[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3957-3976]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28870]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 232

[Docket No. FRA-2019-0072; Notice No. 1]
RIN 2130-AC82


Amendments to Brake System Safety Standards Governing Operations 
Using an Electronic Air Brake Slip System

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: FRA proposes to amend its brake system safety standards to 
address operations using an electronic air brake slip (eABS) system, 
which is a system that tracks details related to individual freight car 
brake tests. The proposed rule would provide an alternative regulatory 
framework for railroads to utilize when choosing to use an eABS system, 
but would not require railroads to use such a system. The NPRM proposes 
to extend the distance certain individual rail cars may travel (from 
1,500 to 2,500 miles) without stopping for brake and mechanical tests, 
if the cars have a valid eABS record. The NPRM also proposes to allow 
railroads to add or remove multiple cars from a train without 
conducting additional brake tests, if the train is solely made up of 
cars with eABS records.

DATES: Comments are requested no later than March 16, 2021. FRA will 
consider comments received after that date to the extent possible 
without incurring additional expense or delay.

[[Page 3958]]


ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments related to Docket No. FRA-2019-0072 may 
be submitted by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the 
online instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name, docket 
number (FRA-2019-0072), and Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) for this 
rulemaking (2130-AC82). All comments received will be posted without 
change to https://www.regulations.gov; this includes any personal 
information. Please see the Privacy Act heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document for Privacy Act information 
related to any submitted comments or materials.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the 
online instructions for accessing the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Zuiderveen, Senior Safety 
Specialist, Motive & Power Equipment Division, Office of Railroad 
Safety, Federal Railroad Administration, RRS-14, West Building 3rd 
Floor, Room W35-204, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, 
telephone: 202-493-6337, email: Steven.Zuiderveen@dot.gov; or Jeffrey 
Frank, Attorney Adviser, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad 
Administration, RCC-10, West Building 3rd Floor, Room W31-201, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, telephone: (202) 493-8957, 
email: Jeffrey.Frank@dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
    A. Purpose of Regulatory Action
    B. Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action
    C. Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Regulatory Action
II. Background
    A. The Basics of Train and Freight Car Air Brake Systems
    B. Brake Inspection Frequency
    C. Block Swapping
    D. AAR Petition
    E. Technological Improvements
    F. Supporting Data
    G. Safety Improvements
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices
    A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13771 and DOT Regulatory Policies 
and Procedures
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Federalism Implications
    E. Environmental Impact
    F. Energy Impact
    G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Privacy Act

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of Regulatory Action

    In a March 1, 2019, petition (Petition), the Association of 
American Railroads (AAR) asked FRA to amend the existing brake system 
safety standards (49 CFR part 232) to increase the mileage individual 
freight cars are allowed to operate between required brake tests if the 
cars have a valid eABS system record.\1\ AAR requested that a car with 
a ``valid'' eABS system record \2\ be allowed to move up to 2,500 miles 
between brake tests if the car had received a Class I brake test 
conducted by a qualified mechanical inspector (QMI), as defined in 49 
CFR 232.5, and a freight car inspection performed by a designated 
inspector, as defined in 49 CFR 215.11, similar to the existing 
requirements for extended haul trains in 49 CFR 232.213. AAR requested 
all other cars with eABS system records (i.e., cars with Class I brake 
tests not performed by QMIs and/or freight car inspections not 
performed by designated inspectors) be allowed to move up to 1,500 
miles between required brake tests, as opposed to the currently allowed 
limit of 1,000 miles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FRA has placed the Petition in the public docket for this 
rulemaking (Docket No. FRA-2019-0072) available at 
www.regulations.gov.
    \2\ AAR defined a ``valid'' eABS as an electronic record 
containing a car's identification information; date, time, and 
location of the last Class I brake test; the identity and 
qualifications of the person(s) who performed the last Class I brake 
test; and the mileage until the equipment reaches the limit it is 
allowed to travel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Petition, AAR also asked FRA to amend part 232 to remove the 
existing restrictions on ``block swapping'' and permit railroads to add 
or remove single cars or multiple cars from single or multiple 
locations in trains solely made up of cars with eABS system records 
without conducting an additional Class I brake test. This rulemaking 
responds to AAR's Petition.

B. Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action

    In response to AAR's Petition, this NPRM proposes to amend part 232 
to address operations using eABS systems. This proposed rule would 
provide an alternative regulatory framework to existing part 232 
requirements for railroads utilizing eABS systems. As proposed, an eABS 
system would track detailed brake test information for individual rail 
cars, including each car's identifying information; identification and 
qualification of the person performing the last Class I brake test on 
the car; the date, time, and location of that test; the distance the 
car can travel before its next brake test; and other information 
showing that the car meets the requirements of part 232.\3\ Consistent 
with AAR's Petition, FRA proposes that railroads using an eABS system 
would only be required to inspect individual cars before these cars 
exceed their prescribed mileage limits, whereas currently railroads 
must inspect the entire train consist before any car in that train 
exceeds its prescribed mileage limit. The alternative regulatory 
framework proposed would replace the conditions triggering the Class I, 
Class IA, and II inspections of entire trains under Sec. Sec.  232.205, 
232.207, and 232.209. However, all other requirements of part 232, as 
well as the existing requirements of part 215, would continue to apply 
to cars operated under this alternative regulatory framework. For 
example, a car operated under proposed Sec.  232.221 must comply with 
the off-air limits of Sec.  232.205(a)(3), must not be overdue its 
single car air brake test under Sec.  232.305(c), and must have 
received a part 215 freight car inspection when placed in a train.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This is similar to the existing requirements of Sec.  
232.205(e), which requires railroads to maintain records of brake 
tests for entire trains (as opposed to individual cars within those 
trains). Existing Sec.  232.205(e) requires brake inspection records 
to contain the date, time, and location of a train's Class I brake 
test, the identification of the qualified person(s) conducting the 
test, and because the record tracks the brake inspections of the 
train as a whole, the number of freight cars inspected. See Sec.  
232.205(e). However, this record is not required to be retained once 
the train reaches its destination. The proposed rule would require 
retention of this information for a period of time, allowing for 
more detailed insight into the effectiveness of individual brake 
tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, consistent with AAR's Petition, for a railroad 
operating a train using an eABS system, FRA is proposing to extend the 
distance for travel between Class I brake tests from 1,500 miles to 
2,500 miles for cars receiving brake tests by QMIs and freight car 
inspections by designated inspectors. All other cars would be permitted 
to move a maximum distance of 1,000 miles between Class I brake tests.
    Finally, FRA is proposing to exempt trains in which all cars have 
valid eABS system records from those requirements to perform a Class I, 
Class IA, or Class II brake test that are due to adding or removing 
multiple blocks of cars to or from the train. When a train's consist 
changes en route, part 232 currently requires effective recordkeeping 
and a Class I brake test of the entire train. Under the proposed rule, 
a train consisting entirely of cars operating under an eABS system 
would undergo a single Class I brake test of the entire

[[Page 3959]]

train at its initial terminal. Following set-off or pick-up, only those 
cars in the train lacking sufficient mileage to proceed to the 
subsequent destination would require a Class I brake test. However, the 
requirement to undergo a Class III brake test (brake pipe continuity 
test) would continue to apply to the train following each set-out or 
pick-up. In other words, under the proposed rule, an eABS system would 
create the conditions necessary to permit block swapping, because the 
timeliness of inspections would be documented in a manner that ensures 
accuracy and reviewability. Therefore, FRA proposes to relieve all cars 
operating under an eABS with sufficient remaining mileage from the 
requirement to undergo a Class I or Class IA brake test following the 
pick-up or set-off of cars.
    FRA is not, however, proposing to amend part 232 to address all 
aspects of AAR's Petition. FRA does not propose to extend the maximum 
permitted mileage of a car inspected by a qualified person (QP) (who is 
not QMI-qualified) from the present 1,000 miles to 1,500 miles as AAR 
requests because FRA has not identified sufficient safety data to 
justify such an extension. In addition, FRA is proposing to require 
railroads to maintain eABS records for one year after creation, rather 
than AAR's request to permit records to be overwritten after the next 
Class I air brake test. Retention of eABS records for one year will 
provide data that can be used to measure compliance with the eABS rule, 
and that same data can be used by FRA and railroads to evaluate the 
possibility of future regulatory changes allowing additional operation 
flexibilities (e.g., the AAR request to extend mileage for equipment 
inspected by a QP, as opposed to a QMI).

C. Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Regulatory Action

    FRA analyzed the economic impacts of this NPRM over a 10-year 
period, and estimated its cost savings, costs, and benefits. Over the 
10-year period of analysis, the total cost savings range from $128.1 
million to $259.6 million (using a 3-percent discount rate) and $105.1 
million to $217.3 million (using a 7-percent discount rate). The 
annualized cost savings range from $15.0 million to $30.4 million 
(using a 3-percent discount rate) to $15.0 million to $30.9 million 
(using a 7-percent discount rate). The cost savings of this proposed 
rule are displayed in the table below.

                                   Net Cost Savings, Low Estimate, in Millions
                                                 [2018 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Present value   Present value
                     Section                            3%              7%         Annualized 3%   Annualized 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost Savings..............................          $185.6          $156.6           $21.8           $22.3
Total New Costs.................................            57.5            51.4             6.7             7.3
Net Cost Savings................................           128.1           105.1            15.0            15.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                  Net Cost Savings, High Estimate, in Millions
                                                 [2018 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Present value   Present value                   Annualized 7%
                     Section                            3%              7%         Annualized 3%         *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost Savings..............................          $286.1          $241.4           $33.5           $34.4
Total New Costs.................................            26.4            24.1             3.1             3.4
Net Cost Savings................................           259.6           217.3            30.4            30.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers may not tabulate due to rounding.

II. Background

A. The Basics of Train and Freight Car Air Brake Systems

    Each train air brake system consists of three major parts: A 
locomotive brake valve, a brake pipe (also known as a trainline), and 
the individual car control valves. The locomotive brake valve adds or 
releases air to or from the brake pipe, which is connected by flexible 
air hoses between each car, and is sealed at the rear of the train by a 
pneumatic end-of-train (EOT) device. The locomotive brake valve's 
pressure changes create signals that are received by each car's air 
brake system via the brake pipe, and induce application or release of 
the brake.
    When the engineer ``sets the brakes,'' the locomotive air brake 
valve releases air from the brake pipe, reducing the brake pipe 
pressure, causing the brakes to apply. While the air pressure change 
usually occurs first at the front of the train, the locomotive may send 
a radio signal to the EOT device to command an emergency brake air 
pressure reduction from the other end. Similarly, when the brakes are 
released, the locomotive brake valve is positioned to pump air back 
into the brake pipe and re-stabilize the air pressure. The air brake 
system also applies car brakes automatically in an emergency, because a 
derailment typically causes a break in the brake pipe that results in a 
sudden loss of air pressure, causing an irretrievable, higher pressure 
application of the brakes.
    Each individual car's air brake system can be further broken down 
into several major components, including an assemblage of car control 
valves, air reservoirs, cylinder(s), rigging, beams, and shoes. When a 
brake application signal is received by the car's air brake control 
valve, it transfers air from the auxiliary reservoir to the brake 
cylinder, causing the cylinder's piston to pull the brake rigging (a 
series of rods and levers designed to increase the braking ratio), the 
brake beam, and then the brake shoe against the wheel to create the 
braking action. The degree of brake pipe pressure drop governs the 
degree of braking effort. A full-service brake occurs when the control 
valve balances all of the auxiliary reservoir air into the cylinder. An 
emergency brake application occurs when the brake pipe is reduced 
faster than the normal rate, which causes the control valve to add 
emergency reservoir air to the auxiliary reservoir air in the cylinder. 
This creates 15 percent more braking, and cannot be released by the 
locomotive without completely restoring the full pressure in the brake 
pipe and reservoirs.
    The control valve also ``charges the train'' by providing 
sufficient air to each car's air reservoirs, which then store the

