Further, a 
block of cars could be added to the rear of a train without breaking 
the train line cable's continuity. Accordingly, to avoid any 
misunderstanding, FRA proposes to specifically detail when a Class III 
brake inspection will be required on trains operating in ECP brake 
mode. All other trains, including ECP brake equipped trains operating 
in conventional pneumatic mode, would remain subject to the provisions 
contained in Sec.  232.211(a).
    Paragraph (f) proposes to modify certain elements of the brake 
tests applicable to ECP brake equipped cars and trains operating in ECP 
brake mode. Under the current regulations, tests and inspections 
include brake pipe service reductions and designate specific psi 
specifications. FRA believes that modifications to the brake pipe 
reduction standard are appropriate to reflect the differences between 
ECP brakes and conventional pneumatic brakes. For instance, control of 
ECP brakes is not dependent on brake pipe pressure and ECP brake 
equipped trains have a nominal brake pipe pressure of 90 psi. Further, 
since brakes need only remain applied until the release signal is 
received and the ECP brake system communicates through an immediate 
electronic control signal, the requirement to keep the brakes applied 
for a period of three minutes is unnecessary. Since the ECP brake tests

[[Page 50836]]

include an equivalent electronic full service reduction with 
immediately provided results, the time consuming 20-psi brake pipe 
reduction required in the Class I and Class III brake tests and 15-psi 
brake pipe reduction required in the transfer train brake test and yard 
air test may no longer be necessary. In addition, the ECP brake 
system's electronic equivalent to a full service reduction may increase 
safety and testing efficiency.
    In any event, brake pipe pressure remains important, since ECP 
brake equipped trains rely on the pneumatic backup system for safety 
purposes. Accordingly, for trains equipped with ECP brake systems, FRA 
proposes in paragraph (f)(1) to replace the existing brake pipe service 
reductions and increases with an alternative requirement for an 
electronic signal that provides an equivalent application or release of 
the brakes. FRA believes that any alternative test procedures must 
include, at a minimum, either the electronic equivalent to each 
existing test's brake pipe reduction requirements or the equivalent of 
a full service brake pipe reduction initiated by an electronic signal.
    FRA seeks comments on this proposal, including the appropriate type 
of alternative test. In light of how the brake pipe's use in an ECP 
brake train will be limited to charging brake air reservoirs, FRA seeks 
comments on how the existing regulatory brake pipe leakage limits 
should be modified, if at all, for ECP brakes and whether changes in 
the leakage requirements will affect the pneumatic backup capability of 
the ECP brake system. In addition, comments should address the need to 
include the specific electronic reduction that is to be made on ECP 
equipped trains during the required brake tests and what type of 
electronic signals would be suitable equivalents to the currently 
mandated 20-psi and 15-psi brake reduction.
    Paragraph (f)(2) proposes to modify certain regulatory requirements 
related to piston travel limits and adjustments during Class I brake 
inspections. For instance, under Sec.  232.205(c)(5) a person 
performing a Class I brake test must ensure that piston travel be 
adjusted to specific distances. Although FRA believes that ECP brake 
operations require specific piston travel limits, FRA recognizes that 
the minimum piston travel limits contained in Sec.  232.205(c)(5) may 
not be fully applicable to ECP brake systems. Since the ECP brake 
system precisely measures the amount of brake cylinder pressure for 
each specified application and maintains that pressure, piston travel 
tolerances for ECP brakes may not require the level of specificity as 
those for conventional pneumatic brake operations. Further, FRA 
acknowledges that a ``one-size-fits-all'' requirement for ECP brake 
system piston travel may not be ideal or applicable.
    Accordingly, paragraph (f)(2) proposes to except the minimum piston 
travel limits in Sec.  232.205(c)(5) as they apply to ECP brake 
systems. In place of the minimum piston travel limits required by Sec.  
232.205(c), paragraph (f)(2) proposes to require railroads, while 
performing Class I brake tests, to adhere to the minimum piston travel 
limits or distances recommended by the applicable manufacturer. FRA 
anticipates that a recommended minimum piston travel limit for each ECP 
brake system will be determined by the car's design, weight, and 
engineered brake ratio. FRA's basis for evaluation of manufacturer 
recommendations for the minimum piston travel limits will be based on 
the equivalent brake shoe force on the wheel as shown in the 
appropriate calculations or tests. At this time, FRA intends to retain 
the standard nominal adjustment of 7\1/2\ inches and the maximum piston 
travel limit of 9 inches in accordance with of Sec.  232.205(c)(5). In 
any event, FRA seeks comments on whether and how the nominal piston 
travel adjustment limit should be flexible.
    FRA proposes to require such limits be stenciled or marked on the 
car or badge plate in the same fashion FRA requires for systems and 
equipment subject to Sec.  232.103(g). FRA believes that requiring the 
affixation of a legible decal, stencil, or sticker or the equipping of 
a badge plate displaying the permissible brake cylinder pistol travel 
range will effectively communicate the acceptable range to train crew 
members and will ensure the proper operation of a car's brakes after 
being inspected. FRA believes that this information is essential in 
order for a person to properly perform the required brake inspections. 
FRA believes that all vehicles equipped with ECP brake systems require 
marking in order to avoid confusion by those individuals responsible 
for inspecting and maintaining the equipment.
Section 232.609 Handling of Defective Equipment With ECP Brake Systems
    In Sec.  232.609, FRA proposes to modify certain part 232 
requirements as they apply to freight cars and freight trains equipped 
with ECP brake systems and hauling defective equipment. In particular, 
for such trains and cars, FRA proposes in paragraph (k) to except 
certain existing requirements and in paragraphs (a) through (j) to 
provide alternative requirements.
    Under Sec.  232.15 and 49 U.S.C. 20303, railroads may be immune to 
civil penalty liability if a car or train with certain inoperative or 
defective equipment is hauled under certain conditions. Section 
232.15(a) contains various parameters which must exist in order for a 
railroad to be deemed to be hauling a piece of equipment with defective 
brakes for repairs without civil penalty liability. The vast majority 
of the requirements contained in Sec.  232.15(a) are a codification of 
the existing statutory requirements contained in 49 U.S.C. 20403 and 
are based on the voluminous case law interpreting those provisions. The 
statutory provisions require hauling defective equipment only to the 
nearest place where necessary repairs can be made and require 100 
percent operative brakes from any location where such repairs can be 
effectuated. Thus, because many locations where trains are initiated 
with any frequency are also locations where brake system repairs can be 
effectuated, the statutory provisions essentially require 100 percent 
operative brakes from a train's initial terminal. FRA continues to 
believe that the proposed requirements relating to the movement of 
equipment with defective ECP brakes are generally consistent with the 
statutory requirements, ensure the safe and proper movement of 
defective equipment, and clarify the duties imposed on a railroad when 
moving such equipment.
    In light of the increased safety levels produced by ECP brake 
systems, FRA proposes to use its discretionary authority under 49 
U.S.C. 20306 to provide an exception from the rigid statutory 
provisions and modify the regulations concomitant to 49 U.S.C. 20303 
governing the movement of defective equipment. Under certain 
circumstances, the statute and related regulations provide immunity 
from civil penalty when a train with defective equipment is hauled to 
the nearest location where the necessary repairs can be made, 
regardless of direction. Since a train equipped with an ECP brake 
system and operating in ECP brake mode with a minimum percentage of 
cars with defective ECP brakes is capable of traveling safely for long 
distances, FRA proposes to permit the operation of such a train and any 
cars with defective ECP brakes to its destination, not to exceed 3,500 
miles, for repair without civil penalty.
    While FRA believes that a train operating in ECP brake mode with 
some ineffective or inoperative ECP brakes

[[Page 50837]]

may continue to travel safely, concerns remain if such a train includes 
cars with defective non-brake or conventional pneumatic brake 
equipment. ECP brake systems do not reduce the danger of traveling with 
such defects. However, as previously noted, the switching and potential 
backhauling of ECP equipped cars into incompatible trains for the 
purposes of complying with 49 U.S.C. 20303 and 49 CFR 232.15 outweigh 
the danger of hauling such cars to the nearest repair location. FRA is 
also cognizant of the need for logistical flexibility to efficiently 
accomplish repairs during the transition from conventional pneumatic to 
ECP brake operations. Furthermore, requiring strict adherence to the 
statutory requirements related to moving defective equipment ignores 
the safety features provided by ECP brake system technology and could 
potentially stifle the industry's ability and desire to implement the 
technology. Accordingly, FRA will hold a public hearing to determine 
whether it can and should invoke its discretionary authority under 49 
U.S.C. 20306 to except certain operations involving freight cars and 
trains equipped with ECP brake systems from the stringent statutory 
movement-for-repair provision. The hearing will also address FRA's 
exception of trains operating in ECP brake mode from the de facto 
statutory requirement for 100 percent operative brakes at an initial 
terminal as discussed above. At this time, FRA proposes to invoke such 
statutory and regulatory relief in paragraph (k) of this document, 
including exceptions from Sec. Sec.  232.15(a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(6), 
(a)(7), (a)(8), and 232.103(d)-(e).
    Under Sec.  232.103(d), no train may depart a location where a 
Class I brake test is required to be performed on the entire train with 
any inoperative or ineffective brakes. Since trains equipped with ECP 
brakes and operating in ECP brake mode provide higher levels of safety, 
including shorter stopping distances and constant real-time monitoring 
of the brake system, than trains operating with conventional pneumatic 
brakes, FRA believes that some leeway needs to be provided for trains 
operating in ECP brake mode. However, FRA also acknowledges allowing a 
car to depart an initial terminal with inoperative or ineffective 
brakes may permit such equipment to move indefinitely without receiving 
the proper repairs. Accordingly, FRA proposes to limit the types and 
number of cars that may depart in a train operating in ECP brake mode 
from a location where the train is required to receive a Class I brake 
test.
    Paragraph (a) proposes to allow a train operating in ECP brake mode 
to depart from its initial terminal with ninety-five percent effective 
and operative brakes under certain circumstances. Per paragraph (k), a 
train operating in ECP brake mode is excepted from Sec.  232.103(d), 
which requires that one-hundred percent of the brakes on a train shall 
be effective and operative prior to use or departure from any location 
where a Class I brake test is required to be performed on the train 
pursuant to Sec.  232.205. For ECP brake equipped trains, this 
requirement is replaced by the ninety-five percent effective and 
operative brake requirement proposed in paragraph (a). FRA believes 
that this requirement provides flexibility from the rules governing 
conventional pneumatic braking systems while rendering a sufficient 
brake failure buffer between departing an initial terminal with ninety-
five percent effective and operative brakes and experiencing a penalty 
stop upon reaching eighty-five percent effective and operative brakes, 
as proposed by paragraph (d).
    The one-hundred percent effective and operative brake requirement 
under Sec.  232.103(d) is based on FRA's long-standing interpretation 
and application of AAR's inspection and testing standards as they 
existed in 1958 as well as the statutory provisions related to the use 
of power brakes and the movement of equipment with defective safety 
appliances. See 66 FR 4104, 4124, 4128 (Jan. 7, 2001). However, the 
design, operation, and safety benefits derived from the use of ECP 
brake systems dictate a need to modify this long-standing requirement. 
Under the AAR standards, if at any time the ECP brakes on a train 
become less than eight-five percent operative, the train will 
automatically stop via a penalty brake application. In addition, it has 
been determined that a train with eight-five percent operative ECP 
brakes will have better stopping distances than a conventional 
pneumatic braked train with one-hundred percent operative brakes. 
Moreover, ECP brake system technology provides the ability to 
continuously monitor the real-time status of the braking system on each 
car in a train. This allows a locomotive engineer to always know the 
exact status of his train's braking system. In light of this increased 
level of safety, FRA believes a partial reduction in the percentage of 
operative brakes is justified. FRA proposes modifying the requirement 
to 95 percent effective and operative brakes, which it believes strikes 
a balance between the current regulation and the need to allow for in-
transit failures that could compromise the operation of the train or 
otherwise automatically shut it down when it reaches 85 percent 
effective or operative brakes.
    Under paragraph (a), a train could only leave its initial terminal 
if a Class I brake test is performed by a qualified mechanical 
inspector and all ECP braked cars that are known to have arrived at the 
location with ineffective or inoperative brakes are repaired or handled 
accordingly. The proposed rule intends to ensure that at least 95 
percent of the ECP brake equipped cars have effective and operative 
brakes prior to departure from an initial terminal and that cars are 
repaired in a timely fashion. The purpose of the ninety-five percent 
threshold is to prevent the delay or disassembly of a train for the 
removal or repair of a very small percentage of cars that are 
discovered to be defective for the first time while the railroad is 
conducting its in-depth inspections required at a train's initial 
terminal.
    The 95 percent requirement also acknowledges that some initial 
terminals may not initially have the capabilities of repairing 
ineffective or inoperative ECP braking systems. Accordingly, paragraph 
(b) proposes to allow the movement of cars with such defects known to 
exist upon arrival at its destination to be moved only to the nearest 
forward location where repairs may be performed and restricts the car 
from being loaded or unloaded while being so moved. However, to ensure 
the safe operation of trains operating in ECP brake mode, operators are 
reminded that, under the proposal, the inclusion of such defective cars 
cannot make the train have less than ninety-five percent effective or 
operative brakes.
    Paragraph (b) also proposes that a car with ineffective or 
inoperative ECP brakes shall be tagged in accordance with Sec.  
232.15(b). FRA believes that Sec.  232.15(b) should equally apply to 
trains operating in ECP brake mode and should be a prerequisite for the 
movement from the initial terminal of any car with defective brakes. 
Section 232.15(b) contains the specific requirements regarding the 
tagging of equipment found with defective brake components and 
recognizes that the industry may attempt to develop some type of 
automated tracking system capable of retaining the information required 
by that section and tracking defective equipment electronically. Thus, 
paragraph (b), through Sec.  232.15(b), proposes to permit the use of 
an automated tracking system in lieu of directly tagging the equipment 
if the automated system is approved for use

