Passenger Train Emergency Systems II (PTES) Final Rule

Vol. 78

Friday,

No. 230

November 29, 2013

Part III

Department of Transportation

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Parts 238 and 239
Passenger Train Emergency Systems II; Final Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4717

Sfmt 4717

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

29NOR2

71786

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Parts 238 and 239
[Docket No. FRA–2009–0119, Notice No. 2]
RIN 2130–AC22

Passenger Train Emergency Systems II
Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:

This final rule 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 final rule, FRA
is adding requirements for emergency
passage through vestibule and other
interior passageway doors and
enhancing emergency egress and rescue
access signage requirements. FRA is also
establishing requirements for lowlocation emergency exit path markings
to assist occupants in reaching and
operating emergency exits, particularly
under conditions of limited visibility.
Further, FRA is adding standards to
ensure that emergency lighting systems
are provided in all passenger cars, and
FRA is enhancing requirements for the
survivability of emergency lighting
systems in new passenger cars. Finally,
FRA is clarifying requirements for
participation in debriefing and critique
sessions following emergency situations
and full-scale simulations.
DATES: This final rule is effective
January 28, 2014. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed
in the rule is approved by the Director
of the Federal Register as of January 28,
2014. Petitions for reconsideration must
be received on or before January 28,
2014. Comments in response to
petitions for reconsideration must be
received on or before March 14, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for
reconsideration: Petitions for
reconsideration related to Docket No.
FRA–2009–0119, Notice No. 2, may be
submitted by any of the following
methods:
• Web site: The Federal eRulemaking
Portal, http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the Web site’s online
instructions for submitting comments,
to include petitions for reconsideration.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590.

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

SUMMARY:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

• Hand Delivery: Room W12–140 on
the ground level of the West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m. Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket
number or Regulatory Identification
Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Note
that all petitions and comments
received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.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, any
petition for reconsideration submitted,
or comments received, go to http://
www.regulations.gov at any time or visit
the Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Room
W12–140 on the ground level of the
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Masci, Trial Attorney, Office of
Chief Counsel, FRA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., RCC–12, Mail Stop 10,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202–
493–6037); Michael Hunter, Trial
Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., RCC–12,
Mail Stop 10, Washington, DC 20590
(telephone 202–493–0368); or Brenda
Moscoso, Director, Office of Safety
Analysis, Office of Railroad Safety, FRA,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., RRS–20,
Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590
(telephone 202–493–6282).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Abbreviations Frequently Used in This
Document
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
U.S.C. United States Code

Table of Contents for Supplementary
Information
I. Executive Summary
II. History
A. Statutory Background
B. Implementation of the 1994 Passenger
Equipment Safety Rulemaking Mandate
C. Tasking of Passenger Safety Issues to the
Railroad Safety Advisory Committee
D. 2008 Passenger Train Emergency
Systems Final Rule
E. Passenger Train Emergency Systems II
Rulemaking
III. Discussion of Specific Comments and
Conclusions

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

IV. Technical Background and General
Overview of Final Rule Requirements
A. Doors
B. Identification of Emergency Systems
C. Emergency Lighting
D. Marking and Instructions for Emergency
Egress and Rescue Access
E. Low-Location Emergency Exit Path
Marking
F. Photoluminescent Marking Materials
G. Emergency Communications
H. Debriefing and Critique Session
Following Emergency Situations and
Full-Scale Simulations
V. Section-by-Section Analysis
A. Amendments to Part 238, Subparts B, C,
and E
B. Amendments to Part 239, Subpart B
VI. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive
Order 13272
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Federalism Implications
E. Environmental Impact
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Trade Impact
H. Privacy Act

I. Executive Summary
Having considered the public
comments in response to FRA’s January
3, 2012, proposed rule on passenger
train emergency systems, see 77 FR 153,
FRA issues this final rule amending the
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards,
49 CFR part 238, and the Passenger
Train Emergency Preparedness
regulations, 49 CFR part 239. This rule
establishes enhanced or new
requirements related to the following
subject areas: doors, emergency lighting,
markings and instruction for emergency
egress and rescue access, emergency
communication, low-location
emergency exit path markings, and
debriefing and critique of emergency
situations and simulations. As part of
these amendments, FRA is
incorporating by reference three
American Public Transportation
Association (APTA) standards for
passenger train emergency systems. A
brief overview of the final rule is
provided below, organized by subject
area:
Door Emergency Egress and Rescue
Access Systems
This rule as it relates to vestibule
doors (and other interior passageway
doors) requires such doors in new
passenger cars to be fitted with a
removable panel or removable window
for use in accessing and exiting the
passenger compartment through the
vestibule in the event that the vestibule
door is inoperable. Additionally, FRA is
establishing distinct requirements for biparting vestibule doors (and other biparting, interior passageway doors),

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

29NOR2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
including provisions for a manual
override and retention mechanisms. For
security reasons, an exception is
included to allow railroads discretion
when deciding whether to include a
removable panel or removable window
in a door leading to a cab compartment.
This rule also sets forth requirements for
the inspection, testing, reporting, and
repairing of the door safety mechanisms.
Emergency Lighting
This rule establishes requirements for
minimum emergency light illumination
levels within all passenger cars,
supplementing requirements that have
applied generally to new passenger cars.
The rule also provides standards for the
number and placement of power sources
for the emergency lighting system in
newer cars and specifies requirements
for testing lighting fixtures and power
sources that are part of the emergency
lighting system for all cars.
Emergency lighting power sources
that include batteries located under
passenger cars may not be reliable
following a collision or derailment due
to their location. This rule helps to
ensure that in both new and certain
existing passenger cars these essential
back-up power sources are able to
function as intended by requiring that
the batteries are located in the passenger
compartment, where they are better
protected.

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

Emergency Communications
This rule makes clear that public
address (PA) and intercom systems on
newer passenger cars are required to
have back-up power to remain
operational for at least 90 minutes when
the primary power source fails. This
rule also establishes more specific
requirements for the luminescent
material used to mark intercoms,
enhancing regulations that have
required the location of each intercom
to be clearly marked with luminescent
material.
Emergency Egress and Rescue Access
Markings and Instructions
This rule enhances current signage
requirements by specifying
requirements for signage recognition,
design, location, size, color and
contrast, and materials used for
emergency exits and rescue access
locations. This additional detail helps to
ensure that emergency egress points and
systems can be easily identified and
operated by passengers and train
crewmembers needing to evacuate a
passenger car during an emergency. The
enhancements also help to ensure that
emergency response personnel can
easily identify rescue access points and

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

then facilitate their access to the
passenger car. This rule establishes
more comprehensive requirements for
marking emergency roof access
locations and providing instructions for
their use to facilitate emergency
responder access to passenger cars.
Photoluminescent Materials
Specifically, the rule enhances
requirements related to the use of highperformance photoluminescent (HPPL)
material, i.e., a photoluminescent
material that is capable of emitting light
at a very high rate and for an extended
period of time, as well as policies and
procedures for ensuring proper
placement and testing of
photoluminescent materials. These
revisions are intended to help ensure
greater visibility of signage and
markings in an emergency situation so
that train occupants can identify
emergency exits and the path to the
nearest exit in conditions of limited
visibility, which include, but are not
limited to conditions when all lighting
fails, or when smoke is present in the
passenger car. Existing emergency
egress signage inside some passenger
compartment areas within passenger
cars has been ineffective due to its
inability to absorb sufficient levels of
ambient or electrical light. The
requirements in this rule improve the
conspicuity of signage and markings in
the passenger compartment, and thus
increase the discernability of the exit
signs and markings.
Low-Location Emergency Exit Path
Marking (LLEEPM)
This rule establishes minimum
requirements for photoluminescent and
electrically-powered LLEEPM systems
to provide visual guidance for
passengers and train crewmembers
when the emergency lighting system has
failed or when smoke conditions
obscure overhead emergency lighting.
The rule also requires railroads to
conduct periodic inspections and tests
to verify that all LLEEPM system
components, including power sources,
function as intended.
Debriefing and Critique
FRA is modifying the existing
debriefing and critique requirements to
clarify that passenger train personnel
who have first-hand knowledge of an
emergency involving a passenger train
are intended to participate in a
debriefing and critique session after the
emergency, or an emergency simulation,
occurs.

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

71787

Economic Impact
FRA has assessed the cost to railroads
that is expected to result from the
implementation of this rule. For the 20year period analyzed, the estimated
quantified cost that will be imposed on
industry totals $21.8 million, with a
present value (PV, 7 percent) of $13.4
million.

20-YEAR COST FOR FINAL RULE
Door Removable Panels or
Windows, and Bi-Parting
Doors .................................
Emergency Lighting ..............
Emergency Egress and Rescue Access Marking and
Instructions ........................
Low-Location Emergency
Exit Path Markings ............
Debriefing and Critique .........
Inspection, Testing, and Recordkeeping ........................
Total ..................................

$4,399,223
2,450,213
4,730,631
1,377,615
N/A
405,296
$13,362,979

Dollars are discounted at a present value
rate of 7 percent.

This rule is expected to improve
railroad safety by promoting the safe
resolution of emergency situations
involving passenger trains, including
the evacuation of passengers and
crewmembers in the event of an
emergency. The primary benefits
include a heightened safety
environment for egress from a passenger
train and rescue access by emergency
response personnel after an accident or
other emergency. This corresponds to a
reduction of casualties and fatalities in
the aftermath of collisions, derailments,
and other emergency situations. FRA
believes the value of the anticipated
safety benefits will justify the cost of
implementing this rule.
II. History
A. Statutory Background
In September 1994, the Secretary of
Transportation (Secretary) 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 five-year period. In November
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 103–440, 108 Stat.
4619, 4623–4624 (November 2, 1994).
Congress also authorized the Secretary
to consult with various organizations

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

29NOR2

71788

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

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 (codified at 49 U.S.C.
20133).
B. Implementation of the 1994
Passenger Equipment Safety
Rulemaking Mandate
On May 4, 1998, pursuant to Section
215 of the Act, FRA published the
Passenger Train Emergency
Preparedness (PTEP) final rule. See 63
FR 24629. This rule contains minimum
Federal safety standards for the
preparation, adoption, and
implementation of emergency
preparedness plans by railroads
connected with the operation of
passenger trains, including freight
railroads hosting the operations of
passenger rail service. Elements of the
required emergency preparedness plan
include: communication; employee
training and qualification; joint
operations; tunnel safety; liaison with
emergency responders; on-board
emergency equipment; and passenger
safety information. The rule also
established specific requirements for
passenger train emergency systems. The
requirements include: Conspicuous
marking of all emergency window exits
with luminescent material on the
interior, along with instructions
provided for their use, and marking on
the exterior of all windows intended for
rescue access by emergency responders
with retroreflective material, along with
instructions provided for their use;
lighting or marking of all door exits
intended for egress on the interior along
with instructions for their use; and
marking of all door exits intended for
rescue access by emergency responders,
on the exterior along with providing
instructions for their use. In addition,
the rule contains specific requirements
for participation in debrief and critique
sessions following emergency situations
and full-scale simulations.
On May 12, 1999, FRA published the
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards
(PESS) final rule. See 64 FR 25540. The
rule established comprehensive safety
standards for railroad passenger
equipment. The standards established
various requirements for emergency
systems, including requirements for the
size, location, and operation of exterior
side doors used for emergency egress or
access for all passenger cars and for
emergency lighting for new passenger
cars. After publication of the PESS final
rule, interested parties filed petitions
seeking FRA’s reconsideration of certain
requirements contained in the rule.
These petitions generally related to the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

following subject areas: Structural
design; location of emergency exit
windows; fire safety; training;
inspection, testing, and maintenance;
and movement of defective equipment.
To address the petitions, FRA grouped
issues together and published three sets
of amendments to the final rule in 2000
and 2002. See 65 FR 41284; 67 FR
19970; and 67 FR 42892.
C. Tasking of Passenger Safety Issues to
the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee
While 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. FRA decided to address these
issues with the assistance of the
Railroad Safety Advisory Committee
(RSAC). FRA established the RSAC in
March 1996, and it serves as a forum for
developing consensus recommendations
on rulemakings and other safety
program issues. The RSAC includes
representation from all of the agency’s
major stakeholders, 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 and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO);
American Chemistry Council;
American Petroleum Institute;
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
Employes Division (BMWED);
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS);
Chlorine Institute;
Federal Transit Administration (FTA);*
Fertilizer Institute;
High Speed Ground Transportation
Association (HSGTA);
Institute of Makers of Explosives;
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;

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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 Communicaciones y Transporte
(Mexico);*
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);
Transportation Security Administration;*
and
United Transportation Union (UTU).

* Indicates associate membership.
(Please see 77 FR 156 for additional
discussion of the RSAC process.)
On May 20, 2003, FRA presented the
RSAC with 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. In turn, the
RSAC accepted the task and established
the Passenger Safety Working Group
(Working Group) to handle the task and
develop recommendations for the full
RSAC to consider. Members of the
Working Group, in addition to FRA,
include the following:
AAR, including members from BNSF
Railway Company, CSX Transportation,
Inc., and Union Pacific Railroad Company;
APRCO;
AASHTO;
Amtrak;
APTA, including members from: Bombardier,
Inc., Herzog Transit Services, Inc.,
Interfleet Technology Inc., Long Island Rail
Road (LIRR), Metro-North Commuter
Railroad Company (Metro-North),
Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter
Railroad Corporation (Metra), Southern
California Regional Rail Authority
(Metrolink), and Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
(SEPTA);
BLET;
BRS;
FTA;
HSGTA;
IBEW;
NARP;
NTSB;
RSI;
SMWIA;
STA;
TCIU/BRC;
TWU; and
UTU.

The Working Group met 14 times
between September 9, 2003, and
September 16, 2010. Staff from DOT’s
John A. Volpe National Transportation
Systems Center (Volpe Center) attended
all of the Working Group meetings and

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

29NOR2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
contributed to the technical discussions.
See 77 FR 157. Due to the variety of
issues involved, at its November 2003
meeting, the Working Group established
four task forces: Emergency Systems,
Vehicle/Track Interaction,
Crashworthiness/Glazing, and
Mechanical. Each task force was formed
as a smaller group to develop
recommendations on specific issues
within each group’s particular area of
expertise. Members of the Emergency
Systems Task Force (Task Force), in
addition to FRA, include (or have
included) the following:

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

Amtrak;
APTA, including members from Bombardier,
Ellcon National, Go Transit, Interfleet
Technology, Inc, Jacobs Civil Engineering,
Jessup Manufacturing Company, Kawasaki
Rail Car, Inc., LIRR, LTK, Luminator,
Maryland Transit Administration,
Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority (MBTA), Metrolink, MetroNorth, 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, STV Inc.,
and Visual Marking Systems, Inc.;
BLET;
California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans);
FTA;
NARP;
RSI, including Globe Transportation
Graphics;
TWU; and
UTU.

Representatives from TSA, of the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), while an advisory member and
not a voting member of the Task Force,
attended certain meetings and
contributed to the discussions of the
Task Force. In addition, staff from the
Volpe Center attended all of the
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 held 17 meetings
between February 25, 2004, and March
31, 2009. Associated with these
meetings were site visits where FRA met
with representatives of Metrolink,
MBTA, Amtrak, LIRR, Coaster, SEPTA,
and Caltrans, respectively, and toured
their passenger equipment. See 77 FR
157–158. The visits were open to all
members of the Task Force (and
Working Group) and included a
demonstration of emergency system
features. As in the case of Working
Group visits to Metra and the South
Florida Regional Transportation

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

Authority, FRA believes they have
added to the collective understanding of
RSAC members in identifying and
addressing passenger train safety issues
for not only this rulemaking, but for
other RSAC initiatives as well.
D. 2008 Passenger Train Emergency
Systems Final Rule
With the RSAC’s assistance, FRA
published a final rule on Passenger
Train Emergency Systems (PTES) on
February 1, 2008. See 73 FR 6370. The
rule addressed a number of concerns
raised and issues discussed during the
various Task Force and Working Group
meetings, and was a product of the
RSAC’s consensus recommendations.
The rule expanded the applicability of
requirements for PA systems to all
passenger cars, and also expanded the
applicability of requirements for
intercom systems and emergency
responder roof access to all new
passenger cars. Further, the rule
enhanced requirements for emergency
window exits and established
requirements for rescue access windows
used by emergency responders. See 73
FR 6370.
E. Passenger Train Emergency Systems
II Rulemaking
To address additional concerns
raised, and issues discussed, during the
various Task Force and Working Group
meetings, FRA initiated the Passenger
Train Emergency Systems II (PTES II)
rulemaking. In addition to clarifying the
nature of participation in debriefing and
critique of emergency situations and
full-scale simulations, the purpose of
the rulemaking was to address the
following emergency systems: door
emergency egress and rescue access,
emergency lighting, marking and
instruction for emergency egress and
access, emergency communication, and
low-location emergency exit path
markings. The Working Group reached
full consensus on recommendations
related to these emergency systems and
issues at its December 11, 2007 meeting.
The Working Group presented its
consensus recommendations to the full
RSAC body for concurrence at its
meeting on February 20, 2008. All of the
members of the full RSAC body in
attendance at that February 2008
meeting accepted the regulatory
recommendations submitted by the
Working Group. Thus, the Working
Group’s recommendations became the
full RSAC body’s recommendations to
FRA. FRA subsequently met with the
Task Force twice after that to make

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

71789

some non-substantive technical
clarifications and review technical
research findings related to potential
enhancements of emergency systems. A
Tier II sub-task force also met to discuss
the requirements affecting Tier II
equipment, i.e., passenger equipment
operating at speeds in excess of 125
mph but not exceeding 150 mph. This
sub-task force did not recommend any
changes to the recommendation. After
reviewing the full RSAC body’s
recommendations, FRA agreed that the
recommendations provided a sound
basis for a rule and adopted the
recommendations with generally minor
changes for purposes of clarity and
Federal Register formatting. On January
3, 2012, FRA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM), and
opened the comment period. 77 FR 154.
III. Discussion of Specific Comments
and Conclusions
FRA received nine comments in
response to the NPRM during the
comment period from the following
parties: Metra, Caltrans, NTSB, City of
Seattle, students from the Quinnipiac
University School of Law (the Students),
and four individual commenters. FRA
appreciated and carefully considered all
comments. The comments generally
raised issues related to doors,
emergency lighting, emergency
markings, and instructions for
emergency egress and rescue access.
FRA also received comments that were
outside the scope of this rule. The final
rule text differs from the proposed rule
in part because of the concerns raised by
Metra in relation to the emergency
lighting requirement. Please note that
the order in which the comments are
discussed in this document is not
intended to reflect the significance of
the comment raised or the standing of
the commenter.
Please also note that following the
issuance of the NPRM and the close of
the comment period, as part of
improvements to the APTA Standards
Program, APTA comprehensively
changed the numbering nomenclature
for its standards, including the
standards FRA proposed to incorporate
by reference in this rule. However, these
nomenclature changes do not affect the
substantive content or the revision
histories of the standards FRA proposed
to incorporate in this rule. Accordingly,
in this final rule FRA has updated the
numbering nomenclature of these APTA
standards as follows:

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

29NOR2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

71790

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Standard title

Previous standard
No.

New standard No.

Standard for Emergency Lighting System Design for Passenger Cars, Rev. 1, October 2007 ..............
Standard for Emergency Signage for Egress/Access of Passenger Rail Equipment, Rev. 3, October
2007.
Standard for Low-Location Exit Path Marking, Rev. 2, October 2007 .....................................................

SS–E–013–99 .......
SS–PS–002–98 ....

PR–E–S–013–99
PR–PS–S–002–98

SS–PS–004–99 ....