[[Page 3960]]

air to maintain a brake application. Because each application reduces 
the air in the car reservoirs, and some time must elapse before those 
reservoirs are fully recharged, an engineer has a limited number of 
brake applications that can be made in a short period of time. Several 
brake applications in a short time interval will sharply reduce the 
system's braking effectiveness.
    The railroad must charge the train prior to each air brake test, 
which may take up to six minutes per empty car air reservoir. However, 
numerous cars can be charged simultaneously. Taking simultaneous 
charging into account, a fifty-car train can be charged in 
approximately twenty minutes, although this time can be longer 
depending on factors that affect the integrity of the brake line, 
including environmental factors such as temperature and the amount of 
brake pipe leakage.
    Today, in addition to the statutorily required air brakes,\4\ 
railroads use distributed power locomotive units (DPUs) and dynamic 
brakes to aid in controlling in-train forces and to provide additional 
braking capability. Distributed power units are locomotives that are 
physically distributed at intermediate points throughout the length of 
a train. These locomotives are remotely controlled from the leading 
locomotive. The use of DPUs permits quicker application of air brakes 
and localized control of in-train forces. With braking on a 
conventional train controlled at the head-end, it can take from several 
seconds (on a short train) to more than twenty seconds on a train 
exceeding 200 cars for the brake pipe pressure signal to propagate the 
length of the train.\5\ Using DPUs, however, brake pipe signals are 
initiated at the remote locomotives almost simultaneously with the 
command of the lead locomotive, providing a more rapid and uniform air 
brake response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 49 U.S.C. 20302.
    \5\ Air brake propagation is at the degraded speed of sound, 
accounting for friction due to pipe length and elbows, at 
approximately 950 feet per second for emergency braking. AAR 
Standard S-469, incorporated at Sec.  232.103(l), states at a 
service reduction of 10 psi, the 150th cars will apply at 
``nominally 20 seconds or less'' from the application of the first 
car (S-469-01 Sec.  5.3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Presently, most mainline locomotives are equipped with dynamic 
brakes, a supplementary braking system that can be used to control 
train speed without engaging a train's air brakes. Dynamic brakes use 
the kinetic energy of a moving train to generate electric current at 
the locomotive traction motors. By engaging dynamic brakes, the 
normally powered traction motors on a locomotive's axles are changed to 
generators, and the power generated is dissipated through resistance 
grids, similar to what happens when a motor vehicle driver shifts a 
vehicle into a lower gear when descending a steep grade. The primary 
benefits of dynamic brakes are the ability to reduce freight car brake 
shoe wear and wheel overheating, and to preserve freight car auxiliary 
air pressure on long downgrades. Dynamic brakes are also useful to 
control in-train forces on continuous (but varying) downhill grades 
and, as a result, effective use of a locomotive's dynamic brakes leads 
to fuel savings by reducing the need to power or stretch brakes through 
grade variations.\6\ Due to these benefits, dynamic braking is often 
reflected in railroads' operating rules as the preferred method of 
controlling a train, especially in heavy grade territory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ To power or stretch air brakes means to apply locomotive 
power against an applied brake.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dynamic brakes, however, cannot be relied upon as a train's primary 
braking system for a number of reasons. First, dynamic brakes provide 
braking force only on powered locomotive axles and are incapable of 
controlling in-train forces in the same way as air brakes in undulating 
grade territories. Second, dynamic brakes are effective only within a 
certain speed range and have no capability to physically stop and hold 
a train. Third, dynamic brakes are not fail-safe, and can fail without 
warning. When dynamic brakes fail, all braking force is lost. By 
comparison, air brakes are designed to be fail-safe and a loss of air 
brake system integrity will result in an emergency brake application. 
For these reasons, FRA, by statute and regulation, has long considered 
dynamic brakes secondary devices used for supplemental braking, and not 
as a safety-critical device. Nonetheless, railroads rely on dynamic 
brakes to control train speed and to aid in controlling trains on heavy 
grades.
    FRA's regulations do not mandate the use of dynamic brakes, but 
require that if the railroad operates a locomotive equipped with 
dynamic brakes, the railroad adopt appropriate operating rules and any 
locomotive engineer assigned to operate such a locomotive be informed 
of the operational status of the dynamic brakes on all units in the 
consist at the initial terminal for the train. See Sec.  232.109(j). 
Overreliance on dynamic brakes may lead to the inability to stop a 
train short of an obstruction or control point, result in very long 
trains pushing head-end cars out of the train due to excessive buff 
forces, or for an engineer not being able to recover a train from an 
overspeed situation.

B. Brake Test Frequency

    Part 232 includes brake system test performance and frequency 
requirements. A central premise of Part 232's existing inspection 
requirements is that the capability of rail equipment to travel to its 
destination is contingent on the condition of the equipment when it 
begins operation and on the nature of the equipment's planned 
operation. For rail equipment to travel extended distances between 
inspections, the condition and planned operation of the equipment must 
be thoroughly assessed at the beginning of a train's journey through 
high quality inspections.
    The regulations provide for five primary types of brake system 
tests: Class I (a complete test of the brake equipment on each car, 
which is required to be performed at the location where a train is 
originally assembled, when the consist is changed in certain ways, and 
when a train is off-air for more than four hours); Class IA (a test 
that is less stringent than a Class I inspection and is required every 
1,000 miles); Class II (a less detailed test used for cars that have 
not received a compliant Class I test that are picked up by a train); 
Class III (a test that must be performed any time the brake pipe is 
opened to atmosphere on an operating train); and a single car air brake 
test (a comprehensive test used to validate the air brake effectiveness 
of individual cars every five years or when certain events or 
conditions trigger a testing requirement). Each test must be performed 
based on different circumstances. For instance, a train must receive a 
Class I brake test at its initial terminal and an intermediate test, 
such as a Class IA brake test, every 1,000 or, for trains designated as 
extended haul trains, 1,500 miles. 49 CFR 232.205, 232.207, 232.213.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ One exception to these mileage limits is for trains 
operating with electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brake 
systems. In 2008, FRA issued a final rule that allows such trains to 
travel up to 3,500 miles between brake tests. See 49 CFR 232.607(b). 
FRA noted that this relief was provided in large part based on the 
ECP brake system's self-monitoring and data reporting capabilities--
capabilities not present in traditional air brake systems. Another 
exception is granted for a unit or cycle train, which may travel in 
a continuous loop up to 3,000 miles, although such trains must 
receive a Class IA brake test. 49 CFR 232.205(a)(4). See 85 FR 2494, 
2495-2496 (Jan. 15, 2020) for a more detailed discussion of the 
different types of brake system tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The frequency of required brake tests also depends on the 
qualifications of the person(s) conducting the brake tests. Brake tests 
may be performed by either a QP or a QMI. A QP is a person who

[[Page 3961]]

has received instruction and training necessary to perform one or more 
functions required by part 232. 49 CFR 232.5. In the context of this 
rulemaking, a QP generally would be a conductor or a brakeman assigned 
to operate a train who has also received training to perform a limited 
pre-departure inspection under appendix D to part 215,\8\ and required 
brake tests. A QMI, however, is a QP who has received additional 
instruction and training that includes ``hands-on'' experience in 
``troubleshooting, inspection, testing, maintenance or repair of 
specific train brake components and systems for which the person is 
assigned responsibility.'' Id. As defined in Sec.  232.5, a QMI must 
understand what is required to repair and maintain properly the safety-
critical brake components for which the person is assigned 
responsibility. Further, a QMI's primary responsibilities must include 
work troubleshooting, inspecting, testing, maintaining or repairing 
brake components and systems. A QMI is also typically a designated 
inspector under part 215, and in the context of this rulemaking, would 
generally be a carman or a machinist.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ An ``Appendix D Inspection'' is an inspection designed to 
identify ``imminently hazardous conditions . . . likely to cause an 
accident or casualty before a train arrives at its destination.'' 
These conditions include conditions ``readily discoverable by a 
train crew.'' See 49 CFR part 215, appendix D.
    \9\ Section 232.5 defines a QMI as a QP with certain additional 
experience and assigned responsibilities. Accordingly, by 
definition, a QMI is also a QP. The section-by-section analysis of 
proposed Sec.  232.211, below, contains a more detailed discussion 
of the differences between QMIs and QPs, but in this NPRM, FRA uses 
the term QP to refer only to individuals who do not meet the 
additional requirements of a QMI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Part 232 generally requires a train to undergo a brake test every 
1,000 miles unless the train has a Class I air brake test performed by 
a QMI and an initial terminal part 215 freight car inspection performed 
by an inspector designated under Sec.  215.11, and is designated as an 
extended haul train under Sec.  232.213. With certain exceptions, if a 
train that does not meet the requirements for an extended haul train 
(e.g., if a QP performs the train's Class I brake test), part 232 
limits the train's movement to 1,000 miles between brake tests.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See fn. 3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The mileage-based test requirements, which are based, in part, on 
historical agreements among all stakeholders (i.e., railroads, labor 
organizations, and FRA) and railroad accident/incident data,\11\ serve 
an important role in each freight train's safe operation. Together with 
other requirements of part 232 designed to ensure the integrity of a 
train's brake system throughout its journey, the mileage limits are 
designed to ensure that a train's brake system, including all 
mechanical components, remains safely intact. 66 FR 4104 (Jan. 17, 
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See e.g., 66 FR 4104, 4107-4108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Federal statute authorizes FRA to amend the regulations for 
installing, inspecting, maintaining, and repairing power and train 
brakes only for the purpose of achieving safety. 49 U.S.C. 20302(d)(2). 
As such, FRA can increase the mileage permitted between brake tests 
only when supported by sufficient data demonstrating that doing so is 
in the interest of safety. FRA last addressed the mileage limits 
between brake tests in a rulemaking in 2001, and prior to that in a 
notice of proposed rulemaking in 1982, adopted as a final rule that 
same year. 47 FR 7286 (Feb. 18, 1982); 47 FR 36792 (Aug. 23, 1982); and 
66 FR 4104 (Jan. 17, 2001).
    FRA's 2001 final rule permitted ``extended haul trains'' to move up 
to 1,500 miles between brake tests, while other trains remained subject 
to the 1,000-mile limit. 49 CFR 232.213. To qualify as an extended haul 
train under Sec.  232.213, the train must be designated in writing to 
FRA, receive at its initial terminal a freight car inspection under 
part 215 by an inspector designated under Sec.  215.11 and a Class I 
air brake test by a QMI, as defined in Sec.  232.5, and must otherwise 
comply with parts 215 and 232. Since 2006, FRA has, in certain 
circumstances, granted conditional waivers from the 1,500-mile 
limitation.\12\ Such waivers have permitted trains to operate up to 
1,800 miles between brake tests provided that the qualifications under 
Sec.  232.213 for extended haul trains continue to be met (including 
the performance of Class I brake tests by QMIs and part 215 freight car 
inspections by designated inspectors). In addition, FRA required the 
railroads operating under the waivers to provide certain data, 
including data comparing defects identified on trains operating under 
the waivers as compared to typical 1,500-mile extended haul trains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See FRA docket numbers FRA-2006-24812, FRA-2014-0070, and 
FRA-2015-0036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Those data, along with the service history of railroads operating 
trains under the waivers, demonstrate that trains meeting the existing 
requirements for extended haul trains (i.e., Class I brake tests 
performed by QMIs and freight car inspections performed by designated 
inspectors) can operate at least as safely at longer distances between 
brake tests as at distances currently allowed by the regulations. 
Generally, the data garnered from these waivers demonstrates that 
trains inspected by QMIs and designated inspectors that travel up to 
1,800 miles experience the same number of brake anomalies and defects 
as extended haul trains limited to 1,500 miles.\13\ The service 
history, with no reportable accidents caused by brake systems defects 
on trains operating under the waivers providing for extended mileage, 
suggests that a train with a thoroughly-inspected brake system is 
capable of traveling longer distances than allowed by the regulations 
without developing a significant defect en route.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As an added condition to ensure the safety of operations 
conducted under these waivers, FRA required the QMIs inspecting 
these waiver trains to have access to wayside detection data to 
assist in their inspections. This summary data, which measures 
conditions such as wheel impact loads, stiffness of railcar trucks 
and bearing temperatures, enables properly trained QMIs to focus 
their inspections on areas needing attention. When used as part of a 
comprehensive inspection by a QMI, the data provides a greater 
opportunity to detect brake and other defects and other potential 
areas of concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Allowing trains to move longer distances between Class I brake 
tests will reduce the number of tests required to be conducted. As 
discussed in Section II.F below, a reduced number of tests may 
effectively lower the incidence of employee injuries by reducing 
employees' exposure to risks arising from working in close proximity to 
movable equipment. Reducing the number of required brake tests may have 
additional benefits. These include environmental benefits, as 
locomotives will spend less idle time awaiting or undergoing brake 
tests, and economic benefits, as railroads may be able to allocate 
certain resources more efficiently (e.g., additional labor resources 
previously devoted to brake tests are freed up to perform other 
duties). Certain reallocations may have the potential to improve 
safety, such as through increasing specialization of safety inspection 
functions. Reducing the number and frequency of brake tests, however, 
makes the quality and comprehensiveness of the remaining tests 
critical. As FRA has stated before, for brake equipment to travel 
extended distances between brake tests, the conditions and planned 
operation of the equipment must be assessed thoroughly at the beginning 
of the equipment's journey through high quality inspections. 66 FR at 
4117.

