Proposed Rule: Railroad Safety: Passenger Equipment Safety Standards&#8212 Emergency Systems

Thursday,
August 24, 2006
Part VI
Department of
Transportation
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Parts 223 and 238

Passenger Train Emergency Systems;
Proposed Rule
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:33 Aug 23, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\24AUP5.SGM 24AUP5
50276 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION may be submitted by any of the D. Development of the NPRM

following methods: III. Technical Background
Federal Railroad Administration • Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. A. Change in Passenger Car Fleet
Follow the instructions for submitting Composition
B. NTSB Safety Recommendation on
49 CFR Parts 223 and 238 comments on the DOT electronic docket
Windows
site. C. Need for Emergency Communication
[Docket No. FRA–2006–25273, Notice No. • Fax: 202–493–2251. Systems
1] • Mail: Docket Management Facility, D. Window Technology
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 E. APTA’s Standard for Emergency
RIN 2130–AB72 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Evacuation Units
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590. IV. General Overview of Proposed
Passenger Train Emergency Systems • Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on Requirements
the plaza level of the Nassif Building, A. Emergency Window Exits and Rescue
AGENCY: Federal Railroad
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, Access Windows
Administration (FRA), Department of B. Emergency Communications—Public
Transportation (DOT). DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday
Address and Intercom Systems
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking C. Emergency Roof Access
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to D. Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance
(NPRM). http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the V. Section-by-Section Analysis
SUMMARY: This NPRM is intended to online instructions for submitting VI. Regulatory Impact and Notices
further the safety of passenger train comments. A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT
occupants through both enhancements Instructions: All submissions must Regulatory Policies and Procedures
and additions to FRA’s existing include the agency name and docket B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive
number or Regulatory Identification Order 13272
requirements for emergency systems on C. Paperwork Reduction Act
Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Note
passenger trains. In this NPRM, FRA D. Federalism Implications
that all comments received will be
proposes to enhance existing E. Environmental Impact
posted without change to http://
requirements for emergency window F. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
dms.dot.gov including any personal
exits and to establish requirements for G. Energy Impact
information. Please see the Privacy Act H. Privacy Act
rescue access windows to evacuate
heading in the ‘‘Supplementary List of Subjects
passenger train occupants. FRA also
Information’’ section of this document
proposes to enhance passenger train I. Statutory Background
for Privacy Act information related to
emergency system requirements by
any submitted comments or materials. In September of 1994, the Secretary of
expanding the application of Docket: For access to the docket to
requirements that are currently Transportation convened a meeting of
read background documents or representatives from all sectors of the
applicable only to passenger trains comments received, go to http://
operating at speeds in excess of 125 rail industry with the goal of enhancing
dms.dot.gov at any time or to PL–401 on rail safety. As one of the initiatives
mph (Tier II passenger trains) to the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
passenger trains operating at speeds at arising from this Rail Safety Summit,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, the Secretary announced that DOT
or below 125 mph (Tier I passenger DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday
trains); these proposed enhancements would begin developing safety
through Friday, except Federal standards for rail passenger equipment
would require that Tier I passenger Holidays.
trains be equipped with public address over a 5-year period. In November of
and intercom systems for emergency FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 1994, Congress adopted the Secretary’s
communication and that passenger cars Brenda J. Moscoso, Office of Safety, schedule for implementing rail
provide emergency roof access for use Operations Research Analyst, RRS–23, passenger equipment safety regulations
by emergency responders. FRA is Mail Stop 25, Federal Railroad and included it in the Federal Railroad
proposing to apply certain of the Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, Safety Authorization Act of 1994 (the
requirements to both existing and new NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone Act), Public Law No. 103–440, 108 Stat.
passenger equipment, while other 202–493–6282); Daniel L. Alpert, Trial 4619, 4623–4624 (November 2, 1994).
requirements would apply to new Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, Mail Congress also authorized the Secretary
passenger equipment only. Stop 10, Federal Railroad to consult with various organizations
Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, involved in passenger train operations
DATES: (1) Written comments must be
NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone for purposes of prescribing and
received by October 23, 2006. amending these regulations, as well as
202–493–6026); or Anna Nassif Winkle,
Comments received after that date will issuing orders pursuant to them. Section
Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel,
be considered to the extent possible 215 of the Act is codified at 49 U.S.C.
Mail Stop 10, Federal Railroad
without incurring additional expense or 20133.
Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue,
delay.
NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone II. Proceedings to Date
(2) FRA anticipates being able to
202–493–6166).
resolve this rulemaking without a The Secretary of Transportation
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
public, oral hearing. However, if FRA delegated these rulemaking
receives a specific request for a public, Table of Contents for Supplementary responsibilities to the Federal Railroad
oral hearing prior to September 25, Information Administrator, see 49 CFR 1.49(m), and
2006, one will be scheduled and FRA I. Statutory Background FRA formed the Passenger Equipment
will publish a supplemental notice in II. Proceedings to Date Safety Standards Working Group to
the Federal Register to inform A. Railroad Safety Advisory Committee provide FRA advice in developing the
interested parties of the date, time, and (RSAC) Overview
B. Establishment of the Passenger Safety regulations. On June 17, 1996, FRA
location of any such hearing. Working Group published an advance notice of
ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments C. Establishment of the Emergency proposed rulemaking (ANPRM)
related to Docket No. FRA–2006–25273 Preparedness Task Force concerning the establishment of
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 50277
comprehensive safety standards for primarily at 49 CFR part 238 and A. Railroad Safety Advisory Committee
railroad passenger equipment. See 61 secondarily at 49 CFR parts 216, 223, (RSAC) Overview
FR 30672. The ANPRM provided 229, 231, and 232. In March 1996, FRA established
background information on the need for Meanwhile, another rulemaking on RSAC, which provides a forum for
such standards, offered preliminary passenger train emergency preparedness developing consensus recommendations
ideas on approaching passenger safety produced a final rule codified at 49 CFR to FRA’s Administrator on rulemakings
issues, and presented questions on part 239. See 63 FR 24629; May 4, 1998. and other safety program issues. The
various passenger safety topics. The rule addresses passenger train Committee includes representation from
Following consideration of comments emergencies of various kinds, including all of the agency’s major customer
received on the ANPRM and advice security situations, and requires the groups, including railroads, labor
from FRA’s Passenger Equipment Safety preparation, adoption, and organizations, suppliers and
Standards Working Group, FRA implementation of emergency manufacturers, and other interested
published an NPRM on September 23, preparedness plans by railroads parties. A list of member groups follows:
1997, to establish comprehensive safety connected with the operation of American Association of Private
standards for railroad passenger passenger trains. The emergency Railroad Car Owners (AARPCO);
equipment. See 62 FR 49728. In preparedness plans must include American Association of State Highway
addition to requesting written comment elements such as communication, & Transportation Officials (AASHTO);
on the NPRM, FRA also solicited oral employee training and qualification, American Public Transportation
comment at a public hearing held on joint operations, tunnel safety, liaison Association (APTA);
November 21, 1997. FRA considered the with emergency responders, on-board American Short Line and Regional
comments received on the NPRM and emergency equipment, and passenger Railroad Association (ASLRRA);
prepared a final rule establishing safety information. The rule requires American Train Dispatchers Association
comprehensive safety standards for each affected railroad to instruct its (ATDA);
passenger equipment, which was employees on the applicable provisions Association of American Railroads
published on May 12, 1999. See 64 FR of its plan, and the plan adopted by (AAR);
25540. each railroad is subject to formal review Association of Railway Museums
After publication of the final rule, and approval by FRA. The rule also (ARM);
interested parties filed petitions seeking requires each railroad operating Association of State Rail Safety
FRA’s reconsideration of certain passenger train service to conduct Managers (ASRSM);
requirements contained in the rule. emergency simulations to determine its Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
These petitions generally related to the capability to execute the emergency and Trainmen (BLET);
preparedness plan under the variety of Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way
following subject areas: structural
emergency scenarios that could Employees Division (BMWED);
design; fire safety; training; inspection, Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
testing, and maintenance; and reasonably be expected to occur. In
(BRS);
movement of defective equipment. To addition, among the rule’s other
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)*;
address the petitions, FRA grouped requirements, the rule provides that (i) High Speed Ground Transportation
issues together and published in the all emergency window exits and all Association (HSGTA);
Federal Register three sets of windows intended for rescue access by International Association of Machinists
amendments to the final rule. Each set emergency responders be marked and and Aerospace Workers;
of amendments summarized the petition that instructions be provided for their International Brotherhood of Electrical
requests at issue, explained what action, use (see 49 CFR 223.9(d)); and (ii) all Workers (IBEW);
if any, FRA decided to take in response door exits intended for egress be lighted Labor Council for Latin American
to the issues raised, and described or marked, all door exits intended for Advancement (LCLAA)*;
FRA’s justifications for its decisions and rescue access by emergency responders League of Railway Industry Women*;
any action taken. Specifically, on July 3, be marked, and that instructions be National Association of Railroad
2000, FRA issued a response to the provided for the use of both (see 49 CFR Passengers (NARP);
petitions for reconsideration relating to 239.107(a)). National Association of Railway
the inspection, testing, and maintenance Although FRA had completed these Business Women*;
of passenger equipment, the movement rulemakings, FRA had identified National Conference of Firemen &
of defective passenger equipment, and various issues for possible future Oilers;
other miscellaneous provisions related rulemaking, including those to be National Railroad Construction and
to mechanical issues contained in the addressed following the completion of Maintenance Association;
final rule. See 65 FR 41284. On April additional research, the gathering of National Railroad Passenger Corporation
23, 2002, FRA responded to all additional operating experience, or the (Amtrak);
remaining issues raised in the petitions development of industry standards, or National Transportation Safety Board
for reconsideration, with the exception all three. One such issue concerned (NTSB)*;
Railway Supply Institute (RSI);
of those relating to fire safety. See 67 FR expanding the application of emergency Safe Travel America (STA);
19970. Finally, on June 25, 2002, FRA system requirements applicable to Tier Secretaria de Comunicaciones y
completed its response to the petitions II passenger equipment to Tier I Transporte*;
for reconsideration by publishing a passenger equipment as well. FRA and Sheet Metal Workers International
response to the petitions for interested industry members also began Association (SMWIA);
reconsideration concerning the fire identifying other issues related to the Tourist Railway Association Inc.;
safety portion of the rule. See 67 FR new passenger equipment safety Transport Canada*;
42892. (For more detailed information standards and the passenger train Transport Workers Union of America
on the petitions for reconsideration and emergency preparedness regulations. (TWU);
FRA’s response to them, please see FRA decided to address these issues Transportation Communications
these three rulemaking documents.) The with the assistance of FRA’s Railroad International Union/BRC (TCIU/BRC);
product of this rulemaking was codified Safety Advisory Committee. and
United Transportation Union (UTU). • AAR, including members from area of expertise. Members of the task
*Indicates associate, non-voting membership. BNSF Railway Company (BNSF), CSX forces include various representatives
Transportation, Incorporated (CSX), and from the respective organizations that
When appropriate, FRA assigns a task Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP); were part of the larger Working Group.
to RSAC, and after consideration and • AAPRCO; One of these task forces was assigned
debate, RSAC may accept or reject the • AASHTO; the job of identifying and developing
task. If the task is accepted, RSAC • Amtrak; issues and recommendations
establishes a working group that • APTA, including members from specifically related to the inspection,
possesses the appropriate expertise and Long Island Rail Road (LIRR), Metro- testing, and operation of passenger
representation of interests to develop North Railroad (MNR), Northeast equipment as well as concerns related to
recommendations to FRA for action on Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad the attachment of safety appliances on
the task. These recommendations are Corporation (Metra), Southeastern passenger equipment, and helped to
developed by consensus. A working Pennsylvania Transportation Authority develop an NPRM on these topics that
group may establish one or more task (SEPTA), Southern California Regional was published on December 8, 2005.
forces to develop facts and options on Rail Authority (Metrolink), Saint Gobian See 70 FR 73069. Another of these task
a particular aspect of a given task. The Sully NA, LDK Engineering, and Herzog forces, the Emergency Preparedness
task force then provides that Transit Services, Incorporated; Task Force (Task Force), was
information to the working group for • BLET; established to identify issues and
consideration. If a working group comes • BRS; develop recommendations related to
to unanimous consensus on • FTA; emergency systems, procedures, and
recommendations for action, the • HSGTA; equipment. Specifically, the Task Force
package is presented to the full RSAC • IBEW; was charged with evaluating APTA’s
for a vote. If the proposal is accepted by • NARP; standards for emergency systems for
a simple majority of RSAC, the proposal • RSI; their incorporation by reference as
is formally recommended to FRA. FRA • SMWIA; Federal standards and requirements.
then determines what action to take on • STA; These APTA standards are aimed at
the recommendation. Because FRA staff • TCIU/BRC; promoting the ability of passenger car
• TWU; and occupants to reach, identify, and
play an active role at the working group
• UTU. operate emergency exits under various
level in discussing the issues and
Staff from DOT’s John A. Volpe conditions. The Task Force was also
options and in drafting the language of
National Transportation Systems Center given the responsibility of addressing a
the consensus proposal, FRA is often
(Volpe Center) attended all of the number of other emergency system
favorably inclined toward the RSAC
meetings and contributed to the issues and to recommend any research
recommendation. However, FRA is in
technical discussions. In addition, staff necessary to facilitate their resolution.
no way bound to follow the
from the NTSB met with the Working Members of the Task Force, in addition
recommendation, and the agency
Group when possible. The Working to FRA, include the following:
exercises its independent judgment on
Group met on the following dates at the • Amtrak;
whether the recommended rule achieves
following locations: • APTA, including members from
the agency’s regulatory goal, is soundly
• September 9–10, 2003, in Bombardier, Ellcon National, Interfleet,
supported, and is in accordance with
Washington, DC; Jacobs Civil Engineering, Jessup
policy and legal requirements. Often, • November 6, 2003, in Philadelphia,
FRA varies in some respects from the Manufacturing Company, Kawasaki Rail
PA; Car, Inc., LDK Engineering, LIRR, LTK,
RSAC recommendation in developing • May 11, 2004, in Schaumburg, IL;
the actual regulatory proposal or final Luminator, Maryland Transit
• October 26–27, 2004 in Linthicum/ Administration, Massachusetts Bay
rule. Any such variations would be Baltimore, MD;
noted and explained in the rulemaking Commuter Rail Corporation (MBCR),
• March 9–10, 2005, in Ft. Metrolink, MNR, Northern Indiana
document issued by FRA. If the working Lauderdale, FL; and
group or RSAC is unable to reach Commuter Transit District (NICTD),
• September 7, 2005 in Chicago, IL. SEPTA, San Diego Northern Commuter
consensus on recommendations for At the meetings in Ft. Lauderdale and
action, FRA moves ahead to resolve the Railroad (Coaster), Permalight, PO’s
Chicago, FRA met with representatives Ability USA, Inc, Prolink, Transit
issue through traditional rulemaking of Tri-County Commuter Rail and Metra,
proceedings. Design Group (TDG), Transit Safety
respectively, and toured their passenger Management (TSM), Translite, and STV
B. Establishment of the Passenger Safety equipment. The visits, which included Inc.;
Working Group demonstrations of emergency system • BLET;
features, were open to all members of • California Department of
On May 20, 2003, FRA presented, and the Working Group, and FRA believes Transportation (Caltrans);
RSAC accepted, the task of reviewing they have added to the collective • NARP;
existing passenger equipment safety understanding of the Group in • RSI, including Globe Transportation
needs and programs and recommending identifying and addressing passenger Graphics; and
consideration of specific actions that train emergency system issues. • UTU.
could be useful in advancing the safety While not voting members of the Task
of rail passenger service. The RSAC C. Establishment of the Emergency Force, representatives from the NTSB
established the Passenger Safety Preparedness Task Force and from the Transportation Security
Working Group (Working Group) to Due to the variety of issues involved, Administration (TSA) of the U.S.
handle this task and develop at its November 2003 meeting the Department of Homeland Security
recommendations for the full RSAC to Working Group established four smaller (DHS) attended certain of the meetings
consider. Members of the Working task forces, with specific expertise, to and contributed to the discussions of
Group, in addition to FRA, include the develop recommendations on those the Task Force. In addition, staff from
following: issues within each group’s particular the Volpe Center attended all of the
meetings and contributed to the additional time for compliance with the on the need for applying emergency
technical discussions through their proposal on rescue access windows. system safety standards to intermediate
comments and presentations and by After reviewing the full RSAC’s seating levels of multi-level passenger
setting up various lighting, marking, and recommendations, FRA agreed that the cars.
signage demonstrations. recommendations provided a sound Since that time, the composition of
The Task Force met on the following basis for a proposed rule and adopted the Nation’s commuter rail fleet has
dates at the following locations: the recommendations with generally changed. Multi-level passenger cars
• February 25–26, 2004, in Los minor changes for purposes of clarity with passenger seating in intermediate
Angeles, CA; and formatting in the Federal Register. levels have become more prevalent and
• April 14–15, 2004, in Cambridge, This NPRM is the product of FRA’s now account for over 15 percent of all
MA; review, consideration, and acceptance passenger cars. The intermediate seating
• July 7–8, 2004, in Washington, DC; of the recommendations of the Task levels in these multi-level passenger
• September 13–14, 2004, in New Force, Working Group, and full RSAC. cars are normally located at the far ends
York, NY; Throughout the preamble discussion of of the cars and are connected to the
• December 1–2, 2004, in San Diego, this proposal, FRA refers to comments, upper and lower seating levels by stairs.
CA; views, suggestions, or recommendations Exterior side doors are also normally
• February 16–17, 2005, in made by members of the Task Force, located toward the ends of these cars to
Philadelphia, PA; Working Group, and full RSAC, as they
• April 19–20, 2005, in Cambridge, facilitate boarding and de-boarding.
are identified or contained in the Given the constraint posed by station
MA; minutes of their meetings. FRA does so
• August 2–3, 2005, in Cambridge, platform lengths and the desire to
to show the origin of certain issues and minimize station dwell time, railroads
MA; and the nature of discussions concerning
• December 13–14, 2005, in have turned to multi-level passenger
those issues at the Task Force, Working cars with intermediate seating levels to
Baltimore, MD. Group, and full RSAC level. FRA
At the meetings in Los Angeles, meet much of the increased demand for
believes this serves to illuminate factors service, to the extent vertical clearances
Cambridge, Washington, New York, San it has weighed in making its regulatory
Diego, and Philadelphia, FRA met with permit their operation.
decisions, as well as the logic behind
representatives of Metrolink, MBCR, In light of the growing use of multi-
those decisions. The reader should keep
Amtrak, LIRR, Coaster, and SEPTA, level passenger cars with intermediate
in mind, of course, that only the full
respectively, and toured their passenger RSAC makes recommendations to FRA, seating levels, this NPRM addresses the
equipment. The visits were open to all and it is the consensus recommendation need to provide more explicit
members of the Task Force and of the full RSAC on which FRA is emergency system safety standards for
included demonstration of emergency acting. However, as noted above, FRA is these passenger cars.
system features. As in the case of the in no way bound to follow the B. NTSB Safety Recommendation on
Working Group visits, FRA believes recommendation, and the agency Windows
they have added to the collective exercises its independent judgment on
understanding of the Task Force in whether the recommended rule achieves On April 23, 2002, a BNSF freight
identifying and addressing passenger the agency’s regulatory goal, is soundly train collided head on with a standing
train emergency system issues. supported, and is in accordance with Metrolink passenger train near
policy and legal requirements. Placentia, CA, resulting in two fatalities
D. Development of the NPRM and numerous injuries on the Metrolink
This NPRM was developed to address III. Technical Background train. Though not a contributing factor
a number of the concerns raised and Trends in new passenger car orders, to the fatalities or injuries, the force of
issues discussed during the various recent experience with train accidents, the collision blocked the rear end door
Task Force and Working Group concern about emergency and also blocked the rear stairway
meetings. Minutes of each of these communication, and technological linking the upper and lower seating
meetings have been made part of the advances in emergency systems levels to the seating area on the
docket in this proceeding and are provided the main impetus for these intermediate level at the rear of the
available for public inspection. The proposed enhancements and additions Metrolink cab car. Although passengers
Working Group reached full consensus to FRA’s standards for passenger train in that intermediate level seating area
on all the regulatory provisions emergency systems, as highlighted did exit through an emergency window,
contained in this proposal at its below. no windows on the intermediate level
meetings in March and September 2005. had been designated for rescue access,
After the March 2005 meeting, the A. Change in Passenger Car Fleet and consequently no instructions for
Working Group presented its Composition emergency responders to gain access to
recommendations to the full RSAC for While FRA was developing the intermediate level through a
concurrence at its meeting in May 2005. regulations on Passenger Equipment window had been posted. Concerned
All of the members of the full RSAC in Safety Standards and Passenger Train with the extent of Federal requirements
attendance at its May 2005 meeting Emergency Preparedness in the 1990s, relating to rescuing passengers from the
accepted the regulatory the operation of multi-level passenger intermediate level of a multi-level
recommendations submitted by the cars having two seating levels for passenger car, the NTSB issued Safety
Working Group. Thus, the Working passengers (i.e., bi-level cars) was Recommendation R–03–21 to FRA on
Group’s recommendations became the common. However, the operation of November 6, 2003. Safety
full RSAC’s recommendations to FRA in multi-level passengers cars having three Recommendation R–03–21 provides in
this matter. In October 2005, the full seating levels for passengers (i.e., cars full as follows:
RSAC also recommended that FRA with intermediate (or mezzanine) Revise the language of 49 Code of Federal
adopt a further recommendation from seating levels) was not as prevalent in Regulations 238.113(a)(1) to reflect that
the Working Group at its September the U.S. as it is today. As a result, in appropriate exterior instructional signage
2005 meeting: That FRA grant those rulemakings there was less focus describing the emergency removal procedure
be required at emergency windows on all exits on non-main levels of multi-level contributing to the dangerous conditions at
levels of a multiple-level passenger railcar. passenger cars, and rescue access the collision site. NTSB/RAR–97/01, at p. 27.
In a February 20, 2004 letter to the windows on all levels of these cars, thus In 1998, APTA recognized the
NTSB, FRA noted that its existing addressing requirements for every importance of emergency
regulations do require that windows seating level of a passenger car. communications when it issued APTA
intended for emergency responder C. Need for Emergency Communication SS–PS–001–98, ‘‘Standard for Passenger
access on every level of a multi-level Systems Railroad Emergency Communications,’’
passenger car be clearly marked and that noting that the establishment and
clear and understandable instructions Traditionally, conductors and execution of communications among
for their removal be posted at or near assistant conductors have been relied train crews, operations control
the windows on the car’s exterior. See upon to relay information to passengers personnel and train passengers are of
49 CFR 223.9(d)(2). FRA also sent a in both normal and emergency the utmost importance under normal
letter to passenger railroads to make this situations through face-to-face circumstances. According to the APTA
clear in the event there was any communication or by use of the PA standard, during emergency situations
confusion about these requirements. system. However, with smaller crew such communications take on added
Nevertheless, the NTSB’s sizes, passengers may not be able to importance in the task of assuring the
recommendation highlighted the fact communicate to the crew a medical safety of all involved.
that several related concerns were not emergency, report a fire on board the While the Passenger Equipment
specifically addressed in FRA’s train, or provide notification of other Safety Standards issued in 1999 by FRA
regulations. One of these concerns was safety issues as quickly as may be contain requirements for two-way
specifying minimum numbers and necessary. For instance, a passenger in emergency communication systems for
locations of windows intended for the last car of a train needing to report Tier II passenger equipment (trains
emergency responder access to an emergency situation could operating at speeds exceeding 125 mph,
passenger cars, as 49 CFR 223.9(d)(2) potentially have to walk the entire but not exceeding 150 mph), there are
addresses only marking and instruction length of the train to communicate with no requirements that Tier I passenger
requirements and does not provide any the conductor (assuming the crew is cars be equipped with any emergency
express requirement that any such composed of an engineer and only one communication system. In that
rescue access windows exist. A second conductor). Further, if the conductor rulemaking, concern had been raised
prominent issue concerned specifying became incapacitated, passengers would about the practicality of applying such
minimum numbers and locations of need to communicate directly with the requirements to Tier I passenger
emergency window exits on any level of engineer. equipment because of the
a multi-level passenger car—not just FRA also notes that the NTSB interoperability of such equipment and
main levels, as provided in 49 CFR accident investigation report of the the possible incompatibility of
238.113(a)(1). February 9, 1996 collision near communications equipment in a Tier I
FRA informed the NTSB that it was Secaucus, NJ, that involved two New passenger train. See 64 FR 25540,
reviewing and considering the necessity Jersey Transit Rail Operations (NJTR) 25641; May 12, 1999. Nevertheless,
of making amendments to its safety trains and resulted in three fatalities and today most existing passenger cars are
standards for passenger trains through numerous injuries, touches on the equipped with PA systems, and
the RSAC process and that these and importance of emergency intercom systems are common in new
other passenger safety issues would be communications to prevent panic and passenger cars.
presented to the Working Group and the further injuries. According to the NTSB FRA notes that, while there are many
Task Force for their consideration. report of the accident investigation, possible ways for an emergency
Therefore, FRA asked that the NTSB [a]lthough the train crews said that they situation to arise on a passenger train,
classify Safety Recommendation R–03– went from car to car instructing passengers an emergency system may be useful in
21 as ‘‘Open—Acceptable Response,’’ to remain seated, passengers said that they many situations, regardless of the origin
were not told about the severity of the
pending the results of this effort. (The of the emergency. In this regard,
situation and were concerned about a
NTSB classification ‘‘Open—Acceptable possible fire or being struck by an oncoming emergency communication systems
Response’’ means a ‘‘[r]esponse by train. They therefore left the train and provide the added benefit of conveying
recipient indicates a planned action that wandered around the tracks waiting for information about security threats and
would comply with the safety guidance, potentially posing a greater hazard handling security concerns. According
recommendation when completed.’’) By because of the leaking fuel from train 1107. to TSA, terrorists have considered
letter dated June 2, 2004, the NTSB No crewmember used the public address attacks on subways and trains in the
formally classified the recommendation system to communicate with passengers. By U.S., and TSA has found that passenger
as FRA requested. using the public address system, all railroads and subways in the U.S. are
passengers would have received the same
The Task Force reviewed the NTSB’s particularly high-consequence targets in
message in less time than it would have
recommendation and the related issues taken the NJT employees to walk from car to terms of potential loss of life and
FRA presented to it and agreed to car. economic disruption. DHS, including
address emergency window exits and TSA, as well as DOT’s FRA and FTA
rescue access windows on a broad basis, The report also stated that have been actively engaged in
with the goal that windows for [i]nformation about the possibility of a fire responding to the threat of terrorism to
emergency egress and rescue access or a collision with an oncoming train could our Nation’s rail system, and the
would be available on every level of a have been provided to passengers over the initiatives that have been undertaken to
passenger car in the event that a public address system to address their do so are too numerous to detail in this
concerns and prevent them from leaving the
stairway or interior door is train. The Safety Board concludes that the
NPRM. Consistent with this response,
compromised and access to the primary lack of public announcements addressing the the ability of passengers to timely report
means of exit (doors) is blocked. To this passengers’ concerns caused them to act suspicious items and suspicious activity
end, the Task Force agreed to develop independently, evacuate the train, and onboard passenger trains to appropriate
requirements for emergency window wander along the tracks, thus potentially personnel increases the likelihood of
detecting a terrorist attack and thwarting they allow for window removal with Although the basic approach to
it, or at least disrupting it and less effort. establishing egress requirements based
minimizing its consequences. This Although FRA is not proposing to on car configuration and occupant
would also be facilitated by the ability require the use of zip-strips for rescue capacity was widely accepted, during
of the train crew to timely communicate access windows, FRA is proposing to development of the APTA standard
emergency information and instructions recognize ‘‘dual-function windows,’’ several organizations raised issues
to passengers in response to a security which serve as both emergency exit and regarding the methodology for assigning
threat. rescue access windows, through the use EEU values to exits. For instance, Volpe
FRA also notes that emergency system of zip-strips on both faces of the Center staff suggested that point values
requirements for such features as window. This recognition would afford for windows be reduced to numbers that
emergency window exits and emergency railroads more flexibility in the location are approximately in proportion to
lighting, which were not specifically of their windows, as it would not estimated passenger flow rates as
developed to address security threats, require railroads to find locations for compared with low-platform doors
may play a critical role in minimizing emergency window exits distinct from without steps, and that upper-level
the consequences of a terrorist attack on the locations specified for rescue access windows receive no credit toward the
board a passenger train. The safety and windows, and vice versa. minimum EEU criterion but still be
security functions that passenger train E. APTA’s Standard for Emergency required to provide exit paths for certain
emergency systems may serve make Evacuation Units rare accident scenarios. It was also
them vital, and further enhancements questioned whether egress rates through
As FRA noted in the preamble to the windows could be half as great as
and additions to emergency systems final rule promulgating the Passenger
should be explored both to minimize through single-leaf doors, as implied by
Equipment Safety Standards, FRA has the standard.
the risk of a terrorist attack to passenger had under consideration a performance
trains, to reduce the death, injuries, and The Emergency Preparedness Task
standard for emergency evacuation Force reviewed the APTA standard and
other consequences of such an attack if similar to that used in commercial
it occurs, and to promote passenger recommended the continuation of
aviation where a sufficient number of evacuation tests and research to
train safety overall. emergency exits must be provided to establish relative exit flow rates using
D. Window Technology evacuate the maximum passenger load different types of exits at distinct
in a specified time for various types of locations in the car, prior to considering
A ‘‘zip-strip’’ is a strip of rubber emergency situations. See 64 FR 25550.
gasketing that holds a window panel in adoption of the APTA standard into
FRA further noted that it would
place and is capable of being pulled, or FRA’s standards. To this end, the Volpe
evaluate whether an APTA performance
pried and then pulled, like a zipper Center is conducting a series of
standard for emergency egress, then
from the panel it holds. Use of zip-strips evacuations tests. FRA does note that
under development in APTA’s PRESS
for window removal has been around the emergency evacuation approach
Task Force, should be incorporated into
for some time. Yet, the introduction of underlying the proposals in this NPRM
FRA’s standards. 64 FR 25551. FRA’s
windows using zips-strips on both faces is consistent with the basic approach
intent is that such a performance
of the same window has allowed taken in developing APTA’s standard,
standard would serve to supplement, as
railroads to designate for rescue access as FRA proposals do take into
necessary, FRA’s minimum
those windows that are best suited for consideration car configuration and
requirements for emergency window
that purpose without impacting the exits and door exits. occupant capacity.
selection of emergency window exits, or In 1999, APTA issued APTA SS–PS– IV. General Overview of Proposed
compromising compliance with safety 003–98, ‘‘Standard for Emergency Requirements
glazing requirements. Before this Evacuation Units for Rail Passenger
technology was available, railroads that Cars.’’ This standard assigns to doors A. Emergency Window Exits and Rescue
used zip-strips for window removal had and window exits a numerical value, Access Windows
to decide which windows would be referred to as an ‘‘emergency evacuation Among the most prominent issues
designated for emergency egress and unit’’ (EEU), that is intended to correlate identified for consideration by the
which would be designated for rescue to the speed and ease of passenger Working Group were those involving
access, as there was only one zip-strip egress. Each emergency window exit is emergency window exits and rescue
available to open. Equipping cars with assigned an EEU of 1, and each door leaf access windows and how these
more rescue access windows with zip- an EEU of 2. It defines the ‘‘usable exit windows relate to the emergency
strips meant having fewer emergency path’’ (UXP) as the number of systems requirements overall.
window exits, all things being equal, emergency window and door exits that Emergency window exits are intended
even though it would be preferable to can be used by passengers after an to supplement door exits, which serve
have more emergency window exits incident that requires emergency egress as the preferred means of egress in an
than rescue access windows as from the vehicle, and requires that it be emergency situation, and provide an
occupants should normally begin to calculated as ‘‘the sum of EEUs for one alternative means of emergency egress
self-evacuate via emergency window side of the car less 50% of car end in life-threatening situations, should
exits before emergency responders doors.’’ The APTA standard requires doors be rendered inaccessible or
arrive to assist. Whereas railroads could railroads to assign to each new inoperable. Existing regulations require
generally designate any window for passenger car a ‘‘capacity exit factor’’ that each single-level car and each main
rescue access by providing instructions (CXF), which is a value equal to the level of a multi-level passenger car have
for removal using tools normally seating capacity of the car divided by 17 a minimum of four emergency window
available to emergency responders to and rounded up to the next whole exits, either in a staggered configuration
pop out a window, such as a sledge number, and to designate a sufficient where practical or with one exit located
hammer or a fire axe, some railroads number of exits to achieve a total EEU in each side of each end, on each level.
prefer to equip windows with exterior value equal to the larger of the CXF or These windows must be designed to
zips-strips for rescue access because the UXP. permit rapid and easy removal during
an emergency without the use of a tool examples of gaskets that were becoming emergency evacuation approach, in
or other implement. Conspicuous photo- stuck and were therefore not removable which door exits serve as the first
luminescent marking of the windows, as in a rapid and easy fashion, the central (preferred) means of egress and
well as instructions for their use, are goal of this provision was to create an emergency window exits serve as the
also required. Windows intended for opening that could be used for egress, second. Rescue access windows have
rescue access must be marked with which necessarily includes removal of this tertiary role because they would be
retroreflective material, and instructions the window panel as well. If the used as a means of last resort when
for their use must also be provided. removal of the gasket is rapid and easy, passengers cannot evacuate themselves
However, FRA’s regulations currently but the removal of the window panel is and require aid from emergency
do not require any minimum number of not, the opening becomes less useful in responders. The design of window
rescue access windows for passenger an emergency situation, or in some gaskets also affects how many rescue
cars. cases, effectively non-existent. Several access windows can be placed in a car,
One of the basic principles underlying members of the Task Force also especially on levels where there is
the proposed requirements for both expressed their concern that the phrase limited space for windows. For
emergency window exits and rescue ‘‘rapid and easy’’ was too subjective and instance, on certain types of cars, zip-
access windows has been to locate these not quantifiable. They requested that strips installed to facilitate rapid and
windows in such a manner that FRA adopt a more measurable easy removal of a window can be
passengers would be able to exit from, performance-based standard instead. installed either on the interior or the
and emergency responders would be Yet, various proposals to do so based on exterior of the car, but not on both. In
able to gain direct access to, each a specific allotment of time to open the this case, if FRA were to require four
passenger compartment without window were not adopted, as consensus rescue access windows, then a railroad
requiring that they first go to another was not reached on how that time that has cars with additional emergency
level of a car or through an interior would be determined. Variables such as window exits (i.e., beyond the
door. Optimally, there would be a height, weight, strength, and awareness minimum of four per main level) would
sufficient number of windows for of emergency exit operation and likely just replace some of its emergency
passengers to exit from, and for procedures all could affect the ease of window exits with rescue access
emergency responders to get access to, opening a window. For example, a windows, resulting in fewer emergency
the following: (i) Every level with railroad maintenance employee who window exits, and thereby limiting the
passenger seating of a multiple-level installs emergency window exits or is more preferred means of egress. For the
passenger railcar; (ii) both sides of the otherwise trained on their use should be above reasons, as well as for the cost of
car, in the event of a derailment where able to open a window more quickly retrofitting existing equipment,
the exits on one side are compromised; than many passengers would be able to flexibility for locating rescue access
and (iii) each end (half) of the car, in the do. While there was general agreement windows in side doors was added for
event that one end is crushed or the that a time-performance standard existing equipment.
exits on that end are otherwise rendered should be based on the time taken by a FRA is not proposing changes to
inaccessible or inoperable. A constraint representative sample of people to open existing requirements for emergency
for both new and existing intermediate the window, the Task Force was not in window exits in sleeping compartments
levels of multi-level passenger car a position to specify that sample. or similar private compartments. Yet,
designs is that there is limited space for Although unsuccessful at reaching FRA is proposing rescue access window
side windows due to the presence of consensus on an actual measure of requirements for such compartments.
bathrooms, equipment closets, and side ‘‘rapid and easy,’’ the Task Force was Although this proposal would establish
door exits. Thus, the Task Force agreed able to agree that promoting ‘‘rapid and new requirements, the proposal reflects
to make the proposed requirements easy’’ removal of emergency windows is current practice.
flexible and consistent with existing car desirable. A combination of fixtures,
B. Emergency Communication
designs and, in certain cases, provide such as headrests and luggage racks, as
Systems—Public Address and Intercom
for exceptions. The exceptions for new well as larger and heavier windows, can
Systems
equipment are limited to situations that create a situation where the most
arise from the need to provide effective and efficient method for As discussed above, while the
accessible accommodations under the removing a window is not immediately Passenger Equipment Safety Standards
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 apparent. As a step towards promoting issued in 1999 by FRA contain
in compartments where there are no rapid and easy removal of the window requirements for two-way emergency
more than four seats and a suitable and to address the situation of particular communication systems for Tier II
alternative is provided. The Task Force concern, the Task Force recommended passenger equipment, there are
recommended greater flexibility for requiring that instructions specifically currently no requirements that Tier I
existing equipment to avoid costly take into account potential hindrances. passenger cars be equipped with any
window installations where none had The instructions may be in written or emergency communication system.
previously existed (e.g., relocating an pictorial format, since including Nevertheless, today most existing
electrical closet so that a space large pictorials depicting the window passenger cars are equipped with PA
enough to accommodate a new window removal method as part of the systems, and after discussing the
could be cut into the side of the car). instructions can be extremely helpful. benefits of PA systems in light of the
During Task Force discussions, it As for rescue access windows, the challenge and expense of retrofitting
became apparent that the phrase ‘‘rapid Task Force generally recommended older, existing passenger equipment
and easy’’ in the emergency window requiring two windows on each level of with limited service life, the Task Force
exit regulation was being interpreted in a passenger car for rescue access (versus agreed that all passenger cars should, at
different ways by commuter railroads four as is required for emergency exit). a minimum, have functioning PA
and car manufacturers. Some believed The principal reason for requiring only systems. The PA system would allow
that only the removal of the gasket had two windows for rescue access is that the train crew to keep their passengers
to be rapid and easy; however, FRA rescue access windows are the third informed in an emergency situation and
clarified that while FRA may have cited means of egress in the overall provide guidance to all passengers in a
timely manner, thereby reducing the I passenger equipment. The Task Force proposes to revise the definition of
likelihood that passengers would take examined these requirements and APTA ‘‘emergency window’’ to mean that
an action that could place them in any PRESS recommended practice RP–C&S– segment of a side-facing glazing panel
greater danger. 001–98, ‘‘Recommended Practice for which has been designed to permit
The Task Force also agreed that Passenger Equipment Roof Emergency rapid and easy removal from inside a
emergency communication systems in Access,’’ in recommending that passenger car in an emergency situation.
all new passenger cars should include emergency roof access requirements be FRA is also proposing that the terms
intercom systems that would enable applied to Tier I passenger equipment. ‘‘emergency responder’’ and ‘‘passenger
passengers to quickly communicate in FRA adopted the Task Force’s train service’’ be deleted in accordance
emergency situations with the train recommendation and, in general, is with the proposal to delete § 223.9(d)(2),
crew. During the discussions concerning proposing that each new passenger car the only section in part 223 that
whether to require intercom systems on (both Tier I and Tier II) have a minimum references these terms. The term
Tier I passenger equipment, some Task of two emergency roof access locations. ‘‘emergency responder’’ would be
Force members expressed concern that Existing Tier I passenger cars would not moved to part 238.
if intercom systems were added at each be subject to the proposed requirements,
end of a car, were conspicuously Subpart B—Specific Requirements
while existing Tier II passenger cars
marked, and had instructions provided would continue to be subject to existing Section 223.9 Requirements for new or
for their use, passengers may use them requirements. For further discussion rebuilt equipment
in non-emergency situations. Amtrak and explanation of the proposed In the discussion of § 223.5, FRA
and various commuter railroads that requirements, please see the Section-by- noted that the definition of ‘‘emergency
operate cars with intercom systems Section Analysis of this preamble at
indicated that they have successfully window’’ would be amended to clarify
Section V. that the purpose of the windows is for
implemented measures to deter misuse,
however, such as by placing the D. Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance egress, and thus would need to be
intercom transmission button under a removable only from the inside of a
FRA is proposing to modify §§ 238.17, passenger car. Section 223.9(c) currently
protective covering (which also prevents 238.303, and 238.305 (which contain
accidental operation by a passenger requires ‘‘at least four emergency
standards for movement of passenger opening windows.’’ As the term
leaning against it) and by marking it equipment with other than power brake
‘‘FOR EMERGENCY USE ONLY.’’ ‘‘emergency opening window’’ is not
defects, for inspection of passenger specifically defined—but has been
The recommended emergency equipment, and for repair of passenger
communication system requirements understood to mean ‘‘emergency
equipment) to include requirements for window’’—FRA believed that it would
developed by the Task Force generally the inspection, testing, maintenance and
reflect current practice for Tier I be best to modify the rule text in
repair of emergency communication § 223.9(c) to require ‘‘at least four
passenger equipment operating with systems, emergency roof access points,
intercom systems and existing emergency windows’’ in order to
and rescue access markings. To allow provide more clarity.
requirements for Tier II passenger railroads sufficient time to repair the
equipment. FRA understands that those FRA is proposing to delete the
equipment with minimal disruption to requirements in § 223.9(d) and merge
Tier I passenger cars that currently do normal operations, flexibility would be
not have PA systems are scheduled to be them into §§ 238.113 and 238.114 of
provided for operating equipment in part 238. The requirements in § 223.9(d)
retired from service before the proposed passenger service with certain non-
requirement to have PA systems on were added by FRA’s May 4, 1998 final
compliant conditions. In affording this rule on Passenger Train Emergency
existing Tier I passenger equipment flexibility, the rule would require the
would become effective. Preparedness. See 63 FR 24629, 24643.
railroad to adhere to specified The Passenger Train Emergency
C. Emergency Roof Access Locations procedures for the safe operation of the Preparedness final rule required the
Emergency roof access locations (roof equipment. marking of both emergency window
hatches or structural weak points) can V. Section-by-Section Analysis exits and windows intended for rescue
be especially useful in emergency access, and also required that
Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part instructions be provided their use.
situations where passenger cars have
223, Safety Glazing Standards— However, the requirements applied only
rolled onto their sides following certain
Locomotives, Passenger Cars and to ‘‘each railroad providing passenger
collision and derailment scenarios. In
Cabooses train service,’’ a class of train service
such situations, doors, which are the
preferred means of egress and access Subpart A—General purposefully narrower than the general
under normal circumstances, may be application section in part 223. See
Section 223.5 Definitions § 223.3. Because FRA is proposing to
rendered inoperable due to structural
damage to the door or the door pocket, This section, which contains a set of address marking and instruction
or extremely difficult to use because the definitions relevant to the regulations requirements for such windows in this
car is no longer upright. Moreover, contained in part 223, would be train service in part 238, and because
although emergency responders may be modified to clarify a definition, and to the requirements of § 223.9(d) do not
able to enter a car that is on its side via delete two definitions that would no apply to other equipment covered by
a rescue access window, the removal of longer be relevant due to proposed part 223, they may be removed from
an injured occupant through a side modifications of this part, specifically, part 223, along with the corresponding
window in such circumstances would the deletion of § 223.9(d)(2). definition of ‘‘emergency responder’’
likewise be difficult or complicated, The definition of ‘‘emergency and ‘‘passenger train service.’’ Further,
especially depending upon the window’’ would be revised to clarify deletion of § 223.9(d) would avoid
condition of the occupant. that the purpose of an emergency creating any confusion due to
Existing FRA regulations require window is for egress, and thus needs to duplication of the marking and
emergency roof access locations for Tier be removable only from the inside of a instruction requirements in two
II passenger equipment, but not for Tier passenger car. Accordingly, FRA different parts of the CFR, especially
since the proposed marking relevant to the proposed modifications two, separate seating areas, one at each
requirements in part 238 that were to part 238. end of the car, and is normally
adopted by the full RSAC vary FRA proposes to add the definition of connected to each main level by stairs.
somewhat from the ones currently ‘‘dual-function window’’ to mean a The term ‘‘intermediate level’’ is
found in § 223.9(d). Nevertheless, window that is intended to serve as both intended to distinguish a level used for
§ 223.8 will continue to alert the reader an emergency window exit and a rescue passenger seating of a multi-level
to additional requirements for access window. This term generally passenger car from a ‘‘main level’’ of
emergency window exits for ‘‘passenger refers to a window that has a zip-strip, such as car, as FRA is proposing to
equipment’’ in part 238, as defined in which is a strip in a window gasket that apply different requirements to the
that part. can be pulled from end to end to unlock different passenger seating levels. Please
However, because the general the gasket and thus release the glazing, see the discussion of ‘‘main level.’’
application section of part 223 is on both faces so that it can be opened Currently, the regulatory text of part
broader than that in part 238, FRA has from both the inside of the car and the 238 does not define the term ‘‘main
been mindful not to alter the application outside. (This definition would also level,’’ as used in § 238.113. However,
of those requirements unaffected by the cover other methods of opening the in the preamble to the April 23, 2002
May 4, 1998 amendments. Part 238 does same window from both the inside of final rule, FRA explained that the term
not apply to ‘‘tourist, scenic, historic, or the car and the outside.) The term is ‘‘main level’’ was intended to exclude a
excursion operations, whether on or off being added because it is referenced in level of a car that is ‘‘principally used
the general railroad system of § 238.114(a)(5) as an exception to the for passage between the door exits and
transportation,’’ see § 238.3(c)(3); requirements on the location of rescue
passenger seating areas, or between
whereas, part 223 does not apply to access windows set forth in § 238.114.
seating areas,’’ and noted that such an
‘‘locomotives, passenger cars and Dual-function windows installed to
area is not ‘‘principally used for
cabooses that are historical or meet the minimum requirements
seating’’ and includes a stairwell
antiquated equipment’’ and are also proposed in § 238.113 would not be
landing. See 67 FR 19973. This
‘‘used only for excursion, educational, required to meet the § 238.114 location
distinction raised some concerns with
recreational purposes or private requirements, in order to recognize that
respect to intermediate levels because
transportation purposes,’’ see a railroad that installs four compliant
their designation as main levels would
§ 223.3(b)(3). As a result, to the extent emergency window exits that are the
hinge upon an interpretation of
tourist equipment is covered by part 223 dual-function type has also installed
because the equipment is not historical twice the number of rescue access ‘‘principally used’’ for passenger
or antiquated and is required to be windows that would be required. seating. Some Task Force members
equipped with certified glazing in all FRA proposes to revise the definition believed that these levels were
windows pursuant to §§ 223.9(c) or of ‘‘emergency window’’ to clarify that principally used for passenger seating
223.15(c), such equipment would still the purpose of an emergency window is because passengers who are seated there
be required to have four emergency for egress, and thus only needs to be are spending more time on that level
windows (emergency window exits), removable from the inside of a than the passengers who simply use that
despite its exclusion from the part 238 passenger car. Accordingly, FRA level to reach the upper level (or lower
requirements. proposes to revise the definition to level). Others believed that the
mean that segment of a side-facing intermediate level was principally used
Appendix B to Part 223—Schedule of glazing panel which has been designed for passage between levels because there
Civil Penalties to permit rapid and easy removal from was a greater volume of passengers
This appendix contains a schedule of inside a passenger car in an emergency passing through that level to reach the
civil penalties to be used in connection situation. FRA is also proposing to upper level (or passing through to reach
with this part. Because such penalty revise the definition of this term in the lower level, or both) than there were
schedules are statements of agency § 223.5 for consistency and clarity. passengers seated on that level. In light
policy, notice and comment are not FRA proposes to add the definition of of the concern raised, FRA is proposing
required prior to their issuance. See 5 ‘‘intercom’’ to mean a device through to define ‘‘intermediate level,’’ as
U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Nevertheless, as which voice communication can be discussed above, and is also proposing
discussed above, FRA is proposing that transmitted and received. A to define ‘‘main level’’ as a level of a
the requirements of § 223.9(d) be transmission unit normally has a button, passenger car that contains a passenger
merged into §§ 238.113 and 238.114 of which has to be depressed to begin compartment whose length is equal to
part 238. Thus, FRA is proposing that transmission or notify the crew on the or greater than half the length of the car.
the schedule of civil penalties in receiving end of the intention to This definition would establish a more
appendix B to part 223 be modified communicate using the system. An direct relationship between the number
accordingly, by deleting the entries for intercom may be a telephone apparatus. of occupants on a level of a car and the
paragraphs (d)(1)(i), (d)(1)(ii), (d)(2)(i), FRA is also proposing to add the number of emergency window exits
and (d)(2)(ii) and the associated definition of ‘‘intercom system’’ (or required on that level. The longer a level
penalties. ‘‘intercommunication system’’) to mean is, the more seats and exterior side
a two-way, voice communication windows it is able to accommodate.
Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part system. This system allows a passenger Since passenger cars are normally about
238, Passenger Equipment Safety to communicate with a crew member, 85 to 90 feet in length, a main level in
Standards typically by depressing a button, or such a car would be a level that contains
Subpart A—General lifting a telephone handset, or both. a passenger compartment whose length
FRA proposes to add the definition of is approximately 42.5 feet or more.