PR–PS–S–004–99

Metra submitted comments stating
that the proposed emergency lighting
requirement, which would incorporate
by reference APTA Standard PR–E–S–
013–99 (previously SS–E–013–99), Rev.
1, ‘‘Standard for Emergency Lighting
Design for Passenger Cars,’’ October
2007, would require Metra to expend
$4,700,000.00 to bring its equipment
into compliance with the rule as
proposed. When the NPRM was
published, Metra had 386 cars that
would have been considered noncompliant under the rule as proposed.
Metra provided FRA with a schedule for
bringing the cars into compliance.
While Metra supports the emergency
lighting requirement, it suggests that the
applicability date be extended two years
until January 1, 2017, to allow Metra to
bring its 386 cars into compliance.
Metra also believes that extending the
applicability date would allow
additional research and development
that may yield an industry-wide
standard with added benefits of energy
and maintenance savings. To mitigate
the expense of compliance and permit
time for additional research and
development, FRA is modifying the
proposal related to the emergency
lighting requirement to phase-in
compliance. The phased-in compliance
schedule requires that by December 31,
2015, railroads retrofit 70% of their
passenger cars that are not in
compliance with the emergency lighting
requirements as of the date of
publication of the final rule, and that by
January 1, 2017, all cars comply with
the emergency lighting requirements.
Caltrans submitted comments stating
that the proposed requirement that
vestibule doors and certain other
interior doors be equipped with
removable panels is confusing based on
the examples that are provided in the
NPRM and Caltrans’s understanding of
the Working Group’s discussions and
agreements related to this issue.
Caltrans points out that based on the
examples, it appears that end-frame
doors would be required to be equipped
with a removable panel, while noting
that the definition of vestibule door that
is contained in § 238.5 excludes an endframe door. Caltrans suggests that this is
confusing, because there was no
agreement within the Working Group to

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

require end-frame doors to be equipped
with a removable panel.
FRA agrees that, at this time,
removable panels or windows should
not be required in end-frame doors
because, ultimately, no design was
identified that would address three
overriding concerns related to endframe doors. Those concerns are: (1)
unintentional removal of the panel or
window, which would result in a safety
hazard for occupants while the train is
in operation; (2) crashworthiness of the
door containing the panel or window;
and (3) prevention of fluids, such as
fuel, from entering the car during an
accident. Therefore, the Task Force
developed a recommendation that was
limited to vestibule doors, and certain
other interior passageway doors. An
interior passageway door is a door used
to pass through a passenger car to the
vestibule to exit the car from a side door
exit or to pass through the car to exit the
car into an adjoining car, or both. In
addition to end-frame doors, doors
separating sleeping compartments or
similar private compartments from a
passageway are neither vestibule doors
nor other interior passageway doors.
FRA believes that the examples that are
provided in the NPRM have caused
inadvertent confusion about this issue.
FRA did not intend to propose a
requirement to equip end-frame doors
with a removable panel or window, and
FRA does not intend to establish such
a requirement in this final rule.
To clarify the removable panel or
window requirement related to
vestibule doors and certain other
interior passageway doors, the following
example supersedes and replaces the
examples that were provided in the
NPRM. Amtrak Acela Express (Acela)
passenger cars that are not at the end of
the train consist have no end-frame
doors, as the cars are semi-permanently
coupled to other Acela passenger cars
(not the power cars). In the case of two
business class cars that are coupled
together in the interior of the consist,
moving from one of these passenger cars
to the next, an occupant would pass the
end-frame (collision posts/corner posts),
then pass through the vestibule where
there are exterior side door exits, and,
depending on the end of the car, move
through a passageway adjacent to a
restroom accessible under the

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
before arriving at an interior bi-parting
door that leads to the seating area.
Because that interior door does not
directly lead to the vestibule when
moving from the seating area, but to the
passageway where the ADA-accessible
restroom is located and then to the
vestibule, the door is an interior
passageway door but not a vestibule
door. Certain foreign trainsets have a
similar layout that includes interior
passageway doors that are not vestibule
doors.
The NTSB submitted a comment that
recounts the various safety
recommendations issued by the NTSB
following the February 16, 1996,
collision of two passenger trains near
Silver Spring, MD, and the status of
many of those recommendations. The
comment states that FRA has addressed
many of the recommendations through
its various rulemakings, but highlights
that two of the recommendations—
Safety Recommendation R–97–15,
regarding removable windows, kick
panels, or other suitable means for
emergency exiting through interior and
exterior passageway doors where the
door could impede passengers exiting in
an emergency; and R–97–17, regarding
fitting each emergency lighting fixture
with a self-contained independent
power source—are currently classified
as ‘‘Open–Unacceptable Response.’’ The
comment notes that proposed § 238.112,
‘‘Door emergency egress and rescue
access systems,’’ and the proposed
revisions to § 238.115, ‘‘Emergency
lighting,’’ are considered consistent
with the intent of Safety
Recommendations R–97–15, and R–97–
17, respectively. While the NTSB stated
that it is ‘‘encouraged that the various
actions indicated in the NPRM are
under consideration’’ and expresses
support for the intent of the NPRM, the
comment noted that it is unfortunate
that no design changes have yet been
required for passenger car doors or
emergency lighting more than 17 years
after the Silver Spring accident. The
NTSB also commented that it ‘‘remains
concerned about the significant length
of time it is taking to make a
modification available to [railroad]
operators.’’
In response to the Silver Spring
accident, FRA has focused on some of

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

29NOR2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
the broader issues of passenger train
safety, emergency egress and rescue
access, to ensure that there is a means
of egress and rescue access in every
passenger compartment of a passenger
rail car. With respect to NTSB’s specific
concerns related to passenger car doors,
FRA points out that it has required
design changes in Tier II passenger
trains. In the 1997 PESS NPRM, FRA
stated that for Tier II passenger
equipment that is operated as a fixed
unit, having kick-panels to allow
emergency egress through the length of
the train has merit, so long as the panels
do not interfere with the normal
operation of the doors in which they are
installed. 62 FR 49735. As such, in the
1999 PESS final rule, FRA required that
Tier II passenger railroads must equip
passenger compartment end doors
(other than those leading to the exterior
of the train) with removable windows or
kick-panels, unless the doors have a
negligible probability of becoming
inoperable. 64 FR 25642, 25689. For
Tier I passenger rail cars, FRA stated in
the 1997 PESS NPRM that ‘‘the
interchangeable use of some cab cars
and MU locomotives as leading and
trailing units on a Tier I passenger train
will complicate analyzing the efficacy of
installing such panels on Tier I
equipment,’’ and reserved the issue for
future consideration. 62 FR 49735. FRA
is not aware of any design changes that
would safely mitigate the additional
safety concerns raised by requiring kickpanels or other removable panels or
windows in doors leading to the exterior
of a passenger car, such as end-frame
doors, as discussed above.
With respect to emergency lighting,
FRA required in the 1999 PESS final
rule that new passenger cars have a
‘‘back-up power feature capable of
operating the lighting for a minimum of
90 minutes after loss of normal power.’’
See 64 FR 25598. This back-up feature
assists occupants of the rail cars to
discern their immediate surroundings
and thereby minimize or avoid panic in
an emergency, if normal lighting is lost,
because fully-equipped emergency
response forces can take an hour or
more to arrive at a remote accident site,
with additional time required to deploy
and reach people trapped or injured in
a train. Even passenger train
emergencies in urban areas can pose
significant rescue problems, especially
in the case of tunnels, and operations
during hours of limited visibility or
inclement weather. In either situation,
emergency lighting should help
emergency responders extricate
occupants that may be injured and assist
with an orderly evacuation. FRA also

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

addressed design concerns in the 1999
PESS final rule and stated that its
‘‘findings in recent accidents support
NTSB’s implied concern that placement
of electrical conduits and battery packs
below the floor of passenger coaches can
result in damage that leads to the
unavailability of emergency lights
precisely at the time they are most
needed,’’ but that ‘‘the concept of a
power source at each fixture, as a
regulatory requirement, is novel.’’ 64 FR
25598. Moreover, FRA questioned
‘‘whether current ‘ballast’ technology
provides illumination of sufficient light
level quality with reliable
maintainability.’’ 64 FR 25598. FRA
therefore reserved the issue of
independent power sources for future
consideration.
While this final rule is being issued
many years after the Silver Spring
accident, the underlying concerns
expressed by NTSB in issuing
recommendations R–97–15 and R–97–
17 have not gone unaddressed; rather,
they have been reflected in FRA final
rules issued following this accident, as
codified in FRA regulations. For
example, the 2008 PTES final rule
established requirements that improve
passenger emergency egress and rescue
access that are consistent with the intent
of NTSB’s recommendations.
Specifically, the rulemaking enhanced
the emergency window exits
requirements, established roof access
requirements, and added rescue access
window requirements to improve the
means by which occupants can quickly
and safely egress when exit doors are
inoperable or inaccessible. See 73 FR
6376–78. During the development of the
2008 PTES final rule, FRA realized that
there was a potential safety gap in the
then-existing regulatory requirements
that could result in passenger trains not
being equipped with rescue access
windows. The requirements established
by the 2008 PTES rulemaking, which
considered NTSB’s recommendations,
remedy this potential safety gap. In this
regard, FRA has been actively
addressing the underlying concerns
expressed by NTSB recommendations
R–97–15 and R–97–17 since they were
issued.
The City of Seattle submitted
comments suggesting that FRA consider
adding roof access requirements for
passenger cars. The NPRM did not raise
the issue of roof access for passenger
cars, other than for their marking and
instructions for their use. Accordingly,
FRA believes that the City of Seattle’s
comment is outside of the scope of this
rulemaking proceeding to the extent it
concerns the development of more
substantive requirements for roof access

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

71791

systems. However, FRA believes that
roof access is an important safety feature
for passenger cars, and it is addressed
by FRA regulation at §§ 238.123 and
238.441.
The 2008 PTES final rule established
a roof access requirement for all new
passenger cars by adding § 238.123,
‘‘Emergency roof access,’’ requiring that
all new passenger cars be equipped with
two roof access locations (roof hatches
or structural weak points). Section
238.441 continues to contain specific
requirements for Tier II passenger
equipment. See 73 FR 6403. FRA
recognizes that roof access locations can
be especially useful in emergency
situations where passenger cars have
rolled onto their sides following certain
collision and derailment scenarios. All
else 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. In turn, this
risk increases the potential need for
access to rescue the car’s occupants
because of the reduced likelihood that
the occupants can evacuate the car on
their own. In addition, when there is a
rollover, doors, which are the preferred
means of access under normal
circumstances, may be blocked or
otherwise rendered inoperable due to
structural damage to the door or the
door pocket. 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. Nonetheless, the Task Force
that helped to develop the existing
requirements determined that having
more than two roof access locations
could jeopardize the structural integrity
of passenger cars.
At this time, FRA believes that the
requirements contained in §§ 238.123
and 238.441 adequately address the
important need for roof access for
passenger cars. FRA is therefore not
modifying or expanding the existing
regulations based on this comment,
other than for enhancing requirements
for the marking of roof access locations
and provision of instructions for their
use.
The Students submitted comments
stating that they agree with many
aspects of the NPRM, but they also have

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

29NOR2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

71792

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

general concerns related to: The door
panel requirement; the emergency
lighting requirement; the emergency
communications requirement; and the
cost of the rulemaking. The Students
recommend requiring removable panels
or removable windows in vestibule
doors and other interior passageway
doors to be shatter-proof. While FRA
believes that such a regulatory
requirement would be too prescriptive
at this time, the potential maintenance
and replacement costs associated with
removable panels or windows that
shatter during normal operations will
drive the industry to use sufficiently
shatter-resistant materials. In fuller
context, of course, these removable
panels or removable windows are to be
used as one of a number of possible
means of egress.
The Students also ask whether a floor
hatch may be an effective alternative
method for emergency egress. FRA
believes that a floor hatch would likely
cause a tripping hazard when not in use,
and further believes that it may present
significant challenges to maintaining the
integrity of the carbody structure, and
its design. Openings large enough for
egress though the carbody underframe
would have a greater impact on the
structural integrity of the car than the
soft spots on the roof and windows/
doors on the sides of the car that are
currently required. In addition, a floor
hatch may reduce the ability of the car
to protect passengers from an under-car
fire and, as such, would be inconsistent
with FRA’s fire safety regulations. See,
e.g., appendix B to part 238, note 16,
concerning fire resistance requirements
for the structural flooring assembly
separating the interior of a vehicle from
its undercarriage.
The Students further suggest
supplementing the required emergency
lighting with a hearing sensory device
that will guide passengers and train
crews to emergency exits when the
emergency lighting is obscured by
smoke. FRA believes that the addition of
a hearing sensory device for safety
purposes may be reasonable, but it was
not part of FRA’s proposal in the NPRM.
FRA would need to pursue this
suggestion in a future rulemaking with
full notice and comment, including the
gathering of information related to the
capabilities and cost of such devices, as
well as power supply needs.
In addition, the Students commented
in favor of requiring an automated safety
announcement played by the on-board
train crew each time new passengers
board the train. Such announcements
may be worthwhile for some operations.
However, FRA has addressed this type
of passenger safety awareness

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

requirement in the Passenger Train
Emergency Preparedness rule, codified
at § 239.101(a)(7), and believes that each
railroad is in the best position to decide
which additional required safety
awareness medium to use—one of
which is on-board announcements—in
conjunction with the conspicuous
positing of emergency procedures.
The last comment from the Students
raises concerns about the costs of
implementing the rule. FRA believes
that the costs of investing in the safety
systems required by this rule should
have a nominal impact on ticket fares.
According to the APTA Fact Book for
2012, all capital investment is funded
only by government funds, and capital
investment is defined as expenses
related to the purchase of equipment.
Passenger railroads have a dedicated
funding source for capital investment
that can be used to implement certain
requirements of this rule. FRA
recognizes that there may be an indirect
impact on passenger fares due to
potential increases in maintenance costs
for the upkeep of the new safety
systems. However, users of passenger
rail take into account many things when
determining their mode of
transportation, in addition to fare price.
Many value avoidance of traffic
congestion associated with driving, or
the convenience of being able to read or
work. For peak-hour commuters who
are less responsive to fare changes, it
would take a significant increase in
fares for such riders to switch modes of
travel.
As part of their comment, the
Students also sought clarification as to
the costs associated with enforcing the
rule as proposed. By law, FRA is
responsible for promoting the safety of
railroads throughout the Nation, and
FRA’s enforcement policy is carried out
through the support of its approximately
470 Federal inspectors and technical
specialists who also coordinate their
efforts with approximately 172 State
inspectors. These inspectors work with
railroads, shippers of hazardous
materials, and other regulated entities to
help ensure a safe railroad environment.
The Students recommended random
inspections to verify proper installation
and use of the new systems that would
be required by the proposed rule. FRA
and State inspectors routinely conduct
inspections of railroad operations,
property, and records to determine that
safety is being properly maintained.
Unannounced inspections are an
important part of their work.
Consequently, any costs associated with
the enforcement of this and other
regulations have been accounted for in
FRA’s budgeting process, and will not

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

be impacted due to the issuance of this
regulation.
One individual submitted a comment
suggesting that FRA require an
independent power source for
illuminated exit signs in the event that
an accident disrupts the normal power
supply to a car. In the NPRM, FRA
proposed to incorporate by reference
APTA Standard PR–PS–S–002–98
(previously SS–PS–002–98), ‘‘Standard
for Emergency Signage for Egress/
Access of Passenger Rail Equipment,’’
October 2007. The APTA standard
specifically requires that emergency exit
signs and markings located on vestibule,
end-frame, and side-door exits leading
to the outside of the passenger car for
emergency egress have electrically
powered fixtures that have an
independent power source to power
either the internally illuminated sign, or
the light fixture that is externally
illuminating the non-HPPL sign when
there is disruption to the normal power
supply to the car. FRA notes that
alternatively under this standard,
railroads are able to employ HPPL
material that provides an adequate level
of conspicuity, when there is disruption
to the normal power supply to a car, and
this specifically includes dual-mode
HPPL signs.
Wherever illumination from the
normal lighting system is less than
required for charging, dual-mode sign
systems can be used to achieve greater
conspicuity. Dual-mode signs have an
active component (an active light source
to properly charge the HPPL) and a
passive component (the HPPL material
itself). FRA notes that the use of HPPL
material would obviate the need for an
independent power source, as the
properly charged HPPL material will
luminesce, and in-turn, provide the
desired conspicuity under conditions of
limited visibility or darkness, when
there is a disruption to the normal
power supply to a car. Moreover, the
emergency lighting requirement that
was also proposed in the NPRM,
incorporating APTA Standard PR–E–S–
013–99 (previously SS–E–013–99),
‘‘Standard for Emergency Lighting
Design for Passenger Cars,’’ October
2007, is being retained in the final rule,
which helps to ensure that the
independent power source is effective
when the normal power supply to a car
is disrupted.
Another individual submitted
comments stating that the proposed rule
is extremely warranted, highlighting the
general need for emergency exit
lighting. In addition, this commenter
disagrees with providing passengers the
ability to apply the emergency brake
whenever they deem it necessary,

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

29NOR2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
although the NPRM did not raise this
issue. As such, FRA believes that this
comment is outside of the scope of this
rulemaking proceeding. Making the
emergency brake accessible to
passengers is a longstanding industry
practice and an important safety feature
that was codified as a Federal regulatory
requirement for all passenger cars in
1999. See 64 FR 25540. FRA is not
modifying the existing regulation based
on this comment.
Two comments in favor of the
proposed changes that are contained in
the NPRM were received from two other
individual commenters. Both stated that
the proposed rule is a good idea because
it will enhance passenger rail safety and
it should be adopted as a final rule. FRA
appreciates the positive feedback and
has considered it in the formulation of
this final rule.

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

IV. Technical Background and General
Overview of Final Rule Requirements
Experience with passenger train
accidents and simulations of emergency
situations, and technological advances
in emergency systems are the main
impetus for the enhancements and
additions in this final rule to FRA’s
existing requirements related to
passenger train emergency systems, as
highlighted below.
A. Doors
In February 1996, as a result of a near
head-on collision between a Maryland
Mass Transit Administration MARC
(MARC) train and an Amtrak train in
Silver Spring, MD, and subsequent fire,
eight passengers and three
crewmembers died in one car. This
incident raised concerns that at least
some of the passengers in the MARC
train tried unsuccessfully to exit via the
exterior side doors in the rear vestibule
of the lead, passenger-occupied cab car.
Following its post-collision
investigation, the NTSB expressed
concern regarding passengers’ ability to
exit through interior and exterior
passageway doors. During the accident,
the front end of the cab car that led the
MARC train suffered extensive
structural damage, and fire destroyed
the controls for the left- and right-side
rear exterior doors. The left-side exterior
door’s interior emergency release handle
was also damaged by the fire and could
not be pulled down to operate the door.
The right-side door’s interior emergency
release handle was in a secured cabinet
in the lavatory and it failed to open the
door when later tested by the NTSB.
The NTSB did note in its investigation
report of the Silver Spring train
collision that ‘‘[e]xcept for those
passengers who died of blunt trauma

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

injuries, others may have survived the
accident, albeit with thermal injuries,
had proper and immediate egress from
the car been available.’’ NTSB/RAR–97/
02 at page 63. NTSB explained in its
explicit findings on the collision that
‘‘the emergency egress of passengers
was impeded because the passenger cars
lacked readily accessible and
identifiable quick-release mechanisms
for the exterior doors, removable
windows or kick panels in the side
doors, and adequate emergency
instruction signage.’’ Id. at 73.
Specifically, NTSB recommended that
FRA ‘‘[r]equire all passenger cars to
have either removable windows, kick
panels, or other suitable means for
emergency exiting through the interior
and exterior passageway doors where
the door could impede passengers
exiting in an emergency and take
appropriate emergency measures to
ensure corrective action until these
measures are incorporated into
minimum passenger car safety
standards.’’ R–97–15. In addition, in the
development of this rulemaking, the
Task Force identified concerns related
to door egress from a car that is not
upright. Emergency egress simulations
organized by the Volpe Center
confirmed this. Such simulations at the
FRA-funded ‘‘roll-over rig,’’ an
emergency evacuation simulator located
at the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority’s (WMATA) training
facility, demonstrated that egress from a
passenger rail car that is not upright can
be very challenging. The simulations
have demonstrated that emergency
egress from a car that is on its side could
present a significant challenge related to
the operation of the pocket doors. If the
pocket for a door is situated on the side
of the car that is above the door when
the car comes to rest on its side, gravity
would work against opening the door
and maintaining it in place for
occupants to egress. Although passenger
rail cars with single-panel vestibule
doors are usually designed such that on
the two ends of a car the pockets are on
opposite sides of the panel, emergency
situations may affect either end of the
car rendering one or more of the
vestibule and end-frame doors
unavailable for emergency egress. In
addition, doors could be rendered
inoperable due to structural deformation
of the doors or their frames and
surrounding structures following a
collision or derailment, blocking the
egress pathways.
The Task Force gave thoughtful
consideration to the issue of vestibule
and end-frame door egress. With
assistance from the Task Force, FRA
explored the feasibility of designing

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

71793

removable panels or windows in
passenger car interior passageway doors
and exterior end-frame doors that could
be used for emergency egress, and
funded research to develop and evaluate
various designs. Interior door egress was
examined first. In some passenger cars,
exterior side or end-frame doors, or
both, are located in vestibule areas that
are separated from the seating area(s) by
a vestibule door. Structural deformation
or malfunctioning of vestibule doors
could inhibit or unduly delay egress to
the vestibules from the passenger
compartments. End-frame door egress
was examined next. Ultimately, no
design was identified that would
address three overriding concerns
related to end-frame doors: (1)
Unintentional removal of the panel or
window, which present a clear safety
hazard for occupants while the train is
in operation; (2) crashworthiness of the
door containing the panel or window;
and (3) prevention of fluids, such as
fuel, from entering the car during an
accident. Therefore, the Task Force
developed a recommendation that was
limited to vestibule doors and other
interior passageway doors. For new
passenger cars, the Task Force generally
recommended requiring a removable
panel or removable window in each
vestibule door and other interior
passageway doors. In the case of a
vestibule, for example, occupants could
use a removable panel or removable
window in the vestibule door to gain
access from the seating area to the
exterior doors in the vestibule.
Alternatively, this panel or window
could also facilitate passage in the
opposite direction from the vestibule
area to the seating area. Given the
unique circumstances surrounding
passenger train accidents, the Task
Force considered it prudent to
recommend that access be available
from both areas.
The Task Force specifically evaluated
kick-panels and ultimately decided that
such panels could be partially or fully
removed unintentionally, creating a
safety hazard, particularly for small
children who could get caught in the
opening and become injured by the door
sliding into its pocket. For security
reasons, the Task Force also
recommended an exception to the
removable panel or removable window
requirement for a vestibule door that
leads directly into a cab compartment.
The Task Force believed that each
railroad is best situated to determine
whether equipping such a vestibule
door with a removable panel or
removable window would be