[[Page 50838]]

by FRA. FRA continues to believe that these provisions are necessary to 
ensure the agency's ability to monitor such systems and potentially 
prohibit the use of the system if it is found deficient. The proposed 
rule makes clear that, by ensuring application of section 232.15(b) to 
ECP brake systems, an automated tracking system approved for use by FRA 
be capable of being reviewed and monitored by FRA at any time. This 
paragraph also notifies the railroads that FRA reserves the right to 
prohibit the use of a previously approved automated tracking system if 
FRA subsequently finds it to be insecure, inaccessible, or inadequate. 
Such a determination would have to be in writing and include the basis 
for taking such action.
    Paragraph (c) proposes permitting, with certain limitations, trains 
operating in ECP brake mode to move cars equipped with conventional 
pneumatic brakes. If a freight car equipped with only conventional 
pneumatic brakes would have effective and operable brakes in a train 
equipped with a ``stand-alone'' conventional pneumatic brake system, 
FRA proposes to permit a freight train operating in ECP brake mode to 
move such a car. If a car has defective conventional pneumatic brakes--
which would be ineffective or inoperative in a train with a ``stand-
alone'' conventional pneumatic brake system--FRA also proposes to 
permit its movement by a freight train operating in ECP brake mode, but 
only if the movement is made in accordance with Sec.  232.15. By 
referring to Sec.  232.15, paragraph (c) intends to, amongst other 
things, include the exceptions delineated in paragraph (k) and limit 
the movement of such cars to the nearest location where repairs can be 
made. Paragraph (c) also reminds regulated parties to comply with the 
tagging requirements of Sec.  232.15(b) for the same reasons as 
paragraph (b). FRA notes that the inclusion of cars with defective or 
non-defective conventional pneumatic brakes into a train operating in 
ECP brake mode shall not cause the train to have less than ninety-five 
percent effective and operative brakes in accordance with paragraph 
(a). FRA believes that permitting a limited inclusion of cars equipped 
with conventional pneumatic brakes will provide some flexibility as 
operators transition their fleets from conventional pneumatic to ECP 
brake systems while ensuring a satisfactory level of safety.
    Once an ECP brake system detects that the train has less than 
eight-five percent operative brakes, AAR standard S-4200 requires an 
automatic and immediate full service brake application. Paragraph (d) 
mirrors S-4200 by requiring a train operating in ECP brake mode to 
cease moving once less than eight-five percent of the train's cars have 
effective and operative brakes. In other words, under paragraph (d), no 
train shall move with more than fifteen percent of its brakes being 
defective or otherwise inoperative or ineffective. Recognizing, 
however, that foundation brake rigging defects may not be detected by 
the electronic system, and that calculation of the percentage may 
require an accurate manual entry of the total cars in the train by the 
train crew, FRA proposes paragraph (d) to continually ensure the safe 
operation of trains operating in ECP brake mode with ineffective or 
inoperative brakes.
    Although there is no explicit statutory limit regarding the number 
of cars with inoperative brake equipment that may be hauled in a train, 
the fifteen percent limitation is a longstanding industry and agency 
interpretation of the hauling-for-repair provision currently codified 
at 49 U.S.C. 20303, and has withstood the test of time. This 
interpretation is extrapolated from another statutory requirement which 
permits a railroad to use a train only if ``at least 50 percent of the 
vehicles in the train are equipped with power or train brakes and the 
engineer is using the power or train brakes on those vehicles and on 
all other vehicles equipped with them that are associated with those 
vehicles in a train.'' 49 U.S.C. 20302(a)(5)(B). As originally enacted 
in 1903, section 20302, also granted the Interstate Commerce Commission 
(ICC) the authority to increase this percentage, and in 1910 the ICC 
issued an order increasing the minimum percentage to 85 percent. See 49 
CFR 232.103(e), which codifies the ICC order. FRA believes that if the 
rule is read in its entirety there should be no confusion as to the 
movement of defective equipment, and that this provision merely sets an 
outside limit on the percentage of cars that may be hauled in any train 
with inoperative brakes. Consequently, FRA will continue to require 
that equipment with inoperative air brakes make up no more than 15 
percent of any train.
    FRA acknowledges that Sec.  232.103(e) already prevents a train's 
movement ``if less than 85 percent of the cars in that train have 
effective and operative brakes.'' However, FRA has also stated that 
Sec.  232.103(e) ``contains a clear and absolute prohibition on train 
movement if more than 15 percent of the cars in a train have their 
brakes cut out or have otherwise inoperative brakes.'' Because ECP 
brake systems are designed to automatically stop the train whenever and 
wherever the brake system has less than 15 percent operative brakes, 
FRA recognizes that some flexibility is needed to ensure that such 
trains are not stranded on the main track. To provide flexibility in 
those rare instances where a train experiences a penalty brake 
application as a result of having less than 85 percent operative 
brakes, paragraph (d) proposes to include requirements to ensure the 
safe movement of such trains. FRA recognizes the need for some trains 
operating in ECP brake mode to continue to an appropriate repair 
facility or nearest siding after experiencing a penalty brake 
application. Since ECP brake implementation is in its infant stages, 
FRA acknowledges that a railroad may not initially have a significant 
number of repair facilities beyond the initial terminals of ECP 
equipped cars. Accordingly, paragraph (d) proposes to permit limited 
movement of such trains for repair or consist modification purposes. In 
any event, in light of the Class I inspection required under proposed 
Sec.  232.607 and an ECP brake system's continuous monitoring and 
diagnostics functions, FRA believes that trains operating in ECP brake 
mode will rarely, if ever, reach fifteen percent inoperative or 
ineffective brakes. However, FRA believes that paragraph (d)--in an 
abundance of caution and in anticipation of such a possibility 
occurring--ensures safe and efficient operations. In order to move a 
train operating in ECP brake mode that experiences a penalty brake 
application (i.e., an automatic and immediate emergency or full brake 
application made by the ECP brake system in accordance with the current 
AAR standards) due to having less than 85 percent effective and 
operative brakes, proposed paragraph (d) would require the train crew 
to perform a visual inspection of the entire train, ensure the safe 
operation of the train, and determine that it is safe to move the 
train.
    Under the current regulations, visual inspections are generally 
performed when moving defective equipment since a ``qualified person'' 
must determine that the car is safe to move. It is FRA's understanding 
that most, if not all, railroads require a crew member to make a visual 
inspection of a car when a problem occurs en route. A proper visual 
inspection ensures that the brakes are cut out and eliminates the 
possibility of dragging or stuck brakes. A dragging or loose part or 
piece of equipment can find its way under a wheel, causing a 
derailment. A brake

