Federal Register, Volume 75 Issue 89 (Monday, May 10, 2010)

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 89 (Monday, May 10, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25928-25979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10624]

[[Page 25927]]

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

Part II

Department of Transportation

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

Federal Railroad Administration

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

49 CFR Parts 213 and 238

Vehicle/Track Interaction Safety Standards; High-Speed and High Cant
Deficiency Operations; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed
Rules

[[Page 25928]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Parts 213 and 238

[Docket No. FRA-2009-0036, Notice No. 1]
RIN 2130-AC09

Vehicle/Track Interaction Safety Standards; High-Speed and High
Cant Deficiency Operations

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: FRA is proposing to amend the Track Safety Standards and
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards applicable to high-speed and high
cant deficiency train operations in order to promote the safe
interaction of rail vehicles with the track over which they operate.
The proposal would revise existing limits for vehicle response to track
perturbations and add new limits as well. The proposal accounts for a
range of vehicle types that are currently used and may likely be used
on future high-speed or high cant deficiency rail operations, or both.
The proposal is based on the results of simulation studies designed to
identify track geometry irregularities associated with unsafe wheel/
rail forces and accelerations, thorough reviews of vehicle
qualification and revenue service test data, and consideration of
international practices.

DATES: Written comments must be received by July 9, 2010. Comments
received after that date will be considered to the extent possible
without incurring additional expense or delay.
FRA anticipates being able to resolve this rulemaking without a
public, oral hearing. However, if FRA receives a specific request for a
public, oral hearing prior to June 9, 2010, one will be scheduled and
FRA will publish a supplemental notice in the Federal Register to
inform interested parties of the date, time, and location of any such
hearing.

ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments related to Docket No. FRA-2009-0036,
Notice No. 1, may be submitted by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Instructions: Note that all comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion, below.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov anytime, or to the
Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. Follow the online instructions for accessing
the dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John J. Mardente, Engineer, Office of
Railroad Safety, Mail Stop 25, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-1335);
Ali Tajaddini, Program Manager for Vehicle/Track Interaction, Office of
Railroad Policy and Development, Mail Stop 20, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590
(telephone 202-493-6438); or Daniel L. Alpert, Trial Attorney, Office
of Chief Counsel, Mail Stop 10, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-6026).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Supplementary Information

I. Statutory Background
A. Track Safety Standards
B. Passenger Equipment Safety Standards
II. Proceedings to Date
A. Proceedings To Carry Out the 1992/1994 Track Safety Standards
Rulemaking Mandates
B. Proceedings To Carry Out the 1994 Passenger Equipment Safety
Standards Rulemaking Mandate
C. Identification of Key Issues for Future Rulemaking
D. RSAC Overview
E. Establishment of the Passenger Safety Working Group
F. Establishment of the Task Force
G. Development of the NPRM
III. Technical Background
A. Lessons Learned and Operational Experience
B. Research and Computer Modeling
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
V. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Federalism Implications
E. Environmental Impact
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
G. Energy Impact
H. Trade Impact
I. Privacy Act

I. Statutory Background

A. Track Safety Standards

The first Federal Track Safety Standards were published on October
20, 1971, following the enactment of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of
1970, Public Law 91-458, 84 Stat. 971 (October 16, 1970), in which
Congress granted to FRA comprehensive authority over ``all areas of
railroad safety.'' See 36 FR 20336. FRA envisioned the new Standards to
be an evolving set of safety requirements subject to continuous
revision allowing the regulations to keep pace with industry
innovations and agency research and development. The most comprehensive
revision of the Standards resulted from the Rail Safety Enforcement and
Review Act of 1992, Public Law 102-365, 106 Stat. 972 (Sept. 3, 1992),
later amended by the Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1994,
Public Law 103-440, 108 Stat. 4615 (November 2, 1994). The amended
statute is codified at 49 U.S.C. 20142 and required the Secretary of
Transportation (Secretary) to revise the Track Safety Standards, which
are contained in 49 CFR part 213. The Secretary delegated the statutory
rulemaking responsibilities to the Administrator of the Federal
Railroad Administration. See 49 CFR 1.49.

B. Passenger Equipment Safety Standards

In September 1994, the Secretary convened a meeting of
representatives from all sectors of the rail industry with the goal of
enhancing rail safety. As one of the initiatives arising from this Rail
Safety Summit, the Secretary announced that DOT would develop safety
standards for rail passenger equipment over a 5-year period. In
November 1994, Congress adopted the Secretary's schedule for
implementing rail passenger equipment safety regulations and included
it in the Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1994. Congress
also authorized the Secretary to consult with various organizations
involved in passenger train operations for purposes of

[[Page 25929]]

prescribing and amending these regulations, as well as issuing orders
pursuant to them. Section 215 of this Act is codified at 49 U.S.C.
20133.

II. Proceedings to Date

A. Proceedings To Carry Out the 1992/1994 Track Safety Standards
Rulemaking Mandates

To help fulfill the statutory mandates, FRA decided that the
proceeding to revise part 213 should advance under the Railroad Safety
Advisory Committee (RSAC), which was established on March 11, 1996. (A
fuller discussion of RSAC is provided below.) In turn, RSAC formed a
Track Working Group, comprised of approximately 30 representatives from
railroads, rail labor, trade associations, State government, track
equipment manufacturers, and FRA, to develop and draft a proposed rule
for revising part 213. The Track Working Group identified issues for
discussion from several sources, in addition to the statutory mandates
issued by Congress in 1992 and in 1994. Ultimately, the Track Working
Group recommended a proposed rule to the full RSAC body, which in turn
formally recommended to the Administrator of FRA that FRA issue the
proposed rule as it was drafted.
On July 3, 1997, FRA published an NPRM which included substantially
the same rule text and preamble developed by the Track Working Group.
The NPRM generated comment, and following consideration of the comments
received, FRA published a final rule in the Federal Register on June
22, 1998, see 63 FR 33992, which, effective September 21, 1998, revised
the Track Safety Standards in their entirety.
To address the modern railroad operating environment, the final
rule included standards specifically applicable to high-speed train
operations in a new subpart G. Prior to the 1998 final rule, the Track
Safety Standards had addressed six classes of track that permitted
passenger and freight trains to travel up to 110 m.p.h.; passenger
trains had been allowed to operate at speeds over 110 m.p.h. under
conditional waiver granted by FRA. FRA revised the requirements for
Class 6 track, included them in new subpart G, and also added three new
classes of track in subpart G, track Classes 7 through 9, designating
standards for track over which trains may travel at speeds up to 200
m.p.h. The new subpart G was intended to function as a set of ``stand
alone'' regulations governing any track identified as belonging to one
of these high-speed track classes.

B. Proceedings To Carry Out the 1994 Passenger Equipment Safety
Standards Rulemaking Mandate

FRA formed the Passenger Equipment Safety Standards Working Group
to provide FRA with advice in developing the regulations mandated by
Congress. On June 17, 1996, FRA published an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) concerning the establishment of comprehensive safety
standards for railroad passenger equipment. See 61 FR 30672. The ANPRM
provided background information on the need for such standards, offered
preliminary ideas on approaching passenger safety issues, and presented
questions on various passenger safety topics. Following consideration
of comments received on the ANPRM and advice from FRA's Passenger
Equipment Safety Standards Working Group, FRA published an NPRM on
September 23, 1997, to establish comprehensive safety standards for
railroad passenger equipment. See 62 FR 49728. In addition to
requesting written comment on the NPRM, FRA also solicited oral comment
at a public hearing held on November 21, 1997. FRA considered the
comments received on the NPRM and prepared a final rule, which was
published on May 12, 1999. See 64 FR 25540.
After publication of the final rule, interested parties filed
petitions seeking FRA's reconsideration of certain requirements
contained in the rule. These petitions generally related to the
following subject areas: structural design; fire safety; training;
inspection, testing, and maintenance; and movement of defective
equipment. On July 3, 2000, FRA issued a response to the petitions for
reconsideration relating to the inspection, testing, and maintenance of
passenger equipment, the movement of defective passenger equipment, and
other miscellaneous provisions related to mechanical issues contained
in the final rule. See 65 FR 41284. On April 23, 2002, FRA responded to
all remaining issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration, with
the exception of those relating to fire safety. See 67 FR 19970.
Finally, on June 25, 2002, FRA completed its response to the petitions
for reconsideration by publishing a response to those petitions
concerning the fire safety portion of the rule. See 67 FR 42892. (For
more detailed information on the petitions for reconsideration and
FRA's response to them, please see these three rulemaking documents.)
The product of this rulemaking was codified primarily at 49 CFR part
238 and secondarily at 49 CFR parts 216, 223, 229, 231, and 232.

C. Identification of Key Issues for Future Rulemaking

While FRA had completed these rulemakings, FRA and interested
industry members began identifying various issues for possible future
rulemaking. Some of these issues resulted from the gathering of
operational experience in applying the new safety standards to Amtrak's
high-speed, Acela Express (Acela) trainsets, as well as to higher-speed
commuter railroad operations. These included concerns raised by
railroads and rail equipment manufacturers as to the application of the
new safety standards and the consistency between the requirements
contained in part 213 and those in part 238. Other issues arose from
the conduct of research, allowing FRA to gather new information with
which to evaluate the safety of high-speed and high cant deficiency
rail operations. FRA decided to address these issues with the
assistance of RSAC.
FRA notes that train operation at cant deficiency involves
traveling through a curve faster than the balance speed. Balance speed
for any given curve is the speed at which the lateral component of
centrifugal force will be exactly compensated (or balanced) by the
corresponding component of the gravitational force. When operating
above the balance speed, there is a net lateral force to the outside of
the curve. Cant deficiency is measured in inches and is the amount of
superelevation that would need to be added to the existing track in
order to balance this centrifugal force with this gravitational force
to realize no net lateral force measured in the plane of the rails. For
every curve, there is a balance speed at which the cant deficiency is
zero based on the actual superelevation built into the track. In
general terms, the higher the train speed through a curve, the higher
the cant deficiency.

D. RSAC Overview

As mentioned above, in March 1996, FRA established RSAC, which
provides a forum for developing consensus recommendations to FRA's
Administrator on rulemakings and other safety program issues. The
Committee includes representation from all of the agency's major
stakeholders, including railroads, labor organizations, suppliers and
manufacturers, and other interested parties. A list of member groups
follows:

American Association of Private Railroad Car Owners
(AAPRCO);

[[Page 25930]]

American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO);
American Chemistry Council;
American Petroleum Institute;
American Public Transportation Association (APTA);
American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association;
American Train Dispatchers Association;
Association of American Railroads (AAR);
Association of Railway Museums;
Association of State Rail Safety Managers (ASRSM);
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen
(BLET);
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division
(BMWED);
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS);
Chlorine Institute;
Federal Transit Administration (FTA);*
Fertilizer Institute;
High Speed Ground Transportation Association (HSGTA);
Institute of Makers of Explosives;
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers;
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW);
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement;*
League of Railway Industry Women;*
National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP);
National Association of Railway Business Women;*
National Conference of Firemen & Oilers;
National Railroad Construction and Maintenance
Association;
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak);
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB);*
Railway Supply Institute (RSI);
Safe Travel America (STA);
Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transporte;*
Sheet Metal Workers International Association (SMWIA);
Tourist Railway Association, Inc.;
Transport Canada;*
Transport Workers Union of America (TWU);
Transportation Communications International Union/BRC
(TCIU/BRC);
Transportation Security Administration;* and
United Transportation Union (UTU).
*Indicates associate, non-voting membership.

When appropriate, FRA assigns a task to RSAC, and after
consideration and debate, RSAC may accept or reject the task. If the
task is accepted, RSAC establishes a working group that possesses the
appropriate expertise and representation of interests to develop
recommendations to FRA for action on the task. These recommendations
are developed by consensus. A working group may establish one or more
task forces to develop facts and options on a particular aspect of a
given task. The individual task force then provides that information to
the working group for consideration. If a working group comes to
unanimous consensus on recommendations for action, the package is
presented to the full RSAC for a vote. If the proposal is accepted by a
simple majority of RSAC, the proposal is formally recommended to FRA.
FRA then determines what action to take on the recommendation. Because
FRA staff members play an active role at the working group level in
discussing the issues and options and in drafting the language of the
consensus proposal, FRA is often favorably inclined toward the RSAC
recommendation. However, FRA is in no way bound to follow the
recommendation, and the agency exercises its independent judgment on
whether the recommended rule achieves the agency's regulatory goal, is
soundly supported, and is in accordance with policy and legal
requirements. Often, FRA varies in some respects from the RSAC
recommendation in developing the actual regulatory proposal or final
rule. Any such variations would be noted and explained in the
rulemaking document issued by FRA. If the working group or full RSAC
body is unable to reach consensus on a recommendation for action, FRA
moves ahead to resolve the issue(s) through traditional rulemaking
proceedings.

E. Establishment of the Passenger Safety Working Group

On May 20, 2003, FRA presented, and RSAC accepted, the task of
reviewing existing passenger equipment safety needs and programs and
recommending consideration of specific actions that could be useful in
advancing the safety of rail passenger service. The RSAC established
the Passenger Safety Working Group (Working Group) to handle this task
and develop recommendations for the full RSAC to consider. Members of
the Working Group, in addition to FRA, include the following:
AAR, including members from BNSF Railway Company (BNSF),
CSX Transportation, Inc., and Union Pacific Railroad Company;
AAPRCO;
AASHTO;
Amtrak;
APTA, including members from Bombardier, Inc., Herzog
Transit Services, Inc., Interfleet Technology, Inc. (formerly LDK
Engineering, Inc.), Long Island Rail Road (LIRR), Maryland Transit
Administration (MTA), Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company, Northeast
Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation, Southern California
Regional Rail Authority, and Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority;
BLET;
BRS;
FTA;
HSGTA;
IBEW;
NARP;
RSI;
SMWIA;
STA;
TCIU/BRC;
TWU; and
UTU.
Staff from DOT's John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems
Center (Volpe Center) attended all of the meetings and contributed to
the technical discussions. Staff from the NTSB also participated in the
Working Group's meetings. The Working Group has held 13 meetings on the
following dates and in the following locations:
September 9-10, 2003, in Washington, DC;
November 6, 2003, in Philadelphia, PA;
May 11, 2004, in Schaumburg, IL;
October 26-27, 2004, in Linthicum/Baltimore, MD;
March 9-10, 2005, in Ft. Lauderdale, FL;
September 7, 2005, in Chicago, IL;
March 21-22, 2006, in Ft. Lauderdale, FL;
September 12-13, 2006, in Orlando, FL;
April 17-18, 2007, in Orlando, FL;
December 11, 2007, in Ft. Lauderdale, FL;
June 18, 2008, in Baltimore, MD;
November 13, 2008, in Washington, DC; and
June 8, 2009, in Washington, DC.

