UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KAWASAKI RAIL CAR, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SCOTT BLAIR,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-00117
`
`Patent No. 6,700,602
`
`Issue Date: March 2, 2004
`
`Title: Subway TV Media System
`
`
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT DECLARATION OF
`LOWELL MALO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`KAWASAKI-1025
`
`

`

`No. IPR2017-00117
`Supp. Expert Decl. of Lowell Malo
`
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I, Lowell Malo, have been retained by counsel for Kawasaki Rail Car, Inc.
`
`(hereinafter “Petitioner”).
`
`2.
`
`I submit this declaration in support of Petitioner’s Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,700,602, No. IPR2017-00117.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`3.
`
`I am currently Vice President of Engineering Services for RailPlan
`
`International Inc.
`
`4.
`
`I have previously summarized in my original declaration (Ex. 1014) my
`
`background, education, and professional experience.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`5.
`
`I have reviewed the following:
`
`a. U.S. Pat. No. 6,700,602 (“the ’602 Patent”) including the claims
`
`thereof;
`
`b. The translation of Japanese Publication No. 04-085379 (Ex. 1005,
`
`“Namikawa”);
`
`c. The translation of Japanese Publication No. 04-322579 (Ex. 1011,
`
`“Sasao”);
`
`d. Patent Owner Scott Blair’s Response (Paper No. 13) (“Response”);
`
`e. Expert Declaration of Jack Long (Ex. 2002);
`
`2
`
`

`

`No. IPR2017-00117
`Supp. Expert Decl. of Lowell Malo
`
`
`
`f. Supplemental Declaration of Jack Long (Ex. 2004).
`
`6.
`
`In making my conclusions stated herein, while reviewing the materials listed
`
`in paragraph 5, I have applied the claim construction definitions applied by
`
`Petitioner in its Reply to Patent Owner Scott Blair’s Response (unless
`
`otherwise indicated herein).
`
`7.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid for obviousness if the differences
`
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are so
`
`insubstantial that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious, at
`
`the time the invention was made, to a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`to which that subject matter pertains.
`
`8.
`
`To the best of my understanding, my opinions regarding obviousness of the
`
`’602 Patent follow the legal principles contained in Graham v. John Deere,
`
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) and KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
`
`IV. OPINIONS
`
`A. Namikawa and Sasao
`
`9.
`
`The Response states that “Nothing within the teachings of Namikawa
`
`teaches or suggests the availability of space beyond the wall, let alone the
`
`availability of space beyond the wall at the junction of the sidewall and the
`
`ceiling to allow for the screen of the monitor to be substantially flushed with
`
`the adjacent wall surface structure of the car.” (Response at 6). The
`
`3
`
`

`

`No. IPR2017-00117
`Supp. Expert Decl. of Lowell Malo
`
`
`
`Response also states that “Still further, nothing within the teachings of
`
`Namikawa teaches or suggests the availability of space beyond the wall, let
`
`alone the availability of space beyond the wall at the junction of the sidewall
`
`and the ceiling to allow for the screen of the monitor to be substantially
`
`flushed with the adjacent wall surface structure of the car.” (Response at 20-
`
`21). Mr. Long states that “Nothing within the teachings of Namikawa
`
`teaches or suggests the availability of space beyond the wall, let alone the
`
`availability of space beyond the wall at the junction of the sidewall and the
`
`ceiling to allow for the screen of the monitor to be substantially flushed with
`
`the adjacent wall surface structure of the car.” (Ex. 2004 at ¶ 10). I disagree
`
`with these statements.
`
`10.
`
`In the 1995-1997 timeframe, a subway car was normally constructed such
`
`that it had a cavity in between its interior wall and its exterior shell. Such a
`
`cavity was important to allow space for the inclusion of (a) thermal
`
`insulation, (b) sound deadening material, (c) wiring and cabling, and (d) an
`
`array of structural members which could be used for the mounting of interior
`
`equipment. Indeed, the ’602 Patent itself states that “A subway car is
`
`normally constructed so that it has a cavity wall, defined between its outer
`
`structural shell and its inner lining wall, the cavity providing for wiring and
`
`cables and other mechanical functions, and, at places, containing insulation.”
`
`4
`
`

