Download:
pdf |
pdfThursday,
August 24, 2006
Part VI
Department of
Transportation
Federal Railroad Administration
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
49 CFR Parts 223 and 238
Passenger Train Emergency Systems;
Proposed Rule
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:33 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
50276
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Parts 223 and 238
[Docket No. FRA–2006–25273, Notice No.
1]
RIN 2130–AB72
Passenger Train Emergency Systems
Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This NPRM is intended to
further the safety of passenger train
occupants through both enhancements
and additions to FRA’s existing
requirements for emergency systems on
passenger trains. In this NPRM, FRA
proposes to enhance existing
requirements for emergency window
exits and to establish requirements for
rescue access windows to evacuate
passenger train occupants. FRA also
proposes to enhance passenger train
emergency system requirements by
expanding the application of
requirements that are currently
applicable only to passenger trains
operating at speeds in excess of 125
mph (Tier II passenger trains) to
passenger trains operating at speeds at
or below 125 mph (Tier I passenger
trains); these proposed enhancements
would require that Tier I passenger
trains be equipped with public address
and intercom systems for emergency
communication and that passenger cars
provide emergency roof access for use
by emergency responders. FRA is
proposing to apply certain of the
requirements to both existing and new
passenger equipment, while other
requirements would apply to new
passenger equipment only.
DATES: (1) Written comments must be
received by October 23, 2006.
Comments received after that date will
be considered to the extent possible
without incurring additional expense or
delay.
(2) FRA anticipates being able to
resolve this rulemaking without a
public, oral hearing. However, if FRA
receives a specific request for a public,
oral hearing prior to September 25,
2006, one will be scheduled and FRA
will publish a supplemental notice in
the Federal Register to inform
interested parties of the date, time, and
location of any such hearing.
ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments
related to Docket No. FRA–2006–25273
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
may be submitted by any of the
following methods:
• Web site: http://dms.dot.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on the DOT electronic docket
site.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket
number or Regulatory Identification
Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Note
that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://
dms.dot.gov including any personal
information. Please see the Privacy Act
heading in the ‘‘Supplementary
Information’’ section of this document
for Privacy Act information related to
any submitted comments or materials.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to http://
dms.dot.gov at any time or to PL–401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday
through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brenda J. Moscoso, Office of Safety,
Operations Research Analyst, RRS–23,
Mail Stop 25, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone
202–493–6282); Daniel L. Alpert, Trial
Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, Mail
Stop 10, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone
202–493–6026); or Anna Nassif Winkle,
Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel,
Mail Stop 10, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone
202–493–6166).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents for Supplementary
Information
I. Statutory Background
II. Proceedings to Date
A. Railroad Safety Advisory Committee
(RSAC) Overview
B. Establishment of the Passenger Safety
Working Group
C. Establishment of the Emergency
Preparedness Task Force
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
D. Development of the NPRM
III. Technical Background
A. Change in Passenger Car Fleet
Composition
B. NTSB Safety Recommendation on
Windows
C. Need for Emergency Communication
Systems
D. Window Technology
E. APTA’s Standard for Emergency
Evacuation Units
IV. General Overview of Proposed
Requirements
A. Emergency Window Exits and Rescue
Access Windows
B. Emergency Communications—Public
Address and Intercom Systems
C. Emergency Roof Access
D. Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance
V. Section-by-Section Analysis
VI. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive
Order 13272
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Federalism Implications
E. Environmental Impact
F. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
G. Energy Impact
H. Privacy Act
List of Subjects
I. Statutory Background
In September of 1994, the Secretary of
Transportation convened a meeting of
representatives from all sectors of the
rail industry with the goal of enhancing
rail safety. As one of the initiatives
arising from this Rail Safety Summit,
the Secretary announced that DOT
would begin developing safety
standards for rail passenger equipment
over a 5-year period. In November of
1994, Congress adopted the Secretary’s
schedule for implementing rail
passenger equipment safety regulations
and included it in the Federal Railroad
Safety Authorization Act of 1994 (the
Act), Public Law No. 103–440, 108 Stat.
4619, 4623–4624 (November 2, 1994).
Congress also authorized the Secretary
to consult with various organizations
involved in passenger train operations
for purposes of prescribing and
amending these regulations, as well as
issuing orders pursuant to them. Section
215 of the Act is codified at 49 U.S.C.
20133.
II. Proceedings to Date
The Secretary of Transportation
delegated these rulemaking
responsibilities to the Federal Railroad
Administrator, see 49 CFR 1.49(m), and
FRA formed the Passenger Equipment
Safety Standards Working Group to
provide FRA advice in developing the
regulations. On June 17, 1996, FRA
published an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM)
concerning the establishment of
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
comprehensive safety standards for
railroad passenger equipment. See 61
FR 30672. The ANPRM provided
background information on the need for
such standards, offered preliminary
ideas on approaching passenger safety
issues, and presented questions on
various passenger safety topics.
Following consideration of comments
received on the ANPRM and advice
from FRA’s Passenger Equipment Safety
Standards Working Group, FRA
published an NPRM on September 23,
1997, to establish comprehensive safety
standards for railroad passenger
equipment. See 62 FR 49728. In
addition to requesting written comment
on the NPRM, FRA also solicited oral
comment at a public hearing held on
November 21, 1997. FRA considered the
comments received on the NPRM and
prepared a final rule establishing
comprehensive safety standards for
passenger equipment, which was
published on May 12, 1999. See 64 FR
25540.
After publication of the final rule,
interested parties filed petitions seeking
FRA’s reconsideration of certain
requirements contained in the rule.
These petitions generally related to the
following subject areas: structural
design; fire safety; training; inspection,
testing, and maintenance; and
movement of defective equipment. To
address the petitions, FRA grouped
issues together and published in the
Federal Register three sets of
amendments to the final rule. Each set
of amendments summarized the petition
requests at issue, explained what action,
if any, FRA decided to take in response
to the issues raised, and described
FRA’s justifications for its decisions and
any action taken. Specifically, on July 3,
2000, FRA issued a response to the
petitions for reconsideration relating to
the inspection, testing, and maintenance
of passenger equipment, the movement
of defective passenger equipment, and
other miscellaneous provisions related
to mechanical issues contained in the
final rule. See 65 FR 41284. On April
23, 2002, FRA responded to all
remaining issues raised in the petitions
for reconsideration, with the exception
of those relating to fire safety. See 67 FR
19970. Finally, on June 25, 2002, FRA
completed its response to the petitions
for reconsideration by publishing a
response to the petitions for
reconsideration concerning the fire
safety portion of the rule. See 67 FR
42892. (For more detailed information
on the petitions for reconsideration and
FRA’s response to them, please see
these three rulemaking documents.) The
product of this rulemaking was codified
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
primarily at 49 CFR part 238 and
secondarily at 49 CFR parts 216, 223,
229, 231, and 232.
Meanwhile, another rulemaking on
passenger train emergency preparedness
produced a final rule codified at 49 CFR
part 239. See 63 FR 24629; May 4, 1998.
The rule addresses passenger train
emergencies of various kinds, including
security situations, and requires the
preparation, adoption, and
implementation of emergency
preparedness plans by railroads
connected with the operation of
passenger trains. The emergency
preparedness plans must include
elements such as communication,
employee training and qualification,
joint operations, tunnel safety, liaison
with emergency responders, on-board
emergency equipment, and passenger
safety information. The rule requires
each affected railroad to instruct its
employees on the applicable provisions
of its plan, and the plan adopted by
each railroad is subject to formal review
and approval by FRA. The rule also
requires each railroad operating
passenger train service to conduct
emergency simulations to determine its
capability to execute the emergency
preparedness plan under the variety of
emergency scenarios that could
reasonably be expected to occur. In
addition, among the rule’s other
requirements, the rule provides that (i)
all emergency window exits and all
windows intended for rescue access by
emergency responders be marked and
that instructions be provided for their
use (see 49 CFR 223.9(d)); and (ii) all
door exits intended for egress be lighted
or marked, all door exits intended for
rescue access by emergency responders
be marked, and that instructions be
provided for the use of both (see 49 CFR
239.107(a)).
Although FRA had completed these
rulemakings, FRA had identified
various issues for possible future
rulemaking, including those to be
addressed following the completion of
additional research, the gathering of
additional operating experience, or the
development of industry standards, or
all three. One such issue concerned
expanding the application of emergency
system requirements applicable to Tier
II passenger equipment to Tier I
passenger equipment as well. FRA and
interested industry members also began
identifying other issues related to the
new passenger equipment safety
standards and the passenger train
emergency preparedness regulations.
FRA decided to address these issues
with the assistance of FRA’s Railroad
Safety Advisory Committee.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
50277
A. Railroad Safety Advisory Committee
(RSAC) Overview
In March 1996, FRA established
RSAC, which provides a forum for
developing consensus recommendations
to FRA’s Administrator on rulemakings
and other safety program issues. The
Committee includes representation from
all of the agency’s major customer
groups, including railroads, labor
organizations, suppliers and
manufacturers, and other interested
parties. A list of member groups follows:
American Association of Private
Railroad Car Owners (AARPCO);
American Association of State Highway
& Transportation Officials (AASHTO);
American Public Transportation
Association (APTA);
American Short Line and Regional
Railroad Association (ASLRRA);
American Train Dispatchers Association
(ATDA);
Association of American Railroads
(AAR);
Association of Railway Museums
(ARM);
Association of State Rail Safety
Managers (ASRSM);
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
and Trainmen (BLET);
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way
Employees Division (BMWED);
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
(BRS);
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)*;
High Speed Ground Transportation
Association (HSGTA);
International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers;
International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers (IBEW);
Labor Council for Latin American
Advancement (LCLAA)*;
League of Railway Industry Women*;
National Association of Railroad
Passengers (NARP);
National Association of Railway
Business Women*;
National Conference of Firemen &
Oilers;
National Railroad Construction and
Maintenance Association;
National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak);
National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB)*;
Railway Supply Institute (RSI);
Safe Travel America (STA);
Secretaria de Comunicaciones y
Transporte*;
Sheet Metal Workers International
Association (SMWIA);
Tourist Railway Association Inc.;
Transport Canada*;
Transport Workers Union of America
(TWU);
Transportation Communications
International Union/BRC (TCIU/BRC);
and
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
50278
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
United Transportation Union (UTU).
*Indicates associate, non-voting membership.
When appropriate, FRA assigns a task
to RSAC, and after consideration and
debate, RSAC may accept or reject the
task. If the task is accepted, RSAC
establishes a working group that
possesses the appropriate expertise and
representation of interests to develop
recommendations to FRA for action on
the task. These recommendations are
developed by consensus. A working
group may establish one or more task
forces to develop facts and options on
a particular aspect of a given task. The
task force then provides that
information to the working group for
consideration. If a working group comes
to unanimous consensus on
recommendations for action, the
package is presented to the full RSAC
for a vote. If the proposal is accepted by
a simple majority of RSAC, the proposal
is formally recommended to FRA. FRA
then determines what action to take on
the recommendation. Because FRA staff
play an active role at the working group
level in discussing the issues and
options and in drafting the language of
the consensus proposal, FRA is often
favorably inclined toward the RSAC
recommendation. However, FRA is in
no way bound to follow the
recommendation, and the agency
exercises its independent judgment on
whether the recommended rule achieves
the agency’s regulatory goal, is soundly
supported, and is in accordance with
policy and legal requirements. Often,
FRA varies in some respects from the
RSAC recommendation in developing
the actual regulatory proposal or final
rule. Any such variations would be
noted and explained in the rulemaking
document issued by FRA. If the working
group or RSAC is unable to reach
consensus on recommendations for
action, FRA moves ahead to resolve the
issue through traditional rulemaking
proceedings.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
B. Establishment of the Passenger Safety
Working Group
On May 20, 2003, FRA presented, and
RSAC accepted, the task of reviewing
existing passenger equipment safety
needs and programs and recommending
consideration of specific actions that
could be useful in advancing the safety
of rail passenger service. The RSAC
established the Passenger Safety
Working Group (Working Group) to
handle this task and develop
recommendations for the full RSAC to
consider. Members of the Working
Group, in addition to FRA, include the
following:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
• AAR, including members from
BNSF Railway Company (BNSF), CSX
Transportation, Incorporated (CSX), and
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP);
• AAPRCO;
• AASHTO;
• Amtrak;
• APTA, including members from
Long Island Rail Road (LIRR), MetroNorth Railroad (MNR), Northeast
Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad
Corporation (Metra), Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
(SEPTA), Southern California Regional
Rail Authority (Metrolink), Saint Gobian
Sully NA, LDK Engineering, and Herzog
Transit Services, Incorporated;
• BLET;
• BRS;
• FTA;
• HSGTA;
• IBEW;
• NARP;
• RSI;
• SMWIA;
• STA;
• TCIU/BRC;
• TWU; and
• UTU.
Staff from DOT’s John A. Volpe
National Transportation Systems Center
(Volpe Center) attended all of the
meetings and contributed to the
technical discussions. In addition, staff
from the NTSB met with the Working
Group when possible. The Working
Group met on the following dates at the
following locations:
• September 9–10, 2003, in
Washington, DC;
• November 6, 2003, in Philadelphia,
PA;
• May 11, 2004, in Schaumburg, IL;
• October 26–27, 2004 in Linthicum/
Baltimore, MD;
• March 9–10, 2005, in Ft.
Lauderdale, FL; and
• September 7, 2005 in Chicago, IL.
At the meetings in Ft. Lauderdale and
Chicago, FRA met with representatives
of Tri-County Commuter Rail and Metra,
respectively, and toured their passenger
equipment. The visits, which included
demonstrations of emergency system
features, were open to all members of
the Working Group, and FRA believes
they have added to the collective
understanding of the Group in
identifying and addressing passenger
train emergency system issues.
C. Establishment of the Emergency
Preparedness Task Force
Due to the variety of issues involved,
at its November 2003 meeting the
Working Group established four smaller
task forces, with specific expertise, to
develop recommendations on those
issues within each group’s particular
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
area of expertise. Members of the task
forces include various representatives
from the respective organizations that
were part of the larger Working Group.
One of these task forces was assigned
the job of identifying and developing
issues and recommendations
specifically related to the inspection,
testing, and operation of passenger
equipment as well as concerns related to
the attachment of safety appliances on
passenger equipment, and helped to
develop an NPRM on these topics that
was published on December 8, 2005.
See 70 FR 73069. Another of these task
forces, the Emergency Preparedness
Task Force (Task Force), was
established to identify issues and
develop recommendations related to
emergency systems, procedures, and
equipment. Specifically, the Task Force
was charged with evaluating APTA’s
standards for emergency systems for
their incorporation by reference as
Federal standards and requirements.
These APTA standards are aimed at
promoting the ability of passenger car
occupants to reach, identify, and
operate emergency exits under various
conditions. The Task Force was also
given the responsibility of addressing a
number of other emergency system
issues and to recommend any research
necessary to facilitate their resolution.
Members of the Task Force, in addition
to FRA, include the following:
• Amtrak;
• APTA, including members from
Bombardier, Ellcon National, Interfleet,
Jacobs Civil Engineering, Jessup
Manufacturing Company, Kawasaki Rail
Car, Inc., LDK Engineering, LIRR, LTK,
Luminator, Maryland Transit
Administration, Massachusetts Bay
Commuter Rail Corporation (MBCR),
Metrolink, MNR, Northern Indiana
Commuter Transit District (NICTD),
SEPTA, San Diego Northern Commuter
Railroad (Coaster), Permalight, PO’s
Ability USA, Inc, Prolink, Transit
Design Group (TDG), Transit Safety
Management (TSM), Translite, and STV
Inc.;
• BLET;
• California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans);
• NARP;
• RSI, including Globe Transportation
Graphics; and
• UTU.
While not voting members of the Task
Force, representatives from the NTSB
and from the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) of the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) attended certain of the meetings
and contributed to the discussions of
the Task Force. In addition, staff from
the Volpe Center attended all of the
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
meetings and contributed to the
technical discussions through their
comments and presentations and by
setting up various lighting, marking, and
signage demonstrations.
The Task Force met on the following
dates at the following locations:
• February 25–26, 2004, in Los
Angeles, CA;
• April 14–15, 2004, in Cambridge,
MA;
• July 7–8, 2004, in Washington, DC;
• September 13–14, 2004, in New
York, NY;
• December 1–2, 2004, in San Diego,
CA;
• February 16–17, 2005, in
Philadelphia, PA;
• April 19–20, 2005, in Cambridge,
MA;
• August 2–3, 2005, in Cambridge,
MA; and
• December 13–14, 2005, in
Baltimore, MD.
At the meetings in Los Angeles,
Cambridge, Washington, New York, San
Diego, and Philadelphia, FRA met with
representatives of Metrolink, MBCR,
Amtrak, LIRR, Coaster, and SEPTA,
respectively, and toured their passenger
equipment. The visits were open to all
members of the Task Force and
included demonstration of emergency
system features. As in the case of the
Working Group visits, FRA believes
they have added to the collective
understanding of the Task Force in
identifying and addressing passenger
train emergency system issues.
D. Development of the NPRM
This NPRM was developed to address
a number of the concerns raised and
issues discussed during the various
Task Force and Working Group
meetings. Minutes of each of these
meetings have been made part of the
docket in this proceeding and are
available for public inspection. The
Working Group reached full consensus
on all the regulatory provisions
contained in this proposal at its
meetings in March and September 2005.
After the March 2005 meeting, the
Working Group presented its
recommendations to the full RSAC for
concurrence at its meeting in May 2005.
All of the members of the full RSAC in
attendance at its May 2005 meeting
accepted the regulatory
recommendations submitted by the
Working Group. Thus, the Working
Group’s recommendations became the
full RSAC’s recommendations to FRA in
this matter. In October 2005, the full
RSAC also recommended that FRA
adopt a further recommendation from
the Working Group at its September
2005 meeting: That FRA grant
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
additional time for compliance with the
proposal on rescue access windows.
After reviewing the full RSAC’s
recommendations, FRA agreed that the
recommendations provided a sound
basis for a proposed rule and adopted
the recommendations with generally
minor changes for purposes of clarity
and formatting in the Federal Register.
This NPRM is the product of FRA’s
review, consideration, and acceptance
of the recommendations of the Task
Force, Working Group, and full RSAC.
Throughout the preamble discussion of
this proposal, FRA refers to comments,
views, suggestions, or recommendations
made by members of the Task Force,
Working Group, and full RSAC, as they
are identified or contained in the
minutes of their meetings. FRA does so
to show the origin of certain issues and
the nature of discussions concerning
those issues at the Task Force, Working
Group, and full RSAC level. FRA
believes this serves to illuminate factors
it has weighed in making its regulatory
decisions, as well as the logic behind
those decisions. The reader should keep
in mind, of course, that only the full
RSAC makes recommendations to FRA,
and it is the consensus recommendation
of the full RSAC on which FRA is
acting. However, as noted above, FRA is
in no way bound to follow the
recommendation, and the agency
exercises its independent judgment on
whether the recommended rule achieves
the agency’s regulatory goal, is soundly
supported, and is in accordance with
policy and legal requirements.
III. Technical Background
Trends in new passenger car orders,
recent experience with train accidents,
concern about emergency
communication, and technological
advances in emergency systems
provided the main impetus for these
proposed enhancements and additions
to FRA’s standards for passenger train
emergency systems, as highlighted
below.
A. Change in Passenger Car Fleet
Composition
While FRA was developing
regulations on Passenger Equipment
Safety Standards and Passenger Train
Emergency Preparedness in the 1990s,
the operation of multi-level passenger
cars having two seating levels for
passengers (i.e., bi-level cars) was
common. However, the operation of
multi-level passengers cars having three
seating levels for passengers (i.e., cars
with intermediate (or mezzanine)
seating levels) was not as prevalent in
the U.S. as it is today. As a result, in
those rulemakings there was less focus
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
50279
on the need for applying emergency
system safety standards to intermediate
seating levels of multi-level passenger
cars.
Since that time, the composition of
the Nation’s commuter rail fleet has
changed. Multi-level passenger cars
with passenger seating in intermediate
levels have become more prevalent and
now account for over 15 percent of all
passenger cars. The intermediate seating
levels in these multi-level passenger
cars are normally located at the far ends
of the cars and are connected to the
upper and lower seating levels by stairs.
Exterior side doors are also normally
located toward the ends of these cars to
facilitate boarding and de-boarding.
Given the constraint posed by station
platform lengths and the desire to
minimize station dwell time, railroads
have turned to multi-level passenger
cars with intermediate seating levels to
meet much of the increased demand for
service, to the extent vertical clearances
permit their operation.
In light of the growing use of multilevel passenger cars with intermediate
seating levels, this NPRM addresses the
need to provide more explicit
emergency system safety standards for
these passenger cars.