F. Establishment of the Task Force

Due to the variety of issues involved, at its November 2003 meeting
the Working Group established four task forces--smaller groups to
develop recommendations on specific issues within each group's
particular area of expertise. Members of the task forces include
various representatives from the respective organizations that are part
of the larger Working Group. One of these task forces was assigned to
identify and develop issues and recommendations specifically related to
the inspection, testing, and operation of passenger equipment as well
as concerns related to the attachment of safety appliances on passenger
equipment. An NPRM on these topics was published on December 8, 2005
(see 70 FR 73069), and a final rule was published on October 19, 2006
(see 71 FR 61835). Another of these task forces was assigned to develop
recommendations related to window

[[Page 25931]]

glazing integrity, structural crashworthiness, and the protection of
occupants during accidents and incidents. The work of this task force
led to the publication of an NPRM focused on enhancing the front end
strength of cab cars and multiple-unit (MU) locomotives on August 1,
2007 (see 72 FR 42016), and the publication of a final rule on January
8, 2010 (see 75 FR 1180). Another task force, the Emergency
Preparedness Task Force, was established to identify issues and develop
recommendations related to emergency systems, procedures, and
equipment. An NPRM on these topics was published on August 24, 2006
(see 71 FR 50276), and a final rule was published on February 1, 2008
(see 73 FR 6370). The fourth task force, the Track/Vehicle Interaction
Task Force (also identified as the Vehicle/Track Interaction Task
Force, or Task Force), was established to identify issues and develop
recommendations related to the safety of vehicle/track interactions.
Initially, the Task Force was charged with considering a number of
issues, including vehicle-centered issues involving flange angle, tread
conicity, and truck equalization; the necessity for instrumented
wheelset tests for operations at speeds from 90 to 125 m.p.h.;
consolidation of vehicle trackworthiness criteria in parts 213 and 238;
and revisions of track geometry standards. The Task Force was given the
responsibility of addressing other vehicle/track interaction safety
issues and to recommend any research necessary to facilitate their
resolution. Members of the Task Force, in addition to FRA, include the
following:
AAR;
Amtrak;
APTA, including members from Bombardier, Interfleet
Technology, Inc., LIRR, LTK Engineering Services, Port Authority Trans-
Hudson, and STV Inc.;
BMWED; and
BRS.
Staff from the Volpe Center attended all of the meetings and
contributed to the technical discussions through their comments and
presentations. In addition, staff from ENSCO, Inc., attended all of the
meetings and contributed to the technical discussions, as a contractor
to FRA. Both the Volpe Center and ENSCO, Inc., have supported FRA in
the preparation of this NPRM.
The Task Force has held 28 meetings on the following dates and in
the following locations:
April 20-21, 2004, in Washington, DC;
May 24, 2004, in Springfield, VA (technical subgroup
only);
June 24-25, 2004, in Washington, DC;
July 6, 2004, in Washington, DC (technical subgroup only);
July 22, 2004, in Washington, DC (technical subgroup
only);
August 24-25, 2004, in Washington, DC;
October 12-14, 2004, in Washington, DC;
December 9, 2004, in Washington, DC;
February 10, 2005, in Washington, DC;
April 7, 2005, in Washington, DC;
August 24, 2005, in Washington, DC;
November 3-4, 2005, in Washington, DC;
January 12-13, 2006, in Washington, DC;
March 7-8, 2006, in Washington, DC;
April 25, 2006, in Washington, DC;
May 23, 2006, in Washington, DC;
July 25-26, 2006, in Cambridge, MA;
September 7-8, 2006, in Washington, DC;
November 14-15, 2006, in Washington, DC;
January 24-25, 2007, in Washington, DC;
March 29-30, 2007, in Cambridge, MA;
April 26, 2007, in Springfield, VA;
May 17-18, 2007, in Cambridge, MA;
June 25-26, 2007, in Arlington, VA;
August 8-9, 2007, in Cambridge, MA;
October 9-11, 2007 in Washington, DC;
November 19-20, 2007, in Washington, DC; and
February 27-28, 2008, in Cambridge, MA.

This list includes meetings of a technical subgroup comprised of
representatives of the larger Task Force. These subgroup meetings were
often convened the day before the larger Task Force meetings to focus
on more advanced, technical issues. The results of these meetings were
then presented at the larger Task Force meetings and, in turn, included
in the minutes of those Task Force meetings.

G. Development of the NPRM

This NPRM was developed to address a number of the concerns raised
and issues discussed during the Task Force and Working Group meetings.
Minutes of each of these meetings have been made part of the public
docket in this proceeding and are available for inspection.
The Task Force recognized that the high-speed track safety
standards are based on the principle that, to ensure safety, the
interaction of the vehicles and the track over which they operate must
be considered within a systems approach that provides for specific
limits for vehicle response to track perturbation(s). From the outset,
the Task Force strove to develop revisions that would: Serve as
practical standards with sound physical and mathematical bases; account
for a range of vehicle types that are currently used and may likely be
used on future high-speed or high cant deficiency rail operations, or
both; and not present an undue burden on railroads. The Task Force
first identified key issues requiring attention based on experience
applying the current Track Safety Standards and Passenger Equipment
Safety Standards, and defined the following work efforts:
Revise--
[cir] Qualification requirements for high-speed or high cant
deficiency operations, or both;
[cir] Acceleration and wheel/rail force safety limits;
[cir] Inspection, monitoring, and maintenance requirements; and
[cir] Track geometry limits for high-speed operations.
Establish--
[cir] Necessary safety limits for wheel profile and truck
equalization;
[cir] Consistent requirements for high cant deficiency operations
covering all track classes; and
[cir] Additional track geometry requirements for cant deficiencies
greater than 5 inches.
Resolve and reconcile inconsistencies between the Track
Safety Standards and Passenger Equipment Safety Standards, and between
the lower- and higher-speed Track Safety Standards.

Through the close examination of these issues, the Task Force developed
proposals intended to result in improved public safety while reducing
the burden on the railroad industry where possible. The proposals were
arrived at through the results of computer simulations of vehicle/track
dynamics, consideration of international practices, and thorough
reviews of qualification and revenue service test data.
Nonetheless, FRA makes clear that the Task Force did not seek to
revise comprehensively the high-speed Track Safety Standards in subpart
G of part 213, and this NPRM does not propose to do so. For example,
there was no consensus within the Task Force to consider revisions to
the requirements for crossties, as members of the Task Force believed
it was outside of their

[[Page 25932]]

assigned tasks. Nor was there any real discussion about revisions to
the requirements for ballast or other sections in subpart G that
currently do not distinguish requirements by class of track. (See Sec.
213.307 in the Section-by-Section Analysis, below, for further
discussion on this point.) FRA therefore makes clear that by not
proposing revisions to these sections in this NPRM, FRA does not mean
to imply that these other sections may not be subject to revision in
the future. These sections may be addressed through a separate RSAC
effort. Further, FRA does invite comment on the need and rationale for
changes to other sections of subpart G not specifically proposed to be
revised through this NPRM, and based upon the comments received and
their significance to the changes specifically proposed herein, FRA may
consider whether revisions to additional requirements in subpart G are
necessary in the final rule arising from this rulemaking.
Overall, this NPRM is the product of FRA's review, consideration,
and acceptance of recommendations made by the Task Force, Working
Group, and full RSAC. FRA refers to comments, views, suggestions, or
recommendations made by members of the Task Force, Working Group, or
full RSAC, as they are identified or contained in the minutes of their
meetings. FRA does so to show the origin of certain issues and the
nature of discussions concerning those issues at the Task Force,
Working Group, and full RSAC level. FRA believes this serves to
illuminate factors it has weighed in making its regulatory decisions,
as well as the logic behind those decisions. The reader should keep in
mind, of course, that only the full RSAC makes recommendations to FRA.
As noted above, FRA is in no way bound to follow RSAC's
recommendations, and the agency exercises its independent judgment on
whether the rule achieves the agency's regulatory goal(s), is soundly
supported, and is in accordance with policy and legal requirements. FRA
believes that this NPRM is consistent with RSAC's recommendations, with
the notable exception of FRA's proposal concerning Class 9 track.
Please see the discussion of Class 9 track in Sec. 213.307 of the
Section-by-Section Analysis, below.

III. Technical Background

A. Lessons Learned and Operational Experience

Since the issuance of both the high-speed Track Safety Standards in
1998 and the Passenger Equipment Safety Standards in 1999, experience
has been gained in qualifying a number of vehicles for high-speed and
high cant deficiency operations and in monitoring subsequent
performance in revenue service operation. These vehicles include
Amtrak's Acela Express trainset; MTA's MARC-III multi-level passenger
car; and New Jersey Transit Rail Operations' (NJTR) ALP-46 locomotive,
Comet V car, PL-42AC locomotive, and multi-level passenger car.
Considerable data was gathered by testing these vehicles at speed over
their intended service routes using instrumented wheelsets to directly
measure forces between the wheel and rail and using accelerometers to
record vehicle motions. During the course of these qualification tests,
some uncertainties, inconsistencies, and potentially restrictive values
were identified in the interpretation and application of the vehicle/
track interaction (VTI) safety limits currently specified in Sec.
213.333 and Sec. 213.345 for excessive vehicle motions based on
measured accelerations and in the requirements of Sec. 213.57 and
Sec. 213.329 for high cant deficiency operation. This information and
experience in applying the current requirements are the foundation for
a number of the proposals in this NPRM, examples of which are provided
below.
Differentiate Between Sustained and Transient Carbody Acceleration
Events
During route testing of the MARC-III multi-level car at speeds to
125 m.p.h. and at curving speeds producing up to 5 inches of cant
deficiency, several short-duration, peak-to-peak carbody lateral
accelerations were recorded that exceeded current thresholds but did
not represent unsafe guidance forces simultaneously measured at the
wheel-to-rail interface. Yet, sustained, carbody lateral oscillatory
accelerations and significant motions were measured on occasion at
higher speeds in curves even though peak-to-peak amplitudes did not
exceed current thresholds. In addition, a truck component issue was
identified and corrected.
To recognize and account for wider variations in vehicle design,
the VTI acceleration limits for carbody motions are proposed to be
divided into separate limits for passenger cars from those for other
vehicles, such as conventional locomotives. In addition, new limits for
sustained, carbody oscillatory accelerations are proposed to be added
to differentiate between single (transient) events and repeated
(sustained) oscillations. As a result, the carbody transient
acceleration limits for single events, previously set conservatively to
control for both single and repeated oscillations, can be made more
specific and relaxed as appropriate. FRA believes that this added
specificity in the rule would reduce or eliminate altogether the need
for railroads to provide clarification or perform additional analysis,
or both, following a qualification test run to distinguish between
transient and sustained oscillations. Based on the small energy content
associated with high-frequency acceleration events of the carbody, any
transient acceleration peaks lasting less than 50 milliseconds are
proposed to be excluded from the carbody acceleration limits. Other
clarifying changes include the proposed addition of minimum
requirements for sampling and filtering of the acceleration data. These
changes were proposed after considerable research into the performance
of existing vehicles during qualification testing and revenue
operations. Overall, it was found that the existing carbody oscillatory
acceleration limits need not be as stringent to protect against events
leading to vehicle or passenger safety issues.
Establish Consistent Requirements for High Cant Deficiency Operations
for All Track Classes
Several issues related to operation at higher cant deficiencies
(higher speeds in curves) have also been addressed, based particularly
on route testing of the Acela trainsets on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor.
In sharper curves, for which cant deficiency was high but vehicle
speeds were reflective of a lower track class, it was found that
stricter track geometry limits were necessary, for the same track
class, in order to provide an equivalent margin of safety for
operations at higher cant deficiency. Second, although the current
Track Safety Standards prescribe limits on geometry variations existing
in isolation, it was recognized that a combination of alinement and
surface variations, none of which individually amounts to a deviation
from the Standards, may nonetheless result in undesirable response as
defined by the VTI limits. This finding is significant because trains
operating at high cant deficiency increase the lateral force exerted on
track during curving and, in many cases, may correspondingly reduce the
margin of safety associated with vehicle response to combined track
variations. Qualification of Amtrak's conventional passenger equipment
to operate at cant deficiencies up to 5 inches has also highlighted the
need to ensure compatibility between the requirements for low- (Sec.
213.57) and high-speed (Sec. 213.329) operations.

[[Page 25933]]

Streamline Testing Requirements for Similar Vehicles
This NPRM includes a proposal that vehicles with minor variations
in their physical properties (such as suspension, mass, interior
arrangements, and dimensions) that do not result in significant changes
to their dynamic characteristics be considered of the same type for
vehicle qualification purposes. If such similarity can be established
to FRA's satisfaction, such vehicles would not be required to undergo
full qualification testing, which can be more costly. In other cases,
however, the variations between car parameters may warrant partial or
full dynamic testing. For example, the approval process for NJTR's
Comet V car to operate at speeds up to 100 m.p.h. exemplified the need
for clarification of whether vehicles similar (but not identical) to
vehicles that have undergone full qualification testing should be
subjected to full qualification testing themselves. NJTR had sought
relief from the instrumented wheelset testing required in Sec. 213.345
by stating that the Comet V car was similar to the Comet IV car. The
Comet V car was represented to FRA to have truck and suspension
components nearly identical to the Comet IV car already in service and
operating at 100-m.p.h. speeds for many years. However, examination by
FRA revealed enough differences between the vehicles to at least
warrant dynamic testing using accelerometers on representative routes.
Results of the testing showed distinct behaviors between the cars and
provided additional data that was necessary for qualifying the Comet V.
Refine Criteria for Detecting Truck Hunting
During route testing of Acela trainsets, high-frequency lateral
acceleration oscillations of the coach truck frame were detected by the
test instrumentation in a mild curve at high speed. However, the
onboard sensors, installed per specification on every truck, did not
respond to these events. Based on these experiences, the truck lateral
acceleration limit, used for the detection of truck hunting, is
proposed to be tightened from 0.4g to 0.3g and include a requirement
that the value must exceed that limit for more than 2 seconds for there
to be an exceedance. Analyses conducted by FRA have shown that this
would help to better identify the occurrences of excessive truck
hunting, while excluding high-frequency, low-amplitude oscillations
that would not require immediate attention. In addition, to improve the
process for analyzing data while the vehicle is negotiating spiral
track segments, the limit would now require that the RMSt (root mean
squared with linear trend removed) value be used rather than the RMSm
(root mean squared with mean removed) value.
Finally, placement of the truck frame lateral accelerometer to
detect truck hunting would be more rigorously specified to be as near
an axle as is practicable. Analyses conducted by FRA have shown that
when hunting motion (which is typically a combination of truck lateral
and yaw) has a large truck yaw component, hunting is best detected by
placing an accelerometer on the truck frame located above an axle. An
accelerometer placed in the middle of the truck frame will not always
provide early detection of truck hunting when yaw motion of the truck
is large.
Revise Periodic Monitoring Requirements for Class 8 and 9 Track
Based on data collected to date, and so that the required
inspection frequency better reflects experienced degradation rates, the
periodic vehicle/track interaction monitoring frequency contained in
Sec. 213.333 for operations at track Class 8 and 9 speeds is proposed
to be reduced from once per day to four times per week for carbody
accelerations, and twice within 60 days for truck accelerations. In
addition, a clause is proposed to be added to allow the track owner or
railroad operating the vehicle type to petition FRA, after a specified
amount of time or mileage, to eliminate the truck accelerometer
monitoring requirement. Data gathered has shown that these monitoring
requirements may be adjusted without materially diminishing operational
safety. Nonetheless, FRA notes that in addition to these requirements,
pursuant to Sec. 238.427, truck acceleration would continue to be
constantly monitored on each Tier II vehicle under the Passenger
Equipment Safety Standards in order to determine if hunting
oscillations of the vehicle are occurring during revenue operation.