C. Block Swapping

    Part 232 currently requires a Class I brake test be performed if 
multiple individual cars or blocks of cars are added to or removed from 
a train's consist. This is commonly referred to as

[[Page 3962]]

``block swapping.'' Existing part 232 permits the addition or removal 
of a single car or a solid block of cars from a train without the 
performance of a brake test on the entire train. 49 CFR 
232.205(a)(5)(i) through (ii). With certain exceptions, however, any 
single car or solid block of cars from a single, previous train must 
receive a Class I brake test at the location where the car or cars are 
added to a train unless the car or cars have ``previously received a 
Class I brake test and have remained continuously and consecutively 
coupled together with the train line remaining connected,'' and have 
not been off-air for more than four hours. 49 CFR 232.205(b). The 
rationale underlying this rule is that when cars added to a train are 
known to have passed a thorough brake test without a subsequent 
opportunity for degradation of their brake systems, there is little 
cause for concern that the added cars will cause any significant 
reduction in the train's braking effectiveness. However, when cars 
without proper brake tests are added to a train, the brake health of 
the entire train may become compromised.
    When a Class I air brake test is performed, Sec.  232.205(e) 
requires a valid written or electronic record of the brake test. This 
record is commonly referred to as a ``brake slip'' and, because a Class 
I brake test must be performed at the location where the train is 
originally assembled (the ``initial terminal''), it serves as proof 
that at the initial terminal for the train, the brake pipe and each of 
the individual cars in that train were inspected and found to be 
effective. Because the brake slip applies to the train as a whole and 
does not track the individual cars in a train, a subsequent change to 
the consist renders the initial brake slip inaccurate, often 
necessitating handwritten changes in addition to the brake slip. Each 
change to a train consist, however, increases the likelihood of an 
inaccurate brake slip and decreases the traceability of brake system 
tests.
    In the 2001 final rule, FRA discussed the possibility of multiple 
consist changes without the requirement for a new Class I brake test. 
In that rule, FRA expressed concern that unlimited additions and 
removals of cars from trains would blur the distinction between a 
limited change in the train's consist and the assembly (or 
classification) of an entirely new train. If the distinction between 
the original train and new train were blurred, FRA concluded that the 
circumstances under which a Class I brake test would be required would 
also be blurred, potentially resulting in newly assembled trains never 
receiving Class I brake tests. Class I brake tests are intended to be 
comprehensive inspections of the brake equipment of each car in an 
assembled train and to ensure that a train's brakes are in proper 
working condition and capable of traveling to the train's destination 
with minimal problems en route. Accordingly, ensuring all equipment in 
a train receives a proper Class I brake test is critical. 66 FR 4104 at 
4119. FRA concluded that if railroads were allowed to change a train 
consist substantially without the requirement for a new brake test, 
trains would not be required to receive comprehensive brake tests at 
their initial terminal. Second, FRA noted that if cars are permitted to 
be moved in and out of trains at will, Class IA brake tests, which rely 
upon the mileage of the most restrictive car, would likewise be 
impossible to track. Id.

D. AAR Petition

    In its Petition, available in the docket to this rulemaking, AAR 
notes its member railroads developed a prototype eABS system to track 
brake tests of freight cars, and AAR asserts that the information that 
``can be obtained from the eABS exceeds'' the existing regulatory 
requirements of part 232. An eABS system electronically tracks detailed 
brake test information for individual rail cars and the distance 
individual rail cars travel between brake tests. For cars with a valid 
eABS, AAR requests that FRA permit each individual freight car to move 
the maximum mileage permitted by the qualification of the car's 
inspector, regardless of the distance cars may be moved without an 
initial (Class I) or intermediate (Class IA) brake test. AAR also 
requests that FRA provide flexibility to railroads adding or removing 
cars with valid eABS systems in and out of trains made up of solely of 
cars with a valid eABS.
    Under the existing requirements, a train's allowed travel distance 
is limited to the distance the car in the train with the highest 
mileage is allowed to travel before becoming due for its next brake 
test. Sec.  232.207(a) (``The most restrictive car or block of cars in 
the train shall determine the location of [the Class I or IA brake] 
test.''). In its Petition, AAR requests that FRA propose to require an 
intermediate brake test not on the entire train, but only on each car 
whose mileage exceeds the permitted amount. Adoption of this 
recommendation would allow movement up to 1,500 miles between Class I 
and Class IA brake tests performed by a QP or up to 2,500 miles between 
such tests if each car brake test is conducted by a QMI. AAR also 
requests FRA propose that each car operating under an eABS be exempt 
from the additional brake tests required when one or more blocks of 
cars with valid brake tests are added to or removed from a train (known 
as ``block swapping,'' discussed further below).
    In its Petition, AAR posits that eABS systems have the potential to 
eliminate the stated safety concerns that form the basis for the block 
swapping restriction. According to AAR, a properly designed and 
implemented system tracking each car's individual brake test record 
would provide increased information accuracy and confidence in tracking 
brake tests. AAR asserts that because an eABS system would track brake 
test information for each car (as opposed to whole trains), 
reclassification of the cars in a train (i.e., changing the position of 
individual cars or adding or removing single or multiple cars from a 
consist) would no longer hold the potential to result in a railroad 
avoiding or delaying brake tests for individual cars. AAR also states 
that the ability to block swap cars without the constraints of 
additional required brake tests would allow for the movement of a 
greater number of cars with fewer train stops, increasing rail network 
efficiency and reducing railroad employees' exposure to safety hazards 
that may result in injuries from actions related to the performance of 
required brake tests, such as climbing cars in order to engage and 
disengage handbrakes. In its Petition, AAR also presents proposals and 
supporting data regarding eABS systems, information protection, eABS 
system integrity maintenance, and availability of records requirements. 
A more detailed description of AAR's Petition and the supporting data 
provided is included below in the Section-by-Section Analysis. FRA 
requests comment on AAR's Petition and on FRA's proposals in this NPRM.

E. Technological Improvements

    FRA has long recognized the relationship between a train brake 
system's effectiveness and integrity and the mileage traveled between 
brake tests. E.g., 47 FR 7286 (Feb. 18, 1982). Since FRA last addressed 
the mileage limits between brake tests in 2001, technological 
improvements have increased the reliability of, and monitoring 
capability for, key brake system components. As AAR notes in a separate 
petition for rulemaking requesting a change in the number of hours a 
train may be permitted to remain off-air between brake tests, welded 
brake piping and fittings and

[[Page 3963]]

ferrule-clamped air hoses (instead of the previously used grip-type 
fittings now prohibited by interchange rules) have reduced the severity 
of brake pipe leaks in standing trains. FRA Docket Number FRA-2018-
0093. In that same petition, AAR also notes continuous improvements in 
car control valves, increased compliance with Federal biannual yard air 
systems inspection requirements, and the installation of oil and 
contaminant separators in most locomotives to keep compressed air 
clean. AAR also asserts that improvements in air leakage reduction 
reduce each brake system's exposure to such contaminants, helping to 
reduce wear and preserve its effective lifespan.
    According to AAR, improvements in other brake system components 
have continued to increase overall brake system lifespan and 
reliability. For example, AAR contends that brake shoe composition 
improvements have reduced stopping distances, smoothed brake 
applications, and reduced brake shoe and car wheel wear. Dynamic and 
blended braking, in which applications of the air brake are replaced or 
greatly supplemented by motors converting mechanical energy to 
electricity, are in widespread use. As a result, AAR contends that 
frequency of use of trains' air brake systems, and therefore the long-
term rate of wear on those systems, has been reduced. AAR has provided 
additional justification, in the form of a presentation available in 
the docket, titled ``QMI versus QP Air Brake Inspections,'' further 
detailing both technological improvements and changes to industry 
standards to retire obsolete components.
    AAR also notes that wayside detectors implemented along railroad 
track include sensors designed to recognize and alert railroads of 
conditions associated with mechanical defects. Wayside detectors most 
commonly collect information on the physical measurements and impact 
load of individual car wheels, and the temperature of individual car 
components including wheels, axles, and bearings. High temperatures can 
be indicative of a locked or sticking brake, while low temperatures may 
indicate that a car's brake system is inoperative.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For a description of various wayside detector 
implementations and their potential uses, see An Implementation 
Guide for Wayside Detector Systems, from FRA's Office of Research, 
Development, and Technology available at https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/18667/Wayside%20Detector%20Implementation%20Guide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA notes that although significant advancements have been made to 
air brake system technologies in recent years, and many obsolete 
components have been retired from the system population, many 
components remain essentially unchanged over the years. FRA seeks 
comment on the impact technological advancements have had on the 
reliability and durability of specific components of train air brake 
systems and those systems as a whole. FRA also seeks comment on how any 
existing or expected future technological advancements may impact the 
proposals in this NPRM.

F. Supporting Data

    The number of accidents caused by brake system failures that FRA 
considers to be identifiable through the conduct of brake tests has 
historically been a small proportion of all reported accidents, 
injuries, and fatalities. Between 1976 and 1980, there were 1,168 
accidents identified as attributable to brake-related causes, resulting 
in no fatalities and 62 injuries.\15\ 47 FR at 7288 (Feb. 18, 1982). By 
comparison, during the same period, there were a total of 50,078 
accidents reported to FRA, resulting in 62 fatalities and 5,114 
injuries. Id.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Accident reports may be amended for five years from the 
initial report, in order to reflect updated information. As a 
result, current FRA accident statistics for the period show 1,175 
accidents and 63 injuries due to brake-related causes. Although 
there was one reported fatality, FRA previously reviewed the report 
and concluded that power brake failure was not the primary cause of 
the fatality. See 47 FR 7283 at 7288 (Feb. 18, 1982).
    \16\ FRA notes that the 2001 final rule published data on brake-
related incidents from 1994 to 1998 that included brake-related 
human-factor caused accidents (e.g., train handling and improper use 
of brakes). 66 FR 4108. In developing this proposed rule, which 
would impact the frequency and tracking of brake tests, FRA has 
assessed only causes considered to be a result of defects that 
likely could have been identified by effective brake tests (see 
footnote 11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As Table 1 below shows, the number of reportable accidents and 
injuries attributable to brake-related causes has declined 
significantly over time, while fatalities remain relatively rare.\17\ 
For example, between 2014 and 2018 the number of accidents attributable 
to brake-related causes, and particularly brake-related causes that are 
the result of defects that likely could have been identified by 
effective brake tests, declined to 158 accidents. Reported injuries 
have also declined significantly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The only reported fatalities since 1999 occurred in an 
accident in Granite Canyon, Wyoming on October 14, 2018, discussed 
below. Although FRA concluded that brake-related component 
malfunction was a contributing cause of the accident, additional 
causes that could not have been identified by brake testing or pre-
departure inspections also contributed to the accident, including 
the failure of an EOT device to activate. Moreover, FRA notes that 
the report of 91 injuries during the period of 1994-1998 is 
overstated. On reviewing the accident reports from this period, FRA 
has concluded that 61 of the reported injuries resulted from human 
error that could not have been identified by brake tests. The 61 
reported injuries resulted from a single accident, Railroad Accident 
No. 295963, that took place on June 17, 1995. The railroad reported 
that a flatcar of railroad ties rolled away 5 miles unsecured during 
a switching operation and struck an excursion train head-on. During 
switching operations, the car air brake system remains uncharged 
with air, and securement is by handbrakes or chocks/skates under the 
wheels of the car. The proximate cause of the accident was human 
error for not properly securing the flatcar.

[[Page 3964]]



     Table 1--Accidents Related to Brake Systems Failures Resulting From Defects Potentially Identifiable by
                                                  Inspection 18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of
                              Years                                  accidents       Injuries       Fatalities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1984-1988.......................................................             318              21               0
1989-1993.......................................................             236              27               0
1994-1998.......................................................             184              91               1
1999-2003.......................................................             198               9               0
2004-2008.......................................................             212               9               0
2009-2013.......................................................             159               0               0
2014-2018.......................................................             158               7               2
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................           1,465             163               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since 1994, FRA has received fewer than 200 accident reports in 
each five-year period attributable to brake-related causes (aside from 
2004-2008), and fewer than ten reported injuries.\19\ This amounts to 
fewer than 40 accident reports per year and fewer than two reported 
injuries per year that are related to causes that could have been 
identified in the course of an effective brake test. By contrast, FRA 
has typically received between 11,000 and 23,000 accident reports per 
year over the same period. Given the relief granted in the 1982 final 
rule, and in the 2001 final rule for extended haul trains, the trend of 
diminishing brake-caused reportable accidents leads FRA to conclude 
that the relief provided by those rules did not adversely impact safety 
and the proposed regulatory relief is possible without adversely 
impacting safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For these accident statistics, FRA used the following cause 
codes: Air hose uncoupled or burst (E00C and E00L), Hydraulic hose 
uncoupled or burst (E01C), Broken brake pipe or connections (E02C 
and E02L), Obstructed brake pipe (E03C and E03L), Other brake 
component damage (E04C and E04L), Brake valve malfunction/undesired 
emergency (E05C and E05L), Brake valve malfunction/stuck brake (E06C 
and E06CL), Rigging down or dragging (E07C), Hand brake broken or 
defective (E08C and E08L), Other brake defects (E09C and E09L), Hand 
brake link and/or connect defect (E0HC and E0HL), and Failure to 
release hand brakes on car(s), railroad employee (H019). The numbers 
reported above are current as of February 2020. FRA believes 
accidents using these cause codes are the result of defects that 
could be identified by effective brake tests.
    \19\ Under 49 CFR part 225, railroads are required to report 
certain accidents or incidents to FRA including (1) highway-rail 
grade crossings accidents, (2) rail equipment accidents resulting in 
damages above a current reporting threshold; and (3) death, injury, 
and occupational illnesses that arise from an event or exposure 
arising from the operation of a railroad that is a discernable cause 
of the resulting condition or a significant aggravation to a pre-
existing accident or incident. 49 CFR 225.19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AAR provided data with its Petition that it says demonstrates that 
the rate of brake-related or other defects observed in trains that 
travel greater than 1,500 miles between brake tests is not greater than 
the rate observed for trains that travel less than 1,500 miles between 
such tests. This data is from certain operations with trains traveling 
up to 1,680 miles and 1,702 miles between brake tests under waivers 
granted to Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and BNSF Railway (BNSF), 
respectively (see Docket Nos. FRA-2015-0036 and FRA-2006-24812; and 
FRA-2019-0072-0001, Appendix B). FRA generally agrees with AAR that 
this data shows that the increased mileage allowed under the waivers 
does not impact the safe operation of the trains. FRA notes, however, 
that both waivers require QMIs to conduct the required brake tests and 
designated inspectors to conduct the required freight car inspections 
on trains subject to the waivers. Out of 7,827 UP trains operated 1,500 
to 1,680 miles between brake inspections between November 2015 and June 
2018, there were two reportable accidents, neither of which was caused 
by a defect in the air brake system. According to AAR, of 15,480 BNSF 
trains operated 1,500 to 1,702 miles between inspections from July 2015 
to June 2018, there was only one accident, which was caused by a broken 
car axle. FRA recognizes that such accident rates suggest that the 
extension of miles traveled between brake tests likely would not 
increase the rate of accidents due to causes the brake test would be 
expected to detect.
    AAR also provided wayside detection data related to operations 
under the BNSF 1,702-mile waiver, and to Canadian National Railway (CN) 
operations in Canada. This wayside detection data includes a comparison 
of wheel impact load detector anomaly data from trains operating under 
the BNSF waiver and traveling over 1,500, but not exceeding 1,702 miles 
(waiver trains) versus trains traveling 1,500 miles or less (non-waiver 
trains). CN provided data from detectors of stuck brakes (i.e., 
indications of increased wheel temperature due to increased friction). 
See Docket No. FRA-2019-0072-0001, Appendix C. The subject CN trains 
included trains traveling in Canada for distances between brake testing 
exceeding the maximum of 1,702 miles permitted for the longest distance 
in a waiver issued for any train in the United States. AAR concluded 
that the CN data showed that longer trip miles were associated with 
fewer stuck brake defects detected and asserted that, overall, the data 
provided suggests that there is little or no correlation between 
mileage traveled and additional defects.
    FRA, however, does not reach the same conclusion as AAR based on 
the data provided. While wayside detection data provides indications of 
possible defects, a QMI follow-up inspection is generally required to 
verify that a defect actually exists. Moreover, the accuracy of wayside 
detection data would better serve this analysis if AAR could provide a 
measurement of false positives/false negatives of wayside detection 
indications versus actual defects detected and repaired by QMIs. In 
light of these shortcomings, FRA seeks comment on the accuracy and 
predictive value of the wayside detection data provided by AAR in 
support of its Petition. For example, FRA seeks comment and data on the 
extent to which wayside detector indications are already being utilized 
to accurately identify and/or predict brake defects. Two railroads are 
presently conducting hot/cold wheel wayside detector waivers \20\ that 
could provide preliminary information on the efficacy of wayside 
detection to provide indications of defects. FRA also seeks comment and 
data on potential ways wayside detection data could be factored into 
determinations of rail equipment's overall brake health and on 
alternative sources of data or methodologies that could be employed