Section 238.5 Definitions ‘‘intermediate level’’ to mean a level of Accordingly, there should be sufficient
This section, which contains a set of a multi-level passenger car that is used space for the required number of
definitions relevant to the regulations for passenger seating and is normally emergency window exits on a main
contained in part 238, would be located between two main levels. An level of a passenger car, whether or not
modified to include new definitions intermediate level normally contains there is a bathroom, kitchen, or
equipment closet located on the same extent that there may be only one zip- Section 238.17 Movement of Passenger
level. strip for a single glazing system, the Equipment With Other Than Power
FRA proposes to add the definition railroad must decide whether to place Brake Defects
‘‘passenger compartment’’ to mean an the zip-strip on the exterior of the car This section contains the
area of a passenger car that consists of for use in rescue access, or in the requirements related to the movement of
a seating area and any vestibule that is interior of the car for use in emergency passenger equipment with a condition
connected to the seating area by an open egress. not in compliance with part 238,
passageway. If a door separates the excluding a power brake defect, without
seating area from the vestibule, the Although use of zip-strips in rescue
access windows is common, FRA makes civil penalty liability under this part.
vestibule is not part of the passenger FRA proposes to modify paragraphs (b)
compartment. See Figure 1c to subpart clear that they would not be required.
The proposed definition is a and (c) of this section to include a
B. This definition was necessary to reference to the specific provisions
solidify the concept that passengers performance standard, and a rescue
access window may be opened by other being added to the exterior, calendar
should not have to go through an day mechanical inspection in proposed
interior door, which could get jammed, means, such as by shattering the
window (if glass) or popping the § 238.303(e)(18) regarding rescue-access-
or to another level in order to reach an related markings, signage, and
emergency window exit, and likewise, window out by applying force at one
instructions. Proposed § 238.303(e)(18)
emergency responders should be able to corner.
would require that all rescue-access-
directly access passengers in need of aid Throughout the discussion of rescue related exterior markings, signage, and
in each such compartment. access windows, Task Force members instructions required by proposed
FRA proposes to add the definition repeatedly emphasized, as the definition § 238.114 (rescue access windows) and
‘‘PA system’’ or ‘‘public address reflects, that these windows are § 239.107(a)(2) be in place and, as
system’’ to mean a one-way, voice intended for use by emergency applicable, conspicuous, and/or legible,
communication system. Such a system responders to gain access to passengers and that certain conditions be met for
is used by train crew members to make in an emergency situation. In the continued use of the cars with defective
announcements to passengers in both
process of reviewing the definitions in markings, signage, or instructions. As
normal and emergency situations. On
parts 223, 238, and 239 in composing these proposed provisions contain
some railroads, crew members use the
this NPRM, FRA noted that the term specific requirements related to the
PA system to make station
‘‘emergency responder’’ is defined in continued use in passenger service of
announcements. Other railroads limit its
parts 223 and 239, but not in part 238. passenger cars found with defective
use to communicate information
As the proposed part 238 definition of rescue access signs, markings, or
regarding unusual occurrences, such as
‘‘rescue access window’’ includes the instructions, recognition of these
unexpected delays and emergencies.
term ‘‘emergency responder,’’ FRA specific limitations needs to be included
Some PA systems have speakers located
believes it is appropriate to add in both paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
on the exterior of cars that are used to
‘‘emergency responder’’ to part 238. The section. The proposed requirements in
make announcements to persons in the
term would be defined to mean a § 238.303(e)(18) and the proposed
vicinity of the train (e.g., passengers on
member of a police or fire department, conditions for continued use of
a station platform).
Consistent with the proposed or other organization involved with passenger equipment with non-
amendments to part 223, discussed public safety charged with providing or complying conditions are discussed in
above, FRA proposes to define ‘‘rescue coordinating emergency services, who detail below.
responds to a passenger train FRA notes that it is considering
access window’’ as a side-facing exterior
emergency. moving the emergency exit marking
window intended for use by emergency
responders to gain access to passengers requirements contained in § 239.107(a)
FRA proposes to add a definition of into part 238. Since § 239.107(a)
in an emergency situation. In some ‘‘seating area’’ to mean an area of a
passenger cars, all windows may be contains door exit marking, signage, and
passenger car that normally contains operating instruction requirements, the
capable of serving as both emergency passenger seating. An area with no
window exits and rescue access requirements of this section may more
actual seats but with anchors for logically be situated in the very sections
windows. However, a railroad may securing wheel chairs would be
choose not to designate one or more of containing requirements for doors in
considered a seating area. part 238, namely, §§ 238.235 and
these windows for rescue access for
various reasons, including the presence FRA notes that the term ‘‘vestibule’’ is 238.439. If the requirements in
of a third-rail shoe that could pose an currently defined in part 238 to mean an § 239.107(a) are moved into part 238,
electrocution hazard, or a high seat back area of a passenger car that normally FRA would make any necessary
next to the window that may pose a does not contain seating and is used in conforming changes to part 238, and
potential hindrance to window removal passing from the seating area to the side modify this proposed section in
for windows that are designed to open exit doors. Although FRA is not revising publishing the final rule. FRA invites
by being pushed into the car. the definition of ‘‘vestibule,’’ FRA comment whether the requirements of
Some rescue access windows are makes clear that for purposes of part § 239.107(a) should be moved into part
designed with a zip-strip to release the 238, a vestibule may be located 238.
window panel from its frame. In some anywhere along a car. The location of a Subpart B—Safety Planning and
cars, side-facing glazing systems are vestibule is not restricted to the far ends General Requirements
designed so that there is a zip-strip on of a car but may be elsewhere, such as
only one side of the window panel. It is in the middle of the car. As a result, Section 238.113 Emergency Window
common for railroads to install such what some in the passenger rail industry Exits
systems with a zip-strip on the exterior commonly refer to as an entranceway, This section currently contains
of the car for rescue access use, and also by virtue of where its located in a car, requirements for emergency window
have one in the interior of the car for is considered a vestibule for purposes of exits in single-level passenger cars and
emergency egress use. However, to the this part. main levels of multi-level passenger
cars. Emergency window exits are inclusion in part 238 would be helpful accessible to passengers in each seating
intended to supplement door exits, in understanding the requirements of area without requiring the passengers to
which are normally the preferred means this part, and, if so, whether any move to another level of the car or pass
of egress in an emergency situation. additional figures should be included. through an interior door. This proposal
Emergency windows provide an FRA also notes that the proposed is intended to address situations in
alternative means of emergency egress figures, which are not drawn to scale, which stairways could become
should doors be rendered inoperable or represent possible ways of complying structurally deformed and interior doors
inaccessible. They also provide an with the proposed requirements and could be rendered inoperable as a result
additional means of egress in life- should not be construed as depicting the of a collision, derailment, or other
threatening situations requiring very only way to comply. accident, obstructing access to an
rapid exit, such as a fire on board or Paragraph (a)(3) would contain the emergency window exit or a side door
submergence of the car in a body of requirements for emergency window exit on another level or in a vestibule
water. exits on non-main levels with seating area that is separated from the seating
To ensure that emergency window areas of multi-level passenger cars, area by an interior door. Similarly, the
exit requirements apply to every level including intermediate (or mezzanine) proposal is intended to address
with passenger seating, FRA is seating levels. The general intent of the situations in which a passenger car has
proposing to revise this section to proposal is to have at least one rolled onto its side as a result of a
expressly include emergency window emergency window exit that is collision, derailment, or other accident,
exit requirements for any level with accessible to passengers in each side of by providing that at least one of these
passenger seating in a multi-level a passenger seating area without emergency window exits would be
passenger car. FRA is also proposing to requiring the passengers to move to required in each side of the passenger
revise this section to require that another level of the car or pass through car, except as provided below. See
emergency window exit operating a door. This would help ensure that, if Figures 2, 2a, and 2b to subpart B.
instructions specifically address the a car rolled onto its side or if there was
The proposed rule provides flexibility
presence of interior fixtures that may a hazard on one side of the train, an
for locating an emergency window exit
hinder the removal of the window emergency window exit on the opposite
within an exterior side door in the
panel, to facilitate its rapid and easy side would be available to passengers
passenger compartment of a non-main
removal. and crew members for emergency
Paragraph (a), which applies to both level, if it is not ‘‘practical’’ to place the
egress. Nevertheless, as further
new and existing passenger cars, would discussed below, a constraint for window exit in the side of the seating
be modified to specify requirements for intermediate levels of both new and area. It should be noted that, by
the number and location of emergency existing multi-level passenger car definition, a side door would not be
window exits on any level with designs is limited space due to the considered located within the
passenger seating in a passenger car. presence of bathrooms, equipment ‘‘passenger compartment’’ if an interior
The requirements for single-level closets, and side door exits. door separates the seating area from the
passenger cars in proposed paragraph Accordingly, the requirements proposed area where the side doors are located.
(a)(1), and for main levels of multi-level for the number and location of The provision would require that there
passenger cars in proposed paragraph emergency window exits in paragraph be an open passageway between the
(a)(2), would effectively remain (a)(3) provide flexibility for, and are seating area and the vestibule, in such
unchanged. The current requirements consistent with, existing passenger car a circumstance. Use of the word
for single-level passenger cars require a designs. ‘‘practical’’ would allow railroads and
minimum of four emergency window FRA notes that in light of the car builders some discretion regarding
exits, located ‘‘either in a staggered proposed definition of ‘‘main level,’’ the location of an emergency window
configuration where practical or with some passenger cars would no longer exit in a non-main level of a car. For
one located in each end of each side of have main levels. Such cars would thus instance, this provision could be used to
each level.’’ FRA is proposing to slightly be subject to the proposed requirements address situations where a window in a
modify this language by replacing the for other levels with seating areas door in the same passenger
word ‘‘end’’ with ‘‘end (half)’’ to clarify contained in paragraph (a)(3). For compartment may be better suited for
that the term ‘‘end’’ does not refer to the instance, none of the levels in a gallery- emergency egress than one in the
extreme forward and rear ends of a car, style car (a multi-level passenger car seating area. In some cars, removal of
but merely the front half and rear halves with a full-height, enclosed vestibule in the windows in the seating area may be
of the car. See Figure 1 to subpart B. the center) would meet the proposed hindered by seat backs or other fixtures,
Additionally, the text would be definition of a ‘‘main level.’’ Yet, each while windows in the exterior side
reorganized to emphasize that a window of the four, separate seating areas in doors could be more easily and rapidly
would be required in each end (half) of such a car would be subject to the removed. Since there would still be two
each side of the car and that, if practical, emergency window exit number and accessible side windows in a passenger
the windows would also be in a location requirements proposed in compartment, one on each side, there
staggered configuration. This paragraph (a)(3). Further, the proposed would be no limitation on the number
clarification would remove any requirements are consistent with the of seats that may be in the compartment.
ambiguity in the current rule text that number and location of emergency Moreover, the door itself is a means of
wrongly suggests that one could choose windows on existing gallery-style emergency egress that, if operable,
to simply stagger the windows without passenger cars, would not impact would allow more rapid and safe egress
regard to having one window in each current operations, and would not than exiting through a window.
side of each end. To illustrate the diminish the effect of FRA’s existing Nevertheless, because having two
requirements of paragraph (a)(2), FRA is requirements. emergency exits at the very same
proposing to add Figure 1 to subpart B, Paragraph (a)(3)(i) would require that location could result in both exits being
as referenced above. FRA invites non-main levels that are used for rendered inoperable (as by car crush) or
comment on whether this and other passenger seating have at least two inaccessible (as by fire), FRA is not
figures proposed in this NPRM for emergency window exits that are proposing to allow the unrestricted
placement of emergency window exits other equipment closet in a side of an open at the end, allowing passengers
in side doors. FRA makes clear that, all intermediate level at one end of a direct access to the outside. Further, the
things being equal, emergency window passenger car without being required to panel in the interior door leading to the
exits should be placed in a separate place an emergency window exit in the vestibule would not be glass but a
location from side door exits. See Figure same side at that location, provided the polycarbonate, which is significantly
2b to subpart B; compare to Figure 2a placement of the locker or closet is lighter than glass and thus easier to
to subpart B. related to placement of ADA-accessible remove, and the opening in the interior
In determining the appropriate accommodations in the intermediate door would be large enough for a person
applicability date for the proposed level at the other end of the car. The to pass through it relatively quickly.
requirement to have emergency window limitation concerning the maximum Paragraph (a)(3)(iii) would require
exits in non-main levels of multi-level number of seats in the passenger passenger cars ordered both prior to 14
passenger cars, it was noted that, while compartment is consistent with the months after the publication of the final
some passenger cars already have maximum number of seats in existing rule and placed in service prior to 38
windows in each side of an intermediate designs for cars that are being months after the publication of the final
level seating area, these windows are manufactured with emergency window rule to have a minimum of only one
not necessarily emergency window exits in only one side of each passenger emergency window exit in a non-main
exits. Consequently, some time would compartment in an intermediate level. level seating area in a passenger
be needed to change out the existing The proposal would also require that compartment with no more than eight
windows with emergency window exits a suitable, alternative arrangement for
seats, if it is not ‘‘practicable’’ to place
or otherwise retrofit the windows with a window exit in a side of the passenger
emergency egress be provided. Such an
pull-handles and make any other compartment (due to the presence of
arrangement should not require the use
modification necessary so that the such structures as a bathroom, electrical
of a tool or implement to operate, and
windows would meet the requirements locker, or kitchen). This exception
should be comparable to an emergency
for emergency window exits. The would be broader than the one in
window exit in terms of being rapid and
proposal takes this into account, and paragraph (a)(3)(ii) as it would apply to
easy to use. As part of the Task Force’s
otherwise would afford railroads non-main levels with more seats and
discussion during the development of
sufficient time to come into compliance would not be dependent on providing
the proposed rule, Kawasaki presented
regardless of the state of the existing accessible accommodations under the
a car design with a seating area
windows, by phasing the requirement in ADA. However, it would not apply to
over an 18-month period from the date separated from a vestibule by an interior new cars. New car designs should take
of publication of the final rule. door and an alternative arrangement for into consideration the need to provide
Paragraph (a)(3)(ii) contains a emergency egress. The interior door an emergency window exit in each side
proposed exception for non-main levels would be designed with a removable of a passenger compartment.
of multi-level passenger cars that would window panel (with pull-handles on Use of the word ‘‘practicable’’ would
require only one emergency window both sides) to allow passengers access to limit railroad discretion so that a car
exit in a seating area in a passenger the vestibule, if the door itself were would be required to have an emergency
compartment with no more than four inoperable. Further, in the vestibule the window exit in a side of a seating area,
seats, if it would not be practical to exterior side door located on the same if a window were already located there.
place an emergency window exit in a side as the one in the seating area Nevertheless, FRA notes that a railroad
side of the passenger compartment due without the emergency window exit would be under no obligation to install
to the need to provide accessible would itself contain an emergency a window in a side of a passenger
accommodations under the ADA and a window exit. As a result, a means of compartment for purposes of providing
suitable, alternate arrangement for exiting the car from that side would be an emergency window exit, if an
emergency egress is provided. This available to passengers. FRA notes that emergency window exit were located in
proposed exception would address a combination of several factors would either (i) the other side of the same
concerns involving multi-level render this arrangement a suitable, compartment or (ii) an exterior side
passenger cars serving passenger alternate means of emergency egress. door located in the same side of the
stations with high-platforms, such as on First, the alternate emergency exit compartment. Cutting through a side
the Northeast Corridor. Because all location would provide a measure of panel in an existing passenger car to
passengers enter the cars on the redundancy, i.e., a safety factor, in that install an emergency window exit
intermediate level, and disabled there would both be an exterior side would not be required.
passengers would not be able to access door and an emergency window exit in Requirements for cars with sleeping
accommodations on another level of the the same door. The door, if operable, compartments or similar private
cars, any accommodations provided to should allow passengers and crew compartments would be clarified and
passengers would have to be located on members to exit more expeditiously moved from existing paragraph (a)(2) to
the intermediate level. The proposal than through a window. In the event proposed paragraph (a)(4). Each level of
recognizes this need, and the proposed that this door would be rendered a passenger car with a sleeping
exception would apply to both existing inoperable, a window meeting the compartment or a similar private
and new passenger cars but would be minimum dimension requirements in compartment intended to be occupied
limited to situations that arise from the proposed paragraph (c) would then be by a passenger or train crew member
need to provide accessible available. To the extent both the door would continue to be required to have
accommodations under the ADA and and its window were rendered at least one emergency window exit in
limited to passenger compartments inoperable, the exterior side door exits each such compartment. A private
where there are no more than four seats in the adjacent car’s vestibule would seating area (such as one found on
and a suitable alternative for egress is then be next in sequence for use since certain European trains or on some
provided. FRA makes clear that use of this car design has no end-frame doors antiquated American trains) is a private
the word ‘‘practical’’ in paragraph separating adjoining cars. Should the compartment. FRA notes that, in a
(a)(3)(ii) would extend flexibility to car end of the car become uncoupled from passenger car with only sleeping
builders to locate an electrical locker or the adjacent car, the vestibule would be compartments, if all the sleeping
compartment doors are locked, (a)(3)(i) of this section. FRA makes clear identified as emergency window exits.
passengers in a compartment without an that, for purposes of determining However, FRA is not seeking to have
egress window would not be able to get compliance with the emergency these window exits removed, and is
into another compartment to use an window exit dimension requirements, instead considering that pull-handles on
emergency window exit. The rule would the dimensions of the unobstructed these window exits may state or retain
clarify that, for purposes of this opening are measured after the instructional markings such as ‘‘pull to
paragraph, a kitchen, locomotive cab, or emergency window exit has been open.’’ FRA invites comment on
bathroom—whether public or private— opened. The transparent area of the whether these window exits should or
is not considered a ‘‘private window for viewing use by passengers should not be removed, and, to the
compartment,’’ however. In particular, may be several inches smaller than the extent that they should not be removed,
bathrooms are distinguishable from opening created once the window is whether any instructional marking on
sleeping compartments because a removed, and that would be acceptable. these windows should be permitted.
passenger could leave a private FRA notes that a window exit in a Since these windows could be used for
bathroom to access an emergency passenger car ordered on or after emergency egress, if they are not
window exit in the sleeping September 8, 2000, or placed in service removed, FRA also invites comment as
compartment, and a passenger can leave for the first time on or after September to whether they should have to be tested
a public bathroom to access an 9, 2002, that does not create an periodically to ensure that they operate
emergency window exit in the unobstructed opening meeting the properly. Railroads are currently
passenger compartment. minimum dimension requirements of required to test emergency window exits
As part of the proposed revision and this paragraph may not be considered an no less frequently than every 180 days
reorganization of this section, paragraph ‘‘emergency window exit’’ for purposes using commonly accepted sampling
(b) would contain the same of this section and may not be marked techniques to determine how many
requirements for ease of operability of as an ‘‘emergency window exit.’’ windows to test. In general, these
emergency window exits that are Nevertheless, FRA is not seeking to principles require that the greater the
currently stated in paragraph (a)(3) of require that such a window exit be percentage of window exits that a
the existing regulation. The only modified or removed, provided the railroad finds defective, the greater the
modification would be that the passenger car is otherwise in percentage of windows that the railroad
applicability date of November 8, 1999, compliance with all applicable will have to test. Specifically, sampling
which is currently stated in the emergency window exit requirements. must be conducted to meet a 95-percent
introductory text of paragraph (a), be For example, FRA is aware of window confidence level that no defective units
added directly to this paragraph. FRA exits that do not create openings of the remain and be in accord with either
notes that the Task Force considered required dimensions because of the Military Standard MIL–STD–105(D),
alternatives to the existing standard for presence of seat backs that do not ‘‘Sampling for Attributes,’’ or American
the ease of operating emergency manually recline, and may therefore National Standards Institute ANSI–
window exits—one that would be obstruct passage through the window of ASQC Z1.4–1993, ‘‘Sampling
capable of more objective quantification. a stretcher or an emergency responder Procedures for Inspections by
One such alternative that was with a self-contained breathing Attributes.’’ Although testing these
considered involved specifying a apparatus but not a passenger or window exits would appear desirable, a
maximum pull-force for removing crewmember. It is not FRA’s intent to testing requirement may discourage
window gaskets and glazing, but the discourage a railroad from retaining railroads from retaining these windows
Task Force found it difficult to specify these additional window exits in its at all.
a uniform standard that would account passenger cars, for circumstances such As the final part of the proposed
for varying operating environments and as those present in the derailment of an reorganization and revision of this
weather conditions. Further discussion Amtrak train near Mobile, Alabama in section, paragraph (d) would contain the
relating to the requirements of proposed 1993. There, six passenger cars fell into requirements for marking emergency
paragraph (b) is found below in the a bayou and submerged, drowning 42 window exits, as well as providing
paragraph discussing proposed passengers and two crewmembers in operating instructions for their use.
requirements for marking emergency those cars, and killing all three Marking and operating instruction
window exits. crewmembers in the locomotive. In requirements for emergency window
Consistent with the proposed what has been the U.S.’s deadliest exits are currently contained in
reorganization and revision of this passenger train accident in over 50 § 223.9(d)(1) of this chapter, and are
section, FRA is proposing to move years, train occupants needed to currently referenced in paragraph (c) of
existing requirements for the evacuate the cars as quickly as possible, this section. The requirements in
dimensions of emergency window exits potentially making the number of § 223.9(d)(1) would be moved to
from paragraph (b) to paragraph (c). The window exits more critical than their proposed paragraph (d) of this section
applicability date of the dimension precise dimensions. (FRA is not and be modified. This paragraph would
requirements is unchanged from current suggesting that the cars lacked a require that each emergency window
paragraph (b); thus the requirements sufficient number of exits, or that their exit be conspicuously marked with
continue to apply to each passenger car dimensions were too small.) luminescent material on the inside of
ordered on or after September 8, 2000, Nevertheless, FRA is inviting each car, and that legible and
or first placed in service on or after comment on window exits in passenger understandable operating instructions,
September 9, 2002. FRA is proposing a cars ordered on or after September 8, including instructions for removing the
slight modification to the requirements 2000, or placed in service for the first window panel, be posted at or near each
to allow an emergency window exit time on or after September 9, 2002, that such window exit.
with an unobstructed opening of at least have unobstructed openings not meeting Notably, proposed paragraph (d)
24 inches horizontally by 26 inches the minimum dimension requirements would specifically require that
vertically to be located within an of this paragraph. As FRA has noted, emergency window exit operating
exterior side door, in accordance with these window exits are not ‘‘emergency instructions address potential
the proposed requirements of paragraph window exits,’’ and may not be hindrances to removal of the window
panel due to the presence of fixtures in specify the use of luminescent duration period of 90 minutes
the car. As discussed above, FRA materials. (Door exits intended for corresponds with the 90-minute
became aware that the phrase ‘‘rapid emergency egress may also be lighted, in duration requirement for emergency
and easy’’ in the requirement for accordance with § 239.107(a)(1).) Part lighting contained in § 238.115 for new
emergency window exit ease of 238 defines ‘‘luminescent material’’ as passenger cars and is based on a
operability was not being interpreted material that absorbs light energy when reasonable amount of time for
uniformly. Central to the issue was the ambient levels of light are high and passengers and crew members to wait
actual removal of the window panel in emits this stored energy when ambient for the arrival of emergency responders
light of the weight of the window panel levels of light are low, making the to remote accident sites. Depending on
and the presence of interior fixtures material appear to glow in the dark. See the circumstances, it could take more
near the window. It is not uncommon § 238.5. Proposed paragraph (d) would than an hour for crewmembers to
for a seatback to be located adjacent to continue to require that luminescent evaluate an emergency situation,
an emergency window exit and for a material be used to mark emergency coordinate with the control center and
luggage rack to be located above the window exits. However, as further emergency responders, notify
exit. Even if the seat back does not affect discussed below, the Task Force has passengers on the appropriate action(s)
compliance with the dimensions been considering incorporating an to take, and if necessary, begin to
required for an unobstructed opening APTA standard that would establish evacuate the train. It is also possible for
(especially in the case of a large window specific criteria for this material, a seemingly minor emergency situation
panel), it could, together with the including how bright the material must to evolve into a more significant one
presence of the luggage rack, hinder be and how long the material must stay requiring evacuation. In conditions of
removal of the window. This luminescent. darkness, a brighter sign is more easily
combination of fixtures could create a FRA’s requirements to mark recognizable and facilitates
situation where the most effective and emergency window exits and other identification of emergency exits. These
efficient method for operating an emergency exits originated with FRA points have been discussed within the
emergency window exit would not be Emergency Order No. 20. See 61 FR Task Force, and the Task Force has been
immediately apparent to a passenger, 6876, Feb. 22, 1996; and 61 FR 8703, focusing on revisions to the APTA
especially if the window were large and standard for purposes of incorporating it
Mar. 5, 1996. Among its provisions, the
heavy. As a result, to promote the rapid into FRA’s regulations. FRA is
Emergency Order required that ‘‘no later
and easy removal of the window panel, considering incorporating elements of
than April 20, 1996, commuter and
the Task Force recommended requiring this APTA standard into the final rule
intercity passenger railroads ensure that
that emergency window exit operating arising from this NPRM so that
each emergency exit location is marked
instructions specifically take into emergency exit signs in passenger cars
inside the car for passenger and crew
account such potential hindrances. would be required to be made of HPPL
information.’’ In an effort to respond to
Accordingly, if window removal may be material, and FRA invites comment on
this requirement as effectively as
hindered by the presence of a seatback, doing so. FRA will evaluate the
possible within the short timeframe
headrest, luggage rack, or other fixture, comments received in considering what