B. Research and Computer Modeling

As a result of advancements made over the last few decades,
computer models of rail vehicles interacting with track have become
practical and reliable tools for predicting the behavior and safety of
rail vehicles under specified conditions. These models can serve as
reliable substitutes for performing actual, on-track testing, which
otherwise may be more difficult--and likely more costly--to perform
than to model.
Models for such behavior typically represent the vehicle body,
wheelsets, truck frames, and other major vehicle components as rigid
bodies connected with elastic and damping elements and include detailed
representation of the non-linear wheel/rail contact mechanics (i.e.,
non-linear frictional contact forces between the wheels and rails
modeled as functions of the relative velocities between the wheel and
rail contacts, i.e., creepages). The primary dynamic input to these
models is track irregularities, which can be created analytically (such
as versines, cusps, etc.) or based on actual measurements.
There are a number of industry codes available with generally-
accepted approaches for solving the equations of motion describing the
dynamic behavior of rail vehicles. These models require accurate
knowledge of vehicle parameters, including the inertia properties of
each of the bodies as well as the characteristics of the main
suspension components and connections. To obtain reliable predictions,
the models must also consider the effects of parameter non-linearities
within the vehicles and in the wheel/rail contact mechanics, as well as
incorporate detailed characterization of the track as input including
the range of parameters and non-linearities encountered in service.
In order to develop the proposed revisions to track geometry limits
in the Track Safety Standards, several computer models of rail vehicles
have been used to assess the response of vehicle designs to a wide
range of track conditions corresponding to limiting conditions allowed
for each class of track. Simulation studies have been performed using
computer models of Amtrak's AEM-7 locomotive, Acela power car, Acela
coach car, and Amfleet coach equipment. Since the 1998 revisions to the
track geometry limits, which were based on models of hypothetical,
high-speed vehicles, models of the subsequently-introduced Acela power
car and coach car have been developed. In the case of the Acela power
car, the model proved capable of reproducing a wide range of vehicle
responses observed during acceptance testing, including examples of
potential safety concerns.
For purposes of this NPRM, an extensive matrix of simulation
studies involving all four vehicle types was used to determine the
amplitude of track geometry alinement anomalies, surface anomalies, and
combined surface and alinement anomalies that result in undesirable
response as defined by the proposed revision to the VTI limits. These
simulations were performed using two coefficients of friction (0.1 and
0.5), two analytical

[[Page 25934]]

anomaly shapes (bump and ramp), and combinations of speed, curvature,
and superelevation to cover a range of cant deficiency. The results
provided the basis for establishing the refinements to the geometry
limits proposed in this NPRM. For illustration purposes, two examples
of results from the simulation studies that were performed for
determining safe amplitudes of track geometry are being provided in
this document: one illustrates the effect of combined geometry defects;
the other illustrates isolated alinement geometry defects.
Figure 1 depicts an example summarizing the results of the Acela
power car at 130 m.p.h. and 9 inches of cant deficiency over combined
124-foot wavelength defects. The darker-shaded squares represent a
combination of alinement and surface perturbations where at least one
of the proposed VTI safety criteria is exceeded, and the solid, black-
lined polygon represents the proposed track geometry limits. Similar
results for other cars, speeds and cant deficiencies, and defect
wavelengths were created and reviewed. As shown, without the addition
of the combined defect limit in the upper right and lower left corners
(which has the effect of limiting geometry in the up-and-in and down-
and-out corners), the single-defect limits would permit track geometry
conditions that could cause the proposed VTI safety criteria to be
exceeded. For many of these high-speed and high cant deficiency
conditions, the net axle lateral force safety criterion was found to be
the limiting safety condition.
Figure 2 depicts an example result for the single-defect
simulations, summarizing the response of the Acela power car at 130
m.p.h. and 9 inches of cant deficiency over isolated alinement defects.
Each vertical bar represents the amplitude of the largest alinement
perturbation that will not cause an exceedance of one of the proposed
VTI safety criteria. Similar results for other cars, speeds and cant
deficiencies, and defect wavelength were created and reviewed. In
addition, similar results for this range of analysis parameters (cars,
speeds and cant deficiencies, and defect wavelength) were created and
reviewed using isolated, surface geometry defects. These example
results show that, with one exception, current limits sufficiently
protect against such exceedances under the modeled conditions. The
proposed VTI limit for net axle lateral force was not found to be met
under the existing 124-foot mid-chord offset (MCO) geometry limit for
track alinement, which the modeling showed to be set too permissively.
Consequently, FRA is proposing to tighten this geometry limit to
prevent unsafe vehicle dynamic response.
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P

[[Page 25935]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.005

BILLING CODE 4910-06-C

[[Page 25936]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.006

As part of this proposed rule, and as discussed further in the
Section-by-Section Analysis, simulations using computer models would be
required during the vehicle qualification process as an important tool
for the assessment of vehicle performance. These simulations are
intended not only to augment on-track, instrumented performance
assessments but also to provide a means for identifying vehicle dynamic
performance issues prior to service to validate suitability of a
vehicle design for operation over its intended route. In order to
evaluate safety performance as part of the vehicle qualification
process, simulations would be conducted using both a measured track
geometry segment representative of the full route, and an analytically-
defined track segment containing geometry perturbations representative
of minimally compliant track conditions for the respective class. This
Minimally Compliant Analytical Track (or MCAT) would be used to qualify
both new vehicles for operation and vehicles previously qualified (on
other routes) for operation over new routes. MCAT consists of nine
sections; each section is designed to test a vehicle's performance in
response to a specific type of perturbation (hunting perturbation, gage
narrowing, gage widening, repeated and single surface perturbations,
repeated and single alinement perturbations, short warp, and combined
down-and-out perturbations). Typical simulation parameters (that are to
be varied) include: speed, cant deficiency, gage, and wheel profile.
Figure 3 depicts time traces of the percent of wheel unloading for the
Acela coach in a simulated run over MCAT segments that would be
required for analyzing high cant deficiency curving performance at 160
m.p.h.

[[Page 25937]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.007

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis

Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part 213, Track Safety Standards

Subpart A--General
Section 213.1 Scope of Part
This section was amended in the 1998 Track Safety Standards final
rule to distinguish the applicability of subpart G from that of
subparts A through F, as a result of subpart G's addition to this part
by that final rule. Subpart G applies to track over which trains are
operated at speeds exceeding those permitted for Class 5 track, which
supports maximum speeds of 80 m.p.h. for freight trains and 90 m.p.h.
for passenger trains. Subpart G was intended to be comprehensive, so
that a railroad operating at speeds above Class 5 maximum speeds may
refer to subpart G for all of the substantive track safety requirements
for high-speed rail and need refer to the sections of the Track Safety
Standards applicable to lower-speed operations only for the general
provisions at Sec. 213.2 (Preemptive effect), Sec. 213.3
(Application), and Sec. 213.15 (Penalties). At the same time,
railroads that do not operate at speeds in excess of the maximum Class
5 speeds need not directly refer to subpart G at all.
FRA seeks to maintain this general structure of part 213 for ease
of use, and the requirements of subpart G would continue not to apply
directly to operations at Class 1 through 5 track speeds. However, in
proposing to add new requirements governing high cant deficiency
operations for track Classes 1 through 5, certain sections of subparts
C and D would refer railroads operating at high cant deficiencies to
specific sections of subpart G. In such circumstances, only the
specifically-referenced section(s) of subpart G would apply, and only
as provided. As discussed in this Section-by-Section Analysis, below,
the proposed addition of requirements for high cant deficiency
operations over lower-speed track classes would permit railroads to
operate at higher cant deficiencies over these track classes by
complying with the terms of the regulation instead of a waiver.
Currently, railroads must petition FRA for a waiver and then obtain
FRA's approval to operate at high cant deficiencies over lower-speed
track classes.
FRA believes that the approach proposed in this rulemaking would
minimize the addition of detailed requirements for high cant deficiency
operations in subparts C and D. Moreover, FRA does not believe it
necessary to amend this section on the scope of this part, because only
certain requirements of subpart G would apply to lower-speed track
classes and only indirectly through cross-references to those
requirements in subpart G for high cant deficiency operations. FRA
believes that this approach is consistent with the current organization
of this part, as existing Sec. 213.57 already references subpart G for
when a track owner or railroad operating above Class 5 track speeds
requests approval to operate at greater than 4 inches of cant
deficiency on curves in Class 1 through 5 track contiguous to the high-
speed track. Nonetheless, FRA invites both comment on this proposed
approach and suggestions for any alternative approach for maintaining
the ease of use of this part. In this regard, FRA invites comment on
whether the subpart headings should be modified to make their
application clearer to the rail operations they address, and, if so, in
what way(s).
As a separate matter, FRA notes that it is not proposing to revise
and re-issue the Track Safety Standards in full, as was done in the
1998 final rule. Instead, FRA is proposing to amend only certain
portions of the Track Safety Standards. Therefore, the final rule
arising from this rulemaking will need to ensure that both the new and
revised sections appropriately integrate with those sections of this
part that are not amended, and that appropriate time is provided to
phase-in the new and amended sections. In general, the Task Force
recommended that both new and revised sections become applicable one
year after the date the final rule is published. This phase-in period
is intended to allow the track owner or operating railroad, or both,
sufficient time to prepare for and adjust to meeting the new
requirements. Examples of such adjustments may include changes to
operating, inspection, or maintenance practices, such as for compliance
with Sec. Sec. 213.57, 213.329, 213.332, 213.333 and 213.345, as they
would be revised.
FRA is also considering providing the track owner or operating
railroad the

[[Page 25938]]

option of electing to comply sooner with the new and amended
requirements, upon written notification to FRA. Such a request for
earlier application of the new and amended requirements would indicate
the track owner's or railroad's readiness and ability to comply with
all of the new and amended requirements--not just certain of those
requirements. Because of the interrelationship of the proposed changes,
FRA believes that virtually all of the changes would need to apply at
the same time to maintain their integrity. FRA invites comment on
formalizing this approach for the final rule. FRA does note that since
it intends for the final rule to become effective 60 days after its
publication, and since there cannot be two different sections of the
same CFR unit under the same section heading, FRA may need to move
current sections of part 213 that would be revised to a temporary
appendix to allow for continued compliance with those sections for a
track owner or railroad electing not to comply sooner with the revised
sections of part 213. Use of such an appendix would be consistent with
FRA practice.
Section 213.7 Designation of Qualified Persons To Supervise Certain
Renewals and Inspect Track
This section recognizes that work on or about a track structure
supporting heavy freight trains or passenger operations, or both,
demands the highest awareness of employees of the need to perform their
work properly. At the same time, the current wording of this section
literally requires that each individual designated to perform such work
know and understand the requirements of this part, detect deviations
from those requirements, and prescribe appropriate remedial action to
correct or safely compensate for those deviations, regardless whether
that knowledge, understanding, and ability with regard to all of this
part is necessary for that individual to perform his or her duties.
While qualified persons designated under this section have not been
directly required to know, understand, and apply the requirements of
subpart G (pursuant to Sec. 213.1(b)), the proposed addition of
vehicle qualification and testing requirements for high cant deficiency
operations in these lower-speed track classes would in particular add a
level of complexity that may be outside of the purview of track foremen
and inspectors in fulfilling their duties.
As a result, the Task Force recommended and FRA agrees that this
rulemaking make clear that the requirements for a person to be
qualified under this section concern those portions of this part
necessary for the performance of that person's duties. FRA is therefore
proposing to add to the end of paragraph (a)(2)(i) the words ``that
apply to the restoration and renewal of track for which he or she is
responsible,'' and to add to the end of paragraph (b)(2)(i) the words
``that apply to the inspection of track for which he or she is
responsible.'' This proposal would continue to require that a person
designated under this section possess the knowledge, understanding, and
ability necessary to supervise the restoration and renewal of track, or
to perform inspections of track, or both, for which he or she is
responsible. Yet, this proposal would make clear that the person would
not be required to know, understand, or apply specific requirements of
this part not necessary to the fulfillment of that person's duties. FRA
does not believe that safety would be in any way diminished by this
proposal. FRA does believe that this clarification is consistent with
the intent of the Track Safety Standards.
Subpart C--Track Geometry
Section 213.55 Track Alinement
This section specifies the maximum alinement deviations allowed for
tangent and curved track in Classes 1 through 5. Alinement (also
spelled ``alignment'' and literally meant to indicate ``a line'') is
the localized variation in curvature of each rail. On tangent track,
the intended curvature is zero, and thus the alinement is measured as
the variation or deviation from zero. In a curve, the alinement is
measured as the variation or deviation from the ``uniform'' alinement
over a specified distance.
FRA is proposing to modify the section heading so that it reads
``Track alinement,'' instead of ``Alinement,'' to better conform with
the format of other sections in the part. The primary change to this
section would be the addition of a new paragraph (b) containing
tighter, single-deviation geometry limits for operations above 5 inches
of cant deficiency on curved track. These limits would include both 31-
foot and 62-foot MCO limits. A footnote would be added for track
Classes 1 and 2 in paragraph (b), noting that restraining rails or
other systems may be required for derailment prevention. The current
limits in paragraph (a) would remain unchanged. FRA believes that
adding the track geometry limits in paragraph (b) is necessary to
provide an equivalent margin of safety for operations at higher cant
deficiency. These proposed limits are based on the results of
simulation studies, as discussed in section III.B. of the preamble,
above, to determine the safe amplitudes of track geometry alinement
variations. For higher cant deficiency operations, curved track
geometry limits are to be applied only when track curvature is greater
than 0.25 degree.
Section 213.57 Curves; Elevation and Speed Limitations
In general, this section specifies the requirements for safe
curving speeds in track Classes 1 through 5. FRA is proposing
substantial changes to this section, including modification and
clarification of the qualification requirements and approval process
for vehicles intended to operate at more than 3 inches of cant
deficiency. For consistency with the higher speed standards in subpart
G, cant deficiency would no longer be limited to a maximum of 4 inches
in track Classes 1 through 5. Currently, this section specifies
qualification requirements for vehicles intended to operate at up to
only 4 inches of cant deficiency on track Classes 1 through 5 unless
the track is contiguous to a higher-speed track. Consequently, vehicles
intended to operate at more than 4 inches of cant deficiency on routes
not contiguous to a higher-speed track currently must file for and
obtain a waiver in accordance with part 211 of this chapter. FRA is
therefore proposing to establish procedures for such vehicles to
operate safely at greater than 4 inches of cant deficiency without the
necessity of obtaining a waiver.
Paragraph (a) would be revised in two respects. The first sentence
of paragraph (a) currently provides that the maximum crosslevel of the
outside rail of a curve may not be more than 8 inches on track Classes
1 and 2, and 7 inches on Classes 3 through 5. This requirement would be
restated to provide that the maximum elevation of the outside rail of a
curve may not be more than 8 inches on track Classes 1 and 2, and 7
inches on track Classes 3 through 5. Crosslevel is a function of
elevation differences between two rails, and is the focus of other
provisions of this proposal, specifically Sec. 213.63, Track surface.
The proposed clarification here is intended to limit the elevation of a
single rail.
The Task force had recommended removing the second sentence, which
provides that ``[e]xcept as provided in Sec. 213.63, the outside rail
of a curve may not be lower than the inside rail.'' Concern had been
raised in the Task Force that this statement potentially conflicts with
the limits in Sec. 213.63 for ``the deviation from * * * reverse
crosslevel elevation on curves.'' FRA has decided that the second
sentence of

[[Page 25939]]

