[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 239 (Friday, December 11, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 80544-80580]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25817]



[[Page 80543]]

Vol. 85

Friday,

No. 239

December 11, 2020

Part VII





Department of Transportation





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





Federal Railroad Administration





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





49 CFR Parts 218, 221, and 232





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

  Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 80544]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Parts 218, 221, and 232

[Docket No. FRA-2018-0093, Notice No. 2]
RIN 2130-AC67


Miscellaneous Amendments to Brake System Safety Standards and 
Codification of Waivers

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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related regulations to improve clarity and remove outdated or 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

DATES: This final rule is effective December 11, 2020.
    Justification for Immediate Effective Date. FRA finds that this 
rule relieves current regulatory restrictions, thus in accordance with 
5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), FRA has determined it is appropriate to make the 
rule effective upon publication.
    Incorporation by Reference. The incorporation by reference of 
certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of 
the Federal Register as of December 11, 2020. The incorporation by 
reference of certain other publications listed in the rule was approved 
by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 15, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Zuiderveen, Senior Safety 
Specialist, Motive & Power Equipment Division, Office of Technical 
Oversight, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6337); Jason Schlosberg, 
Senior Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 
SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6032).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Supplementary Information

I. Executive Summary
    A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
    B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action
    C. Costs and Benefits of the Regulatory Action
II. Background
    A. Existing Regulations
    B. FRA Waiver Authority and Process
    C. Petition for Rulemaking and Review of Existing Waivers
    D. Identified Waivers
    E. Incorporation by Reference New and Updated Standards Under 1 
CFR 51.5
    F. Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) Advice and Input
    G. Comments Filed
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices
    A. E.O. 12866 and 13771, Congressional Review Act, and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and E.O. 13272
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Environmental Impact
    E. Federalism Implications
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    G. Energy Impact
V. The Rule

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    In a letter dated July 12, 2018, which is included in the public 
docket to this rulemaking proceeding, the Association of American 
Railroads (AAR) submitted a petition for rulemaking (Petition) 
requesting FRA relax the requirement to conduct a Class I brake test 
prior to operation if a train is off-air for a period of more than four 
hours, by extending the off-air period to twenty-four hours. On January 
15, 2020, FRA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) responding 
to AAR's petition, proposing codification of existing waivers related 
to brake systems, and making technical amendments to reduce regulatory 
burdens while maintaining or improving safety. 85 FR 2494, Jan. 15, 
2020. This rulemaking is a result of FRA's effort to streamline and 
update its regulations to reflect technological advances and lessons 
learned through feedback from all stakeholders. AAR submitted a 
separate rulemaking petition in March 2019 proposing amendments to part 
232 related to the industry's development of a rail car electronic air 
brake slip (eABS) system. FRA will address the recommendations in that 
petition in a separate rulemaking proceeding in Docket No. FRA-2019-
0072 (the ``eABS Rule'').

B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action

    In this final rule, FRA is incorporating into the regulations 
various long-standing waivers providing conditional exceptions to 
existing rules concerning air brake testing, end-of-train (EOT) 
devices, and helper service. FRA is also extending to 24 hours the time 
that freight rail equipment can be ``off-air'' before requiring a new 
brake inspection and is making various modifications to the existing 
brake-related regulations for clarity and is removing outdated or 
unnecessary provisions.

C. Costs and Benefits of the Regulatory Action

    FRA analyzed the economic impacts of this final rule over a 10-year 
period, and estimated its costs, cost savings, and benefits. For the 
final rule, FRA estimates net cost savings of $503.0 million (using a 
7% discount rate), and $594.6 million (using a 3% discount rate). The 
results of this analysis are displayed in the table below.

                              Table E-1--Total Costs and Cost Savings Over 10 Years
                                           [2017 Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Section                  Present value 7%  Present value 3%    Annualized 7%     Annualized 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs: Training.........................               (*)               (*)               (*)               (*)
Cost Savings:
    Helper Link.........................              $3.9              $4.5              $0.6              $0.5
    26-C Brake Valve....................               0.4               0.5              0.06              0.06
    D-22 Brake Valve....................               1.0               1.1               0.1               0.1
    24 Hours Off-air....................             325.6             386.2              46.4              45.3
    90 CFM..............................               1.8               2.1               0.3               0.2

[[Page 80545]]

 
    Single Car Air Brake Test (SCT) 24               150.7             176.1              21.5              20.6
     month..............................
    SCT 48 month........................              19.5              23.8               2.8               2.8
    Waiver Cost Savings.................               0.1               0.1              0.01              0.01
    Government Administrative Cost                     0.1               0.1              0.01              0.01
     Savings............................
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Cost Savings..............             503.0             594.6              71.6              69.7
        Net Cost Savings................             503.0             594.6              71.6              69.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures may not sum in this and subsequent tables due to rounding. Net Cost Savings = Cost Savings-Costs.
* De minimis.

    This final rule generally increases flexibility for the regulated 
entities by codifying waivers. It does not impose any new substantive 
requirements. This final rule will not negatively impact safety in any 
aspect of railroad operations and FRA does not expect any increase in 
end-of-train device or brake failures as a result of this rule. As 
noted in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) accompanying this rule, 
safety may be improved due to railroad employees experiencing less risk 
of common injuries such as slips, trips, and falls by having to perform 
fewer physical inspections, which would produce positive safety 
benefits, though these have not been quantified.

II. Background

A. Existing Regulations

    FRA regulations require the air brake systems of trains, and the 
air brakes of individual freight cars, to be inspected and tested in 
certain circumstances. The regulations provide for five primary types 
of brake system inspections: Class I (initial terminal inspection), 
Class IA (1,000-mile inspection), Class II (intermediate inspection), 
Class III (trainline continuity inspection), and the SCT.
    A Class I air brake test, also referred to as an initial terminal 
inspection, is a comprehensive inspection of the brake equipment on 
each car in an assembled train that is required to be performed at the 
location where a train is originally assembled, when the consist is 
changed pursuant to 49 CFR 232.205(a)(2) (e.g., other than by adding or 
removing a single car or solid block of cars, removing a defective car, 
or picking up multiple blocks of cars under the space or trackage 
constraints referenced by paragraph (b)(2)), and when a train is off-
air for a defined number of hours. Class I brake tests help ensure that 
a train is in proper working condition and capable of traveling to its 
destination with minimal problems en route. A Class I brake test 
requires the performance of a leakage test and in-depth inspection of 
the brake equipment (on both sides of the freight car) to ensure that 
each car's brake system is properly secure, does not bind or foul, and 
responds by applying or releasing in accordance with a specified brake 
pipe pressure signal. Piston travel must also be inspected and adjusted 
to a specified length if found not to be within a certain range of 
movement.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ When a car's brakes are applied, a piston in the brake 
cylinder travels (i.e., moves), causing the brake shoe to push 
against the wheel to create the braking action. Piston travel must 
be within specified limits to be capable of producing its designed 
retarding force in order for FRA to consider a car's brakes to be 
effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Class IA brake test--required every 1,000 miles--includes all the 
same elements of a Class I test, but with less stringent piston travel 
requirements. The most restrictive car or block of cars in a train 
determines the location where Class IA tests must be performed. For 
example, if a train travels 500 miles from its point of origination to 
a location where it picks up a block of cars that has travelled 800 
miles since its last Class I brake test, and the crew does not perform 
a Class I brake test when adding the cars, then the entire train must 
receive a Class IA brake test within 200 miles, even though that 
location is only 700 miles from the train's origination.
    Class II brake tests are less detailed inspections used for cars 
that do not have a compliant Class I inspection record that are picked 
up by a train at locations other than the initial terminal of the 
train, and where a Class I test cannot be performed. A railroad may 
utilize a Class II brake test where it is physically impossible to 
perform safely all of the requirements of the Class I brake tests; for 
example, where there is insufficient room to walk along both sides of 
the train. The Class II brake test includes a test for excessive brake 
pipe leakage, charging the air brakes to within 15 pounds per square 
inch (psi) of working pressure, making a 20-psi reduction in the brake 
pipe to actuate the brake, restoring pressure to working psi, releasing 
all brakes, and restoring full brake pipe pressure to the rear of the 
train. While a railroad may perform a Class II brake test, the rule 
requires a Class I brake test to be performed at the next available 
location in the car's line of travel in order to continue operating 
past that point. Due to the inefficiencies of this procedure, railroads 
generally perform the Class I brake tests in most instances where a 
Class II would be permitted as an alternative.
    A Class III brake test must be performed any time the brake pipe is 
opened on an operating train. The test includes charging the air brakes 
to working pressure (no less than 60 psi at rear of train), making a 
20-psi reduction in the brake pipe to actuate the brake on the rear car 
of the train, releasing the brake, and ensuring that pressure at the 
rear of the train is restored.
    In addition to the types of air brake tests noted above, the 
regulations require the brakes of individual cars to be maintained 
periodically and tested in certain circumstances. This test is known as 
an SCT and is used to validate individual air brake effectiveness. An 
SCT is required: At least every 8 years for new or rebuilt freight 
cars, at least every 5 years for all other freight cars, and any time a 
freight car is on a shop track or repair track, if the car has not had 
an SCT in the previous 12 months.
    A more in-depth summary, history, and analysis of the regulations 
affecting Class I, Class IA, Class II, and Class III brake tests, SCTs, 
and the operation and testing of end-of-train devices, are provided in 
the FRA final rule ``Freight and other non-passenger trains and 
equipment; brake system safety standards; end-of-train devices,'' 66 FR 
4104, Jan. 17, 2001; and two subsequent modifications to that final 
rule that FRA promulgated in response to petitions for reconsideration, 
66 FR 39683, Aug. 1, 2001, and 67 FR 17555, Apr. 10, 2002.

[[Page 80546]]

B. FRA Waiver Authority and Process

    When the existing rules do not adequately address or apply to the 
use of new and novel transportation technologies, industry stakeholders 
have often sought waiver of those rules through FRA's authorized 
process under subpart C to 49 CFR part 211. 49 U.S.C. 20103 (``The 
Secretary [of Transportation] may waive compliance with any parts of a 
regulation prescribed or order issued under this chapter if the waiver 
is in the public interest and consistent with railroad safety.''); 49 
CFR 1.89(a). Each properly filed petition for a permanent or temporary 
waiver of a safety rule, regulation, or standard is referred to the 
Safety Board for decision. 49 CFR 211.41(a). The FRA Railroad Safety 
Board's (Safety Board) decision is typically rendered after a notice is 
published in the Federal Register and an opportunity for public comment 
is provided. 49 CFR 211.41(b). If a waiver petition is granted, the 
Safety Board may impose conditions on the grant of relief to ensure the 
decision is in the public interest and consistent with railroad safety. 
49 CFR 211.41(c).
    Activity under a waiver of regulatory compliance may generate 
sufficient data and experience to support an expansion of its scope, 
applicability, and duration. For instance, in many cases FRA has 
expanded the scope of certain waivers or issued the same or similar 
waivers to additional applicants. FRA has also extended various 
waivers' expiration dates. A waiver's success and its continued 
expansion warrant consideration of regulatory codification. Codifying a 
waiver, and thereby making its exemptions and requirements universally 
applicable, allows the entire industry to benefit from the regulatory 
relief the waiver provides without incurring the costs associated with 
seeking a waiver.

C. Petition for Rulemaking and Review of Existing Waivers

    In December 2017, AAR filed a petition for waiver, on behalf of its 
members, from FRA's regulation requiring a Class I brake test prior to 
operation if a train is off-air for a period of more than four hours, 
contending it is too restrictive. Docket No. FRA-2017-0130. The Safety 
Board denied the waiver petition, finding that there was a lack of 
supporting data submitted with the waiver request, and that with the 
appropriate data, the relief requested was more appropriately addressed 
through the rulemaking process. Subsequently, in a letter dated July 
12, 2018--included in the public docket to this rulemaking proceeding--
AAR submitted a petition for rulemaking (Petition) requesting that FRA 
relax the requirement to conduct a Class I brake test prior to 
operation if a train is off-air for a period of more than four hours, 
by extending the off-air period to twenty-four hours. On January 15, 
2020, FRA issued an NPRM responding to AAR's petition, proposing 
codification of existing waivers related to brake systems, and making 
technical amendments to reduce regulatory burdens while maintaining or 
improving safety. This rulemaking is a result of FRA's effort to 
streamline and update its regulations to reflect technological advances 
and lessons learned through feedback from all stakeholders.
    In this final rule, FRA is also codifying waivers of compliance 
from rules affecting motive power and equipment (MP&E), including the 
aforementioned brake inspection requirements. Specifically, FRA is 
implementing changes to the regulations affecting: The use of EOT 
devices and Helper Link devices or similar technologies; higher air-
flow on distributed powered (DP) trains; and the performance of Class I 
air brake tests and SCTs. FRA is also making technical corrections to 
existing regulations.
    The waiver subject matters considered for codification are 
explained further below. FRA attempted to capture and identify the 
dockets for all substantially similar waivers affected by this 
rulemaking.
    There may be some substantially similar waivers not identified in 
the NPRM and this final rule, but still affected by this rulemaking. 
Each affected waiver, whether specifically referenced or not, remains 
in force for the time being unless it expires without extension or a 
direct beneficiary explicitly requests and receives termination of the 
waiver in accordance with part 211. FRA does not intend to terminate 
any waivers upon the effective date of a final rule, as it is possible 
that there are exceptions or conditions in some existing waivers that 
are not specifically codified in the final rule. Terminating waivers 
immediately upon the effective date of a final rule may unnecessarily 
complicate matters, especially considering many of the waivers will 
simply expire soon thereafter. If a regulated entity wishes to continue 
a waiver's provision not captured by this final rule beyond the 
expiration date of that waiver, that entity can petition the Safety 
Board for an extension of that provision.

D. Identified Waivers

    Below is a list of waiver petition dockets, organized by subject 
matter, which FRA has identified as potentially being affected by this 
final rule. The public docket for each listed waiver may be accessed at 
www.regulations.gov.
Air Flow Method
 Extending air flow limits (49 CFR 232.205(c)(1)(ii))
    [cir] BNSF Railway (BNSF), Canadian National Railway (CN), Canadian 
Pacific Railway (CP), and Union Pacific Railroad (UP) Docket No. FRA-
2012-0091
End-of-Train (EOT) Device
 Power source (49 CFR 232.403(f)(2))
    [cir] Wabtec Corporation (Wabtec), Docket No. FRA-2001-9270
    [cir] Quantum Engineering, Inc (Quantum) (now known as Siemens 
Industry, Inc. (Siemens)), Docket No. FRA-2006-25794
 Calibration (49 CFR 232.409(d))
    [cir] Wabtec, Docket No. FRA-2004-18895
    [cir] Ritron, Inc. (Ritron), Docket No. FRA-2009-0015
    [cir] DPS Electronics, Inc. (DPS), Docket No. FRA-2012-0096
    [cir] Siemens, Docket No. FRA-2015-0044
 Helper service (49 CFR 232.219(c))
    [cir] BNSF, Docket No. FRA-2006-26435
    [cir] Montana Rail Link (MRL), Docket No. FRA-2014-0013
 Marker lamp height (49 CFR 221.13(d))
    [cir] DPS, Docket No. FRA-2015-0023
    [cir] Siemens, Docket No. FRA-2017-0093
 Utility employee duties (49 CFR 218.22(c)(5))
    [cir] BNSF, Docket No. FRA-2001-10660
    [cir] Canadian Pacific Railway (CP), Docket No. FRA-2004-17989
Single Car Test
 Update to AAR Standard S-486-18 (49 CFR 232.305(a))
    [cir] AAR, Docket No. FRA-2018-0011
 Add AAR Standard S-4027-18 (49 CFR 232.305(a))
    [cir] BNSF and Union Pacific Railroad (UP), Docket No. FRA-2013-
0030
Automated Single Car Test
 Testing periodicity (49 CFR 232.305(b)(2))
    [cir] BNSF and UP, Docket No. FRA-2013-0030

[[Page 80547]]

Brake Systems for Covered Non-Freight Operations
 Add AAR Standard S-4045-13 (49 CFR 232.717(b)(2), formerly 
appx B, I, Sec.  232.17(b)(2))
    [cir] AAR, Docket No. FRA-2013-0063

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

    As required by 1 CFR 51.5, FRA has summarized the standards it is 
incorporating by reference in the section-by-section analysis to this 
preamble. The AAR standards summarized herein, and listed in the table 
directly below for convenience, are reasonably available to all 
interested parties for inspection. The standards can be obtained from 
the Association of American Railroads, 425 Third Street SW, Washington, 
DC 20024, telephone: (202) 639-2345, email: [email protected], 
website: https://aarpublications.com.

                           AAR Standards Incorporated by Reference in 49 CFR Part 232
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Year or      Section affected in 49
      Identification No.                         Title                       edition               CFR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S-469-01.....................  Performance Specification for Freight               2006  Sec.   232.103(l).
                                Brakes.
S-486-18.....................  Code of Air Brake System Tests for                  2018  Sec.   232.305(a).
                                Freight Equipment.
S-4027-18....................  Automated Single-Car Test Equipment,                2018  Sec.   232.305(a).
                                Conventional Brake Equipment-Design and
                                Performance Requirements.
S-4045-13....................  Passenger Equipment Maintenance                     2013  Sec.   232.717(e)(1).
                                Requirements.
S-4200.......................  Electronically Controlled Pneumatic                 2014  Sec.   232.603(f)(1).
                                (ECP) Cable-Based Brake Systems--
                                Performance Requirements.
S-4210.......................  ECP Cable-Based Brake System Cable,                 2014  Sec.   232.603(f)(1).
                                Connectors, and Junction Boxes--
                                Performance Specifications.
S-4230.......................  Intratrain Communication (ITC)                      2014  Sec.   232.603(f)(1).
                                Specification for Cable-Based Freight
                                Train Control System.
S-4250.......................  Performance Requirements for ITC                    2014  Sec.   232.603(f)(1).
                                Controlled Cable-Based Distributed
                                Power Systems.
S-4260.......................  ECP Brake and Wire Distributed Power                2008  Sec.   232.603(f)(1).
                                Interoperability Test Procedures.
N/A..........................  2020 Field Manual of the AAR Interchange            2020  Sec.   232.717(e)(1).
                                Rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    FRA received substantial advice and feedback from the RSAC on the 
contents of this rule prior to its initiation. FRA first established 
the RSAC in March 1996 under Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) to provide a forum for stakeholder 
groups to provide advice and recommendations to the FRA on railroad 
safety matters. In April 1996, the RSAC formed the Tourist and Historic 
Railroads and Private Passenger Car Working Group (THRWG). Since that 
time, the THRWG had considered numerous issues affecting tourist and 
historic rail operations and in August 2013, the THRWG accepted Task 
No. 13-01 to consider the applicability of FRA's regulations to 
historical or antiquated equipment that is used only for excursion, 
educational, recreational, or private transportation purposes. The 
THRWG met in Washington, DC on April 9-10, 2014, and reviewed, among 
other things, the safety glazing standards (49 CFR part 223) regarding 
the treatment of certain equipment; regulatory treatment under the 
freight car safety standards (49 CFR part 215) of non-commercial 
freight cars over 50 years old; and the scope and application of 
appendix B of 49 CFR part 232 (freight power brake standards). The 
THRWG also identified other issues involving FRA's regulatory treatment 
of tourist, scenic, historic, excursion, educational or recreational 
rail operations or private passenger rail car operations and equipment 
in other chapters of title 49, which FRA anticipates will be addressed 
in subsequent rulemakings. On December 4, 2014, the full RSAC accepted 
the THRWG's report. See RSAC Meeting Minutes, p. 12, https://rsac.fra.dot.gov/radcms.rsac/File/DownloadFile?id=44. Subsequently, in 
a July 24, 2019, meeting the THRWG reviewed and concurred with the 
proposed appendix B updates, which FRA is adopting, with minor 
revision, as new subpart H in this final rule.

G. Comments Filed

    In response to the NPRM, comments were filed by: AAR and the 
American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) 
(collectively, the ``Railroads''); the American Train Dispatchers 
Association, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen 
(BLET), the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, the Brotherhood Railway 
Carmen Division TCU/IAM, and the International Association of Sheet 
Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers--Transportation Division 
(collectively, ``Labor''); the Transport Workers Union of America 
(TWU); Wabtec and New York Air Brake (collectively, the ``Suppliers''); 
the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB); and various 
individuals.
    Comments related to specific proposals in the NPRM are addressed in 
the section-by-section analysis below (see part III of this preamble). 
FRA addresses the more general comments received directly below.
    An anonymous commenter generally contests the proposal, stating 
that safety regulation seems to be needed and that equipment should be 
placed out of service until brought up to ``these standards.'' TWU 
states the proposed changes would reduce the current safety standards 
for single car air brake tests, EOT devices, helper service, and brake 
maintenance and inspections. While there could be significant value in 
creating consistency between U.S. and Canadian regulations, and in 
incorporating newer safety technologies, TWU said the proposals 
downplay the cumulative magnitude of the changes and exclusively 
benefit the railroads' profit margins at the expense of safety. Labor 
alleged that FRA is ``cherry picking'' Canadian regulations to adopt. 
Labor further notes that, while FRA acknowledges its obligation to 
regulate ``in the public interest and consistent with railroad 
safety,'' the NPRM appears

[[Page 80548]]

(according to Labor) ``in the economic interests of the railroad and 
consistent with carrier convenience and higher profits.''
    While there are many similarities between the Canadian and U.S. 
railroad regulations, and further harmonization could benefit seamless 
international operations, it is not necessarily optimal for the two 
sets of regulations to mirror each other precisely. Each country's 
regulators have ample opportunity to observe and study one another's 
experiences, and take regulatory action to implement lessons learned. 
This measured approach allows for greater harmonization when 
appropriate. While there is merit in TWU's general position that any 
changes should be considered in the context of related regulations, TWU 
did not identify any particular related regulation for consideration. 
Similarly, the anonymous commenter generally critiques the safety 
measures proposed in the NPRM, but does not identify any specific 
measures and does not explain how any of the proposals would result in 
less safe rail operations.
    In response to the Labor concern that the proposed rule is in 
railroads' economic interest, FRA's first priority is safety. Further, 
this rule is based on safety data from U.S. and Canadian operations 
performed under regulations and longstanding FRA waivers. Labor has had 
multiple opportunities to provide input on these waivers and this 
rulemaking, has been an active participant on all test waivers, and has 
provided comments considered by FRA during those proceedings.
    Labor also commented and requested clarification on the 
applicability of waivers after issuance of this final rule, questioning 
what relief the rule would provide if railroads are still governed by 
the existing waivers as indicated in the NPRM and discussed above. As 
noted above, the purpose of this rulemaking is to extend the relief 
provided by the identified waivers to the entire railroad industry. 
While each waiver applies only to the petitioning entity or entities in 
defined situations, and only for a limited duration of time, this rule 
applies universally and eliminates the inefficiencies and uncertainties 
that result from having to periodically review and renew individual 
existing waivers. This final rule does not supersede the associated and 
affected waivers. While the final rule may have provisions mirroring 
and redundant of certain waivers, the waivers are still active and 
applicable. Unless this final rule differs from a particular waiver, 
very little should change for each entity benefiting from that waiver. 
However, any relief or condition remaining in an existing waiver that 
has not been codified by this final rule remains in force. For 
instance, there may be certain local conditions or extra information in 
the waiver not captured by this rule. It is up to each railroad or 
other waiver holder to decide whether it still wants or requires a 
waiver (or a modification to a waiver) after the final rule becomes 
effective.