[[Page 3965]]

to determine the effect of Class I brake tests on defects more 
accurately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ AAR-Union Pacific, at Docket No. FRA-2016-0018; and BNSF 
Railway, at Docket No. FRA-2018-0049.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AAR also provided monthly data from 2017 on the number of brake 
system-related defects and bad-ordered cars discovered in outbound 
inspection data compiled for certain Class I railroad yards in 
Birmingham, Alabama; Elkhart, Indiana; Kirk, Indiana; and Symington, 
Manitoba, Canada. See Docket Number FRA-2017-0130-0001, Attachment 3. 
According to AAR's data, over 500,000 cars were inspected at each yard 
in the United States and more than one million cars inspected at the 
Canadian yard. Notably, in Canada there is no limit on the miles trains 
or individual rail cars may travel between brake inspections.\21\ The 
resulting inspection data shows a difference that is not statistically 
significant in the defect and bad order rates between the cars found in 
the U.S. and Canada. However, this data is of limited use in the 
context of this rulemaking because it is not clear whether these 
locations are truly representative of the global population of 
railcars. FRA believes that comparison of these numbers to a true 
national sample of car repair billing records could help to illuminate 
the usefulness of this data to the analysis. Alternatively, absent a 
true national sample, a smaller sample size could be used provided an 
analysis of any potential sampling bias is conducted and provided any 
such potential bias is effectively mitigated. In addition, it is also 
not clear whether the cars were inspected by QMIs or QPs, or their 
Canadian equivalents. FRA requests that AAR provide information 
clarifying the distance these trains traveled, the qualifications of 
the individual inspectors who inspected the subject equipment, and 
either an analysis comparing the existing data to a true national 
sample of car repair billing records, or other appropriate analysis 
that identifies and mitigates any potential sampling bias.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Transport Canada, Train Brake Rules, TC O-0-165, 
published November 17, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In further support of its Petition, AAR and some of its member 
railroads have provided data (available in the docket) purporting to 
show no significant difference in the critical incident rate discovered 
between inspections conducted by QPs and inspections conducted by QMIs. 
FRA disagrees with AAR's findings, because the data does not indicate 
how inspections conducted by individuals qualified as QMIs (who are 
typically designated mechanical employees) were distinguished from 
individuals qualified only as QPs (who are typically train crew 
members).\22\ Currently, there is no requirement for railroads to 
differentiate between QMI and QP inspections in their records, other 
than for extended haul trains and trains operated under certain 
waivers, and QMIs meet the regulatory criteria to be designated as QPs. 
Accordingly, the methodology described by UP for eliminating QMI 
inspections would not have removed from the data any inspections 
conducted by more highly-qualified QMIs who were acting in their 
capacity as QPs. If a clear delineation between QP and QMI inspections 
can be made in this data so that the resulting data does not commingle 
the two types of inspections, the data could potentially be more 
compelling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Section II.B. Brake Test Frequency for a more detailed 
discussion of the differences between QMIs and QPs. See also the 
section-by-section analysis of proposed Sec.  232.211, below, also 
contains a discussion of the differences between QMIs and QPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the AAR data is from two unnamed Class I railroads, 
one of which AAR indicates operates in the eastern United States while 
the other AAR indicates operates in the western United States. FRA 
cannot determine from the information provided whether the data is 
generally representative of the industry for variables that can affect 
braking equipment, such as weather, general equipment conditions, or 
geography. Relatedly, UP provided data it stated showed that QP-only 
inspections resulted in bad orders for cars (orders to send a car for 
repairs) for less than 0.2% of car trips. FRA notes that the 
methodology described by UP also fails to distinguish QMI-trained 
inspectors from QPs, resulting in the commingling of data. In addition, 
FRA notes that the data cannot be interpreted without contextual 
information about the true defect rate.
    In sum, given the shortcomings of the data related to QP 
inspections as described above, FRA finds that it does not have 
sufficient data to consider allowing an extension of the mileage 
permitted between brake tests when those tests are performed by QPs due 
to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 20302(d)(2). When trains undergo 
comprehensive Class I brake tests by QMIs and freight car inspections 
by designated inspectors, however, FRA finds that a mileage extension 
up to 2,500 miles between brake tests may be justified at this time. 
FRA's finding is based on the data discussed above gathered through the 
ongoing waivers permitting certain trains to travel up to 1,702 miles 
between brake tests and preliminary data from separate, newer waivers 
involving trains inspected by QMIs and designated inspectors and 
traveling up to 2,600 miles between brake tests. See docket numbers 
FRA-2016-0018 and FRA-2018-0049. Although data from each of these 
waivers is preliminary, coupled with FRA's and industry's experience 
operating trains equipped with electronically controlled pneumatic 
(ECP) brakes up to 5,000 miles between brake tests,\23\ FRA finds that 
an incremental increase in mileage on non-ECP brake trains inspected by 
QMIs and designated inspectors may be justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ FRA's regulations allow trains equipped with ECP brakes and 
operating in ECP brake mode to travel up to 3,500 miles between 
Class I brake tests. 49 CFR 232.607. FRA has additionally authorized 
railroads to operate trains in ECP brake mode up to 5,000 miles 
between brake tests with QMI inspections. See Docket No. FRA-2009-
0088. Although ECP brake control valves are designed to 
electronically operate and self-report defective brake components in 
real time, the brake pipe, brake cylinders, and foundational brake 
rigging of an ECP brake system are the same components that make up 
traditional air brake systems. Successful operation of trains with 
ECP brakes demonstrates that these components can safely operate at 
extended distances between brake tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, AAR provides results of its analysis of FRA data on 
employee incidents that it concludes show that from 2015 to 2017 there 
were 277 employee injuries related to the use of handbrakes, and an 
additional 200 injuries associated with getting on or off standing 
equipment or related activities. Over the three-year period, this 
amounts to 159 annual employee injuries. Citing this data, AAR asserts 
that ``the reduction of unnecessary brake tests, including any 
additional train stops and car handling, will in turn reduce exposure 
to risk of injury from walking on track, as well as from applying and 
releasing handbrakes and climbing on and off railcars to do so.''
    FRA finds that AAR's conclusion may overestimate injuries related 
to brake testing to the extent that some of the injuries may have 
occurred during activities not performed for the purpose of conducting 
brake tests. AAR's estimate, however, demonstrates that there may be 
opportunity to reduce the incidence of employee injury through a 
reduction in the frequency of required brake tests. FRA concludes from 
this information that the proposed rule would likely reduce the number 
of employee injuries related to brake tests, but FRA cannot estimate 
the reduction in incidence of employee injury that would result without 
more information.

G. Safety Improvements

    Because the overall reliability of brake systems has increased 
through technological and operational improvements and no measurable

[[Page 3966]]

decrease in safety resulted from the increase in allowed mileage in 
2001, FRA believes that reducing the frequency or extent of brake tests 
as proposed in this rule may be warranted. This would have the benefit 
of reducing the risk of injury for employees charged with inspection 
and testing duties. Increasing overall brake system reliability results 
in decreasing the expected number of defects discovered during a brake 
test. FRA expects the flexibility proposed in this NPRM would have the 
potential to increase the overall quality of brake tests, because the 
flexibility provided incentivizes the increased use of more-qualified 
inspectors, QMIs, and the data collection and retention requirements 
permit FRA and the railroad industry to analyze the effectiveness of 
brake tests closely to discover best practices and areas for 
improvement. FRA also recognizes the potential that added flexibility 
in the reallocation of resources could result in increased safety 
through such channels as increasing specialization in safety inspection 
functions.
    FRA expects data generated by eABS systems may provide information 
useful to further maintain safe car brake systems, and may promote 
railroad safety generally by encouraging the use of eABS systems and 
therefore identifying and resolving potential brake problems before 
brakes fail. For example, electronic tracking of factors that are 
correlated with brake system defects such as car age and load weight, 
train length, locomotive power, quantity, and distribution, and 
applicable routes and terrain, may lead to identification of defects 
without a brake test.

III. Section-by-Section Analysis

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

Section 232.5 Definitions

    FRA proposes to add to this section definitions for the following 
terms: ``Electronic air brake slip'' or ``eABS,'' and ``eABS system.'' 
The terms ``Electronic air brake slip'' or ``eABS'' are intended to 
refer to the record that must be stored for the car in order for the 
railroad to avail itself of the relief granted in the proposed rule. 
The term ``eABS system'' would describe the electronic system that 
stores the record.

Sections 232.205, 232.207, and 232.209 Class I Brake Test--Initial 
Terminal Inspection, Class IA Brake Tests--1,000-Mile Inspection, and 
Class II Brake Tests--Intermediate Inspection

    Under the proposed rule, FRA would provide railroads an option to 
comply with new Sec.  232.221 in lieu of Sec. Sec.  232.205, 232.207, 
and 232.209.\24\ Specifically, FRA proposes to revise each of these 
sections to reference Sec.  232.221 as an alternative means of 
compliance. Proposed Sec.  232.221 (discussed in more detail below) 
would set forth the proposed requirements for operations using an eABS 
system and would also specify the conditions under which proposed 
Sec. Sec.  232.205, 232.207, and 232.209 would apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Sections 232.205, 232.207, and 232.209 set forth the 
requirements for Class I, Class IA, and Class II brake tests, 
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 232.221 Electronic Air Brake Slip (eABS) System Requirements

    Proposed Sec.  232.221 would set forth the requirements for eABS 
systems and railroad operations under those systems. As proposed, this 
section would allow railroads to move cars with a compliant eABS up to 
either 1,000 or 2,500 miles between brake tests provided certain 
conditions are met. FRA intends the proposed requirements of this 
section (e.g., automatic tracking of individual car's mileage, testing 
prior to exceeding the permitted mileage, and recordkeeping) to support 
the ability of an eABS system to ensure that cars operated under this 
proposed rule would be appropriately inspected with the parameters of 
the rule.
Proposed paragraph (a)
    If a railroad has implemented an eABS system and is operating a 
train using the eABS system, proposed paragraph (a) would allow the 
railroad to move an individual freight car in that train up to 1,000 
miles between brake tests provided certain conditions are met. First, 
proposed paragraph (a)(1) would require that the mileage the car 
travels since its last Class I brake test be automatically tracked in 
the eABS system. Second, consistent with AAR's petition, proposed 
paragraph (a)(2) would require the car to be moved only as part of a 
train consist consisting entirely of cars being operated under proposed 
Sec.  232.221. Third, proposed paragraph (a)(3) would require the eABS 
system to retain a record of the car's Class I brake test containing 
certain required information.
    The alternative framework outlined in paragraph (a) replaces the 
conditions that trigger Class I, Class IA, and Class II inspections of 
entire trains under Sec. Sec.  232.205, 232.207, and 232.209. As 
proposed, any car that meets the requirements of paragraph (a) may be 
moved up to 1,000 miles between Class I air brake inspections, whether 
that car moves in one train or multiple trains. Although this reframing 
of brake test requirements from the level of the train to the 
individual car is a major departure from historical practice, it 
reflects the recognition that a Class I brake test is at the core a 
detailed, visual inspection of the functioning of the brake systems of 
the cars that compose the train. This shift, from a single, whole-train 
inspection to timely inspections of individual cars in a train's 
consist on a separately-tracked basis, is possible due to technological 
improvements in the ability to track large amounts of information 
reliably.
    Paragraph (a)(3)'s proposed brake test record requirement is based 
on AAR's Petition, and follows current Class I brake test recordkeeping 
requirements and industry practices. FRA proposes to require the eABS 
records contain the following additional information to preserve 
existing requirements and industry practices and to facilitate 
effective oversight: (1) Identification and railroad affiliation of the 
person creating the eABS record and inputting the record into the eABS 
system (the ``author'' of the record); (2) identification and railroad 
affiliation of the person who performed the brake test, if different 
from the author; (3) record creation date and time; and (4) a 
certification that the requirements of Sec. Sec.  232.205(a)(3) and 
232.305(c) have been met. FRA expects that, for railroads utilizing 
eABS systems, the individual putting the record of a brake test into 
the eABS system may not be the individual who conducted the test. FRA 
also expects that many eABS systems would be interoperable, or 
alternately, that many railroads would elect to utilize jointly a 
single eABS system. This may result in one railroad conducting the 
brake test and reporting information to another railroad for creation 
of the record. Because the author of the record in either case may be 
less likely to have firsthand knowledge of the brake test, it is 
important to ensure that the record identifies, in separate fields, the 
name and railroad affiliation of the author of the record, and the name 
and railroad affiliation of the person who performed the last Class I 
brake test. See proposed paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (ii) and (vi). 
FRA recognizes that industry practice varies in the identification of 
railroad employees, with some railroads