[[Page 50839]]

that will not release--due to bent or fouled brake rigging or a 
problematic control valve--will cause the wheel to slide. A sliding 
wheel will not properly traverse a switch or cross-over, setting up a 
potential derailment. A sliding wheel may also cause a severe flat spot 
to occur on the wheel, which can also lead to a derailment. By 
requiring that the train crew ensure the safe operation of the train 
and determine that it is safe to move the train, FRA intends to make 
clear that it is the railroad's responsibility, through its crew, to do 
whatever is necessary to ensure safe train operation under the 
flexibility provided by paragraph (d). Any deviation from the 
requirements under paragraph (d) while moving a train with less than 
eight-five effective or ineffective brakes would pose a significant 
safety hazard and violate the rule.
    In addition, under paragraph (d), the train's subsequent movement 
must be made in a restricted ECP brake Switch Mode to the nearest 
forward location where necessary repairs or changes to the consist can 
be made. Under AAR Standard S-4200 Sec.  4.2.6.2.2, the speed of an ECP 
brake equipped train in Switch Mode shall not exceed 20 mph. The 
purpose of the 20 mph restriction, among Switch Mode's other 
restrictions, is to ensure the safe movement of the train with less 
than ideal brake operations while allowing the train to operate to a 
location where defective braking systems can be repaired or where cars 
can be added or removed from the train so that it will have at least 
eighty-five percent effective and operative brakes.
    Paragraph (e) proposes to permit trains operating in ECP brake mode 
with defective ECP brakes to be used or hauled without civil penalty 
liability under part 232 to its destination, not to exceed 3,500 miles. 
Such defects must be found for the first time during a Class I brake 
test or en route. As previously mentioned, FRA believes that a train 
operating in ECP brake mode can safely continue to its destination with 
some ineffective or inoperative brakes. Accordingly, paragraph (e) 
proposes that all such trains be permitted to travel to its 
destination, not to exceed 3,500 miles, without incurring civil penalty 
liability in relation to the use of those brakes. Paragraph (e) also 
proposes that this civil penalty immunity be extended to such trains 
with ECP brake defects found at the initial terminal. If such defects 
are found after a train is put together in preparation for its next 
departure, it may be overly burdensome to require that the train be 
taken apart for repair. If a brake repair may be performed without 
taking the train apart, FRA acknowledges that the repair may cause 
undue delay. If the ECP brake defect is found at the location where a 
Class I inspection is performed, FRA believes that such burdens and 
delays may be avoided in light of the increased safety afforded by ECP 
brake systems.
    FRA believes that this flexibility needs to be afforded differently 
to defects that are known to exist upon a car's arrival at its 
destination or at a location where a Class I brake test will be 
required on the train than to defects found for the first time at the 
location where a Class I brake test is performed. If a freight car 
equipped with an ECP brake system is known to have arrived with 
ineffective or inoperative brakes at the location of a train's initial 
terminal or at a location where a Class I brake test is required under 
Sec.  232.607(b), that car is subject to the limitations in paragraph 
(b), not paragraph (e). Paragraph (b) intends to ensure that known 
defects be repaired before continued use and to prevent trains 
operating in ECP brake mode from traveling indefinitely without 
repairing their defective ECP brakes. On the other hand, by proposing 
paragraph (e), FRA recognizes the burden placed on operators to comply 
with such a rule when it discovers the defect when it is in the process 
of putting a train together or after a train is already put together 
and inspected. Paragraph (e) intends to recognize that burden by 
treating the train similarly to a train that detects a defective ECP 
brake while it is en route.
    Paragraph (f) proposes providing limited flexibility for trains 
operating in ECP brake mode with a non-brake safety appliance defect on 
an ECP brake equipped car. To enjoy such flexibility under paragraph 
(f), the car may only be used or hauled to the nearest forward location 
for repairs. As noted above, in light of the increased safety levels 
afforded by ECP brake system technologies, FRA proposes to allow trains 
operating in ECP brake mode with defective ECP brakes to travel to its 
destination, not to exceed 3,500 miles. FRA does not believe it prudent 
to provide the same level of flexibility to cars operating in ECP 
equipped trains with non-brake safety appliance defects, since an ECP 
brake system's increased safety level does not reduce the dangers of 
such defects. However, FRA does believe that flexibility should be 
afforded to such equipment hauled directly to the nearest forward 
repair location. To require the hauling of ECP brake equipment to the 
nearest location where necessary repairs can be effectuated, rather 
than the nearest forward location, could create unnecessary safety 
hazards. As there will only be a limited number of ECP brake equipped 
trains in operation at any given time, the ability to switch cars from 
one ECP train to another, merely for the purposes of getting the car to 
a closer repair facility, will be severely limited. Rather than 
requiring ECP brake equipped cars to be hauled in non-ECP brake trains, 
where their brakes will be inoperative, FRA believes it is safer to 
permit the car to continue in the ECP brake equipped train with 
operative brakes to the next forward location where the necessary non-
brake safety appliance repairs can be made.
    In the event trains must include cars equipped with brake systems 
not compatible with the train's brake system, FRA proposes requirements 
to ensure the safe operation of such trains. FRA proposes to allow a 
train operating with a conventional pneumatic brake system--regardless 
of whether it is a train with ``stand-alone'' conventional pneumatic 
brakes or an ECP brake equipped train operating in conventional 
pneumatic brake mode--to include cars with stand-alone ECP brake 
systems. To maintain an acceptable level of safety, however, FRA 
proposes that such trains must have at least 95 percent effective and 
operative brakes at the conclusion of a Class I brake test, inclusive 
of all cars regardless of braking systems. Further, to meet the same 
level of safety intended by 49 CFR 232.103(d), FRA proposes to continue 
to require that the train have 100 percent effective and operative 
conventional pneumatic brakes at the Class I brake test site when 
operating in conventional pneumatic mode.
    Accordingly, paragraph (g) proposes to allow trains equipped with a 
conventional pneumatic brake system--or with ECP brake systems and 
operating in conventional pneumatic brake mode--to operate with freight 
cars equipped with stand-alone ECP brake systems under limited 
circumstances. Under paragraph (g), any such train not in compliance 
with those circumstances shall not be operated. The purpose of these 
limitations is to ensure the safe operation of such trains that contain 
cars with incompatible stand-alone ECP brake systems. FRA understands 
that some trains operating with conventional pneumatic brakes may need 
to carry cars with incompatible stand-alone ECP brake systems, 
especially when the implementation of ECP brake system technology is in 
its infant stages. For instance, FRA anticipates that a need may arise 
to move a new ECP brake equipped car in a train operating with 
conventional pneumatic brakes from the

[[Page 50840]]

car building facility or a repair shop to a location where the railroad 
operates ECP brake equipped trains. FRA also anticipates that a dual 
mode ECP brake system operating in ECP brake mode may incur a 
malfunction--such as a broken train line cable or locomotive 
controller--forcing the operator to switch the train's operation to 
conventional pneumatic brake mode. As long as the train's total number 
of cars with ineffective or inoperative brakes does not fall below the 
threshold percentage proposed by paragraph (g)--via reference to 
paragraph (d)--FRA believes that the train may safely include cars with 
incompatible stand-alone ECP brake systems.
    Paragraph (g) includes requirements for the subject train and each 
of its stand-alone ECP brake equipped cars. For such a train to 
operate, it must comply with the minimum percentage of operative brakes 
required by paragraph (h) when at an initial terminal--which will be 
discussed below--or paragraph (d) when en route for the same reasons 
discussed in paragraph (d). Under paragraph (g), a stand-alone ECP 
brake equipped car in a train operating with conventional pneumatic 
brakes can only be moved for delivery to a railroad receiving the 
equipment or to a location where the car may be added to a train 
operating in ECP brake mode. Otherwise, the movement of the car is 
restricted to the nearest available location where necessary repairs 
can be effectuated. In addition, such cars must be tagged in accordance 
with Sec.  232.15(b) for the same reasons as stated for the analysis of 
paragraph (b) and placed in the train in accordance with Sec.  
232.15(e). Section 232.15(e) contains the requirements regarding the 
placement of cars in a train that have inoperative brakes. The 
requirements contained in that paragraph are consistent with the 
current industry practice and are part of almost every major railroad's 
operating rules. By incorporating Sec.  232.15(e) by reference, 
paragraph (g) proposes to prohibit the placing of a vehicle with 
inoperative brakes at the rear of the train and the consecutive placing 
of more than two vehicles with inoperative brakes, as test track 
demonstrations have indicated that when three consecutive cars in a 
train operating with conventional pneumatic brakes have their brakes 
cut-out, it is not always possible to obtain an emergency brake 
application on trailing cars. To remain consistent with existing 
industry practice, paragraph (g) proposes, by referencing Sec.  
232.15(e), to require that such equipment shall not be placed in a 
train if it has more than two consecutive individual control valves cut 
out or if the brakes controlled by the valve are inoperative.
    Paragraph (h) proposes additional requirements for freight trains 
equipped and operating with conventional pneumatic brakes when 
departing an initial terminal with freight cars equipped with stand-
alone ECP brake systems. On such trains, paragraph (h) proposes to 
require that each car equipped with conventional pneumatic brake 
systems have effective and operative brakes. Paragraph (h) proposes to 
allow the train to depart its initial terminal with ninety-five percent 
effective and operative brakes. The five percent of cars with 
potentially defective brakes may only be cars equipped with stand-alone 
ECP brake systems. All cars equipped with dual mode ECP brake systems 
must operate in conventional pneumatic brake mode and have effective 
and operative conventional pneumatic brakes.
    Various paragraphs of proposed Sec.  232.609 require the tagging of 
defective equipment. Paragraph (i) proposes to provide for the 
electronic tagging of defective ECP brake equipment when being moved in 
a train operating in ECP brake mode. FRA recognizes that Sec.  
232.15(b) already provides requirements for electronic tagging of 
defective equipment. However, in view of the ECP brake system's unique 
characteristics, it is not entirely clear how Sec.  232.15(b) would 
appropriately apply to electronic records developed, retained, and 
maintained by ECP brake systems. Accordingly, paragraph (i) contains 
the proposed criteria for determining whether an ECP brake system 
complies with Sec.  232.15(b). In order for an ECP brake system to 
provide electronic tagging of equipment with defective safety 
appliances, the ECP brake system must provide appropriate, constant, 
and accurate information to the crew via a display in the cab of the 
lead locomotive, and ensure that the information is securely stored and 
is accessible to FRA and appropriate operating and inspection 
personnel.
    To allow electronic tagging of defective ECP brake equipment, 
paragraph (i) proposes to ensure that the train crew be notified of 
such defects. FRA believes that the most logical and efficient 
communications medium is the ECP brake system's display monitor in the 
lead locomotive cab. FRA also believes that any such notification 
should include descriptive information suitable to identify the defect 
and its location in the train consist. FRA acknowledges that locomotive 
engineers may be distracted or subjected to information overload by 
multiple monitors or displays in the locomotive cab, thus potentially 
endangering the safe operation of the train. At this time, FRA does not 
have sufficient information to propose rules concerning display or 
monitor placement or the merging of various data into a smaller number 
of displays. In any event, FRA seeks comments on this issue.
    To ensure the integrity of electronic tagging, the ECP brake system 
must securely store the information. FRA seeks comment on how secure a 
system must be. While the information must be secure, it must also be 
accessible for safety and oversight purposes. Paragraph (i) makes clear 
that an automated tracking system approved for use by FRA and its 
secured information must be capable of being reviewed and monitored by 
FRA at any time. The information should also be accessible to 
subsequent train crews that require notification of defects. FRA 
acknowledges that some railroads may also desire to use the ECP brake 
system to electronically tag defective non-ECP brake equipment. FRA 
anticipates that such electronic tagging must be manually entered into 
the system. FRA seeks comments on whether the proposed rules should 
include provisions allowing for the manual input of non-ECP brake 
defects into ECP brake systems for electronic tagging purposes. FRA 
also seeks comments on what requirements and allowances should be made 
in consideration of that interest, including means to associate or 
merge ECP brake system information with information not monitored 
electronically by the ECP brake system.
    Paragraph (j) proposes that railroads adopt and comply with written 
procedures governing the movement of defective equipment. The 
procedures must comply with the related regulatory requirements, 
including those proposed in these rules. FRA intends for each railroad 
to develop appropriate procedures regarding its handling and repair of 
defective equipment containing ECP brake systems or hauled in trains 
operating in ECP brake mode. FRA acknowledges that many railroads may 
already have such procedures in place. FRA believes that the 
establishment of these procedures is the most effective means by which 
to minimize the possibility of future accidents caused by the movement 
of defective equipment on cars and trains equipped with ECP brake 
systems or operating in ECP brake mode. Given the introduction of new 
technology and its partial incompatibility with existing systems, FRA 
believes the need for