III. Section-by-Section Analysis

    Unless otherwise noted, all section references below refer to 
sections in title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

Amendments to 49 CFR Part 218

Section 218.22 Utility Employee
    As stated in the 1993 final rule initially adopting Sec.  218.22, 
``Protection of Utility Employees,'' this section defines the 
circumstances under which a utility employee may be permitted to 
function as a member of a train or yard crew without the benefit of 
blue signal protection. 58 FR 43287, 43290, Aug. 16, 1993 (1993 final 
rule). FRA's blue signal regulations (found at 49 CFR part 218, subpart 
B) generally require that when ``workers'' are on, under, or between 
rolling equipment: (1) Blue signals be displayed in accordance with the 
requirements of part 218; and (2) the rolling equipment may not be 
coupled to, moved, or have equipment placed to obscure the blue signal 
protecting the protected track. 49 CFR 218.23. The regulations define a 
``worker'' as ``any railroad employee assigned to inspect, test, 
repair, or service railroad rolling equipment, or their components, 
including brake systems,'' but specifically exclude members of train 
and yard crews, except when they are assigned to inspect, test, repair, 
or service ``railroad rolling equipment that is not part of the train 
or yard movement they have been called to operate.'' 49 CFR 218.5.
    In the NPRM, FRA proposed two modifications to Sec.  218.22 related 
to blue signal protection. First, FRA proposed to replace the incorrect 
reference to ``subpart D'' in paragraph (c) to reflect the correct 
reference to the blue signal regulations in subpart B. Second, to 
incorporate longstanding waivers, FRA proposed to amend the list of 
functions in paragraph (c)(5) that a utility employee properly attached 
to a train or yard crew could perform without establishing blue signal 
protection to include the changing of a battery on a rear-end marking 
or EOT device, provided the battery can be changed ``without the use of 
tools.'' In the NPRM, FRA also invited commenters to identify other 
tasks that may justify being added to the list of exceptions from the 
blue signal requirements in the paragraph and to address the utility 
and feasibility of establishing a performance-based requirement as an 
alternative to listing specific tasks excluded from the blue signal 
requirements.
    FRA received no comments responding to its proposal to correct the 
erroneous reference to subpart D in paragraph (c). Accordingly, in this 
final rule, FRA is adopting this proposed amendment.
    In response to FRA's request for comments on the proposed revised 
list of functions in paragraph (c)(5), TWU commented that ``utility 
employees'' are often ``different employees each day or each hour, 
creating confusion and raising safety concerns.'' TWU suggests that 
this final rule permit designation of only one utility employee ``per 
shift/per day'' provided they are working under the 3-point protection 
\2\ of the train crew (currently Sec.  218.22 permits up to three 
utility employees to be attached to one train or yard crew at any given 
time).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``3-point protection'' is a railroad operating rule that 
provides protection for workers who are not required to use blue 
signal when fouling equipment. Exact language varies by railroad 
(some refer to the procedure as ``set and centered''); however, the 
most common steps are (1) placing the locomotive generator field 
switch in ``off'' position, (2) centering the reverser (i.e., 
placing the forward/reverse control in neutral), and (3) fully 
applying locomotive and train brakes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Labor generally asserts that exempting utility employees from blue-
flag protection when replacing an EOT device's battery would create an 
unnecessary risk because ``[i]f the switch behind the train isn't 
locked and another crew is free to line the switch, they could 
inadvertently line a switch into the train being worked upon, exposing 
the utility employee to unnecessary risk.'' Labor did not, however, 
explain why the alleged risk associated with a utility employee 
replacing an EOT device's battery is any different from the risks 
associated with a utility employee performing any of the existing 
functions listed in paragraph (c)(5). In addition, Labor provided no 
comment on the feasibility of establishing a performance-based 
requirement.
    The Railroads support FRA's proposal to codify the longstanding 
waivers permitting utility employees to replace batteries on EOT 
devices under Sec.  218.22. Further, the Railroads suggest that FRA 
delete the ``prescriptive list'' of functions applicable to utility 
employees and revise the rule instead to state that a properly attached 
utility employee working as a train crew member can perform all 
functions that

[[Page 80549]]

a train or yard crew member can perform. Referencing the preamble of 
the 1993 final rule, the Railroads assert that the list represents 
FRA's understanding at that time ``of all the functions train or yard 
crew members typically performed without blue signal protection.'' 
Railroads Comments at p. 2. The Railroads state that the ``use of a 
utility employee who is a member of a train crew is now ubiquitous 
across the entire industry'' and that after a utility employee properly 
attaches to a train or yard crew, he or she becomes a member of that 
train crew, functions in the same manner as a train crew member, and is 
a part of the constant communication that occurs between members of the 
train crew working as a team. The Railroads also assert that allowing a 
properly attached utility employee working as a train crew member to 
perform all functions that members of the train or yard crew can 
perform will ``likely improve safety by reducing unnecessary accident/
incident injury exposure to railroad employees caused by the physical 
act of establishing blue signal protection for utility employee 
activities that are not on the list.''
    FRA finds that the Railroads' comments may have merit and more 
substantial updates to Sec.  218.22 may be justified because the 
section has not been updated since its initial implementation almost 30 
years ago. Accordingly, FRA concludes that although a more substantial 
update to Sec.  218.22 may be justified, to allow appropriate notice 
and comment on any such update, FRA will address both the Railroads' 
comments and TWU's comments on Sec.  218.22 in a subsequent rulemaking.
    FRA is, however, adopting the revision to paragraph (c)(5) as 
proposed in the NPRM by amending the list of functions provided in that 
paragraph that do not require blue signal protection to include battery 
change-out on rear-end marking devices or end-of-train devices without 
tools. As noted in the NPRM, this revision effectively incorporates two 
longstanding waivers granted by FRA over a decade ago and under which 
each Class I railroad has operated successfully, with no reports of 
related injuries or incidents. This successful record demonstrates that 
the relief provided by waiver and adopted in this final rule is 
safe.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Docket No. FRA-2001-10660; Docket No. FRA-2004-17989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments to 49 CFR part 221

Section 221.13 Marking Device Display
    Section 221.13 includes EOT marking device display requirements. 
Paragraph (d) requires each marking device's centroid to be located at 
a minimum of 48 inches above the top of the rail. In the NPRM, FRA 
proposed to revise this requirement to 40 inches above the top of the 
rail based on two longstanding waivers that allowed the marker height 
measurement to be reduced to 41 and 42 inches, respectively. See Docket 
No. FRA-2015-0023; Docket No. FRA-2017-0093.
    Since FRA granted the waiver petitions, no accidents attributed to 
the lowered marker lamp height permitted have been reported through the 
FRA accident reporting system. As discussed in the NPRM, FRA proposed 
the change to allow the use of lighter weight and newer types of EOT 
devices that do not use heavy batteries. FRA expects the use of these 
devices, which can be mounted lower than the larger devices with heavy 
batteries, will improve safety by lowering the risk of injury to 
personnel handling the devices.\4\ FRA proposed a minimum height of 40 
inches above the top of the rail, so as not to interfere with the top 
of couplers (which are typically 38'' from the top of the rail) or 
other safety appliances, such as end sill handholds. FRA also proposed 
a minimum height of 40 inches above the top of the rail to ensure that 
the ergonomic advantages of the newer types of EOT devices are 
consistently realized (i.e., to avoid employees installing or 
maintaining the devices having to reach high or stoop low to access the 
devices). In proposing this change, FRA noted that the parties to the 
waivers had provided data showing no discernable visibility difference 
up to one mile away.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See DPS, ``FRA Waiver Request--49 CFR 232.221.13(d)--Marking 
Device Display, p. 2, Docket No. FRA-2015-0023, dated Mar. 9, 2015 
(posted Mar. 12, 2015) (``A 15 lb or less End of Train Device will 
enhance railroad safety for all North American Railways by reducing 
the risk of injuries.''); DPS, ``Incoming Waiver Extension-DPS--
Marking Light Centroid 2020,'' p. 2, Docket No. FRA-2015-0023, dated 
April 14, 2020 (posted April 24, 2020) (``A smaller lighter End of 
Train Device will enhance railroad safety for all North American 
railroads by reducing the risk of injuries.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TWU, Labor, and the Railroads filed comments. TWU states the change 
in permissible height is unnecessary and should be rejected because it 
is not based on any safety metric. Labor has ``no quarrel'' with any 
EOT weight or height, but questions the viewing distance metrics of 
0.5-1.0 mile. Labor asserts that FRA should measure from at least 1.5 
miles away, given the increased train lengths and the additional space 
need to come to a safe stop without incident. The Railroads propose 
allowing centroids to be as low as 36'' from the top of the rail to 
allow for design flexibility. According to the Railroads, the testing 
performed in support of the waivers at 36'' , with LED-equipped lamps, 
provides for adequate visibility from varying angles.
    FRA notes that under its waiver, DPS performed visibility field 
testing of marker lights placed at heights of 48 inches and 36 inches 
up to 2 miles away on flat, tangent track. In addition, FRA used its 
own experience and testing over distances up to a mile away to test and 
review the visibility of marker lights. Based on this testing, the data 
developed through the waivers, and FRA's experience, the previous 
threshold height of 48 inches and the new threshold height of 40 inches 
each permit EOT device marker light visibility from over one mile away 
if there are no obstructing curves or hills. In other words, on flat, 
tangent track, EOT marker lights at 48 inches and 40 inches are visible 
from 1.5 miles away. The range of 0.5-1.0 miles was cited by FRA as, 
oftentimes, there can to be some vertical undulation in the track or 
curves that could reduce the visibility below 1.5 miles. Due to the 
variability of light visibility, and without any comments proposing a 
specific safety metric, FRA was unable to develop a more reliable 
methodology.
    FRA notes that in its requests for waivers, the manufacturers 
requested that the marking device's centroid be permitted to measure 
41.3'' to 44.3'' from the top of rail. FRA also notes that although 
data submitted in the course of the waiver proceedings generally 
supported a 36'' marker light height, only a 40'' height has actually 
been tested under the waivers. In addition, a minimum marker light 
height of 36'' would potentially expose the device to damage from a 
neighboring coupler and risks fouling other safety appliances, 
including end sill handholds compliant with Sec.  231.1(i)(3)(ii). 
Also, the lower a marker's height, the more susceptible it is to mud 
spray from the track bed or to damage caused by low flying ballast 
rock, which may adversely affect the visibility of the marker light.
    In addition to changes to permissible marker light height, FRA also 
sought comment on the effects of using LED bulbs and the utility and 
feasibility of establishing a performance-based standard in lieu of the 
specific height requirements of this section. While FRA received no 
comments on bulb types or

[[Page 80550]]

the effects of using LED bulbs, the Railroads expressed support for 
replacing the technical height requirement with a performance-based 
standard addressing minimum distance and visibility requirements, 
claiming markers may become obsolete as train separation technologies 
continue to advance. The Railroads, however, provided no meaningful 
suggestion for such a standard.
    After considering all available waiver and testing data, and all 
comments received in response to the NPRM's proposal to revise 
paragraph (d) of Sec.  221.13, FRA concluded that additional 
flexibility in marker height could be allowed without adversely 
affecting marker visibility. Accordingly, in this final rule, FRA is 
revising paragraph (d) to require the centroid of any marking device to 
be located above the coupler, where its visibility is not obscured and 
it does not interfere with an employee's access to, or use of, any 
other safety appliance on the car.
Appendix A to Part 221 Procedures for Approval of Rear End Marking 
Devices
    As proposed in the NPRM, to correct typographical errors, FRA is 
modifying ``perscribed'' to ``prescribed'' in paragraph (a)(1)(2)(ii) 
and ``peformed'' to ``performed'' in paragraph (b)(3)(ii).

Amendments to 49 CFR Part 232

Section 232.1 Scope
    Paragraph (b) of Sec.  232.1 describes how the scope of Part 232 
would change in phases after the January 2001 publication of the final 
rule that created Part 232. Paragraph (c) and the final phrase of 
paragraph (d) include similarly antiquated instructions. Because the 
dates in these paragraphs have passed and are no longer relevant, as 
proposed in the NPRM, FRA is removing paragraph (b)'s historical 
schedule, paragraph (c) in its entirety, and the final phrase in 
paragraph (d) providing for earlier optional compliance. FRA is also 
moving paragraph (d) to paragraph (c).
Section 232.5 Definitions
    Section 232.5 defines certain terms as they are used in Part 232. 
The existing rule text refers to certain provisions of Sec.  232.1 to 
account for varying effective dates and its inapplicability to appendix 
B. Since those dates have passed, and appendix B is being moved to 
Subpart H, these cross-references are no longer necessary and are 
therefore being deleted from the introductory paragraph of Sec.  232.5.
    In the NPRM, FRA proposed to update the definition of ``Air flow 
method indicator, AFM'' to clarify that the definition includes 
digital, as well as analog, AFM indicators, and to specify that a 
digital version must have markings of equivalent or finer resolution to 
that specified by FRA for an analog device.
    FRA also proposed to add definitions for the terms ``Air repeater 
unit, ARU'' and ``APTA.'' FRA's proposed definition of ARU recognized 
that a specialized car, other rolling equipment, or containers in well 
cars could be used as an ARU by providing an additional brake pipe 
source responding to air control instructions from a controlling 
locomotive using a communication system such as a distributed power 
system. For an item to be considered an ARU under this definition, the 
communications must be akin to a distributed power system to ensure 
accurate and sufficient responses. The purpose and use of the 
technology, not its physical description, determines whether an item is 
an ARU. FRA purposefully recognizes this distinction to avoid limiting 
innovation and future options.
    Commenters concurred with FRA's proposal to update the ``Air flow 
method indicator, AFM'' definition and add the new definitions for the 
terms ``Air repeater unit, ARU'' and ``APTA.'' Accordingly, FRA is 
adopting the revisions to this section as proposed.
    In this final rule FRA is also adding a definition of the term 
``brake pipe gradient.'' In the existing rules (e.g., Sec. Sec.  
232.103(m) and 232.205(c)) and as discussed in the NPRM, FRA often 
describes the readily measured change in psi of air pressure between 
the front and rear of the train. This differential is often referred to 
as a ``brake pipe gradient'' or ``taper'' due to the shape of the graph 
line of the pressure as it reduces from source of air to rear of train. 
In certain circumstances, the brake pipe gradient also measures the 
pressure between additional air sources such as an ARU or distributed 
power unit (DPU). To ensure a common understanding of this term, FRA is 
defining ``Gradient, brake pipe'' in this final rule.
Section 232.11 Penalties
    This section contains provisions regarding penalties. As noted in 
the NPRM, the section contains references to specific penalty amounts 
that change over time as a result of the statutory requirement to 
periodically update penalties for inflation. Accordingly, in the NPRM, 
FRA proposed to replace the references to specific penalty amounts with 
general references to the minimum civil monetary penalty, ordinary 
maximum civil monetary penalty, and aggravated maximum civil monetary 
penalty. FRA also proposed additional language referring readers to 49 
CFR part 209, appendix A, where FRA specifies statutorily provided 
civil penalty amounts updated for inflation and to FRA's website 
(www.fra.dot.gov) which contains a schedule of civil penalty amounts 
used in connection with this part.
    As the Railroads note in their comments, the www.fra.dot.gov 
website address now defaults to FRA's new website address at 
www.railroads.dot.gov. FRA has updated the regulatory text accordingly. 
Interested parties may check FRA's website for any future changes to 
its civil penalty schedules.
Section 232.17 Special Approval Procedure
    In comments responding to proposed Sec.  232.407, the Railroads 
asked for language permitting the use of new and innovative 
technologies that could enhance or replace EOT devices or their 
capabilities. While Sec.  232.407 already provides for the use of an 
alternative technology to perform the same function, this concern is 
best addressed and clarified by including an opportunity for interested 
parties to seek and potentially receive special approval of such 
alternatives under Sec.  232.17. Accordingly, FRA has included Sec.  
232.407 in the list of sections affected by Sec.  232.17.
Section 232.103 General Requirements for All Train Brake Systems
    This section sets forth general requirements for brake systems of 
trains and incorporates the 1999 version of AAR's ``Performance 
Specification for Freight Brakes'' (AAR Standard S-469-47) at Sec.  
232.103(l). In the NPRM, FRA provided a regulatory history of the 
applicable regulations, orders, and standards (see 85 FR 2494, 2499, 
Jan. 17, 2020) and proposed to update this reference to incorporate the 
presently-available version of this AAR standard. AAR Standard S-469-01 
defines and prescribes requirements for power brakes and appliances for 
operating power brake systems. Accordingly, FRA is updating the 
citation to the presently available S-469, and to reflect AAR's correct 
address.
    The Railroads submitted comments concurring with FRA's proposal to 
update the incorporation by reference, but encouraged amendments to the 
incorporation by reference regulations to provide for more timely 
codifications of updated industry standards. The incorporation by 
reference regulations,

[[Page 80551]]

found at 1 CFR part 51, are under the purview of the Director of the 
Federal Register. Because FRA has no authority to amend those 
regulations, we cannot address the Railroads' concerns.
    Labor expressed concern under this section regarding high air flow 
rates and the reduction of 8 psi regarding pressure taper limits. FRA 
discusses those concerns below in the section-by-section discussion of 
Sec.  232.205--Class I brake test-initial terminal inspection.
    Although not proposed in the NPRM, in reviewing comments to this 
section, FRA determined a need to revise Sec.  232.103(m) to make clear 
that if a train experiences a brake pipe gradient greater than 15 psi, 
it must be stopped at the next available location and inspected for 
leaks. This is not a substantive revision, but merely conforms 
paragraph (m) of this section to paragraph (c) of Sec.  232.205 to 
remove any confusion. As currently written, the ``15-psi gradient for 
trains en route'' provision in that paragraph could be read to apply 
only to trains tested with an AFM indicator. Such a reading, however, 
is incorrect and directly conflicts with Sec.  232.205(c), which 
requires a train's gradient to be no more than 15 psi, regardless of 
whether brake pipe pressure is measured using the leakage test or with 
an AFM indicator. See also 66 FR 4104, 4169, Jan. 17, 2001 (``[T]he AFM 
should be permitted as an alternative on any train provided the 15-psi 
gradient is maintained on the train . . . The brake-pipe gradient of 15 
psi has been retained for both the leakage and air flow method of train 
brake testing.''). Accordingly, FRA is revising Sec.  232.103(m) to 
conform the ``15-psi gradient for trains en route'' provision to the 
corresponding provision in Sec.  232.205(c).
Section 232.203 Training Requirements
    Section 232.203 contains training requirements for operators, and 
for employees who perform brake system inspections, tests, or 
maintenance. Specifically, paragraph (c) requires railroads to adopt 
and comply with a training program specifically addressing the testing, 
operation, and maintenance of two-way EOT devices for employees who are 
responsible for testing, operation, and maintenance of the devices. In 
the NPRM, FRA expressed concern with the safety risks associated with 
the loss of communication events between the controlling locomotive and 
the EOT device. As discussed in the NPRM, radio communication between 
the controlling locomotive and the EOT device is critical to proper 
brake functioning. If communications are interrupted, an EOT device 
will not be able to initiate emergency braking when requested. Under 
existing Sec.  232.407(g), communication between the EOT device and the 
controlling locomotive can be lost for up to 16 minutes and 30 seconds 
before the engineer is notified. If an engineer encounters a situation 
necessitating an emergency brake application during a loss of 
communication, the engineer may have to request an emergency brake 
application multiple times before the system responds.
    Accordingly, in the NPRM, FRA sought comments on the frequency and 
duration of communication losses; what operational and technological 
solutions for communication loss the industry has considered and 
implemented; what should be done to ensure an emergency signal is sent 
and received by the system when needed even in the event of a temporary 
communications loss; and what has and should be done to alert the 
locomotive engineer that a loss of communication has occurred.
    The Railroads' response listed factors that may affect the 
frequency and duration of communication losses and some ``comprehensive 
solutions'' they have implemented and will continue to implement--
including repeaters; high-gain EOT antennas; event, fault, and data-
logging technologies; and the design and installation of multicast 
repeating capabilities and more robust hardware--to help mitigate such 
losses. The Railroads are also looking at the next generation of EOT 
devices currently under development, which are expected to utilize 
advanced communications strategies and more robust hardware design. The 
Railroads, however, offered no truly comprehensive solutions to address 
the risk of extended losses of communications in the interim.
    The NTSB filed public comments suggesting that FRA revise Sec.  
232.405 to require a shorter duration between failed communication 
checks before the engineer is notified. Until the EOT device receives a 
head-end confirmation of having received a message regarding a 
communication loss, NTSB recommends that FRA require each telemetry 
system (i.e., the communication system between an EOT device and the 
controlling locomotive) to initiate continuously an emergency brake 
command transmission until a confirmation message or a decrease in 
brake pipe pressure message is received. Labor similarly recommended 
that FRA require telemetry systems to continuously initiate an 
emergency brake until the subject train comes to a complete stop. In 
addition, Labor recommended that telemetry systems enforce a complete 
safe stop upon loss of communications lasting longer than 4 minutes and 
59 seconds.
    FRA appreciates the Railroads' explanation of technologies and 
efforts it uses, or plans to use, to mitigate concerns relating to 
telemetry communications loss. While most of those identified have yet 
to materialize, FRA looks forward to considering them in the future.
    FRA agrees in principle with the desire of NTSB and Labor to 
minimize the potential impact of communication losses. However, neither 
NTSB nor Labor provided any evaluation of the anticipated impacts of 
the recommended actions (that FRA require each telemetry system to 
initiate continuously an emergency brake command transmission until a 
confirmation message or a decrease in brake pipe pressure message is 
received, or that FRA require that telemetry systems enforce a complete 
safe stop upon loss of communications lasting longer than 4 minutes and 
59 seconds), estimate of the resulting costs to the railroads and the 
public, or quantified the safety benefits of the recommended actions. 
Given that there are thousands of telemetry systems in use throughout 
the railroad industry today, FRA finds that the costs of requiring such 
a change would be significant and FRA does not currently have 
sufficient data to determine the likely resulting benefits. 
Accordingly, it is premature at this time to adopt either of the 
recommended solutions because the potential impacts of the recommended 
solutions are not yet understood.
    Instead, to address the safety risks involved with potential losses 
of communication, FRA is revising the training requirements at Sec.  
232.203(c) to ensure that employees who operate EOT equipment are 
trained in the limitations and proper use of the equipment's emergency 
application signal and loss of communications indicator.
Section 232.205 Class I Brake Test-Initial Terminal Inspection
    Section 232.205 contains the requirements for conducting Class I 
brake tests-initial terminal inspections. Pursuant to Sec.  232.205, a 
Class I brake test must be performed when a train is initially 
assembled, the consist is changed in certain ways (by adding or 
removing cars), or a train is off-air for more than four hours. Section 
232.205 provides two methods for conducting Class I brake tests on 
standard pressure-maintaining brake valves: (1) A leakage test; or (2) 
an air flow test method.

[[Page 80552]]

    Based on data submitted by AAR in support of their Petition, 
including data garnered from Canadian rail operations, FRA (in the 
NPRM) proposed extending the duration of the off-air limitation.\5\ FRA 
also proposed revisions to the brake pipe leakage requirements during 
certain Class I air brake tests, and requirements associated with the 
calibration of AFM indicators used to conduct Class I brake tests using 
the air flow test method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See also amendments to Sec. Sec.  232.209, 232.211 and 
232.217 in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, FRA also sought comments on its analysis leading to 
the proposal, including the accuracy and sufficiency of the data on 
which it based the NPRM. FRA requested comment on the reasons 
underlying Canada's lower rates of air-brake-related failures that 
would better inform FRA of the off-air requirement's impact. In 
addition, FRA requested comment on whether a time off-air tracking 
system is necessary or if there are other means for FRA to determine 
the amount of time equipment is left off a source of compressed air. 
FRA also requested comment on potential regulatory alternatives to a 
time off-air limit that would address the same safety risks and ensure 
that, despite equipment being off-air for any length of time, the 
equipment's air brakes are in proper working order.
    Generally, the Railroads, Suppliers, and at least two individual 
commenters, submitted comments in support of the proposed revisions, 
while Labor and other commenters expressed concern about the proposed 
revisions. For the reasons explained below, in this final rule FRA is 
adopting revisions to this section as proposed and, in response to 
comments received, FRA is clarifying certain requirements related to 
the use of ARUs.
Off-Air Requirement
    As noted above, and as discussed in more detail in the preamble to 
the NPRM (see 85 FR 2499), under the existing regulation, if a train or 
other equipment (e.g., individual cars) is left unattached to any air 
source (e.g., locomotive, yard air) for more than four hours, it must 
receive a Class I brake test prior to further operation of the train. 
49 CFR 232.205(a)(3). Moreover, to ensure that an air brake system did 
not degrade, and to allow a railroad to delay a full-train Class I test 
in many circumstances, under the existing regulation equipment off-air 
for more than four hours may require a Class I or II test prior to 
being added to an en route train, and will require a Class III brake 
test prior to being operated in revenue service. 49 CFR 232.209(a)(1) 
and 232.211(a)(3)-(a)(5). This requirement also affects yard air 
applications. 49 CFR 232.217(c)(1). For a more detailed discussion of 
requirements related to Class I brake tests and a substantial history 
and analysis of the off-air requirement, see 66 FR 4103, 4122, Jan. 17, 
2001.
    In the NPRM, FRA proposed to extend the four-hour off-air 
requirement to 24 hours. The Railroads and Suppliers submitted comments 
supporting FRA's proposal to increase the off-air requirement from 4 to 
24 hours. The Railroads assert that the data provided by AAR cited in 
the NPRM shows that ``time off-air is now not relevant to safe air 
brake functioning'' and that improvements in air brake components have 
``greatly reduced'' brake pipe leakage. Citing Canada's experience, and 
supplying TTCI test data as further support, the Railroads state that 
there is no safety detriment to cars being off-air for 24 or 48 hours 
or more. Further, the Railroads assert that although FRA revised the 
air brake regulations in 2001, those revisions did not reflect the 
safety enhancements that had been gained since the 1950's and that 
further brake system improvements have been made since 2001 concerning 
brake pipe leakage-mitigation and moisture and contaminate removal. In 
response to FRA's request for comment on the data on which the NPRM was 
based, the Railroads expressed their confidence in the accuracy and 
sufficiency of the data.
    The Railroads also contend that extending the amount of time that 
equipment may be left off-air without requiring another Class I brake 
inspection would result in positive financial, environmental, and 
operational benefits. A larger time window for equipment to remain off-
air would reduce the amount of time locomotives would stand idling, 
which may disturb communities with noise, vibration, and emissions. In 
addition, the larger time window could result in trains clearing 
highway-rail grade crossings more expeditiously in certain 
circumstances by allowing trains to be cut at crossings while awaiting 
a crew change. According to the Railroads, permitting 24-hours off-air 
would reduce idling that results in an annual $2 million in fuel 
savings and a 3,600-ton reduction of carbon dioxide emissions.
    A separate comment filed by an individual asserted that a primary 
benefit of the proposal would be to help decrease each railroad's fuel 
consumption and carbon footprints. This commenter notes that extending 
the time off-air limitation would allow railroads to shut down 
locomotives rather than leave them idling to keep air in cars' brake 
lines.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Environmental issues, like those referenced by the comments 
summarized in this paragraph, are considered in section IV.D, infra, 
and in this final rule's Regulatory Impact Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its comments, TWU contends AAR's supporting factors for this 
proposal--the ``alleged'' technological advancements and the interest 
in aligning U.S. and Canadian regulations--were the same used by AAR, 
and rejected by FRA, in the final rule published January 17, 2001. 
Quoting extensively from that rule, TWU posits that ``while some 
technology has progressed, none of [that final rule's] logic has been 
undermined.'' Specifically, TWU states that although air dryers or 
other moisture-mitigating systems may indicate progress, not all 
locomotives are equipped with these systems and these systems do not 
eliminate the freeze-up problems caused by moisture. Moreover, noting 
that AAR's tests with these technologies were performed on a consist of 
only 20 hopper and gondola cars, TWU asserts that the testing 
conditions fell ``well short'' of replicating actual conditions in the 
industry and do not consider trains consisting of 80 to 100 or more 
cars, each car's age and condition, extreme climates, or old and water-
saturated yard air plants.
    TWU also contends that aligning U.S. regulations with the off-air 
hours permitted by Canada ignores each country's differing safety 
structures and other factors. Labor also objects to FRA's attempt to 
harmonize with Canadian regulations, alleging that FRA is ``cherry 
picking'' Canadian standards without holistically considering Canada's 
much more stringent standards. Neither TWU or Labor provide any 
substantive information or comment on Canada's alleged differing safety 
structure or more stringent standards.
    In addition, Labor commented that extensions to the off-air 
requirement should be handled collaboratively through the RSAC process. 
Labor asserts that in 2001, FRA supported a four-hour off-air 
requirement partially out of concern about the potential for vandalism 
to affect braking systems negatively. Labor contends there is no data 
suggesting anything has changed. Labor also asserts that, instead of 
extending the off-air requirement, and thus reducing the number of 
inspections performed, FRA should require better walking conditions at 
inspection locations to mitigate employee risk. Labor argues AAR's 
position describing