B. NTSB Safety Recommendation on
Windows
On April 23, 2002, a BNSF freight
train collided head on with a standing
Metrolink passenger train near
Placentia, CA, resulting in two fatalities
and numerous injuries on the Metrolink
train. Though not a contributing factor
to the fatalities or injuries, the force of
the collision blocked the rear end door
and also blocked the rear stairway
linking the upper and lower seating
levels to the seating area on the
intermediate level at the rear of the
Metrolink cab car. Although passengers
in that intermediate level seating area
did exit through an emergency window,
no windows on the intermediate level
had been designated for rescue access,
and consequently no instructions for
emergency responders to gain access to
the intermediate level through a
window had been posted. Concerned
with the extent of Federal requirements
relating to rescuing passengers from the
intermediate level of a multi-level
passenger car, the NTSB issued Safety
Recommendation R–03–21 to FRA on
November 6, 2003. Safety
Recommendation R–03–21 provides in
full as follows:
Revise the language of 49 Code of Federal
Regulations 238.113(a)(1) to reflect that
appropriate exterior instructional signage
describing the emergency removal procedure
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
50280
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
be required at emergency windows on all
levels of a multiple-level passenger railcar.
In a February 20, 2004 letter to the
NTSB, FRA noted that its existing
regulations do require that windows
intended for emergency responder
access on every level of a multi-level
passenger car be clearly marked and that
clear and understandable instructions
for their removal be posted at or near
the windows on the car’s exterior. See
49 CFR 223.9(d)(2). FRA also sent a
letter to passenger railroads to make this
clear in the event there was any
confusion about these requirements.
Nevertheless, the NTSB’s
recommendation highlighted the fact
that several related concerns were not
specifically addressed in FRA’s
regulations. One of these concerns was
specifying minimum numbers and
locations of windows intended for
emergency responder access to
passenger cars, as 49 CFR 223.9(d)(2)
addresses only marking and instruction
requirements and does not provide any
express requirement that any such
rescue access windows exist. A second
prominent issue concerned specifying
minimum numbers and locations of
emergency window exits on any level of
a multi-level passenger car—not just
main levels, as provided in 49 CFR
238.113(a)(1).
FRA informed the NTSB that it was
reviewing and considering the necessity
of making amendments to its safety
standards for passenger trains through
the RSAC process and that these and
other passenger safety issues would be
presented to the Working Group and the
Task Force for their consideration.
Therefore, FRA asked that the NTSB
classify Safety Recommendation R–03–
21 as ‘‘Open—Acceptable Response,’’
pending the results of this effort. (The
NTSB classification ‘‘Open—Acceptable
Response’’ means a ‘‘[r]esponse by
recipient indicates a planned action that
would comply with the safety
recommendation when completed.’’) By
letter dated June 2, 2004, the NTSB
formally classified the recommendation
as FRA requested.
The Task Force reviewed the NTSB’s
recommendation and the related issues
FRA presented to it and agreed to
address emergency window exits and
rescue access windows on a broad basis,
with the goal that windows for
emergency egress and rescue access
would be available on every level of a
passenger car in the event that a
stairway or interior door is
compromised and access to the primary
means of exit (doors) is blocked. To this
end, the Task Force agreed to develop
requirements for emergency window
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
exits on non-main levels of multi-level
passenger cars, and rescue access
windows on all levels of these cars, thus
addressing requirements for every
seating level of a passenger car.
C. Need for Emergency Communication
Systems
Traditionally, conductors and
assistant conductors have been relied
upon to relay information to passengers
in both normal and emergency
situations through face-to-face
communication or by use of the PA
system. However, with smaller crew
sizes, passengers may not be able to
communicate to the crew a medical
emergency, report a fire on board the
train, or provide notification of other
safety issues as quickly as may be
necessary. For instance, a passenger in
the last car of a train needing to report
an emergency situation could
potentially have to walk the entire
length of the train to communicate with
the conductor (assuming the crew is
composed of an engineer and only one
conductor). Further, if the conductor
became incapacitated, passengers would
need to communicate directly with the
engineer.
FRA also notes that the NTSB
accident investigation report of the
February 9, 1996 collision near
Secaucus, NJ, that involved two New
Jersey Transit Rail Operations (NJTR)
trains and resulted in three fatalities and
numerous injuries, touches on the
importance of emergency
communications to prevent panic and
further injuries. According to the NTSB
report of the accident investigation,
[a]lthough the train crews said that they
went from car to car instructing passengers
to remain seated, passengers said that they
were not told about the severity of the
situation and were concerned about a
possible fire or being struck by an oncoming
train. They therefore left the train and
wandered around the tracks waiting for
guidance, potentially posing a greater hazard
because of the leaking fuel from train 1107.
No crewmember used the public address
system to communicate with passengers. By
using the public address system, all
passengers would have received the same
message in less time than it would have
taken the NJT employees to walk from car to
car.
The report also stated that
[i]nformation about the possibility of a fire
or a collision with an oncoming train could
have been provided to passengers over the
public address system to address their
concerns and prevent them from leaving the
train. The Safety Board concludes that the
lack of public announcements addressing the
passengers’ concerns caused them to act
independently, evacuate the train, and
wander along the tracks, thus potentially
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
contributing to the dangerous conditions at
the collision site. NTSB/RAR–97/01, at p. 27.
In 1998, APTA recognized the
importance of emergency
communications when it issued APTA
SS–PS–001–98, ‘‘Standard for Passenger
Railroad Emergency Communications,’’
noting that the establishment and
execution of communications among
train crews, operations control
personnel and train passengers are of
the utmost importance under normal
circumstances. According to the APTA
standard, during emergency situations
such communications take on added
importance in the task of assuring the
safety of all involved.
While the Passenger Equipment
Safety Standards issued in 1999 by FRA
contain requirements for two-way
emergency communication systems for
Tier II passenger equipment (trains
operating at speeds exceeding 125 mph,
but not exceeding 150 mph), there are
no requirements that Tier I passenger
cars be equipped with any emergency
communication system. In that
rulemaking, concern had been raised
about the practicality of applying such
requirements to Tier I passenger
equipment because of the
interoperability of such equipment and
the possible incompatibility of
communications equipment in a Tier I
passenger train. See 64 FR 25540,
25641; May 12, 1999. Nevertheless,
today most existing passenger cars are
equipped with PA systems, and
intercom systems are common in new
passenger cars.
FRA notes that, while there are many
possible ways for an emergency
situation to arise on a passenger train,
an emergency system may be useful in
many situations, regardless of the origin
of the emergency. In this regard,
emergency communication systems
provide the added benefit of conveying
information about security threats and
handling security concerns. According
to TSA, terrorists have considered
attacks on subways and trains in the
U.S., and TSA has found that passenger
railroads and subways in the U.S. are
particularly high-consequence targets in
terms of potential loss of life and
economic disruption. DHS, including
TSA, as well as DOT’s FRA and FTA
have been actively engaged in
responding to the threat of terrorism to
our Nation’s rail system, and the
initiatives that have been undertaken to
do so are too numerous to detail in this
NPRM. Consistent with this response,
the ability of passengers to timely report
suspicious items and suspicious activity
onboard passenger trains to appropriate
personnel increases the likelihood of
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
detecting a terrorist attack and thwarting
it, or at least disrupting it and
minimizing its consequences. This
would also be facilitated by the ability
of the train crew to timely communicate
emergency information and instructions
to passengers in response to a security
threat.
FRA also notes that emergency system
requirements for such features as
emergency window exits and emergency
lighting, which were not specifically
developed to address security threats,
may play a critical role in minimizing
the consequences of a terrorist attack on
board a passenger train. The safety and
security functions that passenger train
emergency systems may serve make
them vital, and further enhancements
and additions to emergency systems
should be explored both to minimize
the risk of a terrorist attack to passenger
trains, to reduce the death, injuries, and
other consequences of such an attack if
it occurs, and to promote passenger
train safety overall.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
D. Window Technology
A ‘‘zip-strip’’ is a strip of rubber
gasketing that holds a window panel in
place and is capable of being pulled, or
pried and then pulled, like a zipper
from the panel it holds. Use of zip-strips
for window removal has been around
for some time. Yet, the introduction of
windows using zips-strips on both faces
of the same window has allowed
railroads to designate for rescue access
those windows that are best suited for
that purpose without impacting the
selection of emergency window exits, or
compromising compliance with safety
glazing requirements. Before this
technology was available, railroads that
used zip-strips for window removal had
to decide which windows would be
designated for emergency egress and
which would be designated for rescue
access, as there was only one zip-strip
available to open. Equipping cars with
more rescue access windows with zipstrips meant having fewer emergency
window exits, all things being equal,
even though it would be preferable to
have more emergency window exits
than rescue access windows as
occupants should normally begin to
self-evacuate via emergency window
exits before emergency responders
arrive to assist. Whereas railroads could
generally designate any window for
rescue access by providing instructions
for removal using tools normally
available to emergency responders to
pop out a window, such as a sledge
hammer or a fire axe, some railroads
prefer to equip windows with exterior
zips-strips for rescue access because
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
they allow for window removal with
less effort.
Although FRA is not proposing to
require the use of zip-strips for rescue
access windows, FRA is proposing to
recognize ‘‘dual-function windows,’’
which serve as both emergency exit and
rescue access windows, through the use
of zip-strips on both faces of the
window. This recognition would afford
railroads more flexibility in the location
of their windows, as it would not
require railroads to find locations for
emergency window exits distinct from
the locations specified for rescue access
windows, and vice versa.
E. APTA’s Standard for Emergency
Evacuation Units
As FRA noted in the preamble to the
final rule promulgating the Passenger
Equipment Safety Standards, FRA has
had under consideration a performance
standard for emergency evacuation
similar to that used in commercial
aviation where a sufficient number of
emergency exits must be provided to
evacuate the maximum passenger load
in a specified time for various types of
emergency situations. See 64 FR 25550.
FRA further noted that it would
evaluate whether an APTA performance
standard for emergency egress, then
under development in APTA’s PRESS
Task Force, should be incorporated into
FRA’s standards. 64 FR 25551. FRA’s
intent is that such a performance
standard would serve to supplement, as
necessary, FRA’s minimum
requirements for emergency window
exits and door exits.
In 1999, APTA issued APTA SS–PS–
003–98, ‘‘Standard for Emergency
Evacuation Units for Rail Passenger
Cars.’’ This standard assigns to doors
and window exits a numerical value,
referred to as an ‘‘emergency evacuation
unit’’ (EEU), that is intended to correlate
to the speed and ease of passenger
egress. Each emergency window exit is
assigned an EEU of 1, and each door leaf
an EEU of 2. It defines the ‘‘usable exit
path’’ (UXP) as the number of
emergency window and door exits that
can be used by passengers after an
incident that requires emergency egress
from the vehicle, and requires that it be
calculated as ‘‘the sum of EEUs for one
side of the car less 50% of car end
doors.’’ The APTA standard requires
railroads to assign to each new
passenger car a ‘‘capacity exit factor’’
(CXF), which is a value equal to the
seating capacity of the car divided by 17
and rounded up to the next whole
number, and to designate a sufficient
number of exits to achieve a total EEU
value equal to the larger of the CXF or
the UXP.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
50281
Although the basic approach to
establishing egress requirements based
on car configuration and occupant
capacity was widely accepted, during
development of the APTA standard
several organizations raised issues
regarding the methodology for assigning
EEU values to exits. For instance, Volpe
Center staff suggested that point values
for windows be reduced to numbers that
are approximately in proportion to
estimated passenger flow rates as
compared with low-platform doors
without steps, and that upper-level
windows receive no credit toward the
minimum EEU criterion but still be
required to provide exit paths for certain
rare accident scenarios. It was also
questioned whether egress rates through
windows could be half as great as
through single-leaf doors, as implied by
the standard.
The Emergency Preparedness Task
Force reviewed the APTA standard and
recommended the continuation of
evacuation tests and research to
establish relative exit flow rates using
different types of exits at distinct
locations in the car, prior to considering
adoption of the APTA standard into
FRA’s standards. To this end, the Volpe
Center is conducting a series of
evacuations tests. FRA does note that
the emergency evacuation approach
underlying the proposals in this NPRM
is consistent with the basic approach
taken in developing APTA’s standard,
as FRA proposals do take into
consideration car configuration and
occupant capacity.
IV. General Overview of Proposed
Requirements
A. Emergency Window Exits and Rescue
Access Windows
Among the most prominent issues
identified for consideration by the
Working Group were those involving
emergency window exits and rescue
access windows and how these
windows relate to the emergency
systems requirements overall.
Emergency window exits are intended
to supplement door exits, which serve
as the preferred means of egress in an
emergency situation, and provide an
alternative means of emergency egress
in life-threatening situations, should
doors be rendered inaccessible or
inoperable. Existing regulations require
that each single-level car and each main
level of a multi-level passenger car have
a minimum of four emergency window
exits, either in a staggered configuration
where practical or with one exit located
in each side of each end, on each level.
These windows must be designed to
permit rapid and easy removal during
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
50282
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
an emergency without the use of a tool
or other implement. Conspicuous photoluminescent marking of the windows, as
well as instructions for their use, are
also required. Windows intended for
rescue access must be marked with
retroreflective material, and instructions
for their use must also be provided.
However, FRA’s regulations currently
do not require any minimum number of
rescue access windows for passenger
cars.
One of the basic principles underlying
the proposed requirements for both
emergency window exits and rescue
access windows has been to locate these
windows in such a manner that
passengers would be able to exit from,
and emergency responders would be
able to gain direct access to, each
passenger compartment without
requiring that they first go to another
level of a car or through an interior
door. Optimally, there would be a
sufficient number of windows for
passengers to exit from, and for
emergency responders to get access to,
the following: (i) Every level with
passenger seating of a multiple-level
passenger railcar; (ii) both sides of the
car, in the event of a derailment where
the exits on one side are compromised;
and (iii) each end (half) of the car, in the
event that one end is crushed or the
exits on that end are otherwise rendered
inaccessible or inoperable. A constraint
for both new and existing intermediate
levels of multi-level passenger car
designs is that there is limited space for
side windows due to the presence of
bathrooms, equipment closets, and side
door exits. Thus, the Task Force agreed
to make the proposed requirements
flexible and consistent with existing car
designs and, in certain cases, provide
for exceptions. The exceptions for new
equipment are limited to situations that
arise from the need to provide
accessible accommodations under the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
in compartments where there are no
more than four seats and a suitable
alternative is provided. The Task Force
recommended greater flexibility for
existing equipment to avoid costly
window installations where none had
previously existed (e.g., relocating an
electrical closet so that a space large
enough to accommodate a new window
could be cut into the side of the car).
During Task Force discussions, it
became apparent that the phrase ‘‘rapid
and easy’’ in the emergency window
exit regulation was being interpreted in
different ways by commuter railroads
and car manufacturers. Some believed
that only the removal of the gasket had
to be rapid and easy; however, FRA
clarified that while FRA may have cited
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
examples of gaskets that were becoming
stuck and were therefore not removable
in a rapid and easy fashion, the central
goal of this provision was to create an
opening that could be used for egress,
which necessarily includes removal of
the window panel as well. If the
removal of the gasket is rapid and easy,
but the removal of the window panel is
not, the opening becomes less useful in
an emergency situation, or in some
cases, effectively non-existent. Several
members of the Task Force also
expressed their concern that the phrase
‘‘rapid and easy’’ was too subjective and
not quantifiable. They requested that
FRA adopt a more measurable
performance-based standard instead.
Yet, various proposals to do so based on
a specific allotment of time to open the
window were not adopted, as consensus
was not reached on how that time
would be determined. Variables such as
height, weight, strength, and awareness
of emergency exit operation and
procedures all could affect the ease of
opening a window. For example, a
railroad maintenance employee who
installs emergency window exits or is
otherwise trained on their use should be
able to open a window more quickly
than many passengers would be able to
do. While there was general agreement
that a time-performance standard
should be based on the time taken by a
representative sample of people to open
the window, the Task Force was not in
a position to specify that sample.
Although unsuccessful at reaching
consensus on an actual measure of
‘‘rapid and easy,’’ the Task Force was
able to agree that promoting ‘‘rapid and
easy’’ removal of emergency windows is
desirable. A combination of fixtures,
such as headrests and luggage racks, as
well as larger and heavier windows, can
create a situation where the most
effective and efficient method for
removing a window is not immediately
apparent. As a step towards promoting
rapid and easy removal of the window
and to address the situation of particular
concern, the Task Force recommended
requiring that instructions specifically
take into account potential hindrances.
The instructions may be in written or
pictorial format, since including
pictorials depicting the window
removal method as part of the
instructions can be extremely helpful.
As for rescue access windows, the
Task Force generally recommended
requiring two windows on each level of
a passenger car for rescue access (versus
four as is required for emergency exit).
The principal reason for requiring only
two windows for rescue access is that
rescue access windows are the third
means of egress in the overall
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
emergency evacuation approach, in
which door exits serve as the first
(preferred) means of egress and
emergency window exits serve as the
second. Rescue access windows have
this tertiary role because they would be
used as a means of last resort when
passengers cannot evacuate themselves
and require aid from emergency
responders. The design of window
gaskets also affects how many rescue
access windows can be placed in a car,
especially on levels where there is
limited space for windows. For
instance, on certain types of cars, zipstrips installed to facilitate rapid and
easy removal of a window can be
installed either on the interior or the
exterior of the car, but not on both. In
this case, if FRA were to require four
rescue access windows, then a railroad
that has cars with additional emergency
window exits (i.e., beyond the
minimum of four per main level) would
likely just replace some of its emergency
window exits with rescue access
windows, resulting in fewer emergency
window exits, and thereby limiting the
more preferred means of egress. For the
above reasons, as well as for the cost of
retrofitting existing equipment,
flexibility for locating rescue access
windows in side doors was added for
existing equipment.
FRA is not proposing changes to
existing requirements for emergency
window exits in sleeping compartments
or similar private compartments. Yet,
FRA is proposing rescue access window
requirements for such compartments.
Although this proposal would establish
new requirements, the proposal reflects
current practice.
B. Emergency Communication
Systems—Public Address and Intercom
Systems
As discussed above, while the
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards
issued in 1999 by FRA contain
requirements for two-way emergency
communication systems for Tier II
passenger equipment, there are
currently no requirements that Tier I
passenger cars be equipped with any
emergency communication system.
Nevertheless, today most existing
passenger cars are equipped with PA
systems, and after discussing the
benefits of PA systems in light of the
challenge and expense of retrofitting
older, existing passenger equipment
with limited service life, the Task Force
agreed that all passenger cars should, at
a minimum, have functioning PA
systems. The PA system would allow
the train crew to keep their passengers
informed in an emergency situation and
provide guidance to all passengers in a
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
timely manner, thereby reducing the
likelihood that passengers would take
an action that could place them in any
greater danger.
The Task Force also agreed that
emergency communication systems in
all new passenger cars should include
intercom systems that would enable
passengers to quickly communicate in
emergency situations with the train
crew. During the discussions concerning
whether to require intercom systems on
Tier I passenger equipment, some Task
Force members expressed concern that
if intercom systems were added at each
end of a car, were conspicuously
marked, and had instructions provided
for their use, passengers may use them
in non-emergency situations. Amtrak
and various commuter railroads that
operate cars with intercom systems
indicated that they have successfully
implemented measures to deter misuse,
however, such as by placing the
intercom transmission button under a
protective covering (which also prevents
accidental operation by a passenger
leaning against it) and by marking it
‘‘FOR EMERGENCY USE ONLY.’’
The recommended emergency
communication system requirements
developed by the Task Force generally
reflect current practice for Tier I
passenger equipment operating with
intercom systems and existing
requirements for Tier II passenger
equipment. FRA understands that those
Tier I passenger cars that currently do
not have PA systems are scheduled to be
retired from service before the proposed
requirement to have PA systems on
existing Tier I passenger equipment
would become effective.
C. Emergency Roof Access Locations
Emergency roof access locations (roof
hatches or structural weak points) can
be especially useful in emergency
situations where passenger cars have
rolled onto their sides following certain
collision and derailment scenarios. In
such situations, doors, which are the
preferred means of egress and access
under normal circumstances, may be
rendered inoperable due to structural
damage to the door or the door pocket,
or extremely difficult to use because the
car is no longer upright. Moreover,
although emergency responders may be
able to enter a car that is on its side via
a rescue access window, the removal of
an injured occupant through a side
window in such circumstances would
likewise be difficult or complicated,
especially depending upon the
condition of the occupant.
Existing FRA regulations require
emergency roof access locations for Tier
II passenger equipment, but not for Tier
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
I passenger equipment. The Task Force
examined these requirements and APTA
PRESS recommended practice RP–C&S–
001–98, ‘‘Recommended Practice for
Passenger Equipment Roof Emergency
Access,’’ in recommending that
emergency roof access requirements be
applied to Tier I passenger equipment.
FRA adopted the Task Force’s
recommendation and, in general, is
proposing that each new passenger car
(both Tier I and Tier II) have a minimum
of two emergency roof access locations.
Existing Tier I passenger cars would not
be subject to the proposed requirements,
while existing Tier II passenger cars
would continue to be subject to existing
requirements. For further discussion
and explanation of the proposed
requirements, please see the Section-bySection Analysis of this preamble at
Section V.
D. Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance
FRA is proposing to modify §§ 238.17,
238.303, and 238.305 (which contain
standards for movement of passenger
equipment with other than power brake
defects, for inspection of passenger
equipment, and for repair of passenger
equipment) to include requirements for
the inspection, testing, maintenance and
repair of emergency communication
systems, emergency roof access points,
and rescue access markings. To allow
railroads sufficient time to repair the
equipment with minimal disruption to
normal operations, flexibility would be
provided for operating equipment in
passenger service with certain noncompliant conditions. In affording this
flexibility, the rule would require the
railroad to adhere to specified
procedures for the safe operation of the
equipment.
V. Section-by-Section Analysis
Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part
223, Safety Glazing Standards—
Locomotives, Passenger Cars and
Cabooses
Subpart A—General
Section 223.5
Definitions
This section, which contains a set of
definitions relevant to the regulations
contained in part 223, would be
modified to clarify a definition, and to
delete two definitions that would no
longer be relevant due to proposed
modifications of this part, specifically,
the deletion of § 223.9(d)(2).
The definition of ‘‘emergency
window’’ would be revised to clarify
that the purpose of an emergency
window is for egress, and thus needs to
be removable only from the inside of a
passenger car. Accordingly, FRA
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
50283
proposes to revise the definition of
‘‘emergency window’’ to mean that
segment of a side-facing glazing panel
which has been designed to permit
rapid and easy removal from inside a
passenger car in an emergency situation.
FRA is also proposing that the terms
‘‘emergency responder’’ and ‘‘passenger
train service’’ be deleted in accordance
with the proposal to delete § 223.9(d)(2),
the only section in part 223 that
references these terms. The term
‘‘emergency responder’’ would be
moved to part 238.
Subpart B—Specific Requirements
Section 223.9 Requirements for new or
rebuilt equipment
In the discussion of § 223.5, FRA
noted that the definition of ‘‘emergency
window’’ would be amended to clarify
that the purpose of the windows is for
egress, and thus would need to be
removable only from the inside of a
passenger car. Section 223.9(c) currently
requires ‘‘at least four emergency
opening windows.’’ As the term
‘‘emergency opening window’’ is not
specifically defined—but has been
understood to mean ‘‘emergency
window’’—FRA believed that it would
be best to modify the rule text in
§ 223.9(c) to require ‘‘at least four
emergency windows’’ in order to
provide more clarity.
FRA is proposing to delete the
requirements in § 223.9(d) and merge
them into §§ 238.113 and 238.114 of
part 238. The requirements in § 223.9(d)
were added by FRA’s May 4, 1998 final
rule on Passenger Train Emergency
Preparedness. See 63 FR 24629, 24643.
The Passenger Train Emergency
Preparedness final rule required the
marking of both emergency window
exits and windows intended for rescue
access, and also required that
instructions be provided their use.
However, the requirements applied only
to ‘‘each railroad providing passenger
train service,’’ a class of train service
purposefully narrower than the general
application section in part 223. See
§ 223.3. Because FRA is proposing to
address marking and instruction
requirements for such windows in this
train service in part 238, and because
the requirements of § 223.9(d) do not
apply to other equipment covered by
part 223, they may be removed from
part 223, along with the corresponding
definition of ‘‘emergency responder’’
and ‘‘passenger train service.’’ Further,
deletion of § 223.9(d) would avoid
creating any confusion due to
duplication of the marking and
instruction requirements in two
different parts of the CFR, especially
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
50284
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
since the proposed marking
requirements in part 238 that were
adopted by the full RSAC vary
somewhat from the ones currently
found in § 223.9(d). Nevertheless,
§ 223.8 will continue to alert the reader
to additional requirements for
emergency window exits for ‘‘passenger
equipment’’ in part 238, as defined in
that part.
However, because the general
application section of part 223 is
broader than that in part 238, FRA has
been mindful not to alter the application
of those requirements unaffected by the
May 4, 1998 amendments. Part 238 does
not apply to ‘‘tourist, scenic, historic, or
excursion operations, whether on or off
the general railroad system of
transportation,’’ see § 238.3(c)(3);
whereas, part 223 does not apply to
‘‘locomotives, passenger cars and
cabooses that are historical or
antiquated equipment’’ and are also
‘‘used only for excursion, educational,
recreational purposes or private
transportation purposes,’’ see
§ 223.3(b)(3). As a result, to the extent
tourist equipment is covered by part 223
because the equipment is not historical
or antiquated and is required to be
equipped with certified glazing in all
windows pursuant to §§ 223.9(c) or
223.15(c), such equipment would still
be required to have four emergency
windows (emergency window exits),
despite its exclusion from the part 238
requirements.
Appendix B to Part 223—Schedule of
Civil Penalties
This appendix contains a schedule of
civil penalties to be used in connection
with this part. Because such penalty
schedules are statements of agency
policy, notice and comment are not
required prior to their issuance. See 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Nevertheless, as
discussed above, FRA is proposing that
the requirements of § 223.9(d) be
merged into §§ 238.113 and 238.114 of
part 238. Thus, FRA is proposing that
the schedule of civil penalties in
appendix B to part 223 be modified
accordingly, by deleting the entries for
paragraphs (d)(1)(i), (d)(1)(ii), (d)(2)(i),
and (d)(2)(ii) and the associated
penalties.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part
238, Passenger Equipment Safety
Standards
Subpart A—General
Section 238.5 Definitions
This section, which contains a set of
definitions relevant to the regulations
contained in part 238, would be
modified to include new definitions
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
relevant to the proposed modifications
to part 238.
FRA proposes to add the definition of
‘‘dual-function window’’ to mean a
window that is intended to serve as both
an emergency window exit and a rescue
access window. This term generally
refers to a window that has a zip-strip,
which is a strip in a window gasket that
can be pulled from end to end to unlock
the gasket and thus release the glazing,
on both faces so that it can be opened
from both the inside of the car and the
outside. (This definition would also
cover other methods of opening the
same window from both the inside of
the car and the outside.) The term is
being added because it is referenced in
§ 238.114(a)(5) as an exception to the
requirements on the location of rescue
access windows set forth in § 238.114.
Dual-function windows installed to
meet the minimum requirements
proposed in § 238.113 would not be
required to meet the § 238.114 location
requirements, in order to recognize that
a railroad that installs four compliant
emergency window exits that are the
dual-function type has also installed
twice the number of rescue access
windows that would be required.
FRA proposes to revise the definition
of ‘‘emergency window’’ to clarify that
the purpose of an emergency window is
for egress, and thus only needs to be
removable from the inside of a
passenger car. Accordingly, FRA
proposes to revise the definition to
mean that segment of a side-facing
glazing panel which has been designed
to permit rapid and easy removal from
inside a passenger car in an emergency
situation. FRA is also proposing to
revise the definition of this term in
§ 223.5 for consistency and clarity.
FRA proposes to add the definition of
‘‘intercom’’ to mean a device through
which voice communication can be
transmitted and received. A
transmission unit normally has a button,
which has to be depressed to begin
transmission or notify the crew on the
receiving end of the intention to
communicate using the system. An
intercom may be a telephone apparatus.
FRA is also proposing to add the
definition of ‘‘intercom system’’ (or
‘‘intercommunication system’’) to mean
a two-way, voice communication
system. This system allows a passenger
to communicate with a crew member,
typically by depressing a button, or
lifting a telephone handset, or both.
FRA proposes to add the definition of
‘‘intermediate level’’ to mean a level of
a multi-level passenger car that is used
for passenger seating and is normally
located between two main levels. An
intermediate level normally contains
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
two, separate seating areas, one at each
end of the car, and is normally
connected to each main level by stairs.
The term ‘‘intermediate level’’ is
intended to distinguish a level used for
passenger seating of a multi-level
passenger car from a ‘‘main level’’ of
such as car, as FRA is proposing to
apply different requirements to the
different passenger seating levels. Please
see the discussion of ‘‘main level.’’
Currently, the regulatory text of part
238 does not define the term ‘‘main
level,’’ as used in § 238.113. However,
in the preamble to the April 23, 2002
final rule, FRA explained that the term
‘‘main level’’ was intended to exclude a
level of a car that is ‘‘principally used
for passage between the door exits and
passenger seating areas, or between
seating areas,’’ and noted that such an
area is not ‘‘principally used for
seating’’ and includes a stairwell
landing. See 67 FR 19973. This
distinction raised some concerns with
respect to intermediate levels because
their designation as main levels would
hinge upon an interpretation of
‘‘principally used’’ for passenger
seating. Some Task Force members
believed that these levels were
principally used for passenger seating
because passengers who are seated there
are spending more time on that level
than the passengers who simply use that
level to reach the upper level (or lower
level). Others believed that the
intermediate level was principally used
for passage between levels because there
was a greater volume of passengers
passing through that level to reach the
upper level (or passing through to reach
the lower level, or both) than there were
passengers seated on that level. In light
of the concern raised, FRA is proposing
to define ‘‘intermediate level,’’ as
discussed above, and is also proposing
to define ‘‘main level’’ as a level of a
passenger car that contains a passenger
compartment whose length is equal to
or greater than half the length of the car.
This definition would establish a more
direct relationship between the number
of occupants on a level of a car and the
number of emergency window exits
required on that level. The longer a level
is, the more seats and exterior side
windows it is able to accommodate.
Since passenger cars are normally about
85 to 90 feet in length, a main level in
such a car would be a level that contains
a passenger compartment whose length
is approximately 42.5 feet or more.
Accordingly, there should be sufficient
space for the required number of
emergency window exits on a main
level of a passenger car, whether or not
there is a bathroom, kitchen, or
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
equipment closet located on the same
level.
FRA proposes to add the definition
‘‘passenger compartment’’ to mean an
area of a passenger car that consists of
a seating area and any vestibule that is
connected to the seating area by an open
passageway. If a door separates the
seating area from the vestibule, the
vestibule is not part of the passenger
compartment. See Figure 1c to subpart
B. This definition was necessary to
solidify the concept that passengers
should not have to go through an
interior door, which could get jammed,
or to another level in order to reach an
emergency window exit, and likewise,
emergency responders should be able to
directly access passengers in need of aid
in each such compartment.
FRA proposes to add the definition
‘‘PA system’’ or ‘‘public address
system’’ to mean a one-way, voice
communication system. Such a system
is used by train crew members to make
announcements to passengers in both
normal and emergency situations. On
some railroads, crew members use the
PA system to make station
announcements. Other railroads limit its
use to communicate information
regarding unusual occurrences, such as
unexpected delays and emergencies.
Some PA systems have speakers located
on the exterior of cars that are used to
make announcements to persons in the
vicinity of the train (e.g., passengers on
a station platform).
Consistent with the proposed
amendments to part 223, discussed
above, FRA proposes to define ‘‘rescue
access window’’ as a side-facing exterior
window intended for use by emergency
responders to gain access to passengers
in an emergency situation. In some
passenger cars, all windows may be
capable of serving as both emergency
window exits and rescue access
windows. However, a railroad may
choose not to designate one or more of
these windows for rescue access for
various reasons, including the presence
of a third-rail shoe that could pose an
electrocution hazard, or a high seat back
next to the window that may pose a
potential hindrance to window removal
for windows that are designed to open
by being pushed into the car.
Some rescue access windows are
designed with a zip-strip to release the
window panel from its frame. In some
cars, side-facing glazing systems are
designed so that there is a zip-strip on
only one side of the window panel. It is
common for railroads to install such
systems with a zip-strip on the exterior
of the car for rescue access use, and also
have one in the interior of the car for
emergency egress use. However, to the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
extent that there may be only one zipstrip for a single glazing system, the
railroad must decide whether to place
the zip-strip on the exterior of the car
for use in rescue access, or in the
interior of the car for use in emergency
egress.
Although use of zip-strips in rescue
access windows is common, FRA makes
clear that they would not be required.
The proposed definition is a
performance standard, and a rescue
access window may be opened by other
means, such as by shattering the
window (if glass) or popping the
window out by applying force at one
corner.
Throughout the discussion of rescue
access windows, Task Force members
repeatedly emphasized, as the definition
reflects, that these windows are
intended for use by emergency
responders to gain access to passengers
in an emergency situation. In the
process of reviewing the definitions in
parts 223, 238, and 239 in composing
this NPRM, FRA noted that the term
‘‘emergency responder’’ is defined in
parts 223 and 239, but not in part 238.
As the proposed part 238 definition of
‘‘rescue access window’’ includes the
term ‘‘emergency responder,’’ FRA
believes it is appropriate to add
‘‘emergency responder’’ to part 238. The
term would be defined to mean a
member of a police or fire department,
or other organization involved with
public safety charged with providing or
coordinating emergency services, who
responds to a passenger train
emergency.
FRA proposes to add a definition of
‘‘seating area’’ to mean an area of a
passenger car that normally contains
passenger seating. An area with no
actual seats but with anchors for
securing wheel chairs would be
considered a seating area.
FRA notes that the term ‘‘vestibule’’ is
currently defined in part 238 to mean an
area of a passenger car that normally
does not contain seating and is used in
passing from the seating area to the side
exit doors. Although FRA is not revising
the definition of ‘‘vestibule,’’ FRA
makes clear that for purposes of part
238, a vestibule may be located
anywhere along a car. The location of a
vestibule is not restricted to the far ends
of a car but may be elsewhere, such as
in the middle of the car. As a result,
what some in the passenger rail industry
commonly refer to as an entranceway,
by virtue of where its located in a car,
is considered a vestibule for purposes of
this part.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
50285
Section 238.17 Movement of Passenger
Equipment With Other Than Power
Brake Defects
This section contains the
requirements related to the movement of
passenger equipment with a condition
not in compliance with part 238,
excluding a power brake defect, without
civil penalty liability under this part.
FRA proposes to modify paragraphs (b)
and (c) of this section to include a
reference to the specific provisions
being added to the exterior, calendar
day mechanical inspection in proposed
§ 238.303(e)(18) regarding rescue-accessrelated markings, signage, and
instructions. Proposed § 238.303(e)(18)
would require that all rescue-accessrelated exterior markings, signage, and
instructions required by proposed
§ 238.114 (rescue access windows) and
§ 239.107(a)(2) be in place and, as
applicable, conspicuous, and/or legible,
and that certain conditions be met for
continued use of the cars with defective
markings, signage, or instructions. As
these proposed provisions contain
specific requirements related to the
continued use in passenger service of
passenger cars found with defective
rescue access signs, markings, or
instructions, recognition of these
specific limitations needs to be included
in both paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section. The proposed requirements in
§ 238.303(e)(18) and the proposed
conditions for continued use of
passenger equipment with noncomplying conditions are discussed in
detail below.
FRA notes that it is considering
moving the emergency exit marking
requirements contained in § 239.107(a)
into part 238. Since § 239.107(a)
contains door exit marking, signage, and
operating instruction requirements, the
requirements of this section may more
logically be situated in the very sections
containing requirements for doors in
part 238, namely, §§ 238.235 and
238.439. If the requirements in
§ 239.107(a) are moved into part 238,
FRA would make any necessary
conforming changes to part 238, and
modify this proposed section in
publishing the final rule. FRA invites
comment whether the requirements of
§ 239.107(a) should be moved into part
238.
Subpart B—Safety Planning and
General Requirements
Section 238.113 Emergency Window
Exits
This section currently contains
requirements for emergency window
exits in single-level passenger cars and
main levels of multi-level passenger
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
50286
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
cars. Emergency window exits are
intended to supplement door exits,
which are normally the preferred means
of egress in an emergency situation.
Emergency windows provide an
alternative means of emergency egress
should doors be rendered inoperable or
inaccessible. They also provide an
additional means of egress in lifethreatening situations requiring very
rapid exit, such as a fire on board or
submergence of the car in a body of
water.
To ensure that emergency window
exit requirements apply to every level
with passenger seating, FRA is
proposing to revise this section to
expressly include emergency window
exit requirements for any level with
passenger seating in a multi-level
passenger car. FRA is also proposing to
revise this section to require that
emergency window exit operating
instructions specifically address the
presence of interior fixtures that may
hinder the removal of the window
panel, to facilitate its rapid and easy
removal.
Paragraph (a), which applies to both
new and existing passenger cars, would
be modified to specify requirements for
the number and location of emergency
window exits on any level with
passenger seating in a passenger car.
The requirements for single-level
passenger cars in proposed paragraph
(a)(1), and for main levels of multi-level
passenger cars in proposed paragraph
(a)(2), would effectively remain
unchanged. The current requirements
for single-level passenger cars require a
minimum of four emergency window
exits, located ‘‘either in a staggered
configuration where practical or with
one located in each end of each side of
each level.’’ FRA is proposing to slightly
modify this language by replacing the
word ‘‘end’’ with ‘‘end (half)’’ to clarify
that the term ‘‘end’’ does not refer to the
extreme forward and rear ends of a car,
but merely the front half and rear halves
of the car. See Figure 1 to subpart B.
Additionally, the text would be
reorganized to emphasize that a window
would be required in each end (half) of
each side of the car and that, if practical,
the windows would also be in a
staggered configuration. This
clarification would remove any
ambiguity in the current rule text that
wrongly suggests that one could choose
to simply stagger the windows without
regard to having one window in each
side of each end. To illustrate the
requirements of paragraph (a)(2), FRA is
proposing to add Figure 1 to subpart B,
as referenced above. FRA invites
comment on whether this and other
figures proposed in this NPRM for
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
inclusion in part 238 would be helpful
in understanding the requirements of
this part, and, if so, whether any
additional figures should be included.
FRA also notes that the proposed
figures, which are not drawn to scale,
represent possible ways of complying
with the proposed requirements and
should not be construed as depicting the
only way to comply.
Paragraph (a)(3) would contain the
requirements for emergency window
exits on non-main levels with seating
areas of multi-level passenger cars,
including intermediate (or mezzanine)
seating levels. The general intent of the
proposal is to have at least one
emergency window exit that is
accessible to passengers in each side of
a passenger seating area without
requiring the passengers to move to
another level of the car or pass through
a door. This would help ensure that, if
a car rolled onto its side or if there was
a hazard on one side of the train, an
emergency window exit on the opposite
side would be available to passengers
and crew members for emergency
egress. Nevertheless, as further
discussed below, a constraint for
intermediate levels of both new and
existing multi-level passenger car
designs is limited space due to the
presence of bathrooms, equipment
closets, and side door exits.
Accordingly, the requirements proposed
for the number and location of
emergency window exits in paragraph
(a)(3) provide flexibility for, and are
consistent with, existing passenger car
designs.
FRA notes that in light of the
proposed definition of ‘‘main level,’’
some passenger cars would no longer
have main levels. Such cars would thus
be subject to the proposed requirements
for other levels with seating areas
contained in paragraph (a)(3). For
instance, none of the levels in a gallerystyle car (a multi-level passenger car
with a full-height, enclosed vestibule in
the center) would meet the proposed
definition of a ‘‘main level.’’ Yet, each
of the four, separate seating areas in
such a car would be subject to the
emergency window exit number and
location requirements proposed in
paragraph (a)(3). Further, the proposed
requirements are consistent with the
number and location of emergency
windows on existing gallery-style
passenger cars, would not impact
current operations, and would not
diminish the effect of FRA’s existing
requirements.
Paragraph (a)(3)(i) would require that
non-main levels that are used for
passenger seating have at least two
emergency window exits that are
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
accessible to passengers in each seating
area without requiring the passengers to
move to another level of the car or pass
through an interior door. This proposal
is intended to address situations in
which stairways could become
structurally deformed and interior doors
could be rendered inoperable as a result
of a collision, derailment, or other
accident, obstructing access to an
emergency window exit or a side door
exit on another level or in a vestibule
area that is separated from the seating
area by an interior door. Similarly, the
proposal is intended to address
situations in which a passenger car has
rolled onto its side as a result of a
collision, derailment, or other accident,
by providing that at least one of these
emergency window exits would be
required in each side of the passenger
car, except as provided below. See
Figures 2, 2a, and 2b to subpart B.
The proposed rule provides flexibility
for locating an emergency window exit
within an exterior side door in the
passenger compartment of a non-main
level, if it is not ‘‘practical’’ to place the
window exit in the side of the seating
area. It should be noted that, by
definition, a side door would not be
considered located within the
‘‘passenger compartment’’ if an interior
door separates the seating area from the
area where the side doors are located.
The provision would require that there
be an open passageway between the
seating area and the vestibule, in such
a circumstance. Use of the word
‘‘practical’’ would allow railroads and
car builders some discretion regarding
the location of an emergency window
exit in a non-main level of a car. For
instance, this provision could be used to
address situations where a window in a
door in the same passenger
compartment may be better suited for
emergency egress than one in the
seating area. In some cars, removal of
the windows in the seating area may be
hindered by seat backs or other fixtures,
while windows in the exterior side
doors could be more easily and rapidly
removed. Since there would still be two
accessible side windows in a passenger
compartment, one on each side, there
would be no limitation on the number
of seats that may be in the compartment.
Moreover, the door itself is a means of
emergency egress that, if operable,
would allow more rapid and safe egress
than exiting through a window.
Nevertheless, because having two
emergency exits at the very same
location could result in both exits being
rendered inoperable (as by car crush) or
inaccessible (as by fire), FRA is not
proposing to allow the unrestricted
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
placement of emergency window exits
in side doors. FRA makes clear that, all
things being equal, emergency window
exits should be placed in a separate
location from side door exits. See Figure
2b to subpart B; compare to Figure 2a
to subpart B.