[[Page 50841]]

adoption and compliance with such procedures is critical for continued 
safety in the rail industry.
    To ensure compliance with the proposed requirements concerning the 
performance of ECP brake system repairs, paragraph (j) proposes to 
require railroads to submit to FRA a list identifying locations where 
such repairs may be made. FRA believes that the list should encompass a 
sufficient number of locations to ensure that Class I brake tests are 
performed at appropriate intervals and that trains equipped with ECP 
brake systems do not travel further than their destination or 3,500 
miles without being inspected and repaired in Class I inspection and 
repair facilities. If a railroad adds or removes any repair facility 
from its system, paragraph (j) proposes that the railroad amend or 
modify that list by timely notifying FRA of those changes.
    Paragraph (k) proposes explicit exceptions to other portions of 
part 232. Paragraph (k) proposes that Sec. Sec.  232.15(a)(2) and 
(a)(5) through (a)(7) not apply to freight cars and freight trains with 
ECP brake systems. These sections generally require that equipment with 
defective safety appliances be repaired at the location where they are 
first discovered to be defective or that they be moved only to the 
nearest available location where necessary repairs can be performed. As 
noted above, FRA believes that freight cars equipped with ECP brakes 
and freight trains operating in ECP brake mode need to be provided some 
flexibility in being handled for repair and when moving equipment with 
defective safety appliances. The provisions contained in Sec.  
232.15(a) for which FRA is proposing an exception would, in many 
circumstances, frustrate the purpose of FRA's proposal and ignore the 
safety advances provided by ECP braking systems.
    Paragraph (k) also proposes to except Sec.  232.15(a)(8), which 
prohibits the movement of a defective car or locomotive in a train 
required to receive a Class I brake test at that location. As discussed 
in detail above, FRA proposes to allow a leave its initial terminal 
with only ninety-five percent operative brakes after a Class I brake 
test. Similarly, Sec.  232.103(d) prohibits a train from departing from 
its initial terminal with any inoperative or ineffective brakes, but 
paragraph (a) proposes to allow a train operating in ECP brake mode to 
depart from its initial terminal with ninety-five percent effective and 
operative brakes under certain circumstances. Paragraph (a) implicitly 
excepts trains operating in ECP brake mode from Sec.  232.103(d). 
Paragraph (k) intends to clearly and explicitly except Sec.  
232.103(d). An explicit exception in this rule does not imply that 
there are no independent and implicit exceptions. Finally, Sec.  
232.103(e) ``contains a clear and absolute prohibition on train 
movement if more than 15 percent of the cars in a train have their 
brakes cut out or have otherwise inoperative brakes,'' thus preventing 
a train's movement ``if less than 85 percent of the cars in that train 
have effective and operative brakes.'' Due to relief proposed by this 
section, however, the strict limits imposed by Sec.  232.103(e) would 
no longer be applicable to trains regulated under these proposed rules. 
Accordingly, paragraph (k) proposes excepting Sec.  232.103(e).
Section 232.611 Periodic Maintenance
    FRA intends that all unexcepted rules under part 232 apply to ECP 
brake operations. For the purposes of further clarity, however, 
paragraph (a) reminds the operators of equipment with ECP brake systems 
to comply with the maintenance requirements contained in Sec.  
232.303(b) through (d), which require the performance of certain tests 
and inspections whenever a car is on a shop or repair track. FRA 
continues to believe that a repair or shop track provides an ideal 
setting for railroads to conduct an individualized inspection on a 
car's brake system to ensure its proper operation. FRA also continues 
to believe that such inspections are necessary to reduce the potential 
of overlooking cars with excessive piston travel during the performance 
of ordinary brake inspections. If any problems are detected at that 
location, the personnel needed to make any necessary corrections are 
already present. Furthermore, performing these inspections at this time 
ensures proper operation of the cars' brakes and eliminates the 
potential of having to cut cars out of an assembled train and, thus, 
should reduce inspection times and make for more efficient operations.
    FRA continues to believe that Sec. Sec.  232.303(b) and (c) should 
apply to all operations, including those with ECP brake systems. 
Section 232.303(b) requires testing of each car on a shop or repair 
track to determine that its air brakes apply and remain applied until a 
release is initiated. If the brakes fail to apply or remained applied 
until a release is initiated, the car must be repaired and retested. 
Section 232.303(c) requires piston travel to be inspected and, if 
necessary, adjusted. FRA intends for this to be accomplished in 
accordance with the stencil or badge plate on cars equipped with ECP 
brakes.
    FRA also continues to believe that Sec.  232.303(d) should apply to 
all operations, including those with ECP brake systems. Section 
232.303(d) lists brake system components requiring inspection prior to 
releasing a car from a shop or repair track. This section requires 
inspection of a car's hand brakes, angle cocks to ensure proper 
positioning to allow maximum air flow, and brake indicators, if 
equipped, to ensure their accuracy and proper operation. A periodic 
inspection is an ideal time for the railroad to inspect these items 
while imposing the least burden on the railroad's inspection and repair 
forces.
    In addition to requiring continued compliance with Sec. Sec.  
232.303(b) through (d), paragraph (a) proposes to require further 
inspections of freight cars equipped with ECP brake systems prior to 
release from a shop or repair track. These additional inspections 
afford the inspector the opportunity to look at each car more 
thoroughly and take into consideration ECP brake systems' unique 
characteristics. For instance, while Sec.  232.303(d) requires 
inspectors to ensure that brake pipes are securely clamped, paragraph 
(a) proposes the equivalent for ECP brake systems by requiring the 
secured clamping of ECP brake system wires. Accordingly, paragraph (a) 
proposes requiring inspectors to check the ECP brake system's wiring 
and brackets, electrical connections, electrical grounds and impedance, 
and any car mounted ECP brake system component. During such 
inspections, inspectors are expected to look for problems such as 
frayed wiring, loose or damaged brackets, and wires that have become 
loose due to a fallen bracket. FRA believes that a missing bracket may 
not cause concern during a regular train yard inspection or Class I 
brake test and FRA has proposed requiring shop or repair track 
inspections of such ECP brake related components to ensure their safe 
operation.
    Paragraph (b) proposes requiring railroads to submit periodic 
single car air brake test procedures to FRA for approval and paragraph 
(c) proposes that railroads comply with such submitted and approved 
procedures whenever they perform a single car air brake test. FRA must 
be given an opportunity to review and comment on any revision of the 
procedures by which these tests are performed to ensure that there is 
no degradation in safety resulting from any such modification and to 
ensure consistency in how the tests are performed. FRA notes that the 
review and approval proposed by paragraph (b) are necessary to prevent

[[Page 50842]]

railroads from making unilateral changes to the test procedures. 
Paragraph (b) proposes to require the industry to follow the special 
approval process contained in Sec.  232.17 in order to initially submit 
the procedures to FRA for approval. FRA understands that AAR and ECP 
brake manufacturers are currently in the process of developing single 
car air brake test procedures for ECP brake equipped freight cars. 
Should such procedures be formalized in an AAR approved and published 
standard prior to issuance of a final rule in this proceeding, FRA will 
consider incorporating that standard into the final rule. Paragraph (c) 
proposes to require that single car air brake tests be performed upon 
the occurrence of any of the events identified in Sec.  232.305, except 
for Sec.  232.305(b)(2). Section 232.305(b)(2) requires railroads to 
perform a single car air brake test when a car is on a shop or repair 
track for any reason and has not received a single car air brake test 
within the previous 12-month period. The single car air brake test is 
critical to ensuring the safe and proper operation of the brake 
equipment on the Nation's fleet of freight cars. When FRA issued Sec.  
232.305(b)(2), the single car air brake test was the sole method by 
which air brake equipment on freight cars is periodically tested to 
identify potential problems before they result in the brake's becoming 
inoperative. Due to the ECP brake system's ability to continuously 
monitor the condition of a car's air brakes, FRA believes that less 
frequent single car air brake tests are justified on such equipment.
    FRA acknowledges that railroads may retrofit ECP brake systems on 
existing cars equipped with conventional pneumatic brake systems. While 
Sec.  232.305(e) requires a single car air brake test on each new or 
rebuilt car prior to placing or using it in revenue service, it is 
unclear whether this rule applies to cars retrofitted with ECP brake 
systems. Accordingly, to ensure the proper and safe operation of cars 
with newly installed ECP brake systems, paragraph (d) proposes to 
require the performance of a single car air brake test prior to 
returning the car to revenue service. FRA believes that it is essential 
for retrofitted cars to receive this test prior to returning to revenue 
service in order to ensure the proper operation of the vehicle's new 
brake system. Most railroads already require this attention when 
installing a new brake system; thus the cost of this requirement is 
minimal and merely incorporates the industry's current best practices.
    FRA acknowledges that, after receiving approval of the single car 
air brake test standard from FRA in accordance with paragraph (b), a 
railroad or an industry representative may--through its experience--
subsequently determine better procedures applicable to single car air 
brake tests of cars equipped with ECP brake systems. Accordingly, FRA 
recognizes that the industry may find it necessary to modify the single 
car air brake test procedures from time to time. Section 232.307 
provides regulatory procedures for those seeking modification of an 
approved single car air brake test procedure. Paragraph (b) proposes 
extending the application of Sec.  232.307 to single car air brake test 
procedures for cars equipped with ECP brake systems.
    FRA believes that Sec.  232.307 provides the industry with a quick 
and efficient procedure to seek modification of an incorporated or 
approved testing procedure and provides both FRA and other interested 
parties an opportunity to review potential changes prior to their 
becoming effective. The process under Sec.  232.307 permits the 
industry to modify the single car air brake test procedures and permits 
those modifications to become effective 75 days from the date that FRA 
publishes the requested modification in the Federal Register, if no 
objection to the requested modification is raised by either FRA or any 
other interested party. The process allows FRA and other interested 
parties 60 days to review and raise objections to any proposed 
modification requested by the industry and submitted to FRA. FRA 
believes the process established in Sec.  232.307 will meet the needs 
of AAR and the industry to expeditiously modify the single car air 
brake test procedures required by and approved under paragraph (b).
    FRA continues to believe that, for the process to work at optimum 
efficiency, the AAR and the industry would be best served if they 
ensure that there is open communication regarding any modifications 
with both FRA and the representatives of affected employees prior to 
requesting any modification of the procedures. This will ensure that 
interested parties are fully informed of any potential modification and 
their concerns are addressed or allayed before a request for 
modification is submitted to FRA. This information and dialogue will 
eliminate the potential for objections being submitted when the 
requested modification is officially sought.
    FRA acknowledges that the self-monitoring capabilities of ECP brake 
systems may eliminate the need to perform single car air brake tests on 
a time-specific basis. Accordingly, paragraph (f) proposes to except 
Sec.  232.305(b)(2) as it applies to single car air brake tests for 
cars with stand-alone ECP brake systems. Since cars with dual mode ECP 
brake systems include all of the components of a conventional pneumatic 
brake system and may be operated in conventional pneumatic brake mode 
at any time, FRA does not intend paragraph (f) to provide those cars 
relief from section 232.305(b)(2). At this time, FRA does not believe 
sufficient information exists to completely eliminate the need to 
conduct periodic single car air brake tests on ECP brake equipped cars.
    Paragraph (f) also proposes to except the application of Sec.  
232.305(f) to cars equipped with stand-alone ECP brake systems. Section 
232.305(f) concerns cars that had received their last single car air 
brake tests prior to January 1, 2001. Section 232.305(e), incorporated 
by reference from paragraph (c), requires that all new or rebuilt ECP 
brake equipped cars receive a single car air brake test prior to being 
placed or used in revenue service. Proposed paragraph (d) requires a 
single car air brake test be performed on all cars retrofitted with ECP 
brake systems prior to being placed or used in revenue service. Thus, 
the last time a stand-alone ECP brake equipped car would have received 
a single car air brake test would have been after it was built, 
rebuilt, or retrofitted. Accordingly, Sec.  232.305(f) would no longer 
be applicable. For similar reasons, FRA also seeks comments and 
information on whether Sec.  232.305(f) should be eliminated 
altogether.
Section 232.613 End-of-Train Devices
    Current FRA regulations specify design and performance standards 
for one-way and two-way EOT telemetry devices, which, at a minimum, 
have the capability of determining rear-of-train brake pipe pressure 
and of transmitting this information by radio to a receiving unit in 
the controlling locomotive. Most rear units in service are battery 
operated and also incorporate a rear end marker required under 49 CFR 
part 221. Optional features include transmission of information 
regarding rear end motion and battery status. Most units operate on the 
same ultra high frequency (UHF), but each rear unit has a discrete 
identification code which must be recognized by the HEU before the 
message is acknowledged. The more modern two-way EOT device, in 
addition to the features of the one-way EOT device, has the ability of 
activating the emergency air valve at the rear of the train upon 
receiving an emergency brake application command from the HEU. This is 
a desirable feature in event