the instructions would be required to required, affected railroads began to standard should be established in the
state the method for allowing rapid and install photo-luminescent emergency final rule.
easy removal of the window panel, exit markings that were available at the
time. Many railroads installed signs Section 238.114 Rescue Access
taking into account the fixture(s). This
made of zinc-sulfide, which were Windows
particular portion of the instructions
would be allowed to be in written or capable of providing luminance for a FRA is proposing to establish a new
pictorial format to provide railroads the period of less than 10 minutes only in section that would contain requirements
flexibility to convey the appropriate many cases. Following this, photo- for rescue access windows for both new
information to passengers, especially luminescent sign technology evolved, and existing passenger cars. As
since a picture (pictogram) or pictures and materials, such as strontium- discussed in detail, above, this proposed
(pictograms) may potentially convey the aluminate, which is capable of section was prompted in part by the
information more readily than written providing high levels of luminance for April 23, 2002 collision involving a
instructions. much longer periods, began to be used. Metrolink passenger train near
FRA also notes that § 223.9(d)(1) Prices for such signage also decreased, Placentia, CA, and the ensuing NTSB
currently requires that the operating making the cost of such ‘‘high- Safety Recommendation (R–03–21) to
instructions for emergency window performance, photo-luminescent’’ FRA, which illustrated the potential
exits be ‘‘clear and legible.’’ FRA (HPPL) signs comparable to that of the importance of having rescue access
proposes to modify this requirement by signs installed initially. Thus, in 1999, windows on each level of a passenger
replacing the word ‘‘clear’’ with the APTA issued APTA SS–PS–002–98, car. The general intent of the proposal
word ‘‘understandable,’’ so that ‘‘Standard for Emergency Signage for is to provide a means of rescue access
railroads would be required to post Egress/Access of Passenger Rail by emergency responders through a
‘‘legible and understandable’’ operating Equipment,’’ requiring the use of HPPL window directly into every passenger
instructions. Use of the word ‘‘clear’’ in materials for all newly installed passive compartment on every level of a
§ 223.9(d) has created some confusion emergency exit signs and for the retrofit passenger car, in the event that a
since it can have more than one of existing cars at their remanufacture. stairway or interior door is
meaning, and FRA believes the proposal According to Revision 2 of this APTA compromised and exterior doors are
would eliminate any further confusion. standard, issued in 2003, following a blocked.
Finally, FRA notes that existing charge of five foot-candles for one hour, Paragraph (a) would contain
requirements in parts 223 and 239 for photo-luminescent markings that are requirements specifying the minimum
the marking of emergency exits, as well installed must emit a minimum of not number and location of rescue access
as existing requirements in part 238 for less than 7.5 milli-candela per square windows. These requirements would
the marking of emergency meter (7.5 mcd/m2) for 90 minutes after apply on or after the effective date of the
communications transmission points, removal of the charging source. The final rule to all passenger cars, except
for certain, existing single-level cars. As To ensure that railroads have centerline, FRA makes clear that no
noted above, FRA’s current regulations sufficient flexibility to select those such restriction was intended to apply.
do not specifically require any window locations best suited for rescue As a result, FRA is expressly proposing
minimum number of rescue access access, a 30-foot section along the center that these windows could be located
windows for passenger cars; however, of a typical 85- to 90-foot-long passenger farther than 15 feet from the car’s
they do require that windows that are car would be designated for their centerline, provided that there would be
intended for rescue access be marked location. This flexibility would allow at least one such window in each side
and that instructions be provided for railroads to take into consideration the of each end (half) of the same passenger
their operation. See § 223.9(d)(2). location of external hazards (such as compartment—a minimum of four
Paragraph (a)(1) would contain the third-rail shoes); potential hindrances rescue access windows, overall. FRA
number and location requirements for created by interior fixtures for those believes that effectively requiring a
rescue access windows in single-level rescue access windows intended to be minimum of four rescue access
passenger cars. FRA is proposing that opened by being pushed inward into the windows, instead of two, would be
each single-level passenger car be passenger compartment; the location of appropriate for granting flexibility for
required to have a minimum of two emergency window exits in passenger installing rescue access windows on
rescue access windows. At least one cars without dual-function windows; existing equipment in side doors.
rescue access window would have to be and other factors that a railroad may Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ii) would
located in each side of the car, entirely deem relevant. For passenger cars not address the number and location
within 15 feet of the centerline of the longer than 45 feet, approximately half requirements for rescue access windows
car, or entirely within 71⁄2 feet of the the length of a standard passenger car, for single-level passenger cars that were
centerline if the car does not exceed 45 railroads would have the flexibility to ordered prior to September 8, 2000, and
feet in length. As discussed above, the select a rescue access window from placed in service prior to September 9,
Task Force recommended requiring two among approximately three windows 2002, if equipped with manual door
windows for rescue access (versus four, along a 15-foot section in the center of releases for at least two exterior side
as is required for emergency exit) the car. doors (or door leaves) in diagonally
mainly because rescue access windows If the seating level is obstructed by an opposite quadrants of the cars. The
are the third means of egress in the interior door or otherwise partitioned manual door release would have to be
overall emergency systems approach, into separate seating areas, the proposal capable of releasing the door (or door
would require that each separate seating leaf) to permit it to be opened without
with doors and emergency windows
area have at least one rescue access power from outside the car, be located
being the first and second means of
window in each side of the seating area, adjacent to the door (or door leaf) which
emergency exit.
located as near to the center of the car it controls, and be designed and
Rescue access windows in a single- as practical. This proposed requirement maintained so that an emergency
level passenger car would be required to is consistent with the general objective responder could access the release from
be located ‘‘as close to the center of the of having at least one rescue access outside the car without requiring the
car as possible,’’ unlike emergency window on each side of a passenger use of a tool or other implement. The
window exits which should be in a seating area or passenger compartment. requirements of proposed paragraph
staggered configuration to the extent Nevertheless, FRA is not aware of any (a)(1)(ii) would become effective 18
practical. See Figure 1a to subpart B; see such single-level car in current months after publication of the final
also Figures 1b and 1c to subpart B. operation in the United States to which rule. FRA decided to propose to allow
Staggering the location of emergency this proposed requirement would apply. this additional time to install rescue
window exits is intended to: (i) Ensure FRA notes that on some single level access windows at least in part because
that a window exit is available for egress passenger cars, polycarbonate windows these passenger cars are equipped with
in the event of crush at one end of the are installed in a channel in the window manual releases capable of opening side
car by making available window exits mask, which is itself installed in the car doors from outside of the car, as
throughout the rest of the car; (ii) body with the frame compressed over provided in § 238.235(b), even though
optimize the rate of egress, as the window to secure it. Removal of the such releases are not required for such
passengers have less distance to walk to window would require removal of the older passenger cars by that section.
reach a window exit; and (iii) avoid frame, which would be very difficult in This proposed paragraph would also
congestion that could occur if the an emergency situation. In addition, it address those passenger cars equipped
window exits were all located adjacent would be costly for these cars to be with compressed frame window systems
to or directly opposite one another. retrofitted with glass windows (so that in which rescue access windows would
Since, in general, a minimum of only they could be shattered) or with zip- need to be retrofitted in the four side
one rescue access window per side, per strip systems to literally un-zip the doors by replacing the polycarbonate
level of a single-level passenger car window panel from its frame and glazing with glass that could be broken
would be required, the best way to gasketing. On this type of equipment, to gain access into the car. The 18-
ensure that a window would be the location requirement would be met month implementation period would
available for access in the event that one by having a rescue access window allow for the time necessary to plan and
end of a car is crushed would be to available on each side of each end of the carry out the retrofit without disrupting
locate the window in the center portion same passenger compartment, including train service. In the interim, emergency
of the car, which is generally less in exterior side doors. An exception was responders would continue to rely on
vulnerable to crush in the event of a crafted that would permit the location of the manual door releases to open the
collision. Congestion should likely not the rescue access windows in four side doors for rescue access purposes
be an issue for rescue access window exterior side doors, and it was approved should the need arise.
usage as car occupants should have by the Task Force, Working Group, and In paragraph (a)(2) FRA is proposing
likely begun to self-evacuate through the full RSAC. Although the minimum requirements for the number
doors and emergency window exits to recommended text was silent as to and location of rescue access windows
the extent possible prior to the arrival of whether the windows were required to in main levels of multi-level passenger
emergency responders. be located within 15 feet of the car’s cars. Each main level in a multi-level
passenger car would be subject to the In paragraph (a)(4) FRA is proposing appropriate point so that the window
same, minimum requirements proposed minimum requirements for the number panel will push inward.
for single-level passenger cars in and location of rescue access windows Proposed paragraph (c) would contain
paragraph (a)(1) of this section. for passengers cars with a sleeping the requirements for the dimensions of
In paragraph (a)(3) FRA is proposing compartment or similar private rescue access windows. Each rescue
minimum requirements for the number compartment. Each level of a passenger access window in a passenger car,
and location of rescue access windows car with a sleeping compartment or a including a sleeping car, ordered on or
in non-main levels of multi-level similar private compartment intended to after 14 months after publication of the
passenger cars with seating areas. These be occupied by passengers or train final rule, or placed in service for the
proposed requirements and exceptions crewmembers would be required to first time on or after 38 months after
for non-main levels with passenger have a minimum of one rescue access publication of the final rule, would be
seating would also be the same as those window in each such compartment. For required to have an unobstructed
for emergency window exits on non- purposes of this paragraph, a bathroom, opening with minimum dimensions of
main levels with passenger seating. kitchen, and locomotive cab are not 26 inches horizontally by 24 inches
Specifically, paragraph (a)(3)(i) would considered a ‘‘compartment.’’ These vertically. A rescue access window
require that any other level used for proposed requirements reflect current located within an exterior side door, in
passenger seating in a multi-level practice. Amtrak cars with sleeping accordance with the requirements of
passenger car have at least two rescue compartments are already equipped proposed paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this
access windows in each seating area to with a window in each such section, would be permitted to have an
permit emergency responders to reach compartment that is capable of being unobstructed opening with minimum
occupants without requiring movement used for both emergency egress and dimensions of 24 inches horizontally by
through an interior door or to another rescue access. 26 inches vertically. A seatback would
level of the car. At least one rescue Proposed paragraph (a)(5) would not be considered an obstruction if it
access window would have to be address the use of dual-function could be moved away from the window
located in each side of the seating area. windows as rescue access windows. If opening without requiring the use of a
A rescue access window could be on any level of a passenger car the tool or other implement. The proposed
located within an exterior side door in emergency window exits installed to dimensions for rescue access window
the passenger compartment if it is not meet the minimum requirements of unobstructed openings would be the
practical to place the rescue access same as those for emergency window
§ 238.113 are intended to function as
window in the side of the seating area. exit unobstructed openings.
rescue access windows, the
See Figure 2a to subpart B; compare to Accordingly, FRA’s reasoning for
requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)
proposing these minimum dimensions
Figure 2b to subpart B. through (a)(4) of this section for the
for emergency window exits applies
Paragraph (a)(3)(ii) would require number and location of rescue access
here. These minimum dimensions
only one rescue access window in a windows would be met for that level.
should allow an emergency responder
seating area in a passenger compartment Under this provision, four rescue access
equipped with a self-contained
of a non-main level if it is not practical windows would be required for cars
breathing apparatus to pass through the
to place a rescue access window in a with dual-function windows that do not
window, as well as allow a person to be
side of the passenger compartment due have at least one rescue access window carried through the window on a
to the need to provide accessible in each side within 15 feet of the stretcher of common size.
accommodations under the ADA; there centerline of the car. As discussed above, FRA is proposing
are no more than four seats in the Proposed paragraph (b) would contain that existing rescue access window
seating area; and a suitable, alternate the requirements for the ease of marking and operating instruction
arrangement for rescue access is operability of rescue access windows. requirements, which are contained in
provided. The rationale for this The requirements would apply on or § 223.9(d)(2), be modified and moved to
exception is the same as the one for after the effective date of the final rule, paragraph (d) of § 238.114. Each rescue
emergency window exits in non-main and would require that each rescue access window is currently required to
levels of multi-level passenger cars in access window be capable of being be ‘‘marked with a retroreflective,
proposed § 238.113(a)(3)(ii), as removed without undue delay by an unique, and easily recognizable symbol
discussed above. emergency responder using either a or other clear’’ marking. FRA is
Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(iii) would provided external mechanism, or tools proposing to restate these requirements
provide that passenger cars both ordered or implements that are commonly to make clear that rescue access
prior to 14 months after publication of available to the responder in a passenger windows must be marked with
the final rule and placed in service prior train emergency, such as a sledge retroreflective material. Second, FRA is
to 38 months after publication of the hammer or a pry bar. FRA notes that the making clear that a unique and easily
final rule be required to have only one proposed performance requirement for recognizable symbol, sign, or other
rescue access window in a seating area removing windows ‘‘without undue conspicuous marking must be used to
in a passenger compartment of a non- delay’’ is intended to be less stringent identify each rescue access window.
main level if it is not practicable to than the performance requirement of FRA would replace the word ‘‘clear’’ in
place a rescue access window in a side ‘‘rapid and easy’’ for emergency window the existing requirements with the word
of the passenger compartment (due to exits. For example, using a sledge ‘‘conspicuous’’ and add the word ‘‘sign’’
the presence of such structures as a hammer to shatter a glass window as another example of a conspicuous
bathroom, electrical locker, or kitchen) would be considered removal without marking. This revision would make
and there are no more than eight seats undue delay. Windows that are not clear that use of retroreflective material
in the seating area. For more made of glass may also be designed to to mark a rescue access window is a
background on this proposal, please see be removed without undue delay by an distinct requirement in itself, to enable
the related discussion above for emergency responder, through use of an emergency responders to quickly
emergency window exits in such seating axe, sledge hammer or similar large identify rescue access windows under
areas. impact tool to strike the window at an conditions of darkness by shining a
flashlight on a car. Second, the revision systems that may be used for passenger communication system that would
would make clear that the window must and crew communication in the event of function independently of the train line,
also be marked by a unique and easily an emergency. This would keep the i.e., not rely on the train line for power.
recognized symbol, a sign (such as emergency system requirements The wireless system is intended to
‘‘RESCUE ACCESS’’), or other together in section numbering sequence provide a means of two-way
conspicuous marking (such as for benefit of the reader. This proposed communication in the event that the
delineation of the window by means of section would establish emergency train line is broken, as may occur as a
a contrasting color). Both requirements communication requirements for Tier I result of certain collisions or
could be met by the same marking. passenger equipment and replace the derailments. However, FRA makes clear
Current regulations also require that current emergency communication’s that it is not currently proposing to
each railroad post ‘‘clear and requirements in § 238.437 for Tier II require in this section that the
understandable’’ window access passenger equipment. Overall, the communication system be wireless;
instructions either at each rescue access proposed requirements generally reflect communication through use of a train
window or at each end of the car. FRA current practice for Tier I passenger line would be permitted.
is proposing that the word ‘‘clear’’ be equipment and existing requirements Paragraph (a)(2) contains proposed
replaced with the word ‘‘legible,’’ so for Tier II passenger equipment. requirements for new Tier I and all Tier
that railroads would be required to post Paragraph (a) contains proposed II passenger cars. As is stated for
‘‘legible and understandable’’ operating requirements for public address (PA) existing Tier I passenger cars in
instructions. Use of the word ‘‘clear’’ in systems for both existing and new Tier proposed paragraph (a)(1), this
§ 223.9(d) has created some confusion I and Tier II passenger cars. Most paragraph would require that each Tier
since it can have more than one passenger cars used in commuter and I passenger car ordered on or after 60
meaning, and FRA believes the proposal intercity service are equipped with PA days after publication of the final rule,
would eliminate any further confusion. systems that train crews often use to or placed in service for the first time on
As noted above in the discussion of notify passengers of the nature and or after 26 months after publication of
emergency window exits, the Task expected duration of delays. If a person the final rule, and all Tier II passenger
Force has been focusing on draft requires immediate medical attention, cars be equipped with a PA system that
revisions to APTA SS–PS–002–98, Rev. the crew may also use the PA to request provides a means for a crewmember to
2, ‘‘Standard for Emergency Signage for assistance from someone onboard with communicate to all train passengers in
Egress/Access of Passenger Rail medical training. Railroad an emergency situation. In addition, PA
Equipment,’’ in order to recommend representatives on the Task Force noted systems in new Tier I and all Tier II
whether some or all of its contents that PA systems are particularly passenger cars would be required to
should be incorporated into FRA’s beneficial in the immediate aftermath of provide a means for a crewmember to
regulations. This APTA Standard also an accident to provide instructions for communicate in an emergency situation
contains detailed criteria for marking appropriate passenger action. In light of to persons in the immediate vicinity of
rescue access windows, including the a security threat or other emergency the train (e.g., on the station platform).
use of retroreflective material. FRA situation requiring rapid evacuation of These proposed requirements include
invites comment on whether the criteria an area, crews may also use the PA the basic features of PA systems
in the APTA Standard or in draft system to instruct passengers to deboard installed in most recently-manufactured
revisions to this Standard for marking as quickly as possible. If there is a Tier I passenger cars and in all existing
rescue access windows are appropriate hazard on one end of the train or one Tier II passenger trains.
for use in the final rule. side of the train, crews may use the PA Finally, it should be noted that the PA
FRA is also proposing to modify system to notify passengers of the system may be part of the same system
current requirements so that it would no hazard and direct them to use the as the intercom system. A shared
longer be permissible to have window appropriate exit route(s) that would configuration is quite common on cars
access instructions solely at the end of avoid or minimize their exposure to the equipped with both PA and intercom
the car. Instead, legible and hazard. Of course, all things being systems.
understandable rescue access window equal, the safest place for passengers is Paragraph (b) contains the proposed
instructions, including instructions for to remain onboard the train. Deboarding requirements for intercom systems.
removing the window, would be could aggravate an emergency situation, Traditionally, conductors and assistant
required to be posted at or near each particularly if passengers step onto the conductors have been relied upon to
rescue access window. The Task Force right-of-way. Accordingly, the crew relay information to passengers in both
agreed that rescue access efforts could must have the means to provide normal and emergency situations
be unduly delayed by posting rescue passengers with appropriate through face-to-face interaction or by
access window operating instructions at instructions as soon as possible. use of a PA system. However, with
the end of a car, potentially more than Paragraph (a)(1) would require that on smaller crew sizes, such face-to-face
40 feet away from the rescue access or after January 1, 2012, each Tier I communication may not be possible for
window to which the instructions passenger car be equipped with a PA passengers to quickly communicate to
apply. system that provides a means for a the crew a medical emergency, safety
crewmember to communicate to all train concern, or security threat requiring
Section 238.117 Emergency passengers in an emergency situation. immediate attention. For instance, a
Communications FRA understands that existing Tier I passenger in the last car of a train who
Currently, § 238.117 contains passenger cars that currently do not needs to communicate a safety or
requirements for ‘‘protection against have PA systems are scheduled to be security threat to a crewmember could
personal injury,’’ e.g., installing guards retired before 2012 and thus would be potentially have to walk the entire
on moving parts of passenger removed from service before the length of the train to do so (assuming
equipment. FRA is proposing to requirement would apply. the crew is composed of an engineer
redesignate this § 238.117 as § 238.121. FRA notes that APTA’s PRESS Task and one conductor, who in this
In its place, FRA is proposing that this Force is currently evaluating the circumstance would be in the first car
section contain the requirements for feasibility of a wireless, two-way at the time). Furthermore, if the
conductor were incapacitated, all passenger cars in its high-speed contains specific criteria for
passengers would need to communicate trainsets had intercom transmission luminescent markings. The Task Force
with the engineer. The Task Force locations at each end of the cars, and has been focusing on additional
therefore recommended that emergency further noted that the intercoms would revisions to this APTA Standard in
communication systems in new be difficult to install at the non- order to recommend whether to
passenger cars should include intercom vestibule ends of the cars. As these incorporate some or all of its contents
systems to enable passengers to quickly trainsets were in development in into part 238 by reference and thereby
communicate emergency situations to advance of both the then-proposed and require that luminescent markings for
the train crew. These proposed final rules, FRA made an exception for intercoms comply with the Standard as
requirements reflect common intercom all cars ordered prior to May 12, 1999. it relates to luminescent markings.
system configurations for new passenger Some Task Force members were APTA PRESS has also indicated that
cars. concerned that making the intercoms they will revise APTA SS–PS–001–98,
Specifically, paragraph (b)(1) contains accessible to passengers without ‘‘Standard for Passenger Railroad
the proposed intercom system requiring the use of a tool or other Emergency Communications,’’ to
requirements for new Tier I and all Tier implement could lead to misuse that include more specific requirements for
II passenger cars. Each Tier I passenger could unnecessarily distract the train marking emergency communication
car ordered on or after 60 days after operator. However, representatives from systems. In the meantime, FRA invites
publication of the final rule, or placed Amtrak and various commuter railroads comment whether the luminescent
in service for the first time on or after that operate cars with intercom systems material that would be required by this
26 months after publication of the final indicated that they have successfully proposed paragraph should be HPPL
rule, and all Tier II passenger cars implemented measures to deter misuse. material. FRA will evaluate any
would be required to be equipped with For instance, on some passenger cars, comments received in considering
an intercom system that provides a the intercom transmission device is whether a requirement for use of HPPL
means for passengers and crewmembers located in a safety compartment material should be established in the
to communicate with each other in an designated and marked for emergency final rule.
emergency situation. Passenger cars that communications only. FRA invites
Paragraph (c) would continue to
are at least 45 feet in length would be comment on whether passenger misuse
require that PA and intercom systems
required to have a minimum of one of intercom systems has been identified
on Tier II passenger trains have back-up
intercom in each end (half) of each car as a problem, and, if so, FRA invites
that is accessible to passengers without suggestions for measures that could curb power for a minimum period of 90
requiring the use of a tool or other such misuse without rendering the minutes. See § 238.437(d). An example
implement. Although some passenger systems inaccessible to passengers in an of a back-up power source is a passenger
cars currently equipped with intercom emergency. FRA makes clear that car battery. The Task Force approved a
systems have one located in each end, intercoms would need to be accessible recommendation for a back-up power
others have only one per car. An to passengers with disabilities to the requirement for new Tier I passenger
intercom in each half of a car is extent required by the ADA and its cars, similar to the requirements
proposed so that passengers would have implementing regulations. contained in § 238.115(b)(4) for
access to an intercom within half a car Paragraph (b)(2) would require that emergency lighting back-up power
length, which is normally 42 to 45 feet, the location of each intercom intended systems. That is, the back-up power
and would not have to pass into an for passenger use be clearly marked system would have to be capable of
adjoining car. As long as intercoms are with luminescent material and that operating in: all equipment orientations
accessible to passengers, they may be legible and understandable operating within 45 degrees of vertical; after the
placed anywhere in each end (half) of instructions be posted at or near each initial shock of a collision or derailment
the car and not necessarily in the far such intercom to facilitate passenger resulting in individually applied
ends. use. These requirements would apply to accelerations of 8g longitudinally, 4g
Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would each Tier I passenger car on or after 26 laterally, and 4g vertically; and for at
continue the logic of existing § 238.437 months after publication of the final least 90 minutes. Yet, this
by requiring only one intercom for a rule, and continue to apply to each Tier recommendation was not forwarded to
passenger car that does not exceed 45 II passenger car. Some railroad the Working Group, due to an oversight.
feet in length, such as the Talgo representatives noted that although Given that backup power to the PA and
passenger cars operated by Amtrak. As instructions are currently posted at the intercom systems could be supplied by
the length of a conventional passenger intercom locations on their cars, there the same source as that for the
is typically between 85 and 90 feet, FRA are no luminescent markings. Thus, emergency lighting system, and that the
believes it appropriate to require a car luminescent marking of each intercom amount of power required would likely
not more than half that length to have location is proposed to ensure that the be only a fraction of that required for the
only one intercom location. This intercom can be easily identified for use emergency lighting system, FRA has no
proposed paragraph would also in the event that both normal and reason to believe that this
continue to require, as § 238.437 emergency lighting are not functioning. recommendation would not have
currently does, that a Tier II passenger The posted operating instructions, received the full support of the Working
car ordered prior to May 12, 1999, be however, would not need to be Group or full RSAC. As a result, FRA is
equipped with only one intercom. This luminescent under the proposal, as considering inserting in the final rule a
exception corresponds to the current some Task Force members have back-up power system requirement
requirements for Tier II passenger indicated that the instructions may be containing the provisions recommended
equipment, as discussed in the April 23, easier to read when not luminescent. by the Task Force, and FRA invites
2002, final rule. See 67 FR 19986. The As noted in the discussion concerning comment on doing so. In particular,
preamble to that rule explained that emergency window exit signage, above, FRA seeks comment whether the system
after FRA had proposed that intercoms APTA SS–PS–002–98, Rev. 2, ‘‘Standard needs to be capable of providing
be located at each end of a Tier II for Emergency Signage for Egress/ continuous communication over the 90-
passenger car, Amtrak indicated that not Access of Passenger Rail Equipment,’’ minute period, or only intermittent
communication, which would draw less or after 14 months after publication of then through the lining. In some cases,
battery power. Providing the means to the final rule, or placed in service for a responder may have to cut through
communicate continually for a 90- the first time on or after 38 months after additional non-rigid structures. If the