[[Page 80553]]

the four-hour off-air limit as ``too restrictive'' is merely 
subjective. According to Labor, the four-hour off-air rule should 
remain because four hours is necessary in cold weather conditions where 
freeze-ups can occur and vandalism continues to exist. Labor also 
contends that the time and costs associated with brake tests are less 
than any potential damages resulting from a defect. Like TWU, Labor 
believes that FRA should develop its own data, and not rely on AAR 
data, regarding the number of slips, trips, and falls.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Labor also objects to AAR's request (in its separate eABS 
rulemaking petition) to consider increasing the allowed mileage 
between brake inspections when railroads use an eABS system. Labor's 
comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking and FRA will 
address Labor's comments on this issue in the appropriate rulemaking 
proceeding (i.e., the eABS rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One individual commenter--an employee and mechanical officer of 
multiple freight and passenger railroads--expressed support for the 
proposal to extend the off-air limitation to 24 hours. This commenter 
asserted that reinspection of cars adds significant risk to employees, 
citing the requirements for employees to establish blue signal 
protection, setting necessary switches and derails, and walking the 
train two complete times to observe the set and release.
    Another individual commenter, a freight conductor, suggests that 
FRA analyze the impact of the proposed extension of the off-air 
requirement on brake cylinder piston extension timing, rather than on 
the rate of line-of-road failures (expressed as emergency brake 
applications), for which a specific mechanical cause was not found. The 
commenter states that in his experience he has found that typically 
between 2%-5% of the car brakes will not initially apply during a test 
of a fully charged system.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The commenter also questions why FRA restricts block 
swapping and seeks clarification on Class I test requirements for 
cars added to trains en route. Because those issues appear to be 
beyond the scope of this rulemaking, FRA declines to discuss them 
here. For an explanation of the block swapping limitations under 
Sec.  232.205, please refer to the preamble of the 2001 final rule. 
See, e.g., 66 FR 4104, 4119 and 4168, Jan. 17, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After consideration of all comments submitted to the docket and all 
available data, FRA concludes that extending the existing 4-hour off-
air limitation to 24-hours is justified. The technological improvements 
to the air brake systems, introduced and proliferated both before and 
subsequent to FRA's 2001 rule, have been beneficial in improving the 
overall health of brake systems. Moreover, the supporting information 
comparing Canadian and U.S. operations provided in Appendix 7 to AAR's 
Petition clearly demonstrates the safety of extending the permitted 
off-air limit to 24 hours. In favor of the reliability of these data is 
the fact that they include same-railroad results (based on CN and CP 
data) showing fewer undesired and unintended emergency brake 
applications occurring in Canada than in the U.S. See AAR Petition for 
Rulemaking, July 12, 2018, Appendix 7, Slide 4. While the TTCI 
technology test data submitted by AAR are based on a sound premise, FRA 
did not rely on the TTCI technical test data alone to support this rule 
given the small sample size (i.e., 20 cars tested over the course of 5 
days) and the much more relevant safety information from the Canadian 
railroads' operational data that spanned a full year.
    FRA expects that a reduced number of brake inspections based on a 
24-hour off-air limit will lead to a reduced number of injuries that 
can occur during those inspections (e.g., slips, trips, and falls), 
though FRA does not have sufficient data to determine quantifiable 
safety benefits. FRA finds Labor's argument that the data AAR submitted 
quantifying slips, trips, and falls incurred during brake tests to be 
misplaced because the data is based on data submitted by Labor's own 
constituents to their employing railroads. The railroads, in turn, 
compile and submit the data each month to FRA as required by FRA's 
accident/incident reporting regulations (49 CFR part 225). FRA then 
aggregates the submitted data and such aggregated data is then 
available on FRA's public database located at https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov. Thus, FRA considers these data to be of the 
type the agency routinely relies upon to inform its rulemakings, as is 
done here.
    FRA does not share Labor's concerns about vandalism of air brakes. 
FRA's accident database contains no information indicating that 
vandalism of air brakes has had any significant relationship to air 
brake-caused accidents. Labor has not submitted any data to support its 
concerns and no other commenters provided any information on vandalism.
    FRA further notes that Labor provided no data to support its belief 
that the costs of more frequent Class I brake tests, as presently 
performed, are significantly less than the costs resulting from 
accidents that could have been avoided by the performance of such 
tests. Regarding Labor's recommendation that FRA mandate ``better 
walking conditions,'' FRA notes this is outside of the scope of this 
rule. Finally, despite Labor's desire to involve the RSAC process, FRA 
does not anticipate that asking RSAC to address this matter would 
provide any additional meaningful insight into the technical validity 
of extending the off-air limitation period.
    With regard to the individual commenter's concern that he has to 
apply brakes a second time for 2-5% of the freight cars he inspects, he 
does not correlate this experience with the length of time the affected 
cars have been off-air. FRA notes that regardless of whether equipment 
is off-air for four or 24 hours, 100% of the brakes must apply for a 
Class I brake test to be successful.
    A multitude of variables affect brake system integrity (e.g., 
environmental factors such as temperature and humidity, operational 
factors,\9\ age, and overall condition of the equipment). The longer 
equipment remains off air, the greater opportunity these factors have 
to affect brake system integrity. Moreover, despite the many technical 
advancements in air brake technology, the structure of conventional air 
brake systems on rail equipment involves many car-to-car connections, 
which by nature cause the systems to experience gradual leaks once 
removed from an air source. For example, as noted in the NPRM, in its 
2013 report on the Lac-M[eacute]gantic, Quebec accident, the 
Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) cited two previous 
instances of air brake failures concerning rail equipment that, when 
left off-air, leaked and unintentionally released. Accordingly, absent 
universal installation, use, and regulatory oversight of acceptable 
brake health effectiveness and monitoring technologies (e.g., wheel 
temperature detectors, electronic brake valves, eABS),\10\ besides 
triggers such as mileage or reclassification, time off air remains the 
only metric for ensuring brake system integrity. While FRA intends to 
address some of these technologies in future proceedings, no commenter 
has identified an alternative to a time off-air limit that would 
address the same safety risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Examples of operational factors may include the use of power 
braking, train length, time taken to inspect equipment, and quality 
of compressed air from locomotives or yard air plants.
    \10\ See, e.g., Docket Nos. FRA-2005-21613, FRA-2016-0018, FRA-
2018-0049, FRA-2019-0072.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Railroads commented that FRA's discussion of the TSB report 
``does not promote public confidence in the agency's objective and 
fact-based approach to rulemaking.'' However, FRA believes that 
considering an objective, fact-based report, from Canada's equivalent 
of the NTSB, to be the exact type of action that would inspire public 
confidence in the

[[Page 80554]]

transparency and thoroughness of the agency's rulemaking process.
    Recognizing that Canada permits equipment to remain off-air without 
a brake inspection for up to 48 hours upon notification to Transport 
Canada (TC),\11\ as noted in the NPRM, FRA requested comment on 
potentially extending the off-air limit to 48 hours in certain 
circumstances. FRA also sought comment on how often this provision is 
utilized in Canada and under what circumstances it is used. FRA 
received no comments or information in response to the extent of this 
provision's use in Canada. Citing the technological improvements in air 
brakes discussed above, the Railroads, however, suggest that FRA should 
universally extend the off-air limitation to 48 hours. The Railroads 
assert that equipment is ``routinely permitted to be off-air for 48 
hours'' without approval from TC. Alternatively, if FRA chooses to 
adopt a universal 24-hour off-air rule, with a 48-hour limit only 
applicable in certain circumstances, the Railroads state they should be 
permitted to designate a list of ``extended off-air locations'' where 
equipment may remain off-air for up to 48 hours without requiring a new 
Class I air brake test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Railway Freight and Passenger Train Brake Inspection 
and Safety Rule (``Canadian Rule''), section 11.2(b), Transport 
Canada, Oct. 27, 2014, available at https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/rules-tco0184-139.htm#section11 (``A No.1 brake test is 
not required on: A block swap of cars that have been off-air for no 
more than 24 hours or 48 hours after notifying the department.''). A 
copy of this rule is included in Appendix 3 of AAR's Petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Suppliers fully support allowing a 48-hour off-air restriction, 
believing it is appropriate to align these regulations with the 
Canadian Rule that demonstrates the successful implementation of 
increased off-air time.
    While the Railroads and Suppliers expressed support for allowing a 
48-hour off-air restriction, FRA received no comments in response to 
requests for comment on the Canadian experience with such an allowance, 
nor any comments on the potential applicability of the notification 
procedures in Sec. Sec.  232.207(c)(2) and 232.213(a)(1). FRA 
understands TC receives only a small number of 48-hour off-air 
notifications per year (no more than 12), primarily from two locations 
during three-day holiday weekends or special situations such as labor 
strikes. Such sparse use of Canada's 48-hour provision does not make it 
routine, as the Railroads suggest.
    Because there is not sufficient data demonstrating the safety 
impact of extending the off-air limit beyond 24 hours, in this final 
rule, FRA is not extending the limit beyond 24 hours.
    As noted in the NPRM, FRA remains concerned with its ability to 
provide oversight concerning cars left off-air for extended periods of 
time. While FRA has historically used train and car movement records, 
the presence of any ground air sources, and witness interviews to 
verify equipment's time off-air, those tools will likely prove 
insufficient over 24 hours. In the NPRM, FRA did not propose a specific 
solution to this concern, but sought comment on whether a requirement 
for tracking off-air time is necessary or whether there are other means 
by which FRA could determine the amount of time equipment is left off a 
source of compressed air. FRA asked for comment on what types of 
tracking systems are available and how tracking data should be 
maintained. FRA also sought comment on the potential burden or benefit 
of a tracking requirement.
    In their comments, the Railroads do not support an off-air time 
tracking requirement, claiming that railroads already track off-air 
time and there is no one-size-fits all solution. The Railroads, 
however, do not explain or provide any information as to how industry 
currently tracks each equipment's time-off-air. The Railroads also do 
not provide any insight into how, if the off-air limit is extended to 
24 hours, FRA could determine the amount of time specific equipment is 
left off-air. Instead, the Railroads point to FRA's rule allowing the 
use of ECP brakes (Sec.  232.607(b)(4)(i)). The ECP brake rule permits 
trains operating in ECP brake mode to remain off-air for 24 hours 
between Class I brake tests and also does not include any method for 
tracking equipment's time off-air.
    ECP brakes are fundamentally different than traditional air brakes. 
ECP brake systems have self-diagnostic capabilities (i.e., ECP brake 
systems self-report system health in real time to the operator). 
Therefore, Sec.  232.607's allowance for freight trains operating in 
ECP brake mode to remain off-air for 24 hours is not an appropriate 
indicator of whether a time off-air tracking system is needed for 
traditional freight equipment.
    Despite the above concerns, FRA is not establishing a time-tracking 
requirement in this final rule. Such a requirement is more 
appropriately considered in the eABS Rule. FRA notes, however, that 
railroads remain legally obligated to comply with the off-air 
requirement adopted in this final rule. As such, railroads will need to 
adopt and comply with a methodology to determine that the equipment in 
its trains comply with the new off-air rule. FRA will continue to 
monitor each railroad's implementation of the off-air requirement and 
appropriately utilize its available oversight and enforcement tools 
(including civil penalties) to enforce its compliance.
Brake Pipe Leakage Limit
    As explained in the NPRM, Sec.  232.205, as currently written, 
provides two methods for conducting Class I brake tests on pressure-
maintaining brake valves such as the standard 26-L brake valve: (1) A 
leakage test; or (2) an air flow method test. See Sec.  
232.205(c)(1)(i), (ii). It is physically impossible to prevent all 
leakage from a train's brake pipe given the mechanical connections 
between cars' air hoses (i.e., a certain amount of air will always leak 
through the mechanical connections) and each method of testing measures 
the pressure drop in a train's brake pipe in different ways. The 
leakage test measures the amount of compressed air that leaks from the 
brake pipe, while the air flow test method measures the amount of 
compressed air the pressure maintaining valve puts back into the brake 
pipe to maintain the line's pressure. Regardless of the test method 
employed, Sec.  232.205 requires the pressure at the rear of the train 
to be within 15 psi of the pressure that the train will be operated at 
(known as the ``gradient'' or ``pressure taper'').
    When conducting a Class I test using the air flow method, paragraph 
(c)(1)(ii)(B) prohibits brake pipe leakage from exceeding 60 cubic feet 
per minute (CFM). In the NPRM, FRA proposed increasing the limit to 90 
CFM when a DPU or an ARU is utilized.
    The traditional air flow test is measured from a single point of 
air flow, at the controlling locomotive of the train. In other words, 
the traditional air flow test measures the amount of air the 
controlling locomotive's brake system is putting back into the train's 
brake pipe. Because the air originates at a single source (the 
controlling locomotive) and travels sequentially through each car's air 
brake system, each connected via a mechanical air hose, gradually the 
pressure in the train's brake pipe tapers off. DP trains have 
locomotives located at two or more locations in the train, providing a 
more uniform distribution of power to reduce in-train forces and 
provide multiple supplies of air brake pressure and control. Similarly, 
air brake repeater boxcars or containers mounted in well cars, and 
other equipment serving the same purpose as these ARUs, have been used 
to provide multiple sources of air brake pressure and control. Because 
use of DP locomotives and ARUs provide multiple

[[Page 80555]]

sources of air, the total leakage from the brake pipe can be greater 
than 60 CFM, as long as each individual source of air is controlling a 
portion of the brake pipe that leaks less than 60 CFM, causing the 
overall average brake pipe pressure to be better controlled than it 
would be with a single source of air.
    As explained in more detail in the NPRM, since 2011, Canadian 
railroads have operated with the higher air flow limit of 90 CFM on DP 
trains. Under a waiver issued by FRA in Docket No. FRA-2012-0091 (test 
waiver), several Class 1 railroads in the U.S. have tested and operated 
with air flow limits of 90 CFM on DP trains. With the exception of one 
unintentional brake release that occurred during testing, all trains 
tested in the U.S. were operated safely and without incident. Of the 
one train that experienced an unintentional brake release, the test 
committee overseeing the operations concluded that the occurrence was 
an anomaly and not related to the test.
    In the NPRM, FRA proposed to revise Sec.  232.205(c)(ii)(B) to 
allow the use of a combined 90 CFM air flow limit on DP and ARU-
equipped trains, provided railroads implement operating rules to ensure 
compliant operation of a train if air flow exceeds these parameters 
after the Class I brake test is completed. The combined air flow is 
derived by the sum of the air flow from all air sources in the train. 
Comments were filed by the Railroads, Labor, and an individual 
commenter.
    The Railroads concur with FRA's proposal to permit the use of 90 
CFM and a requirement to update each railroad's operating rules to 
address its use. An individual commenter expressed a high level of 
confidence in the safe use of 90 CFM during a leakage test with 
additional air sources. According to the commenter, adding air sources, 
especially during cold weather conditions, could mitigate risk and even 
allow the safe use of a 160 CFM limit.
    Labor expressed concern regarding high air flow rates and the 
reduction of 8 psi regarding pressure taper limits.\12\ Labor believes 
90 CFM is too high a limit, because ``greater air compressor power 
should mean need less effort expended and less overall airflow due to 
having more compressors working to maintain pressure [sic].'' Labor 
seeks additional information on the unintentional release that occurred 
during the test waiver in the U.S. Labor also notes that the NPRM is 
silent regarding how an ARU, as defined, will be inspected, tested and 
maintained. According to Labor, an ARU is a locomotive appurtenance and 
its operation should comply with part 229, including the daily 
inspection requirements, because it functions as a part of the controls 
of a train's air brake system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Labor noted its comments regarding the proposed allowance 
for higher air flow under Section 232.103-General requirements for 
all train brake systems, but FRA is discussing them in the context 
of Sec.  232.205 as this is where FRA proposed to codify the 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It appears that Labor misinterprets the effect of the 8-psi 
reduction in brake pipe pressure. FRA notes that a conventional end-of-
train brake pipe supply is permitted a pressure taper of up to 15 psi. 
See Sec.  232.103(m). In the test waiver issued by FRA in Docket No. 
FRA-2012-0091, the test committee found that the amount of leakage that 
would cause a 15-psi pressure taper on a conventional end-of-train air 
source (i.e., where brake pipe gradient is measured from the rear of 
the train) only creates an 8-psi pressure ``sag'' between two DP 
locomotives.\13\ This condition not only provides more available 
braking power than a compliant conventional train with a permitted 15-
psi pressure taper, but provides a train that responds to brake control 
signals in approximately one-half the time, arguably resulting in a 
safer train.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ On a DPU-equipped train, the gradient can be a ``sag,'' as 
the graph line of the pressure will assume a catenary curve between 
the air sources. The depth of the sag is not readily measured 
(without ECP or similar technology) and is not presently regulated. 
In this particular example, the 8-psi pressure was rounded up from 
7.5 psi, representing the nadir midpoint of a 15-psi pressure taper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Labor further states concerns that its crews are being required to 
operate trains with AFM indicator readings over ``100 psi.'' This is a 
misunderstanding of the AFM indicator. The AFM indicator tells the 
engineer the leakage of his brake pipe in CFM, not in psi. Nonetheless, 
if Labor is concerned that railroads are instructing employees to 
operate trains in non-compliance with these regulations, FRA encourages 
Labor to contact an appropriate representative of FRA's Office of 
Railroad Safety to investigate the specific matter.
    In response to Labor's comment seeking information about the 
unintentional release during the test waiver, FRA notes that Labor was 
fully involved in the test waiver on which FRA based its proposal. See 
Docket No. FRA-2012-0091. Individual engineers completed test reports 
for each train operated and three BLET members were part of the test 
committee where they ultimately supported a 90 CFM limit. Each test 
report required the operating engineer to report information related to 
the train's operations (e.g., equipment identification, route, 
temperature, air flow at origination and en-route, brake system 
performance and whether any unintentional release occurred). 
Ultimately, the entire test committee came to a consensus that the 
single unintentional brake release was an anomaly and insignificant to 
the test.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ According to the test report, the relevant unintentional 
release resulted from a mechanical problem concerning the mid-train 
DPU's main reservoir compressor governor, which caused the main 
reservoir's air pressure to fluctuate outside its normal range. More 
specifically, the affected equipment included an 8,902 foot, 12,248-
ton manifest train operated January 8, 2015. The DPU was in 2x1x0 
configuration (mid-train unit), and the train was operating at 
temperatures between -2 [deg]F and -8 [deg]F. The engineer reported 
that ``DP main reservoir would drop when standing and lower brake 
pipe below equalizing reservoir pressure. [He] would have to take 
deeper sets greater than 15 psi to hold the train due to fluctuation 
in main reservoir pressure on the DP.'' The railroad commented that 
brake pipe flow on the lead locomotive remained in the low 20 CFMs, 
but acknowledged the engineer was having issues with the main 
reservoir pressure on the DPU. The railroad concluded that the main 
reservoir problems could have resulted in the reported unintentional 
release. The test committee concurred with the railroad's findings. 
The problem with the main reservoir of the DP unit was mechanical, 
and not related to the subject study of the test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to Labor's assertion that use of 90 CFM is unsafe, FRA 
notes that Labor's comment does not consider the use of additional air 
sources such as a DP or ARU, which is the fundamental basis of FRA's 
proposal. As FRA explained above, the additional air sources provided 
by a DPU or ARU reduces the gradient within the brake pipe, maintains a 
higher overall pressure, and provides a quicker response to air brake 
reductions; resulting in faster brake applications. Each additional 
compressor from a DP locomotive or an ARU reduces the stress on any one 
compressor, likely making the system more safe. FRA does not agree with 
Labor's characterization of an ARU as an appurtenance automatically 
subject to the requirements of part 229. Under the Locomotive 
Inspection Act (the ``Act,'' 49 U.S.C. 20701), a locomotive and its 
``appurtenances'' must be ``in proper condition and safe to operate'' 
before it can be placed in service. FRA's Locomotive Safety Standards 
(49 CFR part 229) implement the Act. Under the Act, if a locomotive or 
appurtenance of a locomotive does not meet the ``in proper condition 
and safe to operate'' standard, it may not be placed in service. See 49 
CFR 229.7.
    Because the use of an ARU is optional and not necessary for a 
locomotive to be ``in proper condition and safe to operate,'' an ARU is 
not an appurtenance to the locomotive under the Act. While Labor argues 
an ARU is an appurtenance, ``because it functions

[[Page 80556]]

as a part of the controls of a train's air brake system,'' it is more 
akin to an EOT device in its relationship to a locomotive; it receives 
commands but is not a component of a locomotive. Moreover, an ARU 
differs from a locomotive in that it does not have motive traction 
power. Without a propelling motor or control stand, an ARU cannot be 
considered a locomotive per Sec. Sec.  229.5 or 232.5. Accordingly, an 
ARU is not automatically subject to part 229.
    With respect to Labor's concern about the inspection, safety, and 
maintenance of each ARU, FRA notes that ARUs are subject to the 
applicable requirements in parts 215 and 232. Indeed, an ARU shares 
many features and operations of a locomotive that is subject to part 
229. For example, an ARU may contain a locomotive air brake system 
(automatic function, but not independent), a diesel generator, an air 
compressor, and a DP control unit. Most ARUs also likely include 
electrical wiring, internal walkways, rotating equipment, and main 
reservoir pressure air tanks, which could expose employees to the same 
hazards as a locomotive, if poorly maintained.
    In the NPRM, FRA proposed a definition for, and considered the use 
of, ARUs. In response to Labor's comments on that proposed definition, 
FRA is clarifying how, under the existing regulations, each ARU must be 
properly maintained and functional for its safe operation. Because each 
ARU shares features with both locomotives and freight cars, each such 
element must comply with the appropriate regulatory requirement.
    The components of an ARU that are the same as those for a freight 
car must continue to be inspected in compliance with parts 215 and 232 
and the components that are similar to a locomotive must be inspected 
in accordance with part 229. Accordingly, in paragraph (c)(9), FRA is 
specifying that each ARU operating in accordance with part 232 must 
comply with parts 215 and 232, and, as appropriate, the relevant 
sections of part 229. While an ARU may share many features of a 
locomotive, it does not have a propelling motor, or a control stand for 
employees. See Sec.  229.5 for the definition of ``locomotive.'' Thus, 
an ARU is not a locomotive. FRA recognizes, however, that certain 
elements of ARUs provide the same functionality as locomotives (e.g., 
they compress air, modulate the brake pipe, or otherwise control the 
train's movement). Accordingly, to help ensure those features are 
functioning properly (as Labor notes in their comments), they must be 
inspected. New paragraph (c)(9) specifies that an ARU's locomotive-like 
features must receive a pre-trip inspection in accordance with Sec.  
229.21 each time the train receives a Class I air brake test at its 
initial terminal. For example, depending on the construction and 
functionality of specific ARUs, applicable part 229 rules may include 
those concerning periodic air brake maintenance (Sec. Sec.  229.29-33), 
general requirements (Sec. Sec.  229.41-45), brake systems (Sec. Sec.  
229.46, 229.49-53, 229.59), electrical systems (Sec. Sec.  229.83-87, 
229.91), internal combustion equipment (Sec. Sec.  229.95-97, 229.101), 
and cabs, floors, and passageways (Sec.  229.119(c)).
    Similar to how FRA treats passenger equipment (see Sec.  
238.309(f)), because an ARU is not a locomotive, FRA is not requiring 
the inspection to be documented on form FRA F 6180-49A. Instead, FRA is 
requiring the inspection to be recorded on a form with substantially 
the same information and that otherwise complies with Sec.  229.21.
    In light of the proven safety and efficacy of the test waiver, and 
after consideration of the comments filed in this rulemaking, FRA is 
adopting the proposed new Sec.  232.205(c)(1)(ii)(B), which permits the 
use of a 90 CFM air flow limit on each train equipped with a DPU or 
ARU. To ensure the same level of safety intended by FRA during the 
waiver, but to allow for continued flexibility, FRA is requiring each 
railroad to implement operating rules intended to ensure compliant 
operation of a train if air flow exceeds the required parameters after 
the Class I brake test is completed. A railroad may consider using the 
test waiver's conditions as a template or starting point when drafting 
their operating rules on this subject. While FRA appreciates the 
Railroads' and the individual commenter's comments in support of a 
higher CFM limit and notes that additional research is being performed 
to look at longer trains and higher air flow, currently, FRA's 
experience and data only supports a 90 CFM limit with additional air 
sources.
AFM Indicator Calibration
    Current Sec.  232.205(c)(1)(iii) requires air flow indicator 
calibration at least every 92 days and prohibits the calibration of air 
flow test orifices at temperatures below 20 [deg]F. As noted in the 
NPRM, to calibrate each device accurately, the entire AFM system--not 
just the test orifices--must be calibrated at not less than 20 [deg]F. 
In the NPRM, FRA proposed clarifying within the regulation that the 
temperature of the AFM indicator and the test orifices must be 
considered during calibration to ensure accuracy.
    The Railroads concur that AFM indicator temperature should be 
considered during calibration. In addition, the railroads state that 
the quarterly reports required under the waiver referenced in the NPRM 
are no longer necessary. Further, while the Railroads support 
codification of FRA guidance regarding the handling of an inoperative 
or out-of-calibration AFM indicator, they urge FRA to adopt the 184-day 
periodic maintenance schedule for certain systems.
    In their comments, Labor did not contest the proposal, but raised 
related concerns. Labor states that, ``a traditional form of leakage 
test method should also be used in temperatures less than 20 [deg]F. 
Moreover, if an AFM cannot be calibrated without taking temperature 
into account, temperature also should be taken into account to verify 
the instrument's readings.'' Labor also believes that AFM indicators 
are appurtenances that should be regulated under part 229, because once 
installed they are no longer optional.
    The Railroads' comment regarding adopting the 184-day periodic 
maintenance schedule is outside the scope of this rulemaking. In 
addition, while quarterly reports are required as part of the ongoing 
test waiver's conditions, FRA did not propose to codify that 
requirement.\15\ Moreover, that particular test waiver remains under 
consideration. Any conclusions based on its early findings would be 
premature. FRA's purpose of referring to this waiver in the NPRM was 
solely to identify the AFM indicator temperature issue in support of 
the proposed requirement that the AFM indicator temperature must also 
be considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ If a railroad believes certain waiver conditions, including 
quarterly reports, are no longer necessary, then the railroad is 
welcome to request revision or rescission of that waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the AFM indicator is calibrated at a temperature above 20 
[deg]F, its use will still be acceptable at lower temperatures. Using 
ideal gas law calculations, the permitted variation of 3 
CFM can be expressed as a variation of approximately 100 [deg]F. 
Therefore, if an AFM indicator is precisely calibrated at 70 [deg]F, 
its calibration should be in tolerance from 20[deg] to 120 [deg]F. 
Theoretically (by calculation), at 20 [deg]F, an AFM reading of 60 CFM 
would be an air flow of 57.2 CFM. Where V = volumetric flow in CFM, and 
T = temperature of air into the AFM (absolute units in [deg]R), with 
V1 = 60 CFM, T1 = 70 [deg]F, T2 = 20 
[deg]F we calculate V2 from equation
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.015


[[Page 80557]]