[[Page 50843]]

of a blockage in the brake pipe that would prevent the pneumatic 
transmission of the emergency brake application throughout the entire 
train.
    Provisions governing the use of one-way EOT telemetry devices were 
initially incorporated into the power brake regulations in 1986. 
Pursuant to the Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act, Pub. Law No. 
102-365 (Sept. 3, 1992), which amends the Federal Rail Safety Act 
(FRSA) of 1970 (45 U.S.C. 421, 431 et seq.), FRA held rulemakings to 
amend the power brake regulations, including those concerning one-way 
and two-way EOTs. 62 FR 278 (Jan. 2, 1997); 66 FR 4104 (Jan. 17, 2001). 
The resulting regulations, contained in subpart E of part 232, specify 
the requirements related to the performance, operation, and testing of 
EOT devices for conventional pneumatic braking.
    The new ECP-EOT devices--which must comply with AAR standards such 
as S-4200 and S-4220--will provide more and more varied functions than 
the EOT devices used on trains with conventional pneumatic brakes. In 
addition to serving as the final node on the ECP brake system's train 
line cable termination circuit and as the system's ``heart beat'' 
monitoring and confirming train, brake pipe, power supply line, and 
digital communications cable continuity, the ECP-EOT device transmits 
to the HEU a status message that includes the brake pipe pressure, the 
train line cable's voltage, and the ECP-EOT device's battery power 
level. Since the ECP-EOT device--unlike a conventional EOT device--will 
communicate with the HEU exclusively through the digital communications 
cable and not via a radio signal, it does not need to perform the 
function of venting the brake pipe to atmospheric pressure to engage an 
emergency brake application. However, ECP-EOT devices do verify the 
integrity of the train line cable and provide a means of monitoring the 
pressure and gradient, providing the basis for an automatic--rather 
than engineer-commanded--response if the system is not adequately 
charged. In the case of ECP brakes, the brake pipe becomes a 
redundant--rather than primary--path for sending emergency brake 
application commands. Under certain communication breakdowns between 
the ECP-EOT device, the HEU, and any number of CCDs, the system will 
self-initiate an emergency brake application.
    FRA acknowledges that ECP-EOT devices, with their additional and 
changed features, may not comply with the rules under subpart E. FRA, 
however, is unclear what additional unique and varied features 
manufacturers of ECP-EOT devices may want to include beyond the 
functions specified in the AAR standard. Accordingly, FRA proposes in 
paragraph (a) that a railroad or a duly authorized representative of 
the railroad industry submit to FRA proposed design, testing, and 
calibration standards related to ECP-EOT devices used on freight trains 
operating in ECP brake mode. Paragraph (a) proposes that the submission 
comport with the special approval procedures contained in Sec.  232.17 
and be subject to FRA approval. FRA acknowledges that ECP-EOT devices 
may not require calibration. FRA seeks comments and information on this 
proposal and issue.
    Once FRA approves those standards, paragraph (b) requires that each 
railroad operating trains in ECP brake mode adopt and comply with those 
standards. A railroad shall not operate a train in ECP brake mode until 
after FRA approves those standards. Paragraph (c) further ensures that 
ECP brake equipped trains properly connect and use an ECP-EOT device 
approved and complying with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
    Because paragraph (a) proposes requirements for ECP-EOT device 
design, testing, and calibration standards applicable only to ECP brake 
systems and because subpart E of part 232 contains requirements not 
necessarily applicable to ECP-EOT devices, paragraph (d) proposes to 
except trains operating in ECP brake mode from having to comply with 
subpart E of part 232.

XII. Regulatory Impact and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This proposed rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing 
policies and procedures, and determined to be significant under both 
Executive Order 12866 and DOT policies and procedures (44 FR 11034; 
Feb. 26, 1979). FRA has prepared and placed in the docket a Regulatory 
Analysis addressing the economic impact of this proposed rule. Document 
inspection and copying facilities are available at the DOT Central 
Docket Management Facility located in Room W12-140 on the ground level 
of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 
20590. Access to the docket may also be obtained electronically through 
the DOT Docket Management System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov until 
September 28, 2007, and the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov after September 28, 2007. Photocopies may also be 
obtained by submitting a written request to the FRA Docket Clerk at 
Office of Chief Counsel, Stop 10, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 
Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20590; please refer to Docket No. 
FRA-2006-26175.
    The Regulatory Analysis prepared by the FRA in conjunction with 
this NPRM contains many assumptions and analyses on which we 
specifically request comments from interested parties. These specific 
questions can be found throughout that document, particularly in 
sections II.B., V.D., V.E., V.F., and VI.A. Anyone who wishes to 
examine the analysis and provide relevant data or arguments may request 
a copy of the Regulatory Analysis through the person listed under FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above. FRA invites comments on the 
Regulatory Analysis.
    For purposes of analysis, FRA has assumed that the proposed rule, 
if adopted, would support business decisions by Class I railroads to 
convert unit train service, such as coal and intermodal, to ECP brake 
operations over a 10-year period. This type of service is characterized 
by intensive utilization of assets and is reasonably discrete in terms 
of operational requirements. Although carload service is dispersed over 
the national rail network, unit train service tends to be concentrated 
in certain corridors. Locomotives are or could be dedicated to this 
service (e.g., as in the extensive use of high traction alternating 
current (AC) locomotives in coal service). FRA believes that, as costs 
and benefits are validated and the technology's market enjoys economies 
of scale, additional markets will benefit from ECP brake technology. 
However, based on available information, FRA is not able to determine 
whether or under what circumstances that may occur.
    If the industry was to take advantage of the proposed relief to the 
extent estimated, it would cost it approximately $1.5 billion 
(discounted at 7%). The largest portion of these costs, $1 billion, is 
the cost to convert freight cars to ECP brakes and the remaining costs 
relate to locomotive conversion and training. The total benefits of the 
proposed rule are approximately $3.2 billion (discounted at 7%). Of 
those benefits, the $1.1 billion in regulatory relief or the $1.2 
billion in fuel savings almost individually pay the costs or together 
substantially exceed the costs. The remaining benefits include wheel 
replacement savings and safety benefits.

[[Page 50844]]

    The information currently available suggests that additional 
substantial benefits not included in the $3.2 billion referenced above 
may be realized. The most significant benefit of conversion of mainline 
corridors to all-ECP brake service is enhanced capacity, without the 
need for major new equipment or infrastructure investment. Although the 
FRA cannot predict the specific effect that ECP brakes will have in 
increasing velocity across the national rail network, the FRA believes 
that the adoption of ECP brake technology will increase train speed and 
this hypothesis is supported by the BAH analysis. Given sharply growing 
demand for rail freight service, and based on the enhanced features 
that ECP brake systems offer, including (1) reduced stopping distances, 
(2) shorter start times, (3) reduction of undesired emergencies, (4) 
continuous brake pipe charging, (5) graduated brake application and 
release, (6) self-diagnostic train management, and (7) potential 
increase in the total number of cars per train, an increase in average 
train velocity will likely result. For instance, the BAH report cites a 
Union Pacific Railroad (UP) estimate that, for each 1 mph (or 5 
percent) improvement in its overall system average velocity, UP saves 
250 locomotives and 5,000 freight cars that would otherwise be 
required. At a cost of $2 million per locomotive and an average of 
$50,000 per freight car, this savings represents $750 million for UP 
alone. The UP fleet is representative of the industry's Class I 
railroads and comprises approximately one-third of all Class I railroad 
owned locomotives and one-fourth of all Class I railroad owned freight 
cars. Assuming that other Class I railroads have similar equipment 
utilization rates, it could be possible to extrapolate the $750 million 
in UP savings to the other Class I railroads, which could realize $2.5 
billion in savings from a 1 mph increase in network velocity. Any 
savings realized would increase accordingly if there are speed gains of 
greater than 1 mph.
    However, the unit and unit-like trains covered by this analysis 
only cover a portion of the industry-wide train total. Given that unit 
coal trains, which are among the slowest moving trains on any given 
network, could experience velocity gains significantly greater than 1 
mph and that all Class I railroads transport a significant amount of 
coal on their main lines, this estimate is likely a lower bound 
estimate. Thus, due to the number and variability of factors that would 
determine the actual level of savings realized due to network velocity 
improvements, such benefits are not included in the total benefits. The 
expected benefits of ECP braking technology appear to justify the 
investment, provided that the conversion is focused first on the high-
mileage, unit and unit-like train services that would most benefit from 
its use.
    As presented in the following tables, FRA estimates that the 
present value (PV) of the total 20-year benefits and costs which the 
industry would be expected to incur if it elected to comply with the 
alternative requirements proposed in this rule is $3.2 billion and $1.5 
billion, respectively:

                               Total Twenty-Year Benefits and Discounted Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Benefits         3% Discount        7% Discount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Relief......................................     $2,485,337,443     $1,726,315,620     $1,112,844,715
Rail Accident Risk Reduction...........................        228,105,462        158,224,002        101,783,196
Highway-Rail Accident Risk Reduction...................         14,036,032          9,736,101          6,263,034
    Fuel Savings.......................................      2,745,000,000      1,904,052,986      1,224,849,552
Wheel Replacement Savings..............................      1,601,250,000        714,495,572        714,495,572
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total Benefits.....................................      7,073,728,937      4,909,026,194      3,160,236,069
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                  Total Twenty-Year Costs and Discounted Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Costs           3% Discount        7% Discount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freight Car Costs......................................     $1,455,272,000     $1,241,376,534     $1,022,122,156
Locomotive Costs.......................................        485,520,000        414,158,408        341,008,931
Employee Training......................................        196,425,710        161,710,759         96,152,211
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total Costs........................................      2,137,217,710      1,817,245,701      1,459,283,298
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and Executive 
Order 13272 require a review of proposed and final rules to assess 
their impact on small entities. FRA has prepared and placed in the 
docket an Analysis of Impact on Small Entities (AISE) that assesses the 
small entity impact of this proposed rule. Document inspection and 
copying facilities are available at the Department of Transportation 
Central Docket Management Facility located in Room W12-140 on the 
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 
Washington, DC 20590. Docket material is also available on the DOT 
Docket Management System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov until September 
28, 2007, and the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov after September 28, 2007. Photocopies may also be 
obtained by submitting a written request to the FRA Docket Clerk at 
Office of Chief Counsel, Stop 10, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 
Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20590; please refer to Docket No. 
FRA-2006-26175.
    ``Small entity'' is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601 as a small business 
concern that is independently owned and operated, and is not dominant 
in its field of operation. The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) 
has authority to regulate issues related to small businesses, and 
stipulates in its size standards that a ``small entity'' in the 
railroad industry is a railroad business ``line-haul operation'' that 
has fewer than 1,500 employees and a ``switching and terminal'' 
establishment with fewer than 500 employees. SBA's ``size standards'' 
may be altered by Federal agencies, in consultation with SBA and in 
conjunction with public comment.
    Pursuant to that authority FRA has published a final statement of 
agency policy that formally establishes ``small

[[Page 50845]]

entities'' as being railroads that meet the line-haulage revenue 
requirements of a Class III railroad. See 68 FR 24891 (May 9, 2003). 
Currently, the revenue requirements are $20 million or less in annual 
operating revenue. The $20 million limit is based on the Surface 
Transportation Board's threshold of a Class III railroad carrier, which 
is adjusted by applying the railroad revenue deflator adjustment (49 
CFR part 1201). The same dollar limit on revenues is established to 
determine whether a railroad, shipper, or contractor is a small entity. 
FRA uses this alternative definition of ``small entity'' for this 
rulemaking.
    Implementation and use of ECP brake technology under the proposed 
rules is voluntary. In addition, the impacts for those who may choose 
to implement and use ECP brake technology and comply with the proposed 
rules are primarily a result of the conversion to ECP brake technology. 
These costs include locomotive crew and inspector training, freight car 
conversion costs, and locomotive conversion costs. The AISE developed 
in connection with this NPRM concludes that this NPRM will only impact 
four Class I railroads and therefore should not have any economic 
impact on small entities. Smaller railroads that carry unit and unit-
like commodities often operate and transport trains owned by other 
parties over relatively short distances and turn them over to larger 
systems that, in turn, transport those trains relatively long distances 
to their ultimate destination or to another small railroad for final 
delivery. The FRA recognizes that small entities may, in some cases, be 
involved in specific route segments for trains that originate or 
terminate on a Class I railroad. In these cases, the cars involved are 
more likely to be owned or provided by shippers or a Class I railroad. 
Mutual support arrangements and shared power practices are likely to 
ensure that the smaller railroad will not require ECP brake equipped 
trains for this service. Further, FRA anticipates that ECP brake 
equipped train operations will be limited to long hauls of commodities 
such as intermodal, coal, ore, non-metallic minerals, motor vehicle 
parts, and grain. Since small railroads do not handle such commodities, 
they will not likely receive large blocks of cars equipped with ECP 
brakes from Class I railroads.
    Since FRA does not expect small railroads to convert to ECP brake 
technology within the period of the analysis, this proposal is not 
anticipated to affect any small entities. Thus, FRA certifies that this 
NPRM is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act or Executive Order 13272.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The sections that 
contain the new information collection requirements and the estimated 
time to fulfill each requirement are as follows:
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P

[[Page 50846]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04SE07.007


[[Page 50847]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04SE07.008


[[Page 50848]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04SE07.009

BILLING CODE 4910-06-C

    All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions; 
searching existing data sources; gathering or maintaining the needed 
data; and reviewing the information. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits comments concerning: Whether these 
information collection requirements are necessary for the proper 
performance of the functions of FRA, including whether the information 
has practical utility; the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of 
the information collection requirements; the quality, utility, and 
clarity of the information to be collected; and whether the burden of 
collection of information on those who are to respond, including 
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology, may be minimized. For information or a copy of 
the paperwork package submitted to OMB, contact Mr. Robert Brogan at 
202-493-6292 or Ms. Gina Christodoulou at 202-493-6139.
    Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the 
collection of information requirements should direct them to: Mr. 
Robert Brogan, Office of Safety, Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS-
21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW., Mail Stop 
17, Washington, DC 20590, or Ms. Gina Christodoulou, Office of Support 
Systems Staff, RAD-43, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont 
Ave., NW., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590. Alternatively, comments 
may be transmitted via facsimile to (202) 493-6230 or (202) 493-6170, 
or via e-mail to Mr. Brogan at [email protected], or to Ms. 
Christodoulou at [email protected].
    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of 
information requirements contained in this NPRM between 30 and 60 days 
after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, 
a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB 
receives it within 30 days of publication. The final rule will respond 
to any OMB or public comments on the information collection 
requirements contained in this proposal.
    FRA is not authorized to impose a penalty on persons for violating 
information collection requirements which do not display a current OMB 
control number, if required. FRA intends to obtain current OMB control 
numbers for any new information collection requirements resulting from 
this rulemaking action prior to the effective date of a final rule. The 
OMB control number, when assigned, will be announced by separate notice 
in the Federal Register.

D. Federalism Implications

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), 
requires FRA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by State and local officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies 
that have federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order 
to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, the agency 
may not issue a regulation with Federalism implications that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs 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 government 
officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. 
Where a regulation has Federalism implications and preempts State law, 
the agency seeks to consult with State and local officials in the 
process of developing the regulation.
    This proposed rule has preemptive effect. Subject to a limited 
exception for essentially local safety or security hazards, its 
requirements will establish a uniform Federal safety standard that must 
be met, and state requirements covering the same subject are displaced, 
whether those standards are in the form of state statutes, regulations, 
local ordinances, or other forms of state law, including state common 
law. Section 20106 of Title 49 of the United States Code provides that 
all regulations prescribed by the Secretary related to railroad safety 
preempt any State law, regulation, or order covering the same subject 
matter, except a provision necessary to eliminate or reduce an

[[Page 50849]]

essentially local safety hazard that is not incompatible with a Federal 
law, regulation, or order and that does not unreasonably burden 
interstate commerce. This is consistent with past practice at FRA, and 
within the Department of Transportation.
    FRA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule 
will not have a substantial effect on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among various levels of government. FRA 
concludes that this proposed rule will not impose any direct compliance 
costs on State and local governments and has no federalism 
implications, other than the preemption of state laws covering the 
subject matter of this final rule, which occurs by operation of law 
under 49 U.S.C. 20106 whenever FRA issues a rule or order. Elements of 
the final rule dealing with safety appliances affect an area of safety 
that has been pervasively regulated at the Federal level for over a 
century. Accordingly, the final rule amendments in that area will 
involve no impacts on Federal relationships.

E. Environmental Impact

    FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with its 
``Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts'' (FRA's Procedures) 
(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 proposed rule 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)(20) of FRA's Procedures. 
See 64 FR 28547, May 26, 1999. Section 4(c)(20) reads as follows: (c) 
Actions categorically excluded. Certain classes of FRA actions have 
been determined to be categorically excluded from the requirements of 
these Procedures as they do not individually or cumulatively have a 
significant effect on the human environment. * * * The following 
classes of FRA actions are categorically excluded: * * * (20) 
Promulgation of railroad safety rules and policy statements that do not 
result in significantly increased emissions or air or water pollutants 
or noise or increased traffic congestion in any mode of transportation.
    In accordance with section 4(c) and (e) of FRA's Procedures, the 
agency has further concluded that no extraordinary circumstances exist 
with respect to this regulation that might trigger the need for a more 
detailed environmental review. As a result, FRA finds that this 
proposed rule is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the 
quality of the human environment.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Pursuant to Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), 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).'' Section 202 of the Act 
(2 U.S.C. 1532) further requires that ``before promulgating any general 
notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in the 
promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may 
result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $120,700,000 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. 
The proposed rule, if enacted, may result in the expenditure, in the 
aggregate, of $120,700,000 or more in any one year. However, those 
expenses are not mandated and would only be incurred by the private 
sector if it wishes to take advantage of the regulatory relief provided 
by the proposed rule. Although the preparation of such a statement is 
not required, the analytical requirements under Executive Order 12866 
are similar to the analytical requirements under the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995 and, thus, the same analysis complies with both 
analytical requirements.

G. 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 (normally 
published in the Federal Register) 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 final rule in accordance with Executive 
Order 13211. FRA has determined that this final rule is not likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy. Consequently, FRA has determined that this regulatory action 
is not a ``significant energy action'' within the meaning of Executive 
Order 13211.

H. Privacy Act

    FRA wishes to inform all potential commenters that anyone is able 
to search the electronic form of all comments received into any agency 
docket by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing 
the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor 
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in 
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; 
Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 232

    Electronically controlled pneumatic brakes, Incorporation by 
reference, Penalties, Railroad power brakes, Railroad safety, Two-way 
end-of-train devices.

The Proposal

    In consideration of the foregoing, FRA proposes to amend chapter 
II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
    1. The authority citation for Part 232 continues to read as 
follows:


    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-20103, 20107, 20133, 20141, 20301-
20303, 20306, 21301-21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 
1.49.

    2. Section 232.5 is amended by adding definitions for ``car control 
device (CCD)'', ``dual mode ECP brake system'', ``ECP'', `` ECP brake 
mode'', ``ECP brake system'', ``ECP-EOT device'', ``emulator CCD'', 
``overlay ECP brake system'', ``stand-alone CCD'', ``stand-alone ECP 
brake system'', ``switch mode'', and ``train line cable''; and by 
revising the definitions for ``train, unit or train, cycle'' and ``yard 
limits'' as follows in alphabetical order:


Sec.  232.5  Definitions.