In determining the appropriate
applicability date for the proposed
requirement to have emergency window
exits in non-main levels of multi-level
passenger cars, it was noted that, while
some passenger cars already have
windows in each side of an intermediate
level seating area, these windows are
not necessarily emergency window
exits. Consequently, some time would
be needed to change out the existing
windows with emergency window exits
or otherwise retrofit the windows with
pull-handles and make any other
modification necessary so that the
windows would meet the requirements
for emergency window exits. The
proposal takes this into account, and
otherwise would afford railroads
sufficient time to come into compliance
regardless of the state of the existing
windows, by phasing the requirement in
over an 18-month period from the date
of publication of the final rule.
Paragraph (a)(3)(ii) contains a
proposed exception for non-main levels
of multi-level passenger cars that would
require only one emergency window
exit in a seating area in a passenger
compartment with no more than four
seats, if it would not be practical to
place an emergency window exit in a
side of the passenger compartment due
to the need to provide accessible
accommodations under the ADA and a
suitable, alternate arrangement for
emergency egress is provided. This
proposed exception would address
concerns involving multi-level
passenger cars serving passenger
stations with high-platforms, such as on
the Northeast Corridor. Because all
passengers enter the cars on the
intermediate level, and disabled
passengers would not be able to access
accommodations on another level of the
cars, any accommodations provided to
passengers would have to be located on
the intermediate level. The proposal
recognizes this need, and the proposed
exception would apply to both existing
and new passenger cars but would be
limited to situations that arise from the
need to provide accessible
accommodations under the ADA and
limited to passenger compartments
where there are no more than four seats
and a suitable alternative for egress is
provided. FRA makes clear that use of
the word ‘‘practical’’ in paragraph
(a)(3)(ii) would extend flexibility to car
builders to locate an electrical locker or
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
other equipment closet in a side of an
intermediate level at one end of a
passenger car without being required to
place an emergency window exit in the
same side at that location, provided the
placement of the locker or closet is
related to placement of ADA-accessible
accommodations in the intermediate
level at the other end of the car. The
limitation concerning the maximum
number of seats in the passenger
compartment is consistent with the
maximum number of seats in existing
designs for cars that are being
manufactured with emergency window
exits in only one side of each passenger
compartment in an intermediate level.
The proposal would also require that
a suitable, alternative arrangement for
emergency egress be provided. Such an
arrangement should not require the use
of a tool or implement to operate, and
should be comparable to an emergency
window exit in terms of being rapid and
easy to use. As part of the Task Force’s
discussion during the development of
the proposed rule, Kawasaki presented
a car design with a seating area
separated from a vestibule by an interior
door and an alternative arrangement for
emergency egress. The interior door
would be designed with a removable
window panel (with pull-handles on
both sides) to allow passengers access to
the vestibule, if the door itself were
inoperable. Further, in the vestibule the
exterior side door located on the same
side as the one in the seating area
without the emergency window exit
would itself contain an emergency
window exit. As a result, a means of
exiting the car from that side would be
available to passengers. FRA notes that
a combination of several factors would
render this arrangement a suitable,
alternate means of emergency egress.
First, the alternate emergency exit
location would provide a measure of
redundancy, i.e., a safety factor, in that
there would both be an exterior side
door and an emergency window exit in
the same door. The door, if operable,
should allow passengers and crew
members to exit more expeditiously
than through a window. In the event
that this door would be rendered
inoperable, a window meeting the
minimum dimension requirements in
proposed paragraph (c) would then be
available. To the extent both the door
and its window were rendered
inoperable, the exterior side door exits
in the adjacent car’s vestibule would
then be next in sequence for use since
this car design has no end-frame doors
separating adjoining cars. Should the
end of the car become uncoupled from
the adjacent car, the vestibule would be
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
50287
open at the end, allowing passengers
direct access to the outside. Further, the
panel in the interior door leading to the
vestibule would not be glass but a
polycarbonate, which is significantly
lighter than glass and thus easier to
remove, and the opening in the interior
door would be large enough for a person
to pass through it relatively quickly.
Paragraph (a)(3)(iii) would require
passenger cars ordered both prior to 14
months after the publication of the final
rule and placed in service prior to 38
months after the publication of the final
rule to have a minimum of only one
emergency window exit in a non-main
level seating area in a passenger
compartment with no more than eight
seats, if it is not ‘‘practicable’’ to place
a window exit in a side of the passenger
compartment (due to the presence of
such structures as a bathroom, electrical
locker, or kitchen). This exception
would be broader than the one in
paragraph (a)(3)(ii) as it would apply to
non-main levels with more seats and
would not be dependent on providing
accessible accommodations under the
ADA. However, it would not apply to
new cars. New car designs should take
into consideration the need to provide
an emergency window exit in each side
of a passenger compartment.
Use of the word ‘‘practicable’’ would
limit railroad discretion so that a car
would be required to have an emergency
window exit in a side of a seating area,
if a window were already located there.
Nevertheless, FRA notes that a railroad
would be under no obligation to install
a window in a side of a passenger
compartment for purposes of providing
an emergency window exit, if an
emergency window exit were located in
either (i) the other side of the same
compartment or (ii) an exterior side
door located in the same side of the
compartment. Cutting through a side
panel in an existing passenger car to
install an emergency window exit
would not be required.
Requirements for cars with sleeping
compartments or similar private
compartments would be clarified and
moved from existing paragraph (a)(2) to
proposed paragraph (a)(4). Each level of
a passenger car with a sleeping
compartment or a similar private
compartment intended to be occupied
by a passenger or train crew member
would continue to be required to have
at least one emergency window exit in
each such compartment. A private
seating area (such as one found on
certain European trains or on some
antiquated American trains) is a private
compartment. FRA notes that, in a
passenger car with only sleeping
compartments, if all the sleeping
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
50288
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
compartment doors are locked,
passengers in a compartment without an
egress window would not be able to get
into another compartment to use an
emergency window exit. The rule would
clarify that, for purposes of this
paragraph, a kitchen, locomotive cab, or
bathroom—whether public or private—
is not considered a ‘‘private
compartment,’’ however. In particular,
bathrooms are distinguishable from
sleeping compartments because a
passenger could leave a private
bathroom to access an emergency
window exit in the sleeping
compartment, and a passenger can leave
a public bathroom to access an
emergency window exit in the
passenger compartment.
As part of the proposed revision and
reorganization of this section, paragraph
(b) would contain the same
requirements for ease of operability of
emergency window exits that are
currently stated in paragraph (a)(3) of
the existing regulation. The only
modification would be that the
applicability date of November 8, 1999,
which is currently stated in the
introductory text of paragraph (a), be
added directly to this paragraph. FRA
notes that the Task Force considered
alternatives to the existing standard for
the ease of operating emergency
window exits—one that would be
capable of more objective quantification.
One such alternative that was
considered involved specifying a
maximum pull-force for removing
window gaskets and glazing, but the
Task Force found it difficult to specify
a uniform standard that would account
for varying operating environments and
weather conditions. Further discussion
relating to the requirements of proposed
paragraph (b) is found below in the
paragraph discussing proposed
requirements for marking emergency
window exits.
Consistent with the proposed
reorganization and revision of this
section, FRA is proposing to move
existing requirements for the
dimensions of emergency window exits
from paragraph (b) to paragraph (c). The
applicability date of the dimension
requirements is unchanged from current
paragraph (b); thus the requirements
continue to apply to each passenger car
ordered on or after September 8, 2000,
or first placed in service on or after
September 9, 2002. FRA is proposing a
slight modification to the requirements
to allow an emergency window exit
with an unobstructed opening of at least
24 inches horizontally by 26 inches
vertically to be located within an
exterior side door, in accordance with
the proposed requirements of paragraph
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
(a)(3)(i) of this section. FRA makes clear
that, for purposes of determining
compliance with the emergency
window exit dimension requirements,
the dimensions of the unobstructed
opening are measured after the
emergency window exit has been
opened. The transparent area of the
window for viewing use by passengers
may be several inches smaller than the
opening created once the window is
removed, and that would be acceptable.
FRA notes that a window exit in a
passenger car ordered on or after
September 8, 2000, or placed in service
for the first time on or after September
9, 2002, that does not create an
unobstructed opening meeting the
minimum dimension requirements of
this paragraph may not be considered an
‘‘emergency window exit’’ for purposes
of this section and may not be marked
as an ‘‘emergency window exit.’’
Nevertheless, FRA is not seeking to
require that such a window exit be
modified or removed, provided the
passenger car is otherwise in
compliance with all applicable
emergency window exit requirements.
For example, FRA is aware of window
exits that do not create openings of the
required dimensions because of the
presence of seat backs that do not
manually recline, and may therefore
obstruct passage through the window of
a stretcher or an emergency responder
with a self-contained breathing
apparatus but not a passenger or
crewmember. It is not FRA’s intent to
discourage a railroad from retaining
these additional window exits in its
passenger cars, for circumstances such
as those present in the derailment of an
Amtrak train near Mobile, Alabama in
1993. There, six passenger cars fell into
a bayou and submerged, drowning 42
passengers and two crewmembers in
those cars, and killing all three
crewmembers in the locomotive. In
what has been the U.S.’s deadliest
passenger train accident in over 50
years, train occupants needed to
evacuate the cars as quickly as possible,
potentially making the number of
window exits more critical than their
precise dimensions. (FRA is not
suggesting that the cars lacked a
sufficient number of exits, or that their
dimensions were too small.)
Nevertheless, FRA is inviting
comment on window exits in passenger
cars ordered on or after September 8,
2000, or placed in service for the first
time on or after September 9, 2002, that
have unobstructed openings not meeting
the minimum dimension requirements
of this paragraph. As FRA has noted,
these window exits are not ‘‘emergency
window exits,’’ and may not be
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
identified as emergency window exits.
However, FRA is not seeking to have
these window exits removed, and is
instead considering that pull-handles on
these window exits may state or retain
instructional markings such as ‘‘pull to
open.’’ FRA invites comment on
whether these window exits should or
should not be removed, and, to the
extent that they should not be removed,
whether any instructional marking on
these windows should be permitted.
Since these windows could be used for
emergency egress, if they are not
removed, FRA also invites comment as
to whether they should have to be tested
periodically to ensure that they operate
properly. Railroads are currently
required to test emergency window exits
no less frequently than every 180 days
using commonly accepted sampling
techniques to determine how many
windows to test. In general, these
principles require that the greater the
percentage of window exits that a
railroad finds defective, the greater the
percentage of windows that the railroad
will have to test. Specifically, sampling
must be conducted to meet a 95-percent
confidence level that no defective units
remain and be in accord with either
Military Standard MIL–STD–105(D),
‘‘Sampling for Attributes,’’ or American
National Standards Institute ANSI–
ASQC Z1.4–1993, ‘‘Sampling
Procedures for Inspections by
Attributes.’’ Although testing these
window exits would appear desirable, a
testing requirement may discourage
railroads from retaining these windows
at all.
As the final part of the proposed
reorganization and revision of this
section, paragraph (d) would contain the
requirements for marking emergency
window exits, as well as providing
operating instructions for their use.
Marking and operating instruction
requirements for emergency window
exits are currently contained in
§ 223.9(d)(1) of this chapter, and are
currently referenced in paragraph (c) of
this section. The requirements in
§ 223.9(d)(1) would be moved to
proposed paragraph (d) of this section
and be modified. This paragraph would
require that each emergency window
exit be conspicuously marked with
luminescent material on the inside of
each car, and that legible and
understandable operating instructions,
including instructions for removing the
window panel, be posted at or near each
such window exit.
Notably, proposed paragraph (d)
would specifically require that
emergency window exit operating
instructions address potential
hindrances to removal of the window
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
panel due to the presence of fixtures in
the car. As discussed above, FRA
became aware that the phrase ‘‘rapid
and easy’’ in the requirement for
emergency window exit ease of
operability was not being interpreted
uniformly. Central to the issue was the
actual removal of the window panel in
light of the weight of the window panel
and the presence of interior fixtures
near the window. It is not uncommon
for a seatback to be located adjacent to
an emergency window exit and for a
luggage rack to be located above the
exit. Even if the seat back does not affect
compliance with the dimensions
required for an unobstructed opening
(especially in the case of a large window
panel), it could, together with the
presence of the luggage rack, hinder
removal of the window. This
combination of fixtures could create a
situation where the most effective and
efficient method for operating an
emergency window exit would not be
immediately apparent to a passenger,
especially if the window were large and
heavy. As a result, to promote the rapid
and easy removal of the window panel,
the Task Force recommended requiring
that emergency window exit operating
instructions specifically take into
account such potential hindrances.
Accordingly, if window removal may be
hindered by the presence of a seatback,
headrest, luggage rack, or other fixture,
the instructions would be required to
state the method for allowing rapid and
easy removal of the window panel,
taking into account the fixture(s). This
particular portion of the instructions
would be allowed to be in written or
pictorial format to provide railroads the
flexibility to convey the appropriate
information to passengers, especially
since a picture (pictogram) or pictures
(pictograms) may potentially convey the
information more readily than written
instructions.
FRA also notes that § 223.9(d)(1)
currently requires that the operating
instructions for emergency window
exits be ‘‘clear and legible.’’ FRA
proposes to modify this requirement by
replacing the word ‘‘clear’’ with the
word ‘‘understandable,’’ so that
railroads would be required to post
‘‘legible and understandable’’ operating
instructions. Use of the word ‘‘clear’’ in
§ 223.9(d) has created some confusion
since it can have more than one
meaning, and FRA believes the proposal
would eliminate any further confusion.
Finally, FRA notes that existing
requirements in parts 223 and 239 for
the marking of emergency exits, as well
as existing requirements in part 238 for
the marking of emergency
communications transmission points,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
specify the use of luminescent
materials. (Door exits intended for
emergency egress may also be lighted, in
accordance with § 239.107(a)(1).) Part
238 defines ‘‘luminescent material’’ as
material that absorbs light energy when
ambient levels of light are high and
emits this stored energy when ambient
levels of light are low, making the
material appear to glow in the dark. See
§ 238.5. Proposed paragraph (d) would
continue to require that luminescent
material be used to mark emergency
window exits. However, as further
discussed below, the Task Force has
been considering incorporating an
APTA standard that would establish
specific criteria for this material,
including how bright the material must
be and how long the material must stay
luminescent.
FRA’s requirements to mark
emergency window exits and other
emergency exits originated with FRA
Emergency Order No. 20. See 61 FR
6876, Feb. 22, 1996; and 61 FR 8703,
Mar. 5, 1996. Among its provisions, the
Emergency Order required that ‘‘no later
than April 20, 1996, commuter and
intercity passenger railroads ensure that
each emergency exit location is marked
inside the car for passenger and crew
information.’’ In an effort to respond to
this requirement as effectively as
possible within the short timeframe
required, affected railroads began to
install photo-luminescent emergency
exit markings that were available at the
time. Many railroads installed signs
made of zinc-sulfide, which were
capable of providing luminance for a
period of less than 10 minutes only in
many cases. Following this, photoluminescent sign technology evolved,
and materials, such as strontiumaluminate, which is capable of
providing high levels of luminance for
much longer periods, began to be used.
Prices for such signage also decreased,
making the cost of such ‘‘highperformance, photo-luminescent’’
(HPPL) signs comparable to that of the
signs installed initially. Thus, in 1999,
APTA issued APTA SS–PS–002–98,
‘‘Standard for Emergency Signage for
Egress/Access of Passenger Rail
Equipment,’’ requiring the use of HPPL
materials for all newly installed passive
emergency exit signs and for the retrofit
of existing cars at their remanufacture.
According to Revision 2 of this APTA
standard, issued in 2003, following a
charge of five foot-candles for one hour,
photo-luminescent markings that are
installed must emit a minimum of not
less than 7.5 milli-candela per square
meter (7.5 mcd/m2) for 90 minutes after
removal of the charging source. The
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
50289
duration period of 90 minutes
corresponds with the 90-minute
duration requirement for emergency
lighting contained in § 238.115 for new
passenger cars and is based on a
reasonable amount of time for
passengers and crew members to wait
for the arrival of emergency responders
to remote accident sites. Depending on
the circumstances, it could take more
than an hour for crewmembers to
evaluate an emergency situation,
coordinate with the control center and
emergency responders, notify
passengers on the appropriate action(s)
to take, and if necessary, begin to
evacuate the train. It is also possible for
a seemingly minor emergency situation
to evolve into a more significant one
requiring evacuation. In conditions of
darkness, a brighter sign is more easily
recognizable and facilitates
identification of emergency exits. These
points have been discussed within the
Task Force, and the Task Force has been
focusing on revisions to the APTA
standard for purposes of incorporating it
into FRA’s regulations. FRA is
considering incorporating elements of
this APTA standard into the final rule
arising from this NPRM so that
emergency exit signs in passenger cars
would be required to be made of HPPL
material, and FRA invites comment on
doing so. FRA will evaluate the
comments received in considering what
standard should be established in the
final rule.
Section 238.114 Rescue Access
Windows
FRA is proposing to establish a new
section that would contain requirements
for rescue access windows for both new
and existing passenger cars. As
discussed in detail, above, this proposed
section was prompted in part by the
April 23, 2002 collision involving a
Metrolink passenger train near
Placentia, CA, and the ensuing NTSB
Safety Recommendation (R–03–21) to
FRA, which illustrated the potential
importance of having rescue access
windows on each level of a passenger
car. The general intent of the proposal
is to provide a means of rescue access
by emergency responders through a
window directly into every passenger
compartment on every level of a
passenger car, in the event that a
stairway or interior door is
compromised and exterior doors are
blocked.
Paragraph (a) would contain
requirements specifying the minimum
number and location of rescue access
windows. These requirements would
apply on or after the effective date of the
final rule to all passenger cars, except
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
50290
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
for certain, existing single-level cars. As
noted above, FRA’s current regulations
do not specifically require any
minimum number of rescue access
windows for passenger cars; however,
they do require that windows that are
intended for rescue access be marked
and that instructions be provided for
their operation. See § 223.9(d)(2).
Paragraph (a)(1) would contain the
number and location requirements for
rescue access windows in single-level
passenger cars. FRA is proposing that
each single-level passenger car be
required to have a minimum of two
rescue access windows. At least one
rescue access window would have to be
located in each side of the car, entirely
within 15 feet of the centerline of the
car, or entirely within 71⁄2 feet of the
centerline if the car does not exceed 45
feet in length. As discussed above, the
Task Force recommended requiring two
windows for rescue access (versus four,
as is required for emergency exit)
mainly because rescue access windows
are the third means of egress in the
overall emergency systems approach,
with doors and emergency windows
being the first and second means of
emergency exit.
Rescue access windows in a singlelevel passenger car would be required to
be located ‘‘as close to the center of the
car as possible,’’ unlike emergency
window exits which should be in a
staggered configuration to the extent
practical. See Figure 1a to subpart B; see
also Figures 1b and 1c to subpart B.
Staggering the location of emergency
window exits is intended to: (i) Ensure
that a window exit is available for egress
in the event of crush at one end of the
car by making available window exits
throughout the rest of the car; (ii)
optimize the rate of egress, as
passengers have less distance to walk to
reach a window exit; and (iii) avoid
congestion that could occur if the
window exits were all located adjacent
to or directly opposite one another.
Since, in general, a minimum of only
one rescue access window per side, per
level of a single-level passenger car
would be required, the best way to
ensure that a window would be
available for access in the event that one
end of a car is crushed would be to
locate the window in the center portion
of the car, which is generally less
vulnerable to crush in the event of a
collision. Congestion should likely not
be an issue for rescue access window
usage as car occupants should have
likely begun to self-evacuate through
doors and emergency window exits to
the extent possible prior to the arrival of
emergency responders.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
To ensure that railroads have
sufficient flexibility to select those
window locations best suited for rescue
access, a 30-foot section along the center
of a typical 85- to 90-foot-long passenger
car would be designated for their
location. This flexibility would allow
railroads to take into consideration the
location of external hazards (such as
third-rail shoes); potential hindrances
created by interior fixtures for those
rescue access windows intended to be
opened by being pushed inward into the
passenger compartment; the location of
emergency window exits in passenger
cars without dual-function windows;
and other factors that a railroad may
deem relevant. For passenger cars not
longer than 45 feet, approximately half
the length of a standard passenger car,
railroads would have the flexibility to
select a rescue access window from
among approximately three windows
along a 15-foot section in the center of
the car.
If the seating level is obstructed by an
interior door or otherwise partitioned
into separate seating areas, the proposal
would require that each separate seating
area have at least one rescue access
window in each side of the seating area,
located as near to the center of the car
as practical. This proposed requirement
is consistent with the general objective
of having at least one rescue access
window on each side of a passenger
seating area or passenger compartment.
Nevertheless, FRA is not aware of any
such single-level car in current
operation in the United States to which
this proposed requirement would apply.
