MINUTES OF ASCE AUTOMATED PEOPLE MOVER STANDARDS COMMITTEE

Toronto, Canada- September 23rd and 24th, 2010

Greater Toronto Airports Authority - Pyramid meeting room, Terminal 3, Lester B. Pearson International Airport

OPENING: Larry Smith opened the meeting at 8:30 AM Thursday, September 23rd.

ATTENDEES:Larry Smith, Chairman Tom McGean, Chair EmeritusTedd Snyder, Vice-Chair Diane Morse, FAAPaul Didrikson, Secretary Chuck Elms, consultantMike Shumack, Configuration & Webmaster Rod Falvey, Lea+ElliottPat Campbell, Tampa International Airport Norm May, Lea+ElliottJonathan Esslinger, ASCE T&DI Ortfried Friedreich, Axis Engineers

Mike Deiparine, Shea Carr Jewell Jim Fletcher, Shea Carr JewellDouglas Baird, Emtrac Systems John Champ, Crystal Mover Services Frank Culver, URS Energy & Construction Redjean Clerc, SiemensDean Hurst, Doppelmayr Dick Rhoton, BombardierJeremy Wentzel, Doppelmayr Richard Prell, Conductix – WampflerDarin Friedman, MHIA Kevin Jensen, Conductix – WampflerRajkumar Rambhajan, OATS** David Taliaferro, DFW Int’l AirportVictor Howe, Washington Dulles Int’l Jack Weaver, DFW Int’l AirportCatherine Cronin, Port Authority of NY&NJ Phil Burke, Minneapolis/St. Paul Int’lMike Riseborough, GTAA Ann Schwarts, GTAA*Iori Moutine, GTAA Kent Doering, GTAAPatrick McDermott, TSSA Gord Kanani, TSSA

* present only part time** present first day only

WELCOME: Pat Neville, P.Eng., Vice President of Facilities for the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, welcomed the committee to YYZ. Mike Riseborough, General Manager Building and Facilities Maintenance, described the meeting logistics and dinner arrangements.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM CHICAGO MEETING: A motion was made by Mike Shumack , seconded by Mike Riseborough, to accept the minutes of the June 2010 Chicago meeting. The motion carried.

IEC WORKING GROUP 45: In Sam Lott’s absence, Larry Smith summarized Sam’s email stating that the working group has completed its work and IEC 62267 will eventually be published. This issue is now considered closed.

RE-AFFIRMATION STATUS of ASCE 21: PARTS 1, 2, 3 and 4: Tedd Snyder presented a schedule showing the re-affirmation status of all four parts of the Standard.

Page 1 of 23

He stated that we have reached the five-year limit for the re-affirmation of Part 1, and that our goal is to merge all four parts into one volume and issue it within the next two to three years. Tom McGean suggested that we could re-affirm Part 1 immediately, pro forma, and then do it again with the combining of the four parts in the next two to three years. Larry Smith stated that five years is the guideline maximum for re-affirmation. It is not possible to hold a ballot at present because the Committee is out of balance, but we can request an extension. Tedd Snyder stated that ANSI requirements can also provide guidance.

NFPA UPDATE: Rod Falvey stated that the situation is essentially unchanged from that reported at the Chicago meeting in June. He said that he would monitor requirements for on-board fire suppression (described in the Chicago minutes) to see where this goes within the NFPA committee. November 23, 2010 is the closing date for submission of proposed revisions to the current (2010) edition of NFPA 130. All proposed revisions will be subject to public comment.

EMI / EMC REQUIREMENTS: Rod Falvey reported that the IEC 62236 standard is now available, and presented proposed revised wording for Section 2.1.8 “Electromagnetic Background” making reference to this standard instead of the previously referenced MIL-STD-461E. The new wording (appended as Attachment 1) requires an EMC control plan in accordance with APTA requirements in addition to compliance with IEC 62236, because IEC 62236 does not include requirements for such a plan.

MOTION: Moved by Dick Rhoton, seconded by Frank Culver, that the proposed changes to the EMI/EMC requirements (appended as Attachment 1) be adopted. The motion passed.

FRA REQUIREMENTS FOR SYSTEM SAFETY PROGRAM PLANS: As agreed in the Chicago meeting, Diane Morse had obtained the FRA requirements for system safety program plans (from Bill Hathaway) to compare them with the requirements in Annex A of the APM Standard. (Annex A was based on MIL-STD-882, which is no longer available). Diane compared all of the requirements in detail and found that, without exception, each and every requirement in the FRA requirement exists either in Annex A or elsewhere in the APM Standard. Her spreadsheet showing this will be placed on the APM Standards Committee website by Mike Shumack or Pat Campbell. The Chair thanked Diane for her excellent work in this regard.

Catherine Cronin expressed the concern that, because the FRA-equivalent SSPP requirements are not in one place, but to some extent scattered throughout the APM Standard, referencing these requirements is somewhat problematic. She believes it is important that we can show clearly that the APM Standard SSPP requirements are equivalent to FRA requirements.

The Chair stated that this could be clarified in a commentary with a preamble. The commentary would include a statement that a complete SSPP must include all relevant requirements of all parts of the APM Standard. He offered to provide information about commentaries to Diane Morse for this purpose.