`

`No. IPR2017-00117
`Supp. Expert Decl. of Lowell Malo
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 55:59). The last time the state of the art included rail cars that
`
`did not have a cavity in between the interior wall and exterior shell was well
`
`before 1950.
`
`11. Namikawa bears an application date of November 29, 1990 and a
`
`publication date of July 24, 1992. (Ex. 1005 at 1). Accordingly, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in the 1995-1997 timeframe would have understood
`
`Figure 1 of Namikawa to be disclosing a subway car having a cavity in
`
`between the interior wall and the exterior shell. Thus, contrary to the
`
`statements made by the Patent Owner and Mr. Long, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have understood Figure 1 of Namikawa to be
`
`disclosing a subway car having space beyond the wall, including the
`
`availability of space beyond the wall at the junction of the sidewall and the
`
`ceiling to allow for the screen of the monitor to be substantially flushed with
`
`the adjacent wall surface structure of the car.
`
`12. The Response appears to take the position that Sasao is limited to a rear
`
`projection television. (Response at 21). I disagree with this apparent
`
`position. Sasao discloses that “an ordinary television having a CRT may
`
`serve as the image formation part.” (Ex. 1004 at 3). Indeed, Sasao is
`
`directed towards “display devices,” and more generally, Sasao states that
`
`“[t]he present invention relates to a display device such as a rear projection
`
`5
`
`

`

`No. IPR2017-00117
`Supp. Expert Decl. of Lowell Malo
`
`
`
`television, and in particular relates to a display device that is structured so as
`
`to be housed at the interior of a wall.” (Ex. 1004 at 2). Accordingly, Sasao
`
`is not limited to only rear projection televisions.
`
`13. The Response takes the position that Namikawa discloses that its televisions
`
`are mounted on a “wall face” and therefore not mounted at the claimed
`
`“junction.” (Response at 18-20). I disagree with this position. First, there is
`
`no basis for saying Namikawa’s screens are “externally mounted.”
`
`Namikawa’s Figure 1 does not show any mounting structure or cables.
`
`Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art reading the disclosure of
`
`Namikawa would have understood the screens in Namikawa’s Figure 1 to be
`
`at the very least partially in the cavity between the interior surface and the
`
`external shell of the railcar. Moreover, the fact that Namikawa refers to the
`
`curved portion of its wall where the televisions are mounted as the “wall
`
`face” does not somehow mean that this curved portion of the wall is not the
`
`claimed “junction.” The conclusion that Namikawa discloses televisions
`
`mounted at the “junction” of the sidewall and ceiling is immediately
`
`apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art from looking at Figure 1 of
`
`Namikawa, reproduced below:
`
`6
`
`

`

`No. IPR2017-00117
`Supp. Expert Decl. of Lowell Malo
`
`
`
`14.
`
`Indeed, Patent Owner’s own expert Mr. Long testifies that “[i]t would be
`
`
`
`clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that the ‘junction of the sidewall and
`
`the ceiling’ in a subway car is not a single point, but an area between the
`
`ceiling and a sidewall that is curved.” (Ex. 2004 at ¶ 24). Under this
`
`definition, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Figure 1 of
`
`Namikawa to be disclosing televisions mounted at the “junction” of the
`
`sidewall and ceiling.
`
`15. The Response states that “A person of ordinary skill in the art would not
`
`take the teachings of a monitor with a screen that is adjusted forward to
`
`accomplish a flush mount in a flat sidewall (as in Sasao) and expect to
`
`similarly mount the television at the curved junction of the sidewall and the
`
`ceiling.” (Response at 30). I disagree with this statement. As a threshold
`
`7
`
`