FRA notes that on some single level
passenger cars, polycarbonate windows
are installed in a channel in the window
mask, which is itself installed in the car
body with the frame compressed over
the window to secure it. Removal of the
window would require removal of the
frame, which would be very difficult in
an emergency situation. In addition, it
would be costly for these cars to be
retrofitted with glass windows (so that
they could be shattered) or with zipstrip systems to literally un-zip the
window panel from its frame and
gasketing. On this type of equipment,
the location requirement would be met
by having a rescue access window
available on each side of each end of the
same passenger compartment, including
in exterior side doors. An exception was
crafted that would permit the location of
the rescue access windows in four
exterior side doors, and it was approved
by the Task Force, Working Group, and
the full RSAC. Although the
recommended text was silent as to
whether the windows were required to
be located within 15 feet of the car’s
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
centerline, FRA makes clear that no
such restriction was intended to apply.
As a result, FRA is expressly proposing
that these windows could be located
farther than 15 feet from the car’s
centerline, provided that there would be
at least one such window in each side
of each end (half) of the same passenger
compartment—a minimum of four
rescue access windows, overall. FRA
believes that effectively requiring a
minimum of four rescue access
windows, instead of two, would be
appropriate for granting flexibility for
installing rescue access windows on
existing equipment in side doors.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ii) would
address the number and location
requirements for rescue access windows
for single-level passenger cars that were
ordered prior to September 8, 2000, and
placed in service prior to September 9,
2002, if equipped with manual door
releases for at least two exterior side
doors (or door leaves) in diagonally
opposite quadrants of the cars. The
manual door release would have to be
capable of releasing the door (or door
leaf) to permit it to be opened without
power from outside the car, be located
adjacent to the door (or door leaf) which
it controls, and be designed and
maintained so that an emergency
responder could access the release from
outside the car without requiring the
use of a tool or other implement. The
requirements of proposed paragraph
(a)(1)(ii) would become effective 18
months after publication of the final
rule. FRA decided to propose to allow
this additional time to install rescue
access windows at least in part because
these passenger cars are equipped with
manual releases capable of opening side
doors from outside of the car, as
provided in § 238.235(b), even though
such releases are not required for such
older passenger cars by that section.
This proposed paragraph would also
address those passenger cars equipped
with compressed frame window systems
in which rescue access windows would
need to be retrofitted in the four side
doors by replacing the polycarbonate
glazing with glass that could be broken
to gain access into the car. The 18month implementation period would
allow for the time necessary to plan and
carry out the retrofit without disrupting
train service. In the interim, emergency
responders would continue to rely on
the manual door releases to open the
side doors for rescue access purposes
should the need arise.
In paragraph (a)(2) FRA is proposing
minimum requirements for the number
and location of rescue access windows
in main levels of multi-level passenger
cars. Each main level in a multi-level
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
passenger car would be subject to the
same, minimum requirements proposed
for single-level passenger cars in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
In paragraph (a)(3) FRA is proposing
minimum requirements for the number
and location of rescue access windows
in non-main levels of multi-level
passenger cars with seating areas. These
proposed requirements and exceptions
for non-main levels with passenger
seating would also be the same as those
for emergency window exits on nonmain levels with passenger seating.
Specifically, paragraph (a)(3)(i) would
require that any other level used for
passenger seating in a multi-level
passenger car have at least two rescue
access windows in each seating area to
permit emergency responders to reach
occupants without requiring movement
through an interior door or to another
level of the car. At least one rescue
access window would have to be
located in each side of the seating area.
A rescue access window could be
located within an exterior side door in
the passenger compartment if it is not
practical to place the rescue access
window in the side of the seating area.
See Figure 2a to subpart B; compare to
Figure 2b to subpart B.
Paragraph (a)(3)(ii) would require
only one rescue access window in a
seating area in a passenger compartment
of a non-main level if it is not practical
to place a rescue access window in a
side of the passenger compartment due
to the need to provide accessible
accommodations under the ADA; there
are no more than four seats in the
seating area; and a suitable, alternate
arrangement for rescue access is
provided. The rationale for this
exception is the same as the one for
emergency window exits in non-main
levels of multi-level passenger cars in
proposed § 238.113(a)(3)(ii), as
discussed above.
Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(iii) would
provide that passenger cars both ordered
prior to 14 months after publication of
the final rule and placed in service prior
to 38 months after publication of the
final rule be required to have only one
rescue access window in a seating area
in a passenger compartment of a nonmain level if it is not practicable to
place a rescue access window in a side
of the passenger compartment (due to
the presence of such structures as a
bathroom, electrical locker, or kitchen)
and there are no more than eight seats
in the seating area. For more
background on this proposal, please see
the related discussion above for
emergency window exits in such seating
areas.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
In paragraph (a)(4) FRA is proposing
minimum requirements for the number
and location of rescue access windows
for passengers cars with a sleeping
compartment or similar private
compartment. Each level of a passenger
car with a sleeping compartment or a
similar private compartment intended to
be occupied by passengers or train
crewmembers would be required to
have a minimum of one rescue access
window in each such compartment. For
purposes of this paragraph, a bathroom,
kitchen, and locomotive cab are not
considered a ‘‘compartment.’’ These
proposed requirements reflect current
practice. Amtrak cars with sleeping
compartments are already equipped
with a window in each such
compartment that is capable of being
used for both emergency egress and
rescue access.
Proposed paragraph (a)(5) would
address the use of dual-function
windows as rescue access windows. If
on any level of a passenger car the
emergency window exits installed to
meet the minimum requirements of
§ 238.113 are intended to function as
rescue access windows, the
requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(4) of this section for the
number and location of rescue access
windows would be met for that level.
Under this provision, four rescue access
windows would be required for cars
with dual-function windows that do not
have at least one rescue access window
in each side within 15 feet of the
centerline of the car.
Proposed paragraph (b) would contain
the requirements for the ease of
operability of rescue access windows.
The requirements would apply on or
after the effective date of the final rule,
and would require that each rescue
access window be capable of being
removed without undue delay by an
emergency responder using either a
provided external mechanism, or tools
or implements that are commonly
available to the responder in a passenger
train emergency, such as a sledge
hammer or a pry bar. FRA notes that the
proposed performance requirement for
removing windows ‘‘without undue
delay’’ is intended to be less stringent
than the performance requirement of
‘‘rapid and easy’’ for emergency window
exits. For example, using a sledge
hammer to shatter a glass window
would be considered removal without
undue delay. Windows that are not
made of glass may also be designed to
be removed without undue delay by an
emergency responder, through use of an
axe, sledge hammer or similar large
impact tool to strike the window at an
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
50291
appropriate point so that the window
panel will push inward.
Proposed paragraph (c) would contain
the requirements for the dimensions of
rescue access windows. Each rescue
access window in a passenger car,
including a sleeping car, ordered on or
after 14 months after publication of the
final rule, or placed in service for the
first time on or after 38 months after
publication of the final rule, would be
required to have an unobstructed
opening with minimum dimensions of
26 inches horizontally by 24 inches
vertically. A rescue access window
located within an exterior side door, in
accordance with the requirements of
proposed paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this
section, would be permitted to have an
unobstructed opening with minimum
dimensions of 24 inches horizontally by
26 inches vertically. A seatback would
not be considered an obstruction if it
could be moved away from the window
opening without requiring the use of a
tool or other implement. The proposed
dimensions for rescue access window
unobstructed openings would be the
same as those for emergency window
exit unobstructed openings.
Accordingly, FRA’s reasoning for
proposing these minimum dimensions
for emergency window exits applies
here. These minimum dimensions
should allow an emergency responder
equipped with a self-contained
breathing apparatus to pass through the
window, as well as allow a person to be
carried through the window on a
stretcher of common size.
As discussed above, FRA is proposing
that existing rescue access window
marking and operating instruction
requirements, which are contained in
§ 223.9(d)(2), be modified and moved to
paragraph (d) of § 238.114. Each rescue
access window is currently required to
be ‘‘marked with a retroreflective,
unique, and easily recognizable symbol
or other clear’’ marking. FRA is
proposing to restate these requirements
to make clear that rescue access
windows must be marked with
retroreflective material. Second, FRA is
making clear that a unique and easily
recognizable symbol, sign, or other
conspicuous marking must be used to
identify each rescue access window.
FRA would replace the word ‘‘clear’’ in
the existing requirements with the word
‘‘conspicuous’’ and add the word ‘‘sign’’
as another example of a conspicuous
marking. This revision would make
clear that use of retroreflective material
to mark a rescue access window is a
distinct requirement in itself, to enable
emergency responders to quickly
identify rescue access windows under
conditions of darkness by shining a
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
50292
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
flashlight on a car. Second, the revision
would make clear that the window must
also be marked by a unique and easily
recognized symbol, a sign (such as
‘‘RESCUE ACCESS’’), or other
conspicuous marking (such as
delineation of the window by means of
a contrasting color). Both requirements
could be met by the same marking.
Current regulations also require that
each railroad post ‘‘clear and
understandable’’ window access
instructions either at each rescue access
window or at each end of the car. FRA
is proposing that the word ‘‘clear’’ be
replaced with the word ‘‘legible,’’ so
that railroads would be required to post
‘‘legible and understandable’’ operating
instructions. Use of the word ‘‘clear’’ in
§ 223.9(d) has created some confusion
since it can have more than one
meaning, and FRA believes the proposal
would eliminate any further confusion.
As noted above in the discussion of
emergency window exits, the Task
Force has been focusing on draft
revisions to APTA SS–PS–002–98, Rev.
2, ‘‘Standard for Emergency Signage for
Egress/Access of Passenger Rail
Equipment,’’ in order to recommend
whether some or all of its contents
should be incorporated into FRA’s
regulations. This APTA Standard also
contains detailed criteria for marking
rescue access windows, including the
use of retroreflective material. FRA
invites comment on whether the criteria
in the APTA Standard or in draft
revisions to this Standard for marking
rescue access windows are appropriate
for use in the final rule.
FRA is also proposing to modify
current requirements so that it would no
longer be permissible to have window
access instructions solely at the end of
the car. Instead, legible and
understandable rescue access window
instructions, including instructions for
removing the window, would be
required to be posted at or near each
rescue access window. The Task Force
agreed that rescue access efforts could
be unduly delayed by posting rescue
access window operating instructions at
the end of a car, potentially more than
40 feet away from the rescue access
window to which the instructions
apply.
Section 238.117 Emergency
Communications
Currently, § 238.117 contains
requirements for ‘‘protection against
personal injury,’’ e.g., installing guards
on moving parts of passenger
equipment. FRA is proposing to
redesignate this § 238.117 as § 238.121.
In its place, FRA is proposing that this
section contain the requirements for
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
systems that may be used for passenger
and crew communication in the event of
an emergency. This would keep the
emergency system requirements
together in section numbering sequence
for benefit of the reader. This proposed
section would establish emergency
communication requirements for Tier I
passenger equipment and replace the
current emergency communication’s
requirements in § 238.437 for Tier II
passenger equipment. Overall, the
proposed requirements generally reflect
current practice for Tier I passenger
equipment and existing requirements
for Tier II passenger equipment.
Paragraph (a) contains proposed
requirements for public address (PA)
systems for both existing and new Tier
I and Tier II passenger cars. Most
passenger cars used in commuter and
intercity service are equipped with PA
systems that train crews often use to
notify passengers of the nature and
expected duration of delays. If a person
requires immediate medical attention,
the crew may also use the PA to request
assistance from someone onboard with
medical training. Railroad
representatives on the Task Force noted
that PA systems are particularly
beneficial in the immediate aftermath of
an accident to provide instructions for
appropriate passenger action. In light of
a security threat or other emergency
situation requiring rapid evacuation of
an area, crews may also use the PA
system to instruct passengers to deboard
as quickly as possible. If there is a
hazard on one end of the train or one
side of the train, crews may use the PA
system to notify passengers of the
hazard and direct them to use the
appropriate exit route(s) that would
avoid or minimize their exposure to the
hazard. Of course, all things being
equal, the safest place for passengers is
to remain onboard the train. Deboarding
could aggravate an emergency situation,
particularly if passengers step onto the
right-of-way. Accordingly, the crew
must have the means to provide
passengers with appropriate
instructions as soon as possible.
Paragraph (a)(1) would require that on
or after January 1, 2012, each Tier I
passenger car be equipped with a PA
system that provides a means for a
crewmember to communicate to all train
passengers in an emergency situation.
FRA understands that existing Tier I
passenger cars that currently do not
have PA systems are scheduled to be
retired before 2012 and thus would be
removed from service before the
requirement would apply.
FRA notes that APTA’s PRESS Task
Force is currently evaluating the
feasibility of a wireless, two-way
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
communication system that would
function independently of the train line,
i.e., not rely on the train line for power.
The wireless system is intended to
provide a means of two-way
communication in the event that the
train line is broken, as may occur as a
result of certain collisions or
derailments. However, FRA makes clear
that it is not currently proposing to
require in this section that the
communication system be wireless;
communication through use of a train
line would be permitted.
Paragraph (a)(2) contains proposed
requirements for new Tier I and all Tier
II passenger cars. As is stated for
existing Tier I passenger cars in
proposed paragraph (a)(1), this
paragraph would require that each Tier
I passenger car ordered on or after 60
days after publication of the final rule,
or placed in service for the first time on
or after 26 months after publication of
the final rule, and all Tier II passenger
cars be equipped with a PA system that
provides a means for a crewmember to
communicate to all train passengers in
an emergency situation. In addition, PA
systems in new Tier I and all Tier II
passenger cars would be required to
provide a means for a crewmember to
communicate in an emergency situation
to persons in the immediate vicinity of
the train (e.g., on the station platform).
These proposed requirements include
the basic features of PA systems
installed in most recently-manufactured
Tier I passenger cars and in all existing
Tier II passenger trains.
Finally, it should be noted that the PA
system may be part of the same system
as the intercom system. A shared
configuration is quite common on cars
equipped with both PA and intercom
systems.
Paragraph (b) contains the proposed
requirements for intercom systems.
Traditionally, conductors and assistant
conductors have been relied upon to
relay information to passengers in both
normal and emergency situations
through face-to-face interaction or by
use of a PA system. However, with
smaller crew sizes, such face-to-face
communication may not be possible for
passengers to quickly communicate to
the crew a medical emergency, safety
concern, or security threat requiring
immediate attention. For instance, a
passenger in the last car of a train who
needs to communicate a safety or
security threat to a crewmember could
potentially have to walk the entire
length of the train to do so (assuming
the crew is composed of an engineer
and one conductor, who in this
circumstance would be in the first car
at the time). Furthermore, if the
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
conductor were incapacitated,
passengers would need to communicate
with the engineer. The Task Force
therefore recommended that emergency
communication systems in new
passenger cars should include intercom
systems to enable passengers to quickly
communicate emergency situations to
the train crew. These proposed
requirements reflect common intercom
system configurations for new passenger
cars.
Specifically, paragraph (b)(1) contains
the proposed intercom system
requirements for new Tier I and all Tier
II passenger cars. Each Tier I passenger
car ordered on or after 60 days after
publication of the final rule, or placed
in service for the first time on or after
26 months after publication of the final
rule, and all Tier II passenger cars
would be required to be equipped with
an intercom system that provides a
means for passengers and crewmembers
to communicate with each other in an
emergency situation. Passenger cars that
are at least 45 feet in length would be
required to have a minimum of one
intercom in each end (half) of each car
that is accessible to passengers without
requiring the use of a tool or other
implement. Although some passenger
cars currently equipped with intercom
systems have one located in each end,
others have only one per car. An
intercom in each half of a car is
proposed so that passengers would have
access to an intercom within half a car
length, which is normally 42 to 45 feet,
and would not have to pass into an
adjoining car. As long as intercoms are
accessible to passengers, they may be
placed anywhere in each end (half) of
the car and not necessarily in the far
ends.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would
continue the logic of existing § 238.437
by requiring only one intercom for a
passenger car that does not exceed 45
feet in length, such as the Talgo
passenger cars operated by Amtrak. As
the length of a conventional passenger
is typically between 85 and 90 feet, FRA
believes it appropriate to require a car
not more than half that length to have
only one intercom location. This
proposed paragraph would also
continue to require, as § 238.437
currently does, that a Tier II passenger
car ordered prior to May 12, 1999, be
equipped with only one intercom. This
exception corresponds to the current
requirements for Tier II passenger
equipment, as discussed in the April 23,
2002, final rule. See 67 FR 19986. The
preamble to that rule explained that
after FRA had proposed that intercoms
be located at each end of a Tier II
passenger car, Amtrak indicated that not
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
all passenger cars in its high-speed
trainsets had intercom transmission
locations at each end of the cars, and
further noted that the intercoms would
be difficult to install at the nonvestibule ends of the cars. As these
trainsets were in development in
advance of both the then-proposed and
final rules, FRA made an exception for
all cars ordered prior to May 12, 1999.
Some Task Force members were
concerned that making the intercoms
accessible to passengers without
requiring the use of a tool or other
implement could lead to misuse that
could unnecessarily distract the train
operator. However, representatives from
Amtrak and various commuter railroads
that operate cars with intercom systems
indicated that they have successfully
implemented measures to deter misuse.
For instance, on some passenger cars,
the intercom transmission device is
located in a safety compartment
designated and marked for emergency
communications only. FRA invites
comment on whether passenger misuse
of intercom systems has been identified
as a problem, and, if so, FRA invites
suggestions for measures that could curb
such misuse without rendering the
systems inaccessible to passengers in an
emergency. FRA makes clear that
intercoms would need to be accessible
to passengers with disabilities to the
extent required by the ADA and its
implementing regulations.
Paragraph (b)(2) would require that
the location of each intercom intended
for passenger use be clearly marked
with luminescent material and that
legible and understandable operating
instructions be posted at or near each
such intercom to facilitate passenger
use. These requirements would apply to
each Tier I passenger car on or after 26
months after publication of the final
rule, and continue to apply to each Tier
II passenger car. Some railroad
representatives noted that although
instructions are currently posted at the
intercom locations on their cars, there
are no luminescent markings. Thus,
luminescent marking of each intercom
location is proposed to ensure that the
intercom can be easily identified for use
in the event that both normal and
emergency lighting are not functioning.
The posted operating instructions,
however, would not need to be
luminescent under the proposal, as
some Task Force members have
indicated that the instructions may be
easier to read when not luminescent.
As noted in the discussion concerning
emergency window exit signage, above,
APTA SS–PS–002–98, Rev. 2, ‘‘Standard
for Emergency Signage for Egress/
Access of Passenger Rail Equipment,’’
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
50293
contains specific criteria for
luminescent markings. The Task Force
has been focusing on additional
revisions to this APTA Standard in
order to recommend whether to
incorporate some or all of its contents
into part 238 by reference and thereby
require that luminescent markings for
intercoms comply with the Standard as
it relates to luminescent markings.
APTA PRESS has also indicated that
they will revise APTA SS–PS–001–98,
‘‘Standard for Passenger Railroad
Emergency Communications,’’ to
include more specific requirements for
marking emergency communication
systems. In the meantime, FRA invites
comment whether the luminescent
material that would be required by this
proposed paragraph should be HPPL
material. FRA will evaluate any
comments received in considering
whether a requirement for use of HPPL
material should be established in the
final rule.
Paragraph (c) would continue to
require that PA and intercom systems
on Tier II passenger trains have back-up
power for a minimum period of 90
minutes. See § 238.437(d). An example
of a back-up power source is a passenger
car battery. The Task Force approved a
recommendation for a back-up power
requirement for new Tier I passenger
cars, similar to the requirements
contained in § 238.115(b)(4) for
emergency lighting back-up power
systems. That is, the back-up power
system would have to be capable of
operating in: all equipment orientations
within 45 degrees of vertical; after the
initial shock of a collision or derailment
resulting in individually applied
accelerations of 8g longitudinally, 4g
laterally, and 4g vertically; and for at
least 90 minutes. Yet, this
recommendation was not forwarded to
the Working Group, due to an oversight.
Given that backup power to the PA and
intercom systems could be supplied by
the same source as that for the
emergency lighting system, and that the
amount of power required would likely
be only a fraction of that required for the
emergency lighting system, FRA has no
reason to believe that this
recommendation would not have
received the full support of the Working
Group or full RSAC. As a result, FRA is
considering inserting in the final rule a
back-up power system requirement
containing the provisions recommended
by the Task Force, and FRA invites
comment on doing so. In particular,
FRA seeks comment whether the system
needs to be capable of providing
continuous communication over the 90minute period, or only intermittent
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
50294
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
communication, which would draw less
battery power. Providing the means to
communicate continually for a 90minute period may not be necessary,
and FRA invites comment as to how
many minutes of intermittent
communication would need to be
provided.
Section 238.118 Emergency Roof
Access
This section, which is being proposed
for addition to part 238, contains
emergency roof access requirements for
Tier I and Tier II passenger cars ordered
on or after 14 months after publication
of the final rule, or placed in service for
the first time on or after 38 months after
publication of the final rule.
Requirements for Tier II power cars and
existing Tier II passenger cars remain in
§ 238.441, as discussed below. The
emergency roof access requirements for
Tier II passenger equipment contained
in § 238.441 and APTA PRESS
recommended practice RP–C&S–001–
98, ‘‘Recommended Practice for
Passenger Equipment Roof Emergency
Access,’’ served as the basis for the
proposed requirements in this section.