Page 2 of 23

MOTION: Moved by Richard Prell, seconded by Frank Culver, that Diane Morse will produce a commentary about the additional sections of the Standard that support the SSPP. Initially the commentary will reside only on the APM Standards website, but eventually when the consolidated standard is published, the commentary will be attached. Catherine Cronin will use the information in the commentary to determine whether a footnote is required to be added to Annex A, or a statement included in Annex A, about the inclusion of SSPP elements that are located elsewhere in the Standard.

The motion passed.

MEAN TIME BETWEEN HAZARDOUS EVENTS: Section 3.4 of the APM Standard presently requires the aggregate MTBHE for all catastrophic and critical hazards for the ATC system to be ≥ 108 hours. The interpretation of this requirement has been questioned, as discussed at the Houston and Chicago meetings.

Tom McGean summarized recent correspondence on this topic among Committee members. Extensive discussion followed. Tom suggested that some confusion has resulted from the fact that Table 3-1 follows section 3.4, although it is referenced in section 3.1.2.

MOTION: Moved by Tom McGean, seconded by Redjean Clerc, that we retain the present section, make the last paragraph a separate section titled “ATC System MTBHE” and add wording to the new section to emphasize and clarify that it applies not to the entire system but only to the ATC system, and in addition applies only to non-CBTC ATC systems not covered by the IEEE standard. Proposed new wording could be: “The requirements in this paragraph apply only to the ATC system and only for non-CBTC ATC systems. MTBHE requirements for CBTC ATC systems are as specified in IEEE P1474.1-2004.” In addition, Table 3-1 shall be moved to be adjacent to Section 3.1.2. Table 3-1 references shall not specify Section 3.4. These changes shall be balloted in conjunction with the Parts 2 & 3 schedule. In the interim, Redjean Clerc & Tom McGean will prepare a commentary.

The motion passed, although there were three dissenting votes, including Norm May and Jim Fletcher.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION LIMITS (SECTION 2.1): Chuck Elms presented proposed changes to the requirements of this section, continuing the discussion from the Houston and Chicago meetings. He reported that Dean Hurst had performed some “scholarly work” on the issue of 50-year temperature and humidity extremes. Chuck also presented revised wording regarding noise measurement, related to the amount of noise energy the vehicle can emit in a free field. The revised wording for Section 2.1 is appended as Attachment 2.

MOTION: Moved by Frank Culver, seconded by Tom McGean, that the proposed changes to environmental condition limits requirements (appended as Attachment 2) be adopted. The motion passed.

SYSTEM DEPENDABILITY DISCUSSION: Chuck Elms presented an example system availability calculation for an example (fictitious) APM system based on the method he had proposed in June in Chicago (refer to the Chicago minutes).

Page 3 of 23

In the discussion that followed, Tom McGean stated that when the Standard was originally produced, methods of calculating availability were “all over the map”, so the original intent was just to establish standard terminology. Catherine Cronin expressed doubt that one method of calculation would work for all sites.

A report on this topic (“Performance Measurements of Automated Transit Systems at Airports”) is presently being produced under contract to TRB by Lea+Elliott. Chuck Elms suggested that he could discuss this with Chris Campbell at Lea+Elliott, distill its conclusions, and present them at a subsequent meeting. The TRB report is scheduled to be released “in the next few weeks”.

Suppliers were asked to comment on the topic of standardizing the method of calculating system availability, and a range of opinions were expressed: Darin Friedman (MHI) said he is in favor of a standardized approach because it would remove uncertainty and increase uniformity. Redjean Clerc (Siemens) stated that he thinks each owner should define his own availability criteria. Dean Hurst (Doppelmayr) suggested using the approach defined by the TRB report. Dick Rhoton (Bombardier) stated that the proposed standard approach is too complex, cumbersome and labor-intensive.

MOTION: Moved by Frank Culver, seconded by Doug Baird, that prior to the next meeting, Committee members should obtain the TRB report “Performance Measurements of Automated Transit Systems at Airports” and study it. Chuck Elms will clean up the proposed method of calculation (plus the example calculation) as a Recommended Practice and present it at a subsequent meeting. The motion passed.

LETTER FOR STATE PE LICENSING BOARDS: There was discussion regarding a draft letter intended for the P.E. licensing boards of all the states to inform them that Part 4 has been issued. The discussion did not reach a conclusion, so it will be necessary to take it up again at the February meeting in San Francisco. Suggested wording will be distributed prior to the San Francisco meeting, to improve the chances of bringing this to a conclusion.

QUALIFICATION OF INSPECTORS: As agreed at the Chicago meeting, Diane Morse had considered how Annex D should be integrated with Section 16. She presented “Proposed adjustments and configuration changes to accommodate Annex D into ASCE 21”. The resulting document, appended as Attachment 3, shows in strikethrough paragraphs that have been made redundant, and in yellow highlight text that was balloted in the Annex.

PRESENTATION RE THE THYSSEN-KRUPP TURBOWALK: Mike Riseborough presented information on the ThyssenKrupp Turbowalk installation at Toronto Pearson Airport Terminal 1. Two identical 260-metre long units are installed there. Each unit has an acceleration section at one end, a deceleration section at the other end, and the cruise section in between, which moves at 2 metres/second. These units were installed in a cooperative development project with ThyssenKrupp. The original delivery date was in 2007. They have been very popular with the travelling public.

Initially there were many little issues with material fatigue, premature wear, and misalignment. The units have lots of optical sensors, which are somewhat sensitive to dust and dirt. When the units go out of alignment they shut down to avoid “pile-up”.