(Note T1 = 460 + 70 = 530): V2 = 57.2 CFM. 
Because this error is on the ``safe'' side of the air flow rule (i.e., 
in colder temperatures the AFM indicator will display more air leakage 
than is actually occurring), FRA is confident in the safe use of an AFM 
indicator at lower temperatures.
    In response to the Labor comment that an AFM indicator is an 
appurtenance to the locomotive, FRA disagrees because its use is 
optional under Sec.  232.205(c) and unnecessary for a locomotive to be 
``in proper condition and safe to operate.'' Accordingly, the daily 
inspection requirements of part 229 do not apply to an AFM indicator. 
However, as proposed in the NPRM, FRA is adopting new paragraph 
(c)(1)(iv) which requires the recording of the last date of calibration 
on Form FRA F6180-49A (locomotive ``blue card''). While that Form 
applies to locomotives, the field provided for AFM indicator 
calibration has been included as a matter of convenience for compliance 
with and enforcement of new Sec.  232.205(c)(1)(iv) instead of 
requiring a second form for non-appurtenances.
    To clarify the rules applicable to noncompliant or out-of-
calibration AFM indicators, as proposed, FRA is adding a new paragraph 
(c)(1)(v). This new paragraph prohibits the use of an AFM indicator not 
in compliance with part 232 and requires tagging a noncompliant AFM 
indicator in accordance with Sec.  232.15(b), with the tag to be placed 
in a conspicuous location of the controlling locomotive cab.
Section 232.207 Class IA Brake Tests--1,000-Mile Inspection
    Although not proposed in the NPRM, due to an internal agency 
reorganization, FRA is removing references to the FRA Regional 
Administrator in Sec.  232.207(c)(2).
Section 232.209 Class II Brake Tests--Intermediate Inspection
    FRA is amending the off-air requirements of this section without 
change from the NPRM. Please refer to the off-air requirements analysis 
provided for Sec.  232.205.
Section 232.211 Class III Brake Tests-Trainline Continuity Inspection
    FRA is amending the off-air requirements of this section without 
change from the NPRM. Please refer to the off-air requirements analysis 
provided for Sec.  232.205.
Section 232.213 Extended Haul Trains
    Under existing Sec.  232.213, a railroad may be permitted to move a 
train up to, but not exceeding, 1,500 miles between brake tests and 
inspections if the railroad designates a train as an extended haul 
train and the train meets certain requirements.\16\ For a train to 
qualify as an extended haul train, paragraph (a)(1) requires the 
railroad to, in writing, designate the train as an extended haul train 
and provide certain information to FRA, including ``[t]he type or types 
of equipment the train will haul.'' See 49 CFR 232.213(a)(1)(iii). 
Railroads have complied with Sec.  232.213(a)(1)(iii) by periodically 
supplying FRA with spreadsheets identifying their extended haul trains 
and providing the required information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ On March 1, 2019, AAR submitted a petition for rulemaking 
that, if granted, would allow rail cars with a valid eABS record to 
travel up to 2,500 miles between brake tests and inspections. In 
this proceeding, FRA is addressing only foundational requirements, 
such as the 24-hour off-air proposal, that could support the full 
implementation of eABS. However, FRA expects to address this issue 
in the eABS Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, FRA reminded railroads of the need to identify, with 
sufficient clarity, the type of equipment being hauled in extended haul 
trains. FRA also sought comments and information on how to achieve such 
clarity, what level of description FRA should expect, and how to 
otherwise differentiate extended haul trains for oversight purposes. 
Noting that Sec.  232.213 no longer provides for an inbound inspection 
of all extended haul trains, and paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6) contain 
certain requirements related to that previous inbound inspection 
requirement, FRA proposed to modify those paragraphs to remove the 
outdated references to inbound inspections.
    In response to FRA's request for comments on types of equipment, 
the Railroads expressed the view that the type of equipment used in an 
extended haul train has no bearing on the safe operation of that train 
or its brakes and that the requirement to report the information to FRA 
is outdated. Accordingly, the Railroads recommended that Sec.  
232.213(a)(1)(iii) be deleted.
    While the information required under Sec.  232.213(a)(1)(iii) is 
useful to FRA for focusing inspection resources, FRA agrees with the 
Railroads comments that it is not otherwise necessary. Accordingly, in 
this final rule, FRA is deleting paragraph (a)(1)(iii) and 
redesignating paragraph (a)(1)(iv) as paragraph (a)(1)(iii).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ FRA notes that paragraph (a)(1)(iv), which is being 
redesignated as paragraph (a)(1)(iii), requires each railroad to 
provide to FRA ``the locations where all train brake and mechanical 
inspections and tests will be performed'' for each designated 
extended haul train. See 49 CFR 232.213(a)(1)(iv). In other words, 
the submission must include the location of every expected brake and 
mechanical inspection, not only the Class I inspections performed by 
a qualified mechanical inspector, on the designated train.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, FRA proposed to add a new paragraph (8) to this 
section that would provide railroads the flexibility to designate 
different inspection and test locations for extended haul trains in 
certain circumstances. FRA mirrored proposed new paragraph (8) on the 
notification procedures of Sec.  232.207(c)(2), which allow railroads 
to change the location of Class IA brake tests without prior notice to 
FRA in certain emergency situations. Codification of this practice 
would provide the railroads a flexible reporting procedure, and 
ultimately regulatory certainty, to address emergency circumstances 
involving extended haul operations. Due to an internal reorganization, 
FRA is also removing the reference to the Regional Administrator in 
paragraph (8).
    While the Railroads concur with FRA's proposed new paragraph (8), 
TWU objects to the paragraph, asserting that Sec.  232.213 should not 
be altered in any way. TWU states that sufficient flexibility already 
exists and that the proposal would allow railroads ``more latitude to 
close more yards and further reduce the number of Carmen available to 
perform'' Class I inspections.\18\ TWU also notes that, if FRA did not 
codify the proposed flexibility, a railroad could still modify its 
designated inspection locations by submitting an updated extended haul 
train list complying with Sec.  232.213(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In its comments, TWU purports to offer alternative rule 
text, but merely restates the existing text of Sec.  232.213(a)(6). 
Accordingly, FRA was unable to consider any particular revisions to 
the rule text that TWU may have contemplated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, requiring such a process could frustrate railroads' 
ability to respond to emergency situations and the process would 
provide no safety benefit. Accordingly, FRA is adopting new paragraph 
(a)(8) as proposed in the NPRM.
    With respect to paragraphs (a)(5) and (6), the Railroads concurred 
with FRA's proposed removal of the outdated references to inbound 
inspections in those paragraphs and there were no other comments. FRA 
is, therefore, adopting the revisions to paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6) 
as proposed.
    In the NPRM, FRA also requested comments on potential regulatory 
alternatives to the existing extended haul provisions of Sec.  232.213, 
potential improvements that could be made to the section to clarify or 
expand the provision, or whether this provision

[[Page 80558]]

could be eliminated by the adoption of certain alternative standards or 
requirements. For example, the section currently distinguishes between 
an inspection conducted by a qualified mechanical inspector (QMI) and a 
qualified person (QP) (both of which are defined in Sec.  232.5). FRA 
requested comments and data on whether this distinction is still 
justified and necessary.
    In response to this request for comment, the Railroads assert that 
the distinction between QMIs and QPs is no longer justified. According 
to the Railroads, ``there is no difference between the safety of trains 
that receive a QMI test as compared to those tested by a QP.'' However, 
the Railroads did not provide any data to support this assertion. 
Although the issue of distinguishing between QMI and QP inspections is 
relevant to any discussion of extending the mileage trains may travel 
between brake inspections, without sufficient data, FRA is unable to 
eliminate the distinction between QMIs and QPs at this time. However, 
FRA intends to consider this issue further in the eABS Rule. FRA 
encourages railroads to provide any data relevant to the safety 
distinctions and synergies between QMI and QP inspections in that 
rulemaking proceeding.
    In its comments, the Railroads also recommended that FRA permit all 
trains receiving an initial terminal Class I brake test by a: (1) QP to 
operate up to 1,500 miles, and (2) by a QMI to operate up to 2,000 
miles, without requiring an intermediate (e.g., Class IA) brake test 
and with an unrestricted number of pick-ups and set-offs. To have the 
benefit of public comment on this recommendation, FRA expects to fully 
consider this recommendation in the eABS Rule.
Section 232.217 Train Brake Tests Conducted Using Yard Air
    FRA is amending the off-air requirements of this section without 
change from the NPRM. Please refer to the off-air requirements analysis 
provided for Sec.  232.205.
Section 232.219 Double-Heading and Helper Service
    Section 232.219 provides regulations for the operation of double-
headed and helper locomotives in a train including when Helper Link or 
a similar technology is used to control the emergency brake function on 
helper locomotive consists. As explained in the NPRM, the section, as 
written, is appropriate for a train with an EOT device; however, the 
section is incompatible with trains that are not equipped with 
traditional EOT devices, including ECP-brake operated trains and trains 
with DP units in lieu of an EOT device. To address this issue, in 
response to requests from two railroads, FRA issued waivers from this 
requirement for ECP brake-configured train consists and DP consists 
with one or more DP (non-helper) locomotives on the rear. See Docket 
Nos. FRA-2006-26435 and FRA-2014-0013. Since granting these waivers, 
there has been no known negative impact on safety involving these 
operations.
    In the NPRM, FRA proposed to codify these waivers by adding a new 
paragraph (d) to Sec.  232.219 to permit the use of a properly 
installed and tested EOT device on the helper locomotive that is cut-in 
to the train line air supply, provided railroads develop and implement 
associated operating rules consistent with parts 221 (concerning marker 
light display) and 232 (concerning EOT device installation and testing) 
and the conditions established in the waivers discussed above.
    Both the Railroads and Labor support codifying these waivers, but 
Labor urges FRA not to eliminate paragraph (c)(3). In response to 
Labor's comment, FRA notes that it did not intend to eliminate 
paragraph (c)(3), which includes a maintenance requirement for Helper 
Link devices used on DP- or ECP-equipped trains. To enhance clarity in 
light of Labor's comment, FRA is adopting the substance of proposed 
paragraph (d) as new paragraph (c)(3) and existing paragraph (c)(3), 
which requires periodic testing and calibration of devices subject to 
Sec.  232.219, is being redesignated as paragraph (c)(4).
    A usage under new (c)(3) must still meet the requirements of (c)(1) 
and (c)(2). All usages must meet the requirements of the new (c)(4).
Section 232.305 Single Car Air Brake Tests
    Section 232.305(a) requires each SCT to be performed in accordance 
with the Sections 3.0 (``Tests-Standard Freight Brake Equipment'') and 
4.0 (``Special Tests'') of AAR Standard S-486-04 (2004) (``Code of Air 
Brake System Tests for Freight Equipment''), Section E of the AAR 
Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices (Jan. 1, 2004), or an 
alternative standard approved by FRA in accordance with Sec.  232.307. 
Under the processes outlined in Sec.  232.307, which allows the 
industry to request FRA approval of modifications to a currently 
acceptable SCT procedure, FRA approved the use of AAR Standard S-486-18 
in May 2018. See Docket No. FRA-2018-0011. The purpose of S-486 is to 
provide a means of making a general check on the condition of the brake 
equipment on cars as called for in the Filed Manual of the AAR 
Interchange Rules. Only Sections 4 and 5 are codified, as these are the 
tests that ensure safe operation of individual freight car brakes to 
comply with the Safety Appliance Act. Other sections of the Standard 
contain supplemental information that are not codified to provide 
flexibility to be updated without meeting Federal requirements. These 
include troubleshooting guidance and information on the maintenance and 
construction of the physical testing devices. Accordingly, in the NPRM, 
FRA proposed to update AAR Standard S-486-04 to AAR Standard S-486-
18.\19\ FRA received no comments in response to its proposal to 
incorporate the updated AAR Standard S-486 and is incorporating the 
updated standard as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ FRA notes that in the NPRM's preamble, FRA erroneously 
referred to Sections 4 and 5 of AAR Standard S-486, when the 
appropriate references were Sections 3 and 4. 85 FR at 2503.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA also proposed to incorporate in paragraph (a), AAR Standard S-
4027, which provides an automated process to perform a SCT with an 
automated single car test device (ASCTD). As explained in the NPRM, AAR 
Standard S-4027 provides for two types of automated single cars tests: 
(1) An automated test using an ASCTD connected to the end of a freight 
car; and (2) an automated test performed from the side of a car using 
the four-pressure manifold. FRA had conditionally approved a test 
waiver permitting BNSF and UP to perform SCTs with an ASCTD using AAR 
Standard S-4027 in lieu of AAR Standard S-486-4. See Docket No. FRA-
2013-0030. In the NPRM, FRA detailed the test committee consensus 
process and its positive results and findings under that test waiver 
for 800,000 SCTs performed on freight cars over 4.5 years. No opposing 
comments were filed on the process, results, findings, or the standard 
itself and FRA is incorporating the standard as proposed.
    Paragraph (b) identifies the events triggering a required single 
car air brake test. For instance, under paragraph (b)(2), ``a railroad 
shall perform a single car air brake test on a car when a car is on a 
shop or repair track . . . for any reason and has not received a single 
car air brake test within the previous 12-month period.'' Based on the 
results performed by the tests under Docket No. FRA-2013-0030, and the 
ability of the subject technology to provide a more comprehensive 
testing of the braking

[[Page 80559]]

system, FRA proposed requiring a SCT on each car on a shop or repair 
track for any reason that has not received a SCT with an end-of-car 
ASCTD within the previous 24-month period or with a four-pressure ASCTD 
within the previous 48-month period.
    As FRA noted in the preamble to the NPRM, FRA based this proposal 
on the test waiver's findings that, after 4.5 years, cars tested with 
end-of-car ASCTDs experienced an 18% reduction in the rate of repeat 
brake failures, while a four-pressure test experienced a 58% reduction. 
ASCTDs generally identify more air brake system defects than other 
tests in the categories of air components, control valves and pipe 
brackets, valves and subsystems. Data from the test waiver has also 
shown that a car tested with an end-of-car ASCTD is 26% less likely to 
have an AAR-condemnable wheel impact load detector indication, and 
ASCTD tests with four-pressure showed a 70% reduction.
    TWU opposes lengthening the minimum testing requirement from 12-
months to 24-48 months, arguing that carriers ``could be missing 
deficiencies that will turn into a major incident or derailment.'' 
Noting FRA's assertion in the NPRM's preamble that, on a daily basis, 
thousands of individual freight cars are overdue for their SCT, TWU 
notes that there is an ``overabundance'' of furloughed mechanical 
employees. As such, TWU suggests that, ``[r]ather than lowering the 
standards,'' FRA should penalize railroads for ``intentionally 
undermining safety.'' Labor states that FRA should enforce the existing 
requirements on the thousands of overdue cars rather than ``move the 
goalposts.'' TWU and Labor also object to removing the ``repair yard 
provision'' for SCTs.
    The Railroads support the ASCTD rules as proposed, but contest 
FRA's concern regarding the number cars overdue their SCTs.
    In response to TWU and Labor's comments, FRA notes that it did not 
propose to change the rules as they concern application of a 
conventional SCT. To the contrary, FRA continues to require a SCT on 
each car appearing on a repair track at more than 12 months since its 
previous test using conventional testing equipment and would not remove 
the repair yard provision as it currently exists for any tests.
    Instead, FRA's proposal would only extend the time allowed between 
each SCT conducted using an ASCTD under AAR Standard S-4027. Because 
AAR Standard S-4027 provides a highly repeatable test methodology with 
more accurate results, railroads can make more effective repairs, which 
may help reduce the backlog referenced in TWU's concerns.
    In addition to the repair track provision of paragraph (b)(2), 
paragraphs (c) and (d) require a SCT on each car no less than 8 years 
after it was built or rebuilt, and no less than every 5 years 
thereafter. In the NPRM, FRA requested comments on the need to maintain 
these requirements.
    In response, the Railroads urge FRA to delete any time-based test 
cycles and to instead adopt ``performance-based triggers (e.g., 
identified via the study of data on actual line-of-road issues).''
    While FRA understands the Railroads' request to replace the time-
based test triggers required under paragraphs (b)(2), (c), and (d) with 
a performance standard relying on ``line-of-road'' capabilities, the 
request is unsupported by any specific performance standard, analysis, 
or data. Accordingly, FRA cannot implement the Railroad's request at 
this time.
    For the reasons outlined above, in this final rule FRA is adopting 
the changes proposed to paragraph (b)(2), but not paragraphs (c) and 
(d).
Section 232.307 Modification of the Single Car Air Brake Test 
Procedures
    Existing Sec.  232.307 provides a procedure for industry to seek 
modification of the single car air brake test procedures in Sec.  
232.305(e). As discussed in the section-by section analysis for Sec.  
232.603 below, in response to FRA's NPRM proposal to modify Sec.  
232.603, the Railroads commented that proposed paragraph (g) of that 
section was confusing because it referred to the existing procedures in 
Sec.  232.307, which in turn only referred to Sec.  232.305(a). In this 
final rule, FRA is revising Sec.  232.307, so that incorporated 
industry standards for air brake maintenance and testing may be updated 
utilizing the procedures of that section. When utilizing Sec.  232.307, 
a petitioner will be required to specify the part, section, and 
paragraph for which modification is requested. Presently, Sec. Sec.  
232.305 and 232.603 refer to Sec.  232.307. This final rule adds 
references to Sec. Sec.  232.717 (addressing tourist, scenic, historic, 
and excursion operations braking systems) and 232.409 (addressing 
inspection and testing of EOT devices). Consistent with these 
revisions, FRA is also updating the title of Sec.  232.307 to eliminate 
the specific reference to single car air brake test procedures and to 
refer more generally to ``brake test procedures.''
Section 232.403 Design Standards for One-Way End-of-Train Devices
    Section 232.403 includes design standards for one-way EOT devices. 
In the NPRM, FRA proposed to modify paragraphs (d)(6) and (f)(4), which 
include shock requirements for rear and front units, referring to a 0.1 
second window. In the NPRM, FRA indicated that the 0.1 second interval 
in paragraphs (d)(6) and (f)(4) is too large for maintaining a peak 
shock threshold and is likely a typographical or other error from a 
previous rulemaking. Accordingly, FRA proposed to make the shock 
requirements in these paragraphs the same as the 0.01 second peak shock 
threshold in AAR Standards S-9152 and S-9401. The only comment received 
supported correcting this typographical error, and therefore, FRA is 
adopting the proposed revisions to paragraphs (d)(6) and (f)(4).
    Paragraph (g)(2) currently requires a minimum EOT device battery 
life of 36 hours at 0 [deg]C. As noted in the NPRM, manufacturers have 
developed EOT devices that rely less on batteries and more on an 
internal, air-powered generator, which converts mechanical energy--
created by the brake pipe air pressure--into electricity used to power 
the EOT device.
    In the NPRM, FRA proposed codifying two long-standing waivers 
providing relief from this requirement for EOT devices using an air-
powered generator as a power source. See Docket Nos. FRA-2006-25794 and 
FRA-2001-9270. In these waivers, FRA required each subject EOT device 
to include a back-up battery with a minimum operating life of 12 hours 
at 0 [deg]C and the railroads to submit reports on the devices' usage 
and performance.
    As noted in the NPRM, to date, FRA has not received any reports of 
accidents due to EOT device operations under these waivers. 
Accordingly, FRA proposed a new paragraph (g)(3) to provide for use of 
an air-powered generator as a primary power source as long as it 
operates with a backup battery with a minimum of 12 hours of continuous 
power at 0 [deg]C. This change will improve efficiency and is 
consistent with railroad safety.
    The Railroads agree with FRA's proposal to require that each back-
up battery to an EOT device's air-powered generator be capable of 
providing 12 hours of continuous power at 0 [deg]C. The Railroads also 
suggest FRA adopt a flexible, performance-based provision addressing 
EOTs generally and provide alternative language to accommodate future 
developments, such as the use of

[[Page 80560]]

other power sources or EOT devices becoming obsolete.
    Labor supports requiring a back-up battery to each EOT device's 
air-powered generator, but believes it should include more than 12 
hours of energy and provide subsequent crews with power-level 
notifications.
    Various manufacturers and railroads have already, under the 
waivers, built and installed 12-hour back-up batteries. Labor has not 
provided any data, examples, or other information showing why 12 hours 
would be insufficient. To require a number higher than 12 hours would 
create a potentially unnecessary yet substantial burden on 
manufacturers and railroads to remove existing batteries and purchase 
and install new batteries. While a longer back-up battery life may 
provide a convenience to users, it would result in no new safety 
benefits. Moreover, current manufactured units may not be able to 
accept batteries with different specifications. Similarly, to require 
power notifications such as a percentage or other spectrum of available 
power would require modification of all affected EOT systems and 
batteries. With approximately 27,000 EOT devices registered in Umler, 
Labor has provided no data on the impact on the railroads and the 
public of such a requirement.
    Although FRA is open to a performance-based approach to powering 
EOT devices, no performance standard was proposed or otherwise offered 
in this proceeding. FRA notes the Railroads' prediction that EOT 
devices may be rendered obsolete, but the Railroads provided no 
evidence, alternatives, or timelines showing such a possibility. While 
a suitable performance standard is not currently feasible, FRA is 
modifying the language of Sec. Sec.  232.17(a) and (b), and 232.407(c) 
to provide special approval procedure consideration for the 
introduction of new and novel alternative technologies that serve the 
same or similar purposes as EOT devices in the interest of maintaining 
regulatory flexibility for future innovation.
    For the reasons discussed above, in this final rule FRA is 
modifying paragraph (g)(2) and adding new paragraph (g)(3) as proposed.
Section 232.407 Operations Requiring Use of Two-Way End-of-Train 
Devices; Prohibition on Purchase of Nonconforming Devices
    Section 232.407 addresses operations requiring the use of two-way 
EOT devices.
    Although not specifically proposed in the NPRM, FRA is modifying 
paragraph (e)(1) to clarify that because an ARU (as defined in this 
final rule) is equipped with telemetry as defined for EOT devices in 
existing subpart E, an ARU may be used under the (e)(1) exception for 
the requirement for the use of a two-way EOT device. At least one Class 
I railroad operating in Canada uses an ARU in this manner and as long 
as an ARU performs the same function as an EOT device or DPU, and is 
operated and regulated in the same manner, such an allowance is 
warranted. As discussed in more detail in the analysis of the new 
definition of ``ARU'' in Sec.  232.5 above, similar to the use of a DP 
locomotive currently contemplated under (e)(1), an ARU may communicate 
with, and receive wireless commands from a controlling locomotive to 
help regulate the brake system's air supply and pressure.
    In the NPRM, FRA proposed to modify paragraph (f)(2), which 
addresses battery charging requirements for two-way EOT devices. 
Specifically, FRA proposed adding language to the end of the paragraph 
to require the testing of air-powered, generator-equipped devices to 
determine the ``residual charge'' of the back-up battery before 
initiating operation. As FRA explained in the NPRM, this requirement is 
``meant to ensure that the generator back-up battery has a minimal 
residual charge, which will ensure that it is working properly and is 
capable of temporarily powering the EOT device should the air-powered 
generator fail.'' 85 FR 2505.
    In their comments, Labor supports mandatory testing of each EOT 
device's back-up batteries, but asserts that FRA should use the term 
``sufficient charge.''
    The Railroads concur with FRA's proposed language in paragraph 
(f)(2) requiring the testing of air-powered-generator-equipped devices 
to determine the charge of the back-up battery before initiating 
operation. However, the Railroads urge FRA to adopt language to 
accommodate power sources other than batteries.
    While FRA requires a primary battery to be sufficiently charged 
under paragraph (f)(2), under the waiver allowing the use of an air-
powered generator, FRA prohibited the use of a dead battery. To comply 
with that condition, the suppliers manufactured EOT devices with a 
``minimum charge'' indication showing that the battery has enough 
residual charge to accept charging from the air-powered generator. 
Labor has not provided any data or information showing why either a 
``residual charge'' or ``minimum charge'' indication is insufficient 
and FRA is reluctant to require manufacturers to incur costs to change 
the indication without a sufficient safety justification.
    Thus, in this final rule, FRA is using the term ``minimum charge.'' 
FRA understands a minimal charge of a back-up power source to mean it 
has a sufficient residual charge to accept charging from the air-
powered generator. Passing the initiation test is evidence that the 
back-up power source has the required minimum charge.
    While FRA agrees that other power sources may be considered, 
existing paragraphs (b) and (c) already provide for ``alternative 
technology to perform the same function.'' In response to the 
Railroads' comment, FRA is clarifying these paragraphs and providing 
for the consideration of such alternative technologies under the 
special approval procedure defined under Sec.  232.17. See also the 
discussion of Sec. Sec.  232.17 above.
    Paragraph (f)(2) also requires that each EOT device's battery be 
sufficiently charged at its initial terminal or other installation 
point and throughout the train's trip to ensure that it will remain 
operative until the train reaches its destination. Although this is not 
a new requirement, the Railroads also request that FRA clarify the 
meaning of the phrase ``until the train reaches its destination.''
    FRA addressed this issue in the preamble of the 1997 final rule. 
See 62 FR 278, 289, 294-95, Jan. 2, 1997. FRA recognizes that the 
amount of a battery's charge differs based on several variables, 
including the trip length. The railroad has the initial responsibility 
for determining how to comply with this performance standard, which can 
be based on manufacturer recommendations, scientific or mathematical 
studies, or experience. If an EOT device's battery dies before 
destination, that is evidence that the railroad did not comply with 
this requirement. This requirement, however, would not necessarily 
apply to air-power generators or back-up power sources. Air-powered 
generators are not expected to hold a full trip's worth of energy at 
the initial terminal of a train, because they are designed to charge 
continually during the train's operation. FRA has set a different 
charge standard for back-up power sources.
Section 232.409 Inspection and Testing of End-of-Train Devices
    Section 232.409 includes requirements for EOT device inspection and 
testing. More specifically, existing paragraph (d) requires each EOT 
device's telemetry equipment be tested at least every 368 days for 
accuracy and calibrated, if necessary, in accordance with the 
manufacturer's specifications