[[Page 3967]]

providing for the use of employee names and others requiring the use of 
employee identification numbers. Under the proposed rule, any effective 
method of identification is permitted.
    Consistent with AAR's Petition, and for the reasons explained in 
more detail below, proposed paragraph (a)(3)(vii) would require the 
eABS to identify the qualifications of the person conducting each car's 
Class I brake test (i.e., whether the person who conducted the brake 
test is a QP or QMI as defined in Sec.  232.5). The proposed 
requirement to record the qualifications of individuals performing the 
brake tests is intended to ensure that only individuals possessing 
sufficient knowledge and ability do so, and that the specific 
qualifications of each person are known. As discussed below, the 
recording of this qualification information will also permit the 
collection of information on which to determine more accurately the 
relative benefit to safety of inspections by a QMI compared to 
inspections by a QP. Such information is necessary to conclude whether 
a future extension of the miles traveled between brake tests would be 
appropriate where an inspection was conducted by a QP.
    Consistent with AAR's petition, proposed paragraph (a)(3)(viii) 
would require an eABS record to contain an ``accurate calculation of 
the mileage remaining until the next Class I brake test is required.'' 
Further description of such a calculation has been proposed as part of 
paragraph (h). Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(ix)'s requirement that 
railroads record adherence to existing off-air requirements and 
existing single car air brake testing timeframes is intended to 
reinforce the requirement for continued compliance with those rules, 
even under the alternative regulatory framework of Sec.  232.221. FRA 
notes it made changes to these requirements in a recent final rule that 
extends the time-off-air limits and provides additional flexibility as 
to the frequency of single car air brake tests. 85 FR 80544 (Dec. 11, 
2020). The requirements in this paragraph complement the changes in 
that final rule. Since added flexibilities in the timing and frequency 
of air brake tests have been implemented, timely adherence to the 
revised requirements as well as all other brake inspection and testing 
requirements will take on greater importance.
    FRA notes that proposed paragraph (a)(3)(v)'s requirement that the 
eABS include the date and time of the last Class I brake test may 
provide sufficient information that the car has not triggered a testing 
requirement based on time-off-air, because each Class I test requires 
that a car be placed on a source of air during testing. Similarly, 
because operation of a train requires a locomotive to provide air to 
each car in the train, the time of each car's most recent arrival and/
or departure in a train may likewise serve as sufficient information. 
For this reason, proposed paragraph (a)(3)(ix) does not require an eABS 
to contain specific information showing that a car has met the off-air 
requirements of Sec.  232.205(a)(3) if the maximum time the car has 
been off air can be determined from other information on the eABS 
record. Accordingly, as proposed, specific information showing that a 
car has not been off air in excess of the time allowed by Sec.  
232.205(a)(3) would not be required except where it cannot be 
determined from the other required information on the eABS (e.g., time 
and location of the last Class I brake test) whether or not the car has 
been off air for more than 24 hours. FRA expects that railroads will be 
able to track time-off-air by reference to this or other information 
commonly maintained in the railroad industry or required by regulation. 
FRA requests comment on whether the proposed provisions are sufficient 
to track individual cars' time-off-air or if a separate record keeping 
requirement for time-off-air as part of the eABS is necessary.
    FRA expects that for a significant majority of cars, information 
based on the most recently recorded arrival and departure of a car may 
be included in the eABS to provide sufficient information for this 
proposed recordkeeping requirement. This is based on AAR's assertion 
that the proposal in its Petition would result in higher car 
utilization rates. AAR also states that the large majority of freight 
cars use Automatic Equipment Identification (``AEI'') tags that already 
facilitate automatic recording of arrival and departure data. 
Accordingly, FRA considers that the burden of this requirement will not 
be significant.
Proposed Paragraph (b)
    Consistent with AAR's petition, proposed paragraph (b) would allow 
a railroad to move individual freight cars up to 2,500 miles between 
Class I brake tests if they meet the requirements of paragraph (a) and 
meet certain additional conditions designed to ensure the cars remain 
in proper condition for the extended mileage. First, proposed 
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) would require the cars to have their part 215 
inspections performed by designated inspectors as defined in Sec.  
215.11 and their Class I brake tests performed by QMIs as defined in 
Sec.  232.5. The proposed requirements mirror the existing requirements 
applicable to extended haul trains. 49 CFR 232.213. As noted in the 
2001 final rule that first allowed for extended haul trains, greater 
distances provide a greater risk of brake failure, and therefore it is 
important to ensure high quality inspections are performed prior to 
extended haul trips. Such inspections must be performed by individuals 
who can identify defective conditions, have the knowledge and 
experience to know how a particular defective condition affects other 
parts of the brake system or mechanical components, and have an 
understanding of what might have caused a particular defective 
condition to arise.
    As noted earlier in section II.B of this preamble, part 232 
requires only that a QP receive the instruction and training required 
to perform the specific brake test function that the QP will perform 
under part 232. Sec. Sec.  232.5 and 232.203. For the purpose of a 
Class I brake test under Sec.  232.205, a QP is expected to be able to 
identify those observable defects that would cause the train or any car 
in the train to fail the test. For example, a QP would be expected to 
have the training necessary to identify whether brake rigging is 
unsecured, binding or fouling, and engaged or released under 
appropriate conditions. In general, a QP is unlikely to be qualified as 
a designated inspector for purposes of the pre-departure inspection 
under part 215. As a result, a QP would only perform a limited pre-
departure inspection focused on apparent safety hazards (i.e., an 
Appendix D inspection). 49 CFR 215.13; appendix D to 49 CFR part 215.
    As also discussed in section II.B above, to meet the requirements 
for designation as a QMI, a QP must additionally have primary, ``hands-
on'' responsibility for troubleshooting, inspecting, testing, 
maintaining, or repairing of specific train brake components and 
systems. This required, additional experience is intended to ensure 
that such individuals provide a high-quality train air brake 
inspection. 66 FR at 4104. In addition, a QMI is generally qualified as 
a designated inspector for purposes of a pre-departure inspection. Such 
inspectors are required by regulation to determine whether each car 
inspected is in compliance with part 215. As a result, QMIs generally 
possess the additional experience and responsibility to identify a 
wider range of mechanical defects and equipment conditions that may 
adversely affect safety. For example, a QMI must be able to recognize 
not only the presence of unsafe conditions, but

[[Page 3968]]

also will, through experience, be able to recognize indications of 
developing conditions that could become safety defects.
    In the absence of convincing data for inspections by QPs comparable 
to that available for inspections by QMIs, FRA proposes to maintain the 
current mileage between inspections for cars inspected by QPs. Because 
cars operating under an eABS would be permitted to be added to or 
removed from a train without limitation, FRA expects that a larger 
number of cars would be operated closer to the maximum permitted 
distance between inspections. FRA notes that the requirement to record 
each inspector's qualification would provide an opportunity to 
establish more firmly the comparable safety benefit of inspections by 
QPs and QMIs. Should data and experience demonstrate a continued safety 
benefit to the use of QMIs, FRA expects that the significant extension 
of mileage afforded for inspections by QMIs would result in a 
corresponding increase in the proportion of QMI inspections. FRA seeks 
comments on proposed paragraph (b), as well as information and data 
that may affect this proposal.
Proposed Paragraph (c)
    This proposed paragraph would allow, in certain circumstances, a 
car that does not have an eABS record meeting the requirements of 
paragraph (a) to move under the provisions of proposed Sec.  232.211. 
Proposed paragraph (c) operates in conjunction with proposed paragraph 
(d), which sets conditions on the movement of trains with eABS cars. 
However, proposed paragraph (c) not only applies in the event of a 
disruption in communication with the eABS system but also to other 
events leading to a delay in the recording of eABS information prior to 
a train movement (e.g., including both delays in the creation of a new 
eABS and delays in the update of mileage remaining under proposed 
paragraph (a)(3)(viii)). The AAR Petition did not request provisions 
for flexibility in the event of eABS system disruption. However, some 
flexibility may be necessary to facilitate adoption of electronic 
recordkeeping, to promote interoperability of eABS systems, and to 
permit railroads to better adapt recordkeeping under eABS to existing 
business practices. FRA requests comment on the issue of providing 
appropriate flexibility in recordkeeping under an eABS system while 
maintaining timely and accurate records.
    To perfect a car movement under proposed paragraph (c), the 
railroad must enter an eABS record for the car into its system as soon 
as practicable after departure from one location, but no later than the 
time at which the car departs any further location in a new train. This 
means proposed paragraph (c) would permit a railroad to convert a train 
with a Class I brake test under Sec.  232.205 into an eABS train at a 
subsequent location, provided that the train consist has remained 
intact prior to entering records for the cars in the eABS system and a 
record of all necessary car information is available. However, a 
railroad would not be permitted under the proposed rule to convert 
subsequently an eABS train to a train operating under a Sec.  232.205 
brake slip without complying with both rules at the initial terminal.
    A railroad could split an eABS train at a location without 
requiring compliance with the proposed requirement to enter the eABS 
record before departure. Under present policy, FRA considers the 
splitting of a train to be the classification of two new trains, of 
which one may continue if it has mileage remaining on its brake test. 
Under the framework of eABS, FRA does not consider the splitting of a 
train to create a new train because any train movement that occurs 
after the splitting of the train remains dependent upon each individual 
car's mileage since its last qualifying brake test, and would be 
contemporaneous with a train movement of the original train had the 
split not occurred.
    FRA notes that operation under proposed paragraph (c) obligates a 
railroad to perfect the train movement by entering accurate eABS 
records including the remaining allowable mileage within the proposed 
limits. This is intended to prevent a railroad from using the 
flexibility provided in paragraph (c) to avoid the requirements of 
Sec.  232.205. FRA seeks comment on the effects of this proposal.
Proposed Paragraph (d)
    Current regulations for Class I and Class IA brake tests explicitly 
apply to trains, and the Class I brake test applies separately both to 
trains and to individual cars traveling in a train. Proposed paragraph 
(d) clarifies the conditions under which an eABS train is exempted from 
the requirement to undergo these tests. Specifically, proposed 
paragraph (d) specifies that a train may move the number of miles that 
the most restrictive car in the train is authorized to move, provided: 
(1) A record is maintained in the cab of the controlling locomotive 
that includes certain information for each car in the train; and (2) 
the record is updated at each location where the consist is changed to 
reflect those changes. Proposed paragraph (d) further provides that in 
the event of a disruption of communication between a train and the eABS 
system, the train's further movement is limited to the mileage the most 
restrictive car in the train is permitted to move under either 
paragraph (a) or (b). Taken together, proposed paragraphs (c) and (d) 
would allow movement of a train, regardless of whether the eABS for 
each car is fully up-to-date, if the railroad performs a Class I brake 
test on each added car requiring such test and timely and accurately 
records each test. Otherwise, such a train would be required to undergo 
a new Class I brake test for the entire train under the requirements of 
part 232. Similarly, where the eABS system fails to recalculate 
accurately a car's available mileage between stops or fails to capture 
information about compliance with time-off-air requirements, the error 
may be corrected through an amended record to restore the validity of 
the eABS. Such records must be placed in the eABS system as soon as 
practicable after departure of the car in a train, but no later than 
the time at which the car departs a location in any subsequent train.
    Existing Sec.  232.205(e) requires each railroad to ensure 
subsequent crews are notified about prior Class I brake test 
information. While such information may be provided to the locomotive 
engineer by any written or electronic means determined appropriate by 
the railroad, it must be retained in the controlling locomotive's cab 
and contain certain prescribed data. The prescribed data is sufficient 
for a railroad to create an accurate eABS for each car in the train at 
a later time, should conditions prevent communication with the eABS 
system. It is essential for train crews to be notified of relevant 
train brake test information. Because each car would have its own eABS 
record, proposed paragraph (d) would require a written or electronic 
record of all such information for each car in a train be placed in the 
cab of the controlling locomotive.
    To allow the possibility of manually updating the cab record (e.g., 
in the event of a communications failure), proposed paragraph (d) does 
not require that the cab record be modified for every car at every 
location. This applies in particular to information on remaining 
mileage and compliance with time-off-air requirements, which have the 
potential to vary for every car at every location. Instead, a cab 
record would