Page 4 of 23

The shut-down is implemented gradually so as not to “topple” people. Retrofits have been performed to correct these issues, and Mike stated that he is hoping that the latest retrofit will be the last.

The availability target is 95% over 18 hours/day (549 hours/month), but the units have never quite met this target. Conventional moving walkways are much more reliable, achieving something like 99.96%.

The units are heavy and take a considerable amount of space below the floor, so the building has to be designed to accommodate them. They are also quite noisy, but this is not an issue because no one stays in the area where they are located. Energy consumption is also relatively high, but the units have the capability to slow down when no one is on them.

Friday, September 24th

THANKS TO GTAA: The Chair opened the meeting by thanking Mike Riseborough and the other GTAA representatives for a very enjoyable outing on Thursday evening, with an excellent dinner and first-rate entertainment.

FUTURE MEETING PLANS: Noting that the Toronto meeting will be a tough act to follow, Paul Didrikson stated that a hotel has been selected for the February meeting in San Francisco: The Villa Florence, located at 225 Powell Street, on Union Square. There was some discussion about which week the meeting would be held, with the result that the dates February 24th – 25th, 2011 were selected. The rate for the block of rooms that will be held for those dates will be $139 per night, plus 15.65% tax.

Paul asked the members present regarding preferences for a tour, since the BART system, MUNI, the cable car system and the SFO APM are all possibilities. Of these choices, the cable car system and the SFO APM received the most votes from those expressing a preference (BART: 4, MUNI: 3, Cable Cars: 9, SFO APM: 8).

The Spring 2011 meeting will be held in Paris in conjunction with the APM Conference, which runs May 22nd to 26th. The APM Standards Committee meeting will probably not take place at the conference facility for reasons of cost. Redjean Clerc indicated that Siemens can provide a meeting room at their offices, which are located near the end of Paris Metro Line 13, which runs from Montparnasse.

Possible tours could include the test track for NeoVAL, which is in Strasbourg, 2 hours and 20 minutes from Paris by TGV; or the VAL system in Lille, which is about one hour from Paris by TGV. There was also some discussion of a possible side trip to see the PRT system at London Heathrow, which could be enroute to Paris for North American participants.

Jonathan Esslinger reported that the APM Conference headquarters hotel will be the Concorde, and the conference site is the Palais des Congrès de Paris. Additional information regarding the APM conference can be found at www.apm2011.org.

Ortfried Friedreich suggested the possibility of holding the APM Standards meeting on the Thursday & Friday before the APM conference, i.e. May 19th – 20th. By show of hands the meeting participants who expressed a preference were almost evenly split on this question (before: 7, after: 9).

Page 5 of 23

APTA REPORT: Tom McGean presented the APTA report in the absence of Kevin Dow. The report was on the topic of Positive Train Control, and the related RF spectrum requirements. PTC is a ‘pet project” of the FRA. It uses GPS to define train locations, but requires a back-up system because GPS can “black out”. This is mainly an issue for main line railways and commuter rail, which are under the jurisdiction of the FRA. Railroads have purchased spectrum for this purpose, but various transit authorities say they can’t afford to buy spectrum and have asked APTA to do this for them. To this end the FRA has sent a letter to the FCC supporting the transit authorities’ request to set aside spectrum for commuter rail.

Dick Rhoton commented that the PTC requirement does not apply to all railroads. He provided the following information post-meeting:

“Per FRA 2008-0132, i.e. The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008PTC must be implemented by Dec 31, 2015 with the following criteria for applicable tracks:1. All passenger carrying main line intercity and commuter lines, with limited

exceptions.2. All freight-only lines in Class I railroads carrying at least 5 million gross tons of

freight annually with "ANY" amount of poison or Toxic by Inhalation materials. 3. Somewhere (I can't find it) I remember the limit is > 25mil gross tons without

toxic materials and with certain speed limits.Every applicable railroad was to file a plan of implementation with the FRA (due mid to late spring this year) and FRA was to approve, reject etc. These are available on FRA websites.There was NO requirement in the FRA edict to govern "interoperability", but the Class I's have internally agreed on interoperability.”

APM INJURY/ACCIDENT REPORT: Mike Riseborough presented a brief report regarding an accident on the Miami Metromover system on June 20th. It involved a low-speed (4.6 mph) collision which resulted in minor injuries to 18 people. The NTSB is investigating. Dick Rhoton commented that a car lost collector shoes and thus became non-detectable, and the back-up central tracking equipment failed to detect the car. The system is not operated by Bombardier.

Mike suggested that he could use the assistance of persons with “control expertise” on the accident task force. Dick Rhoton agreed to help.

PART 1 RE-AFFIRMATION STATUS: At the request of the Chair, Tedd Snyder summarized the re-affirmation status of Part 1, Chapters 1- 5. Following some discussion, the following motion was presented:

MOTION: Moved by Tom McGean, seconded by Dick Rhoton, that the Committee should adopt a form similar to the one used by IEC for proposed changes to the Standard, and require persons proposing changes to use the form. Pat Campbell agreed to obtain the form and be the central point of control. The motion passed.

Note: The proposed form is appended as Attachment 4. The Chair stated that he will send an e-mail to the membership regarding changes to Parts 2, 3, and 4 requiring any proposed changes to be submitted by January 25th, 2011. This is in aid of the objective of

Page 6 of 23

issuing a combined (Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4) with a target date at the end of 2011. Printing would follow in 2012.