* * * * *

[[Page 50850]]

    Car control device (CCD) means an electronic control device that 
replaces the function of the conventional pneumatic service and 
emergency portions of a car's air brake control valve during electronic 
braking and provides for electronically controlled service and 
emergency brake applications.
    Dual mode ECP brake system means an ECP brake system that is 
equipped with either an emulator CCD or an overlay ECP brake system on 
each car which can be operated in either ECP brake mode or conventional 
pneumatic brake mode.
    ECP means ``electronically controlled pneumatic'' when applied to a 
brake or brakes.
    ECP brake mode means the power braking system on a car or an entire 
train that is actuated by compressed air, controlled by electronic 
signals originating at the locomotive or an ECP-EOT for service and 
emergency applications, and whose brake pipe is used to provide a 
constant supply of compressed air to the reservoirs on each car but 
does not convey service braking signals to the car.
    ECP brake system means a train power braking system actuated by 
compressed air and controlled by electronic signals from the locomotive 
or an ECP-EOT to the cars in the consist for service and emergency 
applications in which the brake pipe is used to provide a constant 
supply of air to the reservoirs on each car but does not convey braking 
signals to the car. ECP brake systems include dual mode and stand-alone 
ECP brake systems.
    ECP-EOT device means the end-of-train device for ECP brake systems 
that is physically the last network node in the train, pneumatically 
and electrically connected at the end of the train to the train line 
cable operating with an ECP brake system. It shall transmit a status 
message (EOT Beacon) at least once per second and contain a means of 
communicating with the HEU, a brake pipe pressure transducer, and a 
battery that charges off the train line cable.
* * * * *
    Emulator CCD means a CCD that is capable of optionally emulating 
the function of the pneumatic control valve while in a conventionally 
braked train.
* * * * *
    Overlay ECP brake system means a brake system that has both 
conventional pneumatic brake valves and ECP brake components, making it 
capable of operating as either a conventional pneumatic brake system or 
an ECP brake system, which can continue to operate as a conventional 
pneumatic brake system using conventional control valves when its ECP 
brake functions fail or are placed in cutout mode.
* * * * *
    Stand-alone CCD means a CCD that can operate properly only in a 
train operating in ECP brake mode and cannot operate in a conventional 
pneumatically braked train.
    Stand-alone ECP brake system means a brake system equipped with a 
CCD that can only operate the brakes on the car properly in ECP brake 
mode.
* * * * *
    Switch Mode means a mode of a train equipped with an ECP brake 
system that provides a means to allow operation of that train when the 
train's ECP--EOT device is not communicating with the lead locomotive's 
HEU or when the train is separated during road switching operations. 
Many of the ECP brake system's fault detection/response procedures are 
suspended during Switch Mode. A train operating in Switch Mode shall 
not exceed 20 miles per hour.
* * * * *
    Train line cable is a two-conductor electric wire spanning the 
train and carrying both electrical power to operate all CCDs and ECP--
EOT devices and communications network signals.
    Train, unit or train, cycle means a train that, except for the 
changing of locomotive power ore for the removal or replacement of 
defective equipment, remains coupled as a consist and operates in a 
continuous loop or continuous loops without a destination.
* * * * *
    Yard limits means a system of tracks, not including main tracks and 
sidings, used for classifying cars, making-up and inspecting trains, or 
storing cars and equipment.
* * * * *
    3. Part 232 is amended by adding a new subpart G to read as 
follows:

Subpart G--Electronically Controlled Pneumatic (ECP) Braking 
Systems

Sec.
232.601 Scope.
232.602 Applicability.
232.603 Design, interoperability, and configuration management 
requirements.
232.605 Training requirements.
232.607 Inspection and testing requirements.
232.609 Handling of defective equipment with ECP brake systems.
232.611 Periodic maintenance.
232.613 End-of-train devices.

Subpart G--Electronically Controlled Pneumatic (ECP) Braking 
Systems


Sec.  232.601  Scope.

    This subpart contains specific requirements applicable to freight 
trains and freight cars equipped with ECP brake systems. This subpart 
also contains specific exceptions from various requirements contained 
in this part for freight trains and freight cars equipped with ECP 
brake systems.


Sec.  232.602  Applicability.

    This subpart applies to all railroads that operate a freight car or 
freight train governed by this part and equipped with an ECP brake 
system. Unless specifically excepted or modified in this section, all 
of the other requirements contained in this part are applicable to a 
freight car or freight train equipped with an ECP brake system.


Sec.  232.603  Design, interoperability, and configuration management 
requirements.

    (a) General. A freight car or freight train equipped with an ECP 
brake system shall, at a minimum, meet the Association of American 
Railroads (AAR) standards contained in the AAR Manual of Standards and 
Recommended Practices related to ECP brake systems listed below; an 
alternate standard approved by FRA pursuant to Sec.  232.17; or a 
modified standard approved in accordance with the provisions contained 
in paragraph (f) of this section. Copies of the standards identified in 
this section may be obtained from the Association of American 
Railroads, 50 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001. The applicable 
standards, which are incorporated into this regulation by reference, 
include the following:
    (1) AAR S-4200, ``ECP Cable-Based Brake Systems--Performance 
Requirements'' (2004);
    (2) AAR S-4210, ``ECP Cable-Based Brake System Cable, Connectors, 
and Junction Boxes--Performance Specifications'' (2002);
    (3) AAR S-4220, ``ECP Cable-Based Brake DC Power Supply--
Performance Specification'' (2002);
    (4) AAR S-4230, ``Intratrain Communication (ITC) Specification for 
Cable-Based Freight Train Control System'' (2004);
    (5) AAR S-4250, ``Performance Requirements for ITC Controlled 
Cable-Based Distributed Power Systems'' (2004); and
    (6) AAR S-4260, ``ECP Brake and Wire Distributed Power 
Interoperability Test Procedures'' (2007);
    (b) Approval. A freight train or freight car equipped with an ECP 
brake system

[[Page 50851]]

and equipment covered by the AAR standards incorporated by reference in 
this section shall not be used without conditional or final approval by 
AAR in accordance with AAR Standard S-4240, ``ECP Brake Equipment--
Approval Procedures'' (2007).
    (c) Configuration management.
    (1) ECP brake systems shall meet the configuration management plan 
requirements contained in:
    (i) An industry recognized standard approved by FRA, or
    (ii) A configuration management plan submitted to and approved by 
FRA.
    (2) To receive approval in accordance with paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of 
this section, a configuration management plan must:
    (i) Be submitted in accordance with * 232.17;
    (ii) Be structured in accordance with accepted configuration 
management standards; and
    (iii) Define all of the purposes, procedures, organizational 
responsibilities, and tools to be used for ECP brake system hardware 
and software configuration management including: The purpose and scope 
of the application; control activities to be performed; 
responsibilities and authorities for accomplishing the activities; 
implementation schedules; tools and resources for executing the plan; 
and periodic updating of the plan to maintain currency.
    (3) A railroad operating a freight train or freight car equipped 
with ECP brake systems shall adopt and comply with the configuration 
management plan required under paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this 
section.
    (d) Exceptions. (1) A freight car or freight train equipped with a 
stand-alone ECP brake system shall be excepted from the requirement in 
Sec.  232.103(l) referencing AAR Standard S-469-47, ``Performance 
Specification for Freight Brakes.''
    (2) The provisions addressing the introduction of new brake system 
technology contained in subpart F of this part are not applicable to a 
freight car or freight train equipped with an ECP brake system approved 
by AAR in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, conditionally 
or otherwise, as of the effective date of this rule.
    (e) New technology. Upon written request supported by suitable 
justification, the Associate Administrator may except from the 
requirements of subpart F of this part the testing of new ECP brake 
technology, demonstration of new ECP brake technology, or both, where 
testing or demonstration, or both, will be conducted pursuant to an 
FRA-recognized industry standard and FRA is invited to monitor the 
testing or demonstration, or both. FRA's Associate Administrator may 
revoke any such exception in writing after providing an opportunity for 
response by the affected parties.
    (f) Modification of standards. The AAR or other authorized 
representative of the railroad industry may seek modification of the 
industry standards identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 
section. The request for modification will be handled and shall be 
submitted in accordance with the modification procedures contained in 
Sec.  232.307.


Sec.  232.605  Training requirements.

    (a) Inspection, testing and maintenance. A railroad that operates a 
freight car or freight train equipped with an ECP brake system and each 
contractor that performs inspection, testing, or maintenance on a 
freight car or freight train equipped with an ECP brake system shall 
adopt and comply with a training, qualification, and designation 
program for its employees that perform inspection, testing or 
maintenance of ECP brake systems. The training program required by this 
section shall meet the requirements in *Sec.  232.203(a), (b), (e), and 
(f).
    (b) Operating rules. A railroad operating a freight train or 
freight car equipped with an ECP brake system shall amend its operating 
rules to govern safe train handling procedures related to ECP brake 
systems and equipment under all operating conditions, which shall be 
tailored to the specific equipment and territory of the railroad.
    (c) Locomotive engineers. A railroad operating a freight car or 
freight train equipped with an ECP brake system shall adopt and comply 
with specific knowledge, skill, and ability criteria to ensure that its 
locomotive engineers are fully trained with the operating rules 
governing safe train handling procedures related to ECP brake systems 
and equipment under all operating conditions, which shall be tailored 
to the specific equipment and territory of the railroad. The railroad 
shall incorporate the specific knowledge, skill, and ability criteria 
into its locomotive engineer certification program pursuant to part 240 
of this chapter.


Sec.  232.607  Inspection and testing requirements.