`

`No. IPR2017-00117
`Supp. Expert Decl. of Lowell Malo
`
`
`
`matter, the junction of the sidewall and the ceiling does not have to be
`
`curved. For example, there are several models of New York City Transit
`
`(“NYCT”) railcars where the junction of the sidewall and the ceiling does
`
`not follow the exterior shape of the railcar, and the junction provides for a
`
`cavity to mount additional equipment. One early example is the NYCT R-
`
`38 railcars (built in 1966-67 by the St. Louis Car Company). In addition, the
`
`Response is suggesting that it would somehow be difficult for a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to modify the curved wall surface in Namikawa to
`
`have a flat wall surface instead. To the contrary, such a modification would
`
`have been well within the knowledge and ability of one of skill in the art in
`
`the 1995-1997 timeframe. It would not have been difficult for a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to interchange curved structural pieces of wall with
`
`flat structural pieces of wall in Namikawa. Specifically, in 1995-1997 many
`
`railcar manufacturers used fiberglass panels at the junction of a sidewall and
`
`ceiling because fiberglass panels are light in weight, last for a long time,
`
`require low maintenance, and are good insulators. Fiberglass panels can
`
`easily be molded into any shape and have the mechanical strength to support
`
`many components mounted thereon. In addition, fiberglass panels installed
`
`in a railcar are easy to replace because each fiberglass panel can individually
`
`be assembled or disassembled inside a railcar. Therefore, the widespread
`
`8
`
`

`

`No. IPR2017-00117
`Supp. Expert Decl. of Lowell Malo
`
`
`
`use of fiberglass panels at the junction of a sidewall and ceiling in subway
`
`cars in 1995-1997 would have allowed a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`great flexibility in modifying the shape of the junction to whatever suited his
`
`intended purpose, such as the modification of a curved wall surface into a
`
`flat wall surface. In that case, to flush mount a flat screen TV in the flat
`
`junction one would only have to cut out a hole and run power to the hole.
`
`16. Systems for mounting televisions in subway cars (whether it be to the
`
`interior wall or to structural members in the cavity between the interior wall
`
`and the exterior shell) were widely available to persons of ordinary skill in
`
`the art in the 1995-1997 timeframe.
`
`17. One of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to mount
`
`Namikawa’s televisions to structural members in the cavity such that the
`
`television screens would be substantially flushed with the adjacent wall
`
`surfaces.
`
`B.
`
`FRA Regulations
`
`18. The Response states that “In paragraph 31 [of Ex. 1014], the Declaration
`
`mentions TVs as examples of such ‘interior fittings,’ without providing any
`
`citation to the FRA rule(s) where a ‘fitting’ is defined to include televisions
`
`or video monitors. This is a blatant cognitive leap, of course driven by
`
`hindsight in view of the disclosure in the ’602 patent.” (Response at 13).
`
`9
`
`