RESPONSE TO THE USE OF EVACUATION HANDLES BY PASSENGERS: Redjean Clerc reminded the meeting that Yves Clarissou had raised a question regarding the required response to use of evacuation handles by passengers at the Chicago meeting, but the issue had not reached resolution. The Chair responded that this item will be added to the agenda for the San Francisco meeting.

DOOR CLOSING FORCE DISCUSION: Victor Howe suggested that there is a need to clarify in the Standard the fact that door safety edges need to be disabled when testing to determine whether door closing force is within the specified limits. Discussion ensued during which some members pointed out that in general the Standard does not specify details of the method of testing its requirements.

Chuck Elms suggested that the Standard could be clarified with the addition of the words “Independent of any recycling feature...” to the existing statement “Door closing forces shall not exceed 133N (30 lb)…”.

This proposed change should be submitted using the new “Formal Comment Tracking Matrix” (and in fact it is shown in Attachment 4, as provided post-meeting by Chuck Elms and Pat Campbell).

MEMBERSHIP REPORT: The committee membership is unchanged since the Chicago meeting and is out of balance, with:

(a) Consumer 25 members 40.3 % (0.3% over)(b) Producer 20 members 32.3 %(c) General Interest 17 members 27.4 %

All category must be between 20% and 40%. The Committee is presently not allowed to hold a vote, because it is out of balance. Within the General Interest category, the sub-category of Regulatory members is required to be within the range of 5 to 15%. We are presently at 4.8% with three regulatory members, therefore we need more regulatory members if we wish to add to any other category of membership. Adding one regulatory member would put the Committee back in balance, with 25 Consumer members equaling 39.7%. The Chair noted that the immediate priority is to find a qualified Regulatory category member.

T&DI REPORT: Jonathan Esslinger presented his T&DI report, which is attached.

NEW BUSINESS: No new business was put forward.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The Chairman explained the procedure used in locating meeting sites and stressed that our meetings are not funded by ASCE, but instead rely on the generous support of members and their organizations. The Toronto meeting was made possible with the commitment of a meeting room with AV support and tour by GTAA, with continental breakfasts on both days, plus bus transportation to downtown Toronto and the excellent dinner Thursday evening at Wayne Gretzky’s restaurant, and the comedy show at Second City. Doppelmayr provided the Thursday lunch. GTAA were overall host coordinators and also arranged the hotel room block.

Page 7 of 23

The Chairman specifically thanked Mike Riseborough, Ann Schwarts, Iori Moutine, Kent Doering, and the other GTAA staff who had provided such excellent support for the meeting.

ADJOURNMENT: Tom McGean made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Mike Riseborough. The motion passed, and the meeting was adjourned at 12:00 pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

Paul Didrikson, P. Eng.Secretary, ASCE APM Standards Committee

ATTACHMENTS:1.Proposed changes to Part 1, Section 1.4, Reference Standards, and

Section 2.1.8, Electromagnetic Background – Rod Falvey................................page 9

2.Proposed changes to Part 1, Section 2, Operating Environment – Chuck Elms page 14

3.Proposed adjustments and configuration changes to accommodate Annex D into ASCE 21 – Diane Morse............................................................................page 18

4.Standard form to be used for proposed changes to the Standard...........................page 22

Page 8 of 23

Attachment 1 - Proposed changes to Part 1, Section 1.4, Reference Standards, and Section 2.1.8, Electromagnetic Background – Rod Falvey-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Changes to ANSI/ASCE/T&DI 21-05, Part 1 – EMC

Submitted By: R. Falvey, Lea+Elliott, Inc.

Existing Language

1.4  Reference Standards

The following documents or portions thereof are incorporated by reference in this Standard.

ANSI Publications: American National Standards Institute, Attn: Customer Service, 11 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036, phone (212) 642-4900.

ANSI S1.4 - 1983, Specification for Sound Level Meters (cited in 2.2.1)ANSI S3.29 - 1983, Guide to the Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings (cited in 2.2.2)

IEEE Publications: The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, 3 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5997, Phone (800) 678 4333.

IEEE Std 1474.1-2004, IEEE Standard for Communications-Based Train Control (CBTC) Performance and Functional Requirements (cited in 5.)

NFPA Publication: National Fire Protection Association, Customer Service Department, 1 Batterymarch Park, P.O. Box 9101, Quincy, MA 02269-9101, Phone (800) 344-3555

NFPA 72-2002 National Fire Alarm Code .(cited in 6.1.6)NFPA 130–2003 Fixed Guideway Transit Systems, (cited in 6.1.2)

UL Publication: Underwriters Laboratories, Publications, 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062, phone (847) 272-8800

UL96A - 11th edition, 2001. Installation Requirements for Lightning Protection Systems (cited in 2.1.4)UL 813-1993 – Commercial Audio Equipment (cited in 6.1.3)

Telecommunications Industry Association Publication: Telecommunications Industry Association, 2500 Wilson Blvd., Suite 300, Arlington VA 22201, Phone (703) 907 7700

Wireless Communications Systems – Performance in Noise and Interference – Limited Situations – Recommended Methods for Technology – Independent Modeling, Simulation and Verification – Addendum 1, TIA/EIA Telecommunications Systems Bulletin TSB-88-A-1, January 2002 (cited in 6.1.6).