[[Page 80561]]

and procedures. In the NPRM, FRA proposed instead to require telemetry 
equipment be tested and calibrated in accordance with its 
manufacturer's specifications and procedures, without requiring a 
maximum time interval between tests. FRA also proposed to add a new 
paragraph (e) to address comparison testing requirements for EOT device 
air pressure sensors.
    FRA based its proposed revision to paragraph (d) on the reduced 
need for periodic telemetric equipment calibration due to technological 
advances that include continuous feedback such as phase-lock loop 
(PLL). A PLL feedback system consists generally of a reference 
oscillator in addition to radio telemetry components. The reference 
oscillator sets the communications frequency for the radio telemetry 
components. If the radio telemetry components are not able to achieve 
the communications frequency set by the reference oscillator, then the 
radio will go into a fail-safe mode and will not operate.
    As explained in the NPRM, for EOT devices using PLL or a similar 
feedback loop technology, FRA granted multiple waivers from the 368-day 
calibration requirement for the radio portion only under the conditions 
that vendors apply a weather-resistant label on each applicable EOT 
device and manufacturers file annual reports on the rate of inoperable 
devices. See, e.g., Docket Nos. FRA-2015-0044; FRA-2012-0096; FRA-2009-
0015; and FRA-2004-18895. FRA required manufacturers to file annual 
reports on the rate of inoperable devices to ensure the devices 
continued to operate safely over time without a calibration 
requirement. Based on the relatively long-term experience under the 
above-noted waivers, and the data supplied in the annual reports, the 
continuous self-check circuitry of PLL technology ensures better 
overall safety given the potential for human error during periodic 
calibration. FRA's proposed revision to paragraph (d) was based on data 
garnered from the required annual reporting on these waivers, 
summarized in the renewal applications contained in the applicable 
waiver dockets. However, this does not include the pressure sensor 
components of EOT devices.
    The Railroads agree with the proposed revision to paragraph (d). 
However, TWU believes FRA should continue to require calibration every 
368 days for all non-PLL units. According to TWU, not providing for FRA 
verification of EOT device calibration would incentivize carriers to 
underreport communication losses. Labor concurs that PLL technology 
reduces the need for telemetry calibration and supports continued 
application of the maximum calibration period under Sec.  232.409 to 
EOT devices not yet PLL-equipped.
    FRA understands TWU's concern. However, FRA expects that 
manufacturers will continue to set appropriate calibration intervals 
for non-PLL radios. Given the level of safety attained with 
calibrations performed at least every 368-days and that any change 
could create operational or legal exposure on a technology the industry 
no longer produces, FRA does not expect manufacturers to change such 
intervals significantly. In addition, as proposed in the NPRM and 
adopted in this final rule, if a manufacturer does not set a periodic 
calibration interval for any unit (including legacy non-PLL units), the 
manufacturer will be required to report under paragraph (f)(2).
    While TWU states that incorporating this allowance into regulations 
may incentivize underreporting of communications losses, it provides no 
analysis or data to support that prediction. Nevertheless, as further 
discussed below, under new paragraph (f) a manufacturer must describe 
in its annual report to FRA each time it repairs or reconditions a 
radio for an EOT device if it does not establish a calibration period 
for the device. Any underreporting would be a violation of this 
requirement. Accordingly, in this final rule, FRA is adopting its 
proposed revision to paragraph (d).
    Despite the waivers, and their codification in paragraph (d), each 
EOT device and its operation still must comply with the applicable 
requirements of part 229. Specifically, paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sec.  
229.27 require comparison testing at least every 368 days with a test 
gauge, or self-test designed for this purpose, for each device that: 
(1) Engineers use to aid in the control or braking of a train or 
locomotive; and (2) provides an indication of air pressure 
electronically. Because the air pressure sensor in the EOT device is 
used by the locomotive engineer to control the train, it is similar to 
the gauges in the cab and must comply with parts 229 and 232. Although 
Sec.  229.27 applies to the air pressure sensor in an EOT device, 
because the air pressure reading at the EOT device is used to control 
the train, FRA proposed a cross-reference to Sec.  229.27 in proposed 
new paragraph (e) of Sec.  232.409 for clarification purposes.
    Under existing Sec.  229.27, an annual test must be performed on 
each device used by the engineer to aid in the control or braking of 
the train or locomotive that provides an indication of air pressure 
electronically (pressure sensors). For instance, each EOT-device-
equipped train relies on the pressure sensor to ensure compliant train 
handling, and in accordance with the pressure gradient requirements of 
Sec. Sec.  232.103(m) and 232.205(c) and the Class III brake test 
performance requirements of Sec.  232.211(c). Unlike the PLL radio 
portion of each EOT device, a pressure sensor does not self-test and 
react to pressure calibration drift.
    Labor submitted comments agreeing that all EOT devices must comply 
with Sec.  229.27. On the other hand, the Railroads commented that 
proposed paragraph (e) is not necessary. Instead, the Railroads 
recommended that FRA adopt alternative language requiring comparison 
testing in accordance with manufacturer's specifications similar to 
that proposed in Sec.  232.403.
    Although commenters provided no data, technology, or other specific 
risk-mitigating alternative that would justify modifying the generally-
applicable requirements related to comparison testing of EOT device 
pressure sensors, FRA finds that device manufacturers should have the 
required expertise to evaluate their own devices and determine if such 
devices could be successfully comparison tested on an alternative 
schedule or by an alternative process. Accordingly, to allow 
manufacturers the flexibility to develop alternative comparison testing 
standards for EOT device pressure sensors, FRA is revising proposed 
paragraph (e) to specify that the air pressure sensor contained in the 
EOT device must be tested by the processes and frequency identified in 
Sec.  229.27 or by manufacturer specifications approved under Sec.  
232.307. If approved under Sec.  232.307, railroads using the 
applicable EOT device may apply the testing standard accordingly.
    Despite the positive experience under the waivers and FRA's 
confidence in PLL technology, the frequency of the reference oscillator 
in an EOT device may, over time, ``drift'' outside of its accepted 
frequency range, which may affect a device remaining in communication 
with the front- or head-of-train device. In electrical engineering, and 
particularly in telecommunications, ``frequency drift'' is the 
unintended and generally arbitrary offset of an oscillator from its 
nominal frequency. Frequency drift that is not recognized during device 
initiation or otherwise by the EOT device's self-check circuitry, may 
prevent the device from failing in a safe manner, and can only be 
corrected during calibration. Until recently, FRA had not received any 
reports of PLL-

[[Page 80562]]

equipped radios experiencing frequency drift. However, since 
publication of the NPRM, FRA has been made aware of potential frequency 
drift in a very small percentage (less than 0.1%) of PLL transceivers 
covered under waiver FRA-2009-0015. Given this new information, FRA 
seeks to ensure this problem does not become more widespread, and is 
therefore codifying the waiver's annual reporting requirement for 
devices without calibration intervals specified by the manufacturer. 
This additional requirement will enable FRA and radio manufacturers to 
track any potential increase in frequency drift occurrences and ensure 
proper calibration intervals. These reports could also provide 
information that is useful to formulate a future performance standard. 
Paragraph (f) requires manufacturers to submit annual reports regarding 
certain transceivers to provide a means for FRA to monitor transceiver 
performance periodically, if they choose not to set a calibration 
period. If a manufacturer of telemetry transceiver equipment has 
multiple transceiver model types without recommended finite calibration 
periods, then the information required must be provided by model type 
in their reporting. This will not be a new burden to the manufacturers 
as they have already been providing this information to FRA pursuant to 
the waivers.
    As noted in the NPRM, and in the discussion of Sec.  232.203 above, 
FRA remains concerned with the safety risks associated with the 
reported and unreported loss of communications events between the 
controlling locomotive and the EOT device. As noted above, FRA 
understands that railroads are working to develop and implement 
solutions, but it does not appear that a feasible technological 
solution is yet available. Accordingly, as noted above, to address the 
safety risks involved with potential losses of communication, FRA is 
revising the training requirements at Sec.  232.203(c) to ensure that 
employees that operate EOT equipment are trained in the limitations and 
proper use of the emergency application signal and the loss of 
communications indicator of the equipment to enable them to take 
effective action in the event of a communications loss.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See section-by-section analysis of Sec.  232.203 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 232.603 Design, Interoperability, and Configuration Management 
Requirements
    Section 232.603 contains the design, interoperability, and 
configuration management requirements for ECP brakes. In the NPRM, FRA 
proposed to revise paragraphs (a) and (d), move paragraph (f) to (g), 
and add a new paragraph (f) to meet the formatting and structure 
requirements for incorporation by reference under 1 CFR part 51. FRA 
also proposed to update the standards incorporated by reference in in 
paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(6), and (a)(7). For a discussion 
of the purposes of these standards, please see the NPRM.
    FRA did not receive comments on the revisions and updates to 
paragraphs (a), (d), and (f). The purposes of the standards are as 
follows: S-4200 ensures uniform and consistent functionality and 
performance of ECP freight brake systems from different manufacturers; 
S-4210 provides the qualification test procedure to verify that the 
designed components have high reliability, will withstand harsh 
environmental conditions, and have a minimum 8-year operating life; S-
4230 facilitates freight car and locomotive interoperability without 
limiting the proprietary design approaches used by individual suppliers 
and defines the requirements for an intratrain communications (ITC) 
system for freight equipment in revenue interchange service; S-4250 
ensures uniform, consistent, and interoperable functionality and 
performance between devices developed by different manufacturers, by 
defining the high-level performance requirements to operate multiple 
locomotives via an ITC network; and S-4260 identifies the test 
procedure that individual suppliers would complete to establish the 
interoperability baseline among ECP/WDP (wire distributed power) 
systems that comply with the AAR S-4200 series of standards. 
Accordingly, FRA adopts those changes as proposed.
    The Railroads commented that proposed paragraph (g) is confusing, 
because it refers to existing procedures to update an incorporated by 
reference standard in Sec.  232.307, which in turn references Sec.  
232.305(a). In this final rule, FRA is clarifying Sec.  232.307, so 
that incorporated industry standards for air brake maintenance may be 
updated in a consistent and efficient manner. When utilizing Sec.  
232.307, a petitioner will be required to specify the part, section, 
and paragraph for which modification is requested. Presently, 
Sec. Sec.  232.305, 232.603, and 232.717 refer to Sec.  232.307.
Subpart H Tourist, Scenic, Historic, and Excursion Operations Braking 
Systems
    Appendix B was created to preserve part 232 as it existed prior to 
the 2001 final rule, and was intended to apply to tourist, scenic, 
historic, and excursion operations.\21\ As proposed in the NPRM, this 
final rule is moving appendix B, with some revisions, to a new subpart 
H (Sec. Sec.  232.700-232.719). FRA is only discussing those provisions 
of new subpart H that received public comments or have changed from the 
NPRM. The remaining provisions are being finalized as proposed, and not 
discussed here again.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ On May 31, 2001, FRA issued an update to part 232. Some of 
the prior rule text was preserved in section I of appendix B to part 
232, which remained applicable to tourist, scenic, historic, or 
excursion railroads on the general system of transportation, who 
have not been required to operate under present parts 232 or 238. 
See Sec. Sec.  232.1(d) and 232.3(c)(5); 66 FR 4104, 4145-46, 4214, 
Jan. 17, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Sec.  232.717 of the NPRM, FRA proposed to reference Rule 4 of 
the ``2020 Field Manual of the AAR Interchange Rules'' (``AAR Field 
Manual''). However, FRA has since realized that AAR Standard S-4045-13, 
which was referenced in proposed paragraph 232.717(b)(2), makes clear 
that the use of Rule 3 of the AAR Field Manual is also required for the 
maintenance of freight valves used on passenger equipment. Thus, to 
pinpoint the applicable rules more accurately for the convenience of 
the reader, all references to the AAR Field Manual in Sec.  232.717 
will include both Rules 3 and 4, which are concerned with the testing 
of railroad air brakes and with the maintenance of air brake valves and 
parts, respectively.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ FRA notes that this final rule incorporates by reference 
the January 1, 2020, version of AAR Rules 3 and 4. Prior to 
publication of this final rule, however, AAR issued updated versions 
of each of these Rules and FRA anticipates incorporating the updated 
AAR rules in a future rulemaking proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, FRA indicated it was adding a paragraph (b)(2) to 
Sec.  232.717. However, FRA notes that Sec.  232.17 in appendix B, 
which became Sec.  232.717 in proposed subpart H, already included a 
paragraph (b)(2). Accordingly, FRA notes that it is not ``adding'' a 
paragraph (b)(2), but rather just revising the paragraph as it existed 
previously in appendix B.
    Labor commented about the proposed ``significant relaxation'' of 
current maintenance practices and operating requirements in 232.717(b), 
including the ``cleaned, repaired, lubricated, and tested'' periodic 
inspection requirements for 26-C and D-22 brake valves. According to 
Labor, while a relaxed periodicity of these practices may be 
appropriate to apply to the state-of-the-art locomotives used in pilot 
programs by the Class I railroads, extending the same relief to the 
``motive power fleet that is the oldest in the

[[Page 80563]]

nation'' is not justified.\23\ TWU's comments were similar to Labor's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Labor appears to believe incorrectly that the D-22 and 26-C 
brake valves are locomotive brake valves. As explained further 
below, there is a 25-year waiver history of extending these 
passenger car valves by 12 months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, paragraph (b)(2) changed brake inspection requirements 
from referencing AAR Standard S-045 to referencing AAR Standard S-4045-
13, which establishes, for passenger equipment cars operating in the 
U.S. and Canada, standard maintenance practices and operating 
requirements, including the periodic inspection requirements for air 
brake cleaning, repairing, lubricating, and testing (known in the 
industry as ``clean, oil, test, and stencil'' or ``COT&S''). AAR 
Standard S-4045-13, would extend the timeline related to periodic brake 
valve inspections, and is based upon the safety experience of the 
waiver at Docket No. FRA-2013-0063 \24\ and experience with the 
extended period for inspections at 49 CFR 238.309(d)(2) and (3) for 
conventional passenger equipment. As a result, railroads using 26-C 
type valves would now be required to test those valves every 48 months 
(instead of 36 months). Similarly, railroads using D-22 type valves 
would now be required to test those valves every 36 months (instead of 
24 months).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The waiver issued in Docket No. FRA-2013-0063 allowed 
railroads to utilize AAR Standard S-4045-13 in lieu of the obsolete 
AAR S-045. That waiver was the third waiver FRA issued related to 
inspection and testing frequency of passenger air brake control 
valves. See also Docket Nos. PB 94-3 (July 26, 1995) and FRA-2011-
0070. The 1995 waiver was replaced by Sec.  238.309, established by 
the final rule published at 64 FR 25660, May 12, 1999. The 2011 and 
2013 waivers extended the flexibility afforded by Sec.  238.309 to 
certain passenger equipment cars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Labor appears to incorrectly believe the relief provided in the 
waiver was the same as that provided under Docket No. FRA-2005-21613, 
which extended the service life of locomotive electronic brake valves 
(EBVs). This is the only recent docket that meets the description of 
Labor's concern. FRA notes that Amtrak has operated 26-C passenger car 
control valves for 48 months between inspections under the PB-94-3 
waiver since July 1995 (codified at Sec.  238.309 in May 1999), while 
railroads not subject to part 238 have operated under the subsequent 
waivers since April 2012. Passenger railroads have operated D-22 
passenger car control valves for 1,104 days between inspections under 
Sec.  238.309(d)(3) since 1999. In all cases, these waivers extended 
the periodic inspection interval for only 12 months and were based on 
over fifty years of operating experience,\25\ plus confirming testing 
performed as part of the waiver investigations. The railroads have not 
reported any safety problems while under those waivers. By contrast, 
the locomotive EBV waiver that extended periodic inspection intervals 
for up to 5 years involves novel designs, requiring continuous product 
upgrades during the course of the waiver, and required a test committee 
to witness inspection and tear-down of several brake unit types on a 
biannual basis. Passenger car control valves with a long and successful 
service history do not require the same scrutiny and oversight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The D-22 valve has been in use since the mid-1930s and the 
26-C valve has been in use since the early 1950s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The safety case provided, and the lack of negative safety data 
arising from the aforementioned control valve waivers, justifies the 
12-month extension for each periodic inspection of a 26-C or D-22 valve 
provided by updated AAR Standard S-4045-13. Such an extension also 
aligns the inspection periods for 26-C and D-22 control valves on all 
railroads, thus reducing confusion. Accordingly, this final rule 
updates paragraph (b)(2) to reference AAR Standard S-4045-13.
    Currently, appendix B does not require tourist, scenic, historic, 
and excursion railroads to develop a plan for servicing obsolete brake 
equipment. Accordingly, in the NPRM, FRA proposed Sec.  232.717(c) 
within the new subpart H to allow tourist, scenic, historic, and 
excursion railroads to develop a compliant plan for servicing obsolete 
brake equipment. Under paragraph (c), these railroads--when utilizing 
equipment not covered by an applicable, available, and incorporated AAR 
standard--would have to maintain the equipment in a safe and suitable 
condition for service according to a railroad's written maintenance 
plan. A compliant maintenance plan, including its COT&S component and a 
periodic attention schedule, must be based upon a standard appropriate 
to the equipment. For example, a compliant plan might utilize a 
recognized industry standard or a former AAR interchange standard, to 
the extent it is modified to account for the unique operating 
conditions of the particular tourist railroad operation. The railroad 
must make its written maintenance plan available to FRA upon request.
    While FRA expects some individual railroads may develop their own 
written maintenance plans, FRA understands that an industry 
organization (HeritageRail Alliance) may develop a consensus standard 
for the periodic maintenance of this brake equipment. FRA did not 
propose a formal approval process for each tourist, scenic, historic, 
and excursion railroad plan, as this would not be feasible from a 
regulatory standpoint, for both the railroads and FRA, and such a 
requirement would not enhance safety under subpart H. However, when 
evaluating maintenance plans during the course of regular inspections, 
FRA will consider the appropriate AAR-published valve standard in the 
last version (e.g., 1992 for the ``AB'' control valve) of the AAR Code 
of Rules or the AAR Field Manual before a valve type was made obsolete, 
the usage of the equipment, and the railroad's voluntarily scheduled 
SCTs.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ FRA notes that many of the former AAR Standards are 
presently available within Annex A--Equipment-Dependent Instructions 
of APTA Standard PR-M-S-005-98, Rev.4--Code of Tests for Passenger 
Car Equipment Using Single Car Testing, which is incorporated by 
reference in part 238. See Docket No. FRA-2018-0097. A copy of Annex 
A is also available in the docket of this rulemaking for review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Labor and TWU object to proposed paragraph (c), claiming it 
releases FRA from its regulatory responsibilities and allows affected 
railroads to self-regulate with their own inspection plans. According 
to Labor, paragraph (c) attempts to fix a problem that does not exist 
and would place a burden on those railroads with few resources.
    In discussions between FRA and various tourist and historic railway 
industry associations, the railroads governed under former appendix B, 
now subpart H, have requested regulatory guidance on the applicability 
of those rules on discontinued brake valves. Moreover, under Section 
415 of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Congress directed FRA 
to study air brake maintenance regulatory compliance on diesel 
locomotives for tourist and historic railroads. The NPRM proposed 
changes consistent with Congress' direction and the railroads' requests 
to provide regulatory certainty and to reduce their compliance burdens. 
For instance, under the previous language of Sec.  232.17 of appendix 
B, affected railroads were left without compliance guidance or 
regulatory protection each time AAR removed a brake type (e.g., the 
``AB'' brake) from the AAR Field Manual. FRA recognizes these 
``obsolete'' brake valves may continue to be operated on older 
equipment while remaining compliant with Sec.  232.103(l) (formerly 
Sec.  232.3 of appendix B), and finds that each railroad is in a better 
position to determine how to maintain its (generally non-interchanged) 
equipment for its own operating environment. The

[[Page 80564]]

purpose of the new Sec.  232.717(c) is to provide those railroads with 
a regulatory path going forward. Given the increasing quantity of 
obsolete equipment, and that the current rules in subparts A-G of part 
232 reflect more modern technologies, these railroads require some 
level of flexibility to address their own equipment and operations. 
Without this change, railroads will be left to determine, at their own 
discretion, what rules apply to brake valves once they are no longer 
addressed in the applicable industry standard.
    The new Sec.  232.717(c) provides flexibility, while ensuring that 
railroads subject to Sec.  232.717 remain under FRA oversight. Given 
these railroads' low accident or incident rate,\27\ their limited 
(seasonal) operations, and FRA's experienced inspectors familiar with 
local conditions performing oversight, FRA is confident that paragraph 
(c) will provide regulatory clarity and improve safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Since 2010, tourist, historic, and excursion railroads have 
had no brake-caused train fatalities and 21 motive power and 
equipment-related accidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA sought comments on how to manage future changes to industry 
standards while ensuring future compliance with 1 CFR part 51 
(incorporation by reference). FRA did not receive comments on how to 
better manage this process. However, the Railroads encourage amendments 
to Federal Register incorporation by reference regulations to generally 
allow for more timely regulatory updates to standards incorporated by 
reference. FRA notes that the Railroads' comments regarding the 
incorporation by reference of standards under 1 CFR 51 is an issue 
under the authority of the Office of the Federal Register, not FRA.

IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices

A. E.O. 12866 and 13771, Congressional Review Act, and DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures

    This final rule is a significant regulatory action within the 
meaning of Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866) and DOT's Administrative 
Rulemaking, Guidance, and Enforcement Procedures in 49 CFR part 5. 
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as 
not a `major rule', as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). In addition, this 
rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the 
estimated cost savings of this rule can be found in the rule's 
Regulatory Impact Analysis, which FRA has prepared and placed in the 
docket (docket number FRA-2018-0093). The analysis details estimated 
costs and cost savings that those regulated by the rule are likely to 
see over a 10-year period.
    In this final rule, FRA is codifying several motive power and 
equipment waivers providing conditional exceptions to existing rules 
concerning air brake testing (including Class I air brake tests and 
SCTs), EOT devices, brake valves, and helper service. In particular, 
FRA is extending the time freight rail equipment can be off-air before 
requiring a new brake inspection. Furthermore, FRA is making technical 
corrections to existing brake-related regulations.
    FRA estimated the impacts of this final rule. The results of this 
analysis are presented in the table below.

                                   Total Costs and Cost Savings Over 10 Years
                                           [2017 Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Section                  Present value 7%  Present value 3%    Annualized 7%     Annualized 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs: Training.........................               (*)               (*)               (*)               (*)
Cost Savings:
    Helper Link.........................              $3.9              $4.5              $0.6              $0.5
    26-C Brake Valve....................               0.4               0.5              0.06              0.06
    D-22 Brake Valve....................               1.0               1.1               0.1               0.1
    24 Hours Off-air....................             325.6             386.2              46.4              45.3
    90 CFM..............................               1.8               2.1               0.3               0.2
    SCT 24 month........................             150.7             176.1              21.5              20.6
    SCT 48 month........................              19.5              23.8               2.8               2.8
    Waiver Cost Savings.................               0.1               0.1              0.01              0.01
    Government Administrative Cost                     0.1               0.1              0.01              0.01
     Savings............................
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Cost Savings..............             503.0             594.6              71.6              69.7
        Net Cost Savings................             503.0             594.6              71.6              69.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Cost Savings = Cost Savings-Costs.
* De minimis.

    Over a 10-year period of analysis, the present value of net cost 
savings are $503.0 million (using a 7% discount rate), and $594.6 
million (using a 3% discount rate). The annualized cost savings are 
$71.6 million (using a 7% discount rate) and $69.7 million (using a 3% 
discount rate).
    By way of explaining the above table, in response to comments from 
the NTSB and labor organizations, FRA is adding a requirement for 
railroads to train employees on loss of communication and limitations 
of the emergency brake signal. This provision is a new requirement and 
will add slightly to the training employees receive already on using 
EOT devices. FRA estimates the cost at $1,566 primarily for the 
railroads using two-way end-of-train devices to update their existing 
training plans.
    Turning to cost savings, among the EOT device waivers incorporated 
into the final rule, the waiver allowing a train equipped with Helper 
Link (or similar technology) to use an alternative air brake test 
procedure will benefit railroads using this system. The Helper Link 
technology reduces employees' time in uncoupling the helper locomotive 
from the train so that it may be turned around to help other trains 
ascend steep grades. FRA bases its estimate of cost savings on this 
reduced labor time. For the 26-C and D-22 type brake valves, FRA is 
extending the time before these types of valves need to be inspected 
and cleaned, resulting in fewer tests and labor savings. FRA is also 
extending, from 4 hours to 24 hours, the time before a Class I brake

[[Page 80565]]

test must be conducted on rail equipment that is not connected to a 
source of compressed air prior to being operated in a train again. FRA 
estimates railroads will accrue savings from performing fewer brake 
tests, less locomotive idling time to keep rail cars on compressed air 
(including reduced fuel consumption), and less use of yard air sources. 
This provision will result in annualized cost savings of $46 million 
(using a 7% discount rate), the largest category of cost savings. 
Furthermore, in an EPA comment to the NPRM, it was noted that reduced 
locomotive idling time will also reduce emissions and pollutants 
therein. FRA has estimated these potential benefits will total 
approximately $14.2 million (annualized using a 7% discount rate), and 
$16.8 million (annualized using a 3% discount rate). However, due to 
uncertainty regarding these benefits, FRA has not accounted for them in 
the primary analysis.
    Similar to the flexibility provided by other waivers, permitting an 
increase in brake pipe leakage to 90 CFM under certain conditions will 
allow railroads to conduct air brake tests without having to wait for 
additional crews (to test in higher daytime temperatures), or run 
shorter trains. The efficiencies gained through codifying the 90 CFM 
waiver are monetized in the table above. FRA found the maintenance 
requirements for air repeater units are already standard industry 
practice. In addition, for situations where a railroad can substitute 
an air repeater unit for a DP locomotive or EOT device, the railroad 
will save the opportunity cost of that equipment by employing it 
elsewhere. Finally, FRA expects large cost savings by increasing the 
time between single car air brake tests from 12 to 24 months for 
automated tests, and to 48 months for automated tests using a four-
pressure receiver. FRA estimates the longer interval between tests for 
rail cars using automated tests (about 1.1 million freight cars out of 
1.6 million freight cars in service) will result in the monetized time 
savings shown in the table.
    Separately, FRA expects the regulated community to submit fewer 
waiver requests, and requests for waiver extensions, to FRA for the 
regulatory parts subject to this final rule. FRA generally approves 
waivers for five years and may extend them upon request. Given the 
final rule codifies these waivers, railroads and suppliers will save 
the cost of applying and re-applying for these waivers. These 
collective savings are represented in the Waiver Cost Savings category 
in the table, with a comparable savings in terms of government time to 
review these waivers and renewals.
    FRA estimates this final rule will only impose minimal costs on the 
industry. This final rule generally increases flexibility for the 
regulated entities by codifying waivers and in certain circumstances, 
providing additional flexibility in meeting some regulatory 
requirements. The rule does not impose any new substantive 
requirements. Railroads and suppliers may choose voluntarily to take 
advantage of the flexibilities under this final rule. However, under 
proposed Sec.  232.409(e), FRA is providing EOT device manufacturers 
additional flexibility in conducting the required testing by 
reiterating the existing requirement that EOT device air pressure 
sensors need to be tested annually, or in accordance with alternative 
test procedures developed by the EOT device manufacturer and approved 
by FRA. FRA is not accounting for these costs in the overall analysis 
for this rulemaking, but acknowledges railroads may incur a burden to 
calibrate the air pressure sensor on the EOT device, as they do under 
the existing regulation. The burdens are further described in the 
regulatory evaluation accompanying this final rule.
    As is discussed in the preamble above, FRA does not believe that 
these provisions will have a negative impact on the safety of railroad 
operations. In fact, codifying several of the waivers may result in 
positive safety benefits for railroad employees. In general, the EOT 
device waivers, appendix B updates, 24-hour off-air, and automated 
single car tests will all reduce the frequency of air brake tests and 
inspections. Fewer brake tests and inspections will reduce the time 
employees are walking on potentially uneven ground such as track 
ballast (typically crushed stone), and reduce their chances of 
slipping, tripping, or falling. Also, railroad employees may reduce 
their chances of injury because they would spend less time moving in 
and around rail cars while connecting and disconnecting equipment for 
the brake test and checking equipment such as the brake pipe. For air 
brake tests conducted in yards, less frequent brake tests would likely 
result in employees reducing their exposure to adjacent train traffic. 
FRA has not quantified these safety benefits because it does not have 
injury data specifically from conducting brake tests, but has described 
the parameters that may reasonably reduce the risk of injury.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and E.O. 13272