Emergency roof access locations (roof
hatches or structural weak points) can
be especially useful in emergency
situations where passenger cars have
rolled onto their sides following certain
collision and derailment scenarios. All
things being equal, car rollover or tilt
should result in more severe injuries
than when a car remains upright, as
occupants may be thrown greater
distances inside the car. This increases
the potential need for rescue access of
the car’s occupants by correspondingly
reducing the likelihood that the
occupants can evacuate the car on their
own. In such a situation, doors, which
are the preferred means of access under
normal circumstances, may be rendered
inoperable due to structural damage to
the door or the door pocket, as a result
of the incident. In particular, end doors,
which due to the direction they face
would normally be better suited for use
than side doors when a car has tilted or
rolled onto its side, may also be
blocked, jammed, or otherwise
unavailable for use. Moreover, although
emergency responders may be able to
enter a car that is on its side via a rescue
access window, the removal of an
injured occupant through a side
window in such circumstances can be
difficult or complicated, especially
depending upon the condition of the
occupant.
Paragraph (a) contains proposed
requirements for the number and
dimensions of emergency roof access
locations. Each passenger car ordered on
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
or after 14 months after publication of
the final rule, or placed in service for
the first time on or after 38 months after
publication of the final rule, must have
a minimum of two emergency roof
access locations. Although Tier II
passenger cars and power cars are
currently required to have at least one
roof hatch for emergency roof entry or
at least one structural weak point for
properly equipped emergency personnel
to quickly access a car, many new Tier
I multi-level passenger cars are
currently being manufactured with up
to four structural weak points in the
roof. In determining the minimum
number of access points needed for new
Tier I and Tier II passenger cars, the
Emergency Preparedness Task Force
agreed it would be useful to protect the
emergency roof access location against
crush at either end of the car. To do so
would require placement of the location
away from the far ends of the car or, at
a minimum, placement not in the same
end (half) of the car in the event that the
end with the access points becomes
crushed. Second, the Task Force
thought it prudent to facilitate rescue
access by having the access points
located within the bottom half of the
car’s roof, so that the bottom of the
opening would be closer (lower) to the
ground and thus, presumably, more
easily accessible when the car is on its
side. This would require having one
access point on either side of the roof’s
longitudinal centerline. To accomplish
both goals, the Task Force
recommended having two access points
located at diagonally opposite quadrants
of the roof. See Figure 3 to subpart B.
Under the proposal, each roof access
location would be required to have a
minimum opening of 26 inches
longitudinally (i.e., parallel to the
longitudinal axis of the car) by 24
inches laterally. These dimensions are
consistent with the minimum
dimension requirements for emergency
window exits specified for new
passenger cars in the 1999 Passenger
Equipment Safety Standards final rule,
see 64 FR 25673, and were based on
specifying opening requirements
necessary to allow passage of an
emergency responder equipped with a
self-contained breathing apparatus or
fire gear, as well as to allow passage of
a person being carried on a backboard
or basket stretcher, see 64 FR 25595–
25596.
In discussing the issue of appropriate
dimensions for emergency roof access
locations, Task Force members noted
that in order to gain access to a car via
a structural weak point, a responder
would normally have to cut through the
roof skin, which is usually steel, and
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
then through the lining. In some cases,
a responder may have to cut through
additional non-rigid structures. If the
outside dimensions are only 26 inches
longitudinally by 24 inches laterally,
and multiple cuts through car structures
are required to gain access to the
passenger compartment, this could
present a problem for emergency
responders, since each subsequent cut
made using a saw would potentially
result in a smaller opening.
Consequently, railroads and car builders
would need to take this into account
when designing structural weak points
and ensure that the dimensions of the
final cut in such circumstances would
still result in an opening meeting the
minimum dimension requirements.
Paragraph (b) would provide that
permissible means of emergency roof
access include either a hatch, or a
clearly marked structural weak point in
the roof for access by properly equipped
emergency response personnel.
Structural weak points, commonly
known as ‘‘soft spots,’’ are usually
created by routing cables, wiring, and
piping in the roof of the car around the
location designated for roof access. The
proposal would afford railroads the
flexibility of installing either roof
hatches or providing structural weak
points in the roof, as each individual
railroad would be in the best position to
decide which one is preferable taking
into consideration such factors as the
car’s intended use and the safety
hazards presented by one versus the
other. For example, although roof
hatches could provide a means of selfevacuation in addition to a means of
access, placing them in the roofs of
multiple-unit (MU) locomotives which
rely on overhead catenary systems for
power could create an electrocution
hazard for occupants attempting to selfevacuate in an emergency.
Paragraph (c) would require that
emergency roof access points be located,
insofar as practical, in such a manner
that when a car is on its side: (i) One
emergency roof access location is
wholly within each half of the roof as
divided top from bottom; and (ii) one
emergency roof access location is
wholly within each half of the roof as
divided left from right. See Figure 3 to
subpart B. Use of the word ‘‘practical’’
would allow railroads and car builders
some discretion regarding the location
of the access points and would be
necessary to accommodate particular
equipment types. For instance, some
electric MU equipment has pantographs
that take up a significant portion of one
end of the rooftop, making it difficult to
place one emergency access location
wholly within each half of the car’s roof.
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Additionally, on some passenger cars
that have luggage racks, it may be more
practical to place the emergency access
location so that it is not wholly within
the bottom half of the car’s roof (when
the car is on its side) if doing so would
facilitate rescue access by eliminating
the need for emergency responders to
cut through or maneuver around the
luggage racks to get to passengers.
Paragraph (d) contains proposed
requirements related to obstructions and
would require that the ceiling space
below each emergency roof access
location be free from wire, cabling,
conduit, and piping. Additionally,
paragraph (d) would require that, where
practicable, this space also be free of
rigid secondary structure(s) (e.g.,
diffusers and diffuser support, lighting
back fixtures, mounted PA equipment,
and luggage racks). In determining the
placement of the emergency roof access
locations, railroads and manufacturers
would need to consider the
requirements of § 238.118 as a whole.
Use of the word ‘‘practical’’ in
paragraph (c) is intended to allow more
discretion than use of the word
‘‘practicable’’ in this paragraph (d). For
example, in a situation where placement
of an emergency roof access location
wholly within the bottom half of a car’s
roof (when the car is on its side) would
result in obstruction by a rigid
secondary structure, a railroad would be
required to place the roof access
location elsewhere so as to avoid the
obstruction, even though this may result
in its placement partially in both sides
of the roof, or otherwise not wholly
within each half of the roof. In such a
situation, the rule would recognize that
avoidance of the rigid secondary
structure would be more critical than
the exact location of the emergency roof
access location.
If emergency roof access is provided
by means of a hatch, it must be possible
to push interior panels or liners out of
their retention devices and into the
interior of the vehicle after removing the
hatch. For example, for car interior
aesthetics, it would not be uncommon
to cover the area below the hatch with
lining and use velcro to secure the
lining in place. This type of cover and
securement would make it possible for
emergency responders to reach the
interior of the vehicle by pushing in the
lining after removing the hatch. This is
just one example, and other types of
covers and means of securement would
be permissible provided emergency
responders would be able to push
through them to reach the interior of the
vehicle after removing the hatch.
If emergency roof access is provided
by means of a structural weak point, the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
proposal states that it shall be
permissible to cut through interior
panels, liners, or other non-rigid
secondary structures after making the
cutout hole in the roof. However, any
such additional cutting that would be
required must permit a minimum
opening of the dimensions specified in
paragraph (a) to be maintained. In this
regard, having to make additional cuts
could affect the size of the markings
indicating the structural weak points, as
proposed to be required in paragraph
(e).
Paragraph (e) contains proposed
requirements for providing markings of,
and instructions for, emergency roof
access locations. Each emergency roof
access location would be required to be
clearly marked with retroreflective
material of contrasting color. The
retroreflective material is intended to
enable emergency responders to quickly
identify the access locations by shining
a light on the roof. FRA notes that APTA
is in the process of revising APTA SS–
PS–002–98, Rev. 2, ‘‘Standard for
Emergency Signage for Egress/Access of
Passenger Rail Equipment,’’ which
contains more specific requirements for
retroreflectivity than provided for in
this NPRM. The Task Force has been
reviewing draft revisions to this
standard and intends to make a
recommendation concerning its
incorporation into part 238, once the
standard is revised. As a result, the final
rule may incorporate more detailed
APTA retroreflectivity criteria for
marking emergency roof access
locations.
Paragraph (e) also proposes to require
that legible and understandable
instructions be posted at or near each
emergency roof access location. These
instructions would not need to be
retroreflective for two principal reasons:
it can be difficult to read writing on
certain grades of retroreflective
materials while shining light on them,
and light used to identify the emergency
rescue access locations would likely be
available for reading the instructions as
well. This proposal is consistent with
the existing and proposed requirements
for marking rescue access windows. As
an additional requirement, paragraph (e)
proposes that if emergency roof access
is provided by means of a structural
weak point, the line along which the
roof skin would be cut would be
required to be clearly marked with
retroreflective material. The size of the
border marking may have to be larger
than 24 inches laterally by 26 inches
longitudinally to ensure that any cuts in
addition to the cut through the roof skin
would retain the minimum dimensions
required for the opening. Structural
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
50295
weak points would also be required to
have a sign plate with a retroreflective
border that states as follows:
CAUTION—DO NOT USE FLAMECUTTING DEVICES.
CAUTION—WARN PASSENGERS
BEFORE CUTTING.
CUT ALONG DASHED LINE TO
GAIN ACCESS.
ROOF CONSTRUCTION—[STATE
RELEVANT DETAILS].
In particular, the proposal would
require providing a warning against use
of a flame-cutting device during a rescue
access attempt to avoid creation of a fire
hazard. This is especially important
since rescue access is usually a last
resort for those who cannot selfevacuate due to being injured or
disabled, as well as due to the lack of
a viable exit. Emergency responders
usually have a variety of tools available
to them at the scene of an emergency,
including a specialized saw which can
be used to cut through steel, and do not
have to rely on flame-cutting devices.
Section 238.121
Personal Injury
Protection Against
As discussed above, FRA is proposing
to redesignate current § 238.117
(‘‘Protection against personal injury’’) as
§ 238.121 with no substantive change to
the section’s requirements.
Subpart D—Inspection, Testing, and
Maintenance Requirements for Tier I
Passenger Equipment.
Section 238.303 Exterior Calendar Day
Mechanical Inspection of Passenger
Equipment
This section contains the proposed
requirements related to the performance
of exterior mechanical inspections of
passenger cars (e.g., passenger coaches,
MU locomotives, and cab cars) and
unpowered vehicles used in a passenger
train each calendar day that the
equipment is used in service. Paragraph
(e) of this section identifies the various
components that are required to be
inspected as part of the exterior
calendar day mechanical inspection.
FRA proposes to insert a new
paragraph (e)(18) that would require
that all rescue-access-related exterior
markings, signage, and instructions
required by proposed § 238.114 (rescue
access windows) and existing § 239.107
(emergency exits) be in place and, as
applicable, conspicuous, and/or legible.
Proposed paragraph (e)(18)(i) would
allow passenger cars with any required
rescue-access-related exterior markings,
signage, or instructions that are missing,
illegible, or inconspicuous, as
applicable, to remain in passenger
service until the equipment’s fourth
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
50296
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
exterior calendar day mechanical
inspection or next periodic mechanical
inspection required under § 238.307,
whichever occurs first, after the noncomplying condition is discovered,
where it would have to be repaired or
removed from service.
The four-day repair flexibility is
proposed to allow railroads to schedule
repairs at locations where they can be
performed safely and in a manner that
would avoid disrupting normal
operations. Railroad representatives on
the Task Force noted that not all yards
are properly equipped for personnel to
safely, effectively, or efficiently remove
and replace signage on the exterior of
cars. For example, work on the upper
levels of cars can be more safely
performed at maintenance facilities that
have platform ladders. In addition,
various vendors noted that signs and
markings must be applied on a dry,
clean surface at temperatures of
approximately 65 degrees Fahrenheit
and must be allowed to set for up to two
hours. Graffiti may render a sign,
marking, or instruction illegible and
thus in need of replacement. Proper
removal of a sign can be a long and
tedious process because the adhesives
used are difficult to remove. This
coupled with the conditions necessary
for application of a sign may make it an
unfeasible task for some railroads to
perform during an exterior calendar day
mechanical inspection. Furthermore,
some long-distance intercity train trips
take three or four days to complete and
many of the en-route repair locations
may not be appropriate places to make
the repairs to signage. Removing a car
from service for missing rescue access
signage before it reaches its final
destination could result in stranding
passengers on platforms or require that
the same number of passengers ride in
a fewer number of cars, with fewer
emergency exits available to them as a
whole. Thus, the safety of both railroad
employees and railroad passengers
necessitates that some flexibility be
provided that would allow equipment to
continue to operate in service for a
sufficient amount of time to reach a
suitable repair location or the train’s
final destination.
In paragraph (e)(18)(ii), FRA proposes
to provide even greater flexibility for
use of passenger cars with required
rescue-access-related exterior markings,
signage, or instructions that are missing,
illegible, or inconspicuous on a side of
a level of a car that has more than 50
percent of the windows designated and
properly marked for rescue access. Such
a car would be permitted to remain in
passenger service until no later than the
car’s next periodic mechanical
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
inspection required under § 238.307,
where it would have to be repaired or
removed from service. FRA agrees with
the Task Force recommendation that
this added flexibility for these types of
cars recognizes the extra effort that a
railroad undertakes by designating and
identifying a greater number of rescueaccess windows than would be required
under proposed § 238.114. A single act
of vandalism may destroy multiple
signs, markings, and instructions or
render them illegible or inconspicuous.
Placement or replacement of several
signs could take more time than may be
scheduled for maintenance of the car
prior to the periodic mechanical
inspection. FRA believes it would make
little sense to require immediate repair
of the damaged markings when more
than a sufficient number meeting the
requirements of proposed § 238.114 are
still present on the equipment.
Moreover, without such flexibility,
railroads would likely be discouraged
from designating more rescue-access
windows than are proposed to be
required by § 238.114.
Similarly, proposed paragraph
(e)(18)(iii) would provide flexibility for
the continued use of a sleeping car that
has more than two consecutive
windows with any required rescueaccess-related exterior markings,
signage, or instructions at or near their
locations that are missing, illegible, or
inconspicuous. Such a car may be
operated in passenger service until the
car’s next periodic mechanical
inspection required under § 238.307,
where it would have to be repaired or
removed from service. FRA believes this
flexibility is necessary because each
sleeping compartment intended to be
occupied by passengers or train
crewmembers would be required to
have a minimum of one rescue access
window in the compartment under
proposed § 238.114 and most sleeping
compartments have only one window. If
two consecutive windows were missing
exterior markings, signage, or
instructions, an emergency responder
would still be readily able to gain access
via the window by relying on the
signage, markings, or instructions
posted at a nearby window.
Proposed paragraph (e)(18)(iv)
requires that a record of any noncomplying marking, signage, or
instruction described in paragraphs
(e)(18)(i) through (iii) be maintained.
The record would have to contain the
date and time that the defective
condition was first discovered and be
retained until all necessary repairs were
completed. These records are necessary
for purposes of tracking when the defect
was first discovered and would be
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
utilized in determining when repairs
would have to be made on cars that
remain in passenger service. Most
commuter and intercity railroads
already keep these type of records
electronically.
Section 238.305 Interior Calendar Day
Mechanical Inspection of Passenger Cars
This section contains the
requirements related to the performance
of interior calendar day mechanical
inspections of passenger cars (e.g.,
passenger coaches, MU locomotives,
and cab cars) each calendar day that the
equipment is used in service. Paragraph
(c) identifies the various components
that are required to be inspected as part
of the interior calendar day mechanical
inspection. Under the current rule, all
en route-defects and all noncomplying
conditions under this section must be
repaired at the time of the daily interior
inspection or the equipment is required
to be locked-out and empty in order to
be placed or remain in passenger
service, with the exception of noncomplying conditions related to
paragraphs (c)(5) through (c)(10).
FRA is proposing to slightly modify
existing paragraph (c)(10) in order to
add a condition under which a car with
non-compliant end doors and side doors
may continue in passenger service
pursuant to paragraph (d) of this
section. The current conditions for such
operation are: If at least one operative
and accessible door is available on each
side of the car; and a notice is
prominently displayed directly on the
defective door indicating that the door
is defective. In addition to those
conditions, FRA proposes to require that
the train crew be provided written
notification of the non-complying
condition. This additional condition
would ensure that crewmembers are
aware of a door that may not be
available for use in an emergency
situation that requires the off-loading of
passengers. Under the existing
regulation, train crews may not realize
a door is defective until they actually try
to use it. If an emergency requiring the
rapid off-loading of passengers should
occur before the crew notices that the
door is inoperative, then the crew might
direct passengers to that door, which
could unnecessarily delay the
evacuation of the train.
FRA is also proposing to add new
paragraph (c)(12) to cover the inspection
of PA and intercom systems. Paragraph
(c)(12) contains proposed requirements
for ensuring that, on passenger cars so
equipped, PA and intercom systems are
operative and function as intended as
part of the interior calendar day
mechanical inspection. This paragraph
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
also proposes flexibility for handling
non-complying equipment, provided the
train crew is given written notification
of the defect and a record of the time
and date the defect was discovered is
maintained. Thus, a passenger car with
an inoperative or non-functioning PA or
intercom system would be permitted to
remain in passenger service until no
later than the car’s fourth interior
calendar day mechanical inspection or
next periodic mechanical inspection
required under § 238.307, whichever
occurs first, or for a passenger car used
in long-distance intercity train service
until the eighth interior calendar day
mechanical inspection or next periodic
mechanical inspection required under
§ 238.307, whichever occurs first, after
the non-complying condition is
discovered. At that time, the PA or
intercom system, or both, would have to
be repaired, or the car would have to be
removed from service.
Railroad representatives on the Task
Force noted that PA systems are
currently inspected on a daily basis and
any necessary repairs are made at the
first convenient opportunity. The
provision requiring that the train crew
be given written notification of any noncompliant PA or intercom is proposed
to ensure that the crew is aware of any
non-functioning system(s) and will not
rely upon any such system for
communication in the event of an
emergency situation. Without such
notification, the train crew could
mistakenly rely on a system that is
inoperative, which could potentially
hinder resolution of an emergency
situation where the crew relies on using
the PA or intercom system to
communicate instructions or warnings
of hazards to passengers.
In proposing to modify paragraph (c),
FRA is reserving paragraph (c)(11) for a
contemplated requirement that all lowlocation emergency exit path markings
required by § 238.116 be in place and
conspicuous as part of the interior
calendar day mechanical inspection.
Low-location emergency exit path
markings provide a visual means for
passenger car occupants to locate
emergency door exits under conditions
of limited visibility due to darkness or
the presence of smoke, or both. FRA
intends to propose minimum standards
for low-location emergency exit path
markings by a separate NPRM as new
§ 238.116, and this document proposes
to reserve § 238.116 for inclusion of
these minimum standards at a later
time.
Finally, FRA notes that it is
considering clarifying paragraph (c)(7),
the interior calendar day inspection
requirement that ‘‘[a]ll safety-related
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
signage is in place and legible.’’ FRA is
considering including in paragraph
(c)(7) express references to signage, as
well as markings and instructions,
required by parts 238 and 239. FRA
invites comment on whether such
clarification should be provided in the
final rule.
Section 238.307 Periodic Mechanical
Inspection of Passenger Cars and
Unpowered Vehicles Used in Passenger
Trains
This section contains the
requirements for performing periodic
mechanical inspections on all passenger
cars and all unpowered vehicles used in
passenger trains. Paragraph (c) identifies
the various components that are
required to be inspected as part of the
periodic mechanical inspection that is
required to be conducted no less
frequently than every 184 days. FRA
proposes to modify paragraph (c)(5),
which currently requires that emergency
lighting systems be operational, to
include other emergency systems such
as emergency roof access markings and
instructions. Specifically, paragraph
(c)(5)(i) would continue to require that
emergency lighting systems required
under § 238.115 are in place and
operational, and paragraph (c)(5)(iii)
would require that emergency roof
access markings and instructions
required under proposed § 238.118(e)
are in place and, as applicable,
conspicuous, and/or legible. FRA does
note that if emergency lighting is found
to be defective at any time other than
the periodic mechanical inspection, it
must be brought into compliance
pursuant to the provisions contained in
§ 238.17 related to non-running-gear
defects.
In proposing the modification, FRA is
reserving paragraph (c)(5)(ii) for a
contemplated requirement that
electrical low-location emergency exit
path markings required by § 238.116 be
in place and operational. As discussed
above, FRA intends to propose
minimum standards for low-location
emergency exit path markings by a
separate NPRM as new § 238.116.
Subpart E—Specific Requirements for
Tier II Passenger Equipment
Section 238.437
[Reserved]
This section formerly contained the
emergency communication
requirements for Tier II passenger
equipment. These requirements would
be moved to new § 238.117 (‘‘Emergency
communications’’) to be integrated with
the new emergency communication
requirements for Tier I passenger
equipment, as stated above. This is
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
50297
consistent with FRA’s desire to
prescribe, to the extent possible, the
same emergency system requirements
for all passenger trains, regardless of
train speed. Section 238.437 is therefore
being removed and reserved. Please see
§ 238.117 for a discussion of the
emergency communication
requirements for Tier II passenger
equipment.