paragraph (a) should be re-written more clearly to restrict configuring
track so that the outside rail of a curve is designed to be lower than
the inside rail, while allowing for a deviation of up to the limits
provided in Sec. 213.63. This requirement in paragraph (a) is intended
to restrict configuring track so that the outside rail of a curve is,
by design, lower than the inside rail; the limits at issue in Sec.
213.63 govern local deviations from uniform elevation--from the
designed elevation--that occur as a result of changes in conditions.
Rather than conflict, these provisions complement each other,
addressing both the designed layout of a curve and deviations from that
layout through actual use.
Paragraph (b) has been added to address potential vehicle rollover
and passenger safety issues should a vehicle be stopped or traveling at
very low speed on superelevated curves. For this cant-excess condition
the rule would require that all vehicles requiring qualification under
Sec. 213.345 must demonstrate that when stopped on a curve having a
maximum uniform elevation of 7 inches, no wheel unloads to a value less
than 50 percent of its static weight on level track. This requirement
would include an allowance for side-wind loading on the vehicle to
prevent complete unloading of the wheels on the high (elevated) rail
and incipient rollover.
In paragraph (c), the Vmax formula sets the maximum
allowable operating speed for curved track based on the qualified cant
deficiency (inches of unbalance), Eu, for the vehicle type.
Clarification would be added in a new footnote 2 to allow the vehicle
to operate at the cant deficiency for which it is approved,
Eu, plus 1 inch, if actual elevation of the outside rail,
Ea, and degree of track curvature, D, change as a result of
track degradation. This 1-inch margin would provide a tolerance to
account for the effects of local crosslevel or curvature conditions on
Vmax that may result in the operating cant deficiency
exceeding that approved for the equipment. Without this tolerance,
these conditions could generate a limiting speed exception, and some
railroads have adopted the approach of reducing the operating cant
deficiency of the vehicle in order to avoid these exceptions.
FRA also notes that it was the consensus of the Task Force to
clarify footnote 1 to state, in part, that actual elevation,
Ea, for each 155-foot track segment in the body of the curve
is determined by averaging the elevation for 11 points through the
segment at 15.5-foot spacing--instead of 10 points, as expressly
provided in the current footnote. FRA's Track Safety Standards
Compliance Manual (Manual) explains that the ``actual elevation and
curvature to be used in the [Vmax] formula are determined by
averaging the elevation and curvature for 10 points, including the
point of concern for a total of 11, through the segment at 15.5-[foot]
station spacing.'' See the guidance on Sec. 213.57 provided in Chapter
5 of the Manual, which is available on FRA's Web site at http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/track_compliance_manual/TCM%205.PDF.
This clarification to footnote 1 would make the footnote more
consistent with the manner in which the rule is intended to be applied.
Existing footnote 2 would be redesignated as footnote 3 without
substantive change.
Paragraph (d) would provide that all vehicle types are considered
qualified for up to 3 inches of cant deficiency, as allowed by the
current rule.
Paragraph (e) would be modified to specify the requirements for
vehicle qualification over track with more than 3 inches of cant
deficiency. The existing static lean requirements for 4 inches of cant
deficiency limit the carbody roll to 5.7 degrees with respect to the
horizontal when the vehicle is standing on track with 4 inches of
superelevation, and limit the vertical wheel load remaining on the
raised wheels to no less than 60% of their static level values and
carbody roll to 8.6 degrees with respect to the horizontal when the
vehicle is standing (stationary) on track with 6 inches of
superelevation. The proposed requirements would not limit the cant
deficiency to 4 inches, and would not impose the 6-inch superelevation
static lean requirement specifically for 4-inch cant deficiency
qualification. The latter requirement is intended to be addressed in
paragraph (b), as discussed above, for all vehicles requiring
qualification under Sec. 213.345.
The proposed requirements in paragraph (e) could be met by either
static or dynamic testing. The static lean test would limit the
vertical wheel load remaining on the raised wheels to no less than 60%
of their static level values and the roll of a passenger carbody to 8.6
degrees with respect to the horizontal, when the vehicle is standing on
track with superelevation equal to the intended cant deficiency. The
dynamic test would limit the steady-state vertical wheel load remaining
on the low rail wheels to no less than 60% of their static level values
and the lateral acceleration in a passenger car to 0.15g steady-state,
when the vehicle operates through a curve at the intended cant
deficiency. (Please note that steady-state, carbody lateral
acceleration, i.e., the tangential force pulling passengers to one side
of the carbody when traveling through a curve at higher than the
balance speed, should not be confused with sustained, carbody lateral
oscillatory accelerations, i.e., continuous side-to-side oscillations
of the carbody in response to track conditions, whether on curved or
tangent track.) This 0.15g steady-state lateral acceleration limit in
the dynamic test would provide consistency with the 8.6-degree roll
limit in the static lean test, in that it corresponds to the lateral
acceleration a passenger would experience in a standing vehicle whose
carbody is at a roll angle of 8.6 degrees with respect to the
horizontal. The 5.7-degree roll limit, which limits steady-state,
carbody lateral acceleration to 0.1g, would be eliminated from the
existing rule.
Measurements and supplemental research indicate that a steady-
state, carbody lateral acceleration limit of 0.15g is considered to be
the maximum, steady-state lateral acceleration above which jolts from
vehicle dynamic response to track deviations can present a hazard to
passenger safety. While other FRA vehicle/track interaction safety
criteria principally address external safety hazards that may cause a
derailment, such as damage to track structure and other conditions at
the wheel/rail interface, the steady-state carbody lateral acceleration
limit specifically addresses the safety of the interior occupant
environment. For comparison purposes, it is notable that European
standards, such as International Union of Railways (UIC) Code 518,
Testing and Approval of Railway Vehicles from the Point of View of
Their Dynamic Behaviour--Safety--Track Fatigue--Ride Quality, have
adopted a steady-state, carbody lateral acceleration limit of 0.15g.
FRA does recognize that making a comparison with such a specific limit
in another body of standards needs to take into account what related
limits are provided in the compared standards and what the nature of
the operating environment is to which the compared standards apply. FRA
therefore invites comment whether such a comparison is appropriate
here--whether, for example, there are enhanced or additional vehicle/
track safety limits that apply to European operations, either through
industry practice or governing standards, or both.
Increasing the steady-state, carbody lateral acceleration limit
from 0.1g to 0.15g would allow for operations at higher cant deficiency
on the basis of

[[Page 25940]]

acceleration before tilt compensation is necessary. This increase in
cant deficiency without requiring tilt compensation would be larger for
a vehicle design whose carbody is less disposed to roll on its
suspension when subjected to an unbalance force, since carbody roll on
curved track has a direct effect on steady-state, carbody lateral
acceleration. For example, a vehicle having a completely rigid
suspension system (S = 0) would have no carbody roll and could operate
without a tilt system at a cant deficiency as high as 9 inches, at
which point the steady-state, carbody lateral acceleration would be
0.15g, which would correlate to an 8.6-degree roll angle between the
floor and the horizontal when the vehicle is standing on a track with 9
inches of superelevation. The suspension coefficient ``S'' is the ratio
of the roll angle of the carbody on its suspension (measured relative
to the inclination of the track) to the cant angle of the track
(measured relative to the horizontal) for a stationary vehicle standing
on a track with superelevation. A suspension coefficient of 0 is
theoretical but neither practical nor desirable, because of the need
for flexibility in the suspension system to handle track conditions and
provide for occupant comfort and safety. Assuming that a car has some
flexibility in its suspension system, say S = 0.3, the car could
operate without a tilt system at a cant deficiency as high as
approximately 7 inches, at which point the steady-state, carbody
lateral acceleration would be 0.15g, which would correlate to an 8.6-
degree roll angle between the floor and the horizontal when the vehicle
is standing on track with 7 inches of superelevation. To operate at
higher cant deficiencies and not exceed these limits, the vehicle would
need to be equipped with a tilt system so that the floor actively tilts
to compensate for the forces that would otherwise cause these limits to
be exceeded.
Under current FRA requirements, using the above examples, a vehicle
having a completely rigid suspension system (S = 0) could operate
without a tilt system at a cant deficiency no higher than 6 inches, at
which point the steady-state, carbody lateral acceleration would be
0.1g, which would correlate to a 5.7-degree roll angle between the
floor and the horizontal when the vehicle is standing on track with 6
inches of superelevation. Assuming that a vehicle has some flexibility
in its suspension system, again say S = 0.3, the vehicle could operate
without a tilt system at a cant deficiency no higher than approximately
4.7 inches, at which point the steady-state, carbody lateral
acceleration would be 0.1g, which would correlate to a 5.7-degree roll
angle between the floor and the horizontal when the vehicle is standing
on track with 4.7 inches of superelevation.
FRA notes that the less stringent steady-state, carbody lateral
acceleration limit and carbody roll angle limit proposed in this rule
would reduce the need to equip vehicles with tilt systems at higher
cant deficiencies--and seemingly the costs associated with such
features, as well. Moreover, by facilitating higher cant deficiency
operations, savings could also result from shortened trip times. These
savings could be particularly beneficial to passenger operations in
emerging high-speed rail corridors, enabling faster operations through
curves.
Of course, any such savings should not come at the expense of
safety, and FRA is proposing additional track geometry requirements for
operations above 5 inches of cant deficiency, whether or not the
vehicles are equipped with tilt systems. These additional track
geometry requirements were developed to control for undesirable vehicle
response to track conditions that could pose derailment concerns. They
may also help to control in some way for transient, carbody
acceleration events that could pose ride safety concerns for passengers
subjected to higher steady-state, carbody lateral acceleration levels,
but they were not specifically developed to address such concerns and
their effect has not been modeled. These additional track geometry
requirements are being proposed to apply only to operations above 5
inches of cant deficiency, where steady-state, carbody lateral
acceleration would approach 0.15g for typical vehicle designs. In this
regard, during Task Force discussions, Amtrak stated that Amfleet
equipment has been operating at up to 5 inches of cant deficiency (with
approximately 0.13g steady-state, carbody lateral acceleration levels)
without resulting in passenger ride safety issues. FRA is also not
aware of any general passenger safety issue involving passengers losing
their balance and falling due to excessive steady-state, carbody
lateral acceleration levels in current operations.
Nonetheless, a transient carbody acceleration event that poses no
derailment safety concern could very well cause a standing passenger to
lose his or her balance and fall. Although FRA is not aware of much
published data on the effect transient, carbody acceleration events
have on passenger ride safety, it is recognized that the presence of
steady-state, carbody lateral acceleration will generally reduce the
margin of safety for standing passengers to withstand transient,
lateral acceleration events and not lose their balance. If such
passenger ride safety issues were more clearly identified, additional
track geometry or other limits could potentially be proposed to address
them. However, based on the information available to the Task Force, it
did not recommend additional limits to address potential passenger ride
safety concerns that may result from transient, carbody acceleration
events alone or when combined with steady-state, carbody lateral
acceleration. The Task Force also took into account that, as a mode of
transportation offered to the general public, passenger rail travel
need provide for passenger comfort. As a result, the riding
characteristics of passenger rail vehicles should by railroad practice
be held first to acceptable passenger ride comfort criteria, which
would be more stringent than those for passenger ride safety.
To fully inform FRA's decisions in preparing the final rule arising
from this NPRM, FRA is specifically inviting public comment on this
discussion and the proposal to set the steady-state, carbody lateral
acceleration limit at 0.15g. FRA requests specific comment on whether
the proposed rule appropriately provides for passenger ride safety, and
if not, requests that the commenters state what additional
requirement(s) should be imposed, if any.
The proposed changes to this section would also separate and
clarify the submittal requirements to FRA to obtain approval for the
qualifying cant deficiency of a vehicle type (paragraph (f)) and to
notify FRA prior to the implementation of the approved higher curving
speeds (paragraph (g)). Additional clarification in paragraph (f) has
been proposed regarding the submission of suspension maintenance
information. This proposed requirement regarding the submission of
suspension maintenance information would apply to vehicle types not
subject to parts 238 or 229 of this chapter, such as a freight car
operated in a freight train, and only to safety-critical components.
Paragraph (g) would also clarify that in approving the request made
pursuant to paragraph (f), FRA may impose conditions necessary for
safely operating at the higher curving speeds.
FRA notes that existing footnote 3 would be redesignated as
footnote 4 and modified in conformance with these proposed changes. The
existing footnote reflects that this section currently allows a maximum
of 4 inches of cant

[[Page 25941]]

deficiency; hence, the static lean test requirement to raise the car on
one side by 4 inches. The existing footnote also specifies a cant
excess requirement of 6 inches; hence, the requirement to then
alternately lower the car to the other side by 6 inches. In the
proposed revisions to this section, the 4-inch limit on cant deficiency
would be removed and the cant-excess requirement would be addressed in
revised paragraph (b), as discussed above, for all vehicles requiring
qualification under Sec. 213.345. Thus, this footnote would refer to
``the proposed cant deficiency'' instead of 4 inches of cant
deficiency. FRA also notes that the statement in the current footnote
that the ``test procedure may be conducted in a test facility'' would
be removed. Testing may of course be conducted in a test facility but
it is not mandated, and is not necessary to continue to reference in
the footnote.
Existing paragraph (e) would be moved to new paragraph (h) and
revised, principally by substituting ``same vehicle type'' for ``same
class of equipment'' to be consistent with the proposed use of
``vehicle type'' in the regulation.
Paragraph (i) would be added to reference pertinent sections of
subpart G, Sec. Sec. 213.333 and 213.345, that contain requirements
related to operations above 5 inches of cant deficiency. These sections
include requirements for periodic track geometry measurements,
monitoring of carbody acceleration, and vehicle/track system
qualification. Specifically, in Sec. 213.333, FRA is proposing to add
periodic inspection requirements using a Track Geometry Measurement
System (TGMS) to determine compliance with Sec. 213.53, Track gage;
Sec. 213.55(b), Track alinement; Sec. 213.57, Curves; elevation and
speed limitations; Sec. 213.63, Track surface; and Sec. 213.65,
Combined alinement and surface deviations. In sharper curves, for which
cant deficiency was high but vehicle speeds were reflective of a lower
track class, it was found that stricter track geometry limits were
necessary, for the same track class, in order to provide an equivalent
margin of safety for operations at higher cant deficiency. FRA is also
proposing to add periodic monitoring requirements for cardbody
accelerations, to determine compliance with the VTI safety limits in
Sec. 213.333. Moreover, the vehicle/track system qualification
requirements in Sec. 213.345 would apply to vehicle types intended to
operate at any curving speed producing more than 5 inches of cant
deficiency, and include, as appropriate, a combination of computer
simulations, carbody acceleration testing, truck acceleration testing,
and wheel/rail force measurements. FRA believes that these proposed
requirements are necessary to apply to operations at high cant
deficiency on lower-speed track classes. Section 213.369(f) would also
be referenced, to make clear that inspection records be kept in
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 213.333, as appropriate.
Paragraph (j) would be added to clarify that vehicle types that
have been permitted by FRA to operate over track with a cant
deficiency, Eu, greater than 3 inches prior to the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, would be
considered qualified under this section to operate at any such
permitted cant deficiency over the previously operated track
segments(s). Before the vehicle type could operate over another track
segment at such a cant deficiency, the vehicle type would have to be
qualified as provided in this section.
Paragraph (k) would be added as a new paragraph to define
``vehicle'' and ``vehicle type,'' as used in this section. As the term
``vehicle'' is used elsewhere in this part and the term ``vehicle
type'' would be significant to the application of this section, both
terms would be defined here.
Section 213.63 Track Surface
Track surface is the evenness or uniformity of track in short
distances measured along the tread of the rails. Under load, the track
structure gradually deteriorates due to dynamic and mechanical wear
effects of passing trains. Improper drainage, unstable roadbed,
inadequate tamping, and deferred maintenance can create surface
irregularities, which can lead to serious consequences if ignored.
The current section specifies track surface requirements and would
be re-designated as paragraph (a). Paragraph (a) would generally mirror
the current section but would substitute the date ``June 22, 1998'' for
the words ``prior to the promulgation of this rule'' in the asterisked
portion of the table. The asterisk was added in the 1998 final rule and
refers to that final rule, which was promulgated on June 22, 1998;
consequently, FRA is proposing that the wording be made clearer so that
it refers to the 1998 final rule--not the final rule arising from this
NPRM.
The primary substantive change to this section would be the
addition of new paragraph (b) containing tighter, single-deviation
geometry limits for operations above 5 inches of cant deficiency on
curved track. These limits would include both 31-foot and 62-foot MCO
limits and a new limit for the difference in crosslevel between any two
points less than 10 feet apart. FRA believes that adding these track
geometry limits is necessary to provide an equivalent margin of safety
for operations at higher cant deficiency. These proposed limits are
based on the results of simulation studies, as discussed in Section
III.B. of the preamble, above, to determine the safe amplitudes of
track geometry surface variations.
Section 213.65 Combined Alinement and Surface Deviations
FRA is proposing to add a new section containing limits addressing
combined alinement and surface deviations that would apply only to
operations above 5 inches of cant deficiency. An equation-based safety
limit would be established for alinement and surface deviations
occurring in combination within a single chord length of each other.
The limits in this section would be used only with a TGMS and applied
on the outside rail in curves.
Although the current Track Safety Standards prescribe limits on
geometry variations existing in isolation, FRA recognizes that a
combination of alinement and surface variations, none of which
individually amounts to a deviation from the requirements in this part,
may result in undesirable vehicle response. Moreover, trains operating
at high cant deficiencies will increase the lateral wheel force exerted
on track during curving, thereby decreasing the margin of safety
associated with the VTI wheel force safety limits in Sec. 213.333. To
address these concerns, simulation studies were performed, as discussed
in Section III.B. of the preamble, above, to determine the safe
amplitudes of combined track geometry variations. Results show that
this proposed equation-based safety limit is necessary to provide a
margin of safety for vehicle operations at higher cant deficiencies.
Section 213.110 Gage Restraint Measurement Systems
This section specifies procedures for using a Gage Restraint
Measuring System (GRMS) to assess the ability of track to maintain
proper gage. FRA is proposing to amend this section to make it
consistent with proposed changes to the GRMS requirements in Sec.
213.333, the counterpart to this section in subpart G. Specifically,
FRA is proposing to replace the Gage Widening Ratio (GWR) with the Gage
Widening Projection (GWP), which would compensate for the weight of the
testing vehicle. FRA believes that use of the GWP would provide at
least the same