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 ((RFA) 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
and Executive Order 13272 (67 FR 53461, Aug. 16, 2002) require agency 
review of proposed and final rules to assess their impacts on small 
entities. Regulations issued by the U.S. Small Business Administration 
(SBA) generally require agencies to prepare an initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis (IRFA) describing the impact of the proposed rule 
on small entities when issuing a proposed rule. (5 U.S.C. 603(a)). 
Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of 
preparing an analysis, if the proposed rulemaking is not expected to 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.'' \28\ To help the public comment on the potential small 
business impacts of the rulemaking, FRA prepared an IRFA to accompany 
the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See U.S. Small Business Office of Advocacy, A Guide for 
Government Agencies: How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, p. 25, August 2017, available at https://advocacy.sba.gov/resources/the-regulatory-flexibility-act/a-guide-for-government-agencies-how-to-comply-with-the-regulatory-flexibility-act/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this final rule, FRA is codifying various long-standing waivers 
that provide conditional exceptions to the existing rules concerning 
air brake testing and inspection, end-of-train (EOT) devices, brake 
valves, and helper service (i.e., Helper Link devices or similar 
technologies). In addition, FRA is extending the length of time freight 
rail equipment can be disconnected from a source of compressed air, or 
``off-air,'' before needing a new brake inspection to be placed back in 
operation. FRA is also using this opportunity to clarify certain 
provisions of the brake regulations and to remove outdated or 
unnecessary provisions. FRA estimates this final rule provides the 
opportunity for small entities to use their employees and railroad 
equipment more efficiently, resulting in cost savings.
    FRA did not receive any comments directly related to the IRFA. In 
consideration of comments received to the rulemaking, FRA made changes 
to the final rule that will affect small entities, but not to a 
significant degree. FRA is requiring manufacturers of telemetry 
equipment installed in the EOT device to continue to file an annual 
report to FRA if they do not specify a calibration period for their 
devices. This provision will enable FRA to monitor instances of 
frequency drift in a small percentage of this equipment. This report is 
a continuation of a report filed as a condition of a previous waiver. 
FRA

[[Page 80566]]

is also adding a requirement for employee training to reduce possible 
accidents from communication loss from the front of the train to the 
rear of the train, applicable to railroads that use two-way EOT 
devices.
Description of Small Entities Impacted by the Final Rule
    In consultation with the SBA, FRA has published a final statement 
of agency policy that formally establishes ``small entities'' or 
``small businesses'' as railroads, contractors, and hazardous materials 
shippers that meet the revenue requirements of a Class III railroad as 
set forth in 49 CFR 1201.1-1, which is $20 million or less in 
inflation-adjusted annual revenues, and commuter railroads or small 
governmental jurisdictions that serve populations of 50,000 or less. 
See 68 FR 24891, May 9, 2003 (codified at Appendix C to 49 CFR part 
209). FRA is using this definition for the final rule. For other 
entities, the same dollar limit in revenues governs whether a railroad, 
contractor, rail equipment supplier, or other respondent is a small 
entity.
    This final rule will be applicable to all railroads, although not 
all changes will be relevant to all railroads. Based on the railroads 
required to report accident/incidents to FRA under 49 CFR part 225, out 
of 751 railroads (excluding passenger service railroads that are 
subject to their own brake standards), FRA estimates there are 
approximately 735 Class III railroads; with 692 of them operating on 
the general system. These are of varying size, with some a part of 
larger holding companies. Therefore, this rule will impact a 
substantial number of small railroads.
    FRA is aware of four firms manufacturing EOT devices for sale in 
the United States, and a firm that supplies the radio used for 
telemetry in EOT devices. Of the EOT device manufacturers, only DPS 
Electronics, Inc. is a small entity with about $5 million to $10 
million in annual revenues and about 15 employees. The other firms, 
Siemens Industry Inc., Wabtec Railway Electronics, and Progressive Rail 
are larger companies with access to their larger parent companies' 
resources. Ritron, Inc. manufacturers the radio used in many firms' EOT 
devices and is a small entity with about $16 million in annual revenue 
and 90 employees.\29\ Therefore, this rule will impact a substantial 
percentage of suppliers (40 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ These suppliers would also be considered small entities 
under SBA size standards based on NAICS codes. FRA determined that 
these firms can be categorized under NAICS code 336999 All other 
transportation equipment manufacturing, with a corresponding size 
standard of 1,000 employees. See 13 CFR 121.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Economic Impacts on Small Entities
    FRA has determined that the impact on small entities will not be 
significant. In particular, the extension of time that freight rail 
equipment can be off-air before requiring a new brake test and 
inspection will result in significant cost savings from conducting 
fewer tests. FRA expects another important benefit will be better crew 
management. On a small railroad, employees often ``wear several hats,'' 
that is, perform several types of jobs, ranging from office work to 
train operations. Under the final rule, these railroads will be able to 
make available for other railroad jobs the time an employee would have 
spent conducting a brake test. The provision will likely increase the 
efficiency of labor resources, to some degree. Small railroads that do 
not operate newer types of equipment, such as EOT devices with air 
powered generators, can continue to perform tests in substantially the 
same manner as before this final rule.
    In a change from the NPRM, Ritron may choose to continue to file an 
annual report to FRA if it does not specify a calibration period. If 
Ritron chooses the report option, FRA estimates this report will take 
12 hours to do and cost about $800 per year, or $854 when annualized 
using a 7 percent discount rate.\30\ FRA estimates this cost, or 
reduction in cost savings, as a percent of Ritron's annual revenues 
(about $16 million) to be minimal at 0.006 percent.\31\ The safety 
reason for these reports is to enable FRA to ascertain the performance 
of the PLL radios (i.e., transceivers) over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Cost = 1 manufacturer * 12 hours * $66.51 per hour = $798. 
Wage rate sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics pay for 
Electrical and Electronics Engineers at https://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/electrical-and-electronics-engineers.htm as accessed April 28, 2020. The base wage was adjusted 
for 2017 dollars using the BLS Inflation Calculator, and burdened 
for benefits (30% of compensation per BLS Guidance). See primary 
analysis in the RIA for detailed explanation.
    \31\ Calculation: About $1,000 in annualized report cost/
$16,000,000 annual revenues = 0.0000625 [ap] 0.006%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA estimates the new training requirement will affect about 10 
percent of Class III railroads that operate trains with the two-way EOT 
devices subject to this requirement, or 69 small railroads. Analogous 
to estimating these costs in the primary RIA analysis for all 
railroads, the cost for Class III railroads is estimated as primarily 
the cost for railroads to modify their training plans. Specifically, 
FRA estimates 15 minutes to revise training plans (done at the same 
time when training plans are reviewed generally). Railroads already 
train their train crews how to initiate an emergency brake application 
in a locomotive, so the marginal time to add this requirement will be 
minimal. FRA estimates this total cost is $1,242, or only $18 per 
railroad.\32\ FRA determines this cost is not significant. Furthermore, 
this cost is only accounted for in the first year of the rule. (ASLRRA 
reports the average freight revenue per Class III railroad is $4.8 
million per year.\33\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Cost = Cost to revise training = 69 Class III railroads * 
(15 minutes/60 minutes) * $72.01 per hour (STB Professional and 
Administrative rate) = $1,242.22. Cost per affected railroad = 
$1,242/69 railroads = $18.00 per railroad.
    \33\ ASLRRA, Short Line and Regional Railroad Facts and Figures, 
p. 10 (2014 pamphlet) [hereinafter Facts and Figures].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, suppliers that make railroad EOT devices will be 
positively affected. In the past, they have applied to FRA for waivers 
for technological improvements to their devices, and their waivers are 
incorporated in this final rule, saving the cost to file a waiver 
renewal.
Certification
    Consistent with the findings of FRA's IRFA, and the lack of any 
comments received on it, I certify that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    FRA is submitting the information collection requirements in this 
final rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 
sections that contain the new and current information collection 
requirements and the estimated time to fulfill each requirement are as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Totals may not add due to rounding.
    \35\ The dollar equivalent cost is derived from the Surface 
Transportation Board's Full Year Wage A&B data series using the 
appropriate employee group hourly wage rate that includes 75 percent 
overhead charges.

[[Page 80567]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Total annual    Total cost
         CFR section              Respondent       Total annual      Average time     burden hours    equivalent
                                   universe          responses      per responses         \34\           \35\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
229.27--Annual tests.........  30,000            30,000 records    30 seconds.....  250 hours......      $18,000
                                locomotives.      of tests.
232.3--Applicability--Export,  708 railroads...  8 cards.........  10 minutes.....  1 hour.........           72
 industrial, & other cars not
 owned by railroads-
 identification.
232.7--Waivers...............  708 railroads...  2 petitions.....  160 hours......  320 hours......       23,040
232.15--Movement of Defective  1,620,000 cars..  128,400 tags/     3 minutes......  5,350 hours....      385,200
 Equipment -Tags/Records.                         records.
    --Written Notification...  1,620,000 cars..  25,000 notices..  3 minutes......  1,250 hours....       90,000
232.17--Special Approval       708 railroads...  1 petition......  100 hours......  100 hours......        7,200
 Procedure--Petitions for
 special approval of safety-
 critical revision.
    --Petitions for special    708 railroads...  1 petition......  100 hours......  100 hours......        7,200
     approval of pre-revenue
     service acceptance plan.
    --(d) Service of           708 railroads...  1 petition......  20 hours.......  20 hours.......        1,440
     petitions.
    --(d)(2)(ii) Statement of  Public/railroads  4 statements....  15 minutes.....  1 hour.........           72
     interest.
    --(f) Comment............  Public/railroads  6 comments......  4 hours........  24 hours.......        1,728
232.103(f)(2)--Gen'l           1,200,000 cars..  70,000 stickers/  10 minutes.....  11,667 hours...      840,024
 requirements--all train                          stencils/badge
 brake systems--stickers.                         plates.
    (n)(7)--RR Plan            708 railroads...  1 revised plan..  10 hours.......  10 hours.......          720
     identifying specific
     locations or
     circumstances where
     equipment may be left
     unattended.
    --Notification to FRA      708 railroads...  1 notice........  30 minutes.....  1 hour.........           72
     when RR develops and has
     plan in place or
     modifies existing plan.
    --Inspection of Equipment  708 railroads...  12 inspections/   4 hours........  48 hours.......        3,456
     by Qualified Employee                        records.
     after Responder Visit.
232.107--Air source            10 new railroads  1 plan..........  40 hours.......  40 hours.......        2,880
 requirements and cold
 weather operations--
 Monitoring Plan (Subsequent
 Years).
    --Amendments/Revisions to  50 railroads/     10 revisions....  20 hours.......  200 hours......       14,400
     Plan.                      plans.
    --Recordkeeping..........  50 railroads/     1,150 records...  10 minutes.....  192 hours......       13,824
                                plans.
232.109--Dynamic brake         708 railroads...  1,656,000         4 minutes......  110,400 hours..    7,948,800
 requirements--status/record.                     records.
    --Inoperative dynamic      30,000            6,358 records...  4 minutes......  424 hours......       30,528
     brakes: Repair record.     locomotives.
    --Tag bearing words        30,000            6,358 tags......  30 seconds.....  53 hours.......        3,816
     ``inoperative dynamic      locomotives.
     brakes''.
    --Deactivated dynamic      8,000             10 markings.....  5 minutes......  1 hour.........           72
     brakes (Sub. Yrs.).        locomotives.
    --Operating rules          5 new...........  5 rules.........  4 hours........  20 hours.......        1,440
     (Subsequent Years).
    --Amendments/Revisions...  708 railroads...  15 revisions....  1 hour.........  15 hours.......        1,080
    --Requests to increase 5   708 railroads...  5 requests......  30 min. + 20     103 hours......        7,416
     mph overspeed                                                  hours.
     restriction.
    --Knowledge criteria--     5 new...........  5 amendments....  16 hours.......  80 hours.......        5,760
     locomotive engineers--
     Subsequent Years.
232.111--Train information     5 new...........  5 procedures....  40 hours.......  200 hours......       14,400
 handling.
    Sub. Yrs.--Amendments/     100 railroads...  100 revisions...  20 hours.......  2,000 hours....      144,000
     Revisions.
    --Report requirements to   708 railroads...  2,112,000         5 minutes......  176,000 hours..   12,672,000
     train crew.                                  reports.
232.203--Training              15 railroads....  5 programs......  100 hours......  500 hours......       36,000
 requirements--Tr. Prog.--Sub
 Yr..
    --Amendments to written    708 railroads...  236 revisions...  8 hours........  1,888 hours....      135,936
     program.
    --Training records.......  708 railroads...  24,781 records..  8 minutes......  3,304 hours....      237,888
    --Training notifications.  708 railroads...  24,781 notices..  1 minute.......  413 hours......       29,736
    --Efficiency test plans..  708 railroads...  708 copies......  1 minute.......  12 hours.......          864
232.205--Initial terminal      708 railroads...  383,840 notices/  45 seconds.....  4,798 hours....      345,456
 inspection: Class I brake                        records.
 tests and notifications/
 records (Revised
 requirement).
    (c)(1)(ii)(B)--RR          708 railroads...  10 revised        8 hours........  80 hours.......        5,760
     Development/                                 operating rules.
     implementation of
     operating rules to
     ensure compliant
     operation of train if
     air flow exceeds
     stipulated section
     parameters after Class I
     brake test is completed
     (New Requirement).
232.207--Class 1A brake        708 railroads...  1 list..........  1 hour.........  1 hour.........           72
 tests--Designation Lists
 Where Performed.
    Subsequent Years: Notice   708 railroads...  250 notices.....  10 minutes.....  42 hours.......        3,024
     of Change.
232.209--Class II brake tests- 708 railroads...  159,740 comments  3 seconds......  133 hours......        9,576
 intermediate ``Roll-by
 inspection--Results to train
 driver.
232.213--Written Designation   83,000 long.....  250 letters.....  15 minutes.....  63 hours.......        4,536
 to FRA of Extended haul
 trains.
    --Notification to FRA      7 railroads.....  250 notices.....  10 minutes.....  42 hours.......        3,024
     Associate Administrator
     for Safety of a change
     in the location where an
     extended haul brake test
     is performed (New
     Requirement).
232.219--Double heading and    2 railroads.....  100 records.....  5 minutes......  8 hours........          576
 helper service: Testing/
 calibration/records of
 Helper Link devices used by
 locomotives (formerly under
 232.219(c)(3)).
232.303--General               1,600,000 frgt..  5,600 tags......  5 minutes......  467 hours......       33,624
 requirements--single car
 test: Tagging of Moved
 Equipment.
    --Last repair track brake  1,600,000 frgt..  240,000 markings  2 minutes......  8,000 hours....      576,000
     test/single car test--
     Stenciled on Side of
     Equipment.
232.307--Modification of       railroads/AAR...  1 request + 3     20 hours + 5     20 hours.......        1,440
 single car air brake test                        copies.           minutes.
 procedures: Requests
 (includes 232.409(e)).
    --Affirmation Statement    railroads/AAR...  1 statement + 4   30 minutes + 5   1 hour.........           72
     on Mod. Req. To Employee                     copies.           minutes.
     Representatives.

[[Page 80568]]

 
232.309--Repair track brake    640 shops.......  5,000 records of  2 minutes......  167 hours......       12,024
 test equipment and devices                       calibrations.
 used to perform single car
 air brake tests--Periodic
 calibration of devices.
232.403--Unique Code.........  245 railroads...  12 requests.....  5 minutes......  1 hour.........           72
232.409--Inspection/Tests/     245 railroads...  447,500           30 seconds.....  3,729 hours....      268,488
 Records EOTs.                                    recording of
                                                  tests.
    --(d)-(e) Telemetry        245 railroads...  17,000 records..  2 minutes......  567 hours......       40,824
     equipment--Testing/
     Calibration/Rcds/--
     Documentations of
     testing (paragraph (d)
     is a revised
     requirement; paragraph
     (e) clarifies the use of
     Sec.   229.27).
    --(f)(2) Annual report to  1 manufacturer..  1 report........  12 hours.......  12 hours.......          864
     FRA on radios found with
     frequency drift (New
     requirement).
232.503--Process to introduce  708 railroads...  1 letter........  1 hour.........  1 hour.........           72
 new brake technology.
    --Special approval.......  708 railroads...  1 request.......  3 hours........  3 hours........          216
232.505--Pre-revenue service   708 railroads...  1 procedure.....  160 hours......  160 hours......       11,520
 acceptance test plan--
 Submission of maintenance
 procedure.
    --Amendments to            708 railroads...  1 revision......  40 hours.......  40 hours.......        2,880
     maintenance procedure.
    --Design description.....  708 railroads...  1 petition......  67 hours.......  67 hours.......        4,824
    --Report to FRA Assoc.     708 railroads...  1 report........  13 hours.......  13 hours.......          936
     Admin. for Safety.
    --Brake system technology  708 railroads...  1 description...  40 hours.......  40 hours.......        2,880
     testing.
232.717(c)--Freight and        40 railroads....  40 written plans  6 hours........  240 hours......       17,280
 passenger train car brakes--
 Written maintenance plan
 (formerly under appendix B,
 recodified subpart H).
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total....................  708 railroads...  5,345,581         N/A............  333,682 hours..   24,025,104
                                                  responses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, 
searching existing data sources, gathering or maintaining the needed 
data, and reviewing the information. For information or a copy of the 
paperwork package submitted to OMB, contact Ms. Hodan Wells, 
Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, 
Federal Railroad Administration, at 202-493-0440.
    Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the 
collection of information requirements should direct them to Ms. Hodan 
Wells via email at [email protected].
    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of 
information requirements contained in this rule 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. FRA is not authorized to 
impose a penalty on persons for violating information collection 
requirements that do not display a current OMB control number, if 
required. The current OMB control number for 49 CFR 229 is 2130-0008.

D. Environmental Impact

    FRA has evaluated this final rule consistent with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council of 
Environmental Quality's NEPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR parts 
1500-1508, and FRA's NEPA implementing regulations at 23 CFR part 771 
and determined that it is categorically excluded from environmental 
review and therefore does not require the preparation of an 
environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). 
Categorical exclusions (CEs) are actions identified in an agency's NEPA 
implementing regulations that do not normally have a significant impact 
on the environment and therefore do not require either an EA or EIS. 
See 40 CFR 1508.4. Specifically, FRA has determined that this final 
rule is categorically excluded from detailed environmental review 
pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15), ``[p]romulgation of rules, the 
issuance of policy statements, the waiver or modification of existing 
regulatory requirements, or discretionary approvals that do not result 
in significantly increased emissions of air or water pollutants or 
noise.''
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to revise FRA's regulations 
governing brake inspections, tests, and equipment to reduce unnecessary 
costs and incentivize innovation, while improving or maintaining rail 
safety. This rule does not directly or indirectly impact any 
environmental resources and will not result in significantly increased 
emissions of air or water pollutants or noise. Instead, the final rule 
is likely to result in safety benefits. In analyzing the applicability 
of a CE, FRA must also consider whether unusual circumstances are 
present that would warrant a more detailed environmental review. See 23 
CFR 771.116(b). FRA calculated quantifiable reductions in air emissions 
related to reduced idling in the cost-benefit analysis for this 
rulemaking. However, these reductions are likely to result in 
environmental benefits and do not necessitate further environmental 
documentation. FRA has concluded that no such unusual circumstances 
exist with respect to this final regulation and it meets the 
requirements for categorical exclusion under 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15).
    Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 
and its implementing regulations, FRA has determined this undertaking 
has no potential to affect historic properties. See 16 U.S.C. 470. FRA 
has also determined that this rulemaking does not approve a project 
resulting in a use of a resource protected by Section 4(f). See 
Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (Pub. L. 89-670, 
80 Stat. 931); 49 U.S.C. 303.
    Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, and DOT 
Order 5610.2(a) (91 FR 27534 May 10, 2012) require DOT agencies to 
achieve environmental justice as part of their mission by identifying 
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse 
human health or environmental effects, including interrelated social 
and economic effects, of their programs, policies, and activities on 
minority populations and low-income populations. The DOT Order 
instructs DOT agencies to address compliance with Executive Order 12898

[[Page 80569]]

and requirements within the DOT Order in rulemaking activities, as 
appropriate. FRA has evaluated this final rule under Executive Order 
12898 and the DOT Order and has determined it would not cause 
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental 
effects on minority populations or low-income populations.

E. Federalism Implications

    E.O. 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 E.O. 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 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.
    FRA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. This final rule generally 
codifies existing waivers or makes technical amendments to existing FRA 
regulations. FRA has determined that this final rule has no federalism 
implications, other than the possible preemption of state laws under 49 
U.S.C. 20106. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of 
E.O. 13132 do not apply, and preparation of a federalism summary impact 
statement for the proposed rule is not required.

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 $100,000,000 or more (adjusted 
annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and before promulgating any 
final rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was 
published, the agency shall prepare a written statement detailing the 
effect on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. 
This final rule would not result in such an expenditure, and thus 
preparation of such a statement is not required.

G. Energy Impact

    E.O. 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of 
Energy Effects for any ``significant energy action.'' 66 FR 28355, May 
22, 2001. FRA evaluated this final rule in accordance with E.O. 13211 
and determined that this regulatory action is not a ``significant 
energy action'' within the meaning of the E.O.
    E.O. 13783, ``Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,'' 
requires Federal agencies to review regulations to determine whether 
they potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced 
energy resources, with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, 
and nuclear energy resources. See 82 FR 16093, March 31, 2017. FRA 
determined this final rule would not burden the development or use of 
domestically produced energy resources.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 218

    Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Railroad employees, 
Railroad safety, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 221

    Railroad safety.

49 CFR Part 232

    Incorporation by reference, Power brakes, Railroad safety, 
Securement, Two-way end-of-train devices.

V. The Rule

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA amends parts 218, 
221, and 232 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

PART 218--RAILROAD OPERATING PRACTICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 218 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20131, 20138, 20144, 20168, 
28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.


0
2. Amend Sec.  218.22 by revising paragraphs (c) introductory text and 
(c)(5) to read as follows:


Sec.  218.22  Utility employee.

* * * * *
    (c) A utility employee may be assigned to and serve as a member of 
a train or yard crew without the protection otherwise required by 
subpart B of part 218 of this chapter only under the following 
conditions:
* * * * *
    (5) The utility employee is performing one or more of the following 
functions: Set or release handbrakes; couple or uncouple air hoses and 
other electrical or mechanical connections; prepare rail cars for 
coupling; set wheel blocks or wheel chains; conduct air brake test to 
include cutting air brake components in or out and position retaining 
valves; inspect, test, install, remove or replace a rear end marking 
device or end of train device; or change batteries on the rear end 
marking device or the end of train device if the change may be 
accomplished without the use of tools. Under all other circumstances, a 
utility employee working on, under, or between railroad rolling 
equipment must be provided with blue signal protection in accordance 
with Sec. Sec.  218.23 through 218.30 of this part.
* * * * *

PART 221--REAR END MARKING DEVICE--PASSENGER, COMMUTER AND FREIGHT 
TRAINS

0
3. The authority citation for part 221 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 
CFR 1.89.


0
4. Amend Sec.  221.13 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  221.13  Marking device display.

* * * * *
    (d) The centroid of the marking device must be located above the 
coupler, where its visibility is not obscured and it does not interfere 
with an employee's access to, or use of, any other safety appliance on 
the car.

0
5. Amend appendix A to part 221 by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) and 
(b)(3)(ii) to read as follows:

[[Page 80570]]

Appendix A to Part 221--Procedures for Approval of Rear End Marking 
Devices

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) The results of the tests performed under paragraph (i) of 
this subsection demonstrate marking device performance in compliance 
with the standard prescribed in 49 CFR 221.15;
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) The results of the tests performed under paragraph (i) of 
this subsection demonstrate marking device performance in compliance 
with the standard prescribed in 49 CFR 221.15;
* * * * *

PART 232--BRAKE SYSTEM SAFETY STANDARDS FOR FREIGHT AND OTHER NON-
PASSENGER TRAINS AND EQUIPMENT; END-OF-TRAIN DEVICES

0
6. The authority citation for part 232 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-20103, 20107, 20133, 20141, 20301-
20303, 20306, 21301-20302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 
1.89.


0
7. Amend Sec.  232.1 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) and removing 
paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  232.1  Scope.

* * * * *
    (b) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this paragraph or 
in this part, railroads to which this part applies must comply with all 
the requirements contained in this part.
    (c) Except for operations identified in Sec.  232.3(c)(1), (4), and 
(6) through (8), all railroads part of the general railroad system of 
transportation must operate pursuant to the requirements in subpart H 
of this part (which contains the requirements in this part 232 as they 
existed on May 31, 2001), until they are either required to operate 
pursuant to the requirements contained in subparts A through G of this 
part or the requirements contained in part 238 of this chapter.

0
8. Amend Sec.  232.3 by revising paragraph (c) introductory text to 
read as follows:


Sec.  232.3  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (c) Except as provided in Sec.  232.1(c) and paragraph (b) of this 
section, this part does not apply to:
* * * * *

0
9. Amend Sec.  232.5 by revising the introductory text and removing the 
definition of ``Air Flow Indicator, AFM'' and adding definitions for 
``Air flow method indicator, AFM,'' ``Air repeater unit, ARU,'' 
``APTA,'' and ``Gradient, brake pipe'' in alphabetical order to read as 
follows:


Sec.  232.5  Definitions.

    The definitions in this section are intended to clarify the meaning 
of terms used in this part.
* * * * *
    Air flow method indicator, AFM means a calibrated air flow 
measuring device used as required by the air flow method (AFM) of 
qualifying train air brakes and with information clearly and legibly 
displayed in analog or digital format and visible in daylight and 
darkness from the engineer's normal operating position. Each AFM 
indicator includes:
    (1) Markings from 10 to 80 cubic feet per minute (CFM), in 
increments of 10 CFM or less; and
    (2) Numerals indicating 20, 40, 60, and 80 CFM for continuous 
monitoring of air flow.
    Air repeater unit, ARU means a car, container, or similar device 
that provides an additional brake pipe air source by responding to air 
control instructions from a controlling locomotive using a 
communication system such as a distributed power system.
    APTA means the American Public Transportation Association.
* * * * *
    Gradient, brake pipe means the difference in brake pipe pressure, 
usually measured in pounds per square inch (psi), between each air 
supply source (e.g., locomotive, distributed power unit, or ARU) or 
between an air supply source and the rear car of the train when the 
brake system is fully charged under existing leakage and temperature 
conditions.
* * * * *

0
10. Amend Sec.  232.11 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  232.11  Penalties.