[[Page 3969]]

need only to be updated as to consist changes. An accurate cab record 
must note the removal of any cars set off from the train, and add all 
required information for any cars picked up.
    In conjunction with proposed paragraph (c), movement under the 
proposed rule would be permitted based upon this cab record. The 
railroad would remain responsible for ensuring that no car exceeds its 
permitted mileage, and that each car picked up as part of a train 
operated under the proposed rule is in compliance with paragraphs (a), 
(b), or (c) of this section. FRA expects that most railroads would 
choose to update the cab record electronically wherever possible in 
order to minimize compliance risk, promote convenience, and maintain 
the proposed flexibility in paragraphs (c) and (d) to continue 
operations during periods of disruption. However, under proposed 
paragraphs (c) and (d), FRA expects that some railroads for which 
participation in an eABS system would be impractical would be able to 
interchange with railroads participating in an eABS system with minimal 
burden. FRA seeks comment on the proposed paragraph with respect to the 
likelihood of Class III railroads and other small entities to 
participate in an eABS system.
Proposed Paragraph (e)
    For trains consisting entirely of cars operating under an eABS, 
proposed paragraph (e) removes the restriction on block swapping, or 
setting off and picking up more than one car or a solid block of cars 
at a single location. FRA expects that real-time, accurate tracking of 
brake tests and testing at the car level, as eABS systems are designed 
to do, would enable railroads to ensure that cars are tested in a 
timely manner. The current requirements for block swapping help ensure 
that any cars that trains pick up en route are in proper condition for 
continued movement, and help ensure accurate monitoring and 
recordkeeping functions. At least some brake tests triggered by current 
block swapping requirements are unnecessary so long as cars picked up 
en route have had valid brake tests and freight car inspections already 
performed, and the tests therefore expose railroad employees to 
potentially unnecessary workplace hazards associated with the stopping, 
securing, inspecting, and classifying of trains to minimal safety 
benefit.
    Proposed paragraph (e) also permits a change in the motive power 
for the consist without the requirement of an additional brake test, 
other than the Class III test. This proposal is consistent with 
existing regulations that allow for changing the motive power on a 
consist without a Class I brake test in certain instances (see e.g., 
Sec.  232.205(a)(5)(iii), Sec.  232.211(a)(1), and Sec.  232.219). FRA 
does not expect that the changing of motive power as proposed would 
present any different safety considerations.
Proposed Paragraph (f)
    This proposed paragraph would establish the minimum requirements 
that the eABS system must meet to permit coverage under the proposed 
rule. The requirements address issues of record integrity, 
availability, retention, accuracy, and access. FRA intends for the eABS 
system to provide access to information to maintain a level of 
information and oversight comparable to current regulations. Additional 
provisions are designed to enable the development of an adequate body 
of data to determine whether additional flexibility may be provided in 
the future (e.g., future mileage extensions between brake tests). The 
proposed availability and retention requirements under this paragraph 
are intended to augment more limited direct data generated through FRA 
inspections with a supply of detailed, auditable data generated by 
railroads. As the relative sourcing of data shifts from FRA towards 
regulated entities, a heightened requirement for data integrity and 
availability is necessary for FRA to remain confident in the safety of 
railroad testing and inspection programs. While such requirements 
increase the burden of compliance on participating railroads, FRA 
expects that the relief provided under the proposed rule would offset 
such burdens with substantially greater benefits.
    FRA expects that participating railroads would maintain the 
security of the eABS system in a manner consistent with industry 
standards for cybersecurity. A failure to maintain the integrity or 
availability of records may be evidenced by events including a 
significant loss of data required to be retained, an unexplained loss 
of availability of more than 48 hours, and a pattern or practice of 
providing inaccurate records or a delayed response to FRA requests. 
Although many such instances may also reflect violations of other 
provisions of the proposed rule, FRA may in its discretion treat such 
evidence as a failure to maintain integrity or availability for 
purposes of assessing penalties or for suspension or revocation of a 
railroad's authority to operate under the proposed rule.
    Consistent with AAR's Petition, proposed paragraph (f)(1) would 
require an eABS system to recognize a unique identifier associated with 
each person that authors records in an eABS system. Use of a unique 
identifier, combined with restrictions in the proposed rule on 
destruction or modification of records, is intended to provide 
confidence in the authorship and accuracy of the records.
    Proposed paragraph (f)(2) would require an eABS system to ensure 
that records stored contain all the information required by paragraph 
(a)(3). A requirement that records be fully complete before entry into 
the system would help ensure that the system would not accept a partial 
record. FRA would consider incomplete records to be ineffective for the 
purpose of establishing that a car is operating under an eABS. Although 
FRA recognizes that certain circumstances may require the ability to 
make amendments to stored records (e.g., to correct identified errors 
in those records), as proposed, those amendments must be clearly 
identified and tracked. See proposed paragraph (g) of this section.
    Paragraph (f)(3) would require a means to ensure that any 
individual performing inspections is identified as a QMI if he or she 
meets such requirements. In conjunction with paragraph (b)(3), as 
proposed, paragraph (f)(3) would prohibit an eABS system from 
identifying a QMI as a QP, even though current regulations otherwise 
permit a QMI to be considered a QP. As proposed, an eABS system must 
ensure that the qualifications of inspectors are accurately designated 
so that no person who does not meet the requirements of a QMI is 
designated as such and so that no person who does meet the requirements 
of a QMI is identified as a QP. This proposed requirement would 
increase the quality of data collected from eABS records and would 
provide a method for future comparative analysis between the results of 
inspections performed by QPs and inspections performed by QMIs.
    Although FRA expects that the enhanced training and experience of 
QMIs result overall in higher quality brake tests, AAR has provided 
data with its Petition that challenges this expectation (at least as 
applied to some railroads). Based on that data, AAR asserts that the 
rate of defect discovery is the same between QMIs and QPs. As discussed 
in Section II.F, above, FRA disagrees with AAR's conclusion on this 
issue based on the information provided, but FRA finds that use of eABS 
systems could provide an opportunity to gather relevant data to better 
inform the issue and potential future regulatory action.

[[Page 3970]]

    Proposed paragraph (f)(4) would require that records in an eABS 
system be made immediately available upon request to FRA and State 
inspectors. The proposed paragraph provides a general performance 
standard to replace a requirement to maintain a record in a paper 
format. Under current regulations, it is common practice for FRA to 
observe Class I brake tests, and to compare observed activities with 
the written brake slip to ensure the accuracy of both the brake test 
and brake slip. There would be reduced time and opportunity both for 
FRA to observe inspections and to compare submitted records to FRA 
observations of the corresponding cars because the proposed rule is 
expected both to increase utilization of cars and to reduce total Class 
I brake tests. To address this expected reduction of in-person 
observation, it is essential that FRA inspectors are able to access 
eABS records quickly.
    Access to inspection records may involve use of an internet-
accessible portal, a telephone hotline, electronic mail, or other 
effective means developed by the railroad. In very limited cases such 
as in areas with limited access to wireless communication, use of 
railroad-owned computer terminals linked to the eABS system or the use 
of railroad employees as intermediaries may be sufficient to meet the 
proposed requirement. However, widespread use of such on-site provision 
of records risks the curtailment of effective oversight. FRA inspectors 
would be required to alert railroad employees to their presence prior 
to obtaining records that may be pertinent to oversight, and this may 
impede FRA review of ordinary operations absent inspector surveillance. 
As such, FRA concludes that exclusive use of on-site records access is 
not consistent with immediate availability. Whatever the method for 
providing access to inspection records, the railroad may not cause 
undue delay which would hinder the FRA inspector's ability to provide 
accurate and enforceable oversight reports regarding eABS compliance.
Proposed Paragraph (g)
    This paragraph defines the proposed, permitted exceptions for the 
modification of an eABS. Although the proposed rule generally would 
prohibit modification of an eABS once submitted, amendments would be 
permitted where the amended record will supersede, but not replace, the 
original. This is based upon AAR's proposal in its Petition. FRA 
expects that common corrections of records would include an update of 
the time-off-air or single car testing requirements if circumstances 
changed for a subject car. An exception is also proposed to allow 
records to be updated as to mileage on the same record, as this element 
of the record will change frequently, and must be accurately 
maintained.
Proposed Paragraph (h)
    Proposed paragraph (h) includes the minimum requirements for any 
methodology for calculating and reporting mileage remaining on an eABS 
until a car is required to receive a Class I brake test. The proposed 
rule would tie the tracking of mileage to movements of a train. 
Movements for purpose of train classification, known as switching 
movements, would not be required to be recorded as part of the mileage 
calculation. Consistent with longstanding practice and existing legal 
precedent, movement of a small number of cars over distances less than 
one mile is typically considered switching movement, while movement 
that crosses public highways or another railroad's tracks at grade is 
typically train movement, even if over short distances and within a 
yard. FRA requests comment upon the proposal for the calculation and 
tracking of mileage, and in particular seeks alternative proposals for 
addressing movements of short distance or low risk for which the 
recording and calculation of mileage may not be practical.
    Proposed paragraph (h) establishes that a car's remaining mileage 
would be updated as soon as practicable after each car's departure in a 
train. To align with paragraph (c) and in recognition of the potential 
need for flexibility in the proposed alternative regulatory framework, 
proposed paragraph (h) requires as an absolute minimum that mileage be 
updated prior to a car's departure in a subsequent train. Departure in 
a subsequent train occurs after a car has been dropped off from one 
train and picked up in any train at a later time. FRA does not consider 
that a train can be subsequent to itself absent a train movement; 
however, a train that leaves a location and subsequently returns to 
that location to pick up a car would be considered a subsequent train 
for the purposes of this proposed rule. Accordingly, FRA would not 
consider the splitting of a train at any location to create a 
requirement under this proposed paragraph.
    If a car exceeds its permitted accumulated mileage between brake 
tests, proposed paragraph (h)(3) would require the eABS to track this 
excess mileage as a negative number. FRA is proposing this provision to 
ensure the eABS clearly reflects instances where cars exceed their 
permitted mileage.
Proposed Paragraph (i)
    This proposed paragraph would require railroads to retain eABS 
records for a minimum of one year from creation. The proposed retention 
period would provide an adequate body of data to inform appropriate 
enforcement of the rule and would provide a basis to evaluate the 
relative quality of QP and QMI inspections, and may serve to support 
future safety analyses of additional potential flexibilities under the 
regulations. The proposed requirements under this paragraph are also 
intended to augment more limited, direct data generated through FRA 
inspections with a supply of detailed, auditable data generated by 
railroads. FRA seeks comment on this proposed record retention period.
Proposed Paragraph (j)
    This paragraph would notify railroads that operate eABS trains that 
FRA reserves the right to revoke, in whole or in part, their authority 
to operate under proposed Sec.  232.211 if the eABS system utilized 
fails to meet the requirements of proposed Sec.  232.211 or if a 
railroad demonstrates a record of repeated or willful noncompliance 
with applicable regulations. This proposed section is modeled on 
existing Sec.  232.15(b)(5), which allows railroads to use automated 
tracking systems to track and monitor the movement of defective 
equipment. Existing Sec.  232.15(b)(5) provides that if FRA finds a 
railroad's automated tracking system to be insecure, inaccessible, or 
inadequate to track and monitor defective equipment, FRA may ``prohibit 
or revoke'' a railroad's authority to use an approved automated system. 
When FRA adopted this provision, FRA found that the ability to monitor 
and prohibit the use of deficient systems was necessary in part because 
no adequate automated system for tracking defective equipment then-
existed on most railroads. 66 FR at 4151. FRA has enacted similar 
provisions applicable to electronic or automated tracking systems for 
single car air brake tests and the designation of extended haul trains. 
See Sec. Sec.  232.303(f)(1) and 232.213(b); see also 66 FR at 4142 and 
4175.
    FRA concludes that the proposed rule merits a similar reservation 
of the right to revoke, in whole or in part, a railroad's authority to 
operate cars under an eABS system if FRA subsequently finds issues 
related to security, access, accuracy, or other inadequacy in properly 
tracking the movement of equipment using the eABS

[[Page 3971]]

system. As with past relief granted for the use of electronic and 
automated tracking systems, easy availability of records that 
accurately reflect the testing and inspection of operating equipment is 
critical to ensure FRA is able to exercise its statutory obligation to 
oversee compliance with railroad safety requirements. With regard to 
eABS, FRA's ready access to accurate records is key to enabling the 
agency to ensure effective oversight, develop data, and support future 
changes such as the consideration of future regulatory relief.
    The combination of proposals in this NPRM that would provide 
regulatory relief and additional operational flexibility for railroads 
operating using eABS systems place additional importance on the quality 
of inspections and on the accuracy of recordkeeping compared with the 
relief granted in the 2001 final rule discussed above. As AAR states in 
its Petition, the proposed rule is expected to increase freight traffic 
flow and reduce overall dwell time. These significant operational and 
economic benefits come at the cost of reduced opportunity for FRA 
equipment inspection, which takes place when equipment is not moving.
    FRA expects the proposed rule to improve overall safety; it is not 
clear that the relief proposed would improve safety under all 
conditions due to the novelty of the AAR proposal. Such conditions are, 
as a result, not known with enough certainty to merit additional and 
specific limitations to the proposed relief. FRA therefore considers 
that a reserved right to revoke the authority to operate under the 
proposed rule, in whole or in part, would permit FRA to act 
expeditiously to remedy any specific unsafe condition that may arise 
that may not have been considered until the enactment of a rule. Such 
conditions would relate to the suitability of freight equipment for 
safe transit, which includes not only requirement under part 232, but 
additionally requirements for freight cars and locomotives under parts 
215 and 229, respectively. Although the principal purpose of the brake 
test and inspection requirement is inspection of the brake system, FRA 
notes that brake tests indirectly bolster compliance with parts 215 and 
229 because their performance provides railroad inspection forces with 
an additional opportunity to observe the general condition of all 
tested equipment. FRA proposes that repeated or willful noncompliance 
with the provisions of parts 215, 229, or 232 would provide sufficient 
basis upon which to revoke a railroad's authority to utilize the 
proposed relief. Because FRA expects that the proposed rule would 
improve safety performance under most conditions, proposed paragraph 
(j) requires that FRA's Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety 
establish both the basis for revocation of authority and conditions 
under which such authority would be restored.

IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13771 and DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures

    This NPRM is a significant regulatory action in accordance with 
existing policies and procedures under Executive Order 12866. In 
addition, this proposed rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory 
action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can 
be found in the proposed rule's Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), which 
FRA has prepared and placed in the docket. The RIA details the 
estimated costs and cost savings that the Class I railroads are likely 
to see over a 10-year period.
    This analysis provides low and high estimates for costs and cost 
savings. Cost savings would primarily come from the reduction in brake 
tests that would result from mileage and block-swap relief. The 
proposed rule would also reduce the filing of waiver renewals by Class 
I railroads seeking relief from mileage limitations between brake 
tests. Costs would primarily come from training, acquisition of 
hardware, and maintenance of the eABS system.
    As shown in Table E-1 and Table E-2, over the 10-year period of 
analysis the proposed rule would result in annualized cost savings 
ranging between $15.0 million to $30.9 million (discounted at a rate of 
7%) and $15.0 million to $30.4 million (discounted at a rate of 3%).

                                           Table E-1--Net Cost Savings
                                                      [Low]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Present value ($)                        Annualized ($)
             Section             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Undiscounted         3%              7%              3%              7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Savings:
  Increased Mileage.............      91,641,000      79,932,000      67,672,000       9,370,000       9,635,000
    Unlimited Block Swapping....     121,590,000     105,551,000      88,804,000      12,374,000      12,644,000
    Waiver Filing and Review....         133,000         118,000         101,000          14,000          14,000
    Government Waiver Review....          12,000          11,000          10,000           1,000           1,000
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Cost Savings......     213,376,000     185,612,000     156,587,000      21,759,000      22,294,000
New Costs:
    System Development and            13,845,000      12,665,000      11,427,000       1,485,000       1,627,000
     Maintenance................
    Training....................       6,830,000       6,830,000       6,830,000         801,000         972,000
    Hardware....................      42,613,000      37,982,000      33,188,000       4,453,000       4,725,000
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total New Costs.........      63,288,000      57,477,000      51,445,000       6,738,000       7,325,000
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Net Cost Savings....     150,088,000     128,135,000     105,142,000      15,021,000      14,969,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                           Table E-2--Net Cost Savings
                                                     [High]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Present value ($)                        Annualized ($)
             Section             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Undiscounted         3%              7%              3%              7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Savings:
    Increased Mileage...........     164,554,000     143,527,000     121,514,000      16,826,000      17,301,000
    Unlimited Block Swapping....     164,047,000     142,408,000     119,813,000      16,695,000      17,059,000

[[Page 3972]]

 
    Waiver Filing...............         133,000         118,000         101,000          14,000          14,000
    Government Waiver Review....          12,000          11,000          10,000           1,000           1,000
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Cost Savings......     328,746,000     286,064,000     241,438,000      33,536,000      34,375,000
New Costs:
    System Development and            13,845,000      12,665,000      11,427,000       1,485,000       1,627,000
     Maintenance................
    Training....................       5,126,000       5,126,000       5,126,000         601,000         730,000
    Hardware....................       9,690,000       8,637,000       7,547,000       1,013,000       1,075,000
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total New Costs.........      28,661,000      26,428,000      24,100,000       3,099,000       3,432,000
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Net Cost Savings....     300,085,000     259,636,000     217,338,000      30,437,000      30,943,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the net cost savings, the RIA identifies non-
quantified benefits that may come from issuing the proposed rule. The 
benefits discussed may maximize and expand freight capacity, increase 
equipment availability, shorten cycle times, boost on-time performance 
and incentive greater accountability of employees who perform brake 
tests.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and 
E.O. 13272 (67 FR 53461, Aug. 16, 2002) require agency review of 
proposed and final rules to assess their impacts on small entities. An 
agency must prepare an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 
unless it determines and certifies that a rule, if promulgated, would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. FRA has not determined whether this proposed rule would have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Therefore, FRA seeks comment on the potential small business 
impacts of the requirements in this NPRM. FRA prepared an IRFA, which 
is included as an appendix to the accompanying RIA and available in the 
docket for the rulemaking (FRA 2019-0072), to aid the public in 
commenting on the potential small business impacts of the requirements 
proposed in this NPRM.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Total annual
           CFR section \25\                Respondent universe     Total Annual responses       Average time per        burden hours       Total cost
                                                                                                    responses               \26\         equivalent \27\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
229.27--Annual tests..................  30,000 locomotives......  30,000 records of tests.  30 seconds..............               250           $18,000
232.3--Applicability--Export,           708 railroads...........  8 cards.................  10 minutes..............                 1                72
 industrial, & other cars not owned by
 railroads--identification.
232.7--Waivers........................  708 railroads...........  2 petitions.............  160 hours...............               320            23,040
232.15--Movement of Defective           1,620,000 cars..........  128,400 tags/records....  3 minutes...............             5,350           385,200
 Equipment--Tags/Records.
--Written Notification................  1,620,000 cars..........  25,000 notices..........  3 minutes...............             1,250            90,000
232.17--Special Approval Procedure--    708 railroads...........  1 petition..............  100 hours...............               100             7,200
 Petitions for special approval of
 safety-critical revision.
--Petitions for special approval of     708 railroads...........  1 petition..............  100 hours...............               100             7,200
 pre-revenue service acceptance plan.
--(d) Service of petitions............  708 railroads...........  1 petition..............  20 hours................                20             1,440
--(d)(2)(ii) Statement of interest....  Public/railroads........  4 statements............  15 minutes..............            1 hour                72
--(f) Comment.........................  Public/railroads........  6 comments..............  4 hours.................                24             1,728
232.103(f)(2)--Gen'l requirements--all  1,200,000 cars..........  70,000 stickers/stencils/ 10 minutes..............            11,667           840,024
 train brake systems--stickers.                                    badge plates.
(n)(7)--RR Plan identifying specific    708 railroads...........  1 revised plan..........  10 hours................                10               720
 locations or circumstances where
 equipment may be left unattended.
--Notification to FRA when RR develops  708 railroads...........  1 notice................  30 minutes..............            1 hour                72
 and has plan in place or modifies
 existing plan.
--Inspection of Equipment by Qualified  708 railroads...........  12 inspections/records..  4 hours.................                48             3,456
 Employee after Responder Visit.
232.107--Air source requirements and    10 new railroads........  1 plan..................  40 hours................                40             2,880
 cold weather operations--Monitoring
 Plan (Subsequent Years).
--Amendments/Revisions to Plan........  50 railroads/plans......  10 revisions............  20 hours................               200            14,400
--Recordkeeping.......................  50 railroads/plans......  1,150 records...........  10 minutes..............               192            13,824
232.109--Dynamic brake requirements--   708 railroads...........  1,656,000 records.......  4 minutes...............           110,400         7,948,800
 status/record.
--Inoperative dynamic brakes: repair    30,000 locomotives......  6,358 records...........  4 minutes...............               424            30,528
 record.
--Tag bearing words ``inoperative       30,000 locomotives......  6,358 tags..............  30 seconds..............                53             3,816
 dynamic brakes''.
--Deactivated dynamic brakes (Sub.      8,000 locomotives.......  10 markings.............  5 minutes...............            1 hour                72
 Yrs.).
--Operating rules (Subsequent Years)..  5 new...................  5 rules.................  4 hours.................                20             1,440
--Amendments/Revisions................  708 railroads...........  15 revisions............  1 hour..................                15             1,080

[[Page 3973]]

 
--Requests to increase 5 mph overspeed  708 railroads...........  5 requests..............  30 min. + 20 hours......               103             7,416
 restriction.
--Knowledge criteria--locomotive        5 new...................  5 amendments............  16 hours................                80             5,760
 engineers -Subsequent Years.
232.111--Train information handling...  5 new...................  5 procedures............  40 hours................               200            14,400
Sub. Yrs.--Amendments/Revisions.......  100 railroads...........  100 revisions...........  20 hours................             2,000           144,000
--Report requirements to train crew...  708 railroads...........  2,112,000 reports.......  5 minutes...............           176,000        12,672,000
232.203--Training requirements--Tr.     15 railroads............  5 programs..............  100 hours...............               500            36,000
 Prog.--Sub Yr..
--Amendments to written program.......  708 railroads...........  236 revisions...........  8 hours.................             1,888           135,936
--Training records....................  708 railroads...........  24,781 records..........  8 minutes...............             3,304           237,888
--Training notifications..............  708 railroads...........  24,781 notices..........  1 minute................               413            29,736
--Efficiency test plans...............  708 railroads...........  708 copies..............  1 minute................                12               864
232.205--Initial terminal inspection:   708 railroads...........  383,840 notices/records.  45 seconds..............             4,798           345,456
 Class I brake tests and notifications/
 records (Revised/new burden currently
 under review with OMB).
(c)(1)(ii)(B)--RR Development/          708 railroads...........  10 revised operating      8 hours.................                80             5,760
 implementation of operating rules to                              rules.
 ensure compliant operation of train
 if air flow exceeds stipulated
 section parameters after Class I
 brake test is completed (Revised/new
 burden currently under review with
 OMB).
232.207--Class IA brake tests--         708 railroads...........  1 list..................  1 hour..................            1 hour                72
 Designation Lists Where Performed.
Subsequent Years: Notice of Change....  708 railroads...........  250 notices.............  10 minutes..............                42             3,024
232.209--Class II brake tests--         708 railroads...........  159,740 comments........  3 seconds...............               133             9,576
 intermediate ``Roll-by inspection -
 Results to train driver.
232.213--Written Designation to FRA of  83,000 long.............  250 letters.............  15 minutes..............                63             4,536
 Extended haul trains.
--Notification to FRA Associate         7 railroads.............  250 notices.............  10 minutes..............                42             3,024
 Administrator for Safety of a change
 in the location where an extended
 haul brake test is performed (Revised/
 new burden currently under review
 with OMB).
232.219--Double heading and helper      2 railroads.............  100 records.............  5 minutes...............                 8               576
 service: Testing/calibration/records
 of Helper Link devices used by
 locomotives (formerly under
 232.219(c)(3)) (Revised/new burden
 currently under review with OMB).
232.221--Inspection and Testing         708 railroads...........  280,203 records and       90 seconds + 30 seconds.             9,341           672,552
 Requirements for Cars with Electronic                             copies.
 Air Brake Slip System (eABS) Records
 (New requirement).
232.303--General requirements--single   1,600,000 frgt..........  5,600 tags..............  5 minutes...............               467            33,624
 car test: Tagging of Moved Equipment.
--Last repair track brake test/single   1,600,000 frgt..........  240,000 markings........  2 minutes...............             8,000           576,000
 car test--Stenciled on Side of
 Equipment.
232.307--Modification of single car     railroads/AAR...........  1 request + 3 copies....  20 hours + 5 minutes....                20             1,440
 air brake test procedures: Requests
 (includes 232.409(e)).
--Affirmation Statement on Mod. Req.    railroads/AAR...........  1 statement + 4 copies..  30 minutes + 5 minutes..            1 hour                72
 To Employee Representatives.
232.309--Repair track brake test        640 shops...............  5,000 records of          2 minutes...............               167            12,024
 equipment and devices used to perform                             calibrations.
 single car air brake tests--Periodic
 calibration of devices.
232.403--Unique Code..................  245 railroads...........  12 requests.............  5 minutes...............            1 hour                72
232.409--Inspection/Tests/Records EOTs  245 railroads...........  447,500 recording of      30 seconds..............             3,729           268,488
                                                                   tests.
--(d)-(e) Telemetry equipment--Testing/ 245 railroads...........  17,000 records..........  2 minutes...............               567            40,824
 Calibration/Rcds/--Documentations of
 testing (paragraph (d) is a revised
 requirement; paragraph (e) clarifies
 the use of Sec.   229.27) (Revised/
 new burden currently under review
 with OMB).
--(f)(2) Annual report to FRA on        1 manufacturer..........  1 report................  12 hours................                12               864
 radios found with frequency drift
 (Revised/new burden currently under
 review with OMB).
232.503--Process to introduce new       708 railroads...........  1 letter................  1 hour..................            1 hour                72
 brake technology.
--Special approval....................  708 railroads...........  1 request...............  3 hours.................                 3               216
232.505--Pre-revenue service            708 railroads...........  1 procedure.............  160 hours...............               160            11,520
 acceptance test plan--Submission of
 maintenance procedure.
--Amendments to maintenance procedure.  708 railroads...........  1 revision..............  40 hours................                40             2,880
--Design description..................  708 railroads...........  1 petition..............  67 hours................                67             4,824
--Report to FRA Assoc. Admin. for       708 railroads...........  1 report................  13 hours................                13               936
 Safety.
--Brake system technology testing.....  708 railroads...........  1 description...........  40 hours................                40             2,880
232.717(c)--Freight and passenger       40 railroads............  40 written plans........  6 hours.................               240            17,280
 train car brakes--Written maintenance
 plan (formerly under appendix B,
 recodified subpart H) (Revised burden
 currently under review with OMB).
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3974]]