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

29NOR2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

71794

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

appropriate for its specific equipment
and operation.
In particular, FRA believes that to
require vestibule doors to be equipped
with a removable panel or removable
window will, in the event that vestibule
doors are not operable, provide a means
for occupants in the passenger seating
area to reach the vestibule area where
exterior doors are located, facilitating
their egress. Additionally, the
removable panel or removable window
will provide an additional means for
emergency responders to access the
passenger seating area to aid and assist
occupants. FRA further believes that the
rule satisfies the safety concerns
expressed in the NTSB’s
recommendation without raising other
safety concerns both during normal
operations and in emergency situations.
The Task Force considered requiring
that existing passenger cars be
retrofitted to comply with the removable
panel/window requirement for vestibule
and other interior passageway doors.
Because of limitations posed by the
design of existing doors, the Task Force
decided not to recommend that the
equipment be retrofitted. For example,
vestibule doors are designed with a
horizontal structural member, located
approximately at the vertical center of
the door, which provides rigidity. The
design would significantly limit both
the size and location of a properly
functioning removable panel or
removable window. Although there are
existing windows in the upper half of
certain vestibule doors, the windows are
not sufficiently large for adults to pass
through and would be difficult to access
in many situations. In addition, the
existing door pockets would require
modification. Removable windows
would likely be designed similarly to
emergency windows that are equipped
with a handle to facilitate the removal
of the gasket that holds the emergency
window in place. The doors would need
to be modified to accommodate the
protrusions in the door that would be
created by adding the handle. The Task
Force also reviewed additional issues
related to the emergency operation of
these doors and developed
recommendations applicable to manual
override devices and bi-parting doors,
including door retention systems, which
are addressed in this final rule.
As noted above, the Task Force also
examined the emergency egress issue as
it relates to exterior end-frame doors.
After much deliberation, the Task Force
recommended not to proceed with a
removable window or panel
requirement for end-frame doors, due to
remaining concerns related to the
crashworthiness of the exterior end-

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

frame doors, the prevention of fluids
entering the passenger car in an
accident, and unintentional removal of
the panel or window while the train is
in operation. These concerns remain.
The Task Force did, however, extend
the removable window or panel
requirement to ‘‘any other interior door
used for passage through a passenger
car’’ to further expand options for
emergency egress, as well as rescue
access.
The Task Force also reviewed the
APTA emergency signage standard, as
discussed below, to develop
recommendations for sign and
instruction marking to assist passengers
and crewmembers in locating and
operating removable panels and
windows in vestibule and other interior
passageway doors, as well as operating
bi-parting vestibule and other interior
passageway doors in an emergency
situation.
B. Identification of Emergency Systems
An overturned rail car, or a rail car
located on a narrow bridge or in a
tunnel can greatly complicate passenger
train evacuation in an emergency
situation. Evacuation can be further
complicated when multiple rail cars are
affected, or when conditions of limited
visibility or adverse weather are present.
Such circumstances necessitate
enhanced systems for use in emergency
evacuations. The 1999 PESS rule
highlighted a systems approach to
effective passenger train evacuation that
takes into consideration the
interrelationship between features such
as the number of door and window exits
in a passenger car, lighted signs that
indicate and facilitate the use of the
door and window exits, and floor exit
path marking, in addition to the general
emergency lighting level in a car. 64 FR
25598. In particular, in the PESS final
rule FRA stated that it was investigating
emergency lighting requirements, as
part of a systems approach to effective
passenger train evacuation.
As FRA was issuing comprehensive
Federal requirements for passenger train
safety in the late 1990s, APTA was also
developing and authorizing
complementary passenger rail
equipment safety standards applicable
to equipment operated by its commuter
and intercity passenger railroad
members. In this regard, FRA stated in
the 1999 PESS final rule that it would
examine the APTA emergency lighting
standard to determine whether the
standard satisfactorily addresses matters
related to emergency signage, exit path
marking, and egress capacity. See 64 FR
25598. Through the development and
issuances of multiple standards, APTA

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

developed a systems-based approach to
facilitate the safe evacuation of a
passenger car in an emergency under
various circumstances. These APTA
standards, which address emergency
lighting, signage, and low-location exit
path markings, were designed to work
together to provide a means for
passengers and crewmembers to
identify, reach, and operate passenger
car emergency exits.
The most recent, revised versions of
the APTA standards, all authorized on
October 7, 2007, are listed below; copies
are included in the docket.
• PR–E–S–013–99 (previously SS–E–
013–99), Rev. 1, Standard for Emergency
Lighting System Design for Passenger
Cars.
• PR–PS–S–002–98 (previously SS–
PS–002–98), Rev. 3, Standard for
Emergency Signage for Egress/Access of
Passenger Rail Equipment.
• PR–PS–S–004–99 (previously SS–
PS–004–99), Rev. 2, Standard for LowLocation Exit Path Marking.1
The APTA approach recognizes that,
in the majority of emergencies, the
safest place for passengers and
crewmembers is to remain on the train.
Should evacuation from a particular rail
car be required, the safest course of
action for passengers and crewmembers
is normally to move into an adjacent
car. This evacuation strategy avoids or
minimizes the hazards inherent with
evacuating passengers onto the railroad
right-of-way. It is only in unavoidable or
life-threatening situations that it would
be necessary for passengers and
crewmembers to leave the train to reach
a place of safety.
The Task Force was charged with
reviewing the three APTA standards
and recommending revisions that would
enhance the existing emergency lighting
requirements contained in § 238.115
and the window egress and rescue
access marking requirements contained
in §§ 238.113 and 238.114, respectively.
In addition, the Task Force was charged
with adding a new requirement for
LLEEPM systems. After careful review,
the Task Force recommended that the
three APTA standards be revised to
address relevant advances in
technology, and that these standards be
incorporated by reference in their
entirety in Federal regulations. With
assistance from the Task Force, and an
investment of considerable time and
1 Please note that although the title of the APTA
standard does not contain the word ‘‘emergency,’’
FRA considers low-location exit path markings and
low-location emergency exit path markings to be
one in the same for purposes of this final rule and
can be used interchangeably. For ease of reference,
both terms are referred to with the acronym
‘‘LLEEPM.’’

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

29NOR2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

effort, APTA revised the three standards
to enable FRA to incorporate them by
reference and take advantage of certain
technological advances that allow for
certain other desired enhancements. In
addition, the Task Force recommended
applying the requirements of APTA’s
emergency lighting, emergency signage,
and LLEEPM standards (as revised in
2007), to both new and existing
equipment. Incorporation by reference
of these APTA standards into part 238
extends their applicability to all
commuter and intercity passenger
railroads and makes them enforceable
by FRA. FRA has reviewed these
industry standards and has determined
that they contain appropriate
specifications for passenger train
emergency systems to be incorporated
into this final rule.
C. Emergency Lighting
Section 238.115 has contained
emergency lighting requirements
applicable for new passenger cars since
the 1999 PESS final rule. As noted in
that final rule, experience gained from
emergency response to several
passenger train accidents indicated that
emergency lighting systems either did
not work or failed after a short time,
greatly hindering rescue operations. See
64 FR 25596. Emergency lighting system
failures, or low levels of illumination
during these accidents, or both, have
been cited as a cause for confusion and
contributing to injuries and casualties in
emergency situations. For example,
according to the NTSB report, two
passengers in a coach car of the MARC
train involved in the 1996 Silver Spring,
MD, accident stated that emergency
lighting was not available following the
accident and that, along with one
passenger’s injuries and another’s loss
of eyeglasses, made it more difficult to
move in the darkness. See NTSB/RAR–
97/02 at 61–62. The coach car’s tilted
position also contributed to their
disorientation and hindered mobility.
Id. at 62. Post-accident investigation by
the NTSB also revealed that the main
car battery powering the emergency
lighting had been damaged as a result of
the derailment. Id.
The NTSB expressed concern
regarding emergency lighting
survivability because the location of the
battery supplying power to the
emergency lighting system below the car
made it susceptible to damage from the
rail, the car’s trucks, and the ground
surface in the event of a derailment. The
NTSB concluded that ‘‘a need exists for
Federal standards requiring passenger
cars be equipped with reliable
emergency lighting fixtures with a selfcontained independent power source

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

when the main power supply has been
disrupted to ensure passengers can
safely egress.’’ Id. The NTSB issued
recommendation R–97–17 to FRA, as
follows:
Require all passenger cars to contain
reliable emergency lighting fixtures that are
each fitted with a self-contained independent
power source and incorporate the
requirements into minimum passenger car
safety standards.

In addition, on May 16, 1994, in
Selma, NC, an Amtrak train derailed
after colliding with an intermodal trailer
from a freight train on an adjacent track.
This accident resulted in 1 fatality and
121 injuries. According to the NTSB
accident report, three of the injured
passengers reported difficulty exiting
the passenger cars because they could
not identify the emergency exit
windows in the darkness. NTSB/RAR–
95/02. When they were finally able to
escape through the doors leading
outside, they said that they were not
sure how far they were above a surface,
which may not have been solid ground,
because they could not see below the
steps of the car. The NTSB found that
fixed emergency lighting systems were
not operating inside several passenger
cars because the batteries and the wiring
connecting the batteries to the lights
were damaged as a result of the
derailment.
In the 1999 PESS final rule, FRA
established performance criteria for
emergency lighting, including minimum
illumination levels in new passenger car
door locations, aisles, and passageways,
to help enable the occupants of the
passenger cars to discern their
immediate surroundings (be
situationally aware) and thereby
minimize or avoid panic in an
emergency. Establishing an illumination
requirement at floor level adjacent to
doors was intended to permit passenger
car occupants to see and negotiate
thresholds and steps that are typically
located near doors. The illumination
requirement 25 inches above the floor
for aisles and passageways was intended
to permit passenger car occupants to see
and make their way past obstacles as
they exit a train in an emergency. FRA
also required that the emergency
lighting system remain operational on
each car for 90 minutes.
With respect to existing equipment,
FRA noted in the 1999 PESS final rule
that it desired achievable emergency
lighting enhancements and that it would
evaluate an APTA emergency lighting
standard when completed.
Subsequently, the Task Force helped
develop a revised APTA emergency
lighting standard that would enhance

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

71795

the FRA emergency lighting
requirements in § 238.115 by: (1)
Applying the requirements to existing
equipment; and (2) improving the backup power supply survivability
requirement (with application to both
new and certain existing cars). The Task
Force recommended revisions to the
APTA emergency lighting standard to
address older equipment not covered by
the emergency lighting requirements
contained in original § 238.115. The
revised APTA standard specifies
minimum emergency lighting
performance criteria for all passenger
cars (new and existing). The levels of
illumination and duration required for
equipment ordered before September 8,
2000, and placed in service before
September 9, 2002, are half the levels
that are required for newer equipment
by the APTA standard. This takes into
consideration the more limited
capabilities of older electrical lighting
systems. The APTA emergency lighting
standard provides that these
illumination and duration requirements
be implemented by January 1, 2015, or
when the equipment is transferred,
leased, or conveyed to another railroad
for more than 6 months of operation,
whichever occurs first. Some railroads
indicated their intention to retire certain
equipment by 2015. The Task Force
agreed it would not be cost-justified to
retrofit such equipment. It should be
noted that, although the APTA standard
provides for compliance by January 1,
2015, FRA requires compliance by
January 1, 2017, to allow those railroads
not already in compliance sufficient
time to comply with the requirements.
In addition, the APTA emergency
lighting standard provides that
emergency lighting systems installed on
each passenger car ordered on or after
April 7, 2008, or placed in service for
the first time on or after January 1, 2012,
meet minimum illumination levels by
means of an independent power source
that is located in or within one-half of
a car length of each light fixture it
powers, and that operates when normal
power is unavailable. As previously
noted, these illumination levels are the
same as the ones originally specified in
§ 238.115 for doors, aisles, and
passageways. The independent power
source requirement was not originally
contained in § 238.115, and is being
incorporated into this final rule. The
Task Force evaluated the feasibility of
equipping emergency lighting fixtures
with self-contained power sources, as a
back-up power source, independent of
the main car battery. After deliberation,
the Task Force concluded that
maintenance would be very costly due

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

29NOR2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

71796

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

to the high number of power sources.
The Task Force examined other
methods for addressing the issue of
emergency lighting system reliability
and assisted APTA in revising the
APTA emergency lighting standard to
better address those situations in which
an emergency lighting system may be
most beneficial. For example, in the
event of a derailment resulting in a car
rollover, the importance of situational
awareness is heightened. Occupants are
likely not in the same location as they
were before the incident and, in
conditions of darkness, are likely
unaware as to where in the passenger
car they are located in relation to the
nearest exit. APTA added four
requirements that address the NTSB’s
recommendation to FRA regarding
emergency lighting survivability for new
passenger cars, as described below.
First, the APTA emergency lighting
standard was revised to require an
independent power source within the
car body located no more than one-half
of a car length away from the fixture it
powers. For most passenger car designs,
this translates into a minimum of two
batteries, one in each end of the car. In
the Silver Spring accident, passenger
cars incurred collision and derailment
damage to under-floor battery boxes,
causing the wet-cell batteries contained
in those boxes to leak electrolyte.
Because of the damage and leakage, the
batteries failed to provide power to the
emergency lighting on board the
passenger cars. Placing the batteries
within the car body will reduce the risk
of damage to the batteries during a
collision, and increase the likelihood
that the batteries will be capable of
providing power to the emergency
lighting.
Second, each of these independent
power sources is required to have an
automatic, self-diagnostic module to
perform a discharge test to ensure
timely detection and notification of a
malfunction.
Third, emergency lighting systems in
new cars are required by the APTA
standard to be capable of operating in
all equipment orientations to address
accident situations resulting in the
rollover of a car. During an accident,
passenger cars may tilt, causing wet-cell
batteries contained in those cars to leak
electrolyte and, as a consequence, fail to
provide power to the emergency lighting
on board the passenger cars. Wet-cell
batteries will likely leak when tilted in
a rollover, because wet-cell batteries
have a gas vent on top, which allows
liquid to escape when tipped over.
Alternatively, a sealed battery is capable
of functioning as intended, regardless of
the battery’s orientation. When a sealed

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

battery is tilted during an accident, it
will not fail to provide power to
emergency lighting merely as a result of
being tilted.
Finally, the APTA standard provides
that emergency lighting systems must be
designed so that at least 50 percent of
the light fixtures operate,
notwithstanding the failure of any single
fixture or power source. Additionally,
augmenting this requirement, FRA notes
that the APTA emergency signage
standard that FRA is incorporating by
reference into this rule requires a
minimum of 144 square-inches of HPPL
material placed either on, or in the
immediate vicinity of, side door exits
that are intended to be used as
emergency exits, to provide some
illumination at the floor for passengers
and crewmembers as they exit.
In support of revising the APTA
emergency lighting standard, the Volpe
Center researched various alternative,
cost-effective technologies for
addressing the reliability of emergency
lighting systems. The Volpe Center
found that the development of
emergency lighting systems that can
function reliably for a decade or more
with minimal maintenance and that can
withstand passenger train collision/
derailment forces has been greatly
facilitated by two technologies:

were omnidirectional (like incandescent
or fluorescent lamps).
Capacitors are devices that store
energy in an electrical field (as opposed
to a battery, in which the energy is
stored chemically). Chemicals that store
and release energy in amounts that are
useful in batteries are inherently
corrosive, which limits battery life to
about a thousand charge-discharge
cycles, or about seven years in
applications where the battery is rarely
discharged. By avoiding use of corrosive
chemicals, capacitors are far more
durable. Super capacitors are rated for
500,000 charge-discharge cycles, and
their service lives are expected to
extend to at least ten years. Currently,
commercial super capacitors are
available that store as much as 5 watthours of energy. Combined with very
efficient LEDs or other SSL devices,
they allow the manufacture of
emergency lighting systems using selfcontained power with the ability to
withstand collision forces of much
greater magnitude than traditional
emergency lighting systems currently in
use. As discussed in sections VII.D
through F, below, the brightness of
newer photoluminescent materials that
can be used for emergency egress signs
and exit path marking can be a costeffective means of addressing concerns
regarding the survivability of emergency
lighting systems, particularly for older
equipment in operation, until retired
from service.

• Solid-state lighting (SSL)—most
commonly known as light emitting
diodes (LEDs); and
• Super capacitors—devices that store D. Marking and Instructions for
about 100 times as much electrical
Emergency Egress and Rescue Access
charge per unit volume as previous
To initially address emergency egress
types of capacitors.
and rescue access, as well as other
Solid-state lighting includes
issues related to the 1996 Silver Spring,
conventional LEDs and other light
MD, accident cited earlier, FRA issued
technologies to produce illumination
Emergency Order No. 20 (EO 20). 61 FR
without the use of legacy methods such
6876. In addition to other requirements,
as incandescent filaments or excited
EO 20 required commuter and intercity
gases in glass containers. Compared
passenger railroads to mark the location,
with other lighting technologies, the
and provide instructions for the use, of
SSL devices are much smaller, are able
emergency window exits by no later
to withstand hundreds or thousands of
than April 20, 1996. In an effort to
times as much shock forces, and have
respond to this requirement as
much longer service lives. LED and
effectively as possible in the timeframe
other SSL devices use approximately
provided, affected railroads that had not
only half as much energy to produce a
done so began to install
given amount of light as the best
photoluminescent emergency exit
fluorescent lamps. The light output of
markings to mark emergency window
current white LEDs ranges from 25 to 90 exits, as well as doors intended for
lumens per watt, which means that a
emergency egress, using
large area can be illuminated to a
photoluminescent materials that were
required minimum value (one lumen
available at the time for this purpose.
On May 4, 1998, FRA issued the PTEP
per square foot) with only one watt of
final rule that required door exits that
power. Use of LEDs also makes it easier
are intended for emergency egress to be
to shape the light output to concentrate
lighted or conspicuously marked with
it in areas such as an aisle or at door
luminescent material, and that
locations and permits meeting the
instructions for their use be provided.
illumination requirements with less
The rule also required that emergency
power than would be needed if LEDs

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

29NOR2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
window exits be conspicuously marked
with luminescent material, and that
instructions for their use be provided as
well. See 63 FR 24630. Similarly, the
rule required that doors and windows
intended for emergency access by
emergency responders for extrication of
passengers also be marked with
retroreflective material and instructions
for their use posted.
Notably, the 1998 PTEP rule did not
specify criteria for minimum luminance
levels, letter size, or sign color. Yet, FRA
stated that the marking of the door and
window exits must be conspicuous
enough so that a reasonable person,
even while enduring the stress and
panic of an emergency evacuation,
could determine where the closest and
most accessible route out of the car is
located. See 63 FR 24669. Many
railroads installed signs made of zincsulfide, which were capable of
providing luminance for only a period
of less than 10 minutes in many cases.
Subsequently, photoluminescent sign
technology evolved, and other materials
began to be used, such as strontiumaluminate, which is capable of
providing high levels of luminance for
much longer periods.
The original APTA emergency signage
standard was revised in 1999 to require
the installation of emergency exit signs
with specific minimum ‘‘higher
performance’’ photoluminescent
material, in terms of brightness and
duration, as well larger minimum letter
sizes, color contrast, etc., for emergency
exit signs. The second revision,
authorized in 2002, included a
reorganization of certain sections,
citation of the American Society for
Testing and Materials International
(ASTM) retroreflectivity standards, as
well as the revision of annex guidance
to evaluate the performance
characteristics of the emergency exit
signs. FRA considered incorporating
elements of the APTA standard into the
PTES final rule in 2008 so that
emergency exit signs and intercom
markings in passenger cars would be
required to be made of
photoluminescent material with higher
levels of brightness for longer duration.
However, the Task Force recommended
that certain requirements in the APTA
emergency signage standard be revised
to address technical issues with the
performance characteristics of certain
types of photoluminescent materials
already installed in existing passenger
rail cars, as well as other necessary
clarifications concerning sign size,
color, and contrast, etc., before the
standard would be incorporated by
reference by FRA. See 63 FR 6886.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