    (a) Any person (including but not limited to a railroad; any 
manager, supervisor, official, or other employee or agent of a 
railroad; any owner, manufacturer, lessor, or lessee of railroad 
equipment, track, or facilities; any employee of such owner, 
manufacturer, lessor, lessee, or independent contractor) who violates 
any requirement of this part or causes the violation of any such 
requirement is subject to a civil penalty of at least the minimum civil 
monetary penalty and not more than the ordinary maximum civil monetary 
penalty per violation, except that: Penalties may be assessed against 
individuals only for willful violations, and, where a grossly negligent 
violation or a pattern of repeated violations has created an imminent 
hazard of death or injury to individuals, or has caused death or 
injury, a penalty not to exceed the aggravated maximum civil monetary 
penalty per violation may be assessed. See 49 CFR part 209, appendix A. 
Each day a violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. 
FRA's website at https://railroads.dot.gov/ contains a schedule of 
civil penalty amounts used in connection with this part.
* * * * *

0
11. Amend Sec.  232.17 by revising paragraph (a), and revising and 
republishing paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  232.17  Special approval procedure.

    (a) General. The following procedures govern consideration and 
action upon requests for special approval of a plan under Sec.  
232.15(g); an alternative standard under Sec.  232.305 or Sec.  
232.603; an alternative technology under Sec.  232.407(b) or (c); or a 
single car test procedure under Sec.  232.611; and pre-revenue service 
acceptance testing plans under subpart F of this part.
    (b) Petitions for special approval of an alternative standard or 
test procedure. Each petition for special approval of a plan under 
Sec.  232.15(g); an alternative standard under Sec.  232.305 or Sec.  
232.603; an alternative technology under Sec.  232.407(b) or (c); or a 
single car test procedure under Sec.  232.611 shall contain:
    (1) The name, title, address, and telephone number of the primary 
person to be contacted with regard to review of the petition;
    (2) The plan, alternative standard, alternative technology, or test 
procedure proposed, in detail, to be submitted for or to meet the 
particular requirement of this part;
    (3) Appropriate data or analysis, or both, for FRA to consider in 
determining whether the plan, alternative standard, alternative 
technology, or test procedure, will be consistent with the guidance 
under Sec.  232.15(f), if applicable, and will provide at least an 
equivalent level of safety or otherwise meet the requirements contained 
in this part; and
    (4) A statement affirming that the railroad has served a copy of 
the petition on designated representatives of its employees, together 
with a list of the

[[Page 80571]]

names and addresses of the persons served.
* * * * *

0
12. Amend Sec.  232.103 by revising paragraphs (l) and (m) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  232.103  General requirements for all train brake systems.

* * * * *
    (l) Except as otherwise provided in this part, all equipment used 
in freight or other non-passenger trains must, at a minimum, meet the 
Association of American Railroads (AAR) Standard S-469, ``Freight 
Brakes- Performance Specification,'' Revised 2006 (contained in AAR 
Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices, Brakes and Brake 
Equipment), also referred to as AAR Standard S-469-01. The Director of 
the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in 
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a 
copy from the Association of American Railroads, 425 Third Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20024, telephone: (202) 639-2345, email: 
[email protected], website: https://aarpublications.com. You may 
inspect a copy of the document at the Federal Railroad Administration, 
Docket Clerk, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 
(telephone: (855) 368-4200) or at the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this 
material at NARA, email [email protected], or go to: 
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    (m) An en route train shall be stopped at the next available 
location, inspected for leaks in the brake system, and provided with 
corrective action, if the train experiences:
    (1) A brake pipe gradient of greater than 15 psi; or
    (2) A brake pipe air flow of greater than that permitted by this 
part, when the air flow has been qualified by the Air Flow Method as 
provided for in subpart C of this part and the indication does not 
return to within the limits in a reasonable time.
* * * * *

0
13. Amend Sec.  232.203 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  232.203  Training requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) A railroad that operates trains required to be equipped with a 
two-way end-of-train telemetry device pursuant to subpart E of this 
part, and each contractor that maintains such devices, shall adopt and 
comply with a training program that specifically addresses:
    (1) The testing, operation, and maintenance of two-way end-of-train 
devices for employees who are responsible for the testing, operation, 
and maintenance of the devices; and
    (2) For operating employees the limitations and proper use of the 
emergency application signal and the loss of communication indication 
between front-of-train and rear-of-train devices.
* * * * *

0
14. Amend Sec.  232.205 by revising paragraph (a)(3), revising and 
republishing paragraphs (b) and (c)(1), adding paragraph (c)(9), and 
revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  232.205  Class I brake test-initial terminal inspection.

    (a) * * *
    (3) A location where the train is off-air for a period of more than 
24 hours.
    (b) Except as provided in Sec.  232.209, each car and each solid 
block of cars added to a train shall receive a Class I brake test as 
described in paragraph (c) of this section at the location where it is 
added to a train unless:
    (1) The solid block of cars is comprised of cars from a single 
previous train, the cars of which have previously received a Class I 
brake test and have remained continuously and consecutively coupled 
together with the train line remaining connected, other than for 
removing defective equipment, since being removed from its previous 
train and have not been off-air for more than 24 hours; or
    (2) The solid block of cars is comprised of cars from a single 
previous train, the cars of which were required to be separated into 
multiple solid blocks of cars due to space or trackage constraints at a 
particular location when removed from the previous train, provided the 
cars have previously received a Class I brake test, have not been off-
air more than 24 hours, and the cars in each of the multiple blocks of 
cars have remained continuously and consecutively coupled together with 
the train line remaining connected, except for the removal of defective 
equipment. Furthermore, these multiple solid blocks of cars shall be 
added to a train in the same relative order (no reclassification) as 
when removed from the previous train, except for the removal of 
defective equipment.
    (c) A Class I brake test of a train shall consist of the following 
tasks and requirements:
    (1) Brake pipe leakage shall not exceed 5 psi per minute or air 
flow shall not exceed 60 cubic feet per minute (CFM).
    (i) Leakage Test. The brake pipe leakage test shall be conducted as 
follows:
    (A) Charge the air brake system to the pressure at which the train 
will be operated, and the pressure at the rear of the train shall be 
within 15 psi of the pressure at which the train will be operated, but 
not less than 75 psi, as indicated by an accurate gauge or end-of-train 
device at the rear end of train;
    (B) Upon receiving the signal to apply brakes for test, make a 20-
psi brake pipe service reduction;
    (C) If the locomotive used to perform the leakage test is equipped 
with a means for maintaining brake pipe pressure at a constant level 
during a 20-psi brake pipe service reduction, this feature shall be cut 
out during the leakage test; and
    (D) With the brake valve lapped and the pressure maintaining 
feature cut out (if so equipped) and after waiting 45-60 seconds, note 
the brake pipe leakage as indicated by the brake-pipe gauge in the 
locomotive, which shall not exceed 5 psi per minute.
    (ii) Air Flow Method Test. When a locomotive is equipped with a 26-
L brake valve or equivalent pressure maintaining locomotive brake 
valve, a railroad may use the Air Flow Method Test as an alternate to 
the brake pipe leakage test. The Air Flow Method (AFM) Test shall be 
performed as follows:
    (A) Charge the air brake system to the pressure at which the train 
will be operated, and the pressure at the rear of the train shall be 
within 15 psi of the pressure at which the train will be operated, but 
not less than 75 psi, as indicated by an accurate gauge or end-of-train 
device at the rear end of train; and
    (B) Use a calibrated AFM indicator to measure air flow. A train 
equipped with at least one distributed power unit or an air repeater 
unit providing a source of brake pipe control air from two or more 
locations must not exceed a combined flow of 90 cubic feet per minute 
(CFM). Otherwise, the air flow must not exceed 60 CFM. Railroads must 
develop and implement operating rules to ensure compliant operation of 
a train if air flow exceeds these parameters after the Class I brake 
test is completed.
    (iii) The AFM indicator must be calibrated for accuracy at periodic 
intervals not to exceed 92 days. The AFM indicator and all test 
orifices must be calibrated at temperatures of not less than 20 [deg]F. 
AFM indicators must be accurate to within 3 standard cubic 
feet per minute (CFM) at 60 CFM air flow.

[[Page 80572]]

    (iv) For each AFM indicator, its last date of calibration must be 
recorded and certified on Form F6180-49A.
    (v) An AFM indicator not incompliance with this part must:
    (A) Not be used, including in the performance of a leakage test or 
to aid in the control or braking of the train;
    (B) Be tagged in accordance with Sec.  232.15(b) and include text 
that it is ``inoperative'' or ``overdue''; and
    (C) Be placed with its tag in a conspicuous location of the 
controlling locomotive cab.
* * * * *
    (9) Although an air repeater unit is not a locomotive or 
appurtenance under part 229, an air repeater unit operated in 
accordance with this part must:
    (i) Receive an inspection in accordance with Sec.  229.21 where and 
when an inspection is required in accordance with Sec.  232.205(a)(1); 
and
    (ii) Otherwise comply with part 229 as applicable to those parts 
that provide compressed air, modulate the brake pipe, and otherwise 
control the movement of the train. All remaining parts are subject to 
the inspection requirements of parts 215 and 232.
* * * * *
    (e) A railroad must notify the locomotive engineer that the Class I 
brake test was satisfactorily performed, whether the equipment to be 
hauled in his train has been off-air for a period of more than 24 
hours, and provide the information required in this paragraph to the 
locomotive engineer or place the information in the cab of the 
controlling locomotive following the test. The information required by 
this paragraph may be provided to the locomotive engineer by any means 
determined appropriate by the railroad; however, a written or 
electronic record of the information must be retained in the cab of the 
controlling locomotive until the train reaches its destination. The 
written or electronic record must contain the date, time, number of 
freight cars inspected, and identify the qualified person(s) performing 
the test and the location where the Class I brake test was performed.
* * * * *

0
15. Amend Sec.  232.207 by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  232.207  Class IA brake tests--1,000-mile inspection.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) In the event of an emergency that alters normal train 
operations, such as a derailment or other unusual circumstance that 
adversely affects the safe operation of the train, the railroad is not 
required to provide prior written notification of a change in the 
location where a Class IA brake test is performed to a location not on 
the railroad's list of designated locations for performing Class IA 
brake tests, provided that the railroad notifies FRA's Associate 
Administrator for Safety within 24 hours after the designation has been 
changed and the reason for that change.

0
16. Amend Sec.  232.209 by revising and republishing paragraph (a) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  232.209  Class II brake tests--intermediate inspection.

    (a) At a location other than the initial terminal of a train, a 
Class II brake test must be performed by a qualified person, as defined 
in Sec.  232.5, on the following equipment when added to a train:
    (1) Each car or solid block of cars, as defined in Sec.  232.5, 
that has not previously received a Class I brake test or that has been 
off-air for more than 24 hours;
    (2) Each solid block of cars, as defined in Sec.  232.5, that is 
comprised of cars from more than one previous train; and
    (3) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, each 
solid block of cars that is comprised of cars from only one previous 
train, the cars of which have not remained continuously and 
consecutively coupled together with the train line remaining connected 
since being removed from the previous train. A solid block of cars is 
considered to have remained continuously and consecutively coupled 
together with the train line remaining connected since being removed 
from the previous train if it has been changed only by removing 
defective equipment.
    (4) Each solid block of cars that is comprised of cars from a 
single previous train, the cars of which were required to be separated 
into multiple solid blocks of cars due to space or trackage constraints 
at a particular location when removed from the previous train, if they 
are not added in the same relative order as when removed from the 
previous train or if the cars in each of the multiple blocks of cars 
have not remained continuously and consecutively coupled together with 
the train line remaining connected, except for the removal of defective 
equipment.
* * * * *

0
17. Amend Sec.  232.211 by revising paragraphs (a)(3) through (5) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  232.211  Class III brake tests-trainline continuity inspection.

    (a) * * *
    (3) At a point, other than the initial terminal for the train, 
where a car or a solid block of cars that is comprised of cars from 
only one previous train the cars of which:
    (i) Have remained continuously and consecutively coupled together 
with the trainline remaining connected, other than for removing 
defective equipment, since being removed from its previous train that 
has previously received a Class I brake test; and
    (ii) That has not been off-air for more than 24 hours is added to a 
train;
    (4) At a point, other than the initial terminal for the train, 
where a solid block of cars that is comprised of cars from a single 
previous train is added to a train, provided:
    (i) The solid block of cars was required to be separated into 
multiple solid blocks of cars due to space or trackage constraints at a 
particular location when removed from the previous train;
    (ii) The cars have previously received a Class I brake test;
    (iii) Have not been off-air more than 24 hours; and
    (iv) The cars in each of the multiple blocks of cars have remained 
continuously and consecutively coupled together with the train line 
remaining connected, except for the removal of defective equipment. 
Furthermore, these multiple solid blocks of cars must be added to the 
train in the same relative order (no reclassification) as when removed 
from the previous train, except for the removal of defective equipment; 
or
    (5) At a point, other than the initial terminal for the train, 
where a car or a solid block of cars that has received a Class I or 
Class II brake test at that location, prior to being added to the 
train, and that has not been off-air for more than 24 hours, is added 
to a train.
* * * * *

0
18. Amend Sec.  232.213 by:
0
a. Removing paragraph (a)(1)(iii);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (a)(1)(iv) as (a)(1)(iii);
0
c. Revising paragraph (a)(5);
0
d. Revising and republishing paragraph (a)(6); and
0
e. Adding paragraph (a)(8).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  232.213  Extended haul trains.

    (a) * * *
    (5) The train must have no more than one pick-up and one set-out en 
route, except for the set-out of defective equipment pursuant to the 
requirements of this chapter. Cars added to the train en route must be 
inspected pursuant to

[[Page 80573]]

the requirements contained in paragraphs (a)(2) through (5) of this 
section at the location where they are added to the train.
    (6) In order for an extended haul train to proceed beyond 1,500 
miles, the following requirements shall be met:
    (i) If the train will move 1,000 miles or less from that location 
before receiving a Class IA brake test or reaching destination, a Class 
I brake test must be conducted pursuant to Sec.  232.205 to ensure 100 
percent effective and operative brakes.
    (ii) If the train will move greater than 1,000 miles from that 
location without another brake inspection, the train must be identified 
as an extended haul train for that movement and must meet all the 
requirements contained in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this 
section. Such trains must receive a Class I brake test pursuant to 
Sec.  232.205 by a qualified mechanical inspector to ensure 100 percent 
effective and operative brakes, a freight car inspection pursuant to 
part 215 of this chapter by an inspector designated under Sec.  215.11 
of this chapter, and all cars containing non-complying conditions under 
part 215 of this chapter must either be repaired or removed from the 
train.
* * * * *
    (8) In the event of an emergency that alters normal train 
operations, such as a derailment or other unusual circumstance that 
adversely affects the safe operation of the train, the railroad is not 
required to provide prior written notification of a change in the 
location where an extended haul brake test is performed to a location 
not on the railroad's list of designated locations for performing 
extended haul brake tests, provided that the railroad notifies FRA's 
Associate Administrator for Safety within 24 hours after the 
designation has been changed and the reason for that change.
* * * * *

0
19. Amend Sec.  232.217 by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  232.217  Train brake tests conducted using yard air.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) If the cars are off-air for more than 24 hours, the cars must 
be retested in accordance with Sec.  232.205(c) through (f).
* * * * *

0
20. Amend Sec.  232.219 by revising the section heading and revising 
and republishing paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  232.219  Double-heading and helper service.

* * * * *
    (c) If a helper locomotive utilizes a Helper Link device or a 
similar technology, the locomotive and device shall be equipped, 
designed, and maintained as follows:
    (1) The locomotive engineer shall be notified by a distinctive 
alarm of any loss of communication between the device and the two-way 
end-of-train device of more than 25 seconds;
    (2) A method to reset the device shall be provided in the cab of 
the helper locomotive that can be operated from the engineer's usual 
position during operation of the locomotive. Alternatively, the helper 
locomotive or the device shall be equipped with a means to 
automatically reset the device, provided that the automatic reset 
occurs within the period time permitted for manual reset of the device; 
and
    (3) When helping trains equipped with distributed power or ECP 
brakes on the rear of the train, and utilizing a Helper Link device or 
a similar technology, a properly installed and tested end-of-train 
device may be utilized on the helper locomotive. Railroads must adopt 
and comply with an operating rule consistent with this chapter to 
ensure the safe use of this alternative procedure.
    (4) The device shall be tested for accuracy and calibrated if 
necessary according to the manufacturer's specifications and procedures 
every 365 days. This shall include testing radio frequencies and 
modulation of the device. A legible record of the date and location of 
the last test or calibration shall be maintained with the device.

0
21. Amend Sec.  232.305 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(2) and 
adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  232.305  Single car air brake tests.

    (a) Single car air brake tests must be performed by a qualified 
person in accordance with either Section 3.0, ``Tests-Standard Freight 
Brake Equipment,'' and Section 4.0, ``Special Tests,'' AAR Standard S-
486-18; Section 3.0, ``Single-Car Test Requirements,'' Section 4.0, 
``Special Tests,'' and Section 13.0 ``4-Pressure Single-Car Test 
Requirements,'' AAR Standard S-4027-18; an alternative procedure 
approved by FRA pursuant to Sec.  232.17; or a modified procedure 
approved in accordance with the provisions contained in Sec.  232.307.
    (b) * * *
    (2) A car is on a shop or repair track, as defined in Sec.  
232.303(a), for any reason and has not received either:
    (i) A manual single car air brake test (AAR Standard S-486) within 
the previous 12-month period;
    (ii) An automated single car air brake test (AAR Standard S-4027 
Sec. Sec.  3.0 and 4.0) within the previous 24-month period;
    (iii) Or a 4-pressure single car air brake test (AAR Standard S-
4027 Sec.  13.0) within the previous 48-month period;
* * * * *
    (f) The Director of the Federal Register approves the incorporation 
by reference of the standards required in this section into this 
section in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may 
inspect a copy of the material at the Federal Railroad Administration, 
Docket Clerk, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 
(telephone: 855-368-4200). You may also inspect the material at the 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on 
the availability of this material at NARA, email [email protected], 
or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. You 
may obtain the material from the following source(s):
    (1) Association of American Railroads (AAR), 425 Third Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20024, telephone: (202) 639-2345, email: 
[email protected], website: https://aarpublications.com.
    (i) AAR Standard S-486, ``Code of Air Brake System Tests for 
Freight Equipment--Single Car Test,'' Revised 2018 (contained in AAR 
Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices, Brakes and Brake 
Equipment), also referred to as AAR Standard S-486-18.
    (ii) AAR Standard S-4027, ``Automated Single-Car Test Equipment, 
Conventional Brake Equipment--Design and Performance Requirements,'' 
Revised 2018 (contained in AAR Manual of Standards and Recommended 
Practices, Brakes and Brake Equipment), also referred to as AAR 
Standard S-4027-18.
    (2) [Reserved]

0
22. Amend Sec.  232.307 by revising the section heading and revising 
and republishing paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  232.307  Modification of brake test procedures.

    (a) Request. The AAR or other authorized representative of the 
railroad industry may seek modification of brake test procedures 
prescribed in this chapter. The request for modification shall be 
submitted to the Associate Administrator for Safety, Federal Railroad 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 and 
shall contain:

[[Page 80574]]

    (1) The name, title, address, and telephone number of the primary 
person to be contacted with regard to review of the modification;
    (2) The section and paragraph at issue, and the modification, in 
detail, to be substituted for a particular procedure prescribed in this 
chapter;
    (3) Appropriate data or analysis, or both, for FRA to consider in 
determining whether the modification will provide at least an 
equivalent level of safety; and
    (4) A statement affirming that the railroad industry has served a 
copy of the request on the designated representatives of the employees 
responsible for the equipment's operation, inspection, testing, and 
maintenance under this part, together with a list of the names and 
addresses of the persons served.
* * * * *

0
23. Amend Sec.  232.403 by revising paragraph (d)(6) and revising and 
republishing paragraphs (f)(4) and (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  232.403  Design standards for one-way end-of-train devices.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (6) During a shock of 10 g. peak for 0.01 seconds in any axis.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (4) The front unit shall be designed to meet the requirements of 
paragraphs (d)(2), (3), (4), and (5) of this section. It shall also be 
designed to meet the performance requirements in this paragraph under 
the following environmental conditions:
    (i) At temperatures from 0 [deg]C to 60 [deg]C;
    (ii) During a shock of 10 g. peak for 0.01 seconds in any axis.
    (g) Radio equipment. (1) The radio transmitter in the rear unit and 
the radio receiver in the front unit shall comply with the applicable 
regulatory requirements of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 
and use of a transmission format acceptable to the FCC.
    (2) If power is supplied by one or more batteries only, the 
operating life must be a minimum of 36 hours at 0 [deg]C.
    (3) If power is supplied by a generator--an air turbine or 
alternative technology--a backup battery or similar energy storage 
device is required with a minimum of 12 hours continuous power at 0 
[deg]C in the event the generator stops functioning as intended.

0
24. Amend Sec.  232.407 by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (e)(1), and 
(f)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  232.407  Operations requiring use of two-way end-of-train 
devices; prohibition on purchase of nonconforming devices.

* * * * *
    (b) General. All trains not specifically excepted in paragraph (e) 
of this section shall be equipped with and shall use either a two-way 
end-of-train device meeting the design and performance requirements 
contained in Sec.  232.405 or a device using an alternative technology 
approved by FRA pursuant to Sec.  232.17 to perform the same function.
    (c) New devices. Each newly manufactured end-of-train device 
purchased by a railroad shall be a two-way end-of-train device meeting 
the design and performance requirements contained in Sec.  232.405 or a 
device using an alternative technology approved by FRA pursuant to 
Sec.  232.17 to perform the same function.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) Trains with a locomotive, locomotive consist, or air repeater 
unit located at the rear of the train that is capable of making an 
emergency brake application, through a command effected by telemetry or 
by a crew member in radio contact with the controlling locomotive.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) The rear unit batteries must be sufficiently charged at the 
initial terminal or other point where the device is installed and 
throughout the train's trip to ensure that the end-of-train device will 
remain operative until the train reaches its destination. Air-powered 
generator equipped devices must be tested for a minimum charge at 
installation before initiating generator operation.
* * * * *

0
25. Amend Sec.  232.409 by revising paragraph (d) and adding paragraphs 
(e) and (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  232.409  Inspection and testing of end-of-train devices.

* * * * *
    (d) The telemetry equipment must be tested for accuracy and 
calibrated if necessary according to the manufacturer's specifications 
and procedures. If the manufacturer's specifications requires periodic 
calibration of the telemetry equipment, the date and location of the 
last calibration or test and the name or unique employee identifier of 
the person performing the calibration or test must be legibly displayed 
on a weather-resistant sticker affixed to the outside of both the front 
unit and the rear unit; however, if the front unit is an integral part 
of the locomotive or is inaccessible, then the information may be 
recorded on Form FRA F6180-49A instead, provided that the serial number 
of the unit is recorded.
    (e) The air pressure sensor contained in the end-of-train device 
must be tested by the processes and frequency identified in Sec.  
229.27 or by manufacturer specifications approved under Sec.  232.307. 
The date and location of the test and the name or unique employee 
identifier of the person performing the test must be legibly displayed 
on a weather-resistant marking device affixed to the outside of the 
unit.
    (f) Each manufacturer of telemetry transceiver equipment must 
either:
    (1) Establish and communicate publicly to its customers a 
reasonable recommended calibration period; or
    (2) Submit to FRA an annual report including:
    (i) The total number of transceivers--itemized by model name, 
number, or type--sold to date;
    (ii) The number of transceivers that have been reported as 
inoperative or otherwise malfunctioning or returned for servicing; and
    (iii) The number of transceivers reported or returned for service 
with frequency modulation or transmit power outside of either 
manufacturer's specifications or FCC-approved specifications.

0
26. Amend Sec.  232.603 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text, 
(d), and (f) and adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:


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

    (a) General. A freight car or freight train equipped with an ECP 
brake system must, 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 in paragraph 
(g) of this section; an alternate standard approved by FRA pursuant to 
Sec.  232.17; or a modified standard approved in accordance with the 
provisions contained in paragraph (g) of this section.
* * * * *
    (d) Exceptions. (1) A freight car or freight train equipped with a 
standalone ECP brake system is excepted from the requirement in Sec.  
232.103(l) referencing AAR Standard S-469-01, ``Freight Brakes--
Performance Specification.''
* * * * *
    (f) Modification of standards. The AAR or other authorized 
representative of the railroad industry may seek

[[Page 80575]]

modification of the industry standards identified in or approved 
pursuant to paragraph (g) 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.
    (g) Incorporation by reference. The Director of the Federal 
Register approves the incorporation by reference of the standards 
required in this section into this section in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may inspect a copy at the Federal 
Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, 
202-493-6300 or at the National Archives and Records Administration 
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, 
email [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. You may obtain the material from the 
following source(s):
    (1) Association of American Railroads, 425 Third Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20024, telephone: (202) 639-2345, email: 
[email protected], website: https://aarpublications.com.
    (i) AAR S-4200, ``Electronically Controlled Pneumatic (ECP) Cable-
Based Brake Systems--Performance Requirements,'' Revised 2014, 
(contained in AAR Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices, Brakes 
and Brake Equipment).
    (ii) AAR S-4210, ``ECP Cable-Based Brake System Cable, Connectors, 
and Junction Boxes--Performance Specifications,'' Revised 2014, 
(contained in AAR Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices, Brakes 
and Brake Equipment).
    (iii) AAR S-4220, ``ECP Cable-Based Brake DC Power Supply--
Performance Specification,'' Version 2.0, Revised 2002, (contained in 
AAR Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices, Electronically 
Controlled Brake Systems).
    (iv) AAR S-4230, ``Intratrain Communication Specification for 
Cable-Based Freight Train Control System,'' Version 4.1, Revised 2014, 
(contained in AAR Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices, Brakes 
and Brake Equipment).
    (v) AAR S-4240, ``ECP Brake Equipment--Approval Procedure,'' 
Adopted 2007, (contained in AAR Manual of Standards and Recommended 
Practices, Electronically Controlled Brake Systems).
    (vi) AAR S-4250, ``Performance Requirements for ITC Controlled 
Cable-Based Distributed Power Systems,'' Version 3.0, Revised 2014, 
(contained in AAR Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices, Brakes 
and Brake Equipment).
    (vii) AAR S-4260, ``ECP Brake and Wire Distributed Power 
Interoperability Test Procedures,'' Revised 2008 (contained in AAR 
Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices, Brakes and Brake 
Equipment).
    (viii) AAR S-4270, ``ECP Brake System Configuration Management,'' 
Adopted 2008, (contained in AAR Manual of Standards and Recommended 
Practices, Electronically Controlled Brake Systems).
    (2) [Reserved]
* * * * *

0
27. Add Subpart H to read as follows:

Subpart H--Tourist, Scenic, Historic, and Excursion Operations 
Braking Systems

Sec.
232.700 Applicability.
232.701 Power brakes; minimum percentage.
232.702 Drawbars; standard height.
232.703 Power brakes and appliances for operating power-brake 
systems.
232.710 General rules; locomotives.
232.711 Train air brake system tests.
232.712 Initial terminal road train airbrake tests.
232.713 Road train and intermediate terminal train air brake tests.
232.714 Inbound brake equipment inspection.
232.715 Double heading and helper service.
232.716 Running tests.
232.717 Freight and passenger train car brakes.
232.719 End-of-train device.