minute period may not be necessary, publication of the final rule, must have outside dimensions are only 26 inches
and FRA invites comment as to how a minimum of two emergency roof longitudinally by 24 inches laterally,
many minutes of intermittent access locations. Although Tier II and multiple cuts through car structures
communication would need to be passenger cars and power cars are are required to gain access to the
provided. currently required to have at least one passenger compartment, this could
roof hatch for emergency roof entry or present a problem for emergency
Section 238.118 Emergency Roof
at least one structural weak point for responders, since each subsequent cut
Access
properly equipped emergency personnel made using a saw would potentially
This section, which is being proposed to quickly access a car, many new Tier result in a smaller opening.
for addition to part 238, contains I multi-level passenger cars are Consequently, railroads and car builders
emergency roof access requirements for currently being manufactured with up would need to take this into account
Tier I and Tier II passenger cars ordered to four structural weak points in the when designing structural weak points
on or after 14 months after publication roof. In determining the minimum and ensure that the dimensions of the
of the final rule, or placed in service for number of access points needed for new final cut in such circumstances would
the first time on or after 38 months after Tier I and Tier II passenger cars, the still result in an opening meeting the
publication of the final rule. Emergency Preparedness Task Force minimum dimension requirements.
Requirements for Tier II power cars and agreed it would be useful to protect the Paragraph (b) would provide that
existing Tier II passenger cars remain in emergency roof access location against permissible means of emergency roof
§ 238.441, as discussed below. The crush at either end of the car. To do so access include either a hatch, or a
emergency roof access requirements for would require placement of the location clearly marked structural weak point in
Tier II passenger equipment contained away from the far ends of the car or, at the roof for access by properly equipped
in § 238.441 and APTA PRESS a minimum, placement not in the same emergency response personnel.
recommended practice RP–C&S–001– end (half) of the car in the event that the Structural weak points, commonly
98, ‘‘Recommended Practice for end with the access points becomes known as ‘‘soft spots,’’ are usually
Passenger Equipment Roof Emergency crushed. Second, the Task Force created by routing cables, wiring, and
Access,’’ served as the basis for the thought it prudent to facilitate rescue piping in the roof of the car around the
proposed requirements in this section. access by having the access points location designated for roof access. The
Emergency roof access locations (roof located within the bottom half of the proposal would afford railroads the
hatches or structural weak points) can car’s roof, so that the bottom of the flexibility of installing either roof
be especially useful in emergency opening would be closer (lower) to the hatches or providing structural weak
situations where passenger cars have ground and thus, presumably, more points in the roof, as each individual
rolled onto their sides following certain easily accessible when the car is on its railroad would be in the best position to
collision and derailment scenarios. All side. This would require having one decide which one is preferable taking
things being equal, car rollover or tilt access point on either side of the roof’s into consideration such factors as the
should result in more severe injuries longitudinal centerline. To accomplish car’s intended use and the safety
than when a car remains upright, as both goals, the Task Force hazards presented by one versus the
occupants may be thrown greater recommended having two access points other. For example, although roof
distances inside the car. This increases located at diagonally opposite quadrants hatches could provide a means of self-
the potential need for rescue access of of the roof. See Figure 3 to subpart B. evacuation in addition to a means of
the car’s occupants by correspondingly Under the proposal, each roof access access, placing them in the roofs of
reducing the likelihood that the location would be required to have a multiple-unit (MU) locomotives which
occupants can evacuate the car on their minimum opening of 26 inches rely on overhead catenary systems for
own. In such a situation, doors, which longitudinally (i.e., parallel to the power could create an electrocution
are the preferred means of access under longitudinal axis of the car) by 24 hazard for occupants attempting to self-
normal circumstances, may be rendered inches laterally. These dimensions are evacuate in an emergency.
inoperable due to structural damage to consistent with the minimum Paragraph (c) would require that
the door or the door pocket, as a result dimension requirements for emergency emergency roof access points be located,
of the incident. In particular, end doors, window exits specified for new insofar as practical, in such a manner
which due to the direction they face passenger cars in the 1999 Passenger that when a car is on its side: (i) One
would normally be better suited for use Equipment Safety Standards final rule, emergency roof access location is
than side doors when a car has tilted or see 64 FR 25673, and were based on wholly within each half of the roof as
rolled onto its side, may also be specifying opening requirements divided top from bottom; and (ii) one
blocked, jammed, or otherwise necessary to allow passage of an emergency roof access location is
unavailable for use. Moreover, although emergency responder equipped with a wholly within each half of the roof as
emergency responders may be able to self-contained breathing apparatus or divided left from right. See Figure 3 to
enter a car that is on its side via a rescue fire gear, as well as to allow passage of subpart B. Use of the word ‘‘practical’’
access window, the removal of an a person being carried on a backboard would allow railroads and car builders
injured occupant through a side or basket stretcher, see 64 FR 25595– some discretion regarding the location
window in such circumstances can be 25596. of the access points and would be
difficult or complicated, especially In discussing the issue of appropriate necessary to accommodate particular
depending upon the condition of the dimensions for emergency roof access equipment types. For instance, some
occupant. locations, Task Force members noted electric MU equipment has pantographs
Paragraph (a) contains proposed that in order to gain access to a car via that take up a significant portion of one
requirements for the number and a structural weak point, a responder end of the rooftop, making it difficult to
dimensions of emergency roof access would normally have to cut through the place one emergency access location
locations. Each passenger car ordered on roof skin, which is usually steel, and wholly within each half of the car’s roof.
Additionally, on some passenger cars proposal states that it shall be weak points would also be required to
that have luggage racks, it may be more permissible to cut through interior have a sign plate with a retroreflective
practical to place the emergency access panels, liners, or other non-rigid border that states as follows:
location so that it is not wholly within secondary structures after making the CAUTION—DO NOT USE FLAME-
the bottom half of the car’s roof (when cutout hole in the roof. However, any CUTTING DEVICES.
the car is on its side) if doing so would such additional cutting that would be CAUTION—WARN PASSENGERS
facilitate rescue access by eliminating required must permit a minimum BEFORE CUTTING.
the need for emergency responders to opening of the dimensions specified in CUT ALONG DASHED LINE TO
cut through or maneuver around the paragraph (a) to be maintained. In this GAIN ACCESS.
luggage racks to get to passengers. regard, having to make additional cuts ROOF CONSTRUCTION—[STATE
Paragraph (d) contains proposed could affect the size of the markings RELEVANT DETAILS].
requirements related to obstructions and indicating the structural weak points, as In particular, the proposal would
would require that the ceiling space proposed to be required in paragraph require providing a warning against use
below each emergency roof access (e). of a flame-cutting device during a rescue
location be free from wire, cabling, Paragraph (e) contains proposed access attempt to avoid creation of a fire
conduit, and piping. Additionally, requirements for providing markings of, hazard. This is especially important
paragraph (d) would require that, where and instructions for, emergency roof since rescue access is usually a last
practicable, this space also be free of access locations. Each emergency roof resort for those who cannot self-
rigid secondary structure(s) (e.g., access location would be required to be evacuate due to being injured or
diffusers and diffuser support, lighting clearly marked with retroreflective disabled, as well as due to the lack of
back fixtures, mounted PA equipment, material of contrasting color. The a viable exit. Emergency responders
and luggage racks). In determining the retroreflective material is intended to usually have a variety of tools available
placement of the emergency roof access enable emergency responders to quickly to them at the scene of an emergency,
locations, railroads and manufacturers identify the access locations by shining including a specialized saw which can
would need to consider the a light on the roof. FRA notes that APTA be used to cut through steel, and do not
requirements of § 238.118 as a whole. is in the process of revising APTA SS– have to rely on flame-cutting devices.
Use of the word ‘‘practical’’ in PS–002–98, Rev. 2, ‘‘Standard for
paragraph (c) is intended to allow more Emergency Signage for Egress/Access of Section 238.121 Protection Against
discretion than use of the word Passenger Rail Equipment,’’ which Personal Injury
‘‘practicable’’ in this paragraph (d). For contains more specific requirements for As discussed above, FRA is proposing
example, in a situation where placement retroreflectivity than provided for in to redesignate current § 238.117
of an emergency roof access location this NPRM. The Task Force has been (‘‘Protection against personal injury’’) as
wholly within the bottom half of a car’s reviewing draft revisions to this § 238.121 with no substantive change to
roof (when the car is on its side) would standard and intends to make a the section’s requirements.
result in obstruction by a rigid recommendation concerning its
secondary structure, a railroad would be incorporation into part 238, once the Subpart D—Inspection, Testing, and
required to place the roof access standard is revised. As a result, the final Maintenance Requirements for Tier I
location elsewhere so as to avoid the rule may incorporate more detailed Passenger Equipment.
obstruction, even though this may result APTA retroreflectivity criteria for Section 238.303 Exterior Calendar Day
in its placement partially in both sides marking emergency roof access Mechanical Inspection of Passenger
of the roof, or otherwise not wholly locations. Equipment
within each half of the roof. In such a Paragraph (e) also proposes to require
situation, the rule would recognize that that legible and understandable This section contains the proposed
avoidance of the rigid secondary instructions be posted at or near each requirements related to the performance
structure would be more critical than emergency roof access location. These of exterior mechanical inspections of
the exact location of the emergency roof instructions would not need to be passenger cars (e.g., passenger coaches,
access location. retroreflective for two principal reasons: MU locomotives, and cab cars) and
If emergency roof access is provided it can be difficult to read writing on unpowered vehicles used in a passenger
by means of a hatch, it must be possible certain grades of retroreflective train each calendar day that the
to push interior panels or liners out of materials while shining light on them, equipment is used in service. Paragraph
their retention devices and into the and light used to identify the emergency (e) of this section identifies the various
interior of the vehicle after removing the rescue access locations would likely be components that are required to be
hatch. For example, for car interior available for reading the instructions as inspected as part of the exterior
aesthetics, it would not be uncommon well. This proposal is consistent with calendar day mechanical inspection.
to cover the area below the hatch with the existing and proposed requirements FRA proposes to insert a new
lining and use velcro to secure the for marking rescue access windows. As paragraph (e)(18) that would require
lining in place. This type of cover and an additional requirement, paragraph (e) that all rescue-access-related exterior
securement would make it possible for proposes that if emergency roof access markings, signage, and instructions
emergency responders to reach the is provided by means of a structural required by proposed § 238.114 (rescue
interior of the vehicle by pushing in the weak point, the line along which the access windows) and existing § 239.107
lining after removing the hatch. This is roof skin would be cut would be (emergency exits) be in place and, as
just one example, and other types of required to be clearly marked with applicable, conspicuous, and/or legible.
covers and means of securement would retroreflective material. The size of the Proposed paragraph (e)(18)(i) would
be permissible provided emergency border marking may have to be larger allow passenger cars with any required
responders would be able to push than 24 inches laterally by 26 inches rescue-access-related exterior markings,
through them to reach the interior of the longitudinally to ensure that any cuts in signage, or instructions that are missing,
vehicle after removing the hatch. addition to the cut through the roof skin illegible, or inconspicuous, as
If emergency roof access is provided would retain the minimum dimensions applicable, to remain in passenger
by means of a structural weak point, the required for the opening. Structural service until the equipment’s fourth
exterior calendar day mechanical inspection required under § 238.307, utilized in determining when repairs
inspection or next periodic mechanical where it would have to be repaired or would have to be made on cars that
inspection required under § 238.307, removed from service. FRA agrees with remain in passenger service. Most
whichever occurs first, after the non- the Task Force recommendation that commuter and intercity railroads
complying condition is discovered, this added flexibility for these types of already keep these type of records
where it would have to be repaired or cars recognizes the extra effort that a electronically.
removed from service. railroad undertakes by designating and
The four-day repair flexibility is Section 238.305 Interior Calendar Day
identifying a greater number of rescue-
proposed to allow railroads to schedule Mechanical Inspection of Passenger Cars
access windows than would be required
repairs at locations where they can be under proposed § 238.114. A single act This section contains the
performed safely and in a manner that of vandalism may destroy multiple requirements related to the performance
would avoid disrupting normal signs, markings, and instructions or of interior calendar day mechanical
operations. Railroad representatives on render them illegible or inconspicuous. inspections of passenger cars (e.g.,
the Task Force noted that not all yards Placement or replacement of several passenger coaches, MU locomotives,
are properly equipped for personnel to signs could take more time than may be and cab cars) each calendar day that the
safely, effectively, or efficiently remove scheduled for maintenance of the car equipment is used in service. Paragraph
and replace signage on the exterior of prior to the periodic mechanical (c) identifies the various components
cars. For example, work on the upper inspection. FRA believes it would make that are required to be inspected as part
levels of cars can be more safely little sense to require immediate repair of the interior calendar day mechanical
performed at maintenance facilities that of the damaged markings when more inspection. Under the current rule, all
have platform ladders. In addition, than a sufficient number meeting the en route-defects and all noncomplying
various vendors noted that signs and requirements of proposed § 238.114 are conditions under this section must be
markings must be applied on a dry, still present on the equipment. repaired at the time of the daily interior
clean surface at temperatures of Moreover, without such flexibility, inspection or the equipment is required
approximately 65 degrees Fahrenheit railroads would likely be discouraged to be locked-out and empty in order to
and must be allowed to set for up to two from designating more rescue-access be placed or remain in passenger
hours. Graffiti may render a sign, windows than are proposed to be service, with the exception of non-
marking, or instruction illegible and required by § 238.114. complying conditions related to
thus in need of replacement. Proper Similarly, proposed paragraph paragraphs (c)(5) through (c)(10).
removal of a sign can be a long and (e)(18)(iii) would provide flexibility for FRA is proposing to slightly modify
tedious process because the adhesives the continued use of a sleeping car that existing paragraph (c)(10) in order to
used are difficult to remove. This has more than two consecutive add a condition under which a car with
coupled with the conditions necessary windows with any required rescue- non-compliant end doors and side doors
for application of a sign may make it an access-related exterior markings, may continue in passenger service
unfeasible task for some railroads to signage, or instructions at or near their pursuant to paragraph (d) of this
perform during an exterior calendar day locations that are missing, illegible, or section. The current conditions for such
mechanical inspection. Furthermore, inconspicuous. Such a car may be operation are: If at least one operative
some long-distance intercity train trips operated in passenger service until the and accessible door is available on each
take three or four days to complete and car’s next periodic mechanical side of the car; and a notice is
many of the en-route repair locations inspection required under § 238.307, prominently displayed directly on the
may not be appropriate places to make where it would have to be repaired or defective door indicating that the door
the repairs to signage. Removing a car removed from service. FRA believes this is defective. In addition to those
from service for missing rescue access flexibility is necessary because each conditions, FRA proposes to require that
signage before it reaches its final sleeping compartment intended to be the train crew be provided written
destination could result in stranding occupied by passengers or train notification of the non-complying
passengers on platforms or require that crewmembers would be required to condition. This additional condition
the same number of passengers ride in have a minimum of one rescue access would ensure that crewmembers are
a fewer number of cars, with fewer window in the compartment under aware of a door that may not be
emergency exits available to them as a proposed § 238.114 and most sleeping available for use in an emergency
whole. Thus, the safety of both railroad compartments have only one window. If situation that requires the off-loading of
employees and railroad passengers two consecutive windows were missing passengers. Under the existing
necessitates that some flexibility be exterior markings, signage, or regulation, train crews may not realize
provided that would allow equipment to instructions, an emergency responder a door is defective until they actually try
continue to operate in service for a would still be readily able to gain access to use it. If an emergency requiring the
sufficient amount of time to reach a via the window by relying on the rapid off-loading of passengers should
suitable repair location or the train’s signage, markings, or instructions occur before the crew notices that the
final destination. posted at a nearby window. door is inoperative, then the crew might
In paragraph (e)(18)(ii), FRA proposes Proposed paragraph (e)(18)(iv) direct passengers to that door, which
to provide even greater flexibility for requires that a record of any non- could unnecessarily delay the
use of passenger cars with required complying marking, signage, or evacuation of the train.
rescue-access-related exterior markings, instruction described in paragraphs FRA is also proposing to add new
signage, or instructions that are missing, (e)(18)(i) through (iii) be maintained. paragraph (c)(12) to cover the inspection
illegible, or inconspicuous on a side of The record would have to contain the of PA and intercom systems. Paragraph
a level of a car that has more than 50 date and time that the defective (c)(12) contains proposed requirements
percent of the windows designated and condition was first discovered and be for ensuring that, on passenger cars so
properly marked for rescue access. Such retained until all necessary repairs were equipped, PA and intercom systems are
a car would be permitted to remain in completed. These records are necessary operative and function as intended as
passenger service until no later than the for purposes of tracking when the defect part of the interior calendar day
car’s next periodic mechanical was first discovered and would be mechanical inspection. This paragraph
also proposes flexibility for handling signage is in place and legible.’’ FRA is consistent with FRA’s desire to
non-complying equipment, provided the considering including in paragraph prescribe, to the extent possible, the
train crew is given written notification (c)(7) express references to signage, as same emergency system requirements
of the defect and a record of the time well as markings and instructions, for all passenger trains, regardless of
and date the defect was discovered is required by parts 238 and 239. FRA train speed. Section 238.437 is therefore
maintained. Thus, a passenger car with invites comment on whether such being removed and reserved. Please see
an inoperative or non-functioning PA or clarification should be provided in the § 238.117 for a discussion of the
intercom system would be permitted to final rule. emergency communication
remain in passenger service until no requirements for Tier II passenger
later than the car’s fourth interior Section 238.307 Periodic Mechanical equipment.
calendar day mechanical inspection or Inspection of Passenger Cars and
Unpowered Vehicles Used in Passenger Section 238.441 Emergency Roof
next periodic mechanical inspection
Trains Access
required under § 238.307, whichever
occurs first, or for a passenger car used This section contains the In issuing the Passenger Equipment
in long-distance intercity train service requirements for performing periodic Safety Standards, FRA required that
until the eighth interior calendar day mechanical inspections on all passenger Tier II passenger equipment have either
mechanical inspection or next periodic cars and all unpowered vehicles used in a roof hatch or a clearly marked
mechanical inspection required under passenger trains. Paragraph (c) identifies structural weak point in the roof to
§ 238.307, whichever occurs first, after the various components that are provide quick access for properly
the non-complying condition is required to be inspected as part of the equipped emergency response
discovered. At that time, the PA or periodic mechanical inspection that is personnel. See 64 FR 25689. FRA stated
intercom system, or both, would have to required to be conducted no less that the final rule did not contain such
be repaired, or the car would have to be frequently than every 184 days. FRA requirements for Tier I passenger
removed from service. proposes to modify paragraph (c)(5), equipment and that there was no
Railroad representatives on the Task which currently requires that emergency consensus within the Passenger
Force noted that PA systems are lighting systems be operational, to Equipment Safety Standards Working
currently inspected on a daily basis and include other emergency systems such Group to do so. See 64 FR 25642.
any necessary repairs are made at the as emergency roof access markings and Nevertheless, FRA noted that it believed
first convenient opportunity. The instructions. Specifically, paragraph that APTA PRESS Task Force efforts
provision requiring that the train crew (c)(5)(i) would continue to require that would address requirements for Tier I
be given written notification of any non- emergency lighting systems required passenger equipment and that FRA
compliant PA or intercom is proposed under § 238.115 are in place and intended to reexamine the requirements
to ensure that the crew is aware of any operational, and paragraph (c)(5)(iii) of this section in future rulemaking with
non-functioning system(s) and will not would require that emergency roof a view to applying emergency roof
rely upon any such system for access markings and instructions access requirements to Tier I passenger
communication in the event of an required under proposed § 238.118(e) equipment. Id.
emergency situation. Without such As discussed above, FRA is proposing
are in place and, as applicable,
notification, the train crew could in § 238.118 to apply emergency roof
conspicuous, and/or legible. FRA does
mistakenly rely on a system that is access requirements to Tier I passenger
note that if emergency lighting is found
inoperative, which could potentially equipment and to make the
to be defective at any time other than
hinder resolution of an emergency requirements the same for new Tier I
the periodic mechanical inspection, it
situation where the crew relies on using and Tier II passenger cars. In doing so,
must be brought into compliance
the PA or intercom system to FRA is proposing to revise § 238.441,
pursuant to the provisions contained in
communicate instructions or warnings including the section heading, to
§ 238.17 related to non-running-gear
of hazards to passengers. reconcile the requirements of these
defects. sections and thereby limit the
In proposing to modify paragraph (c), In proposing the modification, FRA is
FRA is reserving paragraph (c)(11) for a application of these separate
reserving paragraph (c)(5)(ii) for a
contemplated requirement that all low- requirements in § 238.441 to existing
contemplated requirement that Tier II passenger cars and to any Tier II
location emergency exit path markings electrical low-location emergency exit
required by § 238.116 be in place and power car (whether existing or new). At
path markings required by § 238.116 be the same time, FRA is proposing to
conspicuous as part of the interior
in place and operational. As discussed increase the required dimensions of
calendar day mechanical inspection.
above, FRA intends to propose emergency roof access locations for
Low-location emergency exit path
minimum standards for low-location existing Tier II passenger equipment
markings provide a visual means for
emergency exit path markings by a and for any power car, and to provide
passenger car occupants to locate
separate NPRM as new § 238.116. general marking and instruction
emergency door exits under conditions
of limited visibility due to darkness or Subpart E—Specific Requirements for requirements for such equipment. FRA
the presence of smoke, or both. FRA Tier II Passenger Equipment believes that existing Tier II passenger
intends to propose minimum standards equipment would be in compliance
Section 238.437 [Reserved]
for low-location emergency exit path with the proposed revisions to this
markings by a separate NPRM as new This section formerly contained the section and that these revisions would
§ 238.116, and this document proposes emergency communication more closely approximate the
to reserve § 238.116 for inclusion of requirements for Tier II passenger requirements proposed for new
these minimum standards at a later equipment. These requirements would passenger equipment.
time. be moved to new § 238.117 (‘‘Emergency Specifically, paragraph (a) would be
Finally, FRA notes that it is communications’’) to be integrated with revised to limit its applicability to Tier
considering clarifying paragraph (c)(7), the new emergency communication II passenger cars both ordered prior to
the interior calendar day inspection requirements for Tier I passenger 14 months after publication of the final
requirement that ‘‘[a]ll safety-related equipment, as stated above. This is rule and placed in service for the first
time prior to 38 months after Paragraph (b) would be revised to determined to be significant under both
publication of the final rule, and to Tier make clear that each passenger car Executive Order 12866 and DOT
II power cars. As specified in proposed ordered on or after 14 months after policies and procedures (44 FR 11034;
paragraph (b), new Tier II passenger cars publication of the final rule, or placed Feb. 26, 1979). FRA has prepared and
would be required to comply with the in service for the first time on or after placed in the docket a regulatory
standards contained in proposed 38 months after publication of the final evaluation addressing the economic
§ 238.118, which were developed rule, would be required to comply with impact of this proposed rule. Document
exclusively for passenger cars. the emergency roof access requirements inspection and copying facilities are
Paragraph (a) would also be modified to specified in § 238.118. Section 238.118 available at the DOT Central Docket
revise the dimensions of the required proposes to subject new Tier I and Tier Management Facility located in Room
opening from 18 inches by 24 inches, to II passenger cars to the same emergency PL–401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif
24 inches by 26 inches to be consistent roof access requirements, and this
with the proposed requirements for Tier Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
revision to paragraph (b) is intended to
I passenger equipment. In addition, Washington, DC 20590. Access to the
conform with that proposal.
paragraph (a) would be revised to docket may also be obtained
require that each emergency roof access Appendix A to Part 238—Schedule of electronically through the Web site for
location be conspicuously marked, and Civil Penalties the DOT Docket Management System at
that legible and understandable Appendix A to part 238 contains a http://dms.dot.gov. Photocopies may
operating instructions be posted at or schedule of civil penalties for use in also be obtained by submitting a written
near each such location. connection with this part. FRA intends request to the FRA Docket Clerk at
The fundamental differences between to revise the schedule of civil penalties Office of Chief Counsel, Stop 10,
the requirements proposed in § 238.118 in issuing the final rule to reflect Federal Railroad Administration, 1120
for new passenger cars and those revisions made to part 238. Because Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
proposed in revised paragraph (a) of such penalty schedules are statements 20590; please refer to Docket No. FRA–
§ 238.441 for existing Tier I passenger of agency policy, notice and comment 2006–25273. FRA invites comments on
cars and for Tier II power cars are as are not required prior to their issuance. the regulatory evaluation.
follows: the number of required See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Nevertheless,
emergency roof access locations—two in Certain of the proposed requirements
commenters are invited to submit reflect current industry practice, or
proposed § 238.118, and one in existing suggestions to FRA describing the types
§ 238.441—and the specifications for restate existing regulations, or both. As
of actions or omissions for each a result, in calculating the costs of this
their location—detailed specifications proposed regulatory section that would
are proposed in § 238.118, while more proposed rule, FRA has neither
subject a person to the assessment of a
general requirements would be in included the costs of those actions that
civil penalty. Commenters are also
§ 238.441. These differences reflect the would be performed voluntarily in the
invited to recommend what penalties
consideration given to existing may be appropriate, based upon the absence of a regulation, nor has FRA
equipment built in compliance with relative seriousness of each type of included the costs of those actions that
§ 238.441 of the 1999 final rule, and also violation. would be required by an existing
recognize that a requirement for two regulation.
emergency roof access locations on a VI. Regulatory Impact and Notices
As presented in the following table,
Tier II power car would not be
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT FRA estimates that the present value
reasonable given that the only normally
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (PV) of the total 20-year costs which the
occupied area in such a car is the cab
compartment, in which only one This proposed rule has been industry would be expected to incur to
emergency roof access location can be evaluated in accordance with existing comply with the requirements proposed
placed. policies and procedures, and in this rule is $15.4 million:
20-YEAR PV COSTS INCURRED