`

`No. IPR2017-00117
`Supp. Expert Decl. of Lowell Malo
`
`
`
`However, my original declaration (Ex. 1014 at ¶ 31) cited to 62 Fed. Reg.
`
`49728-01 (proposed Sept. 23, 1997) (to be codified at 49 C.F.R. § 238.233)
`
`(attached as Appendix A). Paragraph (d) of proposed § 238.233, Interior
`
`Fittings and Surfaces, provided that “[t]o the extent possible, all interior
`
`fittings in a passenger car, except seats, shall be recessed or flush-mounted.”
`
`(Id., 49745). Under § 238.5 of the proposed rule, an interior fitting was
`
`defined as “any auxiliary component in the passenger compartment which is
`
`mounted to the floor, ceiling, sidewalls, or end walls and projects into the
`
`passenger compartment from the surface or surfaces to which it is mounted.”
`
`(Id., 49793). “[S]ide and end walls, floors, door pockets, or ceiling lining
`
`materials” were excluded from this definition. (Id., 49793-4). Furthermore,
`
`this definition is consistent with how someone of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand the term “interior fitting” as used in the industry.
`
`Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term
`
`“interior fitting” as used in the FRA rules to encompass a television or
`
`display mounted inside the rail car at any location.
`
`V. COMPENSATION
`
`19. Although I am compensated for the time I work on this litigation, this
`
`compensation is not dependent on the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`No. IPR2017-00117
`Supp. Expert Decl. of Lowell Malo
`
`
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are
`
`true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true;
`
`and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Dated: November 6, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lowell Malo
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPENDIX A
`(proposed Sept. 23, 1997) (to be codified at 49 C.F.R. § 238.233)
`
`Selected Pages from Passenger Equip. Safety Standards, 62 Fed. Reg. 49728-01
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Passenger Equipment Safety Standards, 62 FR 49728-01
`
`62 FR 49728-01, 1997 WL 582679(F.R.)
`PROPOSED RULES
`DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
`Federal Railroad Administration
`49 CFR Parts 216, 223, 229, 231, 232, and 238
`[FRA Docket No. PCSS-1, Notice No. 2]
`RIN 2130-AA95
`
`Passenger Equipment Safety Standards
`
`Tuesday, September 23, 1997
`
`*49728 AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
`
`ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
`
`SUMMARY: FRA is proposing a rule establishing comprehensive Federal safety standards for railroad passenger
`equipment. The proposed rule contains requirements concerning equipment design and performance criteria related to
`passenger and crew survivability in the event of a passenger train accident; the inspection, testing, and maintenance of
`passenger equipment; and the safe operation of passenger train service. The proposed rule is designed to address the
`safety of passenger train service in an environment where technology is advancing, and equipment is being designed
`for operation at higher speeds. The rule would amend existing regulations concerning special notice for repairs, safety
`glazing, locomotive safety, safety appliances, and railroad power brakes as applied to passenger equipment.
`
`The proposed rule does not apply to tourist and historic railroad operations. However, after consulting with the excursion
`railroad associations to determine appropriate applicability in light of financial, operational, or other factors unique
`to such operations, FRA may prescribe requirements for these operations that are different from those affecting other
`types of passenger operations.
`
`DATES: (1) Written comments: Written comments must be received on or before November 24, 1997. Comments
`received after that date will be considered by FRA and the Passenger Equipment Safety Standards Working Group
`to the extent possible without incurring substantial additional expense or delay. The docket will remain open until
`the Working Group proceedings are concluded. Requests for formal extension of the comment period must be made
`by November 7, 1997.
`(2) Public hearing: FRA intends to hold a public hearing to allow interested parties the opportunity to comment on
`specific issues addressed in the NPRM. The date and location of the hearing will be set forth in a forthcoming notice
`that will be published in the Federal Register. Anyone who desires to make an oral statement at the hearing must
`notify the Docket Clerk by telephone (202-632-3198), and must submit three copies of the oral statement that he
`or she intends to make at the hearing. The notification should also provide the Docket Clerk with the participant's
`mailing address. FRA reserves the right to limit participation in the hearings of persons who fail to provide such
`notification. The date by which the Docket Clerk must be notified about the oral statement and receive copies of it
`will be set forth in the notice announcing the hearing.
`
`ADDRESSES: Written comments should identify the docket number and must be submitted in triplicate to the Docket
`Clerk, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Mail Stop 10, Washington,
`D.C. 20590. Persons desiring to be notified that their comments have been received by FRA should submit a stamped,
`self-addressed postcard with their comments. The Docket Clerk will indicate on the postcard the date on which the
`
` © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`1
`
`13
`
`