Section 238.441 Emergency Roof
Access
In issuing the Passenger Equipment
Safety Standards, FRA required that
Tier II passenger equipment have either
a roof hatch or a clearly marked
structural weak point in the roof to
provide quick access for properly
equipped emergency response
personnel. See 64 FR 25689. FRA stated
that the final rule did not contain such
requirements for Tier I passenger
equipment and that there was no
consensus within the Passenger
Equipment Safety Standards Working
Group to do so. See 64 FR 25642.
Nevertheless, FRA noted that it believed
that APTA PRESS Task Force efforts
would address requirements for Tier I
passenger equipment and that FRA
intended to reexamine the requirements
of this section in future rulemaking with
a view to applying emergency roof
access requirements to Tier I passenger
equipment. Id.
As discussed above, FRA is proposing
in § 238.118 to apply emergency roof
access requirements to Tier I passenger
equipment and to make the
requirements the same for new Tier I
and Tier II passenger cars. In doing so,
FRA is proposing to revise § 238.441,
including the section heading, to
reconcile the requirements of these
sections and thereby limit the
application of these separate
requirements in § 238.441 to existing
Tier II passenger cars and to any Tier II
power car (whether existing or new). At
the same time, FRA is proposing to
increase the required dimensions of
emergency roof access locations for
existing Tier II passenger equipment
and for any power car, and to provide
general marking and instruction
requirements for such equipment. FRA
believes that existing Tier II passenger
equipment would be in compliance
with the proposed revisions to this
section and that these revisions would
more closely approximate the
requirements proposed for new
passenger equipment.
Specifically, paragraph (a) would be
revised to limit its applicability to Tier
II passenger cars both ordered prior to
14 months after publication of the final
rule and placed in service for the first
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
50298
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
time prior to 38 months after
publication of the final rule, and to Tier
II power cars. As specified in proposed
paragraph (b), new Tier II passenger cars
would be required to comply with the
standards contained in proposed
§ 238.118, which were developed
exclusively for passenger cars.
Paragraph (a) would also be modified to
revise the dimensions of the required
opening from 18 inches by 24 inches, to
24 inches by 26 inches to be consistent
with the proposed requirements for Tier
I passenger equipment. In addition,
paragraph (a) would be revised to
require that each emergency roof access
location be conspicuously marked, and
that legible and understandable
operating instructions be posted at or
near each such location.
The fundamental differences between
the requirements proposed in § 238.118
for new passenger cars and those
proposed in revised paragraph (a) of
§ 238.441 for existing Tier I passenger
cars and for Tier II power cars are as
follows: the number of required
emergency roof access locations—two in
proposed § 238.118, and one in existing
§ 238.441—and the specifications for
their location—detailed specifications
are proposed in § 238.118, while more
general requirements would be in
§ 238.441. These differences reflect the
consideration given to existing
equipment built in compliance with
§ 238.441 of the 1999 final rule, and also
recognize that a requirement for two
emergency roof access locations on a
Tier II power car would not be
reasonable given that the only normally
occupied area in such a car is the cab
compartment, in which only one
emergency roof access location can be
placed.
Paragraph (b) would be revised to
make clear that each passenger car
ordered on or after 14 months after
publication of the final rule, or placed
in service for the first time on or after
38 months after publication of the final
rule, would be required to comply with
the emergency roof access requirements
specified in § 238.118. Section 238.118
proposes to subject new Tier I and Tier
II passenger cars to the same emergency
roof access requirements, and this
revision to paragraph (b) is intended to
conform with that proposal.
Appendix A to Part 238—Schedule of
Civil Penalties
Appendix A to part 238 contains a
schedule of civil penalties for use in
connection with this part. FRA intends
to revise the schedule of civil penalties
in issuing the final rule to reflect
revisions made to part 238. Because
such penalty schedules are statements
of agency policy, notice and comment
are not required prior to their issuance.
See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Nevertheless,
commenters are invited to submit
suggestions to FRA describing the types
of actions or omissions for each
proposed regulatory section that would
subject a person to the assessment of a
civil penalty. Commenters are also
invited to recommend what penalties
may be appropriate, based upon the
relative seriousness of each type of
violation.
VI. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This proposed rule has been
evaluated in accordance with existing
policies and procedures, and
determined to be significant under both
Executive Order 12866 and DOT
policies and procedures (44 FR 11034;
Feb. 26, 1979). FRA has prepared and
placed in the docket a regulatory
evaluation addressing the economic
impact of this proposed rule. Document
inspection and copying facilities are
available at the DOT Central Docket
Management Facility located in Room
PL–401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590. Access to the
docket may also be obtained
electronically through the Web site for
the DOT Docket Management System at
http://dms.dot.gov. Photocopies may
also be obtained by submitting a written
request to the FRA Docket Clerk at
Office of Chief Counsel, Stop 10,
Federal Railroad Administration, 1120
Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20590; please refer to Docket No. FRA–
2006–25273. FRA invites comments on
the regulatory evaluation.
Certain of the proposed requirements
reflect current industry practice, or
restate existing regulations, or both. As
a result, in calculating the costs of this
proposed rule, FRA has neither
included the costs of those actions that
would be performed voluntarily in the
absence of a regulation, nor has FRA
included the costs of those actions that
would be required by an existing
regulation.
As presented in the following table,
FRA estimates that the present value
(PV) of the total 20-year costs which the
industry would be expected to incur to
comply with the requirements proposed
in this rule is $15.4 million:
20-YEAR PV COSTS INCURRED
20-year PV
total
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Description
Costs:
(238.113) Emergency Window Exits
—Installation of pull handles/gaskets in two intermediate level windows ................................................................................
—Replacement of instructions for window removal to ensure that potential hindrances are addressed ................................
—Installation of pull handles/gaskets in four intermediate level windows ................................................................................
(238.114) Rescue Access Windows
—Installation of two windows per car .......................................................................................................................................
—Marking and instructions ........................................................................................................................................................
(238.117) Emergency Communications
—Addition of second intercom transmission location ...............................................................................................................
—Addition of outside speaker for public address system ........................................................................................................
(238.118) Emergency Roof Access
—Structural weak points—engineering redesign ......................................................................................................................
—Structural weak points—additional materials ........................................................................................................................
(238.303, 238.305, and 238.307) Exterior, Interior, and Periodic Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance ......................................
80,000
117,250
14,717,246
Total Costs .........................................................................................................................................................................
15,421,507
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
$4,050
10,880
1,440
163,880
11,640
213,675
101,526
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
If over the 20-year period covered by
the regulatory evaluation the equivalent
of 7.7 lives would be saved as a result
of implementing the proposed
requirements (from a combination of
fatalities prevented, and injuries
avoided or minimized), the proposed
rule would be cost-justified by the safety
benefits alone. FRA believes it is
reasonable to expect that the safety
benefits would exceed the costs of the
proposed requirements. Although
passenger railroads offer the traveling
public one of the safest forms of
transportation available, the potential
for injuries and loss of life in certain
situations is very high. Nevertheless,
FRA cannot predict with reasonable
confidence the actual numbers of lives
that would be saved. The number and
severity of each future passenger train
accident or incident would determine
the ultimate effectiveness of the
proposed requirements; these cannot be
forecasted with a level of precision that
would allow us to predict the actual
need for the measures proposed in the
rule. Yet, FRA believes that the
proposed requirements would protect
passengers and crew members against
known safety concerns in a costeffective manner. These safety concerns
are discussed in detail, above, in the
preamble to this proposed rule.
In particular, as discussed in Section
III.C., the proposed requirement for an
intercom system on Tier I passenger
trains is intended to allow passengers to
communicate to the crew a medical
emergency, report a fire onboard the
train, or provide notification of other
emergency situations as quickly as may
be necessary. In fact, some passenger
lives may have already been saved at
least in part due to the availability of an
intercom system because fellow
passengers were able to use the
intercom to alert a crew member that a
passenger onboard their car was
experiencing a medical emergency. This
led the crew to call the dispatcher to
arrange for prompt medical attention at
a nearby station. FRA believes that over
the next 20 years the availability of an
intercom system to passengers may save
the life of one or more passengers
experiencing a medical emergency.
The availability of an intercom system
to passengers may also save the life of
one or more passengers in other
emergency situations. For example, on
December 7, 1993, a gunman opened
fire onboard a LIRR commuter train
traveling between New Hyde Park and
Garden City, NY, killing 6 people and
injuring 19 others before he was
overpowered by passengers. No
intercom system was available to the
passengers, and the train crew was not
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
aware of the situation until the train
arrived at the next station where police
happened to be present on the platform.
The availability of an intercom system
to passengers in such a situation could
allow passengers to provide notification
to the crew in a timely manner so that
the crew could contact the appropriate
authorities to obtain emergency
assistance and take other necessary
action. This may include providing a
direct warning over the train’s public
address system both to passengers on
the train as well as to passengers in the
immediate vicinity of the train on the
station platform. FRA is, of course,
proposing to require that Tier I
passenger trains be equipped with
public address systems.
Further, over the past 20 years, other
accidents and incidents have occurred
where, if they were to recur, the
availability of the safety features
proposed in this rule may save lives or
prevent or minimize injuries. For
instance, eleven lives were lost in a
February 16, 1996 collision between a
Maryland Rail Commuter (MARC) train
and an Amtrak passenger train in Silver
Spring, Maryland. The collision
breached a fuel tank of an Amtrak
locomotive, spraying fuel into the lead
vehicle of the MARC train, which
erupted in fire. The fire and collision
trapped a number of people in the lead
vehicle. Having rescue access windows
available to emergency responders on
the scene of such a situation may
facilitate the rescue of one or more
passengers.
FRA notes that similar accidents and
incidents have unique circumstances
which ultimately determine their
severity in terms of casualties, and again
emphasizes that actual future events
cannot be predicted with certainty.
Nonetheless, it is possible that over the
next 20 years the safety features
proposed to be required by this rule
would preserve life in a single event in
an amount that exceeds the entire
estimated costs of the rule.
FRA seeks comments and input from
all interested parties regarding the
estimates and statements contained in
the regulatory evaluation developed in
connection with this NPRM.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and
Executive Order 13272
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and Executive Order
13272 require a review of proposed and
final rules to assess their impact on
small entities. FRA has prepared and
placed in the docket an Analysis of
Impact on Small Entities (AISE) that
assesses the small entity impact of this
proposal. Document inspection and
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
50299
copying facilities are available at the
DOT’s Central Docket Management
Facility located in Room PL–401 on the
Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590. Docket material is also available
for inspection on the Internet at
http://dms.dot.gov. Photocopies may
also be obtained by submitting a written
request to the FRA Docket Clerk at
Office of Chief Counsel, Stop 10,
Federal Railroad Administration, 1120
Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20590; please refer to Docket No. FRA–
2005–23080.
The AISE developed in connection
with this NPRM concludes that this
proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The principal entities impacted by the
rule would be governmental
jurisdictions or transit authorities-none
of which is small for purposes of the
United States Small Business
Administration (i.e., no entity serves a
locality with a population less than
50,000). These entities also receive
Federal transportation funds. Although
these entities are not small, the level of
costs incurred by each entity should
generally vary in proportion to either
the size of the entity, or the extent to
which the entity purchases newly
manufactured passenger equipment, or
both. Tourist, scenic, excursion, and
historic passenger railroad operations
would be exempt from the rule, and,
therefore, these smaller operations
would not incur any costs.
The rule would impact passenger car
manufacturers. However, these entities
are principally large international
corporations that would not be
considered small entities. Some
manufacturers and suppliers of
emergency signage and communication
systems may be impacted by the rule,
and these may be small entities. Yet,
FRA believes that any impact on these
entities would neither be significant nor
negative, to the extent demand for
products and services they provide
actually increases.
Having made these determinations,
FRA certifies that this proposed rule is
not expected to have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act or Executive
Order 13272.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
50300
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). The sections that contain the
new information collection
requirements and the estimated time to
fulfill each requirement are as follows:
Respondent
universe
(railroads)
CFR Section—49 CFR
238.113—Emergency Window Exits: Marking
and Instructions.
238.114—Rescue Access Windows: Marking and
Instructions.
238.117—Emergency Communications: Intercom
System—Marking and Instructions.
238.118—Emergency Roof Access: Marking and
Instructions.
238.303—Exterior Calendar Day Mechanical Inspection of Passenger Equipment:
—Repair/Replacement of Non-complying
Rescue Access Window Markings.
—Records of Non-complying Rescue Access Window Markings.
238.305—Interior Calendar Day Mechanical Inspection of Passenger Cars:
—Non-complying Conditions of End Doors
and Side Doors.
—Written Notification to Train Crew of Inoperative/Non-functioning Public Address
and Intercom Systems.
238.307—Periodic Mechanical Inspection of Passenger Cars: Replacement of Non-complying
Emergency Roof Access Marking and Instructions.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
1 Incl.
Total annual responses
Average time
per response
(minutes)
Total annual
burden hours
Total annual
burden cost
22
482 markings ................
60/90/120
694
$27,760
22
964 markings ................
45
723
10
22
116 markings ................
5
10
400
22
234 marked locations ...
30
117
4,680
22
150 replacement markings.
150 records ..................
20
50
2,000
2
5
200
260 notifications +260
notices.
300 notifications ...........
1
9
360
1
5
200
260 replacement markings.
20
87
3,480
22
22
22
22
in RIA.
All estimates include the time for
reviewing instructions; searching
existing data sources; gathering or
maintaining the needed data; and
reviewing the information. Pursuant to
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits
comments concerning the following
issues: whether these information
collection requirements are necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of FRA, including whether the
information has practical utility; the
accuracy of FRA’s estimates of the
burden of the information collection
requirements; the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and whether the burden of
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of automated collection techniques
or other forms of information
technology, may be minimized. For
information or a copy of the paperwork
package submitted to OMB, contact Mr.
Robert Brogan at (202) 493–6292.
Organizations and individuals
desiring to submit comments on the
collection of information requirements
should direct them to Mr. Robert
Brogan, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue,
NW., Mail Stop 17, Washington, DC
20590.
OMB is required to make a decision
concerning the collection of information
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
requirements contained in this NPRM
between 30 and 60 days after
publication of this document in the
Federal Register. Therefore, a comment
to OMB is best assured of having its full
effect if OMB receives it within 30 days
of publication. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public
comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
FRA is not authorized to impose a
penalty on persons for violating
information collection requirements
which do not display a current OMB
control number, if required. FRA
intends to obtain current OMB control
numbers for any new information
collection requirements resulting from
this rulemaking action prior to the
effective date of a final rule. The OMB
control number, when assigned, will be
announced by separate notice in the
Federal Register.
D. Federalism Implications
FRA has analyzed this proposed rule
in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order
13132, issued on August 4, 1999, which
directs Federal agencies to exercise great
care in establishing policies that have
federalism implications. See 64 FR
43255. This proposed rule will not have
a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among various levels of
government.
One of the fundamental federalism
principles, as stated in Section 2(a) of
Executive Order 13132, is that
‘‘[f]ederalism is rooted in the belief that
issues that are not national in scope or
significance are most appropriately
addressed by the level of government
closest to the people.’’ Congress
expressed its intent that there be
national uniformity of regulation
concerning railroad safety matters when
it issued 49 U.S.C. 20106, which
provides that all regulations prescribed
by the Secretary relating to railroad
safety preempt any State law,
regulation, or order covering the same
subject matter, except a provision
necessary to eliminate or reduce an
essentially local safety hazard that is not
incompatible with a Federal law,
regulation, or order and that does not
unreasonably burden interstate
commerce. This intent was expressed
even more specifically in 49 U.S.C.
20133, which mandated that the
Secretary of Transportation prescribe
‘‘regulations establishing minimum
standards for the safety of cars used by
railroad carriers to transport
passengers’’ and consider such things as
‘‘emergency response procedures and
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(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) [currently
$120,700,000] in any 1 year, and before
promulgating any final rule for which a
general notice of proposed rulemaking
was published, the agency shall prepare
a written statement’’ detailing the effect
on State, local, and tribal governments
and the private sector. The proposed
rule would not result in the
expenditure, in the aggregate, of
$120,700,000 or more in any one year,
and thus preparation of such a
statement is not required.
comments received into any agency
docket by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the
comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT’s complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000
(Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–
78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.
1. The authority citation for part 223
is revised to read as follows:
E. Environmental Impact
FRA has evaluated this proposed
regulation in accordance with its
‘‘Procedures for Considering
Environmental Impacts’’ (FRA’s
Procedures) (64 FR 28545, May 26,
1999) as required by the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.), other environmental
statutes, Executive Orders, and related
regulatory requirements. FRA has
determined that this proposed
regulation is not a major FRA action
(requiring the preparation of an
environmental impact statement or
environmental assessment) because it is
categorically excluded from detailed
environmental review pursuant to
section 4(c)(20) of FRA’s Procedures. 64
FR 28547, May 26, 1999. In accordance
with section 4(c) and (e) of FRA’s
Procedures, the agency has further
concluded that no extraordinary
circumstances exist with respect to this
regulation that might trigger the need for
a more detailed environmental review.
As a result, FRA finds that this
proposed regulation is not a major
Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.
G. Energy Impact
Executive Order 13211 requires
Federal agencies to prepare a Statement
of Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant
energy action.’’ 66 FR 28355 ( May 22,
2001). Under the Executive Order, a
‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as
any action by an agency (normally
published in the Federal Register) that
promulgates or is expected to lead to the
promulgation of a final rule or
regulation, including notices of inquiry,
advance notices of proposed
rulemaking, and notices of proposed
rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy; or (2) that is designated by the
Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs as a
significant energy action. FRA has
evaluated this NPRM in accordance
with Executive Order 13211. FRA has
determined that this NPRM is not likely
to have a significant adverse effect on
the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. Consequently, FRA has
determined that this regulatory action is
not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ within
the meaning of Executive Order 13211.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
Pursuant to Section 201 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Privacy Act
FRA wishes to inform all potential
commenters that anyone is able to
search the electronic form of all
equipment’’ before prescribing such
regulations. This proposed rule is
intended to add to and enhance the
regulations issued pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
20133.
FRA notes that the above factors have
been considered throughout the
development of this NPRM both
internally and through consultation
within the RSAC forum, as described in
Section II of this preamble. The full
RSAC, which reached consensus on the
proposed rule text before recommending
the proposal to FRA, has as permanent
voting members two organizations
representing State and local interests:
AASHTO and ASRSM. As such, these
State organizations concurred with the
proposed requirements. The RSAC
regularly provides recommendations to
the FRA Administrator for solutions to
regulatory issues that reflect significant
input from its State members. To date,
FRA has received no indication of
concerns about the Federalism
implications of this rulemaking from
these representatives or from any other
representative.
For the foregoing reasons, FRA
believes that this proposed rule is in
accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order
13132.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
50301
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 223
Glazing standards, Penalties, Railroad
safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
49 CFR Part 238
Passenger equipment, Penalties,
Railroad safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
The Proposed Rule
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, FRA proposes to amend parts
223 and 238 of chapter II, subtitle B of
Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as
follows:
PART 223—[AMENDED]
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–03, 20133,
20701–02, 21301–02, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461,
note; and 49 CFR 1.49.
Subpart A—General
2. Section 223.5 is amended by
removing the definitions ‘‘Emergency
responder’’ and ‘‘Passenger train
service’’; and by revising the definition
‘‘Emergency window’’ to read as
follows:
§ 223.5
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Emergency window means that
segment of a side-facing glazing panel
which has been designed to permit
rapid and easy removal from inside a
passenger car in an emergency situation.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart B—Specific Requirements
3. Section 223.9 is amended by
removing paragraph (d); and by revising
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 223.9 Requirements for new or rebuilt
equipment.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Passenger cars, including selfpropelled passenger cars, built or rebuilt
after June 30, 1980, must be equipped
with certified glazing in all windows
and at least four emergency windows.
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
50302
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
PART 238—[AMENDED]
4. The authority citation for part 238
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20133,
20141, 20302–20303, 20306, 20701–20702,
21301–21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note;
and 49 CFR 1.49.
Subpart A—General
5. Section 238.5 is amended by
revising the definition ‘‘Emergency
window’’ and by adding the definitions
‘‘Emergency responder,’’ ‘‘Dual-function
window,’’ ‘‘Intercom,’’ ‘‘Intercom
system,’’ ‘‘Intermediate level,’’ ‘‘Main
level,’’ ‘‘Passenger compartment,’’ ‘‘PA
System,’’ ‘‘Rescue access window,’’ and
‘‘Seating area’’ to read as follows:
§ 238.5
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
Dual-function window means a
window that is intended to serve as both
an emergency window exit and a rescue
access window and that meets the
applicable requirements set forth in
both §§ 238.113 and 238.114.
*
*
*
*
*
Emergency responder means a
member of a police or fire department,
or other organization involved with
public safety charged with providing or
coordinating emergency services, who
responds to a passenger train
emergency.
Emergency window means that
segment of a side-facing glazing panel
which has been designed to permit
rapid and easy removal from inside a
passenger car in an emergency situation.