Accordingly, APTA further revised its
emergency signage standard to
incorporate the Task Force
recommendations. The
recommendations were based on Volpe
Center research findings and
technological advances in
photoluminescence (as discussed in
Section VII.F, below). Substantively, the
revised APTA emergency signage
standard required that each passenger
rail car have interior emergency signage
to assist passengers and train
crewmembers in more readily locating,
reaching, and operating emergency exits
in order to safely evacuate from the
passenger rail car or train. The standard
also required that each car have exterior
signage to assist emergency responders
in more readily locating and utilizing
emergency access points during an
emergency situation warranting
immediate passenger rail car or train
evacuation. To ensure visibility to
passengers, signs used to mark the
location of vestibule doors were
required to meet the brightness and
duration performance requirements for
photoluminescent material, as specified
in the APTA standard.
Although the APTA emergency
signage standard does not address
emergency communications system
signage, the Task Force recommended
applying certain criteria for
photoluminescent marking specified in
that standard to intercom systems, as
further described in Section VII.G,
below. The APTA standard also
includes specifications for
retroreflective marking and material,
which are consistent with FRA
requirements for rescue access point
marking for doors, windows, and roof
access location. In addition, the APTA
standard is more detailed than the
relevant FRA requirements that have
previously been specified in this part,
for example addressing minimum letter
sizes for doors and emergency window
exits and including specific criteria for
color, color contrast, etc.
The revised APTA emergency signage
standard requires periodic testing of
certain system components and contains
procedures to ensure compliance. APTA
designed its emergency signage standard
to offer flexibility in application, as well
as to achieve the desired goal of
facilitating passenger and crew egress
from potentially life-threatening
situations in passenger rail cars.
Accordingly, an individual railroad
would have the responsibility to design,
install, and maintain an emergency
signage system that is compatible with
its internal safety policies for emergency
evacuation, while complying with the

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

71797

performance criteria specified in this
APTA standard.
The Task Force previously
recommended that FRA adopt the
specific retroreflective material criteria
contained in the APTA emergency
signage standard related to rescue access
windows and doors intended for access
by emergency responders. See § 238.114
of the 2008 PTES rule, which added
requirements for the installation of a
minimum number of rescue access
windows in specified locations on all
passenger cars. Thus, in that rule, FRA
added a definition of ‘‘retroreflective
material’’ that incorporates by reference
criteria from ASTM’s Standard D 4956–
07 for Type 1 Sheeting, which is
consistent with the APTA emergency
signage standard. FRA also made other
revisions related to rescue access
marking, consistent with the other
rescue access marking requirements
specified in the APTA standard. See 73
FR 6389.
E. Low-Location Emergency Exit Path
Marking
A review of past passenger rail
accidents involving passenger and train
crew emergency evacuation has
indicated that, in certain cases, both
passengers and emergency responders
lacked sufficient information necessary
for expedient emergency egress and
responder access due to the absence of
identifiable markings. A lack of
adequate markings indicating the
location of emergency exits, in
conjunction with lighting system
failures, or low levels of illumination, or
both, during conditions of limited
visibility when these accidents occurred
caused confusion and contributed to
casualties. In addition, the presence of
fire or smoke may substantially increase
the difficulty of evacuating passenger
train occupants.
To avoid the many hazards associated
with evacuation onto the right-of-way,
the preferred means of egress from a
passenger car that is not located at a
station is via the end door(s) to the next
car. Under conditions of limited
visibility, or when illumination from
emergency lighting fixtures located at or
near the ceiling are obscured by smoke,
such LLEEPM (including exit signs)
must remain discernible. Particularly
when smoke is present, the most viable
escape path is the more visible escape
path, which is likely to be at or near the
floor, towards where occupants are
forced to lower themselves (where the
pathway markings are located) to avoid
inhaling the smoke.
The 1999 APTA LLEEPM standard
required HPPL material to be installed
on all new passenger rail cars. Such

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

29NOR2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

71798

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

markings are intended to provide a
visible pathway for passenger rail car
occupants to locate and reach
emergency exits under conditions of
limited visibility, even if the emergency
lighting system fails. The standard
includes requirements for marking
aisles, stairways, and passageways to
indicate the path to the primary exit for
both existing and new cars, using either
HPPL material for marking, or lighting
having an independent power source
with a duration of at least 90 minutes.
Certain revisions were made to the
original LLEEPM standard, which
consisted primarily of additional
definitions, reorganization and revision
of certain sections, and the addition of
annexes used to evaluate the
performance of HPPL material used for
LLEEPM.
In December 2006, with the
participation of the Task Force, the
Volpe Center conducted a series of
emergency egress simulations at the
WMATA training facility, which
demonstrated that egress from a
passenger rail car can be very
challenging. Initially, some
photoluminescent emergency exit sign
materials commonly found in passenger
rail cars and some HPPL sign and
LLEEPM materials were placed in a
single-level passenger rail car that was
darkened to demonstrate the difference
in performance between the two types
of materials. Next, the car was filled
with theatrical smoke, which quickly
rose and filled most of the car,
obscuring photoluminescent signs,
including HPPL markings, except for
door exit location markings located near
the floor and LLEEPM. Members of the
Task Force participating in the
simulation attempted to exit the car via
an end door by moving along the aisle
in a crouching position and using an
HPPL LLEEPM system as guidance. The
LLEEPM system was covered in one end
(half) of the car to demonstrate the
noticeable effectiveness of the LLEEPM
system that remained visible in the
other end (half) of the car, in terms of
brightness and duration. Then, the
darkened car was tilted to a 15-degree
angle. This car orientation was used to
demonstrate firsthand the potential
difficulties associated with trying to
maintain one’s balance and walk
through the car to a door exit.
The LLEEPM system complements the
emergency signage system by
identifying all primary door exits with
HPPL and complements the emergency
lighting system by providing a visible
path to emergency exits that is not
dependent on a power source outside of
the passenger compartment, so that all
primary emergency exits in a passenger

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

car can be identified from every seat in
the car. The Task Force initially
reviewed the 2002 version of the APTA
LLEEPM standard and recommended
that certain revisions be made to
address the same type of issues related
to photoluminescent material as in the
emergency signage standard, as well as
recommended other technical revisions
for consistency with the emergency
signage standard, to enable FRA to
incorporate the standard by reference.
F. Photoluminescent Marking Materials
As mentioned above, as a result of the
NTSB’s investigation of the February
1996 Silver Spring, MD, accident, the
NTSB expressed concern that at least
some of the passengers in the MARC
train involved in the collision were
unable to locate, reach, or operate doors
and emergency window exits due to the
failure of emergency lighting. Shortly
after, FRA issued EO 20 requiring
commuter and intercity passenger
railroads to mark emergency window
exits with luminescent material. See 61
FR 6876. The most conspicuous and
visible markings related to emergency
egress are either internally illuminated
(illuminated by a self-contained source),
or made of HPPL materials.
Since the issuance of EO 20, Volpe
Center research has provided extensive
information to FRA and the Task Force
for different types of photoluminescent
materials and their performance
characteristics when installed in
passenger rail cars. The brightness
levels for many of the emergency exit
signs and LLEEPM using zinc sulfide
material, originally installed in response
to EO 20, are low and the duration is
short, and thus do not perform as well
as newer HPPL materials using
strontium aluminate, which are capable
of a much higher initial brightness and
longer duration time. In addition, Volpe
Center research shows that placement of
the photoluminescent sign and marking
materials relative to sources of light is
key to proper performance in terms of
brightness and duration. Other factors
that affect the ability of occupants to see
and read signs and markings include the
size of the letters and their distance
from the sign or marking.
Separately, and in conjunction with
industry representatives, the Volpe
Center conducted tests in various inservice passenger cars of different
design and age by measuring
illumination and luminance levels, and
demonstrated that some of the
photoluminescent markings were not as
bright as they were intended to be.
Photoluminescent signs and LLEEPM
materials certified to be capable of
achieving certain brightness levels were

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

found not to meet those criteria due to
inadequate charging light levels. The
presence of shadows cast by nearby
structures and fixtures, the location of
light fixtures relative to emergency exit
signs and photoluminescent LLEEPM
materials, the condition of light
diffusers, and the type of lamps used to
provide the charging light were all
causes for why either the zinc sulfide or
the HPPL products were unable to
charge sufficiently and thus achieve
expected brightness levels.
The Task Force considered the use of
HPPL material to be an important
improvement over the previous
photoluminescent materials that were
designed to less stringent criteria for
duration and brightness, and also a costeffective means of addressing concerns
regarding the survivability of emergency
lighting systems, particularly for older
equipment in service. To develop a
more effective photoluminescent
standard that would address the Volpe
Center findings, the Task Force
developed HPPL material specifications
with technical assistance from the Volpe
Center, which APTA included in its
2007 revision of both the emergency
signage standard and the LLEEPM
standard. FRA notes that the Task Force
revisions to the emergency signage and
LLEEPM standards: (1) Allow flexibility
for use of different types of charging
light sources; (2) require that new HPPL
signs meet the same luminance
requirements with lower charging light
levels; (3) allow alternative testing
criteria using meters that do not
measure off-axis illuminance accurately;
(4) grandfather signs that are likely to
perform as intended for 60 minutes; and
(5) in small areas, allow for lower
luminance levels and in some cases the
use of larger signs to compensate for
even lower light levels. APTA revised
the two APTA standards which now
establish more stringent minimum
requirements for the HPPL material
performance criteria to provide visual
guidance for passengers and train
crewmembers to locate, reach, and
operate door exits and emergency
window exits, especially during
conditions of limited visibility when the
emergency lighting system has failed (or
when smoke conditions obscure
overhead emergency lighting).
G. Emergency Communications
The NTSB accident investigation
report for the February 9, 1996 collision
near Secaucus, New Jersey, that
involved two New Jersey Transit Rail
Operations (NJTR) trains and resulted in
three fatalities and numerous injuries,
illustrates the importance of emergency
communication systems to prevent

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

29NOR2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
panic and further injuries. According to
the NTSB report (NTSB/RAR–97/01, at
p. 27):
Although 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 NTSB report also stated:

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

Information 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
contributing to the dangerous conditions at
the collision site.

To help address such concerns, FRA
issued the PESS final rule in 1999,
which established requirements for twoway emergency communication systems
and markings for Tier II passenger
equipment. See 64 FR 25641. PA
systems allow the train crew to keep
passengers informed in an emergency
situation and provide instructions to
them in a timely manner. The train crew
can provide instructions to passengers
to not take an action that could place
them or other passengers in any greater
danger, such as instructing the
passengers, as appropriate, to remain on
the train and not endanger themselves
by unnecessarily evacuating the train on
their own. Conversely, passengers could
use the intercom feature of a two-way
communication system to report
security issues as well as other pertinent
information to the train crew, such as
injuries resulting from an accident,
other forms of medical emergencies, or
serious mechanical problems with the
passenger rail car. The 2008 PTES final
rule established emergency
communication (PA and intercom)
system requirements for Tier I passenger
equipment and replaced the previous
emergency communication system
requirements in § 238.437 for Tier II
passenger equipment. See 73 FR 6370,
6389.
When there is a disruption to the
normal power supply to a car, having
markings that remain conspicuous allow

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

passengers to locate and use the
intercom to communicate with the train
crew. During the development of the
PTES final rule, some railroad
representatives on the Task Force noted
that although instructions were posted
at the intercom locations on their
passenger cars, luminescent markings
indicating the intercom location were
not used. The Task Force therefore
recommended that luminescent
markings be required for that purpose.
It should be noted that FRA proposed
to adopt a requirement for luminescent
markings of intercom locations in the
2008 PTES final rule, and invited
comment on whether the luminescent
material should be HPPL material. See
71 FR 50293. As noted above, in the
discussion concerning emergency
window exit signage, the APTA
emergency signage standard contains
specific criteria for luminescent
markings. The Task Force focused on
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. The APTA
Passenger Rail Equipment Safety
Standards (PRESS) Task Force had also
indicated that they intended to revise
then-APTA Standard SS–PS–001–98 (redesignated as PR–PS–S–001–98),
‘‘Standard for Passenger Railroad
Emergency Communications,’’ to
include more specific requirements for
marking emergency communication
systems.
The 2008 PTES final rule required
luminescent marking of each intercom
location 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, are not
required to be luminescent as some Task
Force members indicated that the
instructions may be easier to read when
not luminescent.
As noted previously, the Task Force
discussed at length issues associated
with the development of HPPL material
component requirements. Due to the
APTA revision of the performance
criteria for HPPL material, the Task
Force recommended that emergency
communication system markings
comply with the performance criteria
for brightness and duration of HPPL
material in the emergency signage
standard. Accordingly, FRA believes
that applying the luminescent marking
requirements in the revised APTA
emergency signage standard to intercom
systems will further address the

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

71799

emergency communication concerns
raised in the NTSB report.
H. Debriefing and Critique Session
Following Emergency Situations and
Full-Scale Simulations
As an illustration of the importance of
train crew participation in a debrief and
critique session, FRA notes that on May
25, 2006, a power outage disrupted all
rail traffic on Amtrak’s Northeast
Corridor between Washington and New
York during the morning rush hour,
stranding approximately 112 trains with
tens of thousands of passengers on
board. Part 239 has required that train
crewmembers participate in a debriefing
and critique session of such incidents.
However, the managers of the train crew
of at least one train participated in the
debriefing and critique session for that
train, rather than the train crew.
The Task Force recognized the
importance of the participation in the
debriefing and critique session of train
crewmembers and other employees who
actually have first-hand knowledge of
the emergency that occurred.
Accordingly, the Task Force reviewed
the debriefing and critique requirements
in § 239.105 and recommended that
clarifications be made to ensure that, to
the extent practicable, all onboard
crewmembers, control center personnel,
and any other employees actually
involved in emergency situations and
full-scale simulations, be included in
the debriefing and critique sessions. In
addition, flexibility was recommended
to be provided to railroads by permitting
participation in the required debriefing
and critique sessions of the employees
either by appearing in person or by the
use of alternative methods. As such,
FRA clarifies § 239.105 to reflect this
necessary participation.
V. Section-by-Section Analysis
This section-by-section analysis
explains the provisions included in the
rule. A number of the issues and
provisions involving this rule have been
discussed and addressed in detail in the
preamble, above. Accordingly, these
preamble discussions should be
considered in conjunction with those
below and will be referenced as
appropriate. Notably, as indicated
above, there has been a change in the
final rule text from the NPRM in
relation to emergency lighting based on
comments received from Metra.
A. Amendments to Part 238, Subparts B,
C, and E
Section 238.5

Definitions

In this section, FRA is introducing a
set of new definitions into the

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

29NOR2

71800

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

regulation, as well as revising certain
existing definitions. FRA intends these
definitions to clarify the meaning of
important terms as they are used in the
text of the rule, in an attempt to
minimize the potential for
misinterpretation of the rule.
‘‘APTA’’ means the American Public
Transportation Association, the present
name of APTA.
‘‘End-frame door’’ means an endfacing door normally located between or
adjacent to the collision posts or similar
end-frame structural elements. This
term refers to exterior doors only. This
term is added for use in the definition
of a vestibule door to make clear that an
end-frame door is not a vestibule door.
‘‘Vestibule’’ means an area of a
passenger car that normally does not
contain seating, is adjacent to a side
door, and is used for passing from a
seating area to a side exit door.
Passageways located away from side
door exits are not considered vestibules.
‘‘Vestibule door’’ means a door
separating a seating area from a
vestibule. End-frame doors and doors
separating sleeping compartments or
similar private compartments from a
passageway are not vestibule doors.
This term is referenced in § 238.112(f) as
one type of door that is required to have
removable panels or windows for
emergency egress use in new passenger
cars. Please note that § 238.112 also
applies to other interior doors intended
for passage through a passenger car, and
not only vestibule doors.
Section 238.112 Door Emergency
Egress and Rescue Access Systems
FRA revised this new section heading
from the NPRM to make clear that the
requirements of this section concern
systems for door use during an
emergency. FRA notes that this
clarification will be particularly helpful
in light of FRA’s intent to propose
enhancements to the requirements for
passenger train exterior side door safety
systems in the near future.
This section consolidates certain
existing door requirements that apply to
both Tier I and Tier II passenger cars,
adds new requirements related to
removable panels or windows in
vestibule and other interior doors, and
clarifies that an exterior side door is
required ‘‘in each side’’ of a passenger
car ordered on or after September 8,
2000, or placed in service for the first
time on or after September 9, 2002.
These door requirements were formerly
located in §§ 238.235 for Tier I
equipment and 238.439 for Tier II
equipment. Section 239.107 also
contained interior and exterior marking
and instruction requirements,

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

respectively, for all doors intended for
emergency egress and all doors intended
for emergency access by emergency
responders. All door emergency egress
and rescue access system requirements
that apply both to Tier I and Tier II
passenger cars have been moved to this
new § 238.112. Notably, the new
vestibule door requirements enhance
passenger safety by requiring an
additional means of access to the
vestibule area from the passenger
seating area, and vice versa.
Paragraphs (a) through (c) contain the
requirements formerly located in
paragraphs § 238.235(a) through (c),
respectively. Paragraph (a), moved from
former 238.235(a) and concerning
manual override devices, is being
modified slightly to remove the
December 31, 1999 compliance date.
Having this date written in the rule is
no longer necessary, as the scope of
subpart B in which this section is
located does not limit application of its
requirements to equipment ordered on
or after September 8, 2000, or placed in
service for the first time on or after
September 9, 2002, unless otherwise
specified, as subpart C does. See
§ 238.201(a). A manual override device
allows a passenger during an emergency
to open or unlock a passenger car door
that has been closed or locked by the
railroad for operational purposes.
Without the manual override device, a
key or other tool or implement is
typically needed to open or unlock the
door. By making the door easier to
unlock, the manual override device
expedites passenger egress during an
emergency.
A minor modification to paragraph (b)
makes clear that of the minimum two
exterior side doors required in each
passenger car ordered on or after
September 8, 2000, or placed in service
for the first time on or after September
9, 2002, one must be located in each
side of the car. Moreover, paragraph (b)
makes clear that a set of dual-leafed (or
bi-parting) exterior doors is considered
a single door for purposes of this
paragraph.
Paragraphs (d) and (e) contain
requirements for interior and exterior
door exit markings and instructions,
respectively, which were formerly
contained in §§ 238.235(d) and
239.107(a). Both paragraphs reference
the requirements for marking and
instructions for emergency egress and
rescue access in new § 238.125.
Paragraph (f) requires a removable
panel or removable window in each
vestibule door, as well as in any other
interior door intended for passage
through a passenger car. A vestibule
door, or other interior passageway door

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

or the door pocket, may become
deformed or otherwise inoperable
during an emergency. The additional
means of egress would be used in the
event that the door cannot be opened, or
it becomes difficult to retain the door in
an open position, as in the case of a
vestibule door to allow for passage from
the seating area to the exterior doors in
the vestibule. The latter circumstance is
of particular concern when a passenger
car is on its side where the pocket for
the door would now be located above
the door, making it difficult to keep the
door in the open position. In the case of
other interior doors intended for passage
through a passenger car (see discussion
above related to the definition of
vestibule door in the section-by-section
analysis of § 238.5), the removable panel
or removable window facilitates passage
through the car to the vestibule to exit
the car from a side door exit or through
the car to exit the car into an adjoining
car, or both.
Specifically, in addition to the
requirements for removable panels or
removable windows, paragraph (f)(1)
requires a manual override device for a
vestibule door or other interior
passageway door if it is powered, so that
occupants can open the door in the
event power is lost and the door or its
pocket is not deformed. Moving through
the open door is, of course, the preferred
means of passage; a removable panel or
window is provided in the door as an
alternative means of passage, should the
manual override device not be able to
open the door. As further described,
below, paragraph (f)(2) contains
requirements for the ease of operability,
dimensions, and location of the
removable panels or windows in doors.
In addition, distinct requirements in
paragraph (f)(3) apply to bi-parting
doors; because such individual door
panels or leaves are very narrow, they
cannot reasonably contain removable
panels or windows that would allow
occupants to pass through.
To allow sufficient time for railroads
and manufacturers of passenger cars to
implement these requirements without
costly modifications to existing car
orders, the requirements in this
paragraph apply to equipment ordered
on or after January 28, 2014, or placed
in service for the first time on or after
January 29, 2018. Railroad
representatives on the Task Force
indicated that such a 4-year time period
is consistent with the time between the
placement of an order and delivery of
the ordered equipment.
This section makes clear that doors
providing access to a control
compartment are exempt from the
requirement for removable panels or

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

29NOR2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
windows. The doors to such
compartments are usually locked,
particularly in newer cars that have
door lock override mechanisms, to
prevent unauthorized access to the
control compartment. Railroads may, at
their discretion, include removable
panels or other additional means of
egress in these doors, but they are not
required to do so.
Paragraph (f)(2)(i) requires that each
removable panel or removable window
be designed to permit rapid and easy
removal from both sides of the door
without the use of a tool or other
implement. For example, in the case of
a vestibule door, rapid and easy removal
is required from the vestibule side and
the seating area side of the door. Access
from both sides of the door is consistent
with the preferred means of car
evacuation, which is to the next car and
not onto the right-of-way. The designs
for removable windows or panels in the
doors would likely be very similar to the
removable gasket design and other
designs generally used for dual-function
windows, which serve both as
emergency window exits and rescue
access windows and therefore can be
opened and removed from inside or
outside of the car. This requirement in
paragraph (f)(2)(i) is intended to be
consistent with the ease of operability
requirement currently applicable to
emergency window exits in § 238.113,
which dual-function windows must
meet. For example, the design presented
by Kawasaki for a removable panel in a
vestibule door, described in the 2008
PTES final rule, would satisfy the
requirements for ease of operability. See
73 FR 6370.
Paragraph (f)(2)(ii) requires that
removal of the panel or window in the
door create an unobstructed opening
with minimum dimensions of 21 inches
horizontally by 28 inches vertically. The
Task Force consulted with passenger car
and door manufacturers to ensure that
the dimensions could be met without
sacrificing the basic structural design
and integrity properties of vestibule
doors, including firmness, balance, and
stability. Manufacturers agreed that the
maximum width that could be
reasonably achieved is 21 inches. The
28-inch vertical dimension allows for
the door to have a vertically-centered
horizontal structural member, as well as
retain a window in the upper half,
which is common to many existing door
designs and a feature that railroads are
interested in retaining.
Paragraph (f)(2)(iii) requires that the
removable panel or removable window
in the door be located so that the lowest
point of the opening is no higher than
18 inches from the floor. This