[[Page 25942]]

level of safety and is supported by research results documented in the
report titled ``Development of Gage Widening Projection Parameter for
the Deployable Gage Restraint Measurement System'' (DOT/FRA/ORD-06/13,
October 2006), which is available on FRA's Web site at http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/ord0613.pdf. Moreover, by making the
criteria consistent with the proposed changes to the GRMS requirements
in Sec. 213.333, a track owner or railroad would not have to modify a
GRMS survey to compute a GWR for track Classes 1 through 5, and then a
GWP for track Classes 6 through 9. The GWP formula would apply
regardless of the class of track.
In substituting the GWP value for the GWR value, FRA is proposing
to make a number of conforming changes to this section, principally to
ensure that the terminology and references are consistent. These
changes would be more technical than substantive, and they are neither
intended to diminish nor add to the requirements of this section. In
this regard, FRA notes that it is correcting the table in paragraph (l)
to renumber the remedial action specified for a second level exception.
The remedial action should be designated as (1), (2), and (3) in the
``Remedial action required'' column, consistent with how it is
specified for a first level exception--not designated as footnote 2,
(1), and (2), as it currently is.
FRA also notes that new footnote 5 would be added to this section,
stating that ``GRMS equipment using load combinations developing L/V
ratios that exceed 0.8 shall be operated with caution to protect
against the risk of wheel climb by the test wheelset.'' This footnote
is identical in substance to existing footnote 7 (proposed to be
redesignated to footnote 10 due to footnote renumbering), which is
applicable to Sec. 213.333, and would thus further promote conformity
between this section and its subpart G counterpart.
Subpart G--Train Operations at Track Classes 6 and Higher
Section 213.305 Designation of Qualified Individuals; General
Qualifications
This section recognizes that work on or about a track structure
supporting high-speed train operations demands the highest awareness of
employees of the need to perform their work properly. At the same time,
the current wording of this section literally requires that each
individual designated to perform such work know and understand the
requirements of this subpart, detect deviations from those
requirements, and prescribe appropriate remedial action to correct or
safely compensate for those deviations, regardless whether that
knowledge, understanding, and ability with regard to all of subpart G
is necessary for that individual to perform his or her duties. For
example, knowledge and understanding of specific vehicle qualification
and testing requirements may be unnecessary for the performance of a
track inspector's duties.
As a result, the Task Force recommended and FRA agrees that this
rulemaking make clear that the requirements for a person to be
qualified under subpart G concern those portions of this subpart
necessary for the performance of that person's duties. FRA is therefore
proposing to add to the end of paragraph (a)(2)(i) the words ``that
apply to the restoration and renewal of the track for which he or she
is responsible,'' and to add to the end of paragraph (b)(2)(i) the
words ``that apply to the inspection of the track for which he or she
is responsible.''
This proposal would continue to require that a person designated
under this section has the knowledge, understanding, and ability
necessary to supervise the restoration and renewal of subpart G track,
or to perform inspections of subpart G track, or both, for which he or
she is responsible. At the same time, this proposal would make clear
that the person would not be required to know or understand specific
requirements of this subpart not necessary to the fulfillment of that
person's duties. FRA does not believe that safety would be in any way
diminished by this proposal. FRA believes that this proposal reflects
what was intended when this section was established in the 1998 final
rule.
Section 213.307 Classes of Track: Operating Speed Limits
Currently, this subpart provides for the operation of trains at
progressively higher speeds up to 200 m.p.h. over four separate classes
of track, Classes 6 through 9. The Task Force recommended that
standards for Class 9 track be removed from this subpart and that the
maximum allowable speed for Class 8 track be lowered from 160 m.p.h. to
150 m.p.h. Class 9 track was established in the 1998 final rule because
of the possibility that certain operations would achieve speeds of up
to 200 m.p.h. In addition, a maximum limit of 160 m.p.h. was
established for Class 8 track in the 1998 final rule because trainsets
had operated in this country up to that speed for periods of several
months under waivers for testing and evaluation.
Although it was viewed in the 1998 final rule that standards for
Class 9 track were useful benchmarks for future planning with respect
to vehicle/track interaction, track structure, and inspection
requirements, the Task Force noted that operations at speeds in excess
of 150 m.p.h. are currently authorized by FRA only in conjunction with
a rule of particular applicability (RPA) that addresses the overall
safety of the operation as a system, per footnote 2 of this section.
The vehicle/track interaction, track structure, and inspection
requirements in an RPA would likely be specific to both the operation
and system components used. Track geometry measurement systems, safety
criteria, and safety limits might be quite different than currently
defined. The Task Force therefore recommended that the safety of
operations above 150 m.p.h. be addressed using a system safety approach
and regulated through an RPA specific to the intended operation, and
that the safety parameters in this subpart for general application to
operations above 150 m.p.h. be removed, as a result.
Nonetheless, FRA has identified the continued need for benchmark
standards addressing the highest speeds likely to be achieved by the
most forward-looking, potential high-speed rail projects. As a result,
FRA and the Volpe Center have conducted additional research and
vehicle/track interaction simulations at higher speeds and concluded
that Class 9 vehicle/track safety standards can be safely extended to
include the highest contemplated speeds proposed to date--speeds of up
to 220 m.p.h. FRA is including these benchmark standards in this NPRM.
FRA does intend to continue its discussions with the RSAC Task
Force as any comments are addressed following the publication of this
NPRM, and as noted earlier, the Task Force did not consider a
comprehensive revision of all of Subpart G, including those
requirements that are not distinguished by class of track. In this
regard, ``ballast pickup'' (or flying ballast) has been subsequently
identified as a potential issue for high-speed operations that may
merit further consideration. Of course, FRA makes clear that the Class
9 standards would remain only as benchmark standards with the
understanding that the final suitability of track safety standards for
operations above 150 m.p.h. will be determined by FRA only after
examination of the entire operating system, including the subject
equipment, track structure, and other system attributes. Direct FRA
approval

[[Page 25943]]

is required for any such high-speed operation, whether through an RPA
or another regulatory proceeding.
As a separate matter, FRA notes that the rule would require the
testing and evaluation of equipment for qualification purposes at a
speed of 5 m.p.h. over the maximum intended operating speed, in
accordance with Sec. 213.345, and that, for example, this would
require equipment intended to operate at a maximum speed of 160 m.p.h.
to be tested at 165 m.p.h. FRA therefore makes clear that operating at
speeds up to 165 m.p.h. for vehicle qualification purposes under this
subpart would necessarily continue, subject to the requirements for the
planning and safe conduct of such test operations. These test
operations are separate from general purpose operations on Class 8
track that would be limited to a maximum speed of 160 m.p.h.
In addition, FRA is proposing to slightly modify the section
heading so that it reads ``Classes of track: operating speed limits,''
using the plural form of ``class.'' This change is intended to make the
section heading conform with the heading for Sec. 213.9, the
counterpart to this section for lower-speed track classes.
Section 213.323 Track Gage
This section contains minimum and maximum limits for gage,
including limits for the change in gage within any 31-foot distance.
FRA is proposing to modify the limit for the change in gage within any
31-foot distance from \1/2\ inch to \3/4\ inch for Class 6 track.
During Task Force discussions, Amtrak raised concern that for track
constructed with wood ties and cut spikes, the \1/2\-inch variation in
gage limit is difficult to maintain. Tolerance values for the rail
base, tie plate shoulders, and spikes can result in a \1/2\-inch gage
variation in well-maintained track, particularly due to daily
temperature fluctuations of rail and associated heat-induced stresses.
In response to Amtrak's concern, FRA conducted modeling of track
with variations in gage up to \3/4\ inch in 31-foot distances and found
no safety concerns for the equipment modeled. Modeling was also
conducted using 20 miles of actual measured track geometry with these
variations in gage for speeds up to 115 m.p.h. without showing safety
concerns for the equipment modeled. As a result, FRA believes that
modifying this limit for the change of gage for Class 6 track, with a
maximum permitted speed of 110 m.p.h, would not diminish safety and
would reduce the burden on the track owner or railroad to maintain safe
gage.
Section 213.327 Track Alinement
FRA is proposing to change this section primarily to add tighter,
single-deviation geometry limits for operations above 5 inches of cant
deficiency. These would include 31-foot, 62-foot, and 124-foot MCO
limits in revised paragraph (c), with the current text of paragraph (c)
moving to a new paragraph (d). As discussed in Section III.B. of the
preamble, above, simulation studies have been performed to determine
the safe amplitudes of track geometry alinement variations. Results of
these studies have shown that the track geometry limits proposed in
revised paragraph (c) are necessary in order to provide a margin of
safety for operations at higher cant deficiency.
In addition, the current single-deviation, track alinement limits
in paragraph (b) would be revised so as to distinguish between limits
for tangent and curved track. Specifically, the 62-foot MCO limit for
Class 6 curved track would be narrowed to five-eighths of an inch,
while the tangent track limit would remain at the existing value of
three-quarters of an inch. This proposed change is intended to provide
consistency between the alinement limits for track Classes 5 and 6, as
the Class 5 limit for curved track in Sec. 213.55 is five-eighths of
an inch. The 62-foot MCO limits for Class 7 and Class 8 tangent track
would be increased to three-quarters of an inch, while the curved track
limit would remain at the existing value of one-half of an inch. The
124-foot MCO limits for Class 8 tangent track would be increased to an
inch, while the curved track limit would remain at the existing value
of three-quarters of an inch. These proposed changes are also based on
results of the simulations studies, as discussed in section III.B. of
the preamble, above.
Other changes proposed herein include adding a paragraph (e), and
modifying the section heading to better conform with the format of
other sections in this part. Paragraph (e) is an adaptation of
footnotes 1 and 2 from Sec. 213.55, describing the ends of the chord
and the line rail. Paragraph (e) would apply to all of the requirements
in this section and is consistent with current practice.
Section 213.329 Curves; Elevation and Speed Limitations
Determining the maximum speed that a vehicle may safely operate
around a curve is based on the degree of track curvature, actual
elevation, and amount of unbalanced elevation, where the actual
elevation and curvature are derived by a moving average technique. This
approach, as codified in this section, is as valid in the high-speed
regime as it is in the lower-speed track classes, and Sec. 213.57 is
the counterpart to this section for track Classes 1 through 5. FRA is
proposing to revise this section, in particular to modify and clarify
the qualification requirements and approval process for vehicles
intended to operate at more than 3 inches of cant deficiency.
Paragraph (a) currently provides that the maximum crosslevel on the
outside rail of a curve may not be more than 7 inches. This requirement
would be restated to provide that the maximum elevation of the outside
rail of a curve may not be more than 7 inches. Crosslevel is a function
of elevation differences between two rails, and is the focus of other
provisions of this proposal, specifically Sec. 213.331, Track surface.
The proposed clarification here is intended to limit the elevation of a
single rail.
FRA notes that the Task Force recommended moving to Sec. 213.331
the second requirement of paragraph (a), which provides that ``[t]he
outside rail of a curve may not be more than \1/2\ inch lower than the
inside rail.'' Instead, FRA has decided that this requirement should be
re-written more clearly to restrict configuring track so that the
outside rail of a curve is designed to be lower than the inside rail,
while allowing for a deviation of up to one-half of an inch as provided
in Sec. 213.331, which now includes a proposal for a limit for reverse
crosslevel deviation. This requirement in paragraph (a) is intended to
restrict configuring track so that the outside rail of a curve is
designed to be lower than the inside rail; the limits at issue in Sec.
213.331 govern local deviations from uniform elevation--from the
designed elevation--that occur as a result of changes in conditions.
Rather than conflict, these provisions complement each other,
addressing both the designed layout of a curve and deviations from that
layout that result from actual use and wear.
Paragraph (b) has been added to address potential vehicle rollover
and passenger safety issues should a vehicle be stopped or traveling at
very low speed on superelevated curves. For this cant-excess condition
the rule would require that all vehicles requiring qualification under
Sec. 213.345 must demonstrate that when stopped on a curve having a
maximum uniform elevation of 7 inches, no wheel unloads to a value less
than 50 percent of its static weight on level track. This proposed
requirement would include an allowance for side-wind loading on the

[[Page 25944]]

vehicle to prevent complete unloading of the wheels on the high
(elevated) rail and incipient rollover.
Paragraph (c) would continue to specify the Vmax
equation that sets the maximum allowable curving speed based on the
qualified cant deficiency, Eu, for a vehicle type. New
footnote 7 is proposed to be added to allow the vehicle to operate at
the qualified cant deficiency for which it is approved, Eu,
plus one-half of an inch, if actual elevation of the outside rail,
Ea, and degree of track curvature, D, change as a result of
track degradation. This one-half-inch margin would provide a tolerance
to account for the effects of local crosslevel or curvature conditions
on Vmax that may result in the operating cant deficiency
exceeding that approved for the equipment. Without this tolerance,
these conditions could generate a limiting speed exception and some
railroads have adopted the approach of reducing the operating cant
deficiency of the vehicle in order to avoid these exceptions.
Existing footnote 4 would be redesignated as footnote 6, and a
statement within the existing footnote would be removed regarding the
application of the Vmax equation to the spirals on both ends
of the curve if Eu exceeds 4 inches. The Vmax
equation is intended to be applied in the body of the curve where the
cant deficiency will be the greatest and the actual elevation and
degree of curvature are determined according to the moving average
techniques defined in the footnotes. Within spirals, where the degree
of curvature and elevation are changing continuously, local deviations
from uniform elevation and degree of curvature are governed by the
limits in Sec. 213.327 and Sec. 213.331.
Existing footnote 5 would be redesignated as footnote 8 without
substantive change.
Paragraph (d) would be revised to provide that all vehicle types
are considered qualified for up to 3 inches of cant deficiency, as
allowed by the current rule.
Paragraph (e) currently specifies two static lean test requirements
for vehicle qualification for more than 3 inches of cant deficiency.
When a vehicle is standing on superelevation equal to the proposed cant
deficiency, the first requirement limits the vertical wheel load
remaining on the raised wheels to no less than 60% of their static
level values and the roll of a passenger carbody to 5.7 degrees with
respect to the horizontal. The second, existing requirement addresses
potential roll-over and passenger safety issues should a vehicle be
stopped or traveling at very low speed on superelevated curves, by
limiting the vertical wheel load remaining on the raised wheels to no
less than 60% of their static level values and the roll of a passenger
carbody to 8.6 degrees with respect to the horizontal. The latter
requirement is intended to be addressed in paragraph (b), as discussed
above, for all vehicles requiring qualification under Sec. 213.345.
The proposed requirements in paragraph (e) could be met by either
static or dynamic testing and are related to the proposed changes to
the requirements in Sec. 213.57. As proposed to be revised, the static
lean test would limit the vertical wheel load remaining on the raised
wheels to no less than 60% of their static level values and the roll of
a passenger carbody to 8.6 degrees with respect to the horizontal, when
the vehicle is standing on track with superelevation equal to the
intended cant deficiency. The dynamic test would limit the steady-state
vertical wheel load remaining on the low rail wheels to no less than
60% of their static level values and the lateral acceleration in a
passenger car to 0.15g steady-state, when the vehicle operates through
a curve at the intended cant deficiency. This 0.15g steady-state
lateral acceleration limit in the dynamic test would provide
consistency with the 8.6-degree roll limit in the static lean test, in
that it corresponds to the lateral acceleration a passenger would
experience in a standing (stationary) vehicle whose carbody is at a
roll angle of 8.6 degrees with respect to the horizontal. The 5.7-
degree roll limit, which limits steady-state, carbody lateral
acceleration to 0.1g, would be eliminated from the existing rule.
The discussion of proposed Sec. 213.57(e) should be read in
connection with the requirements proposed in this paragraph. FRA refers
commenters to that discussion and is generally not repeating it here.
As noted, the less stringent steady-state, carbody lateral acceleration
limit and carbody roll angle limit proposed in this rule would reduce
the need to equip vehicles with tilt systems at higher cant
deficiencies--and seemingly the costs associated with such features, as
well. Moreover, by facilitating higher cant deficiency operations,
savings could also result from shortened trip times. These savings
could be particularly beneficial to passenger operations in emerging
high-speed rail corridors, enabling faster operations through curves.
Of course, any such savings should not come at the expense of
safety, and FRA is proposing additional track geometry requirements for
operations above 5 inches of cant deficiency, whether or not the
vehicles are equipped with tilt systems. These additional track
geometry requirements were developed to control for undesirable vehicle
response to track conditions that could pose derailment concerns. They
may also help to control in some way for transient, carbody
acceleration events that could pose ride safety concerns for passengers
subjected to higher steady-state, carbody lateral acceleration levels,
but they were not specifically developed to address such concerns and
their effect has not been modeled. These additional track geometry
requirements are being proposed to apply only to operations above 5
inches of cant deficiency, where steady-state, carbody lateral
acceleration would approach 0.15g for typical vehicle designs. FRA does
note that higher cant deficiencies are necessary to support high-speed
operations on curved track, and, as a result, the additional track
geometry requirements proposed in the NPRM for such high cant
deficiency operations would likely be implicated.
FRA is not aware of any general passenger safety issue involving
passengers losing their balance and falling due to excessive steady-
state, carbody lateral accelerations in current operations. Yet, as
noted in the discussion of Sec. 213.57(e), FRA is concerned in
particular about the effect transient, carbody lateral acceleration
events that pose no derailment safety concerns may nonetheless have on
passenger ride safety when combined with increased steady-state,
carbody lateral acceleration forces. Consequently, to fully inform
FRA's decisions in preparing the final rule arising from this NPRM, FRA
is specifically inviting public comment on the proposal to set the
steady-state, carbody lateral acceleration limit at 0.15g. FRA requests
specific comment on whether the proposed rule appropriately provides
for passenger ride safety, and if not, requests that the commenters
state what additional requirement(s) should be imposed, if any.
The proposed changes also separate and clarify the submittal
requirements to FRA to obtain approval for the qualifying cant
deficiency of a vehicle type (paragraph (f)) and to notify FRA prior to
the implementation of the approved higher curving speeds (paragraph
(g)). Additional clarification has been proposed regarding the
submission of suspension maintenance information. This proposed
requirement regarding the submission of suspension maintenance
information would apply to vehicle types not subject to part 238