`

`Passenger Equipment Safety Standards, 62 FR 49728-01
`
`that the performance of individual components of a rail passenger car in a real-world fire environment may be different
`from that experienced in bench-scale tests due to vehicle geometry and materials interaction.[FN2]
`
`The NFPA publishes a standard (NFPA 130) covering fire protection requirements for fixed guideway transit systems
`and for life safety from fire in transit stations, trainways, vehicles, and outdoor maintenance and storage areas. (A copy
`of the 1995 edition of this standard has been placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.) However, this standard
`does not apply to passenger railroad systems including those that provide commuter service (NFPA 130 1-1.2). An
`APTA representative on the Working Group who is also an NFPA member has initiated an NFPA-sponsored task force
`to revise the scope of NFPA 130 to cover all passenger rail transportation systems, including intercity and *49745
`commuter rail, and revise other provisions as necessary. (Copies of the correspondence concerning the establishment of
`this task force have also been placed in the public docket.) FRA and the Working Group will evaluate the results of this
`effort for application to this rulemaking.
`
`Safety Glazing Standards
`Existing regulations found in 49 CFR part 223 provide minimum requirements for glazing materials in order to protect
`railroad passengers and employees from injury as a result of objects striking the windows of locomotives, cabooses,
`and passenger cars. Noting some possible concerns with these requirements, FRA sought comment on whether these
`standards should be revised and requested information on any glazing-related injuries to passenger train occupants (61
`FR 30696).
`
`The Sierracin/Sylmar Corporation (Sierracin) commented that rail glazing meeting much higher impact and ballistic
`requirements is currently available, economically viable, and in fact in use by a few rail agencies (mass transit and
`commuter rail) here in the United States. Among its observations in particular, Sierracin noted that the strength of the
`glazing frame could quite easily be tested. Further, it explained that from its experience as a glazing manufacturer it is
`aware of very few ballistic attacks on trains, and such attacks have been limited to the side windows of locomotives or
`coach cars or both—not to end-facing windows. In addition, Sierracin pointed out that since the impact energy of an
`object is a function of velocity, an object's destructive capability increases as the speed of the surface it impacts increases.
`
`FRA believes that existing safety glazing requirements have largely proven effective in passenger service at speeds up
`to 125 mph. In fact, FRA is concerned that less stringent requirements would create vulnerability to objects thrown at
`trains as well as the risk of ejection of passengers during train derailments. Because the safety glazing standards do not
`address the performance of the frame which attaches the glazing to the car body, FRA is proposing frame performance
`requirements for all passenger equipment. Moreover, FRA believes that more stringent glazing requirements are
`necessary or passenger equipment operating at speeds greater than 125 mph because of the increased destructive potential
`of an object impacting equipment operating at such speeds. Additionally, improved marking and periodic inspection of
`emergency windows are being addressed in FRA's emergency preparedness rulemaking.
`
`Train Interior Safety Features
`A review of the accident/incident data, related to fatalities and injuries on passenger trains for the period of 1972 to
`1973, indicates that collapse of the equipment structure and the loss of sufficient space for the passengers to ride out the
`collision is the principal cause of fatality in train accidents, resulting in approximately 63 percent of the fatalities and 27
`percent of the serious injuries. Fire and post-collision conditions result in 30 percent of the fatalities and 16 percent of
`the serious injuries. Thus, collapse of the equipment structure, fire, and post-collision conditions account for 93 percent
`of the fatalities and 43 percent of the serious injuries. To address these major causes of fatalities and injuries, FRA is
`proposing comprehensive requirements related to structural design, fire protection, and emergency exits. As discussed
`above, FRA believes these proposed requirements will aid in reducing the number of fatalities and injuries by minimizing
`the collapse of equipment, reducing the likelihood of fire, and ensuring accessible and operable emergency exits.
`
` © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`30
`
`14
`
`