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

requirement provides ease of use for
passing through after removal of the
panel or window. The opening should
be located close to the floor so that car
occupants can crawl through without
undue difficulty or undue delay.
Paragraph (f)(3) contains distinct
requirements for bi-parting doors. Each
powered, bi-parting vestibule door and
any other interior, powered bi-parting
door intended for passage through a
passenger car must be equipped with a
manual override device and a
mechanism to retain each door leaf in
the open position. Examples of a
retention mechanism include a ratchet
and pawl system, which allows
movement in one direction but locks it
in the other, and a sprag. The retention
mechanism is intended to expedite
egress by holding the door panels in
place once they are opened. The
override mechanism provides a means
to operate the doors in the event that
power is lost. It must be located
adjacent to the door leaf it controls and
be designed and maintained so that a
person can readily access and operate it
from each side of the door without the
use of any tool or other implement.
Access from both sides of the door is
consistent with the preferred means of
car evacuation, which is to the next car,
and not onto the right-of-way.
Paragraph (f)(4) specifically contains
requirements relating to the capabilities
of manual override devices for vestibule
doors and other interior doors intended
for passage through a passenger car,
including such doors that are bi-parting.
See the discussion relating to manual
override devices in paragraph (a).
Paragraph (f)(5)(i) contains
requirements for marking and operating
instructions for removable panels and
windows in vestibule and other interior
passageway doors. Paragraph (f)(5)(ii)
contains particular requirements for
marking and providing operating
instructions for door override devices
and retention mechanisms in vestibule
and other interior passageway doors that
are bi-parting.
To ensure that each removable panel
or removable window in a door can be
identified in conditions of limited
visibility, the panel or window must be
conspicuously and legibly marked with
HPPL material on both sides of the
vestibule or other interior passageway
door in which it is installed, in
accordance with section 5.4.2 of the
APTA emergency signage standard that
FRA is incorporating by reference in
§ 238.125. Use of such material is
consistent with requirements for
emergency window exit and door exit
signage. Legible and understandable
operating instructions for each

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

71801

removable panel or removable window
must also be provided on each side of
the door. For example, in the case of a
vestibule door, these instructions need
to be provided on both the vestibule
side and the seating area side of the
door. Marking and instruction
requirements also apply to bi-parting
door manual override devices and
retention mechanisms.
Paragraph (f)(6) contains requirements
for testing a representative sample of
door removable panels and windows,
manual override devices, and door
retention mechanisms to determine that
they operate as intended. In particular,
FRA believes that it is important to
inspect, maintain, and repair manual
vestibule and other interior passageway
door override devices and door
retention mechanisms to ensure that
they function properly in the event of an
emergency. FRA believes that testing of
a representative sample of manual
override devices and door retention
mechanisms no less frequently than
once every 184 days to verify that they
are operating properly is reasonable and
appropriate for safety. This frequency is
consistent with existing requirements
contained in § 238.113 for the testing of
emergency window exits. However,
because emergency window exits are
subject to different service conditions
than removable panels and removable
windows located in vestibule doors and
other interior passageway doors,
including bi-parting doors, separate
tests are needed. Following each test,
defective systems must be repaired as
appropriate in accordance with the
requirements of this part.
Section 238.113 Emergency Window
Exits
Requirements in parts 223 and 239 for
the marking of emergency exits, as well
as in part 238 for the marking of
emergency communications
transmission points, have specified 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.
However, § 238.113 has not specified
minimum requirements for the initial
levels of brightness of the markings (i.e.,
luminance levels) or how long the
markings must maintain the same or
reduced levels of brightness.
Accordingly, paragraph (d) of this
section is amended to require markings,
as well as instructions, for emergency

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

29NOR2

71802

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

window exits to comply with the APTA
emergency signage standard that FRA is
incorporating by reference in § 238.125.
The inspection requirement related to
marking of emergency window exits
formerly contained in § 239.107(b) is
also added as paragraph (e) of this
section. By helping to ensure that the
markings appear conspicuous and
legible, FRA believes that these changes
enhance the capability and benefit of
the markings in guiding passenger train
occupants to locate and operate
emergency window exits.
Specifically, as further discussed
below, in § 238.125 FRA is
incorporating by reference APTA
Standard PR–PS–S–002–98 (previously
SS–PS–002–98), Rev. 3, ‘‘Standard for
Emergency Signage for Egress/Access of
Passenger Rail Equipment.’’ The APTA
standard establishes specific criteria for
luminescent material, including how
bright the material must be and for how
long. The APTA standard also contains
specific design requirements to facilitate
recognition and reliability, including
letter size and color contrast
requirements as well as requirements for
door locator signs to facilitate
identification of door locations that may
not be easily seen by seated passengers.
As noted above, FRA is moving the
emergency window exit testing
requirements formerly contained in
§ 239.107(b) to a new paragraph (e) in
this section. Generally, 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
intended for egress be rendered
inoperable or inaccessible. Emergency
windows also provide an additional
means of egress in life-threatening
situations requiring very rapid exit,
such as an on-board fire or submergence
of the car in a body of water. The
requirement to periodically test a
representative sample of emergency
window exits arose from EO 20 and is
being carried forward from § 239.107
into this new paragraph.
Section 238.114 Rescue Access
Windows
This section includes requirements
for the location and retroreflective
marking of rescue access windows.
Paragraph (d) of this section continues
to require that retroreflective material be
used to mark rescue access windows.
However, as further discussed below, in
§ 238.125 FRA is incorporating by
reference APTA Standard PR–PS–S–
002–98 (previously SS–PS–002–98),
Rev. 3, ‘‘Standard for Emergency

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

Signage for Egress/Access of Passenger
Rail Equipment.’’ FRA believes that
adopting the APTA standard enhances
the effectiveness of the retroreflectivity
requirements in identifying rescue
access locations for emergency
responders, taking into consideration
the environment in which passenger
trains operate. This section was
originally 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 provision
is to provide a means for emergency
responders to quickly identify and
effectively operate rescue access
windows in order to gain access directly
into every passenger compartment on
every level of a passenger car, in the
event that a stairway or interior door is
compromised and any exterior doors are
blocked.
The same APTA emergency signage
standard discussed previously related to
emergency window exit marking
contains detailed criteria for marking
rescue access windows, including the
use of certain retroreflective material.
FRA notes that, consistent with this
standard, in the 2008 PTES final rule it
added the definition of ‘‘retroreflective
material’’ for marking doors, windows,
and roof locations intended for rescue
access. See § 238.5; 73 FR 6370, 6380.
As used in this rule, ‘‘retroreflective
material’’ means a material that is
capable of reflecting light rays back to
the light source and that conforms to the
specifications for Type I Sheeting, as
specified in ASTM International’s
(ASTM) Standard D 4956–07, ‘‘Standard
Specification for Retroreflective
Sheeting for Traffic Control.’’ ASTM
International defines Type I Sheeting as
‘‘medium-intensity retroreflective
sheeting referred to as ‘engineering
grade’ and typically enclosed lens glassbead sheeting,’’ and FRA has previously
incorporated the ASTM definition by
reference. FRA is now incorporating by
reference the APTA emergency signage
standard, and notes that the standard
also requires that the retroreflective
material be tested according to ASTM’s
Standard E 810–03, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Coefficient of Retroreflective
Sheeting Utilizing the Coplanar
Geometry.’’ Further, the APTA standard
provides that, in order to maintain the
optimum retroreflective properties of
the base material, any retroreflective
markings that have ink or pigment
applied shall utilize a translucent or

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

semi-translucent ink, as per the
manufacturer’s instructions. In addition,
a clear coat that protects against ultraviolet light may be added to prevent
fading. Finally, retroreflectivity
requirements shall be met if protective
coatings or other materials for the
enhancement of sign durability are
used. Please see section 6 of the APTA
emergency signage standard for design
requirements addressing rescue access
information for emergency responders.
Section 238.115 Emergency Lighting
This section formerly contained
requirements for emergency lighting in
passenger cars only ordered on or after
September 8, 2000, or placed in service
for the first time on or after September
9, 2002. These requirements continue to
apply to this equipment. Yet, to enhance
the performance of emergency lighting
in passenger cars, FRA is amending this
section to expand its application to all
passenger cars, both new and existing,
and is also modifying the emergency
lighting requirements. Specifically, this
section now incorporates by reference
APTA Standard PR–E–S–013–99
(previously SS–E–013–99), Rev. 1,
‘‘Standard for Emergency Lighting
Design for Passenger Cars.’’ All
passenger cars must comply with this
standard by January 1, 2017, or an
alternative standard providing at least
an equivalent level of safety if approved
by FRA pursuant to § 238.21. Moreover,
in advance of the January 1, 2017
compliance deadline, this section
requires that by December 31, 2015,
each railroad must ensure that 70% of
its passenger cars comply. Incorporating
and phasing-in this APTA emergency
lighting standard for all passenger cars
not only enhances the standards for new
passenger cars but also establishes
standards for passenger cars both
ordered before September 8, 2000, and
placed in service before September 9,
2002, i.e., passenger cars not previously
subject to this section.
This section continues to require
minimum emergency illumination
levels at doors, aisles, and passageways.
In addition to these locations, the APTA
emergency lighting standard requires
minimum levels of emergency
illumination for stairways, crew areas of
multiple-unit (MU) locomotives and cab
cars, toilets, and other areas.
This section has required a ‘‘back-up
power system’’ capable of operating in
all equipment orientations within 45
degrees of vertical, as well as after the
initial shock of certain collision or
derailment scenarios. The car’s main
battery has also been considered an
acceptable ‘‘back-up power system.’’
However, a traditional main battery is

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

29NOR2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
limited in its ability to provide power in
equipment orientations greater than 45
degrees of vertical. Additionally,
because it is common for such batteries
to be at least partially located below the
car body, it would not be unusual for
the main car battery to be damaged in
the event of a derailment, which would
render the emergency lighting system
inoperable, as occurred in the MARC
train cab car that was involved in the
1996 accident in Silver Spring, MD.
Accordingly, for equipment ordered on
or after April 7, 2008, or first placed in
service on or after January 1, 2012, the
APTA emergency lighting standard
requires an independent power source
to be located within the car body and
placed no more than a half-car length
away from the fixture it powers in the
event the main car battery is not able to
power the system. This system must
also be capable of operating in all
equipment orientations. The APTA
emergency lighting standard contains
additional design and performance
criteria for batteries that are used as
independent power sources. It also
contains rigorous requirements for
periodic testing of batteries used as
independent power sources.
FRA notes that § 238.307 requires
railroads to perform periodic
mechanical inspections of passenger
equipment, including passenger cars.
Specifically, that section requires the
inspection of interior and exterior
mechanical components not less
frequently than every 184 days. As part
of this inspection, railroads have been
required to verify that all emergency
lighting systems are in place and
operational as specified in this
§ 238.115. The APTA emergency
lighting standard contains more detailed
periodic inspection and maintenance
requirements, including the conduct of
periodic tests to confirm the minimum
illumination levels and duration no less
frequently than every eight years on a
representative sample of cars or areas.
However, if the first two cars or areas
tested exceed the minimum
illumination levels by a factor of 4 or
greater, no further testing is required of
that particular representative sample
until the next required periodic test
eight years later, according to the APTA
emergency lighting standard.
Importantly, the APTA standard also
requires railroads to replace each sealed
battery that is used as an independent
power source for an emergency light
circuit at two-year intervals, unless the
lighting circuit can be manually turned
off or is equipped with controllers that
automatically prevent unnecessary
battery discharge, or other measures are

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

taken to prevent routine discharge (e.g.,
maintaining equipment on wayside
power or head-end power). If so
equipped, the APTA standard requires
that the battery-replacement interval be
according to the manufacturer’s
specifications, or if not specified, at
least every five years. For emergency
lighting systems that use capacitors as
independent power sources, a
functional test of the devices shall be
conducted as part of the periodic
inspection. Due to their long life, the
two-year replacement requirement does
not apply to capacitor-based energy
storage devices. However, a functional
test of the devices shall be conducted as
part of the periodic inspection. The
APTA standard also requires initial
verification tests on at least one
representative car or area of a car for
each emergency lighting system layout
to ensure compliance with the
minimum duration and illumination
levels.
FRA has reviewed the APTA
emergency lighting standard it is
incorporating by reference and has
determined that the standard contains
the proper specifications for emergency
lighting in passenger cars. FRA believes
that compliance with the APTA
standard requirements identified in this
section will help ensure effective
operation of emergency lighting in new
passenger cars. Establishment of
requirements for older, existing
equipment will help ensure emergency
lighting systems are capable of
providing sufficient illumination for
occupants to retain situational
awareness in the event normal lighting
is not available, particularly in the event
of an emergency situation. FRA expects
that almost all affected railroads are
already in compliance with the APTA
standard requirements. Some railroads,
including railroads that are not
members of APTA, are not currently in
compliance with the APTA standard
requirements. To allow railroads that
are not currently in compliance with the
APTA standard requirements enough
time to comply with the requirements,
FRA is phasing in the requirements of
this section, as discussed above.
Section 238.121 Emergency
Communications
This section contains requirements for
PA and intercom systems so that
passengers and train crewmembers may
communicate with each other in an
emergency.
FRA is clarifying the requirements in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, which
applies to new Tier I and all Tier II
passenger cars. FRA is inserting the
word ‘‘after’’ directly before the date

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

71803

‘‘April 1, 2010.’’ The previous omission
of the word ‘‘after’’ in this paragraph
was a typographical error, which was
evident from the discussion of this
provision in the 2008 PTES final rule.
See 73 FR 6389. Insertion of ‘‘after’’ in
the rule text makes clear that the
requirements of this paragraph (a)(2)
apply to each Tier I passenger car
ordered on or after April 1, 2008, or
placed in service for the first time on or
after April 1, 2010—not only on April
1, 2010, as well as to all Tier II
passenger cars. This clarification does
not result in substantive change to the
requirements contained in this section.
In addition, FRA is amending
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, which
contains requirements for marking the
location of each intercom intended for
passenger use and providing operating
instructions. Specifically, prior to
January 28, 2016, this paragraph
continues to 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. Paragraph
(b)(2)(i). A new provision, paragraph
(b)(2)(ii), now provides that on or after
January 28, 2016, each intercom
intended for passenger use shall be
marked in accordance with section 5.4.2
of the APTA emergency signage
standard. Notably, the APTA standard
for emergency signage incorporated into
this rule includes specific requirements
for the use of luminescent marking
materials, thereby enhancing the former
requirements in this paragraph for
luminescent material at intercom
locations. Legible and understandable
operating instructions shall also
continue to be posted at or near each
such intercom to facilitate passenger
use.
FRA believes that the compliance
dates in paragraph (b)(2) are consistent
with the Task Force’s intent to allow for
sufficient implementation time to
transition to the newer requirements.
Accordingly, photoluminescent
markings that were installed in
accordance with the 2008 PTES final
rule continue to remain in compliance
for the first two years following the
effective date of this rule, as provided in
paragraph (b)(2)(i). The requirements in
paragraph (b)(2)(ii) then become
applicable to both Tier I and Tier II
passenger equipment two years from the
effective date of this final rule.
Paragraph (c) of this section continues
to require that PA and intercom systems
on all new Tier I passenger rail cars, as
explained below, and all Tier II
passenger cars have back-up power for

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

29NOR2

71804

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

a minimum period of 90 minutes. An
example of a back-up power source is
the main battery in a passenger car. The
only change FRA is making clarifies the
applicability of this paragraph, which
was originally added by the 2008 PTES
final rule without any express
applicability dates. The back-up power
requirements have the same
applicability dates as those for intercom
systems in the PTES final rule. That is,
paragraph (c) applies to each Tier I
passenger rail car ordered on or after
April 1, 2008, or placed in service for
the first time on or after April 1, 2010,
and to all Tier II passenger cars. While
FRA believes that the application of
paragraph (c) is understood from a
reading of this section as a whole,
adding these dates removes any
confusion that may arise.
Section 238.123 Emergency Roof
Access
This section contains emergency roof
access requirements for Tier I and Tier
II passenger cars ordered on or after
April 1, 2009, or placed in service for
the first time on or after April 1, 2011.
Requirements for Tier II power cars and
existing Tier II passenger cars are found
in § 238.441.
Paragraph (e) of this section contains
specific requirements for marking, and
providing instructions for, emergency
roof access locations. This rule amends
paragraph (e) to reference the APTA
emergency signage standard in new
§ 238.125 for marking emergency roof
access locations and providing
instructions for their use. Paragraph (e)
of this section formerly required that
each emergency roof access location be
conspicuously marked with
retroreflective material as defined in
§ 238.5 and be of contrasting color, and
that legible and understandable
instructions be provided near each
emergency roof access location. Section
6 of the APTA emergency signage
standard contains design requirements
for rescue access information for
emergency responders, and section 6.1.3
of the standard specifically addresses
emergency roof access locations. The
APTA standard is more comprehensive
than the former requirements in
paragraph (e) of this section.
The use of retroreflective material is
intended to enable emergency
responders to quickly identify
emergency roof access locations by
shining a light directly onto the car roof,
and the instructions are intended to
promote the proper use of the
emergency roof access feature by
emergency responders. To maximize the
potential use of the required
retroreflective material, this paragraph

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

(e) now references the requirements of
§ 238.125, which incorporates by
reference APTA’s emergency signage
standard for retroreflective material.
Please see the discussion in § 238.114 of
retroreflective material requirements in
the APTA emergency signage standard.
Overall, FRA believes that compliance
with the APTA emergency signage
standard will help ensure that the
retroreflective material markings for
emergency roof access are conspicuous
and that the instructions are legible,
thereby facilitating emergency
responder access to passenger cars.
Section 238.125 Markings and
Instructions for Emergency Egress and
Rescue Access
To enhance the requirements for
markings and instructions for passenger
car emergency egress and rescue access,
FRA is adding a new section that
incorporates by reference APTA
Standard PR–PS–S–002–98 (previously
SS–PS–002–98), Rev. 3, ‘‘Standard for
Emergency Signage for Egress/Access of
Passenger Rail Equipment,’’ October
2007. This new section also permits use
of an alternative standard providing at
least an equivalent level of safety if
approved by FRA pursuant to § 238.21.
FRA notes that it intends the term
‘‘markings’’ to encompass the term
‘‘emergency signage,’’ as an emergency
sign is a type of marking.
Generally, the APTA emergency
signage standard provides that each
passenger rail car have interior
emergency signage to assist passengers
and train crewmembers in locating and
operating emergency exits in order to
safely evacuate as necessary from the
rail car or train during an emergency
situation. The APTA standard also
addresses exterior emergency signage to
assist emergency responders in locating
and operating features and systems to
access the rail equipment.
FRA and passenger railroads
recognize that, in the majority of
emergency situations, the safest place
for passengers and crewmembers is
typically on the train. Should
evacuation from a particular car be
required, the safest course of action for
passengers and crew is normally to
move into an adjacent car. Staying on
the train avoids or minimizes the
hazards inherent in evacuating
passengers onto the railroad right-ofway. The APTA emergency signage
standard was designed to achieve the
desired goal of facilitating passenger
and crew egress from potentially lifethreatening situations in passenger rail
cars, as well as offer flexibility in
application.