Sec.  232.700  Applicability.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this 
subpart applies to standard gage railroads.
    (b) This subpart does not apply to:
    (1) A railroad that operates only on track inside an installation 
which is not part of the general railroad system of transportation; or
    (2) Rapid transit operations in an urban area that are not 
connected with the general railroad system of transportation.
    (c) As used in this subpart, carrier means ``railroad,'' as that 
term is defined by 49 CFR 232.5


Sec.  232.701  Power brakes; minimum percentage.

    On and after September 1, 1910, on all railroads used in interstate 
commerce, whenever, as required by the Safety Appliance Act as amended 
March 2, 1903, any train is operated with power or train brakes, not 
less than 85 percent of the cars of such train shall have their brakes 
used and operated by the engineer of the locomotive drawing such train, 
and all power-brake cars in every such train which are associated 
together with the 85 percent shall have their brakes so used and 
operated.


Sec.  232.702  Drawbars; standard height.

    Not included in this subpart. Moved to 49 CFR part 231.


Sec.  232.703  Power brakes and appliances for operating power-brake 
systems.

    Requirements are contained in 49 CFR 232.103(l).


Sec.  232.710  General rules; locomotives.

    (a) Air brake and hand brake equipment on locomotives including 
tender must be inspected and maintained in accordance with the 
requirements of the Locomotive Inspection and United States Safety 
Appliance Acts and related orders and regulations of the Federal 
Railroad Administrator (FRA).
    (b) It must be known that air brake equipment on locomotives is in 
a safe and suitable condition for service.
    (c) Compressor or compressors must be tested for capacity by 
orifice test as often as conditions require but not less frequently 
than required by law and orders of the FRA.
    (d) Main reservoirs shall be subjected to tests periodically as 
required by law and orders of the FRA.
    (e) Air gauges must be tested periodically as required by law and 
orders of the FRA, and whenever any irregularity is reported. They 
shall be compared with an accurate deadweight tester, or test gauge. 
Gauges found inaccurate or defective must be repaired or replaced.
    (f)(1) All operating portions of air brake equipment together with 
dirt collectors and filters must be cleaned, repaired and tested as 
often as conditions require to maintain them in a safe and suitable 
condition for service, and not less frequently than required by law and 
orders of the FRA.
    (2) On locomotives so equipped, hand brakes, parts, and connections 
must be inspected, and necessary repairs made as often as the service 
requires, with date being suitably stenciled or tagged.
    (g) The date of testing or cleaning of air brake equipment and the 
initials of the shop or station at which the work was done shall be 
placed on a card displayed under transparent covering in the cab of 
each locomotive unit.
    (h)(1) Minimum brake cylinder piston travel must be sufficient to 
provide proper brake shoe clearance when brakes are released.
    (2) Maximum brake cylinder piston travel when locomotive is 
standing must not exceed the following:

[[Page 80576]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Inches
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Steam locomotives:
    (A) Cam type of driving wheel brake.....................     3 \1/2\
    (B) Other types of driving wheel brakes.................           6
    (C) Engine truck brake..................................           8
    (D) Engine trailer truck brake..........................           8
    (E) Tender brake (truck mounted and tender bed mounted).           8
    (F) Tender brake (body mounted).........................           9
(ii) Locomotives other than steam:
    (A) Driving wheel brake.................................           6
    (B) Swivel type truck brake with brakes on more than one           7
     truck operated by one brake cylinder...................
    (C) Swivel type truck brake equipped with one brake                8
     cylinder...............................................
    (D) Swivel type truck brake equipped with two or more              6
     brake cylinders........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i)(1) Foundation brake rigging, and safety supports, where used, 
must be maintained in a safe and suitable condition for service. 
Levers, rods, brake beams, hangars and pins must be of ample strength 
and must not bind or foul in any way that will affect proper operation 
of brakes. All pins must be properly applied and secured in place with 
suitable locking devices. Brake shoes must be properly applied and kept 
approximately in line with treads of wheels or other braking surfaces.
    (2) No part of the foundation brake rigging and safety supports 
shall be closer to the rails than specified by law and orders of the 
FRA.
    (j)(1) Main reservoir leakage: Leakage from main air reservoir and 
related piping shall not exceed an average of 3 pounds per minute in a 
test of three minutes' duration, made after the pressure has been 
reduced 40 percent below maximum pressure.
    (2) Brake pipe leakage: Brake pipe leakage must not exceed 5 pounds 
per minute after a reduction of 10 pounds has been made from brake pipe 
air pressure of not less than 70 pounds.
    (3) Brake cylinder leakage: With a full service application of 
brakes, and with communication to the brake cylinders closed, brakes 
must remain applied not less than five minutes.
    (4) The main reservoir system of each unit shall be equipped with 
at least one safety valve, the capacity of which shall be sufficient to 
prevent an accumulation of pressure of more than 10 pounds per square 
inch above the maximum setting of the compressor governor fixed by the 
chief mechanical officer of the carrier operating the locomotive.
    (5) A suitable governor shall be provided that will stop and start 
the air compressor within 5 pounds above or below the pressures fixed.
    (6) Compressor governor when used in connection with the automatic 
air brake system shall be so adjusted that the compressor will start 
when the main reservoir pressure is not less than 15 pounds above the 
maximum brake-pipe pressure fixed by the rules of the carrier and will 
not stop the compressor until the reservoir pressure has increased not 
less than 10 pounds.
    (k) The communicating signal system on locomotives when used in 
passenger service must be tested and known to be in a safe and suitable 
condition for service before each trip.
    (l) Enginemen when taking charge of locomotives must know that the 
brakes are in operative condition.
    (m) In freezing weather drain cocks on air compressors of steam 
locomotives must be left open while compressors are shut off.
    (n) Air pressure regulating devices must be adjusted for the 
following pressures:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Pounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Locomotives:
    (i) Minimum brake pipe air pressure:
        (A) Road Service....................................          70
        (B) Switch Service..................................          60
    (ii) Minimum differential between brake pipe and main             15
     reservoir air pressures, with brake valve in running
     position...............................................
    (iii) Safety valve for straight air brake...............       30-55
                                                                   30-68
    (iv) Safety valve for LT, ET, No. 8-EL, No. 14 El, No. 6-      30-75
     DS, No. 6-BL and No. 6-SL equipment....................
    (v) Safety valve for HSC and No. 24-RL equipment........       30-50
    (vi) Reducing valve for independent or straight air               50
     brake..................................................
    (vii) Self-lapping portion for electro-pneumatic brake         30-50
     (minimum full application pressure)....................
    (viii) Self-lapping portion for independent air brake          40-60
     (full application pressure)............................
    (viiii) Reducing valve for air signal...................          50
    (x) Reducing valve for high-speed brake (minimum).......
(2) Cars:
    (i) Reducing valve for high-speed brake.................       58-62
    (ii) Safety valve for PS, LN, UC, AML, AMU and AB-1-B          58-62
     air brakes.............................................
    (iii) Safety valve for HSC air brake....................       58-77
    (iv) Governor valve for water raising system............          60
    (v) Reducing valve for water raising system.............       20-30
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 80577]]

Sec.  232.711  Train air brake system tests.

    (a) Supervisors are jointly responsible with inspectors, enginemen 
and trainmen for condition of train air brake and air signal equipment 
on motive power and cars to the extent that it is possible to detect 
defective equipment by required air tests.
    (b) Communicating signal system on passenger equipment trains must 
be tested and known to be in a suitable condition for service before 
leaving terminal.
    (c) Each train must have the air brakes in effective operating 
condition, and at no time shall the number and location of operative 
air brakes be less than permitted by Federal requirements. When piston 
travel is in excess of 10\1/2\ inches, the air brakes cannot be 
considered in effective operating condition.
    (d) Condensation must be blown from the pipe from which air is 
taken before connecting yard line or motive power to train.


Sec.  232.712   Initial terminal road train airbrake tests.

    (a)(1) Each train must be inspected and tested as specified in this 
section by a qualified person at points--
    (i) Where the train is originally made up (initial terminal);
    (ii) Where train consist is changed, other than by adding or 
removing a solid block of cars, and the train brake system remains 
charged; and
    (iii) Where the train is received in interchange if the train 
consist is changed other than by:
    (A) Removing a solid block of cars from the head end or rear end of 
train;
    (B) Changing motive power;
    (C) Removing or changing the caboose; or
    (D) Any combination of the changes listed in paragraphs 
(a)(1)(iii)(A), (B), and (C) of this section. Where a carman is to 
perform the inspection and test under existing or future collective 
bargaining agreement, in those circumstances a carman alone will be 
considered a qualified person.
    (2) A qualified person participating in the test and inspection or 
who has knowledge that it was made shall notify the engineer that the 
initial terminal road train air brake test has been satisfactorily 
performed. The qualified person shall provide the notification in 
writing if the road crew will report for duty after the qualified 
person goes off duty. The qualified person also shall provide the 
notification in writing if the train that has been inspected is to be 
moved in excess of 500 miles without being subjected to another test 
pursuant to either this section or Sec.  232.713 of this part.
    (b) Each carrier shall designate additional inspection points not 
more than 1,000 miles apart where intermediate inspection will be made 
to determine that:
    (1) Brake pipe pressure leakage does not exceed five pounds per 
minute;
    (2) Brakes apply on each car in response to a 20-pound service 
brake pipe pressure reduction; and
    (3) Brake rigging is properly secured and does not bind or foul.
    (c) Train airbrake system must be charged to required air pressure, 
angle cocks and cutout cocks must be properly positioned, air hose must 
be properly coupled and must be in condition for service. An 
examination must be made for leaks and necessary repairs made to reduce 
leakage to a minimum. Retaining valves and retaining valve pipes must 
be inspected and known to be in condition for service. If train is to 
be operated in electro-pneumatic brake operation, brake circuit cables 
must be properly connected.
    (d)(1) After the airbrake system on a freight train is charged to 
within 15 pounds of the setting of the feed valve on the locomotive, 
but to not less than 60 pounds, as indicated by an accurate gauge at 
rear end of train, and on a passenger train when charged to not less 
than 70 pounds, and upon receiving the signal to apply brakes for test, 
a 15-pound brake pipe service reduction must be made in automatic brake 
operations, the brake valve lapped, and the number of pounds of brake 
pipe leakage per minute noted as indicated by brake pipe gauge, after 
which brake pipe reduction must be increased to full service. 
Inspection of the train brakes must be made to determine that angle 
cocks are properly positioned, that the brakes are applied on each car, 
that piston travel is correct, that brake rigging does not bind or 
foul, and that all parts of the brake equipment are properly secured. 
When this inspection has been completed, the release signal must be 
given and brakes released and each brake inspected to see that all have 
released.
    (2) When a passenger train is to be operated in electro-pneumatic 
brake operation and after completion of test of brakes as prescribed by 
paragraph (d)(1) of this section the brake system must be recharged to 
not less than 90 pounds air pressure, and upon receiving the signal to 
apply brakes for test, a minimum 20 pounds electro-pneumatic brake 
application must be made as indicated by the brake cylinder gage. 
Inspection of the train brakes must then be made to determine if brakes 
are applied on each car. When this inspection has been completed, the 
release signal must be given and brakes released and each brake 
inspected to see that all have released.
    (3) When the locomotive used to haul the train is provided with 
means for maintaining brake pipe pressure at a constant level during 
service application of the train brakes, this feature must be cut out 
during train airbrake tests.
    (e) Brake pipe leakage must not exceed 5 pounds per minute.
    (f)(1) At initial terminal piston travel of body-mounted brake 
cylinders which is less than 7 inches or more than 9 inches must be 
adjusted to nominally 7 inches.
    (2) Minimum brake cylinder piston travel of truck-mounted brake 
cylinders must be sufficient to provide proper brake shoe clearance 
when brakes are released. Maximum piston travel must not exceed 6 
inches.
    (3) Piston travel of brake cylinders on freight cars equipped with 
other than standard single capacity brake, must be adjusted as 
indicated on badge plate or stenciling on car located in a conspicuous 
place near the brake cylinder.
    (g) When test of airbrakes has been completed the engineman and 
conductor must be advised that train is in proper condition to proceed.
    (h) During standing test, brakes must not be applied or released 
until proper signal is given.
    (i)(1) When train airbrake system is tested from a yard test plant, 
an engineer's brake valve or an appropriate test device shall be used 
to provide increase and reduction of brake pipe air pressure or 
electro-pneumatic brake application and release at the same or a slower 
rate as with engineer's brake valve and yard test plant must be 
connected to the end which will be nearest to the hauling road 
locomotive.
    (2) When yard test plant is used, the train airbrakes system must 
be charged and tested as prescribed by paragraphs (c) to (g) of this 
section inclusive, and when practicable should be kept charged until 
road motive power is coupled to train, after which, an automatic brake 
application and release test of airbrakes on rear car must be made. If 
train is to be operated in electro-pneumatic brake operation, this test 
must also be made in electro-pneumatic brake operation before 
proceeding.
    (3) If after testing the brakes as prescribed in paragraph (i)(2) 
of this section the train is not kept charged until road motive power 
is attached, the brakes must be tested as prescribed by paragraph 
(d)(1) of this section and if

[[Page 80578]]

train is to be operated in electro-pneumatic brake operation as 
prescribed by paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
    (j) Before adjusting piston travel or working on brake rigging, 
cutout cock in brake pipe branch must be closed and air reservoirs must 
be drained. When cutout cocks are provided in brake cylinder pipes, 
these cutout cocks only may be closed and air reservoirs need not be 
drained.


Sec.  232.713   Road train and intermediate terminal train air brake 
tests.

    (a) Passenger trains. Before motive power is detached or angle 
cocks are closed on a passenger train operated in either automatic or 
electro-pneumatic brake operation, except when closing angle cocks for 
cutting off one or more cars from the rear end of train, automatic air 
brake must be applied. After recouping, brake system must be recharged 
to required air pressure and before proceeding and upon receipt of 
proper request or signal, application and release tests of brakes on 
rear car must be made from locomotive in automatic brake operation. If 
train is to be operated in electro-pneumatic brake operation, this test 
must also be made in electro-pneumatic brake operation before 
proceeding. Inspector or trainman must determine if brakes on rear car 
of train properly apply and release.
    (b) Freight trains. Before motive power is detached or angle cocks 
are closed on a freight train, brakes must be applied with not less 
than a 20-pound brake pipe reduction. After recoupling, and after angle 
cocks are opened, it must be known that brake pipe air pressure is 
being restored as indicated by a rear car gauge or device. In the 
absence of a rear car gauge or device, an air brake test must be made 
to determine that the brakes on the rear car apply and release.
    (c)(1) At a point other than an initial terminal where a locomotive 
or caboose is changed, or where one or more consecutive cars are cut 
off from the rear end or head end of a train with the consist otherwise 
remaining intact, after the train brake system is charged to within 15 
pounds of the feed valve setting on the locomotive, but not less than 
60 pounds as indicated at the rear of a freight train and 70 pounds on 
a passenger train, a 20-pound brake pipe reduction must be made and it 
must be determined that the brakes on the rear car apply and release. 
As an alternative to the rear car brake application and release test, 
it shall be determined that brake pipe pressure of the train is being 
reduced as indicated by a rear car gauge or device and then that brake 
pipe pressure of the train is being restored as indicated by a rear car 
gauge or device.
    (2) Before proceeding it must be known that brake pipe pressure as 
indicated at rear of freight train is being restored.
    (3) On trains operating with electro-pneumatic brakes, with brake 
system charged to not less than 70 pounds, test must be made to 
determine that rear brakes apply and release properly from a minimum 20 
pounds electro-pneumatic brake application as indicated by brake 
cylinder gauge.
    (d)(1) At a point other than a terminal where one or more cars are 
added to a train, after the train brake system is charged to not less 
than 60 pounds as indicated by a gauge or device at the rear of a 
freight train and 70 pounds on a passenger train. A brake test must be 
made by a designated person as described in Sec.  232.712(a)(1) to 
determine that brake pipe leakage does not exceed five (5) pounds per 
minute as indicated by the brake pipe gauge after a 20-pound brake pipe 
reduction has been made. After the test is completed, it must be 
determined that piston travel is correct, and the train airbrakes of 
these cars and on the rear car of the train apply and remain applied, 
until the release signal is given. As an alternative to the rear car 
brake application and release portion of the test, it shall be 
determined that brake pipe pressure of the train is being reduced as 
indicated by a rear car gauge or device and then that brake pipe 
pressure of the train is being restored as indicated by a rear car 
gauge or device. Cars added to a train that have not been inspected in 
accordance with Sec.  232.712 (c) through (j) must be so inspected and 
tested at the next terminal where facilities are available for such 
attention.
    (2)(i) At a terminal where a solid block of cars, which has been 
previously charged and tested as prescribed by Sec.  232.712 (c) 
through (j), is added to a train, it must be determined that the brakes 
on the rear car of the train apply and release. As an alternative to 
the rear car application and release test, it shall be determined that 
brake pipe pressure of the train is being reduced as indicated by a 
rear car gauge or device and then that brake pipe pressure of the train 
is being restored as indicated by a rear car gauge or device.
    (ii) When cars which have not been previously charged and tested as 
prescribed by Sec.  232.712 (c) through (j) are added to a train, such 
cars may either be given inspection and tests in accordance with Sec.  
232.712 (c) through (j), or tested as prescribed by paragraph (d)(1) of 
this section prior to departure in which case these cars must be 
inspected and tested in accordance with Sec.  232.712 (c) through (j) 
at next terminal.
    (3) Before proceeding it must be known that the brake pipe pressure 
at the rear of freight train is being restored.
    (e)(1) Transfer train and yard train movements not exceeding 20 
miles, must have the air brake hose coupled between all cars, and after 
the brake system is charged to not less than 60 pounds, a 15-pound 
service brake pipe reduction must be made to determine that the brakes 
are applied on each car before releasing and proceeding.
    (2) Transfer train and yard train movements exceeding 20 miles must 
have brake inspection in accordance with Sec.  232.712 (c)-(j).
    (f) The automatic air brake must not be depended upon to hold a 
locomotive, cars or train, when standing on a grade, whether locomotive 
is attached or detached from cars or train. When required, a sufficient 
number of hand brakes must be applied to hold train, before air brakes 
are released. When ready to start, hand brakes must not be released 
until it is known that the air brake system is properly charged.
    (g) As used in this section, device means a system of components 
designed and inspected in accordance with Sec.  232.719.
    (h) When a device is used to comply with any test requirement in 
this section, the phrase brake pipe pressure of the train is being 
reduced means a pressure reduction of at least five pounds and the 
phrase brake pipe pressure of the train is being restored means a 
pressure increase of at least five (5) pounds.


Sec.  232.714   Inbound brake equipment inspection.

    (a) At points where inspectors are employed to make a general 
inspection of trains upon arrival at terminals, visual inspection must 
be made of retaining valves and retaining valve pipes, release valves 
and rods, brake rigging, safety supports, hand brakes, hose and 
position of angle cocks and make necessary repairs or mark for repair 
tracks any cars to which yard repairs cannot be promptly made.
    (b) Freight trains arriving at terminals where facilities are 
available and at which special instructions provide for immediate brake 
inspection and repairs, trains shall be left with air brakes applied by 
a service brake pipe reduction of 20 pounds so that inspectors can 
obtain a proper check of the piston travel. Trainmen will not close any 
angle cock or cut the locomotive off until the 20-pound service 
reduction has been made.

[[Page 80579]]

Inspection of the brakes and needed repairs should be made as soon 
thereafter as practicable.


Sec.  232.715  Double heading and helper service.

    (a) When more than one locomotive is attached to a train, the 
engineman of the leading locomotive shall operate the brakes. On all 
other motive power units in the train the brake pipe cutout cock to the 
brake valve must be closed, the maximum main reservoir pressure 
maintained and brake valve handles kept in the prescribed position. In 
case it becomes necessary for the leading locomotive to give up control 
of the train short of the destination of the train, a test of the 
brakes must be made to see that the brakes are operative from the 
automatic brake valve of the locomotive taking control of the train.
    (b) The electro-pneumatic brake valve on all motive power units 
other than that which is handling the train must be cut out, handle of 
brake valve kept in the prescribed position, and air compressors kept 
running if practicable.


Sec.  232.716   Running tests.

    When motive power, engine crew or train crew has been changed, 
angle cocks have been closed except for cutting off one or more cars 
from the rear end of train or electro-pneumatic brake circuit cables 
between power units and/or cars have been disconnected, running test of 
train air brakes on passenger train must be made, as soon as speed of 
train permits, by use of automatic brake if operating in automatic 
brake operation or by use of electro-pneumatic brake if operating in 
electro-pneumatic brake operation. Steam or power must not be shut off 
unless required and running test must be made by applying train air 
brakes with sufficient force to ascertain whether or not brakes are 
operating properly. If air brakes do not properly operate, train must 
be stopped, cause of failure ascertained and corrected and running test 
repeated.


Sec.  232.717  Freight and passenger train car brakes.

    (a) Testing and repairing brakes on cars while on shop or repair 
tracks.
    (1) When a freight car having brake equipment due for periodic 
attention is on shop or repair tracks where facilities are available 
for making air brake repairs, brake equipment must be given attention 
in accordance with the requirements of Rules 3 and 4 of the 2020 Field 
Manual of the AAR Interchange Rules (AAR Field Manual); or an 
alternative procedure approved by FRA under paragraph (d) of this 
section. Brake equipment shall then be tested by use of a single car 
testing device as prescribed by Sec.  232.305.
    (2)(i) When a freight car having an air brake defect is on a shop 
or repair track, brake equipment must be tested by use of a single car 
testing device as prescribed by Sec.  232.305.
    (ii) All freight cars on shop or repair tracks shall be tested to 
determine that the air brakes apply and release. Piston travel on a 
standard body mounted brake cylinder which is less than 7 inches or 
more than 9 inches must be adjusted to nominally 7 inches. Piston 
travel of brake cylinders on all freight cars equipped with other than 
standard single capacity brake, must be adjusted as indicated on badge 
plate or stenciling on car located in a conspicuous place near brake 
cylinder. After piston travel has been adjusted and with brakes 
released, sufficient brake shoe clearance must be provided.
    (iii) When a car equipped for use in passenger train service not 
due for periodical air brake repairs, as indicated by stenciled or 
recorded cleaning dates, is on shop or repair tracks, brake equipment 
must be tested by use of single car testing device as prescribed by the 
applicable standards referenced in Sec.  232.305 or by the American 
Public Transportation Association (APTA) standard referenced in Sec.  
238.311(a) of this chapter. Piston travel of brake cylinders must be 
adjusted if required, to the standard travel for that type of brake 
cylinder. After piston travel has been adjusted and with brakes 
released, sufficient brake shoe clearance must be provided.
    (iv) Before a car is released from a shop or repair track, it must 
be known that brake pipe is securely clamped, angle cocks in proper 
position with suitable clearance, valves, reservoirs and cylinders 
tight on supports and supports securely attached to car.
    (b) Clean, repair, lubricate and test (COT&S). (1) Brake equipment 
on cars other than passenger cars must be cleaned, repaired, lubricated 
and tested (``COT&S'') as often as required to maintain it in a safe 
and suitable condition for service but not less frequently than as 
required by Rules 3 and 4 of the AAR Field Manual.
    (2) Brake equipment on passenger cars must be cleaned, repaired, 
lubricated and tested (``COT&S'') as often as necessary to maintain it 
in a safe and suitable condition for service but not less frequently 
than as required in Standard S-4045-13 in the Manual of Standards and 
Recommended Practices of the AAR or an alternative procedure approved 
by FRA pursuant to Sec.  232.717(d).
    (c) Discontinued brake systems. For a brake system once, but no 
longer, included in AAR's current Code of Rules or Code of Tests 
(presently known as the Field Manual of the AAR Interchange Rules or 
the Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices), the brake system 
must be maintained in a safe and suitable condition for service 
according to a railroad's written maintenance plan. The maintenance 
plan, including its COT&S component and a periodic attention schedule, 
must be based upon a standard appropriate to the equipment. The 
railroad must comply with and make its written maintenance plan 
available to FRA upon request.
    (d) Modification of standards. The AAR or other authorized 
representative of the railroad industry may seek modification of the 
industry standards identified in or approved pursuant to paragraph (a) 
of this section. The request for modification will be handled and must 
be submitted in accordance with the modification procedures contained 
in Sec.  232.307 of this part.
    (e) Incorporation by Reference. The Director of the Federal 
Register approves the incorporation by reference of the standards 
required in this section into this section in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may inspect a copy of the material at the 
Federal Railroad Administration, Docket Clerk, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 
SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 855-368-4200). You may also 
inspect the material at the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this 
material at NARA, email [email protected], or go to: 
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. You may 
obtain the material from the following source(s):
    (1) Association of American Railroads (AAR), 425 Third Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20024, telephone: (202) 639-2345, email: 
[email protected], website: https://aarpublications.com.
    (i) 2020 Field Manual of the AAR Interchange Rules, Rule 3--Testing 
of Air Brakes and Rule 4--Air Brake Valves and Parts, effective January 
1, 2020.
    (ii) AAR Standard S-4045, ``Passenger Equipment Maintenance 
Requirements,'' Revised 2013 (contained in AAR Manual of Standards and 
Recommended Practices, Brakes and Brake Equipment), also referred to as 
AAR Standard S-4045-13.
    (2) [Reserved]


Sec.  232.719   End-of-train devices.

    Requirements are contained in subpart E of this part.

[[Page 80580]]

APPENDICES A AND B TO PART 232--[REMOVED]

0
28. Remove appendices A and B to part 232.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Quintin C. Kendall,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-25817 Filed 12-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P