20-year PV
Description total
Costs:
(238.113) Emergency Window Exits
—Installation of pull handles/gaskets in two intermediate level windows ................................................................................ $4,050
—Replacement of instructions for window removal to ensure that potential hindrances are addressed ................................ 10,880
—Installation of pull handles/gaskets in four intermediate level windows ................................................................................ 1,440
(238.114) Rescue Access Windows
—Installation of two windows per car ....................................................................................................................................... 163,880
—Marking and instructions ........................................................................................................................................................ 11,640
(238.117) Emergency Communications
—Addition of second intercom transmission location ............................................................................................................... 213,675
—Addition of outside speaker for public address system ........................................................................................................ 101,526
(238.118) Emergency Roof Access
—Structural weak points—engineering redesign ...................................................................................................................... 80,000
—Structural weak points—additional materials ........................................................................................................................ 117,250

(238.303, 238.305, and 238.307) Exterior, Interior, and Periodic Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance ...................................... 14,717,246
Total Costs ......................................................................................................................................................................... 15,421,507
If over the 20-year period covered by aware of the situation until the train copying facilities are available at the
the regulatory evaluation the equivalent arrived at the next station where police DOT’s Central Docket Management
of 7.7 lives would be saved as a result happened to be present on the platform. Facility located in Room PL–401 on the
of implementing the proposed The availability of an intercom system Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400
requirements (from a combination of to passengers in such a situation could Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
fatalities prevented, and injuries allow passengers to provide notification 20590. Docket material is also available
avoided or minimized), the proposed to the crew in a timely manner so that for inspection on the Internet at
rule would be cost-justified by the safety the crew could contact the appropriate http://dms.dot.gov. Photocopies may
benefits alone. FRA believes it is authorities to obtain emergency also be obtained by submitting a written
reasonable to expect that the safety assistance and take other necessary request to the FRA Docket Clerk at
benefits would exceed the costs of the action. This may include providing a Office of Chief Counsel, Stop 10,
proposed requirements. Although direct warning over the train’s public Federal Railroad Administration, 1120
passenger railroads offer the traveling address system both to passengers on Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
public one of the safest forms of the train as well as to passengers in the 20590; please refer to Docket No. FRA–
transportation available, the potential immediate vicinity of the train on the 2005–23080.
for injuries and loss of life in certain station platform. FRA is, of course, The AISE developed in connection
situations is very high. Nevertheless, proposing to require that Tier I with this NPRM concludes that this
FRA cannot predict with reasonable passenger trains be equipped with proposed rule would not have a
confidence the actual numbers of lives public address systems. significant economic impact on a
that would be saved. The number and Further, over the past 20 years, other substantial number of small entities.
severity of each future passenger train accidents and incidents have occurred The principal entities impacted by the
accident or incident would determine where, if they were to recur, the rule would be governmental
the ultimate effectiveness of the availability of the safety features jurisdictions or transit authorities-none
proposed requirements; these cannot be proposed in this rule may save lives or of which is small for purposes of the
forecasted with a level of precision that prevent or minimize injuries. For United States Small Business
would allow us to predict the actual instance, eleven lives were lost in a Administration (i.e., no entity serves a
need for the measures proposed in the February 16, 1996 collision between a locality with a population less than
rule. Yet, FRA believes that the Maryland Rail Commuter (MARC) train 50,000). These entities also receive
proposed requirements would protect and an Amtrak passenger train in Silver Federal transportation funds. Although
passengers and crew members against Spring, Maryland. The collision these entities are not small, the level of
known safety concerns in a cost- breached a fuel tank of an Amtrak costs incurred by each entity should
effective manner. These safety concerns locomotive, spraying fuel into the lead generally vary in proportion to either
are discussed in detail, above, in the vehicle of the MARC train, which the size of the entity, or the extent to
preamble to this proposed rule. erupted in fire. The fire and collision which the entity purchases newly
In particular, as discussed in Section trapped a number of people in the lead manufactured passenger equipment, or
III.C., the proposed requirement for an vehicle. Having rescue access windows both. Tourist, scenic, excursion, and
intercom system on Tier I passenger available to emergency responders on historic passenger railroad operations
trains is intended to allow passengers to the scene of such a situation may would be exempt from the rule, and,
communicate to the crew a medical facilitate the rescue of one or more therefore, these smaller operations
emergency, report a fire onboard the passengers. would not incur any costs.
train, or provide notification of other FRA notes that similar accidents and The rule would impact passenger car
emergency situations as quickly as may incidents have unique circumstances manufacturers. However, these entities
be necessary. In fact, some passenger which ultimately determine their are principally large international
lives may have already been saved at severity in terms of casualties, and again corporations that would not be
least in part due to the availability of an emphasizes that actual future events considered small entities. Some
intercom system because fellow cannot be predicted with certainty. manufacturers and suppliers of
passengers were able to use the Nonetheless, it is possible that over the emergency signage and communication
intercom to alert a crew member that a next 20 years the safety features systems may be impacted by the rule,
passenger onboard their car was proposed to be required by this rule and these may be small entities. Yet,
experiencing a medical emergency. This would preserve life in a single event in FRA believes that any impact on these
led the crew to call the dispatcher to an amount that exceeds the entire entities would neither be significant nor
arrange for prompt medical attention at estimated costs of the rule. negative, to the extent demand for
a nearby station. FRA believes that over FRA seeks comments and input from products and services they provide
the next 20 years the availability of an all interested parties regarding the actually increases.
intercom system to passengers may save estimates and statements contained in Having made these determinations,
the life of one or more passengers the regulatory evaluation developed in FRA certifies that this proposed rule is
experiencing a medical emergency. connection with this NPRM. not expected to have a significant
The availability of an intercom system economic impact on a substantial
to passengers may also save the life of B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and
number of small entities under the
one or more passengers in other Executive Order 13272
Regulatory Flexibility Act or Executive
emergency situations. For example, on The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Order 13272.
December 7, 1993, a gunman opened U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and Executive Order
fire onboard a LIRR commuter train 13272 require a review of proposed and C. Paperwork Reduction Act
traveling between New Hyde Park and final rules to assess their impact on The information collection
Garden City, NY, killing 6 people and small entities. FRA has prepared and requirements in this proposed rule have
injuring 19 others before he was placed in the docket an Analysis of been submitted for approval to the
overpowered by passengers. No Impact on Small Entities (AISE) that Office of Management and Budget
intercom system was available to the assesses the small entity impact of this (OMB) for review and approval in
passengers, and the train crew was not proposal. Document inspection and accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 requirements and the estimated time to
et seq.). The sections that contain the fulfill each requirement are as follows:
new information collection
Respondent Average time Total annual Total annual