[[Page 25945]]

or part 229 of this chapter, and only to safety-critical components.
Paragraph (g) would also make clear that in approving the request made
pursuant to paragraph (f), FRA may impose conditions necessary for
safely operating at the higher curving speeds.
FRA notes that existing footnote 6 would be redesignated as
footnote 9 and modified in conformance with the proposed changes. The
existing footnote offers an example test procedure that provides
measurements for up to 6 inches of cant deficiency and 7 inches of cant
excess. This footnote would be modified for the general condition of
``the proposed cant deficiency'' rather than a specific example, and
the cant excess requirement would be addressed through paragraph (b).
FRA also notes that the statement in the current footnote that the
``test procedure may be conducted in a test facility'' would be
removed. Testing may of course be conducted in a test facility but it
is not mandated, and is not necessary to continue to reference in the
footnote.
The requirements of existing paragraph (f) would be moved to
paragraph (h) and revised, principally by substituting ``same vehicle
type'' for ``same class of equipment'' to be consistent with the
proposed use of ``vehicle type'' in the regulation.
Paragraph (i) is proposed to be added to clarify that vehicle types
that have been permitted by FRA to operate at a cant deficiency,
Eu, greater than 3 inches prior to [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], would be considered qualified
under this section to operate at any such permitted cant deficiency
over the previously operated track segments(s). Before the vehicle type
could operate over another track segment at such cant deficiency, the
vehicle type would have to be qualified as provided in this section.
Paragraph (j) would be a new paragraph for defining ``vehicle'' and
``vehicle type,'' as used in this section and in Sec. Sec. 213.333 and
213.345. These terms would have the same meaning as in proposed Sec.
213.57(k) and are being defined here so that they would apply to the
appropriate sections of subpart G.
Section 213.331 Track Surface
This section is the counterpart to Sec. 213.63 and is intended for
higher-speed track classes.
Three changes have been proposed to the existing single-deviation,
track surface limits in paragraph (a). Specifically, the 124-foot MCO
limit for Class 9 track would be reduced to 1 inch. This proposed
change is based on a review of simulation results of Acela equipment.
Further, the limit for the difference in crosslevel between any two
points less than 62 feet apart would be reduced to 1\1/4\ inch for
Class 8 track, and 1 inch for Class 9 track. These proposed changes are
intended to provide consistent safety limits based on the results of
simulation studies conducted for short warp conditions.
In addition, three new limits are proposed to be added to the
existing single-deviation, track surface limits in paragraph (a). Two
of these limits (deviation from zero crosslevel on tangent track, and
reverse elevation for curved track), although not explicitly stated in
the current table, are applicable to track Classes 6 through 9 because
these higher track classes must meet at least the minimum geometry
requirements for track Classes 1 through 5. These two limits would be
expressly added in order to make this section comprehensive.
Specifically, the existing 1-inch limit for deviation from zero
crosslevel on tangent Class 5 track, as specified in Sec. 213.63,
would be added for track Classes 6 through 9. Second, the \1/2\-inch
reverse elevation limit for curved track, as currently specified in
Sec. 213.329(a), would be moved to this section. The third limit, a
new limit for the difference in crosslevel between any two points less
than 10 feet apart (short warp), would be added to paragraph (a). It
should be noted that the Task Force proposed that the existing 1-inch
runoff limit for Class 5 track, as specified in Sec. 213.63, be added
for higher track classes. However, FRA believes that appropriate
surface requirements have already been established in Sec. 213.331
that address this issue and thus has not included this limit in the
proposed rule.
FRA is proposing to add tighter geometry limits for operations
above 5 inches of cant deficiency in revised paragraph (b). These would
include 124-foot MCO limits and a new limit for the difference in
crosslevel between any two points less than 10-feet apart (short warp).
The text of existing paragraph (b) would be moved to new paragraph (c).
As discussed in Section III.B. of the preamble, above, simulation
studies have been performed to determine the safe amplitudes of surface
track geometry variations. Results show that the proposed track
geometry limits proposed in revised paragraph (b) are necessary in
order to provide an equivalent margin of safety for operations at
higher cant deficiency.
Section 213.332 Combined Alinement and Surface Deviations
FRA is proposing to add a new section containing limits addressing
combined alinement and surface deviations that would apply only to
high-speed operations above 5 inches of cant deficiency, as well as any
operation at Class 9 speeds. An equation-based safety limit would be
established for alinement and surface deviations occurring in
combination within a single chord length of each other. The limits in
this section would be used only with a TGMS. They would be applied on
the outside rail in curves, and for Class 9 track operations would be
applied on the outside rail in curves as well as to any of the two
rails of a tangent section.
See the discussion of Sec. 213.65, which is the companion
provision to this section for lower-speed classes of track.
Section 213.333 Automated Vehicle Inspection Systems
FRA is proposing many significant changes to this section, which
contains requirements for automated measurement systems--namely, track
geometry measurement systems, gage restraint measurement systems, and
the systems necessary to monitor vehicle/track interaction
(acceleration and wheel/rail forces).
In paragraph (a), FRA is proposing to add TGMS inspection
requirements for low-speed, high cant deficiency operations, which
would apply as required by Sec. 213.57(i). As previously noted, FRA
believes that these requirements are appropriate and necessary for
operations at high cant deficiency on lower-speed track classes. FRA is
also proposing to add TGMS inspection requirements for Class 6 track.
For Class 7 track, FRA is proposing to reduce slightly the minimum
period between required TGMS inspections. The current Class 7 track
inspection frequency of twice within 120 calendar days with not less
than 30 days between inspections would be reduced to not less than 25
days between inspections so that more frequent inspections could be
performed, for example, monthly. This would provide the railroad
additional flexibility for operational reasons to comply in the event
of incomplete inspections. The proposed frequency would require that
the time interval between any two successive inspections be not less
than 25 calendar days and not more than 95 calendar days. The current
Class 8 and 9 track TGMS inspection frequency of twice within 60
calendar days with not less than 15 days between inspections would be
reduced to not less than 12 days between inspections so that more
frequent inspections could be performed, for example, bi-weekly. This
would also provide the railroad additional

[[Page 25946]]

flexibility for operational reasons to comply in the event of
incomplete inspections. The proposed frequency would require that the
time interval between any two successive inspections be not less than
12 calendar days and not more than 48 calendar days.
In paragraph (b), FRA is proposing to amend the TGMS sampling
interval to not exceed 1 foot. This requirement is in line with current
practices to provide sufficient data to identify track geometry
perturbations.
In paragraph (c), FRA is proposing to specify the application of
the added TGMS inspection requirements for high cant deficiency
operations on lower-speed track classes. These requirements in subpart
G would apply to vehicle types intended to operate at any curving speed
producing more than 5 inches of cant deficiency, as provided in Sec.
213.57(i). Existing requirements for track Classes 6 through 9 would be
amended to reference Sec. 213.332, the newly proposed section for
combined alinement and surface defects.
Paragraphs (d) through (g) would remain unchanged.
As noted in the discussion of Sec. 213.110, FRA is also proposing
changes to the GRMS testing requirements in paragraphs (h) and (i), to
reflect recommendations made in the FRA report titled ``Development of
Gage Widening Projection Parameter for the Deployable Gage Restraint
Measurement System,'' see above. These changes include replacing the
GWR equation (and all references to GWR) with a GWP equation, which
would compensate for the weight of the testing vehicle. This correction
would result in more uniform strength measurements across the variety
of testing vehicles that are in operation. FRA is also proposing that
the Class 8 and 9 track inspection frequency of once per year with not
less than 180 days between inspections be rewritten to require at least
one inspection per calendar year with not less than 170 days between
inspections, to allow some additional flexibility in scheduling
inspections. The proposed frequency would require that the time
interval between any two successive inspections would not be less than
170 days and not more than 730 days.
FRA is proposing to revise the wording and requirements in
paragraphs (j) and (k), which relate to carbody and truck accelerometer
monitoring. Proposed changes include adding the option to use a
portable device when performing the acceleration monitoring and
clarifying where the carbody and truck accelerometers would be located.
Monitoring requirements would be added for operations above 5 inches of
cant deficiency on track Classes 1 through 6, in order to provide for
the safety of these operations. These proposed requirements for
monitoring high cant deficiency operations would apply to vehicle types
qualified to operate at any curving speed producing more than 5 inches
of cant deficiency, as provided in Sec. Sec. 213.57(i) and Sec.
213.345(a), as appropriate. The monitoring requirements and
qualification requirements in the rule for carbody and truck
accelerations would thereby continue to work together, as the current
monitoring requirements for track Classes 7 through 9 are likewise
intended to apply to vehicles that have been qualified to operate under
Sec. 213.345.
As discussed in Section III.A. of the preamble, FRA is proposing to
revise the requirement in existing paragraph (j) to monitor carbody and
truck accelerations each day on at least one vehicle in one train
operating at track Class 8 and 9 speeds. Based on data collected to
date and to reduce unnecessary burden on the track owner or railroad
operating the vehicle type, this monitoring frequency would be reduced
from once per day to at least four times per week for carbody
accelerations, and twice within 60 days for truck accelerations. In
addition, a clause would be added to revised paragraph (k) to allow the
track owner or operating railroad to petition FRA, after a specified
amount of time or mileage, to eliminate the periodic vehicle track
interaction truck accelerometer monitoring requirement for Class 8 and
9 track. Nonetheless, FRA notes that in addition to these requirements,
pursuant to Sec. 238.427, truck acceleration is continuously monitored
on each Tier II vehicle in order to determine if hunting oscillations
of the vehicle are occurring during revenue operation.
FRA is proposing to modify the current requirement in paragraph (l)
for conducting instrumented wheelset (IWS) testing on Class 8 and 9
track so that IWS testing would no longer be a general requirement
applicable for all Class 8 and 9 track. Instead, the specific necessity
to perform this testing would be determined by FRA on a case-by-case
basis, after performing a review of a report annually submitted to it
detailing the accelerometer monitoring data collected in accordance
with paragraphs (j) and (k) of this section. A thorough review of the
Acela trainset IWS data, as well as consideration of the economics
associated with the testing, revealed that there was significant cost
and little apparent safety benefit to justify IWS testing as a general
requirement on an annual basis. FRA believes that the testing and
monitoring requirements in this section, as a whole, that would be
generally required, together with FRA's oversight and ability to impose
IWS testing requirements as needed, would be sufficient to maintain
safety at a lower cost.
FRA is proposing to make conforming changes to paragraph (m), which
currently requires that the track owner maintain a copy of the most
recent exception printouts for the inspections required under current
paragraphs (k) and (l) of this section. Because of the proposed
revisions to this section, paragraph (m) would reference the
inspections required under paragraphs (j) and (k) of this section, and
paragraph (l), as appropriate, should IWS testing be required. FRA
notes that the Task Force did not specifically propose to retain
paragraph (m), seemingly because of the proposed addition in paragraph
(l) of an annual requirement to provide an analysis of the monitoring
data gathered for operations on track Classes 8 and 9. However, while
this proposed reporting requirement in paragraph (l) would be new, it
is intended to support amending the IWS testing requirements so that
IWS testing would no longer be generally required for Class 8 and 9
operations, as discussed above. Moreover, the reporting requirement is
only an annual one and, by virtue of applying only to Class 8 and 9
operations, would not address lower-speed operations. In addition, the
Task Force did not specifically propose to amend Sec. 213.369(f),
which provides that each vehicle/track interaction safety record
required under Sec. Sec. 213.333(g) and (m) be made available for
inspection and copying by FRA at a specified location. In fact, the
Task Force did recommend referencing Sec. 213.369(f) for lower-speed,
high cant deficiency operations, as proposed in Sec. 213.57(i).
Overall, FRA believes that it was an oversight for the Task Force not
to propose retaining paragraph (m) and that it is both good practice
and essential for FRA oversight to continue keeping the most recent
records of exceptions as provided in paragraph (m). FRA is therefore
proposing to retain paragraph (m), as modified.
Substantial changes are proposed to be made to the content of the
Vehicle/Track Interaction Safety Limits Table (VTI Table). In general,
the ``Requirements'' for most of the limits are proposed to be
clarified or updated. Specifically, the Single Wheel Vertical Load
Ratio limit would be tightened from 0.10 to 0.15 to ensure an adequate
safety margin for wheel unloading.

[[Page 25947]]