`

`Passenger Equipment Safety Standards, 62 FR 49728-01
`
`Prior research also indicates, however, that passengers striking interior objects in trains, principally during collisions and
`derailments, accounts for 57 percent of the serious injuries and 7 percent of the fatalities occurring on passenger trains.
`[FN3] Therefore, as an initial measure to reduce these numbers, FRA proposals include requiring that:
`
`- Passenger seats and other interior fittings be securely attached to the car body;
`
`- Interior fittings in a passenger car be recessed or flush-mounted;
`
`- Overhead storage racks provide restraint for stowed articles; and
`
`- Sharp edges be padded or otherwise avoided.
`
`Overall, FRA's proposed requirements rely on “compartmentalization” or “passive restraints” (i.e., requiring no action
`to be taken on the part of the occupant) as a passenger protection strategy. The proposed requirements are based on
`the current available research, discussed in detail below, which indicates that during a collision the interior environment
`of a passenger coach is substantially less hostile than the interiors of automobiles and aircraft. In fact, current research
`indicates that the interior of a typical intercity passenger coach without active restraints provides a level of protection
`to the occupants that is at least as high as that provided to automobile and transport aircraft passengers with active
`restraints.
`Some research indicates that there may be a potential for even a greater level of passenger protection if lap belts and
`shoulder harnesses are utilized on passenger trains. In fact, FRA is proposing that lap belts and shoulder harnesses be
`required in the cab of a Tier II train, as recommended by the Tier II Equipment Subgroup. Due to the high strength of
`the cab and its forward location near the expected point of impact in many different collision scenarios, decelerations
`experienced by crewmembers in the cab of Tier II trains may be high. Accordingly, members of the subgroup believed
`that restraints for the crewmembers could provide a significant benefit. FRA requests information and comment from
`interested parties as to whether there is any existing research or experience which would justify proposing active seat
`restraints in the current stage of this rulemaking. However, FRA believes more research is necessary in this area in
`order to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of such active restraints as well as the impact on seat design and
`strength. Although FRA currently proposes a passenger protection strategy based on compartmentalization, FRA will be
`undertaking an aggressive research and testing program to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of active restraints
`such as lap belts and shoulder harnesses. If this research indicates that these types of active restraints are a viable and
`feasible means of providing additional protection to the riding public, then FRA will propose the use of such restraints
`in the second NPRM on passenger equipment scheduled for development in 1998.
`
`Discussion
`The principal means of protecting occupants during accidents include “friendly” (“delethalized”) interior arrangements
`and occupant restraints, such as lap belts, shoulder harnesses and airbags. Occupant protection devices which require
`some action on the part of the occupant, such as buckling a seatbelt, are termed “active devices,” while protection devices
`which require no action, such as automobile door-mounted shoulder harnesses and airbags, are termed “passive devices.”
`Both active and passive occupant protection strategies *49746 act to limit the decelerations and to distribute the loads
`imparted to occupants during an accident. Typical passenger protection strategies in automobiles include airbags, lap
`belts and shoulder harnesses, and friendly lower dashboard designs which limit thigh loads imparted during a collision.
`Typical passenger protection strategies in transport category aircraft, intended to protect passengers during accidents
`occurring during takeoff or landing, include seatbelts and friendly design of the seatback or bulkhead ahead of the
`occupant which limit the decelerations of the occupant's head.
`
`The passenger protection devices incorporated into a vehicle must allow occupants to survive the deceleration of the
`volume within which they are contained. The decelerations of the occupant volume of an automobile in a collision can
`
` © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`31
`
`15
`
`