CFR Section—49 CFR universe Total annual responses per response burden hours burden cost
(railroads) (minutes)
238.113—Emergency Window Exits: Marking 22 482 markings ................ 60/90/120 694 $27,760
and Instructions.
238.114—Rescue Access Windows: Marking and 22 964 markings ................ 45 723 10
Instructions.
238.117—Emergency Communications: Intercom 22 116 markings ................ 5 10 400
System—Marking and Instructions.
238.118—Emergency Roof Access: Marking and 22 234 marked locations ... 30 117 4,680
Instructions.
238.303—Exterior Calendar Day Mechanical In-
spection of Passenger Equipment:
—Repair/Replacement of Non-complying 22 150 replacement mark- 20 50 2,000
Rescue Access Window Markings. ings.
—Records of Non-complying Rescue Ac- 22 150 records .................. 2 5 200
cess Window Markings.
238.305—Interior Calendar Day Mechanical In-
spection of Passenger Cars:
—Non-complying Conditions of End Doors 22 260 notifications +260 1 9 360
and Side Doors. notices.
—Written Notification to Train Crew of Inop- 22 300 notifications ........... 1 5 200
erative/Non-functioning Public Address
and Intercom Systems.
238.307—Periodic Mechanical Inspection of Pas- 22 260 replacement mark- 20 87 3,480
senger Cars: Replacement of Non-complying ings.
Emergency Roof Access Marking and Instruc-
tions.
1 Incl. in RIA.
All estimates include the time for requirements contained in this NPRM government and the States, or on the
reviewing instructions; searching between 30 and 60 days after distribution of power and
existing data sources; gathering or publication of this document in the responsibilities among various levels of
maintaining the needed data; and Federal Register. Therefore, a comment government.
reviewing the information. Pursuant to to OMB is best assured of having its full One of the fundamental federalism
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits effect if OMB receives it within 30 days principles, as stated in Section 2(a) of
comments concerning the following of publication. The final rule will Executive Order 13132, is that
issues: whether these information respond to any OMB or public ‘‘[f]ederalism is rooted in the belief that
collection requirements are necessary comments on the information collection issues that are not national in scope or
for the proper performance of the requirements contained in this proposal. significance are most appropriately
functions of FRA, including whether the FRA is not authorized to impose a addressed by the level of government
information has practical utility; the penalty on persons for violating closest to the people.’’ Congress
accuracy of FRA’s estimates of the information collection requirements expressed its intent that there be
burden of the information collection which do not display a current OMB national uniformity of regulation
requirements; the quality, utility, and control number, if required. FRA concerning railroad safety matters when
clarity of the information to be intends to obtain current OMB control it issued 49 U.S.C. 20106, which
collected; and whether the burden of numbers for any new information provides that all regulations prescribed
collection of information on those who collection requirements resulting from by the Secretary relating to railroad
are to respond, including through the this rulemaking action prior to the safety preempt any State law,
use of automated collection techniques effective date of a final rule. The OMB regulation, or order covering the same
or other forms of information control number, when assigned, will be subject matter, except a provision
technology, may be minimized. For announced by separate notice in the necessary to eliminate or reduce an
information or a copy of the paperwork Federal Register. essentially local safety hazard that is not
package submitted to OMB, contact Mr. incompatible with a Federal law,
Robert Brogan at (202) 493–6292. D. Federalism Implications
regulation, or order and that does not
Organizations and individuals FRA has analyzed this proposed rule unreasonably burden interstate
desiring to submit comments on the in accordance with the principles and commerce. This intent was expressed
collection of information requirements criteria contained in Executive Order even more specifically in 49 U.S.C.
should direct them to Mr. Robert 13132, issued on August 4, 1999, which 20133, which mandated that the
Brogan, Federal Railroad directs Federal agencies to exercise great Secretary of Transportation prescribe
Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, care in establishing policies that have ‘‘regulations establishing minimum
NW., Mail Stop 17, Washington, DC federalism implications. See 64 FR standards for the safety of cars used by
20590. 43255. This proposed rule will not have railroad carriers to transport
OMB is required to make a decision a substantial direct effect on the States, passengers’’ and consider such things as
concerning the collection of information on the relationship between the national ‘‘emergency response procedures and
equipment’’ before prescribing such (Pub. L. 104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each comments received into any agency
regulations. This proposed rule is Federal agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise docket by the name of the individual
intended to add to and enhance the prohibited by law, assess the effects of submitting the comment (or signing the
regulations issued pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Federal regulatory actions on State, comment, if submitted on behalf of an
20133. local, and tribal governments, and the association, business, labor union, etc.).
FRA notes that the above factors have private sector (other than to the extent You may review DOT’s complete
been considered throughout the that such regulations incorporate Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
development of this NPRM both requirements specifically set forth in Register published on April 11, 2000
internally and through consultation law).’’ Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C. (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–
within the RSAC forum, as described in 1532) further requires that ‘‘before 78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.
Section II of this preamble. The full promulgating any general notice of
RSAC, which reached consensus on the proposed rulemaking that is likely to List of Subjects
proposed rule text before recommending result in the promulgation of any rule 49 CFR Part 223
the proposal to FRA, has as permanent that includes any Federal mandate that
voting members two organizations may result in expenditure by State, Glazing standards, Penalties, Railroad
representing State and local interests: local, and tribal governments, in the safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
AASHTO and ASRSM. As such, these aggregate, or by the private sector, of requirements.
State organizations concurred with the $100,000,000 or more (adjusted 49 CFR Part 238
proposed requirements. The RSAC annually for inflation) [currently
regularly provides recommendations to $120,700,000] in any 1 year, and before Passenger equipment, Penalties,
the FRA Administrator for solutions to promulgating any final rule for which a Railroad safety, Reporting and
regulatory issues that reflect significant general notice of proposed rulemaking recordkeeping requirements.
input from its State members. To date, was published, the agency shall prepare The Proposed Rule
FRA has received no indication of a written statement’’ detailing the effect
concerns about the Federalism on State, local, and tribal governments For the reasons discussed in the
implications of this rulemaking from and the private sector. The proposed preamble, FRA proposes to amend parts
these representatives or from any other rule would not result in the 223 and 238 of chapter II, subtitle B of
representative. expenditure, in the aggregate, of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as
For the foregoing reasons, FRA $120,700,000 or more in any one year, follows:
believes that this proposed rule is in and thus preparation of such a
accordance with the principles and statement is not required. PART 223—[AMENDED]
criteria contained in Executive Order
G. Energy Impact 1. The authority citation for part 223
13132.
Executive Order 13211 requires is revised to read as follows:
E. Environmental Impact Federal agencies to prepare a Statement Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–03, 20133,
FRA has evaluated this proposed of Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant 20701–02, 21301–02, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461,
regulation in accordance with its energy action.’’ 66 FR 28355 ( May 22, note; and 49 CFR 1.49.
‘‘Procedures for Considering 2001). Under the Executive Order, a
Environmental Impacts’’ (FRA’s ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as Subpart A—General
Procedures) (64 FR 28545, May 26, any action by an agency (normally 2. Section 223.5 is amended by
1999) as required by the National published in the Federal Register) that removing the definitions ‘‘Emergency
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. promulgates or is expected to lead to the responder’’ and ‘‘Passenger train
4321 et seq.), other environmental promulgation of a final rule or service’’; and by revising the definition
statutes, Executive Orders, and related regulation, including notices of inquiry, ‘‘Emergency window’’ to read as
regulatory requirements. FRA has advance notices of proposed follows:
determined that this proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed
regulation is not a major FRA action rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant § 223.5 Definitions.
(requiring the preparation of an regulatory action under Executive Order * * * * *
environmental impact statement or 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is Emergency window means that
environmental assessment) because it is likely to have a significant adverse effect segment of a side-facing glazing panel
categorically excluded from detailed on the supply, distribution, or use of which has been designed to permit
environmental review pursuant to energy; or (2) that is designated by the rapid and easy removal from inside a
section 4(c)(20) of FRA’s Procedures. 64 Administrator of the Office of passenger car in an emergency situation.
FR 28547, May 26, 1999. In accordance Information and Regulatory Affairs as a
* * * * *
with section 4(c) and (e) of FRA’s significant energy action. FRA has
Procedures, the agency has further evaluated this NPRM in accordance Subpart B—Specific Requirements
concluded that no extraordinary with Executive Order 13211. FRA has
circumstances exist with respect to this determined that this NPRM is not likely 3. Section 223.9 is amended by
regulation that might trigger the need for to have a significant adverse effect on removing paragraph (d); and by revising
a more detailed environmental review. the supply, distribution, or use of paragraph (c) to read as follows:
As a result, FRA finds that this energy. Consequently, FRA has
§ 223.9 Requirements for new or rebuilt
proposed regulation is not a major determined that this regulatory action is
equipment.
Federal action significantly affecting the not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ within
quality of the human environment. the meaning of Executive Order 13211. * * * * *