Page 9 of 23

Code of Federal Regulations: U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, 732 North Capitol Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20401, Phone 202) 512-1800

CFR, Title 47, Chapter I, Part 15, Radio Frequency Devices (cited in 2.2.3)CFR, title 47, Chapter I, Part 90, Subparts S and T, Private Land Mobile Radio Services (cited in 2.2.3)

Military Standards: Defense Printing Service, Building A, 700 Robbins Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19111, Phone (215) 697-2179 or 2667

MIL-STD-461E, Requirements for the Control of Electromagnetic Emissions and Susceptibility (cited in 2.1.8)MIL-STD-810 F, Environmental Test Methods and Engineering Guidelines (cited in 2.1.5)

NOAA Publication: National Climatic Data Center, 151 Patton Ave., Room 120, Ashland, NC 28801-0900, Phone (828) 271-4800

Local Climatologic Data, Annual Summary with Comparative Data, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Updated Annually, (cited in 2.1)

Gale Research Publication: Gale Research Company, P.O. Box 33477, Detroit, MI 48232, Phone (800) 877-4253, Ext. 5477

Weather of U.S. Cities, Fifth Edition, Vols. 1 and 2, 1996, Richard A. Wood, Phd. (cited in 2.1).

2.1.8  Electromagnetic Background.  The system and all of its components shall be electromagnetically compatible with the site environment at the initiation of system operation. All system electrical and electronic equipment shall function satisfactorily in the presence of electromagnetic emissions generated externally at the site. The environment may include, but is not limited to: communications systems, microwave facilities and transmissions, television and radio transmitters and repeaters, radar systems, computer equipment and accessories, traffic control devices, magnetometers, electric motors, controls, power tools, welders, x-ray equipment, power substations and equipment, automotive vehicles, aircraft, and high voltage power lines. The electromagnetic environment particular to the site should be determined and the design should provide for elimination of the influence of these conditions upon the equipment. Compliance shall be in accordance with Requirements for the Control of Electromagnetic Emission and Susceptibility, MIL-STD-461E, Requirement Matrix category “Ground, Army”.

Page 10 of 23

Proposed Language:

1.4  Reference Standards

The following documents or portions thereof are incorporated by reference in this Standard.

ANSI Publications: American National Standards Institute, Attn: Customer Service, 11 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036, phone (212) 642-4900.

ANSI S1.4 - 1983, Specification for Sound Level Meters (cited in 2.2.1)ANSI S3.29 - 1983, Guide to the Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings (cited in 2.2.2)

APTA Publications: The American Public Transportation Association 1666 K Street, N. W. Washington, DC, 20006, Phone (202) 496-4800

APTA SS-E-010-98 Standard for the Development of an Electromagnetic Compatibility Plan (cited in 2.1.8).

IEC Publications: International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Central Office, 3, Rue de Varembe’, CH-1211, Geneva 20, Switzerland. Phone +41 22 919 02 11, Website: www.iec.ch

IEC 62236 Edition 2.0 2008-12, Parts 1 – 5, Railway Applications-Electromagnetic Compatibility, IEC 62236 (cited in 2.1.8)

IEEE Publications: The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, 3 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5997, Phone (800) 678 4333.

IEEE Std 1474.1-2004, IEEE Standard for Communications-Based Train Control (CBTC) Performance and Functional Requirements (cited in 5.)

NFPA Publication: National Fire Protection Association, Customer Service Department, 1 Batterymarch Park, P.O. Box 9101, Quincy, MA 02269-9101, Phone (800) 344-3555

NFPA 72-2002 National Fire Alarm Code .(cited in 6.1.6)NFPA 130–2003 Fixed Guideway Transit Systems, (cited in 6.1.2)

UL Publication: Underwriters Laboratories, Publications, 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062, phone (847) 272-8800

UL96A - 11th edition, 2001. Installation Requirements for Lightning Protection Systems (cited in 2.1.4)UL 813-1993 – Commercial Audio Equipment (cited in 6.1.3)

Telecommunications Industry Association Publication: Telecommunications Industry Association, 2500 Wilson Blvd., Suite 300, Arlington VA 22201, Phone (703) 907 7700

Wireless Communications Systems – Performance in Noise and Interference – Limited Situations – Recommended Methods for Technology – Independent Modeling, Simulation and Verification – Addendum 1, TIA/EIA Telecommunications Systems Bulletin TSB-88-A-1, January 2002 (cited in 6.1.6).

Page 11 of 23

Code of Federal Regulations: U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, 732 North Capitol Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20401, Phone 202) 512-1800

CFR, Title 47, Chapter I, Part 15, Radio Frequency Devices (cited in 2.2.3)CFR, title 47, Chapter I, Part 90, Subparts S and T, Private Land Mobile Radio Services (cited in 2.2.3)

Military Standards: Defense Printing Service, Building A, 700 Robbins Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19111, Phone (215) 697-2179 or 2667

MIL-STD-810 F, Environmental Test Methods and Engineering Guidelines (cited in 2.1.5)

NOAA Publication: National Climatic Data Center, 151 Patton Ave., Room 120, Ashland, NC 28801-0900, Phone (828) 271-4800

Local Climatologic Data, Annual Summary with Comparative Data, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Updated Annually, (cited in 2.1)

Gale Research Publication: Gale Research Company, P.O. Box 33477, Detroit, MI 48232, Phone (800) 877-4253, Ext. 5477

Weather of U.S. Cities, Fifth Edition, Vols. 1 and 2, 1996, Richard A. Wood, Phd. (cited in 2.1).