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Individual railroads have the
responsibility to design, install, and
maintain an emergency signage system
that is compatible with their internal
safety policies for emergency evacuation
and rescue access, while complying
with the performance criteria specified
in the APTA emergency signage
standard. The APTA standard is
intended to increase the overall
effectiveness of the emergency signage
by specifying requirements related to
signage that include: recognition,
design, location, size, color and
contrast, and materials. Incorporation of
the more detailed APTA standard’s
requirements helps ensure that
emergency exits are more easily
identified and operated by passengers
and train crewmembers to evacuate a
passenger car during an emergency and
also that rescue access systems are more
easily identified and used by emergency
responders.
As noted above, § 238.307 requires
railroads to perform periodic
mechanical inspections of passenger
equipment, including passenger cars.
The periodic mechanical inspection
requires the inspection of interior and
exterior mechanical components not
less frequently than every 184 days. As
part of this inspection, railroads have
been required to verify that all safetyrelated signage is in place and legible.
See §§ 238.305(c)(7) and 238.307(c)(12).
The APTA emergency signage standard
specifies more detailed periodic
inspection and maintenance related to
emergency egress and rescue access
signage. Notably, as with the APTA
LLEEPM standard, discussed below, the
APTA emergency signage standard
provides that railroads verify that all
emergency signage system components
function as intended. In particular,
section 10.2.1.2 of the APTA emergency
signage standard addresses
photoluminescent (including HPPL)
systems in passenger rail cars and
provides that passenger railroads:
• Conduct tests and inspections in
conformance with APTA standard PR–
IM–S–005–98 (previously SS–I&M–005–
98), Rev. 2, ‘‘Standard for Passenger
Compartment Periodic Inspection and
Maintenance,’’ September 2003, a copy
of which has been placed in the public
docket for this rulemaking;
• Conduct periodic tests and
inspections to verify that all emergency
signage system components, including
power sources, function as intended;
and
• Conduct periodic illuminance tests
to confirm that photoluminescent
components receive adequate charging
light no less frequently than once every
8 years, with the first test conducted no

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

29NOR2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

later than 8 years after a car has been
placed in service for the first time, for
only the following components:
1. HPPL signs/markings placed in
areas designed or maintained with
normal light levels of less than 5 foot
candles; and
1. Grandfathered PL materials, where
the sign/marking is placed in an area
designed or maintained with normal
light levels of less than 10 foot candles.
If all of the illuminance levels in the
first two randomly-selected
representative sample cars/areas exceed
the minimum required to charge the
photoluminescent components set forth
in this standard by at least a factor of 2,
no further testing is required for the
cars/areas represented by the sample
car/area tested for the periodic
inspection cycle.
FRA has reviewed the APTA
emergency signage standard it is
incorporating by reference and has
determined that the standard contains
appropriate specifications for
emergency signage and markings for
egress and access so that passenger car
occupants may identify and operate
emergency exits and emergency
responders may identify and use rescue
access features. FRA believes that
compliance with the APTA standard
identified in this section ensures
effective use of signage and markings for
emergency egress and rescue access.
FRA expects that almost all affected
railroads are already in compliance with
the APTA emergency signage standard,
while some railroads, including
railroads that are not members of APTA,
are not currently in compliance. To
allow railroads that are not currently in
compliance with the APTA standard
sufficient time to get into compliance,
this section is not applicable until one
year from the effective date of this final
rule. Consequently, to ensure continued
application of FRA’s existing signage
and marking requirements until this
section is applicable, in each separate
section in which this section is
referenced applicability dates have been
inserted that conform with the
applicability date for this section. FRA’s
existing signage and marking
requirements continue to apply in this
interim period.
Section 238.127 Low-Location
Emergency Exit Path Marking
To facilitate passenger car evacuation,
particularly under conditions of limited
visibility, FRA is adding this new
section that incorporates by reference
APTA’s LLEEPM standard: PR–PS–S–
004–99 (previously SS–PS–004–99),
Rev. 2, ‘‘Standard for Low-Location Exit
Path Marking,’’ October 2007. This

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

section also permits the use of an
alternative standard providing at least
an equivalent level of safety, if approved
by FRA pursuant to § 238.21.
Generally, the APTA LLEEPM
standard was developed to establish
minimum requirements for LLEEPM in
both existing and new passenger cars to
provide visual guidance for passengers
and train crewmembers to identify,
reach, and operate primary exits during
conditions of limited visibility when the
emergency lighting system has failed or
when smoke conditions obscure
overhead emergency lighting. The
APTA standard requires that each
passenger rail car have an LLEEPM
system, visible in the area from the floor
to a horizontal plane 4 feet (1.22 m)
above the aisle of the rail car, to provide
directional guidance to passengers to
exit an affected car to the adjacent car
(or, at the option of the railroad, exit off
the train). The LLEEPM system, by
virtue of its location in or near the rail
car floor, is intended to assist
passengers and train crewmembers in
identifying the path to exit a rail car in
an emergency under conditions of
darkness and especially smoke.
The requirement for an LLEEPM
system is also intended to complement
the emergency signage that has been
required by FRA regulation and thereby
increase the overall effectiveness of
such signage systems to enable
passengers and train crewmembers to
locate, reach, and operate emergency
exits under a greater range of emergency
situations, particularly life-threatening
circumstances involving smoke. Much
like the APTA emergency signage
standard, the APTA LLEEPM standard
specifies requirements related to the
selection of the physical characteristics,
informational content, and placement of
LLEEPM systems for installation within
passenger rail cars to provide consistent
identification of both primary and,
under certain conditions, secondary
exits, as well as the path(s) to follow to
reach such exits.
As noted above, § 238.307 requires
railroads to perform periodic
mechanical inspections of passenger
equipment, including passenger cars.
The periodic mechanical inspection
requires the inspection of interior and
exterior mechanical components not
less frequently than every 184 days. As
part of this inspection, railroads have
been required to verify that all vestibule
steps are illuminated. See
§ 238.305(c)(9). The APTA LLEEPM
standard specifies additional periodic
inspection and maintenance related to
LLEEPM signage and markings. Notably,
section 9.2 of the APTA LLEEPM
standard requires railroads to conduct

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

71805

periodic inspections and tests to verify
that all LLEEPM system components,
including power sources, function as
intended. See section 9.2. Like the
APTA emergency signage standard, the
LLEEPM standard also requires
railroads to test a representative sample
of passenger rail cars or areas using a
statistically-valid, documented
sampling method.
FRA has reviewed the APTA LLEEPM
standard it is incorporating in this rule
and has determined that the standard
contains appropriate specifications for
LLEEPM systems. FRA believes that
compliance with the APTA standard
identified in this section helps ensure
that passenger car occupants are able to
identify, reach, and operate primary
egress points during an emergency.
FRA expects that almost all affected
railroads are already in compliance with
the APTA LLEEPM standard, while
some railroads, including railroads that
are not members of APTA, are not
currently in compliance. To allow
railroads that are not currently in
compliance with the APTA standard
sufficient time to get into compliance,
this section is not applicable until one
year from the effective date of this final
rule.
Section 238.235 Doors
FRA has removed § 238.235 and
moved the requirements of this section
to new § 238.112, for user convenience
and to consolidate the requirements of
this part for conciseness. Section
238.235 principally contained
requirements for exterior side doors in
passenger cars and features capable of
opening the doors to exit or access the
cars in an emergency situation. The
safety requirements are unchanged.
Section 238.112 consolidates all door
emergency egress and rescue access
system requirements into one section
from §§ 238.235, 238.439, and 239.107
that apply, as specified, to all passenger
cars. Because all of the requirements in
§ 238.235 have been moved to new
§ 238.112, no requirements remain in
§ 238.235, and it is reserved for future
use.
Section 238.303 Exterior Calendar Day
Mechanical Inspection of Passenger
Equipment
This section contains the
requirements related to the performance
of exterior mechanical inspections of
each passenger car (i.e., passenger
coach, MU locomotive, and cab car) and
each unpowered vehicle used in a
passenger train each calendar day that
the equipment is placed in service. FRA
is revising paragraph (e)(18) of this
section only to update the cross

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

29NOR2

71806

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

reference to the marking requirements
for door emergency egress and rescue
access systems from former § 239.107(a)
to new § 238.112. The final rule
consolidates door emergency egress and
rescue access system requirements into
new § 238.112, as discussed above. As
part of this consolidation, requirements
to mark these systems have been moved
from former § 239.107(a) to new
§ 238.112, which in turn references new
§ 238.125, discussed above. Paragraph
(e)(18) has been updated accordingly as
a conforming change; no other change is
intended.
Section 238.305 Interior Calendar Day
Mechanical Inspection of Passenger Cars
This section contains the
requirements related to the performance
of interior mechanical inspections of
passenger cars each calendar day that
the cars are placed in service. FRA is
clarifying paragraph (a) of this section;
adding new paragraphs (c)(11) and (13)
to address the inspection of LLEEPM
systems, as well as the inspection of
removable panels and windows in
vestibule doors and certain other
interior passageway doors; and
amending paragraph (d) to reference
new paragraph (c)(11).
Paragraph (a) sets forth the general
requirement for passenger car interior
calendar day mechanical inspections
and formerly referenced paragraph (d) of
this section as providing an exception to
the general requirement for longdistance intercity passenger trains that
have been delayed en route. This crossreference to paragraph (d) was in error
and was caused by a previous redesignation of the original paragraph (d)
that should have been updated in
paragraph (a). See 65 FR 41308. As
previously re-designated, paragraph (e)
of this section contains the exception.
Accordingly, FRA is correcting the
reference in paragraph (a) from
paragraph (d) to paragraph (e).
Paragraph (c) of this section identifies
the various components that require
visual inspection as part of the interior
calendar day mechanical inspection.
Inspection, testing, and maintenance of
emergency systems helps ensure that
these systems are either available for use
in the event of an emergency, or that the
train crew is aware that they are not
available. In turn, this information helps
provide for more effective and safe
resolution of emergency situations.
FRA is adding two new paragraphs to
paragraph (c). First, paragraph (c)(11) is
added to require the daily inspection of
LLEEPM systems to ensure that they are
in place and conspicuous. LLEEPM
systems are required in new § 238.127.
Nonetheless, FRA has amended

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

paragraph (d) of this section to allow
flexibility for safely operating a
passenger car in service with a
noncompliant LLEEPM system found
during the car’s interior calendar day
mechanical inspection until the next
required daily inspection, so as not to
unduly disrupt normal passenger
operations.
Paragraph (c)(13) is also added to
ensure that removable panels and
windows in vestibule doors and other
interior doors used for passage through
a passenger car are properly in place
and secured, based on a visual
inspection performed during the interior
calendar day mechanical inspection.
Paragraph (c)(13) affords special
flexibility for handling noncompliant
equipment, provided that the railroad
has developed and follows written
procedures for mitigating the hazard(s)
caused by the noncomplying condition
and the train crew is given written
notification of the defect. Thus, a
passenger car with an inoperative or
nonfunctioning removable panel or
removable window in a vestibule door
or other interior passageway door is
permitted to remain in passenger service
after the noncompliant condition is
discovered 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. At that time, the
removable panel or removable window
in the door must be repaired, or the car
must be removed from service.
Section 238.307 Periodic Mechanical
Inspection of Passenger Cars and
Unpowered Vehicles Used in Passenger
Trains
This section contains the
requirements related to the performance
of periodic mechanical inspections of
all passenger cars and all unpowered
vehicles used in a passenger train.
Paragraph (c) of this section specifically
identifies interior and exterior
mechanical components that are
required to be inspected not less
frequently than every 184 days. FRA is
modifying paragraph (c)(4) of this
section to add requirements for
inspecting and testing a representative
sample of door removable panels and
windows, manual override devices, and
retention mechanisms, in accordance
with § 238.112. (Please note that
existing paragraph (d)(1) of this section
contains a separate requirement to

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

inspect manual door releases not less
frequently than every 368 days, to
determine that all manual door releases
operate as intended.) FRA is also
relocating the requirement for
inspecting and repairing emergency
window exits from § 239.107 to this
paragraph. In this regard, FRA continues
to require that records of emergency
window exit inspection, testing, and
maintenance be retained for two
calendar years after the end of the
calendar year to which they relate, as
formerly required by § 239.107(c). In
particular, FRA is concerned that
sufficient records be kept of periodic
emergency window exit testing, which
FRA is moving from § 239.107(b) to
§ 238.113(e). Further, FRA is modifying
paragraph (c)(5) of this section to add
requirements for the inspection, testing,
and maintenance of LLEEPM systems,
as required by § 238.127, to ensure that
they are operational.
The inspection, testing, and
maintenance of emergency systems help
to ensure that these systems are
available for use in the event of an
emergency. This allows for more
effective and safe resolutions of
emergency situations.
Section 238.311 Single Car Test
In the NPRM, FRA had proposed to
amend this section to update the name
of APTA, ‘‘American Public
Transportation Association,’’ and its
address, 1666 K Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20006. However, FRA
has decided not to amend this section
at this time. FRA’s changes would have
been mere technical corrections.
Moreover, this section does not address
passenger train emergency systems,
which are the focus of this rulemaking,
but rather the testing of passenger brake
equipment. Any revision to this section
will be addressed in a separate
rulemaking proceeding.
Section 238.439 Doors
This section has contained the
requirements for door safety systems for
Tier II passenger cars. As noted, FRA is
consolidating the requirements of this
section applicable to both Tier I and
Tier II passenger cars, together with
those in its former Tier I counterpart
(former § 238.235), and restating them in
a single, new section: § 238.112. The
requirements that are unique to Tier II
passenger equipment remain in this
section.
Specifically, FRA is removing former
paragraphs (a), (b), (e), and (g) of this
section, which are now addressed by the
requirements of new § 238.112. The
remaining paragraphs, former
paragraphs (c), (d), and (f) of this

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

29NOR2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

section, are re-designated as paragraphs
(a) through (c), respectively. Former
paragraphs (c) and (d) have no
counterpart in the Tier I equipment
requirements and remain in this section.
Former paragraph (f), re-designated as
paragraph (c), is revised to limit its
applicability effectively to existing Tier
II passenger cars.
Paragraph (a) of this section, formerly
paragraph (c), now requires the status of
powered, exterior side doors to be
displayed to the crew in the operating
cab and, if door interlocks are used, the
sensors to detect train motion must
nominally be set to operate at not more
than 3 mph. Paragraph (b) of this
section, formerly paragraph (d), requires
that powered, exterior side doors be
connected to an emergency back-up
power system. Both paragraphs are
otherwise unchanged.
Paragraph (c) of this section, formerly
paragraph (f), requires passenger
compartment end doors to be equipped
with a kick-out panel, pop-out window,
or other similar means of egress in the
event the doors will not open, or be so
designed as to pose a negligible
probability of becoming inoperable in
the event of car body distortion
following a collision or derailment. This
paragraph does not apply to such doors
providing access to the exterior of a
trainset, however, as in the case of an
end door in the last car of a train. As
revised, this paragraph’s applicability is
limited to Tier II passenger cars both
ordered prior to the effective of this
final rule and placed in service within
four years after the effective date of this
final rule. To date, no kick-out panel,
pop-out window, or other similar means
of emergency egress has been placed in
a Tier II passenger car, on the basis that
the end compartment doors, as
designed, pose a negligible probability
of failure due to car body distortion
following a collision or derailment. All
new Tier II passenger cars are now
subject to the more comprehensive
requirement in new § 238.112 related to
equipping vestibule doors and other
interior doors intended for passage
through a passenger car with a
removable panel or removable window.
Section 238.441 Emergency Roof
Access
This section contains emergency roof
access requirements for Tier II passenger
cars and Tier II power cars. Please see
the 2008 PTES final rule for a full
discussion of the requirements of this
section. 73 FR 6395–6396.
Specifically, paragraph (a) of this
section contains requirements for
marking, and providing instructions for,
emergency roof access locations in Tier

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

II passenger cars and Tier II power cars
ordered prior to April 1, 2009, and
placed in service prior to April 1, 2011.
This rule amends paragraph (a) to
reference the APTA emergency signage
standard in new § 238.125 for marking
emergency roof access locations and
providing instructions for their use.
Please see § 238.125 for a discussion of
the APTA emergency signage standard
relating to the marking of emergency
roof access locations. Each emergency
roof access location continues to be
required to be conspicuously marked
with retroreflective material of
contrasting color, and legible and
understandable instructions must
continue to be provided near the
emergency roof access location. To
enhance the potential use of the
required retroreflective material, this
paragraph now references the
requirements of § 238.125, which
incorporates by reference APTA’s
emergency signage standard for
retroreflective material. FRA believes
that compliance with the APTA
standard identified in § 238.125 will
ensure that retroreflective material
markings for emergency roof access are
conspicuous and that the instructions
are legible, thereby facilitating
emergency responder access to
passenger cars.
Paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section
apply, respectively, to Tier II passenger
cars and Tier II power cars ordered on
or after April 1, 2009, or placed in
service for the first time on or after April
1, 2011. Paragraph (b) references the
requirements in § 238.123 in full, and
paragraph (c) references the marking
and instruction requirements in
§ 238.123. Accordingly, the marking and
instruction requirements in § 238.125
apply to the Tier II passenger equipment
covered by paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section, by the reference to § 238.125
that is now provided in § 238.123.
Appendix A to Part 238—Schedule of
Civil Penalties
This appendix contains a schedule of
civil penalties for use 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, FRA
invited comment on the penalty
schedule; however, no comments were
received.
Accordingly, FRA is amending the
penalty schedule to reflect the addition
of the following sections to this part
238: § 238.112, Door emergency egress
and rescue access systems; § 238.125,
Marking and instructions for emergency
egress and rescue access; and § 238.127,

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

71807

Low-location emergency exit path
marking. FRA is also removing and
reserving the entry for § 238.235, whose
requirements have been integrated into
§ 238.112.
B. Amendments to Part 239, Subpart B
Section 239.105
Critique

Debriefing and

FRA is clarifying the debriefing and
critique requirements in this section by
expressly requiring train crew
participation in debriefing and critique
sessions. This section has required a
debriefing and critique session after
each passenger train emergency
situation or full-scale simulation to
evaluate the effectiveness of the
railroad’s emergency preparedness plan.
The railroad is then required to improve
or amend its plan, or both, as
appropriate, in accordance with the
information developed. Employees
directly involved in the emergency
situation or full-scale simulation have
valuable first-hand knowledge of the
event. Participation by these employees
in the debriefing and critique session is
necessary to evaluate the effectiveness
of the emergency preparedness plan,
and FRA is clarifying this requirement
to reflect this necessary participation.
The rule now specifies that, to the
extent practicable, all on-board
personnel, control center personnel, and
any other employees involved in the
emergency situation or full-scale
simulation shall participate in the
debriefing and critique session. The rule
also makes clear the flexibility that
exists for employees to participate in
these sessions by one or more of the
following means: in person; offsite via
teleconference; or in writing, by a
statement responding to questions
provided prior to the session, and by
responding to any follow-up questions.
FRA believes that these clarifications
will help to ensure that the debriefing
and critique sessions provide
meaningful information for railroads to
use in furthering their emergency
preparedness planning efforts.
Section 239.107

Emergency Exits

FRA is removing § 239.107 and
moving the requirements formerly
contained in this section into §§ 238.112
and 238.307. Requirements formerly
contained in § 239.107 related to doors
have been moved to § 238.112.
Requirements formerly contained in
§ 239.107 and related to windows have
been moved to § 238.307. FRA believes
that the consolidation of these
requirements makes the regulation more
user-friendly, which helps facilitate
compliance with its requirements. FRA

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

29NOR2

71808

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

has not made substantive changes to the
requirements formerly contained in this
section in moving them to these other
sections. Of course, FRA notes that it
has amended the requirements for
emergency exits as discussed in this
rule.
Appendix A to Part 239—Schedule of
Civil Penalties
This appendix contains a schedule of
civil penalties for use 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, FRA
invited comment on the penalty
schedule; however, no comments were
received.
Accordingly, FRA has revised the
schedule of civil penalties in issuing
this rule to reflect revisions made to this
part 239. Specifically, FRA is removing
and reserving the entry for § 239.107,
whose requirements have been
integrated into new § 238.112 and into
§ 238.307.
VI. Regulatory Impact and Notices

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563,
and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
This final rule has been evaluated in
accordance with existing policies and
procedures and determined to be nonsignificant under both Executive Order
12866 and 13563 and DOT policies and
procedures. See 44 FR 11034; February
26, 1979. FRA has prepared and placed
in the docket a Regulatory Evaluation
addressing the economic impact of this
final rule. As part of the Regulatory
Evaluation, FRA has assessed
quantitative estimates of the cost
streams expected to result from the
implementation of this rule. For the 20year period analyzed, the estimated
quantified costs imposed on industry
total $22.7 million with a present value
(PV, 7 percent) of $13.1 million. In
particular, FRA considered the industry
costs associated with complying with
the three APTA passenger train
emergency systems standards
incorporated by reference in this rule,
installation of removable panels or
windows in single-panel vestibule doors
of new passenger cars, requirements for
bi-parting vestibule doors, and
inspection, testing, and maintenance of
the emergency systems.
In analyzing the final rule, FRA has
applied updated ‘‘Guidance on the
Economic Value of a Statistical Life in
US Department of Transportation
Analyses,’’ March 2013. This policy
updates the Value of a Statistical Life

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

(VSL) from $6.2 million to $9.1 million
and revises guidance used to compute
benefits based on injury and fatality
avoidance in each year of the analysis
based on forecasts from the
Congressional Budget Office of a 1.07
percent annual growth rate in median
real wages over the next 30 years (2013–
2043). FRA also adjusted wage-based
labor costs in each year of the analysis
accordingly. Real wages represent the
purchasing power of nominal wages.
Non-wage inputs are not impacted. The
cost and benefit drivers for this analysis
are labor costs and avoided casualties,
both of which in turn depend on wage
rates.
FRA believes that $13.1 million is the
best estimate of regulatory cost. For
more details on the costing of this rule,
please see the Regulatory Evaluation
found in the docket. The requirements
that are expected to impose the largest
burdens relate to emergency lighting,
door/removable panels or windows (or
bi-parting doors), and emergency egress
and rescue access marking and
instructions. The table below presents
the estimated costs associated with the
rule.