(c) Passenger cars, including self-
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of H. Privacy Act propelled passenger cars, built or rebuilt
1995 FRA wishes to inform all potential after June 30, 1980, must be equipped
Pursuant to Section 201 of the commenters that anyone is able to with certified glazing in all windows
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 search the electronic form of all and at least four emergency windows.
PART 238—[AMENDED] a seating area and any vestibule that is minimum of four emergency window
connected to the seating area by an open exits. At least one emergency window
4. The authority citation for part 238 passageway. exit shall be located in each side of each
continues to read as follows: Rescue access window means a side- end (half) of the car, in a staggered
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20133, facing exterior window intended for use configuration where practical. (See
20141, 20302–20303, 20306, 20701–20702, by emergency responders to gain access Figure 1 to this subpart; see also Figures
21301–21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; to passengers in an emergency situation. 1b and 1c to this subpart.)
and 49 CFR 1.49.
* * * * * (2) Multi-level passenger cars—main
Subpart A—General Seating area means an area of a levels. Each main level in a multi-level
passenger car that normally contains passenger car is subject to the same
5. Section 238.5 is amended by passenger seating. requirements specified for single-level
revising the definition ‘‘Emergency * * * * * passenger cars in paragraph (a)(1) of this
window’’ and by adding the definitions 6. Section 238.17 is amended by section.
‘‘Emergency responder,’’ ‘‘Dual-function revising the introductory text of (3) Multi-level passenger cars—levels
window,’’ ‘‘Intercom,’’ ‘‘Intercom paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows: with seating areas other than main
system,’’ ‘‘Intermediate level,’’ ‘‘Main levels. (i) Except as provided below, on
level,’’ ‘‘Passenger compartment,’’ ‘‘PA § 238.17 Movement of passenger or after [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER
System,’’ ‘‘Rescue access window,’’ and equipment with other than power brake DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
‘‘Seating area’’ to read as follows: defects.
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
* * * * * REGISTER] any level other than a main
§ 238.5 Definitions. (b) Limitations on movement of level used for passenger seating in a
* * * * * passenger equipment containing defects multi-level passenger car, such as an
Dual-function window means a found at time of calendar day intermediate level, shall have a
window that is intended to serve as both inspection. Except as provided in minimum of two emergency window
an emergency window exit and a rescue §§ 238.303(e)(15), (e)(17) and (e)(18), exits in each seating area. The
access window and that meets the 238.305(c) and (d), and 238.307(c)(1), emergency window exits shall be
applicable requirements set forth in passenger equipment containing a accessible to passengers in the seating
both §§ 238.113 and 238.114. condition not in conformity with this area without requiring movement
* * * * * part at the time of its calendar day through an interior door or to another
Emergency responder means a mechanical inspection may be moved level of the car. At least one emergency
member of a police or fire department, from that location for repair if all of the window exit shall be located in each
or other organization involved with following conditions are satisfied: side of the seating area. An emergency
public safety charged with providing or * * * * * window exit may be located within an
coordinating emergency services, who (c) Limitations on movement of exterior side door in the passenger
responds to a passenger train passenger equipment that develops compartment if it is not practical to
emergency. defects en route. Except as provided in place the window exit in the side of the
Emergency window means that §§ 238.303(e)(15), (e)(17) and (e)(18), seating area. (See Figures 2 and 2a to
segment of a side-facing glazing panel 238.305(c), 238.307(c)(1), and this subpart; compare to Figure 2b of
which has been designed to permit 238.503(f), passenger equipment that this subpart.)
rapid and easy removal from inside a develops en route to its destination, (ii) Only one emergency window exit
passenger car in an emergency situation. after its calendar day mechanical is required in a seating area in a
* * * * * inspection is performed and before its passenger compartment if:
Intercom means a device through next calendar day mechanical (A) It is not practical to place an
which voice communication is inspection is performed, any condition emergency window exit in a side of the
transmitted and received. not in compliance with this part, other passenger compartment due to the need
Intercom system means a two-way, than a power brake defect, may be to provide accessible accommodations
voice communication system. moved only if the railroad complies under the Americans with Disabilities
* * * * * with all of the following requirements Act of 1990;
Intermediate level means a level of a or, if applicable, the special (B) There are no more than four seats
multi-level passenger car that is used for requirements in paragraph (e) of this in the seating area; and
passenger seating and is normally section: (C) A suitable, alternate arrangement
located between two main levels. An * * * * * for emergency egress is provided.
intermediate level normally contains (iii) For passenger cars ordered prior
two, separate seating areas, one at each Subpart B—Safety Planning and to [DATE 14 MONTHS AFTER DATE
end of the car, and is normally General Requirements OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
connected to each main level by stairs. RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],
7. Section 238.113 is revised to read
* * * * * and placed in service prior to [DATE 38
as follows:
Main level means a level of a MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
passenger car that contains a passenger § 238.113 Emergency window exits. PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
compartment whose length is equal to (a) Number and location. Except as IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], only one
or greater than half the length of the car. provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this emergency window exit is required in a
* * * * * section, the following requirements seating area in a passenger compartment
PA system (or public address system) apply on or after [DATE 60 DAYS if it is not practicable to place a window
means a one-way, voice communication AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF exit in a side of the passenger
system. THE FINAL RULE IN FEDERAL compartment (due to the presence of
* * * * * REGISTER]. such structures as a bathroom, electrical
Passenger compartment means an (1) Single-level passenger cars. Each locker, or kitchen) and there are no
area of a passenger car that consists of single-level passenger car shall have a more than eight seats in the seating area.
(4) Cars with a sleeping compartment in paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), and level other than a main level used for
or similar private compartment. Each (a)(5) of this section, each single-level passenger seating in a multi-level
level of a passenger car with a sleeping passenger car shall have a minimum of passenger car, such as an intermediate
compartment or a similar private two rescue access windows. At least one level, shall have a minimum of two
compartment intended to be occupied rescue access window shall be located rescue access windows in each seating
by a passengers or train crewmember in each side of the car entirely within area. The rescue access windows shall
shall have at least one emergency 15 feet of the car’s centerline, or entirely permit emergency responders to gain
window exit in each such compartment. within 71⁄2 feet of the centerline if the access to passengers in the seating area
For purposes of this paragraph (a)(4), a car does not exceed 45 feet in length. without requiring movement through an
bathroom, kitchen, or locomotive cab is (See Figure 1a to this subpart; see also interior door or to another level of the
not considered a ‘‘compartment.’’ Figures 1b and 1c to this subpart.) If the car. At least one rescue access window
(b) Ease of operability. On or after seating level is obstructed by an interior shall be located in each side of the
November 8, 1999, each emergency door or otherwise partitioned into seating area. A rescue access window
window exit shall be designed to permit separate seating areas, each separate may be located within an exterior side
rapid and easy removal from the inside seating area shall have a minimum of door in the passenger compartment if it
of the car during an emergency situation one rescue access window in each side is not practical to place the access
without requiring the use of a tool or of the seating area, located as near to the window in the side of the seating area.
other implement. center of the car as practical. (See Figures 2 and 2a of this subpart;
(c) Dimensions. Each emergency (i) For a single-level passenger car compare to Figure 2b of this subpart.)
window exit in a passenger car, ordered prior to [DATE 14 MONTHS (ii) Only one rescue access window is
including a sleeping car, ordered on or AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF required in a seating area in a passenger
after September 8, 2000, or placed in THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL compartment if:
service for the first time on or after REGISTER], and placed in service prior (A) It is not practical to place a rescue
September 9, 2002, shall have an to [DATE 38 MONTHS AFTER DATE access window in a side of the
unobstructed opening with minimum OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL passenger compartment due to the need
dimensions of 26 inches horizontally by RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], to provide accessible accommodations
24 inches vertically. An emergency rescue access windows may be located under the Americans with Disabilities
window exit located within an exterior farther than the above prescribed Act of 1990;
side door, in accordance with the distances from the car’s centerline, or (B) There are no more than four seats
requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(i) of located within exterior side doors, or in the seating area; and
this section, may have an unobstructed both, if at least one rescue access (C) A suitable, alternate arrangement
opening with minimum dimensions of window is located within each side of for rescue access is provided.
24 inches horizontally by 26 inches each end (half) of the same passenger
(iii) For passenger cars ordered prior
vertically. A seatback is not an compartment.
to [DATE 14 MONTHS AFTER DATE
obstruction if it can be moved away (ii) For a single-level passenger car
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
from the window opening without ordered prior to September 8, 2000, and
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],
requiring the use of a tool or other placed in service prior to September 9,
and placed in service prior to [DATE 38
implement. 2002, the requirements of paragraph
MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
(d) Marking and instructions. (1) Each (a)(1) of this section apply on or after
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
emergency window exit shall be [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], only one
conspicuously and legibly marked with PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
rescue access window is required in a
luminescent material on the inside of IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] if the car
seating area in a passenger compartment
each car to facilitate passenger egress. has at least two exterior side doors (or
if it is not practicable to place an access
(2) Legible and understandable door leaves), each with a manual
window in a side of the passenger
operating instructions, including override device, and such doors (or door
compartment (due to the presence of
instructions for removing the window, leaves) are located one on each side of
such structures as a bathroom, electrical
shall be posted at or near each such the car, in opposite ends (halves) of the
locker, or kitchen) and there are no
window exit. If window removal may be car (i.e., in diagonally opposite
more than eight seats in the seating area.
hindered by the presence of a seatback, quadrants). The manual override device
shall be: (4) Cars with a sleeping compartment
headrest, luggage rack, or other fixture,
(A) Capable of releasing the door (or or similar private compartment. Each
the instructions shall state the method
door leaf) to permit it to be opened level of a passenger car with a sleeping
for allowing rapid and easy removal of
without power from outside the car; compartment or a similar private
the window, taking into account the
(B) Located adjacent to the door (or compartment intended to be occupied
fixture(s), and this portion of the
door leaf) which it controls; and by a passenger or train crewmember
instructions may be in written or
(C) Designed and maintained so that shall have a minimum of one rescue
pictorial format.
8. Section 238.114 is added to read as a person may access the override device access window in each such
follows: from outside the car without requiring compartment. For purposes of this
the use of a tool or other implement. paragraph, a bathroom, kitchen, or
§ 238.114 Rescue access windows. (2) Multi-level passenger cars—main locomotive cab is not considered a
(a) Number and location. Except as levels. Each main level in a multi-level ‘‘compartment.’’
provided in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this passenger car is subject to the same (5) Dual-function windows. If, on any
section, the following requirements requirements specified for single-level level of a passenger car, the emergency
apply on or after [DATE 60 DAYS passenger cars in paragraph (a)(1) of this window exits installed to meet the
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF section, with the exception of paragraph minimum requirements of § 238.113 of
THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL (a)(1)(ii), which is not applicable. this part are also intended to function as
REGISTER]. (3) Multi-level passenger cars—levels rescue access windows, the minimum
(1) Single-level passenger cars. Except with seating areas other than main requirements for the number and
as provided in this paragraph (a)(1) and levels. (i) Except as provided below, any location of rescue access windows in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this REGISTER], or placed in service for the IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or
section are also met for that level. first time [DATE 26 MONTHS AFTER placed in service for the first time on or
(b) Ease of operability. On or after DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE after [DATE 38 MONTHS AFTER DATE
[DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE REGISTER], and all Tier II passenger RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], each cars shall be equipped with a PA system shall have a minimum of two emergency
rescue access window must be capable that provides a means for a crewmember roof access locations, each with a
of being removed without undue delay to communicate to all train passengers minimum opening of 26 inches
by an emergency responder using either: in an emergency situation. The PA longitudinally (i.e., parallel to the
(1) A provided external mechanism; system shall also provide a means for a longitudinal axis of the car) by 24
or crewmember to communicate in an inches laterally.
(2) Tools or implements that are emergency situation to persons in the (b) Means of access. Emergency roof
commonly available to the responder in immediate vicinity of the train (e.g., on access shall be provided by means of a
a passenger train emergency. the station platform). The PA system hatch, or a clearly marked structural
(c) Dimensions. Each rescue access may be part of the same system as the weak point in the roof for access by
window in a passenger car, including a intercom system. properly equipped emergency response
sleeping car, ordered on or after [DATE (b) Intercom system.—(1) New Tier I personnel.
14 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF and all Tier II passenger cars. Each Tier (c) Location. Emergency roof access
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE I passenger car ordered on or after locations shall be situated as practical
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF so that when a car is on its side:
placed in service for the first time on or PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE (1) One emergency access location is
after [DATE 38 MONTHS AFTER DATE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or wholly within each half of the roof as
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL placed in service for the first time on or divided top from bottom; and
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], after [DATE 26 MONTHS AFTER DATE (2) One emergency access location is
shall have an unobstructed opening OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL wholly within each half of the roof as
with minimum dimensions of 26 inches RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], divided left from right. (See Figure 3 to
horizontally by 24 inches vertically. A and all Tier II passenger cars shall be this subpart.)
rescue access window located within an equipped with an intercom system that (d) Obstructions. The ceiling space
exterior side door, in accordance with provides a means for passengers and below each emergency roof access
the requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(i) of crewmembers to communicate with location shall be free from wire, cabling,
this section, may have an unobstructed each other in an emergency situation. conduit, and piping. This space shall
opening with minimum dimensions of Except as further specified, at least one also be free of any rigid secondary
24 inches horizontally by 26 inches intercom that is accessible to passengers structure (e.g., a diffuser or diffuser
vertically. A seatback is not an without requiring the use of a tool or support, lighting back fixture, mounted
obstruction if it can be moved away other implement shall be located in PA equipment, luggage rack) where
from the window opening without each end (half) of each car. If any practicable. If emergency roof access is
requiring the use of a tool or other passenger car does not exceed 45 feet in provided by means of a hatch, it shall
implement. length, or if a Tier II passenger car was be possible to push interior panels or
(d) Marking and instructions. Each ordered prior to May 12, 1999, only one liners out of their retention devices and
rescue access window shall be marked such intercom is required. The intercom into the interior of the vehicle after
with retroreflective material. A unique system may be part of the same system removing the hatch. If emergency roof
and easily recognizable symbol, sign, or as the PA system. access is provided by means of a
other conspicuous marking shall also be (2) Marking and instructions. The structural weak point, it shall be
used to identify each such window. following requirements to apply to each permissible to cut through interior
Legible and understandable window- Tier I passenger car on or after [DATE panels, liners, or other non-rigid
access instructions, including 26 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF secondary structures after making the
instructions for removing the window, PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE cutout hole in the roof, provided any
shall be posted at or near each rescue IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and to such additional cutting necessary to
access window. all Tier II passenger cars: access the interior of the vehicle permits
(i) The location of each intercom a minimum opening of the dimensions
§ 238.117 [Redesignated as § 238.121] intended for passenger use shall be
9. Redesignate § 238.117 as § 238.121. specified in paragraph (a) of this section
clearly marked with luminescent to be maintained.
10. Add new § 238.117 to read as material; and
follows: (e) Marking and instructions. Each
(ii) Legible and understandable
emergency roof access location shall be
operating instructions shall be posted at
§ 238.117 Emergency communications. conspicuously marked with
or near each such intercom.
(a) PA system (public address retroreflective material of contrasting
(c) Back-up power. PA and intercom
system)—(1) Existing Tier I passenger color. As further specified, legible and
systems on Tier II passenger trains shall
cars. On or after January 1, 2012, each understandable instructions shall be
have back-up power for a minimum
Tier I passenger car shall be equipped posted at or near each such location. If
period of 90 minutes.
with a PA system that provides a means 11. Section 238.118 is added to read emergency roof access is provided by
for a crewmember to communicate to all as follows: means of a structural weak point:
train passengers in an emergency (1) The retroreflective material shall
situation. § 238.118 Emergency roof access. conspicuously mark the line along
(2) New Tier I and all Tier II Except as provided in § 238.441— which the roof skin shall be cut; and
passenger cars. Each Tier I passenger (a) Number and dimensions. Each (2) A sign plate with a retroreflective
car ordered on or after [DATE 60 DAYS passenger car ordered on or after [DATE border shall also state:
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 14 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF CAUTION—DO NOT USE FLAME
THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE CUTTING DEVICES.
CAUTION—WARN PASSENGERS contains the date and time that the (c) The periodic mechanical
BEFORE CUTTING. defective condition was first discovered. inspection shall specifically include the
CUT ALONG DASHED LINE TO This record shall be retained until all following interior and exterior
GAIN ACCESS. necessary repairs are completed. mechanical components, which shall be
ROOF CONSTRUCTION—[STATE * * * * * inspected not less frequently than every
RELEVANT DETAILS] 13. Section 238.305 is amended by 184 days. At a minimum, this
revising paragraphs (c) introductory text inspection shall determine that:
Subpart D—Inspection, Testing, and and (c)(10), and adding paragraphs * * * * *
Maintenance Requirements for Tier I (c)(11) and (c)(12) to read as follows: (5) With regard to the following
Passenger Equipment emergency systems:
§ 238.305 Interior calendar day mechanical (i) Emergency lighting systems
12. Section 238.303 is amended by inspection of passenger cars.
adding paragraph (e)(18) to read as required under § 238.115 are in place
follows: * * * * * and operational; and
(c) As part of the interior calendar day (ii) [Reserved]
§ 238.303 Exterior calendar day interior mechanical inspection, the (iii) Emergency roof access markings
mechanical inspection of passenger railroad shall verify conformity with the and instructions required under
equipment. following conditions, and § 238.118 (e) are in place and, as
* * * * * nonconformity with any such condition applicable, conspicuous, or legible, or
(e) * * * renders the car defective whenever both.
(18) All rescue-access-related exterior discovered in service, except as * * * * *
markings, signage, and instructions provided in paragraphs (c)(5) through
required by § 238.114 and § 239.107(a) (c)(12), and paragraph (d) of this section. Subpart E—Specific Requirements for
of this chapter shall be in place and, as * * * * * Tier II Passenger Equipment
applicable, conspicuous, or legible, or (10) All end doors and side doors
both. § 238.437 [Removed and Reserved]
operate safely and as intended. A non-
(i) Except as provided in paragraphs complying car may continue in 15. Section 238.437 is removed and
(e)(18)(ii) and (iii) of this section, passenger service pursuant to paragraph reserved.
passenger equipment that has any (d) of this section if at least one 16. Section 238.441 is revised to read
required rescue-access-related exterior operative and accessible door is as follows:
marking, signage, or instruction that is available on each side of the car; the § 238.441 Emergency roof access.
missing, illegible, or inconspicuous may train crew is provided written (a) Each passenger car ordered prior to
remain in passenger service until no notification of the non-complying [DATE 14 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
later than the equipment’s fourth condition; and a notice is prominently PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
exterior calendar day mechanical displayed directly on the defective door IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and
inspection or next periodic mechanical indicating that the door is defective. placed in service for the first time prior
inspection required under § 238.307, (11) [Reserved] to [DATE 38 MONTHS AFTER DATE
whichever occurs first, after the non- (12) On passenger cars so equipped, OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
complying condition is discovered, public address and intercom systems RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],
where it shall be repaired or removed shall be operative and function as and each power car shall have a
from service. intended. A passenger car with an minimum of one roof hatch emergency
(ii) A passenger car having more than inoperative or non-functioning public access location with a minimum
50 percent of the windows on a side of address or intercom system may remain opening of 26 inches by 24 inches, or at
a level of the car designated and in passenger service until no later than least one structural weak point in the
properly marked for rescue access that the car’s fourth interior calendar day roof providing a minimum opening of
has any required rescue-access-related mechanical inspection or next periodic the same dimensions, to provide access
exterior marking, signage, or instruction mechanical inspection required under for properly equipped emergency
that is missing, illegible, or § 238.307, whichever occurs first, or for response personnel. Each emergency
inconspicuous on any of the other a passenger car used in long-distance roof access location shall be
windows on that side and level of the intercity train service until the eighth conspicuously marked, and legible and
car may remain in passenger service interior calendar day mechanical understandable operating instructions
until no later than the car’s next inspection or next periodic mechanical shall be posted at or near each such
periodic mechanical inspection required inspection required under § 238.307, location.
under § 238.307, where it shall be whichever occurs first, after the non- (b) Each passenger car ordered on or
repaired or removed from service. complying condition is discovered, after [DATE 14 MONTHS AFTER DATE
(iii) A passenger car that is a sleeping where it shall be repaired or removed OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
car that has more than two consecutive from service; provided, the train crew is RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or
windows with any required rescue- given written notification of the non- placed in service for the first time on or
access-related exterior marking, signage, complying condition, and all of the after [DATE 38 MONTHS AFTER DATE
or instruction at or near their locations requirements contained in paragraph OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
that is missing, illegible, or (d)(3) of this section are met. RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER,]
inconspicuous may remain in passenger * * * * * shall comply with the emergency roof
service until no later than the car’s next 14. Section 238.307 is amended by access requirements specified in
periodic mechanical inspection required
revising paragraphs (c) introductory text § 238.118.