    (a) Initial terminal. A freight train operating in ECP brake mode 
shall receive a Class I brake test as described in Sec.  232.205(c) by 
a qualified mechanical inspector (QMI) and shall receive a pre-
departure freight inspection pursuant to part 215 of this chapter by an 
inspector designated under Sec.  215.11 of this chapter at its point of 
origin (initial terminal).
    (b) Distance. (1) Except for a unit or cycle train, a train 
operating in ECP brake mode shall not operate a distance that exceeds 
its destination or 3,500 miles, whichever is less, unless another 
inspection meeting the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section is 
performed on the train.
    (2) A unit or cycle train operating in ECP brake mode shall receive 
the inspections required in paragraph (a) of this section at least 
every 3,500 miles.
    (3) The distance that any car in a train has traveled since 
receiving a Class I brake test by a qualified mechanical inspector will 
determine the distance that the train has traveled.
    (c) Trains off air. A freight train operating in ECP brake mode 
shall receive a Class I brake test as described in Sec.  232.205(c) by 
a qualified person at a location where the train is off air for a 
period of more than 24 hours.
    (d) Cars added en route. (1) Each car equipped with an ECP brake 
system that is added to a train operating in ECP brake mode shall 
receive a Class I brake test as described in Sec.  232.205(c) by a 
qualified person, unless all of the following are met:
    (i) The car has received a Class I brake test by a qualified 
mechanical inspector within the last 3,500 miles;
    (ii) Information identified in Sec.  232.205(e) relating to the 
performance of the previously received Class I brake test is provided 
to the train crew;
    (iii) The car has not been off air for more than 24 hours; and
    (iv) A visual inspection of the car's brake systems is conducted to 
ensure that the brake equipment is intact and properly secured. This 
may be accomplished as part of the inspection required under Sec.  
215.13 of this chapter and may be conducted while the car is off air.
    (2) Each car and each solid block of cars not equipped with an ECP 
brake system that is added to a train operating in ECP brake mode shall 
receive a visual inspection to ensure it is properly placed in the 
train and safe to operate and shall be moved and tagged in accordance 
with the provisions contained in Sec.  232.15.
    (e) Class III brake tests. A freight train operating in ECP brake 
mode shall receive a Class III brake test as described in Sec.  
232.211(b), (c), and (d) at the location where the configuration of the 
train is changed, including:
    (1) Where a locomotive or caboose is changed;

[[Page 50852]]

    (2) Where a car or solid block of cars is added to the train;
    (3) Where a car or solid block of cars is removed from the train; 
and
    (4) Whenever the continuity of the brake pipe or electrical 
connections is broken or interrupted with the train consist otherwise 
remaining unchanged.
    (f) Modification to existing brake tests. (1) In lieu of the 
specific brake pipe service reductions and increases required in 
subpart C of this part, an electronic signal that provides an 
equivalent application and release of the brakes shall be utilized when 
conducting any required inspection or test on a freight car or freight 
train equipped with an ECP brake system and operating in ECP brake 
mode.
    (2) In lieu of the specific minimum piston travel ranges contained 
in Sec.  232.205(c)(5), the piston travel on freight cars equipped with 
ECP brake systems shall be within the piston travel limits stenciled or 
marked on the car or badge plate consistent with the manufacturers 
recommended limits, if so stenciled or marked.
    (g) Exceptions. A freight car or a freight train shall be exempt 
from the requirements contained in Sec. Sec.  232.205(a) and (b), 
232.207, 232.209, and 232.211(a) when it is equipped with an ECP brake 
system and operating in ECP brake mode.


Sec.  232.609  Handling of defective equipment with ECP brake systems.

    (a) Ninety-five percent of the cars in a train operating in ECP 
brake mode shall have effective and operative brakes prior to use or 
departure from the train's initial terminal or any location where a 
Class I brake test is required to be performed on the entire train by a 
qualified mechanical inspector pursuant to Sec.  232.607.
    (b) A freight car equipped with an ECP brake system that is known 
to have arrived with ineffective or inoperative brakes at the location 
of a train's initial terminal or at a location where a Class I brake 
test is required under Sec.  232.607(b) shall not depart that location 
with ineffective or inoperative brakes in a train operating in ECP 
brake mode unless:
    (i) The location does not have the ability to conduct the necessary 
repairs;
    (ii) The car is hauled only for the purpose of repair to the 
nearest forward location where the necessary repairs can be performed 
consistent with the guidance contained in Sec.  232.15(f);
    (iii) The car is not being placed for loading or unloading while 
being moved for repair unless unloading is necessary for the safe 
repair of the car; and
    (iv) The car is properly tagged in accordance with Sec.  232.15(b).
    (c) A freight car equipped with only conventional pneumatic brakes 
shall not move in a freight train operating in ECP brake mode unless it 
would otherwise have effective and operative brakes if it were part of 
a conventional pneumatic brake equipped train or could be moved from 
the location in defective condition under the provisions contained in 
Sec.  232.15 and is tagged in accordance with Sec.  232.15(b).
    (d) A freight train operating in ECP brake mode shall not move if 
less than 85 percent of the cars in the train have operative and 
effective brakes. However, after experiencing a penalty stop for having 
less than 85 percent operative and effective brakes, a freight train 
operating in ECP brake mode may be moved if all of the following are 
met:
    (1) The train is visually inspected;
    (2) Appropriate measures are taken to ensure that the train is 
safely operated to the location where necessary repairs or changes to 
the consist can be made;
    (3) A qualified person determines that it is safe to move the 
train; and
    (4) The train is moved in ECP brake Switch Mode to the nearest 
forward location where necessary repairs or changes to the consist can 
be made.
    (e) A freight car or locomotive equipped with an ECP brake system 
that is found with inoperative or ineffective brakes for the first time 
during the performance of a Class I brake test or while en route may be 
used or hauled without civil penalty liability under this part to its 
destination, not to exceed 3,500 miles; provided, all applicable 
provisions of this section are met and the defective car or locomotive 
is hauled in a train operating in ECP brake mode.
    (f) A freight car equipped with an ECP brake system that is part of 
a train operating in ECP brake mode that is found with a defective non-
brake safety appliance may be used or hauled without civil penalty 
under this part to the nearest forward location where the necessary 
repairs can be performed consistent with the guidance contained in 
Sec.  232.15(f).
    (g) A train operating with conventional pneumatic brakes shall not 
operate with freight cars equipped with stand-alone ECP brake systems 
unless:
    (1) The train has at least the minimum percentage of operative 
brakes required by paragraph (h) of this section when at an initial 
terminal or paragraph (d) of this section when en route; and
    (2) The stand-alone ECP brake equipped cars are:
    (i) Moved for the purpose of delivery to a railroad receiving the 
equipment or to a location for placement in a train operating in ECP 
brake mode or being moved for repair to the nearest available location 
where the necessary repairs can be made in accordance with Sec. Sec.  
232.15(a)(7) and (f);
    (ii) Tagged in accordance with Sec.  232.15(b); and
    (iii) Placed in the train in accordance with Sec.  232.15(e).
    (h) A train equipped and operated with conventional pneumatic 
brakes may depart an initial terminal with freight cars that are 
equipped with stand-alone ECP brake systems provided all of the 
following are met:
    (1) The train has 100 percent effective and operative brakes on all 
cars equipped with conventional pneumatic brake systems;
    (2) The train has at least 95 percent effective and operative 
brakes when including the freight cars equipped with stand-alone ECP 
brake systems; and
    (3) The requirements contained in paragraph (g) of this section are 
met.
    (i) Tagging of defective equipment. A freight car equipped with an 
ECP brake system that is found with ineffective or inoperative brakes 
will be considered electronically tagged under Sec.  232.15(b)(1) and 
(b)(5) if the car is used or hauled in a train operating in ECP brake 
mode and the ECP brake system meets the following:
    (1) The ECP brake system is able to display information in the cab 
of the lead locomotive regarding the location and identification of the 
car with defective brakes;
    (2) The information is stored or downloaded, is secure, and is 
accessible to FRA and appropriate operating and inspection personnel; 
and
    (3) An electronic or written record of the stored or downloaded 
information is retained and maintained in accordance with Sec.  
232.15(b)(3).
    (j) Procedures for handling ECP brake system repairs and 
designation of repair locations. (1) Each railroad operating freight 
cars equipped with ECP brake systems shall adopt and comply with 
specific procedures developed in accordance with the requirements 
related to the movement of defective equipment contained in this 
subpart. These procedures shall be made available to FRA upon request.
    (2) Each railroad operating freight trains in ECP brake mode shall 
submit to FRA's Associate Administrator for Safety a list of locations 
on its system where ECP brake system repairs will be performed. A 
railroad shall notify FRA's Associate Administrator for Safety in 
writing 30 days prior to any change in the locations designated for 
such repairs. A sufficient number of locations shall be identified to 
ensure compliance

[[Page 50853]]

with the requirements related to the handling of defective equipment 
contained in this part.
    (k) Exceptions: All freight cars and trains that are specifically 
identified, operated, and handled in accordance with this section are 
excepted from the movement of defective equipment requirements 
contained in Sec.  232.15(a)(2), (a)(5) through (a)(8), and 232.103(d) 
and (e).


Sec.  232.611  Periodic maintenance.

    (a) In addition to the maintenance requirements contained in Sec.  
232.303(b) through (d), a freight car equipped with an ECP brake system 
shall be inspected before being released from a shop or repair track to 
ensure the proper and safe condition of the following:
    (1) ECP brake system wiring and brackets;
    (2) ECP brake system electrical connections;
    (3) Electrical grounds and impedance; and
    (4) Car mounted ECP brake system components.
    (b) Prior to placing a freight car equipped with an ECP brake 
system in revenue service, a railroad or a duly authorized 
representative of the railroad industry shall submit a procedure for 
conducting periodic single car tests to FRA for its approval pursuant 
to the special approval procedures contained in Sec.  232.17.
    (c) Except as provided in Sec.  232.303(e), a single car air brake 
test conducted in accordance with the procedure submitted and approved 
in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section shall be performed on 
a freight car equipped with an ECP brake system whenever any of the 
events identified in Sec.  232.305(e) occur, except for those 
paragraphs identified in paragraph (f) of this section.
    (d) A single car air brake test conducted in accordance with the 
procedure submitted and approved in accordance with paragraph (b) of 
this section shall be performed on each freight car retrofitted with a 
newly installed ECP brake system prior to placing or using the car in 
revenue service.
    (e) Modification of single car test standard. A railroad or a duly 
authorized representative of the railroad industry may seek 
modification of the single car test standard approved in accordance 
with paragraph (b) of this section. The request for modification will 
be handled and shall be submitted in accordance with the modification 
procedures contained in Sec.  232.307.
    (f) Exception. A freight car equipped with a stand-alone ECP brake 
system is excepted from the single car test requirements contained in 
Sec.  232.305(b)(2) and (f).


Sec.  232.613  End-of-train devices.

    (a) Prior to operating a freight train in ECP brake mode, a 
railroad, an ECP-EOT device manufacturer, or a duly authorized 
representative of the railroad industry may submit design, testing, and 
calibration standards related to ECP-EOT devices used on freight trains 
operating in ECP brake mode to FRA for its approval pursuant to the 
special approval procedures contained in Sec.  232.17. An ECP-EOT 
shall, at a minimum, serve as the final node on the ECP brake circuit, 
provide a cable terminal circuit, and monitor, confirm, and report 
train, brake pipe, and train line cable continuity, cable voltage, 
brake pipe pressure, and the status of the ECP-EOT device battery 
charge.
    (b) A railroad shall adopt and comply with the design, testing, and 
calibration standards approved pursuant to paragraph (a) of this 
section.
    (c) A railroad shall not move or use a freight train equipped with 
an ECP brake system unless that train is equipped with a functioning 
ECP-EOT device approved pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section and 
the railroad complies with paragraph (b) of this section. The ECP-EOT 
device must be properly connected to the network and to the train line 
cable at the end of the train.
    (d) Exception. A freight train operating in ECP brake mode is 
excepted from the end-of-train device requirements contained in subpart 
E of this part, provided that it is equipped with an ECP-EOT device 
complying with this section.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 23, 2007.
Joseph H. Boardman,
Federal Railroad Administrator.
[FR Doc. 07-4297 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P