*
*
*
*
*
Intercom means a device through
which voice communication is
transmitted and received.
Intercom system means a two-way,
voice communication system.
*
*
*
*
*
Intermediate level means a level of a
multi-level passenger car that is used for
passenger seating and is normally
located between two main levels. An
intermediate level normally contains
two, separate seating areas, one at each
end of the car, and is normally
connected to each main level by stairs.
*
*
*
*
*
Main level means a level of a
passenger car that contains a passenger
compartment whose length is equal to
or greater than half the length of the car.
*
*
*
*
*
PA system (or public address system)
means a one-way, voice communication
system.
*
*
*
*
*
Passenger compartment means an
area of a passenger car that consists of
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
§ 238.17 Movement of passenger
equipment with other than power brake
defects.
*
Definitions.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
a seating area and any vestibule that is
connected to the seating area by an open
passageway.
Rescue access window means a sidefacing exterior window intended for use
by emergency responders to gain access
to passengers in an emergency situation.
*
*
*
*
*
Seating area means an area of a
passenger car that normally contains
passenger seating.
*
*
*
*
*
6. Section 238.17 is amended by
revising the introductory text of
paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:
Jkt 208001
*
*
*
*
(b) Limitations on movement of
passenger equipment containing defects
found at time of calendar day
inspection. Except as provided in
§§ 238.303(e)(15), (e)(17) and (e)(18),
238.305(c) and (d), and 238.307(c)(1),
passenger equipment containing a
condition not in conformity with this
part at the time of its calendar day
mechanical inspection may be moved
from that location for repair if all of the
following conditions are satisfied:
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Limitations on movement of
passenger equipment that develops
defects en route. Except as provided in
§§ 238.303(e)(15), (e)(17) and (e)(18),
238.305(c), 238.307(c)(1), and
238.503(f), passenger equipment that
develops en route to its destination,
after its calendar day mechanical
inspection is performed and before its
next calendar day mechanical
inspection is performed, any condition
not in compliance with this part, other
than a power brake defect, may be
moved only if the railroad complies
with all of the following requirements
or, if applicable, the special
requirements in paragraph (e) of this
section:
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart B—Safety Planning and
General Requirements
7. Section 238.113 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 238.113
Emergency window exits.
(a) Number and location. Except as
provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this
section, the following requirements
apply on or after [DATE 60 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
THE FINAL RULE IN FEDERAL
REGISTER].
(1) Single-level passenger cars. Each
single-level passenger car shall have a
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
minimum of four emergency window
exits. At least one emergency window
exit shall be located in each side of each
end (half) of the car, in a staggered
configuration where practical. (See
Figure 1 to this subpart; see also Figures
1b and 1c to this subpart.)
(2) Multi-level passenger cars—main
levels. Each main level in a multi-level
passenger car is subject to the same
requirements specified for single-level
passenger cars in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section.
(3) Multi-level passenger cars—levels
with seating areas other than main
levels. (i) Except as provided below, on
or after [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER] any level other than a main
level used for passenger seating in a
multi-level passenger car, such as an
intermediate level, shall have a
minimum of two emergency window
exits in each seating area. The
emergency window exits shall be
accessible to passengers in the seating
area without requiring movement
through an interior door or to another
level of the car. At least one emergency
window exit shall be located in each
side of the seating area. An emergency
window exit may be located within an
exterior side door in the passenger
compartment if it is not practical to
place the window exit in the side of the
seating area. (See Figures 2 and 2a to
this subpart; compare to Figure 2b of
this subpart.)
(ii) Only one emergency window exit
is required in a seating area in a
passenger compartment if:
(A) It is not practical to place an
emergency window exit in a side of the
passenger compartment due to the need
to provide accessible accommodations
under the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990;
(B) There are no more than four seats
in the seating area; and
(C) A suitable, alternate arrangement
for emergency egress is provided.
(iii) For passenger cars ordered prior
to [DATE 14 MONTHS AFTER DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],
and placed in service prior to [DATE 38
MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], only one
emergency window exit is required in a
seating area in a passenger compartment
if it is not practicable to place a window
exit in a side of the passenger
compartment (due to the presence of
such structures as a bathroom, electrical
locker, or kitchen) and there are no
more than eight seats in the seating area.
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(4) Cars with a sleeping compartment
or similar private compartment. Each
level of a passenger car with a sleeping
compartment or a similar private
compartment intended to be occupied
by a passengers or train crewmember
shall have at least one emergency
window exit in each such compartment.
For purposes of this paragraph (a)(4), a
bathroom, kitchen, or locomotive cab is
not considered a ‘‘compartment.’’
(b) Ease of operability. On or after
November 8, 1999, each emergency
window exit shall be designed to permit
rapid and easy removal from the inside
of the car during an emergency situation
without requiring the use of a tool or
other implement.
(c) Dimensions. Each emergency
window exit in a passenger car,
including a sleeping car, ordered on or
after September 8, 2000, or placed in
service for the first time on or after
September 9, 2002, shall have an
unobstructed opening with minimum
dimensions of 26 inches horizontally by
24 inches vertically. An emergency
window exit located within an exterior
side door, in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(i) of
this section, may have an unobstructed
opening with minimum dimensions of
24 inches horizontally by 26 inches
vertically. A seatback is not an
obstruction if it can be moved away
from the window opening without
requiring the use of a tool or other
implement.
(d) Marking and instructions. (1) Each
emergency window exit shall be
conspicuously and legibly marked with
luminescent material on the inside of
each car to facilitate passenger egress.
(2) Legible and understandable
operating instructions, including
instructions for removing the window,
shall be posted at or near each such
window exit. If window removal may be
hindered by the presence of a seatback,
headrest, luggage rack, or other fixture,
the instructions shall state the method
for allowing rapid and easy removal of
the window, taking into account the
fixture(s), and this portion of the
instructions may be in written or
pictorial format.
8. Section 238.114 is added to read as
follows:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
§ 238.114
Rescue access windows.
(a) Number and location. Except as
provided in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this
section, the following requirements
apply on or after [DATE 60 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].
(1) Single-level passenger cars. Except
as provided in this paragraph (a)(1) and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
in paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), and
(a)(5) of this section, each single-level
passenger car shall have a minimum of
two rescue access windows. At least one
rescue access window shall be located
in each side of the car entirely within
15 feet of the car’s centerline, or entirely
within 71⁄2 feet of the centerline if the
car does not exceed 45 feet in length.
(See Figure 1a to this subpart; see also
Figures 1b and 1c to this subpart.) If the
seating level is obstructed by an interior
door or otherwise partitioned into
separate seating areas, each separate
seating area shall have a minimum of
one rescue access window in each side
of the seating area, located as near to the
center of the car as practical.
(i) For a single-level passenger car
ordered prior to [DATE 14 MONTHS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], and placed in service prior
to [DATE 38 MONTHS AFTER DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],
rescue access windows may be located
farther than the above prescribed
distances from the car’s centerline, or
located within exterior side doors, or
both, if at least one rescue access
window is located within each side of
each end (half) of the same passenger
compartment.
(ii) For a single-level passenger car
ordered prior to September 8, 2000, and
placed in service prior to September 9,
2002, the requirements of paragraph
(a)(1) of this section apply on or after
[DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] if the car
has at least two exterior side doors (or
door leaves), each with a manual
override device, and such doors (or door
leaves) are located one on each side of
the car, in opposite ends (halves) of the
car (i.e., in diagonally opposite
quadrants). The manual override device
shall be:
(A) Capable of releasing the door (or
door leaf) to permit it to be opened
without power from outside the car;
(B) Located adjacent to the door (or
door leaf) which it controls; and
(C) Designed and maintained so that
a person may access the override device
from outside the car without requiring
the use of a tool or other implement.
(2) Multi-level passenger cars—main
levels. Each main level in a multi-level
passenger car is subject to the same
requirements specified for single-level
passenger cars in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, with the exception of paragraph
(a)(1)(ii), which is not applicable.
(3) Multi-level passenger cars—levels
with seating areas other than main
levels. (i) Except as provided below, any
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
50303
level other than a main level used for
passenger seating in a multi-level
passenger car, such as an intermediate
level, shall have a minimum of two
rescue access windows in each seating
area. The rescue access windows shall
permit emergency responders to gain
access to passengers in the seating area
without requiring movement through an
interior door or to another level of the
car. At least one rescue access window
shall be located in each side of the
seating area. A rescue access window
may be located within an exterior side
door in the passenger compartment if it
is not practical to place the access
window in the side of the seating area.
(See Figures 2 and 2a of this subpart;
compare to Figure 2b of this subpart.)
(ii) Only one rescue access window is
required in a seating area in a passenger
compartment if:
(A) It is not practical to place a rescue
access window in a side of the
passenger compartment due to the need
to provide accessible accommodations
under the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990;
(B) There are no more than four seats
in the seating area; and
(C) A suitable, alternate arrangement
for rescue access is provided.
(iii) For passenger cars ordered prior
to [DATE 14 MONTHS AFTER DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],
and placed in service prior to [DATE 38
MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], only one
rescue access window is required in a
seating area in a passenger compartment
if it is not practicable to place an access
window in a side of the passenger
compartment (due to the presence of
such structures as a bathroom, electrical
locker, or kitchen) and there are no
more than eight seats in the seating area.
(4) Cars with a sleeping compartment
or similar private compartment. Each
level of a passenger car with a sleeping
compartment or a similar private
compartment intended to be occupied
by a passenger or train crewmember
shall have a minimum of one rescue
access window in each such
compartment. For purposes of this
paragraph, a bathroom, kitchen, or
locomotive cab is not considered a
‘‘compartment.’’
(5) Dual-function windows. If, on any
level of a passenger car, the emergency
window exits installed to meet the
minimum requirements of § 238.113 of
this part are also intended to function as
rescue access windows, the minimum
requirements for the number and
location of rescue access windows in
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
50304
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this
section are also met for that level.
(b) Ease of operability. On or after
[DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], each
rescue access window must be capable
of being removed without undue delay
by an emergency responder using either:
(1) A provided external mechanism;
or
(2) Tools or implements that are
commonly available to the responder in
a passenger train emergency.
(c) Dimensions. Each rescue access
window in a passenger car, including a
sleeping car, ordered on or after [DATE
14 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or
placed in service for the first time on or
after [DATE 38 MONTHS AFTER DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],
shall have an unobstructed opening
with minimum dimensions of 26 inches
horizontally by 24 inches vertically. A
rescue access window located within an
exterior side door, in accordance with
the requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(i) of
this section, may have an unobstructed
opening with minimum dimensions of
24 inches horizontally by 26 inches
vertically. A seatback is not an
obstruction if it can be moved away
from the window opening without
requiring the use of a tool or other
implement.
(d) Marking and instructions. Each
rescue access window shall be marked
with retroreflective material. A unique
and easily recognizable symbol, sign, or
other conspicuous marking shall also be
used to identify each such window.
Legible and understandable windowaccess instructions, including
instructions for removing the window,
shall be posted at or near each rescue
access window.
§ 238.117
[Redesignated as § 238.121]
9. Redesignate § 238.117 as § 238.121.
10. Add new § 238.117 to read as
follows:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
§ 238.117
Emergency communications.
(a) PA system (public address
system)—(1) Existing Tier I passenger
cars. On or after January 1, 2012, each
Tier I passenger car shall be equipped
with a PA system that provides a means
for a crewmember to communicate to all
train passengers in an emergency
situation.
(2) New Tier I and all Tier II
passenger cars. Each Tier I passenger
car ordered on or after [DATE 60 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
REGISTER], or placed in service for the
first time [DATE 26 MONTHS AFTER
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], and all Tier II passenger
cars shall be equipped with a PA system
that provides a means for a crewmember
to communicate to all train passengers
in an emergency situation. The PA
system shall also provide a means for a
crewmember to communicate in an
emergency situation to persons in the
immediate vicinity of the train (e.g., on
the station platform). The PA system
may be part of the same system as the
intercom system.
(b) Intercom system.—(1) New Tier I
and all Tier II passenger cars. Each Tier
I passenger car ordered on or after
[DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or
placed in service for the first time on or
after [DATE 26 MONTHS AFTER DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],
and all Tier II passenger cars shall be
equipped with an intercom system that
provides a means for passengers and
crewmembers to communicate with
each other in an emergency situation.
Except as further specified, at least one
intercom that is accessible to passengers
without requiring the use of a tool or
other implement shall be located in
each end (half) of each car. If any
passenger car does not exceed 45 feet in
length, or if a Tier II passenger car was
ordered prior to May 12, 1999, only one
such intercom is required. The intercom
system may be part of the same system
as the PA system.
(2) Marking and instructions. The
following requirements to apply to each
Tier I passenger car on or after [DATE
26 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and to
all Tier II passenger cars:
(i) The location of each intercom
intended for passenger use shall be
clearly marked with luminescent
material; and
(ii) Legible and understandable
operating instructions shall be posted at
or near each such intercom.
(c) Back-up power. PA and intercom
systems on Tier II passenger trains shall
have back-up power for a minimum
period of 90 minutes.
11. Section 238.118 is added to read
as follows:
§ 238.118
Emergency roof access.
Except as provided in § 238.441—
(a) Number and dimensions. Each
passenger car ordered on or after [DATE
14 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or
placed in service for the first time on or
after [DATE 38 MONTHS AFTER DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],
shall have a minimum of two emergency
roof access locations, each with a
minimum opening of 26 inches
longitudinally (i.e., parallel to the
longitudinal axis of the car) by 24
inches laterally.
(b) Means of access. Emergency roof
access shall be provided by means of a
hatch, or a clearly marked structural
weak point in the roof for access by
properly equipped emergency response
personnel.
(c) Location. Emergency roof access
locations shall be situated as practical
so that when a car is on its side:
(1) One emergency access location is
wholly within each half of the roof as
divided top from bottom; and
(2) One emergency access location is
wholly within each half of the roof as
divided left from right. (See Figure 3 to
this subpart.)
(d) Obstructions. The ceiling space
below each emergency roof access
location shall be free from wire, cabling,
conduit, and piping. This space shall
also be free of any rigid secondary
structure (e.g., a diffuser or diffuser
support, lighting back fixture, mounted
PA equipment, luggage rack) where
practicable. If emergency roof access is
provided by means of a hatch, it shall
be possible to push interior panels or
liners out of their retention devices and
into the interior of the vehicle after
removing the hatch. If emergency roof
access is provided by means of a
structural weak point, it shall be
permissible to cut through interior
panels, liners, or other non-rigid
secondary structures after making the
cutout hole in the roof, provided any
such additional cutting necessary to
access the interior of the vehicle permits
a minimum opening of the dimensions
specified in paragraph (a) of this section
to be maintained.
(e) Marking and instructions. Each
emergency roof access location shall be
conspicuously marked with
retroreflective material of contrasting
color. As further specified, legible and
understandable instructions shall be
posted at or near each such location. If
emergency roof access is provided by
means of a structural weak point:
(1) The retroreflective material shall
conspicuously mark the line along
which the roof skin shall be cut; and
(2) A sign plate with a retroreflective
border shall also state:
CAUTION—DO NOT USE FLAME
CUTTING DEVICES.
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
contains the date and time that the
defective condition was first discovered.
This record shall be retained until all
necessary repairs are completed.
*
*
*
*
*
13. Section 238.305 is amended by
revising paragraphs (c) introductory text
and (c)(10), and adding paragraphs
(c)(11) and (c)(12) to read as follows:
CAUTION—WARN PASSENGERS
BEFORE CUTTING.
CUT ALONG DASHED LINE TO
GAIN ACCESS.
ROOF CONSTRUCTION—[STATE
RELEVANT DETAILS]
Subpart D—Inspection, Testing, and
Maintenance Requirements for Tier I
Passenger Equipment
§ 238.305 Interior calendar day mechanical
inspection of passenger cars.
12. Section 238.303 is amended by
adding paragraph (e)(18) to read as
follows:
*
§ 238.303 Exterior calendar day
mechanical inspection of passenger
equipment.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(18) All rescue-access-related exterior
markings, signage, and instructions
required by § 238.114 and § 239.107(a)
of this chapter shall be in place and, as
applicable, conspicuous, or legible, or
both.
(i) Except as provided in paragraphs
(e)(18)(ii) and (iii) of this section,
passenger equipment that has any
required rescue-access-related exterior
marking, signage, or instruction that is
missing, illegible, or inconspicuous may
remain in passenger service until no
later than the equipment’s fourth
exterior calendar day mechanical
inspection or next periodic mechanical
inspection required under § 238.307,
whichever occurs first, after the noncomplying condition is discovered,
where it shall be repaired or removed
from service.
(ii) A passenger car having more than
50 percent of the windows on a side of
a level of the car designated and
properly marked for rescue access that
has any required rescue-access-related
exterior marking, signage, or instruction
that is missing, illegible, or
inconspicuous on any of the other
windows on that side and level of the
car may remain in passenger service
until no later than the car’s next
periodic mechanical inspection required
under § 238.307, where it shall be
repaired or removed from service.
(iii) A passenger car that is a sleeping
car that has more than two consecutive
windows with any required rescueaccess-related exterior marking, signage,
or instruction at or near their locations
that is missing, illegible, or
inconspicuous may remain in passenger
service until no later than the car’s next
periodic mechanical inspection required
under § 238.307, where it shall be
repaired or removed from service.
(iv) A record shall be maintained of
any non-complying marking, signage, or
instruction described in paragraphs
(e)(18)(i) through (iii) of this section that
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
*
*
*
*
(c) As part of the interior calendar day
interior mechanical inspection, the
railroad shall verify conformity with the
following conditions, and
nonconformity with any such condition
renders the car defective whenever
discovered in service, except as
provided in paragraphs (c)(5) through
(c)(12), and paragraph (d) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(10) All end doors and side doors
operate safely and as intended. A noncomplying car may continue in
passenger service pursuant to paragraph
(d) of this section if at least one
operative and accessible door is
available on each side of the car; the
train crew is provided written
notification of the non-complying
condition; and a notice is prominently
displayed directly on the defective door
indicating that the door is defective.
(11) [Reserved]
(12) On passenger cars so equipped,
public address and intercom systems
shall be operative and function as
intended. A passenger car with an
inoperative or non-functioning public
address or intercom system may remain
in passenger service until no later than
the car’s fourth interior calendar day
mechanical inspection or next periodic
mechanical inspection required under
§ 238.307, whichever occurs first, or for
a passenger car used in long-distance
intercity train service until the eighth
interior calendar day mechanical
inspection or next periodic mechanical
inspection required under § 238.307,
whichever occurs first, after the noncomplying condition is discovered,
where it shall be repaired or removed
from service; provided, the train crew is
given written notification of the noncomplying condition, and all of the
requirements contained in paragraph
(d)(3) of this section are met.
*
*
*
*
*
14. Section 238.307 is amended by
revising paragraphs (c) introductory text
and (c)(5) to read as follows:
50305
(c) The periodic mechanical
inspection shall specifically include the
following interior and exterior
mechanical components, which shall be
inspected not less frequently than every
184 days. At a minimum, this
inspection shall determine that:
*
*
*
*
*
(5) With regard to the following
emergency systems:
(i) Emergency lighting systems
required under § 238.115 are in place
and operational; and
(ii) [Reserved]
(iii) Emergency roof access markings
and instructions required under
§ 238.118 (e) are in place and, as
applicable, conspicuous, or legible, or
both.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart E—Specific Requirements for
Tier II Passenger Equipment
§ 238.437
[Removed and Reserved]
15. Section 238.437 is removed and
reserved.
16. Section 238.441 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 238.441
Emergency roof access.
(a) Each passenger car ordered prior to
[DATE 14 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and
placed in service for the first time prior
to [DATE 38 MONTHS AFTER DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],
and each power car shall have a
minimum of one roof hatch emergency
access location with a minimum
opening of 26 inches by 24 inches, or at
least one structural weak point in the
roof providing a minimum opening of
the same dimensions, to provide access
for properly equipped emergency
response personnel. Each emergency
roof access location shall be
conspicuously marked, and legible and
understandable operating instructions
shall be posted at or near each such
location.
(b) Each passenger car ordered on or
after [DATE 14 MONTHS AFTER DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or
placed in service for the first time on or
after [DATE 38 MONTHS AFTER DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER,]
shall comply with the emergency roof
access requirements specified in
§ 238.118.
§ 238.307 Periodic mechanical inspection
of passenger cars and unpowered vehicles
used in passenger trains.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 17,
2006.
Joseph H. Boardman,
Federal Railroad Administrator.
*
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
PO 00000
*
*
Frm 00031
*
Fmt 4701
*
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
EP24AU06.014
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
50306
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
50307
EP24AU06.015
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
EP24AU06.016
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
50308
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
50309
EP24AU06.017
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
EP24AU06.018
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
50310
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
50311
EP24AU06.019
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
EP24AU06.020
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
50312
50313
[FR Doc. 06–7099 Filed 8–23–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–C
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:46 Aug 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM
24AUP5
EP24AU06.021
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Title | Document |
| Subject | Extracted Pages |
| Author | U.S. Government Printing Office |
| File Modified | 2006-08-24 |
| File Created | 2006-08-24 |