`

`Passenger Equipment Safety Standards, 62 FR 49728-01
`
`Paragraph (i) proposes to require that passenger cars be equipped with a means for the emergency brake to be applied that
`is clearly identified and accessible to passengers. This is a longstanding industry practice and an important safety feature
`because crucial time may be lost requiring passengers sensing danger to find a member of the train crew to stop the train.
`
`Paragraph (j) contains proposed provisions to ensure that the dynamic brake does not become a safety-critical device.
`Railroads have consistently held that dynamic brakes are not safety devices because the friction brake alone is capable of
`safely stopping a train if the dynamic brake is not available. The proposed provisions include requiring that the blending
`of the friction and dynamic brakes be automatic, that the friction brakes alone be able to stop the train in the allowable
`stopping distance, and that a failure of the dynamic brake does not cause thermal damage to wheels or discs due to
`the greater friction braking load. FRA believes that without these requirements the dynamic brake would most likely
`become a safety-critical item and railroads would not be permitted to dispatch trains unless the dynamic brake were
`fully operational.
`
`Paragraph (k) proposes to require that either computer modeling or dynamometer tests be performed to confirm that
`new brake designs not result in thermal damage to wheels or discs. Further, if the operating parameters of the new
`braking system change significantly, a new simulation must be performed. This proposal provides a means to ensure that
`the requirements proposed in paragraphs (f) and (g) are being complied with by new brake designs.
`
`Paragraph (l) proposes to require that all locomotives ordered on or after January 1, 1999, or placed in service for the
`first time on or after January 1, 2001, be equipped with effective air coolers or air dryers on those locomotives that are
`equipped with air compressors. The coolers or dryers must be capable of providing air to the main reservoir with a dew
`point suppression at least 10 degrees F. below ambient temperature. FRA and most members in the industry agree that
`moisture is a major cause of brake line contamination. Consequently, reducing moisture leads to longer component life
`and better brake system performance. Currently, virtually all passenger railroads purchase only locomotives equipped
`with air dryers or coolers. Therefore, FRA proposes to require the continuation of what it believes is good industry
`practice.
`
`§238.233 Interior Fittings and Surfaces
`This section contains proposed requirements concerning interior fittings and surfaces that apply, as specified in this
`section, to passenger cars and locomotives ordered on or after January 1, 1999, or placed in service for the first time
`on or after January 1, 2001. This section should be read in connection with an earlier discussion of train interior safety
`features in the preamble.
`
`FRA and NTSB investigations of passenger train accidents have revealed that luggage, seats, and other interior objects
`breaking or coming loose is a frequent cause of injury to passengers and crewmembers. During a collision, the greatest
`decelerations and thus the greatest forces to cause potential failure of interior fitting attachment points are experienced
`in the longitudinal direction, i.e., in the direction parallel to the normal direction of train travel. Current practice is to
`design seats and other interior fittings to withstand the forces due to accelerations of 6g in the longitudinal direction,
`3g in the vertical direction, and 3g in the lateral direction. Due to the injuries caused by broken seats and other loose
`fixtures, FRA believes that the current design practice is inadequate.
`
`Accordingly, paragraph (a) proposes that each seat in a passenger car remain firmly attached to the car body when
`subjected to individually applied accelerations of 4g in the vertical direction and 4g in the lateral direction acting on the
`deadweight of the seat or seats, if a tandem unit. In addition, the attachment must resist a longitudinal inertial force of 8g
`acting on the mass of the seat plus the impact force of the mass of a 95th-percentile male occupant(s) being decelerated
`from a relative speed of 25 mph and striking the seat from behind. By resisting the force of an occupant striking the seat
`from behind, a potential domino effect of seats breaking away from their attachments is avoided.
`
` © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`69
`
`16
`
`

`

`Passenger Equipment Safety Standards, 62 FR 49728-01
`
`Paragraph (b) proposes that overhead storage racks provide longitudinal and lateral restraint for stowed articles to
`minimize the potential for these objects to come loose and injure train occupants. Further, to prevent overhead storage
`racks from breaking away from their attachment points to the car body, these racks shall have an ultimate strength
`capable of resisting individually applied accelerations of 8g longitudinally, 4g vertically, and 4g laterally acting on
`the mass of the luggage stowed. This mass shall be specified by each railroad. Paragraph (c) requires that all other
`interior fittings in a passenger car be attached to the car body with sufficient strength to withstand individually applied
`accelerations of 8g longitudinally, 4g vertically, and 4g laterally acting on the mass of the fitting. FRA believes the
`proposed attachment strength requirements for seats, overhead storage racks, and other interior fittings will help reduce
`the number of injuries to occupants in passenger cars.
`
`Passenger car occupants may also be injured by protruding objects, especially if the occupants fall or are thrown against
`such objects during a train collision or derailment. As a result, FRA is proposing in paragraph (d) that, to the extent
`possible, all interior fittings in a passenger car, except seats, shall be recessed or flush-mounted. Such fittings do not
`protrude above interior surfaces and thereby help to minimize occupant injuries.
`
`Paragraph (e) is a general, common sense prohibition against sharp edges and corners in a locomotive cab and a
`passenger car. Just as FRA is concerned about protruding objects, these surfaces could also injure passenger train
`*49770 occupants. If sharp edges and corners cannot be avoided, they should be padded to mitigate the consequences
`of occupant impacts.
`
`Paragraph (f) contains the requirements for f