The Net Axle Lateral L/V Ratio limit would be modified from 0.5, to
0.4 + 5.0/Va, so as to take into account the effect of axle
load and would more appropriately reflect the cumulative, detrimental
effect of track panel shift from heavier vehicles. This net axle
lateral load limit is intended to control excessive lateral track shift
and is sensitive to a number of track parameters. The well-established,
European Prud'homme limit is a function of the axle load and this
sensitivity was desired to differentiate between coach car and heavier
locomotive loads. The Volpe Center's Treda (Track REsidual Deflection
Analysis) simulation work, testing at TTCI, and comparison to the
Prud'homme limit all indicated the dependence on axle load and the
importance of initial small lateral deflections. Representatives of the
Task Force independently reviewed the Volpe Center analysis and
concurred with the proposed change. The limiting condition would allow
for a small initial deformation and assumes a stable configuration with
the accumulation of additional traffic.
Due to variations in vehicle design requirements and passenger ride
safety, the carbody acceleration limits are proposed to be divided into
separate limits for ``Passenger Cars'' and those for ``Other Vehicles''
(such as conventional locomotives). In addition, the carbody transient
acceleration limits are proposed to be modified from 0.5g lateral and
0.6g vertical, to 0.65g for passenger cars and 0.75g for other vehicles
in the lateral direction and 1.0g for both passenger cars and other
vehicles in the vertical direction. These changes were proposed after
considerable research into the performance of existing vehicles during
qualification testing and revenue operations. Overall, it was found
that the existing carbody transient acceleration limits need not be as
stringent to protect against events leading to vehicle or passenger
safety issues.
Based on the small energy content associated with high-frequency
acceleration events of the carbody, FRA is proposing to add text to
exclude any transient acceleration peaks lasting less than 50
milliseconds. Other changes proposed include the addition of new limits
for sustained carbody lateral and vertical oscillatory accelerations,
as well as the addition of minimum requirements for sampling and
filtering of the acceleration data. The sustained carbody oscillatory
acceleration limits have been proposed in response to a review of data
that was obtained during qualification testing for the MARC-III multi-
level passenger car, as discussed in Section III.A. of the preamble.
The sustained carbody oscillatory acceleration limits are proposed to
be 0.10g RMSt for passenger cars and 0.12g RMSt for other vehicles in
the lateral direction, and 0.25g RMSt for both passenger cars and other
vehicles in the vertical direction. These new limits would require that
the RMSt (root mean squared with linear trend removed) value be used in
order to attenuate the effects of the linear variation in oscillatory
accelerations resulting from negotiation of track segments with changes
in curvature or grade by design, such as spirals. Root mean squared
values would be determined over a sliding 4-second window with linear
trend removed and be sustained for more than 4 seconds. Acceleration
measurements would be processed through a low pass filter with a
minimum cut-off frequency of 10 Hz and the sample rate for oscillatory
acceleration data would be at least 100 samples per second.
The last set of proposed changes to the VTI Table concern the truck
lateral acceleration limit used for the detection of truck hunting.
This limit would be tightened from 0.4g to 0.3g and would specify that
the value must exceed that limit for more than 2 seconds. Analyses
conducted by FRA have shown that this would help to better identify the
occurrences of excessive truck hunting, while excluding high-frequency,
low-amplitude oscillations that would not require immediate attention.
In addition, the revised limit would require that the RMSt
value be used rather than the RMSm (root mean squared with
mean removed) value. FRA believes this proposed change would improve
the process for analyzing data while the vehicle is negotiating spiral
track segments.
Section 213.345 Vehicle/Track System Qualification
As part of the 1998 Track Safety Standards final rule, all rolling
stock (both passenger and freight) was required to be qualified for
operation for its intended track class. However, this section
``grandfathered'' equipment that had already operated in specified
track classes. Rolling stock operating in Class 6 track within one year
prior to the promulgation of the 1998 final rule was considered
qualified. Further, vehicles operating at Class 7 track speeds under
conditional waivers prior to the promulgation of the 1998 rule were
qualified for Class 7 track, including equipment that was then-
operating on the Northeast Corridor at Class 7 track speeds. For
equipment not ``grandfathered,'' qualification testing was intended to
ensure that the equipment not exceed the VTI Table limits specified in
Sec. 213.333 at any speed less than 10 m.p.h. above the proposed
maximum operating speed.
FRA is proposing a number of significant changes to this section,
whose heading would be modified from ``Vehicle qualification testing''
to ``Vehicle/track system qualification'' to more appropriately reflect
the interaction of the vehicle and the track over which it operates as
a system. These changes include modifying and clarifying this section's
substantive requirements, reorganizing the structure and layout of the
rule text, and revising the qualification procedures. Among the changes
proposed, lower-speed, high cant deficiency operations would be subject
to this section in accordance with Sec. 213.57(i).
Paragraph (a), as proposed to be revised, would require all vehicle
types intended to operate at Class 6 speeds or above or at any curving
speed producing more than 5 inches of cant deficiency to be qualified
for operation for their intended track classes in accordance with this
subpart. For qualification purposes, the current over-speed testing
requirement would be reduced from 10 m.p.h. to 5 m.p.h. above the
maximum proposed operating speed. FRA agrees with the Task Force's view
that the existing 10 m.p.h. over-speed testing requirement, which was
established as part of the 1998 final rule, is overly conservative
based on improved speed control and display technology deployed in
current operations.
Paragraph (b) would address qualification of existing vehicle types
and make clear that grandfathered equipment would be considered
qualified to operate over previously-operated track segment(s) only.
Grandfathered equipment would not be qualified to operate over new
routes (even at the same track speeds) without meeting the requirements
of this section.
Paragraph (c) would contain the requirements for new vehicle
qualification. The additional (and tighter) carbody acceleration limits
in current paragraph (b) for new vehicle qualification are proposed to
be removed. In their place, this section would refer to Sec. 213.333
for the applicable VTI limits for accelerations and wheel/rail forces.
This change was proposed after considerable research into the
performance of existing vehicles during qualification testing and
revenue operations. Overall, it was found that the acceleration limits
in

[[Page 25948]]

current paragraph (b) need not be as stringent to protect against
events leading to vehicle or passenger safety issues.
For new vehicles intending to operate at track Class 6 speeds or
above, or at any curving speed producing more than 5 inches of cant
deficiency, the qualification requirements would include, as
appropriate, a combination of computer simulations, carbody
acceleration testing, truck acceleration testing, and wheel/rail force
measurements. Computer simulations would be required for all operations
at track Class 6 through Class 9 speeds or for any operations above 6
inches of cant deficiency. These simulations would be conducted on both
an analytically defined track segment representative of minimally
compliant track conditions (MCAT) for the respective track classes as
specified in appendix D to this part and on a track segment
representative of the full route on which the vehicle type is intended
to operate. (See the discussion of MCAT in appendix D, below.) Carbody
acceleration testing would be required for all operations at track
Class 6 speeds or above, or for any operations above 5 inches of cant
deficiency. Truck acceleration testing would be required for all
operations at track Class 6 speeds or above. Wheel/rail force
measurements, through the use of instrumented wheelsets (or equivalent
devices), would be required for all operations at track Class 7 speeds
or above, or for any operations above 6 inches of cant deficiency.
In paragraph (d), FRA is proposing to add a qualification
requirement for previously qualified vehicles intended to operate on
new track segments. This requirement would ensure that when qualified
vehicles currently in operation are intended to operate on a new route,
the new vehicle/track system is adequately examined for deficiencies
prior to revenue service operation. For previously qualified vehicles
intending to operate on new routes at track Class 6 through Class 9
speeds and at cant deficiencies greater than 4 inches, or at any
curving speed producing more than 5 inches of cant deficiency, the
qualification requirements would also include, as appropriate, a
combination of computer simulations, carbody acceleration testing,
truck acceleration testing, and wheel/rail force measurements.
Specifically, for all operations at track Class 7 speeds or above, or
for any operations above 6 inches of cant deficiency, either computer
simulations or measurement of wheel/rail forces would be required. For
track Classes 6 through 9, carbody acceleration testing would be
required for all operations above 4 inches of cant deficiency. Carbody
acceleration testing would also be required for any operations above 5
inches of cant deficiency. For all operations at track Class 7 through
Class 9 speeds, truck acceleration testing would be required.
Paragraph (e) would clarify the current requirements in existing
paragraph (c) for the content of the qualification test plan and would
add a requirement for the plan to be submitted to FRA at least 60 days
prior to conducting the testing.
Paragraph (f) would contain the requirements for conducting
qualification testing, expanding on the current requirements in this
section. For instance, this paragraph would expressly require that a
TGMS vehicle be operated over the intended test route within 30 days
prior to the start of the testing. This paragraph would also make clear
that any exceptions to the safety limits that occur on track or at
speeds that are not part of the test do not need to be reported. For
example, any exception to the safety limits that would occur at speeds
below track Class 6 speeds when the cant deficiency is at or below 5
inches would not need to be reported.
Paragraph (g) contains the requirements for reporting to FRA the
results of the qualification program. Pursuant to paragraph (h), FRA
would approve a maximum train speed and value of cant deficiency for
revenue service, based on the test results and submissions. Paragraph
(h) would also make clear that FRA may impose conditions necessary for
safely operating at the maximum train speed and value of cant
deficiency approved for revenue service.
Section 213.355 Frog Guard Rails and Guard Faces; Gage
This section currently sets limits for guard check and guard face
gage for track Classes 6 through 9. FRA is proposing to make minor
changes to the way in which the requirements of this section are
formatted. However, no substantive change is intended.

Appendix A to Part 213--Maximum Allowable Curving Speeds

This appendix currently contains two charts showing maximum
allowable operating speeds in curves, by degree of curvature and inches
of unbalance (cant deficiency). Table 1 applies to curves with 3 inches
of unbalance; Table 2 to curves with 4 inches of unbalance. Because FRA
is proposing to increase allowable cant deficiencies, this appendix
would be expanded to include two additional tables, Tables 3 and 4,
which would apply, respectively, to curves with 5 and 6 inches of
unbalance. While this rule does provide for operations at higher levels
of unbalance, for convenience FRA is including those additional tables
that it believes would be helpful for more common use.

Appendix B to Part 213--Schedule of Civil Penalties

Appendix B to part 213 contains a schedule of civil penalties for
use in connection with this part. FRA intends to revise the schedule of
civil penalties in issuing the final rule to reflect revisions made to
part 213. Because such penalty schedules are statements of agency
policy, notice and comment are not required prior to their issuance.
See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Nevertheless, commenters are invited to
submit suggestions to FRA describing the types of actions or omissions
for each proposed regulatory section, either added or revised, that
would subject a person to the assessment of a civil penalty. Commenters
are also invited to recommend what penalties may be appropriate, based
upon the relative seriousness of each type of violation.

Appendix D to Part 213--Minimally Compliant Analytical Track (MCAT)
Simulations Used for Qualifying Vehicles To Operate at High Speeds and
at High Cant Deficiencies

The Track Safety Standards require that vehicles demonstrate safe
operation for various track conditions. Computational models have
become practical and reliable tools for understanding the dynamic
interaction of vehicles and track, as a result of advancements made
over the last few decades. Consequently, portions of the qualification
requirements in subpart G could effectively be met by simulating
vehicle testing using a suitably-validated vehicle model instead of
testing an actual vehicle over a representative track segment. Such
models are capable of assessing the response of vehicle designs to a
wide range of track conditions corresponding to the limiting conditions
allowed for each class of track.
Appendix D would be a new appendix containing requirements for the
use of computer simulations to comply with the vehicle/track system
qualification testing requirements specified in subpart G of this part.
These simulations would be performed using a track model containing
defined geometry perturbations at the limits that are permitted for a
class of track and level of cant deficiency. This track

[[Page 25949]]

model is referred to as MCAT. These simulations would be used to
identify vehicle dynamic performance issues prior to service, and
demonstrate that a vehicle type is suitable for operation on the track
over which it would operate.
In order to validate a computer model using MCAT, the predicted
results must be compared to actual data from on-track, instrumented
vehicle performance testing using accelerometers, or other
instrumentation, or both. Validation must also demonstrate that the
model is sufficiently robust to capture fundamental responses observed
during field testing. Disagreements between predictions and test data
may be indicative of inaccurate vehicle parameters, such as stiffness
and damping, or track input. Once validated, the computer model can be
used for assessment of a range of operating conditions or even to
examine modifications to current designs.
FRA notes that the length of each MCAT segment in this appendix is
the same segment length that was used in the modeling of several
representative high-speed vehicles. See the discussion of computer
modeling in section III.B. of this NPRM, above, for additional
background.

Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part 238, Passenger Equipment Safety
Standards

Subpart C--Specific Requirements for Tier I Passenger Equipment
Section 238.227 Suspension System
FRA is proposing to modify this section to conform with the changes
being proposed to part 213 of this chapter and also to provide cross-
references to relevant sections of part 213. Overall, these proposed
revisions would help to reconcile the requirements of the 1998 Track
Safety Standards final rule and the 1999 Passenger Equipment Safety
Standards final rule for Tier I passenger equipment.
For consistency throughout this part and part 213 of this chapter,
the term ``hunting oscillations'' in paragraph (a) would be replaced
with the term ``truck hunting,'' which would have the same meaning as
that for ``truck hunting'' in 49 CFR 213.333. Truck hunting would be
defined in Sec. 213.333 as ``a sustained cyclic oscillation of the
truck evidenced by lateral accelerations exceeding 0.3g root mean
squared for more than 2 seconds.'' The Task Force believed that the
current term ``hunting oscillations,'' defined as ``lateral
oscillations of trucks that could lead to a dangerous instability,''
has a less definite meaning and could be applied unevenly as a result.
The Task Force therefore preferred using the definition of ``truck
hunting'' with its more specific criteria, and FRA agrees that more
specific criteria would provide more certainty. Unlike Sec. 213.333,
however, paragraph (a) of this section would apply to all Tier I
passenger equipment, regardless of track class or level of cant
deficiency.
The existing pre-revenue service qualification requirements in
paragraph (b) are proposed to be revised consistent with the proposed
revisions to part 213 of this chapter. Paragraph (b) would also be
broadened to address revenue service operation requirements. Paragraph
(b), as proposed to be revised, would in effect generally summarize the
qualification and revenue service operation requirements of part 213
for Tier I passenger equipment. This proposed paragraph is not intended
to impose any requirement itself not otherwise contained in part 213.
Subpart E--Specific Requirements for Tier II Passenger Equipment
Section 238.427 Suspension System
Similar to the revisions proposed for Sec. 238.227, FRA is
proposing to modify this section to conform to the changes being
proposed in part 213 of this chapter. Overall, these proposed revisions
would help to reconcile the requirements of the 1998 Track Safety
Standards final rule and the 1999 Passenger Equipment Safety Standards
final rule.
While paragraph (a)(1) would remain unchanged, paragraph (a)(2)
would be revised in an effort to summarize the qualification and
revenue service operation requirements of part 213 for Tier II
passenger equipment. The reference to the suspension system safety
standards in appendix C would be removed, as discussed below. The
existing carbody acceleration requirements in paragraph (b) would be
revised consistent with the proposed changes to part 213. The current
steady-state lateral carbody acceleration limits of 0.1g for pre-
revenue service qualification and 0.12g for service operation are
proposed to be revised to a single limit of 0.15g, to conform to the
proposed requirements in Sec. 213.329. Please see the discussion of
Sec. 213.329. The remaining carbody acceleration requirements would be
consolidated by referencing the requirements of Sec. 213.333.
Similar to the proposed revision of Sec. 238.227, the term ``truck
hunting'' in paragraph (c) would have the same meaning as that proposed
for ``truck hunting'' in Sec. 213.333.
The Task Force believed that the overheat sensor requirements in
existing paragraph (d) are not directly related to suspension system
safety and should be specified elsewhere. FRA agrees that the
requirements of this paragraph can be stated separately for clarity,
and is therefore proposing to move them to a new section, Sec.
238.428.
Section 238.428 Overheat Sensors
FRA is proposing to add a new section containing the requirements
currently found in Sec. 238.427(d). No change to the current rule text
is proposed, however. FRA agreed with the Task Force that the
requirements for overheat sensors would be more appropriately contained
in their own section rather than with the requirements for suspension
systems in Sec. 238.427.

Appendix A to Part 238--Schedule of Civil Penalties

Appendix A to part 238 contains a schedule of civil penalties for
use in connection with this part. FRA intends to revise the schedule of
civil penalties in issuing the final rule to reflect revisions made to
part 238. Because such penalty schedules are statements of agency
policy, notice and comment are not required prior to their issuance.
See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Nevertheless, commenters are invited to
submit suggestions to FRA describing the types of actions or omissions
for each proposed regulatory section that would subject a person to the
assessment of a civil penalty. Commenters are also invited to recommend
what penalties may be appropriate, based upon the relative seriousness
of each type of violation.

Appendix C to Part 238--Suspension System Safety Performance Standards

FRA is proposing to remove and reserve appendix C, which currently
includes the minimum suspension system safety performance standards for
Tier II passenger equipment. FRA believes that removing appendix C is
appropriate in light of the proposal to amend Sec. 238.427(a)(2).
Currently, Sec. 238.427(a)(2) requires that Tier II passenger
equipment meet the safety performance standards for suspension systems
contained in appendix C, or alternative standards providing at least
equivalent safety if approved by FRA under Sec. 238.21. As discussed
above, FRA is proposing to revise Sec. 238.427(a)(2) to require
compliance with the safety standards contained in Sec. 213.333,
instead of those in this appendix C. Given the proposal to cross-
reference the requirements in Sec. 213.333,

[[Page 25950]]

which are more extensive than the ones contained in this appendix C,
appendix C would no longer be necessary and would therefore be removed
and reserved.