20-YEAR COST FOR FINAL RULE
Door Removable Panels or
Windows, and Bi-Parting
Doors .................................
Emergency Lighting ..............
Emergency Egress and Rescue Access Marking and
Instructions ........................
Low-Location Emergency
Exit Path Markings ............
Debriefing and Critique .........
Inspection, Testing, and Recordkeeping (APTA Standards) ..................................
Total ..................................

$4,564,599
1,845,309
4,845,853
1,378,352
N/A
44,750
13,074,863

Future costs are discounted to present
value using a 7 percent discount rate.

As part of the Regulatory Evaluation,
FRA has explained what the likely
benefits for this final rule are, and
provided a break-even analysis. This
rulemaking is expected to improve
railroad safety by promoting the safe
resolution of emergency situations
involving passenger trains, including
the evacuation of passengers and
crewmembers in the event of an
emergency. The primary benefits
include a heightened safety
environment in egress from a passenger
train and rescue access by emergency
response personnel after an accident or
other emergency. This corresponds to a
reduction of casualties resulting from
collisions, derailments, and other
emergency situations. FRA believes the

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

value of the anticipated safety benefits
justify the cost of implementing the
rule.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and
Executive Order 13272
To ensure potential impacts of rules
on small entities are properly
considered, FRA has developed this
final rule in accordance with Executive
Order 13272 (‘‘Proper Consideration of
Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking’’)
and DOT’s procedures and policies to
promote compliance with The
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
requires an agency to review regulations
to assess their impact on small entities.
An agency must prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis (RFA) unless it
determines and certifies that a rule, if
promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This final rule requires each
commuter and intercity passenger
railroad to comply with three APTA
standards, as well as requirements for
installation of removable panels or
windows in single-panel vestibule doors
and other interior passageway doors of
new passenger cars, bi-parting vestibule
doors, and inspection, testing, and
maintenance of these emergency
systems. The APTA standards are: PR–
E–S–013–99 (previously SS–E–013–99),
Rev. 1, Standard for Emergency Lighting
System Design for Passenger Cars; PR–
PS–S–004–99 (previously SS–PS–004–
99), Rev. 2, Standard for Low-Location
Exit Path Marking (LLEPM); and PR–
PS–S–002–98 (previously SS–PS–002–
98), and Rev. 3. Standard for Emergency
Signage for Egress/Access of Passenger
Rail Equipment. Many railroads have
already implemented these APTA
standards in advance of this rulemaking.
The ‘‘universe’’ of the entities to be
considered generally includes only
those small entities that are reasonably
expected to be directly regulated by this
action. This final rule directly affects
intercity passenger railroads and
commuter railroads. It indirectly
impacts manufacturers of passenger
cars, marking related to emergency
egress and rescue access, and lowlocation emergency exit path marking.
‘‘Small entity’’ is defined in 5 U.S.C.
601. Section 601(3) defines a ‘‘small
entity’’ as having the same meaning as
‘‘small business concern’’ under Section
3 of the Small Business Act. This
includes any small business concern
that is independently owned and
operated, and is not dominant in its
field of operation. Section 601(4)
likewise includes within the definition

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

29NOR2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
of ‘‘small entities’’ not-for-profit
enterprises that are independently
owned and operated, and are not
dominant in their field of operation. The
U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA) stipulates in its size standards
that the largest a railroad business firm
that is ‘‘for profit’’ may be and still be
classified as a ‘‘small entity’’ is 1,500
employees for ‘‘Line Haul Operating
Railroads’’ and 500 employees for
‘‘Switching and Terminal
Establishments.’’ Additionally, 5 U.S.C.
601(5) defines as ‘‘small entities’’
governments of cities, counties, towns,
townships, villages, school districts, or
special districts with populations less
than 50,000.
Federal agencies may adopt their own
size standards for small entities in
consultation with SBA and in
conjunction with public comment.
Pursuant to that authority, FRA has
published a final statement of agency
policy that formally establishes ‘‘small
entities’’ or ‘‘small businesses’’ as being
railroads, contractors, and hazardous
materials shippers that meet the revenue
requirements of a Class III railroad as set
forth in 49 CFR 1201.1–1, which is $20
million or less in inflation-adjusted
annual revenues; and commuter
railroads or small governmental
jurisdictions that serve populations of
50,000 or less. See 68 FR 24891, May 9,
2003, codified at Appendix C to 49 CFR,
part 209. The $20 million-limit is based
on the Surface Transportation Board’s
(STB), revenue threshold for a Class III
railroad. Railroad revenue is adjusted
for inflation by applying a revenue
deflator formula in accordance with 49
CFR 1201.1–1. FRA is using this
definition for this rulemaking.
FRA developed the requirements
contained in this final rule in
consultation with an RSAC Working
Group and task force that included
representatives from Amtrak, individual
commuter railroads, individual
passenger car manufacturers, sign
manufacturers and suppliers, and
APTA, which represents the interests of
commuter railroads and passenger car
manufacturers in regulatory matters.
The level of costs incurred by each
organization should generally vary in
proportion to the size of their passenger
car fleet. For instance, railroads with
fewer passenger cars have lower overall
costs associated with implementing
these standards. In the United States,
there are currently 2 intercity passenger
railroads, and 28 commuter railroad
operations. The two intercity passenger

railroads, Amtrak and the Alaska
Railroad, are not considered to be small
entities as Amtrak is a Class I railroad
and the Alaska Railroad is a Class II
railroad. Additionally, the Alaska
Railroad is owned by the State of
Alaska, which has a population in
excess of 50,000.
Most commuter railroads are part of
larger transportation organizations that
receive Federal funds and serve major
metropolitan areas with populations
greater than 50,000. However, two
commuter railroads do not fall in this
category and are considered small
entities. The impact on these two small
railroads is discussed in the following
section.
The first small entity impacted by this
regulation is a commuter train operation
that provides express service to and
from a sporting event approximately
seven times per year. A Class III railroad
owns and operates the 6 bi-level
passenger cars used for this commuter
operation. The impact on this entity
may include upgrades related to
achieving compliance with the 2007
APTA standards for emergency lighting,
emergency signage, and low-location
exit path markings. The costs associated
with completing these upgrades for the
railroad are estimated to range between
$14,482 and $28,694, depending on the
existing level of compliance and could
be spread over 2 to 3 years. Since this
railroad provides service under contract
to a State institution, it may be able to
pass some or all of the compliance cost
on to that institution. FRA published
this analysis in the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) that
accompanied the NPRM and requested
comments on the Analysis but did not
receive any on this estimate. Thus, the
small entity itself is not significantly
impacted.
The second small entity impacted by
this regulation is a commuter railroad
that is owned by a Class III railroad. Out
of its entire fleet of 9 cars, FRA
estimates that 4 cars may need
emergency lighting upgrades to comply
with the new emergency lighting
requirement. The costs associated with
the upgrades of these 4 cars are
estimated to be $18,758, which could be
spread over 2 to 3 years. FRA also
published this estimate in the IRFA that
accompanied the NPRM and requested
comments on the Analysis but did not
receive any on this estimate.
The final rule requires railroads to test
a representative sample of passenger
railcars in accordance with the APTA

2 STB Data Statement No. B–300 for Year 2012
indicates that ‘‘Maintenance of Equipment &

Stores’’ personnel earn, on average, a ‘‘straight time
rate’’ of $27.20 per hour.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

71809

LLEPM standard, using the procedures
in Annex F or another statistically-valid,
documented sampling method. The
estimated cost of inspection/
recordkeeping is $1,500 per car over the
20-year period analyzed. This cost was
included in the total cost for each of the
small entities above. This regulation
only requires that a small percentage of
each fleet be tested. Due to the size of
the fleet of each of these small entities,
it is estimated that only one car per fleet
will need to be tested. The
recordkeeping burden on the railroad
industry is estimated to be 5 additional
minutes per new car introduced to the
fleet. FRA assumed that a ‘‘Maintenance
of Equipment & Stores’’ 2 employee
would prepare the records. Neither of
these railroads is operating newly-built
cars. They both operate cars purchased
from other passenger railroads.
FRA believes that the two small
entities directly impacted will not be
affected significantly. One of the entities
should be able to pass these costs on to
a public entity. The other entity will
likely only need to upgrade the
emergency lighting in four cars, and
FRA does not believe that will have a
significant financial impact on their
operations.
During the public comment period
following publication of the NPRM,
FRA did not receive any comments
discussing the IRFA or Executive Order
13272. FRA certifies that the final rule
will not have any significant economic
impact on the competitive position of
small entities, or on the small entity
segment of the railroad industry as a
whole.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), FRA certifies that
this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Although a
substantial number of small railroads
will be affected by the final rule, none
of these two entities will be significantly
impacted.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this final rule are being
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The sections that
contain both new and current
information collection requirements,
and the estimated time to fulfill each
requirement, are summarized in the
following table:

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

29NOR2

71810

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Respondent
universe

Total annual
responses

Average time
per response

30 railroads .......

45,804 markings/instructions.
30,536 markings

15 minutes ........

11,451 hours.

15 minutes ........

7,634 hours.

15 minutes ........

335 hours.

90 minutes ........

26 hours.

60 minutes, 90
minutes.
120 minutes, 30
minutes.

964 hours.

CFR Section
238.112—Door emergency egress and rescue access systems
(New requirements):
—Conspicuously marking/posting instructions on emergency
egress doors.

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

—Marking/posting instructions on emergency responder access
doors.
—Marking/posting instructions on removable panels/windows in
car vestibule and other interior passageway doors.
—Periodic testing: representative sample—removable panels/
windows/etc.
238.113—Emergency window exits:
—Markings (Current requirement) ................................................

30 railroads .......

30 railroads .......

1,340 panel
markings.
17 tested cars ..

30 railroads ......

662 markings ....

—Periodic testing: representative sample of emergency window
exits on passenger cars (Current requirement).
238.114—Rescue access windows:
—Markings/instructions on each access window (Current requirement).
238.121—Emergency communications: intercom system:
—Posting legible/understandable operating instructions at/near
each intercom (Current requirement).
238.123—Emergency roof access:
—Marking/instructions of each emergency roof access location
(Current requirement).
238.303—Exterior calendar day mechanical inspection of passenger
equipment:
—Replacement markings of rescue access related exterior
markings, signs, instructions (Current requirement).
238.303—Records of non-complying conditions (Current requirement).
238.305—(Current requirements) Interior calendar day inspection of
passenger cars:
—Non-complying end/side doors—written notification to crew of
condition + notice on door.

30 railroads .......

17 tested cars ..

30 railroads ......

1,092 markings

45 minutes ........

819 hours.

30 railroads .......

116 marked
intercoms.

5 minutes ..........

10 hours.

30 railroads ......

232 marked locations.

30 minutes ........

116 hours.

30 railroads ......

150 markings ....

20 minutes ........

50 hours.

30 railroads ......

150 records ......

2 minutes ..........

5 hours.

30 railroads .......

1 minute ...........

9 hours.

—Non-complying public address/intercom systems: written notification to crews.
—Records of public address/intercom system non-complying
conditions.
New requirements:
—Written procedure for mitigating hazards of non-complying
conditions relating to removable panels/windows in vestibule
and other interior passageway doors.
—Written notification to train crew of non-complying condition
relating to panels/windows in vestibule and other interior passageway doors.
238.307—Periodic mechanical inspection of passenger cars:
—Records of the inspection, testing, and maintenance of emergency window exits (Current requirement).

30 railroads ......

260 written notifications +
260 notices.
300 notifications
written.
300 records ......

1 minute ...........

5 hours.

2 minutes ..........

10 hours.

—Emergency roof markings and instructions—replacements
(Current requirement).
238.311—Single car test:
—Copies of APTA Standard SS–M–005–98 to railroad head
training person (Current requirement).
—Copies to other railroad personnel ...........................................

All estimates include the time for
reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering or
maintaining the needed data, and
reviewing the information. For
information or a copy of the paperwork
package submitted to OMB, contact Mr.
Robert Brogan, Information Clearance
Officer, Federal Railroad
Administration, at 202–493–6292
([email protected]), or Ms.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

30 railroads ......

Total annual
burden hours

30 railroads ......
30 railroads ......

30 written procedures.

40 hours ...........

1,200 hours.

30 railroads ......

458 notices .......

2 minutes ..........

15 hours.

30 railroads ......

5 minutes ..........

636 hours.

30 railroads ......

7,634 car inspections/
records.
32 markings ......

20 minutes ........

11 hours.

30 railroads ......

30 copies ..........

15 minutes ........

8 hours.

30 railroads ......

360 copies ........

2 minutes ..........

12 hours.

Kimberly Toone, Records Management
Officer, Federal Railroad
Administration, at 202–493–6132
([email protected]).
Organizations and individuals
desiring to submit comments on the
collection of information requirements
should direct them to the Office of
Management and Budget, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: FRA

PO 00000

Frm 00026

9 hours.

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Desk Officer. Comments may also be
sent via email to the Office of
Management and Budget at the
following address: oira_submissions@
omb.eop.gov.
OMB is required to make a decision
concerning the collection of information
requirements contained in this final rule
between 30 and 60 days after
publication of this document in the
Federal Register. Therefore, a comment

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

29NOR2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

to OMB is best assured of having its full
effect if OMB receives it within 30 days
of publication.
FRA is not authorized to impose a
penalty on persons for violating
information collection requirements that
do not display a current OMB control
number, if required. 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 this final rule. The OMB control
number, when assigned, will be
announced by separate notice in the
Federal Register.
D. Federalism Implications
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’
(64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), requires
FRA to develop an accountable process
to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies
that have federalism implications’’ are
defined in the Executive Order to
include regulations that have
‘‘substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’ Under Executive
Order 13132, the agency may not issue
a regulation with federalism
implications that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs and that is not
required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local
governments, the agency consults with
State and local governments, or the
agency consults with State and local
government officials early in the process
of developing the regulation. Where a
regulation has federalism implications
and preempts State law, the agency
seeks to consult with State and local
officials in the process of developing the
regulation.
This rule has been analyzed in
accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order
13132. This rule will not have a
substantial effect on the States or their
political subdivisions; it does not
impose any substantial direct
compliance costs; and it will not affect
the relationships between the Federal
government and the States or their
political subdivisions, or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Therefore, the
consultation and funding requirements
of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
Nevertheless, State and local officials

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

were involved in developing this rule.
The RSAC, which recommended the
proposals addressed in this rule, has as
permanent members two organizations
directly representing State and local
interests, AASHTO and ASRSM.
However, this rule could have
preemptive effect by operation of law
under certain provisions of the Federal
railroad safety statutes, specifically the
former Federal Railroad Safety Act of
1970 (former FRSA), repealed and recodified at 49 U.S.C 20106, and the
former Locomotive Boiler Inspection
Act (LIA) at 45 U.S.C. 22–34, repealed
and re-codified at 49 U.S.C. 20701–
20703. The former FRSA provides that
States may not adopt or continue in
effect any law, regulation, or order
related to railroad safety or security that
covers the subject matter of a regulation
prescribed or order issued by the
Secretary of Transportation (with
respect to railroad safety matters) or the
Secretary of Homeland Security (with
respect to railroad security matters),
except when the State law, regulation,
or order qualifies under the ‘‘local safety
or security hazard’’ exception to section
20106. Moreover, the former LIA has
been interpreted by the Supreme Court
as preempting the field concerning
locomotive safety. See Napier v.
Atlantic Coast Line R.R., 272 U.S. 605
(1926) and Kurns v. Railroad Friction
Products Corp., 132 S. Ct. 1261 (2012).
E. Environmental Impact
FRA has evaluated this 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 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 28545, 28547; May 26, 1999.
Certain classes of FRA actions have
been determined to be categorically
excluded from the requirements of these
Procedures as they do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect
on the human environment.
Promulgation of railroad safety rules
and policy statements that do not result
in significantly increased emissions or
air or water pollutants or noise or
increased traffic congestion in any mode
of transportation are excluded.
In accordance with section 4(c) and
(e) of FRA’s Procedures, the agency has

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

71811

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
regulation is not a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
Pursuant to Section 201 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each
Federal agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise
prohibited by law, assess the effects of
Federal regulatory actions on State,
local, and tribal governments, and the
private sector (other than to the extent
that such regulations incorporate
requirements specifically set forth in
law).’’ Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C.
1532) further requires that ‘‘before
promulgating any general notice of
proposed rulemaking that is likely to
result in the promulgation of any rule
that includes any Federal mandate that
may result in expenditure by State,
local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100,000,000 or more (adjusted
annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and
before promulgating any final rule for
which a general notice of proposed
rulemaking was published, the agency
shall prepare a written statement’’
detailing the effect on State, local, and
tribal governments and the private
sector. This final rule will not result in
the expenditure, in the aggregate, of
$100,000,000 or more (as adjusted
annually for inflation) in any one year,
and thus preparation of such a
statement is not required.
G. Trade Impact
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979
(Pub. L. 96–39, 19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.)
prohibits Federal agencies from
engaging in any standards or related
activities that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the
United States. Legitimate domestic
objectives, such as safety, are not
considered to be unnecessary obstacles.
The statute also requires consideration
of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for
U.S. standards.
FRA has assessed the potential effect
of this rulemaking on foreign commerce
and believes that its requirements are
consistent with the Trade Agreements
Act. The requirements are safety
standards, which, as noted, are not
considered unnecessary obstacles to
trade. Moreover, FRA has sought, to the
extent practicable, to state the
requirements in terms of the

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

29NOR2

71812

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

performance desired, rather than in
more narrow terms restricted to a
particular system design, so as not to
limit different, compliant designs by
any manufacturer—foreign or domestic.
H. Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of any comment or
petition received into any of FRA’s
dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment or petition (or
signing the comment or petition, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). Please see
the privacy notice at http://
www.regulations.gov/# !privacyNotice.
You may review DOT’s complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000
(65 FR 19477–19478).
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 238
Incorporation by reference, Passenger
equipment, Railroad safety, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 239
Passenger equipment, Railroad safety.
The Rule
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, FRA amends parts 238 and
239 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49,
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 238—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 238
is revised to read as follows:

■

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20133,
20141, 20302–20303, 20306, 20701–20702,
21301–21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note;
and 49 CFR 1.89.

2. Section 238.5 is amended by adding
in alphabetical order definitions of
‘‘End-frame door’’ and ‘‘Vestibule door,’’
and by revising the definitions of
‘‘APTA’’ and ‘‘Vestibule’’ to read as
follows:

■

§ 238.5

Definitions.

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

*

*
*
*
*
APTA means the American Public
Transportation Association.
*
*
*
*
*
End-frame door means an end-facing
door normally located between, or
adjacent to, the collision posts or similar
end-frame structural elements.
*
*
*
*
*
Vestibule means an area of a
passenger car that normally does not
contain seating, is located adjacent to a
side exit door, and is used in passing
from a seating area to a side exit door.
Vestibule door means a door
separating a seating area from a

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

vestibule. End-frame doors and doors
separating sleeping compartments or
similar private compartments from a
passageway are not vestibule doors.
*

*
*
*
*
3. Section 238.112 is added to read as
follows:

■

§ 238.112 Door emergency egress and
rescue access systems.

Except as provided in § 238.439—
(a) Each powered, exterior side door
in a vestibule that is partitioned from
the passenger compartment of a
passenger car shall have a manual
override device that is:
(1) Capable of releasing the door to
permit it to be opened without power
from inside the car;
(2) Located adjacent to the door which
it controls; and
(3) Designed and maintained so that a
person may readily access and operate
the override device from inside the car
without requiring the use of a tool or
other implement. If the door is dualleafed, only one of the door leaves is
required to respond to the manual
override device.
(b) Each Tier I passenger car ordered
on or after September 8, 2000, or placed
in service for the first time on or after
September 9, 2002, and all Tier II
passenger cars shall have a minimum of
two exterior side doors, one in each side
of the car. Each such door shall provide
a minimum clear opening with
dimensions of 30 inches horizontally by
74 inches vertically. A set of dual-leafed
doors is considered a single door for
purposes of this paragraph. Each
powered, exterior side door on each
such passenger car shall have a manual
override device that is:
(1) Capable of releasing the door to
permit it to be opened without power
from both inside and outside the car;
(2) Located adjacent to the door which
it controls; and
(3) Designed and maintained so that a
person may access the override device
from both inside and outside the car
without requiring the use of a tool or
other implement.
Note to paragraph (b): The Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility
Specifications for Transportation Vehicles
also contain requirements for doorway
clearance (See 49 CFR Part 38).