2.1.8  Electromagnetic Background.  The system and all of its components shall be electromagnetically compatible with the site environment at the initiation of system operation. All system electrical and electronic equipment shall function satisfactorily in the presence of electromagnetic emissions generated externally at the site. The environment may include, but is not limited to: communications systems, microwave facilities and transmissions, television and radio transmitters and repeaters, radar systems, computer equipment and accessories, traffic control devices, magnetometers, electric motors, controls, power tools, welders, x-ray equipment, power substations and equipment, automotive vehicles, aircraft, and high voltage power lines. The electromagnetic environment particular to the site should be determined and the design should provide for elimination of the influence of these conditions upon the equipment. Compliance shall be in accordance with the requirements of IEC 62236 series of standards, in particular;

IEC 62236-1 Railway Applications -Electromagnetic Compatibility -Part 1: General

IEC 62236-2 Railway Applications - Electromagnetic Compatibility - Part 2: Emission of the whole Railway System to the Outside World

IEC 62236-3-1 Railway Applications - Electromagnetic Compatibility - Part 3-1: Rolling stock - Train and Complete Vehicle

IEC 6223-3-2 Railway Applications - Electromagnetic Compatibility - Part 3-2: Rolling Stock-Apparatus

IEC 62236-4 Railway Applications - Electromagnetic Compatibility - Part 4:Emission and Immunity of the Signaling and Telecommunications Apparatus

IEC 62236-5 Railway Applications - Electromagnetic Compatibility - Part 5:Emission and Immunity of Fixed Power Supply Installations and Apparatus

Page 12 of 23

An Electromagnetic Compatibility Control Plan/EMC Management Plan shall be developed in accordance with “APTA SS-E-010-98 Standard for the Development of an Electromagnetic Compatibility Plan".

Justification for Proposed Change

The current EMC requirements of MIL-STD-461E are general requirements for military equipment and were not developed to specifically address the unique characteristics of transit (including APMs). MIL-STD-461 includes requirements that cannot be accomplished or, if actually undertaken would increase the costs without actually improving its EMC characteristics in normal operating environment. IEC 62236 was developed specifically for “Railways” and is applicable to APMs. IEC 62236 was based on EN 50121 Railway Applications, Electromagnetic Compatibility, Emission and Immunity of the Signaling and Telecommunications Apparatus, which has been invoked previously for European transit installations.

MIL-STD-461E included the requirement for the generation of an EMC Control Plan. IEC 62236 does not include this specific requirement and therefore the requirement to generate an EMC Control Plan in accordance with APTA SS-E-010-98 is added as a separate requirement.

Page 13 of 23

Attachment 2 - Proposed changes to Part 1, Section 2, Operating Environment – Chuck Elms -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 2

Operating Environment

There are two aspects to operating environment considerations. One deals with the existing environmental conditions in which the system must operate (ambient) and the other deals with the environment resulting from the existence and operation of the system (induced). Both of these aspects are covered herein.

2.1  Ambient Conditions

The following sources of historical climatic data shall be considered when specifying design climatic values: Source Number 1 is a basic compilation of low, high, and mean values of temperature, humidity, steady and gusting winds, rainfall rates, and other climatic characteristics as compiled by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Source Number 2 summarizes the NOAA data in convenient form. Source Number 3 provides temperature data and methods for calculating 50-year return temperatures specified in Section 2.1.1.

(1) Local Climatologic Data, Annual Summary with Comparative Data, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, updated annually.

(2) Weather of U.S. Cities, Fifth Edition, Volumes 1 and 2, Richard A. Wood, Phd., Gale Research Company, Detroit Michigan, 1996; Library of Congress Card Number 87-11869, ISBN 0-8103-5525-6.

(3) 2009 ASHRAE Handbook – Fundamentals, Chapter 14, Climatic Design Information; ISBN: 978-1-933742-54-0; ISSN: 1523-7222

Where the proposed site is located outside of the area of coverage of the above documents, or within a microclimate, appropriate local weather data shall be used in lieu of the above sources.

2.1.1 Temperature and Humidity. The system shall be designed to, and at a minimum, be capable of continuous operation and serviceability in site ambient temperature conditions that represent the 50-year return highest maximum and lowest minimum extreme annual daily temperatures under naturally occurring combinations of temperature and humidity See Chapter 14, Climatic Design Information, ASHRAE Handbook - Fundamentals for the methods of calculating the 50-year return temperatures. Also, it is not intended that the APM system should operate when the service area (eg., urban area or major activity center) is closed because of any of these extreme conditions.

The temperature and relative humidity limit requirements for equipment shall reflect the operating environment at the location in the system where it is installed.

Page 14 of 23

These environmental conditions are not intended for the design and operation of the HVAC systems.

2.1.2  Wind. Maximum wind speeds shall be established for at least the following conditions:

(1) Normal system operation

(2) Manual operation

(3) System survival

The maximum wind speed for normal system operation shall be used as the design wind speed for safe automated system operation. If this wind speed is exceeded, automated operation shall not be permitted or shall be appropriately degraded.

The maximum wind speed for manual system operation shall be used as the design wind speed for safe manual operation. If this wind speed is exceeded, the system shall not be permitted to operate.

The maximum wind speed for system survival shall be the design wind speed for all structures. This wind speed shall be that used by local building codes.

2.1.3  Precipitation. If the system is intended for operation while subjected to rainfall, snowfall, and icing, it shall be designed for operation at rates consistent with historical data. Historical data are defined as the extreme conditions under which the area to be served (eg., urban area or major activity center) would remain in operation and not be closed. It is not intended to impose operational requirements more restrictive than what the owner intends.