 
    Total.............................  708 railroads...........  5,625,811 responses.....  N/A.....................           343,023        24,697,656
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions; 
searching existing data sources; gathering or maintaining the needed 
data; and reviewing the information. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits comments concerning: whether these 
information collection requirements are necessary for the proper 
performance of the functions of FRA, including whether the information 
has practical utility; the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of 
the information collection requirements; the quality, utility, and 
clarity of the information to be collected; and whether the burden of 
collection of information on those who are to respond, including 
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology, may be minimized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Note: The burden resulting from proposed Sec.  
232.221(a)(3) is covered under Sec.  232.205. Proposed Sec.  
232.221(d)(2) reflects a usual and customary industry procedure and, 
consequently, would result in no burden. The burden associated with 
Sec.  232.205(c)(1)(iii) is covered under OMB Control Number 2130-
0004.
    \26\ Totals may not add due to rounding.
    \27\ The dollar equivalent cost is derived from the Surface 
Transportation Board's Full Year Wage A&B data series using the 
appropriate employee group hourly wage rate that includes 75 percent 
overhead charges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the 
collection of information requirements should direct them to Ms. Hodan 
Wells, Information Collection Clearance Officer, at 202-493-0440 or via 
email at Hodan.Wells@dot.gov.
    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of 
information requirements contained in this proposed rule between 30 and 
60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. 
Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect 
if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. The final rule will 
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection 
requirements contained in this proposal.

D. Federalism Implications

    Executive Order (E.O.) 13132, ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 
1999), requires FRA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in E.O. 
13132 to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on 
the States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government.'' Under E.O. 13132, the agency may not 
issue a regulation with federalism implications that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs and that is not required by 
statute, unless the Federal Government provides the funds necessary to 
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local 
governments, or the agency consults with State and local government 
officials early in the process of developing the regulation. Where a 
regulation has federalism implications and preempts State law, the 
agency seeks to consult with State and local officials in the process 
of developing the regulation. FRA has analyzed this NPRM in accordance 
with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. This NPRM 
establishes an optional alternative to current Federal regulation that 
reduces certain obligations of railroads to perform brake tests. FRA 
has determined that this proposed rule has no federalism implications, 
other than the possible preemption of State laws under 49 U.S.C. 20106. 
Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of E.O. 13132 do 
not apply, and preparation of a federalism summary impact statement for 
the proposed rule is not required.

E. Environmental Impact

    FRA has evaluated this proposed rule in accordance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), 
FRA's regulations implementing NEPA, and other environmental statues, 
Executive Orders, and related regulatory requirements. FRA has 
determined that the proposed rule is categorically excluded from 
detailed environmental review under 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). FRA has also 
evaluated this rule under 23 CFR 771.116(b) to determine whether the 
proposed rule would involve unusual circumstances including significant 
environmental impacts; substantial controversy on environmental 
grounds; significant impact on certain Federally protected properties; 
or inconsistencies with any Federal, State, or local law, requirement, 
or administrative determination related to the environmental aspects of 
the action. FRA has determined that no unusual circumstances exist with 
respect to this proposed rule that might trigger the need for a more 
detailed environmental review. As a result, FRA finds that the proposed 
rule is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality 
of the human environment.

F. Energy Impact

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

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Under Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), each Federal agency ``shall, unless 
otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory 
actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector 
(other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate 
requirements specifically set forth in law).'' Section 202 of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1532) further requires that 
before promulgating any general notice of proposed rulemaking that is 
likely to result in the promulgation of any rule that includes any 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by State, local, and 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 
$100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year, 
and before promulgating any final rule for which a general notice of 
proposed rulemaking was published, the agency shall prepare a written 
statement

[[Page 3975]]

detailing the effect on State, local, and tribal governments and the 
private sector. This proposed rule would not result in the expenditure, 
in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for 
inflation) in any one year, and thus preparation of such a statement is 
not required.

H. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the 
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these 
comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the 
system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through 
www.dot.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate comment tracking and 
response, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the name of 
their organization; however, submission of names is completely 
optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all timely 
comments will be fully considered. If you wish to provide comments 
containing proprietary or confidential information, please contact the 
agency for alternate submission instructions.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 232

    Power brakes, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

The Proposed Rule

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA proposes to amend 
part 232 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 232 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-20103, 20107, 20133, 20141, 20301-
20303, 20306, 21301-21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 
1.89.

0
2. Amend Sec.  232.5 by adding the definitions for ``eABS system'' and 
``Electronic air brake slip'' or ``eABS'' in alphabetical order to read 
as follows:


Sec.  232.5  Definitions.

* * * * *
    eABS system means an electronic record keeping system used to track 
individual cars and air brake tests that meets the requirements of 
Sec.  232.221.
* * * * *
    Electronic air brake slip or eABS means the record of inspection, 
contained in an eABS system.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  232.205 by revising the introductory texts of paragraphs 
(a) and (b) to read as follows:


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

    (a) Except as provided in Sec.  232.221, each train and each car in 
the train shall receive a Class I brake test as described in paragraph 
(c) of this section by a qualified person, as defined in Sec.  232.5, 
at the following points:
* * * * *
    (b) Except as provided in Sec. Sec.  232.209 and 232.221, each car 
and each solid block of cars added to a train shall receive a Class I 
brake test as described in paragraph (c) of this section at the 
location where it is added to a train unless:
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec.  232.207 by revising the first sentence of paragraph (a) 
to read as follows:


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

    (a) Except as provided in Sec. Sec.  232.213 and 232.221, each 
train shall receive a Class IA brake test performed by a qualified 
person, as defined in Sec.  232.5, at a location that is not more than 
1,000 miles from the point where any car in the train last received a 
Class I or Class IA brake test. * * *
0
5. Amend Sec.  232.209 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text to 
read as follows:


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

    (a) Except as provided in Sec.  232.221, at a location other than 
the initial terminal of a train, a Class II brake test shall be 
performed by a qualified person, as defined in Sec.  232.5, on the 
following equipment when added to a train:
* * * * *
0
6. Add Sec.  232.221 to subpart C to read as follows:


Sec.  232.221  Inspection and testing requirements for cars with 
electronic air brake slip system (eABS) records.

    (a) A railroad may move a car for a cumulative distance not 
exceeding 1,000 miles between the brake tests described in Sec. Sec.  
232.205 through 232.209 if the car meets the following requirements:
    (1) The mileage since the car's most recent Class I brake test is 
automatically tracked in an eABS system;
    (2) The car is only moved as part of a train consisting solely of 
cars operated pursuant to this section; and
    (3) A record is retained in the eABS system that includes the 
following information:
    (i) Identification and railroad affiliation of the author of the 
record;
    (ii) A unique identifier exclusively associated with the author of 
the record;
    (iii) The date, time, and location the record was created;
    (iv) The reporting mark and car number;
    (v) The date, time, and location of the most recent Class I brake 
test;
    (vi) The identification and railroad affiliation of the person who 
conducted the most recent Class I brake test, if different than the 
author of the record;
    (vii) Identification of the person who conducted the Class I brake 
test as a ``qualified person'', or a ``qualified mechanical 
inspector'', as defined in Sec.  232.5;
    (viii) An accurate calculation of the mileage remaining until the 
next Class I brake test is required; and
    (ix) Information certifying that the car has met the requirements 
of Sec.  232.205(a)(3) (if that cannot be determined by the information 
otherwise required by this paragraph) and is in compliance with Sec.  
232.305(c).
    (b) A railroad may move a car for a cumulative distance not 
exceeding 2,500 miles between the brake tests described in Sec. Sec.  
232.205 through 232.209 if the car meets the requirements of paragraph 
(a) of this section and the following requirements:
    (1) A designated inspector as defined in Sec.  215.11 of this 
chapter inspects the car in accordance with Sec.  215.13 of this 
chapter at the location at which the car is first authorized to move 
under this paragraph; and
    (2) The Class I brake test that is the basis for the permitted 
mileage is performed by a qualified mechanical inspector as defined in 
Sec.  232.5.
    (c) A car that does not have a record meeting the requirements of 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section prior to a train movement may 
otherwise be operated under this section if the following requirements 
are met:
    (1) The car meets the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section and, if applicable, paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section; 
and
    (2) A record meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(3) of this 
section is entered into the eABS system as soon as practicable after 
departure of the car in a train, but no later than the time at which 
the car departs in any subsequent train.
    (d) A train meeting the following requirements may be operated 
under this section for a cumulative distance not exceeding the mileage 
permitted for

[[Page 3976]]

the most restrictive car in the train between the brake tests described 
in Sec. Sec.  232.205 through 232.207:
    (1) A written or electronic record is maintained in the cab of the 
controlling locomotive that includes the following information for each 
car:
    (i) Its location in the train;
    (ii) The reporting mark and car number;
    (iii) The date, time, and location of its most recent Class I or IA 
brake test;
    (iv) The identification and qualification of the person who 
performed the test (qualified person or qualified mechanical inspector, 
as defined in Sec.  232.5); and
    (v) An accurate calculation of the mileage remaining under 
paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, as applicable;
    (2) The copy of this cab record must be updated at each location to 
reflect changes in the train consist; and
    (3) In the event of disruption of communication with the eABS 
system, a train is permitted to move based upon the mileage permitted 
to the most restrictive car as reported in the cab record.
    (e) Notwithstanding Sec. Sec.  232.205 through 232.209, a Class I, 
Class IA, or Class II brake test is not required to be performed at the 
following locations for a train consisting solely of cars operated 
under this section:
    (1) A location where one or more cars are removed from any location 
in the train;
    (2) A location where any car meeting the requirements of paragraph 
(a) or (b) of this section is added to a train; or
    (3) A location where the motive power for the train consist is 
changed.
    (f) The eABS system must maintain the integrity and availability of 
records, including but not limited to:
    (1) Recognition of a unique identifier associated with each person 
that authors records in the eABS system, with provisions to ensure that 
records containing such identifier accurately reflect that the 
individual associated with the identifier authored the record;
    (2) Implementation of means to ensure that stored records contain 
all information required in paragraph (a)(3) of this section;
    (3) Implementation of means to ensure that each record containing 
the statements described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section identifies 
as a qualified mechanical inspector any person performing a Class I 
brake test who meets the criteria for a qualified mechanical inspector, 
as defined in Sec.  232.5;
    (4) Accessibility for FRA review and monitoring at any time. 
Records in the eABS system must be made immediately available upon 
request to FRA and State inspectors under part 212 of this chapter for 
inspection and copying for no less than 30 days after entry or last 
amendment; and
    (5) Procedures to minimize the effect of breakdown or malfunction, 
including redundant storage of records, and means to communicate and 
record the information required by paragraph (a)(3) of this section 
when access to the eABS system is unavailable.
    (g) Records in the eABS system may only be modified for the 
following purposes:
    (1) Correction of records, provided the eABS system stores amended 
records separately from the original records and the amended record 
clearly identifies the information being amended; and
    (2) To update the calculation of mileage remaining until the next 
Class I brake test is required.
    (h) An accurate calculation of the mileage remaining under 
paragraph (a) or (b) of this section must, at minimum:
    (1) Be based upon the number of miles the car has traveled as part 
of a train;
    (2) Be updated for the car as soon as practicable after departure 
of the car in a train, but no later than the time at which the car 
departs in any subsequent train; and
    (3) Be inclusive of any excess mileage accumulated between brake 
tests. Such excess mileage shall be reported as a negative number.
    (i) The eABS system must retain records for a minimum of one year 
from the records' creation.
    (j) FRA's Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety may revoke a 
railroad's authority to utilize the provisions of this section, in 
whole or in part, if:
    (i) FRA finds that the railroad's eABS system or the records 
contained in the railroad's eABS system are not properly secure, are 
inaccessible to FRA or the railroad's employees, or fail to adequately 
track and monitor the movement of equipment operating pursuant to this 
section; or
    (ii) The railroad demonstrates a record of repeated or willful 
noncompliance with the provisions of this part or parts 215 and 229 of 
this chapter.
    (2) Revocation may be limited to specific locations, equipment, 
environmental conditions, train routes, employees, or eABS systems.
    (3) FRA will record such a determination in writing, state the 
basis for such action, establish conditions of revocation, including a 
specific period of suspension or conditions for the restoration of the 
authority to utilize the provisions of this section, and provide a copy 
of the document to the railroad.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Quintin C. Kendall,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-28870 Filed 1-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