(c) A manual override device used to
open a powered, exterior door may be
protected with a cover or a screen
capable of removal without requiring
the use of a tool or other implement.
(d)(1) Prior to January 28, 2015, all
door exits intended for emergency
egress shall either be lighted or
conspicuously and legibly marked with

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

luminescent material on the inside of
each car, and legible and
understandable instructions shall be
provided for their use at or near each
such door.
(2) On or after January 28, 2015, all
door exits intended for emergency
egress shall be marked, and instructions
provided for their use, as specified in
§ 238.125.
(e)(1) Prior to January 28, 2015, all
doors intended for access by emergency
responders shall be marked on the
exterior of the car with retroreflective
material, and legible and
understandable instructions shall be
posted at or near each such door.
(2) On or after January 28, 2015, all
doors intended for access by emergency
responders shall be marked, and
instructions provided for their use, as
specified in § 238.125.
(f) Vestibule doors and other interior
doors intended for passage through a
passenger car. The requirements of
paragraphs (f)(1) through (6) of this
section apply only to passenger cars
ordered on or after January 28, 2014, or
placed in service for the first time on or
after January 29, 2018.
(1) General. Except for a door
providing access to a control
compartment and a bi-parting door,
which is subject to the requirements in
paragraph (f)(3) of this section, each
vestibule door and any other interior
door intended for passage through a
passenger car shall be equipped with a
removable panel or removable window
in the event the door will not open in
an emergency, or the car is on its side
and the door is difficult to open. If the
door is powered, it shall have a manual
override device that conforms with the
requirements of paragraphs (f)(4)
through (6) of this section.
(2) Removable panels and windows—
(i) Ease of operability. Each removable
panel or removable window shall be
designed to permit rapid and easy
removal from each side of the door
during an emergency situation without
requiring the use of a tool or other
implement.
(ii) Dimensions. Removal of the panel
or window shall create an unobstructed
opening in the door with minimum
dimensions of 21 inches horizontally by
28 inches vertically.
(iii) Location. Each removable panel
or removable window shall be located
so that the lowest point of the opening
created by removing the panel or
window is no higher than 18 inches
above the floor.
(3) Bi-parting doors. Each powered,
bi-parting vestibule door and any other
interior, powered bi-parting door
intended for passage through a

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

29NOR2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
passenger car shall be equipped with a
manual override device and mechanism
to retain each door leaf in the open
position (e.g., ratchet and pawl, or
sprag). Each manual override device
shall conform with the requirements of
paragraphs (f)(4), (f)(5)(ii), and (f)(6) of
this section.
(4) Manual override devices. Each
manual override device shall be:
(i) Capable of releasing the door or
door leaf, if the door is bi-parting, to
permit it to be opened without power;
(ii) Located adjacent to the door or
door leaf, if the door is bi-parting, it
controls; and
(iii) Designed and maintained so that
a person may readily access and operate
the override device from each side of
the door without the use of a tool or
other implement.
(5) Marking and instructions. (i) Each
removable panel or removable window
in a vestibule door or other interior door
intended for passage through a
passenger car shall be conspicuously
and legibly marked with luminescent
material on each side of the door as
specified in section 5.4.2 of APTA PR–
PS–S–002–98, Rev. 3, ‘‘Standard for
Emergency Signage for Egress/Access of
Passenger Rail Equipment,’’ Authorized
October 7, 2007, or an alternative
standard providing at least an
equivalent level of safety, if approved by
FRA pursuant to § 238.21. Legible and
understandable operating instructions
shall be posted on each side of the door
at each such panel or window. The
incorporation by reference of this APTA
standard was approved by the Director
of the Federal Register in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51.
You may obtain a copy of the
incorporated document from the
American Public Transportation
Association, 1666 K Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20006,
www.aptastandards.com. You may
inspect a copy of the document at the
Federal Railroad Administration, Docket
Clerk, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC or at the National
Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA,
call 202–741–6030, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_
locations.html.
(ii) For bi-parting doors, each manual
override device and each retention
mechanism shall be conspicuously and
legibly marked with luminescent
material. Legible and understandable
operating instructions for each manual
override device and each retention
mechanism shall be posted at or near
each such device or mechanism.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

(6) Testing. At an interval not to
exceed 184 days, as part of the periodic
mechanical inspection, each railroad
shall test a representative sample of the
door removable panels, removable
windows, manual override devices, and
retention mechanisms on its cars, as
applicable, to determine that they
operate as intended. The sampling
method must conform with a formalized
statistical test method.
4. Section 238.113 is amended by
revising paragraph (d) and adding
paragraph (e) to read as follows:

■

§ 238.113

Emergency window exits.

*

*
*
*
*
(d) Marking and instructions. (1) Prior
to January 28, 2015, each emergency
window exit shall be conspicuously and
legibly marked with luminescent
material on the inside of each car to
facilitate egress. Legible and
understandable operating instructions,
including instructions for removing the
window, shall be posted at or near each
such window exit.
(2) On or after January 28, 2015, each
emergency window exit shall be
marked, and instructions provided for
its use, as specified in § 238.125.
(3) 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. This paragraph (d)(3)
applies to each emergency window exit
subject to paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this
section.
(e) Periodic testing. At an interval not
to exceed 184 days, as part of the
periodic mechanical inspection, each
railroad shall test a representative
sample of emergency window exits on
its cars to determine that they operate as
intended. The sampling method must
conform with a formalized statistical
test method.
5. Section 238.114 is amended by
revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:

■

§ 238.114

Rescue access windows.

*

*
*
*
*
(d) Marking and instructions. (1) Prior
to January 28, 2015, each rescue access
window shall be marked with
retroreflective material on the exterior of
each car. A unique and easily
recognizable symbol, sign, or other
conspicuous marking shall also be used
to identify each such window. Legible
and understandable window-access
instructions, including instructions for

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

71813

removing the window, shall be posted at
or near each rescue access window.
(2) On or after January 28, 2015, each
rescue access window shall be marked,
and instructions provided for its use, as
specified in § 238.125.
6. Section 238.115 is revised to read
as follows:

■

§ 238.115

Emergency lighting.

(a) Prior to January 1, 2017, the
requirements specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (4) of this section apply
to each passenger car ordered on or after
September 8, 2000, or placed in service
for the first time on or after September
9, 2002. Emergency lighting shall be
provided in each passenger car and
shall include the following:
(1) A minimum, average illumination
level of 1 foot-candle measured at floor
level adjacent to each exterior door and
each interior door providing access to
an exterior door (such as a door opening
into a vestibule);
(2) A minimum, average illumination
level of 1 foot-candle measured 25
inches above floor level along the center
of each aisle and passageway;
(3) A minimum illumination level of
0.1 foot-candle measured 25 inches
above floor level at any point along the
center of each aisle and passageway;
and
(4) A back-up power system capable
of:
(i) Operating in all equipment
orientations within 45 degrees of
vertical;
(ii) Operating after the initial shock of
a collision or derailment resulting in the
following individually applied
accelerations:
(A) Longitudinal: 8g;
(B) Lateral: 4g; and
(C) Vertical: 4g; and
(iii) Operating all emergency lighting
for a period of at least 90 minutes
without a loss of more than 40% of the
minimum illumination levels specified
in this paragraph (a).
(b)(1) As further specified in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, on or
after January 1, 2017, emergency
lighting shall be provided in each
passenger car in accordance with the
minimum requirements specified in
APTA PR–E–S–013–99, Rev. 1,
‘‘Standard for Emergency Lighting
System Design for Passenger Cars,’’
Authorized October 7, 2007, or an
alternative standard providing at least
an equivalent level of safety if approved
by FRA pursuant to § 238.21. The
incorporation by reference of this APTA
standard was approved by the Director
of the Federal Register in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51.

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

29NOR2

71814

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

You may obtain a copy of the
incorporated document from the
American Public Transportation
Association, 1666 K Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20006,
www.aptastandards.com. You may
inspect a copy of the document at the
Federal Railroad Administration, Docket
Clerk, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC or at the National
Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA,
call 202–741–6030, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_
locations.html.
(2) No later than December 31, 2015,
at least 70 percent of each railroad’s
passenger cars that were ordered prior
to September 8, 2000, and placed in
service prior to September 9, 2002, shall
be in compliance with the emergency
lighting requirements provided in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
■ 7. Section 238.121 is amended by
revising the first sentence of paragraph
(a)(2), paragraph (b)(2), and paragraph
(c) introductory text to read as follows:
§ 238.121

Emergency communications.

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

*

*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(2) New Tier I and all Tier II
passenger cars. Each Tier I passenger
car ordered on or after April 1, 2008, or
placed in service for the first time on or
after April 1, 2010, and all Tier II
passenger cars shall be equipped with a
PA system that provides a means for a
train crewmember to communicate by
voice to passengers of his or her train in
an emergency situation. * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Marking and instructions. The
following requirements apply to each
passenger car:
(i) Prior to January 28, 2016, the
location of each intercom intended for
passenger use shall be conspicuously
marked with luminescent material and
legible and understandable operating
instructions shall be posted at or near
each such intercom.
(ii) On or after January 28, 2016, each
intercom intended for passenger use
shall be marked in accordance with
section 5.4.2 of APTA PR–PS–S–002–
98, Rev. 3, ‘‘Standard for Emergency
Signage for Egress/Access of Passenger
Rail Equipment,’’ Authorized October 7,
2007, or an alternative standard
providing at least an equivalent level of
safety, if approved by FRA pursuant to
§ 238.21. Legible and understandable
operating instructions shall be posted at
or near each such intercom. The
incorporation by reference of this APTA
standard was approved by the Director

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

of the Federal Register in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51.
You may obtain a copy of the
incorporated document from the
American Public Transportation
Association, 1666 K Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20006,
www.aptastandards.com. You may
inspect a copy of the document at the
Federal Railroad Administration, Docket
Clerk, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC or at the National
Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA,
call 202–741–6030, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_
locations.html.
(c) Back-up power. PA and intercom
systems in Tier I passenger cars ordered
on or after April 1, 2008, or placed in
service for the first time on or after April
1, 2010, and in all Tier II passenger cars
shall have a back-up power system
capable of—
*
*
*
*
*
■ 8. Section 238.123 is amended by
redesignating paragraph (e) introductory
text as paragraph (e)(1), redesignating
paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) as paragraphs
(e)(1)(i) and (ii), revising the first
sentence of newly redesignated
paragraph (e)(1), and by adding
paragraph (e)(2) to read as follows:
§ 238.123

Emergency roof access.

*

*
*
*
*
(e) Marking and instructions. (1) Prior
to January 28, 2015, each emergency
roof access location shall be
conspicuously marked with
retroreflective material of contrasting
color. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(2) On or after January 28, 2015, each
emergency roof access location shall be
marked, and instructions provided for
its use, as specified in § 238.125.
■ 9. Section 238.125 is added to read as
follows:
§ 238.125 Marking and instructions for
emergency egress and rescue access.

On or after January 28, 2015,
emergency signage and markings shall
be provided for each passenger car in
accordance with the minimum
requirements specified in APTA PR–
PS–S–002–98, Rev. 3, ‘‘Standard for
Emergency Signage for Egress/Access of
Passenger Rail Equipment,’’ Authorized
October 7, 2007, or an alternative
standard providing at least an
equivalent level of safety, if approved by
FRA pursuant to § 238.21. The
incorporation by reference of this APTA
standard was approved by the Director

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

of the Federal Register in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51.
You may obtain a copy of the
incorporated document from the
American Public Transportation
Association, 1666 K Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20006,
www.aptastandards.com. You may
inspect a copy of the document at the
Federal Railroad Administration, Docket
Clerk, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC or at the National
Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA,
call 202–741–6030, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_
locations.html.
10. Section 238.127 is added to read
as follows:

■

§ 238.127 Low-location emergency exit
path marking.

On or after January 28, 2015, lowlocation emergency exit path marking
shall be provided in each passenger car
in accordance with the minimum
requirements specified in APTA PR–
PS–S–004–99, Rev. 2, ‘‘Standard for
Low-Location Exit Path Marking,’’
Authorized October 7, 2007, or an
alternative standard providing at least
an equivalent level of safety, if approved
by FRA pursuant to § 238.21. The
incorporation by reference of this APTA
standard was approved by the Director
of the Federal Register in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51.
You may obtain a copy of the
incorporated document from the
American Public Transportation
Association, 1666 K Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20006,
www.aptastandards.com. You may
inspect a copy of the document at the
Federal Railroad Administration, Docket
Clerk, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC or at the National
Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA,
call 202–741–6030, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_
locations.html
§ 238.235

[Removed and reserved]

11. Section 238.235 is removed and
reserved.

■

12. Section 238.303 is amended by
revising paragraph (e)(18) introductory
text to read as follows:

■

§ 238.303 Exterior calendar day
mechanical inspection of passenger
equipment.

*

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

*

*

29NOR2

*

*

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
(e) * * *
(18) All rescue-access-related exterior
markings, signage, and instructions
required by §§ 238.112 and 238.114
shall be in place and, as applicable,
conspicuous or legible, or both.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 13. Section 238.305 is amended by
revising paragraph (a), revising
paragraph (c) introductory text, adding
paragraphs (c)(11) and (13), and revising
paragraph (d) introductory text to read
as follows:

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 238.305 Interior calendar day mechanical
inspection of passenger cars.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(e) of this section, each passenger car
shall receive an interior mechanical
inspection at least once each calendar
day that it is placed in service.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) As part of the interior calendar day
mechanical inspection, the railroad
shall verify conformity with the
following conditions, and
nonconformity with any such condition
renders the car defective when
discovered in service, except as
provided in paragraphs (c)(8) through
(13) and paragraph (d) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(11) Low-location emergency exit path
markings required by § 238.127 are in
place and conspicuous.
*
*
*
*
*
(13) Removable panels and removable
windows in vestibule doors and in other
interior doors used for passage through
a passenger car are properly in place
and secured, based on a visual
inspection. A noncomplying passenger
car 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—
(i) The railroad has developed and
follows written procedures for
mitigating the hazard(s) caused by the
noncomplying condition. The railroad’s
procedures shall include consideration
of the type of door in which the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

removable panel or removable window
is located, the manner in which the door
is normally opened, and the risk of
personal injury resulting from a missing,
broken, or improperly secured
removable panel or removable window;
and
(ii) The train crew is provided written
notification of the noncomplying
condition.
(d) Any passenger car found not to be
in compliance with the requirements
contained in paragraphs (c)(5) through
(11) of this section at the time of its
interior calendar day mechanical
inspection may remain in passenger
service until the car’s next interior
calendar day mechanical inspection,
where it must be repaired or removed
from passenger service; provided, all of
the specific conditions contained in
paragraphs (c)(8) through (10) of this
section are met and all of the following
requirements are met:
*
*
*
*
*
■ 14. Section 238.307 is amended by
revising paragraphs (c)(4) and (5) and
(e)(1) introductory text to read as
follows:
§ 238.307 Periodic mechanical inspection
of passenger cars and unpowered vehicles
used in passenger trains.

*

*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(4)(i) A representative sample of the
following emergency systems properly
operate:
(A) Door removable panels, removable
windows, manual override devices, and
retention mechanisms, as applicable, in
accordance with § 238.112; and
(B) Emergency window exits, in
accordance with § 238.113.
(ii) This portion of the periodic
mechanical inspection may be
conducted independently of the other
requirements in this paragraph (c); and
(iii) Each railroad shall retain records
of the inspection, testing, and
maintenance of the emergency window
exits for two calendar years after the end
of the calendar year to which they
relate.
(5) With regard to the following
emergency systems:
(i) Emergency lighting systems
required under § 238.115 are in place
and operational; and
(ii) Low-location emergency exit path
marking systems required under
§ 238.127 are operational.
*
*
*
*
*

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

71815

(e) * * *
(1) A record shall be maintained of
each periodic mechanical inspection
required to be performed by this section.
This record shall be maintained in
writing or electronically, provided FRA
has access to the record upon request.
The record shall be maintained either in
the railroad’s files, the cab of the
locomotive, or a designated location in
the passenger car. Except as provided in
paragraph (c)(4) of this section, the
record shall be retained until the next
periodic mechanical inspection of the
same type is performed and shall
contain the following information:
*
*
*
*
*
15. Section 238.439 is amended by
adding introductory text, removing
paragraphs (a), (b), (e), and (g),
redesignating paragraphs (c), (d), and (f)
as paragraphs (a) through (c), revising
newly redesignated paragraph (c) to
read as follows:

■

§ 238.439

Doors.

In addition to the requirements of
§ 238.112—
*
*
*
*
*
(c) For a passenger car ordered prior
to January 28, 2014, and placed in
service prior to January 29, 2018, a
passenger compartment end door (other
than a door providing access to the
exterior of the trainset) shall be
equipped with a kick-out panel, pop-out
window, or other similar means of
egress in the event the door will not
open, or shall be so designed as to pose
a negligible probability of becoming
inoperable in the event of car body
distortion following a collision or
derailment.
16. Section 238.441 is amended by
adding a sentence at the end of
paragraph (a) to read as follows:

■

§ 238.441

Emergency roof access.

(a) * * * On or after January 28, 2015,
such markings shall also conform with
the requirements specified in § 238.125.
*
*
*
*
*
17. Appendix A to part 238 is
amended by adding the entries for new
§§ 238.112, 238.125, and 238.127 in
numerical order and removing and
reserving the entry for § 238.235.
The additions read as follows:

■

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

29NOR2

71816

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

Appendix A to Part 238—Schedule of
Civil Penalties 1, 2
Section

*

*

*

Violation

*

*

*

Willful
violation
*

SUBPART B—SAFETY PLANNING AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
*

*
*
*
*
Door emergency egress and rescue access systems ....................................................................

*

*
*
*
*
Marking and instructions for emergency egress and rescue access .............................................

*

238.112
*
238.125
*
238.127

*

*

*

5,000
*

2,500

*
*
*
*
Low-location emergency exit path marking ....................................................................................

*

*
2,500

*

5,000
*

2,500

*

*

5,000
*

1A

penalty may be assessed against an individual only for a willful violation. Generally when two or more violations of these regulations are
discovered with respect to a single unit of passenger equipment that is placed or continued in service by a railroad, the appropriate penalties set
forth above are aggregated up to a maximum of $16,000 per day. However, failure to perform, with respect to a particular unit of passenger
equipment, any of the inspections and tests required under subparts D and F of this part will be treated as a violation separate and distinct from,
and in addition to, any substantive violative conditions found on that unit of passenger equipment. Moreover, the Administrator reserves the right
to assess a penalty of up to $105,000 for any violation where circumstances warrant. See 49 CFR Part 209, appendix A.
Failure to observe any condition for movement of defective equipment set forth in § 238.17 will deprive the railroad of the benefit of the movement-for-repair provision and make the railroad and any responsible individuals liable for penalty under the particular regulatory section(s) concerning the substantive defect(s) present on the unit of passenger equipment at the time of movement.
Failure to observe any condition for the movement of passenger equipment containing defective safety appliances, other than power brakes,
set forth in § 238.17(e) will deprive the railroad of the movement-for-repair provision and make the railroad and any responsible individuals liable
for penalty under the particular regulatory section(s) contained in part 231 of this chapter or § 238.429 concerning the substantive defective condition.
The penalties listed for failure to perform the exterior and interior mechanical inspections and tests required under § 238.303 and § 238.305
may be assessed for each unit of passenger equipment contained in a train that is not properly inspected. Whereas, the penalties listed for failure to perform the brake inspections and tests under § 238.313 through § 238.319 may be assessed for each train that is not properly inspected.
2 The penalty schedule uses section numbers from 49 CFR Part 238. If more than one item is listed as a type of violation of a given section,
each item is also designated by a ‘‘penalty code,’’ which is used to facilitate assessment of civil penalties, and which may or may not correspond
to any subsection designation(s). For convenience, penalty citations will cite the CFR section and the penalty code, if any. FRA reserves the
right, should litigation become necessary, to substitute in its complaint the CFR citation in place of the combined CFR and penalty code citation,
should they differ.

PART 239—[AMENDED]
18. The authority citation for part 239
is revised to read as follows:

■

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20103, 20105–
20114, 20133, 21301, 21304, and 21311; 28
U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89(c), (g),
(m).

19. Section 239.105 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

■

§ 239.105

Debriefing and critique.

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

(a) General. Except as provided in
paragraph (b) of this section, each
railroad operating passenger train
service shall conduct a debriefing and
critique session after each passenger
train emergency situation or full-scale
simulation to determine the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:12 Nov 27, 2013

Jkt 232001

effectiveness of its emergency
preparedness plan, and shall improve or
amend its plan, or both, as appropriate,
in accordance with the information
developed. The debriefing and critique
session shall be conducted within 60
days of the date of the passenger train
emergency situation or full-scale
simulation. To the extent practicable, all
on-board personnel, control center
personnel, and any other employees
involved in the emergency situation or
full-scale simulation shall participate in
the session either:
(1) In person;
(2) Offsite via teleconference; or
(3) In writing, by a statement
responding to questions provided prior

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 9990

to the session, and by responding to any
follow-up questions.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 239.107

[Removed and reserved]

20. Section 239.107 is removed and
reserved.

■

Appendix A to Part 239—[Amended]
21. Appendix A to part 239 is
amended by removing and reserving the
entry for § 239.107.

■

Issued in Washington, DC, on November
14, 2013.
Karen J. Hedlund,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013–27731 Filed 11–27–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

E:\FR\FM\29NOR2.SGM

29NOR2