2.1.4  Lightning.  Protection shall be provided against lightning incidence in the area for those systems which are susceptible. Such protection should be in compliance with Installation Requirements for Lightning Protection Systems, UL96A, 11th edition, 2001.

2.1.5  Existing Atmospheric Pollution.  The system design shall tolerate atmospheric pollutants which exist at the site. Such pollutants may include dust, dirt, salt, ozone, smog, and other matter specific to the site. In the cases of dust and dirt, compliance shall be with Environmental Test Methods and Engineering Guidelines, MIL-STD-810 F, method 510.4.

2.1.6  Solar Heat Load.  The design of systems which are subject to solar heating shall be based on a peak, direct solar heat gain appropriate to the site. Material selection shall minimize the deleterious effects of ultraviolet radiation.

2.1.7  Flood Zones.  Flood levels shall be specified as the 100-year flood level. The system shall be capable of surviving flooding with minimal damage to structure and

Page 15 of 23

equipment. Equipment and facility elements which can be damaged by flooding shall be protected or installed above the flood plain elevation.

2.1.8  Electromagnetic Background.  The system and all of its components shall be electromagnetically compatible with the site environment at the initiation of system operation. All system electrical and electronic equipment shall function satisfactorily in the presence of electromagnetic emissions generated externally at the site. The environment may include, but is not limited to: communications systems, microwave facilities and transmissions, television and radio transmitters and repeaters, radar systems, computer equipment and accessories, traffic control devices, magnetometers, electric motors, controls, power tools, welders, x-ray equipment, power substations and equipment, automotive vehicles, aircraft, and high voltage power lines. The electromagnetic environment particular to the site should be determined and the design should provide for elimination of the influence of these conditions upon the equipment. Compliance shall be in accordance with the requirements of IEC 62236 series of standards, in particular;

IEC 62236-1 Railway Applications -Electromagnetic Compatibility -Part 1: General

IEC 62236-2 Railway Applications - Electromagnetic Compatibility - Part 2: Emission of the whole Railway System to the Outside World

IEC 62236-3-1 Railway Applications - Electromagnetic Compatibility - Part 3-1: Rolling stock - Train and Complete Vehicle

IEC 6223-3-2 Railway Applications - Electromagnetic Compatibility - Part 3-2: Rolling Stock-Apparatus

IEC 62236-4 Railway Applications - Electromagnetic Compatibility - Part 4:Emission and Immunity of the Signaling and Telecommunications Apparatus

IEC 62236-5 Railway Applications - Electromagnetic Compatibility - Part 5:Emission and Immunity of Fixed Power Supply Installations and Apparatus

An Electromagnetic Compatibility Control Plan/EMC Management Plan shall be developed in accordance with “APTA SS-E-010-98 Standard for the Development of an Electromagnetic Compatibility Plan".

2.2  Induced Environmental Parameters

The system shall be operated, stored, and maintained without imposing on the site any condition which exceeds the limitations defined herein.

2.2.1  Exterior Airborne Noise.  The following exterior noise levels emanating from the system with all equipment operating normally should not be exceeded under the conditions defined. Exterior noise levels shall be measured using at least a Type II instrument, as defined in Specification for Sound Level Meters, ANSI Standard S1.4-1983, and shall be set for fast or slow response as indicated.

Page 16 of 23

(1) Vehicle stopped on the guideway in a free field with all auxiliary on-board equipment in normal operating condition - at a point outside, 1.5m (5 feet) from the doorway on a line aligned to the centerline of the doorway and perpendicular to the plane of the doorway and 1.5m (5 feet) above the doorway threshold: 74 dBA (slow response).

(2) Under all normal operating conditions in a free field, 15m (50 feet) from guideway centerline and from 1.5m (5 feet) above ground level to 1.5m (5 feet) above guideway running surface: 76 dBA (fast response).

(3) For the purposes of measurement the “free field” is approximated in tests carried out in an open area away from any major obstructions or noise reflectors.

Noticeable pure tones are not permitted. A pure tone is defined to exist when one 1/3-octave band exceeds the arithmetic average of the two adjacent bands by 4 dBA or more in the range of frequencies between 250 and 8,000 Hz. If an adjacent band contains a pure tone, the next closest band without a pure tone shall be used in its place. A noticeable pure tone shall be considered to exist when the 1/3-octave band containing the pure tone contributes more than 1.0 dBA to the overall dBA level.

More stringent noise requirements may be necessary to satisfy local environmental limitations.

2.2.2  Structure-Borne Noise/Vibration.  System-induced vibrations shall be imperceptible at or in surrounding buildings. The threshold of perception shall be as defined by Guide to the Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings, ANSI Standard S3.29-1983.

2.2.3  Electromagnetic Radiation.  The system shall be electromagnetically compatible with its environment. The system shall not produce electromagnetic emissions, whether conducted, radiated, or induced which interfere with normal operation of electromagnetic devices or equipment used in and around the site at the initiation of system operation.

All system transmitting and receiving equipment, such as for ATC and audio and visual communications, shall meet the licensing requirements of the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 47, Chapter I, Part 90, Private Land Mobile Radio Services, Subparts S and T; and the interference requirements defined in Title 47, Chapter I, Part 15, Radio Frequency Devices.