under § 238.307, where it shall be and (c)(5) to read as follows:
repaired or removed from service. Issued in Washington, DC, on August 17,
(iv) A record shall be maintained of § 238.307 Periodic mechanical inspection 2006.
any non-complying marking, signage, or of passenger cars and unpowered vehicles Joseph H. Boardman,
instruction described in paragraphs used in passenger trains. Federal Railroad Administrator.
(e)(18)(i) through (iii) of this section that * * * * * BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
EP24AU06.014</GPH>
EP24AU06.015</GPH>
EP24AU06.016</GPH>
EP24AU06.017</GPH>
EP24AU06.018</GPH>
EP24AU06.019</GPH>
EP24AU06.020</GPH>
[FR Doc. 06–7099 Filed 8–23–06; 8:45 am]

EP24AU06.021</GPH>
BILLING CODE 4910–06–C

Proposed Rule: Railroad Safety: Passenger Equipment Safety Standards&#8212 Emergency Systems

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proposed Rule: Railroad Safety: Passenger Equipment Safety Standards&#8212 Emergency Systems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thursday,

August 24, 2006

49 CFR Parts 223 and 238

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION may be submitted by any of the D. Development of the NPRM

FRA proposes to add the definition of is approximately 42.5 feet or more.

20-YEAR PV COSTS INCURRED

—Structural weak points—additional materials ........................................................................................................................ 117,250

Total Costs ......................................................................................................................................................................... 15,421,507

Respondent Average time Total annual Total annual

quality of the human environment. the meaning of Executive Order 13211. * * * * *

revising paragraphs (c) introductory text § 238.118.

[FR Doc. 06–7099 Filed 8–23–06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–C

You might also like