Page 17 of 23

Attachment 3 - Proposed adjustments and configuration changes to accommodate Annex D into ASCE 21 – Diane Morse

Note: Text shown in strikethrough has been made redundant, and text shown in yellow highlight was balloted in the Annex.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16.3 Independent Audit Assessment

An independent evaluation or audit of all key elements with identified system safety responsibilities shall be performed, as a minimum, once every three years (triennially).

16.3.1 Independent Auditor Requirements

The independent auditor shall be sufficiently independent of the system owner/operator to permit its assessment or audit to be objective. This does not rule out the independent auditor being a related company to the system owner/operator, provided there are adequate arrangements in place to insulate the independent auditor’s operation from the commercial operations of the system operator. The independent auditor shall be a licensed professional engineer or have at least three years’ experience participating in similar audits. The term "independent auditor" as described throughout this document is defined to be a person with the necessary education, experience, and capabilities to evaluate and approve the results of inspections and tests performed on the APM System.

Upon request from the APM system owner/operator, the independent auditor shall provide verification of meeting these qualifications.

16.3.2 Education and Experience RequirementsAn Independent Auditor shall meet one or more of the requirements listed below:

1. The independent auditor shall be a licensed professional engineer. 2. Shall have an accredited equivalent to a bachelor's degree in a technical discipline

and technical training in System Safety and/or APM System Elements and at least three years experience participating in APM System audits or inspections (Refer to Section 14 of ASCE 21).

3. The independent auditor shall have at-least eight years of System Safety experience with an operational fixed guideway transit system(s), including APMS, of which three years, minimum, were in a responsible position involving the safety of the following system elements: Automatic Train Control, Communications, Traction Power, Guideway and Guideway Switches, as well as Transit Vehicles; Central Control, Maintenance, Passenger Station Facilities; and the safety-related aspects of Operations and Maintenance Rules, Procedures and Training.

16.3.2.1 Capabilities, Education and Experience The independent auditor shall have a working knowledge of Hazard Analyses, Risk

Assessments, Hazard Resolution, System Safety Program Plans and Safety Requirements for all system elements.

Page 18 of 23

Verifiable evidence of training and experience shall be documented. The independent auditor shall also have the following qualifications:

1. Knowledge, understand of ASCE 21 all parts. 2. Knowledge of Automatic Train Control, Central Control, headway, switching, train

separation, maintenance and passenger station facilities. 3. Knowledge of the purpose and function of APM safety devices in the cars, on the

guideways, power distribution systems, in the stations and in the maintenance areas 4. General APM system knowledge of mechanical, electrical and civil principles as

applied to machines, mechanisms, pumps, compressors, relays, contactors, buffers, communications, traction power, track and guideway structures.

5. Familiarity with APM industry terminology, including terms, codes and standards referenced and used in ASCE 21.

6. Working knowledge of APM Operations and Maintenance Rules, Procedures and Training.

7. Knowledge of inspection and test procedures as described in ASCE 21. 8. Ability to interpret architectural and installation drawings, including guideway, Power

Distribution System, Central Control and maintenance area layouts. 9. Working knowledge of applicable building, fire, electrical and accessibility codes, 10. Demonstrated ability to perform duties specified in Section 16.2 of ASCE 21. 11. Knowledge of personnel safety practices.

16.3.2.2 Maintenance of Qualifications In order to maintain the qualifications as an APM independent auditor, an

independent auditor shall:

1. Remain familiar with the applications of new technology, including the electronic and material fields.

2. Maintain knowledge of current administrative or operating procedures necessary to discharge duties.

3. Maintain knowledge of ASCE 21, as well as the applicable codes for building, fire, electrical and accessibility.

4. Participate in meetings, seminars and educational programs related to duties. 5. Upon request, from the APM system owner/operator, the independent auditor shall

provide verification of meeting these qualifications.

16.3.3 Independent Audit Reporting

An independent auditor shall report the results of the inspection, testing or document review in accordance with the appropriate administrative procedures, industry standard practice and the following:

1. Independent audit findings shall be documented in written reports that include an evaluation of the adequacy and effectiveness of the System Safety Program Plan (SSPP) and implementing procedures, and as applicable, any required corrective action or recommendations and implementation schedule for completion of correction and status reporting.

2. The independent auditor's report shall include a clear description of the scope of the work performed, including the type of inspection and whether or not the inspection was performed in accordance with the applicable requirements of ASCE21.

3. All deficiencies noted in the report shall include a reference to the applicable code, standard or rule number.

Page 19 of 23

16.3.2 Independent Audit Reporting. The independent audit findings shall be documented in written reports that include an evaluation of the adequacy and effectiveness of the SSPP and implementing procedures, and as applicable, any required corrective action or recommendations and implementation schedule for completion of correction action and status reporting.

Page 20 of 23

Attachment 4 - Standard form to be used for proposed changes to the Standard

Please see the following page.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 21 of 23

ASCE 21 APM Standard

Formal Comment Tracking Matrix

Submitter Date Part Chapter &Section

Paragraph, Figure orTable

Type of comment

(General/ Technical/Editorial)

COMMENTS Proposed change Resolution

Victor Howe 9/24/10 2 7.8 Para 4 Technical Need to remove the effects of protections such as sensitive edges, photoeyes, etc. from this 30 lb force requirement.

Door closing forces shall not exceed 133 N (30 lb.) for the full range of door motion independent of any recycling feature .

Page 22 of 23

Page 23 of 23