V. Regulatory Impact and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This proposed rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing
policies and procedures and determined to be non-significant under both
Executive Order 12866 and DOT policies and procedures. See 44 FR 11034;
February 26, 1979. FRA has analyzed the costs and benefits of this
proposed rule. FRA believes that the cost savings would offset any new
cost burden. Even if that were not the case, FRA is confident that the
benefits and the cost savings, taken together, would exceed any
additional cost burden. As noted above, the Task Force developed
proposals intended to result in improved public safety while reducing
the burden on the railroad industry where possible.
Below is an analysis of four main things that the proposed
rulemaking would accomplish:
1. The rulemaking would revise the current regulation in subpart G
of part 213, which has performance standards and specifications for
track geometry for track Classes 6 and higher, and which offers
affected railroads and car manufacturers the ability to arrive at a
mutually-beneficial set of car dynamics and track engineering
standards. In practice, the one impacted railroad, Amtrak, has asked
manufacturers to build equipment that will meet the performance
standards at the maximum deviations permitted under the geometric
standards, as opposed to geometric parameters that would permit current
high-speed passenger equipment to meet the acceleration and other
performance requirements. Manufacturers state that this has proved
unworkable because they cannot build equipment economically that can
meet the acceleration and other performance standards when the track is
at the maximum permissible deviations, using technology in production
today. Overall, FRA has reviewed the performance standards in light of
advanced simulations that were developed to support the rulemaking
effort, as discussed in Section III of the preamble, and has proposed
to refine those standards to better focus on identified safety concerns
and remove any unnecessary costs.
2. The rulemaking would add flexibility through procedures for
safely permitting high cant deficiency operations on track Classes 1
through 5, without the need for obtaining a waiver. In order to take
advantage of higher cant deficiency operations, a railroad would have
to qualify the equipment and maintain the track to more stringent
standards. Railroads would take advantage of this flexibility to the
extent that they expect the benefits from doing so would exceed the
costs.
3. The rulemaking would institute more cost-effective equipment
qualification and in-service monitoring requirements. Railroads could
discontinue annual use of instrumented wheelsets for in-service
validation, and could avoid some tests that have not provided useful
data. Further, railroads could use MCAT to extend territories in which
qualified equipment may operate.
4. The rulemaking would clarify that individuals qualified to
inspect track need only understand the parts of the regulation relevant
to the inspections they conduct and the work they perform.
Impacts
The proposed changes to geometric standards and performance
standards for high-speed operations would not impact any existing high-
speed operations, which are now limited to Amtrak on the Northeast
Corridor, but would rather promote their safe operation. If Amtrak were
to attempt to operate Acela at the current maximum allowable speeds and
cant deficiencies for which it is qualified, but were to allow track
deviations to reach current limits, the Acela trainset, because of its
dynamic characteristics, would be subject to accelerations in excess of
the limits now permitted. FRA's modeling to date has shown that Acela,
as it is currently qualified to operate, would meet the safety
standards proposed in this rulemaking. Future high-speed operations
would be made simpler, because the railroad, if it requires equipment
manufacturers to provide equipment that would meet performance
requirements on minimally compliant track, would find several suppliers
of off-the-shelf equipment, likely lowering bid prices and gaining
multiple bidders. Assuming that absent this rulemaking, railroads would
seek to have new equipment used in high-speed train operations built to
performance standards at the maximum deviations permitted under the
geometric standards, FRA estimates that future high-speed operations
would save in the neighborhood of $2,000,000 per trainset on bids
because of the simplification of the design process. FRA believes that
it is not unreasonable to assume that 40 trainsets would be affected,
based on current proposals for high-speed rail, and has distributed the
estimated procurement dates in years 6 through 10. The annual savings
would be 8*$2,000,000 (or $16,000,000) and the net discounted savings
would be $46,774,146.

Table 1--Estimated Equipment Procurement Benefit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Cumulative
Year Annual benefit Discount factor discounted discounted
benefit benefit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................... $0 0.93 $0 $0
2...................................... 0 0.87 0 0
3...................................... 0 0.82 0 0
4...................................... 0 0.76 0 0
5...................................... 0 0.71 0 0
6...................................... 16,000,000 0.67 10,661,476 10,661,476
7...................................... 16,000,000 0.62 9,963,996 20,625,471
8...................................... 16,000,000 0.58 9,312,146 29,937,617
9...................................... 16,000,000 0.54 8,702,940 38,640,557
10...................................... 16,000,000 0.51 8,133,589 46,774,146
11...................................... 0 0.48 0 46,774,146
12...................................... 0 0.44 0 46,774,146
13...................................... 0 0.41 0 46,774,146
14...................................... 0 0.39 0 46,774,146

[[Page 25951]]

15...................................... 0 0.36 0 46,774,146
16...................................... 0 0.34 0 46,774,146
17...................................... 0 0.32 0 46,774,146
18...................................... 0 0.30 0 46,774,146
19...................................... 0 0.28 0 46,774,146
20...................................... 0 0.26 0 46,774,146
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The provisions for high cant deficiency operations on all track
classes are permissive in nature and would create no additional costs.
A railroad could either adhere to these provisions in expectation that
any additional expenditure would trigger savings and result in an
overall net benefit, or simply avoid triggering the provisions. High
cant deficiency offers significant opportunities to reduce trip time,
as it would reduce the amount of time travelled at the slowest speeds.
For example, to travel a mile, a train could take 3 minutes at 20
m.p.h. or 2 minutes at 30 m.p.h. Traveling at 30 m.p.h. would reduce
trip time by a minute. By contrast, a train traveling at 120 m.p.h.
would take 5 minutes to travel 10 miles, while a train traveling at 150
mph would take 4 minutes to travel the same distance, reducing trip
time by 1 minute relative to the train traveling at 120 m.p.h. The net
time savings from traveling one mile at 30 m.p.h. instead of at 20
m.p.h. is the same as the time savings from traveling 10 miles at 150
m.p.h. instead of at 120 m.p.h. High cant deficiency can allow that
kind of time savings at lower speeds, and therefore offers a relatively
low-cost way of improving trip time. The United States is investing
more in passenger rail transportation and this would be a very good way
to make the high-speed rail system more efficient.
FRA believes that use of higher cant deficiencies will become much
more common over the next years, although, nearer-term, relatively
fewer opportunities for new operations at cant deficiencies in excess
of 5 inches would present themselves. In any event, there could be a
benefit to some operations from the potential enhanced speeds. On the
Northeast Corridor, Amtrak has placed values of $2,000,000 annually or
more for a reduction of 1 minute in total travel time on the south end
of the Northeast Corridor, and in excess of $1,000,000 for such a
reduction on the north end of the Northeast Corridor, for its high-
speed operations. (See ``Relative Impacts of On-Time Performance and
Travel Time Improvements for Amtrak's Acela Express Service in the
NEC,'' February 18, 2009, AECOM, a copy of which has been placed in the
public docket for this rulemaking.) FRA estimates that, initially,
high-speed operations on the Northeast Corridor would save 2 minutes of
travel time, which coupled with Amtrak's estimate for time savings
would translate into a value of $4,000,000 per year. Similarly, other
improvements nationwide, such as extension of higher cant deficiency
operations already in service in the Northwest, could result in
additional savings of $4,000,000 per year after the cost of improving
track geometry is considered. For purposes of this analysis, FRA
estimates that more operations would take advantage of high cant
deficiency possibilities starting in about year 6, and that the value
would be an additional $2,000,000 per year in year 6, growing by
$2,000,000 per year in years 7 through 20, eventually reaching an
annual benefit of $40,000,000 in year 20, for a total discounted
benefit of $193,714,398 over 20 years. All of these values are
speculative, and based on significant increases in rail passenger
transportation. If there is a greater increase in passenger
transportation the savings would be greater; if they are not as great,
the savings would be lower.

Table 2--Estimated High Cant Deficiency Benefit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Cumulative
Year Annual benefit Discount factor discounted discounted
benefit benefit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................... $8,000,000 0.93 $7,476,636 $7,476,636
2...................................... 8,000,000 0.87 6,987,510 14,464,145
3...................................... 8,000,000 0.82 6,530,383 20,994,528
4...................................... 8,000,000 0.76 6,103,162 27,097,690
5...................................... 8,000,000 0.71 5,703,889 32,801,579
6...................................... 10,000,000 0.67 6,663,422 39,465,002
7...................................... 12,000,000 0.62 7,472,997 46,937,999
8...................................... 14,000,000 0.58 8,148,127 55,086,126
9...................................... 16,000,000 0.54 8,702,940 63,789,066
10...................................... 18,000,000 0.51 9,150,287 72,939,353
11...................................... 20,000,000 0.48 9,501,856 82,441,209
12...................................... 22,000,000 0.44 9,768,263 92,209,472
13...................................... 24,000,000 0.41 9,959,147 102,168,619
14...................................... 26,000,000 0.39 10,083,248 112,251,867
15...................................... 28,000,000 0.36 10,148,489 122,400,356
16...................................... 30,000,000 0.34 10,162,038 132,562,394
17...................................... 32,000,000 0.32 10,130,380 142,692,774
18...................................... 34,000,000 0.30 10,059,373 152,752,147
19...................................... 36,000,000 0.28 9,954,300 162,706,447
20...................................... 38,000,000 0.26 9,819,922 172,526,370
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 25952]]

Improvements in the use of monitoring equipment and streamlined
qualification procedures have the potential to reduce costs, without
any offsetting increases. The reduced need for instrumented wheelsets,
instrumented cars, and related tests would save roughly $2,000,000 per
year on current high-speed operations, and have the potential for
similar savings on planned high-speed operations. FRA estimates that
two such high-speed operations would be in place starting in year 6,
each saving $2,000,000 per year. Further, FRA believes that using MCAT
to extend the range of qualified equipment would save an additional
$1,500,000 per year in the first five years, and that the savings would
grow by $500,000 per year after year 5, as rail passenger
transportation expands. MCAT would work to enhance safety, because the
equipment would be shown to be safe on minimally compliant track and,
as a result, would likely be safe under foreseeable conditions. In the
absence of MCAT, the equipment can be qualified on very good track,
which might later deteriorate over time. Although accelerometers should
provide indications of such deterioration, ensuring that the equipment
would be safe on track meeting the geometric limits adds to the life-
cycle safety of a trainset. The total savings would grow from
$3,500,000 per year in year 1 to $15,000,000 in year 20, for a total
savings of $84,997,881 in costs discounted at 7% over 20 years.

Table 3--Streamlined Testing Requirements--Estimated Cost Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Cumulative
Year Annual benefit Discount factor discounted discounted
benefit benefit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................... $3,500,000 0.93 $3,271,028 $3,271,028
2...................................... 3,500,000 0.87 3,057,036 6,328,064
3...................................... 3,500,000 0.82 2,857,043 9,185,106
4...................................... 3,500,000 0.76 2,670,133 11,855,239
5...................................... 3,500,000 0.71 2,495,452 14,350,691
6...................................... 8,000,000 0.67 5,330,738 19,681,429
7...................................... 8,500,000 0.62 5,293,373 24,974,802
8...................................... 9,000,000 0.58 5,238,082 30,212,884
9...................................... 9,500,000 0.54 5,167,371 35,380,254
10...................................... 10,000,000 0.51 5,083,493 40,463,747
11...................................... 10,500,000 0.48 4,988,474 45,452,221
12...................................... 11,000,000 0.44 4,884,132 50,336,353
13...................................... 11,500,000 0.41 4,772,091 55,108,444
14...................................... 12,000,000 0.39 4,653,807 59,762,251
15...................................... 12,500,000 0.36 4,530,575 64,292,826
16...................................... 13,000,000 0.34 4,403,550 68,696,376
17...................................... 13,500,000 0.32 4,273,754 72,970,130
18...................................... 14,000,000 0.30 4,142,095 77,112,225
19...................................... 14,500,000 0.28 4,009,371 81,121,596
20...................................... 15,000,000 0.26 3,876,285 84,997,881
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FRA believes that the proposed modifications to the qualifications
requirements would have no net impact, as the changes generally codify
current interpretations.
The total quantified benefits resulting from this regulatory
proposal would range from $11,500,000 in year 1, to $53,000,000 in year
20, with a total, net discounted benefit of $304,298,396 over 20 years
at a 7% annual discount rate. Of course, such benefits would depend on
much more extensive use of rail passenger transportation, including
high-speed rail, as envisioned in current infrastructure improvement
and spending plans.

Table 4--Total Estimated Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Cumulative
Year Annual benefit Discount factor discounted discounted
benefit benefit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................... $11,500,000 0.93 $10,747,664 $10,747,664
2...................................... 11,500,000 0.87 10,044,545 20,792,209
3...................................... 11,500,000 0.82 9,387,426 30,179,635
4...................................... 11,500,000 0.76 8,773,295 38,952,929
5...................................... 11,500,000 0.71 8,199,341 47,152,271
6...................................... 34,000,000 0.67 22,655,636 69,807,906
7...................................... 36,500,000 0.62 22,730,366 92,538,272
8...................................... 39,000,000 0.58 22,698,355 115,236,627
9...................................... 41,500,000 0.54 22,573,250 137,809,877
10...................................... 44,000,000 0.51 22,367,369 160,177,246
11...................................... 30,500,000 0.48 14,490,330 174,667,576
12...................................... 33,000,000 0.44 14,652,395 189,319,971
13...................................... 35,500,000 0.41 14,731,238 204,051,209
14...................................... 38,000,000 0.39 14,737,055 218,788,264
15...................................... 40,500,000 0.36 14,679,064 233,467,328
16...................................... 43,000,000 0.34 14,565,588 248,032,915
17...................................... 45,500,000 0.32 14,404,135 262,437,050
18...................................... 48,000,000 0.30 14,201,468 276,638,518
19...................................... 50,500,000 0.28 13,963,671 290,602,189
20...................................... 53,000,000 0.26 13,696,207 304,298,396
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 25953]]

Additional cost burden associated with information collection is
presented in Section C., Paperwork Reduction Act, below. Such impacts
would be relatively low compared to the cost savings that would result.
Certain refinements to the testing requirements would yield greater
confidence in the test results and thus enhanced safety levels. Such
benefits are not readily quantifiable, and FRA has not attempted to
quantify them.
In summary, the enhanced safety levels coupled with the cost
savings would justify the new cost burden resulting from this proposal.
FRA requests comments on all aspects of its economic analysis presented
here.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272

To ensure that the potential impact of this rulemaking on small
entities is properly considered, FRA developed this proposed rule in
accordance with Executive Order 13272 (``Proper Consideration of Small
Entities in Agency Rulemaking'') and DOT's policies and procedures to
promote compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.). The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires an agency to review
regulations to assess their impact on small entities. An agency must
conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis unless it determines and
certifies that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) stipulates in its
``Size Standards'' that the largest a railroad business firm that is
``for-profit'' may be, and still be classified as a ``small entity,''
is 1,500 employees for ``Line-Haul Operating Railroads,'' and 500
employees for ``Switching and Terminal Establishments.'' ``Small
entity'' is defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act as a small
business that is not independently owned and operated, and is not
dominant in its field of operation. SBA's ``Size Standards'' may be
altered by Federal agencies after consultation with SBA and in
conjunction with public comment. Pursuant to that authority, FRA has
published a final policy that formally establishes ``small entities''
as Class III railroads, contractors, and shippers meeting the economic
criteria established for Class III railroads in 49 CFR 1201.1-1, and
commuter railroads or small governmental jurisdictions that serve
populations of 50,000 or less. No shippers, contractors, or small
governmental jurisdictions would be impacted by this proposal. At
present there are no small entity commuter railroads, and FRA believes
that were such a small commuter railroad to commence operations, it is
extremely unlikely that it would engage in high cant deficiency
operations because such operations require relatively expensive rolling
equipment capable of tilting to give a safe and comfortable ride to
passengers.
The Class III revenue requirement is currently $20 million or less
in annual operating revenue. The $20 million limit (which is adjusted
by applying the railroad revenue deflator adjustment) is based on the
Surface Transportation Board's (STB) threshold for a Class III railroad
carrier. FRA uses the same revenue dollar limit to determine whether a
railroad or shipper or contractor is a small entity. At present, no
small entities would be affected by either the high-speed provisions or
the high cant deficiency provisions. To the extent that new passenger
railroads are small entities, and want to take advantage of high cant
deficiency operations and have the means to do so, they would benefit.
Small freight railroads hosting passenger operations could recoup any
costs of maintaining infrastructure, through trackage agreements which
enable host railroads to recover marginal costs of permitting passenger
operations over their tracks, to accommodate high cant deficiency
operations, or could refuse to host such high cant deficiency
operations, as appropriate. Nonetheless, FRA does not foresee any
situation under which a small entity might be impacted by the high
speed provisions in this proposal.
Based on these determinations, FRA certifies that it expects that,
as a result of this rulemaking, there will be no significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities. FRA requests comments on both
this analysis and this certification.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The sections that contain both proposed and
current information collection requirements, and the estimated time to
fulfill those requirements, are summarized in the following table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total annual Average time per Total annual
CFR Section Respondent universe responses response burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
213.4--Excepted Track:
--Designation of track as 200 railroads...... 20 orders.......... 15 minutes......... 5
excepted.
--Notification to FRA about 200 railroads...... 15 notification.... 10 minutes......... 3
removal of excepted track.
213.5--Responsibility for 728 railroads...... 10 notification.... 8 hours............ 80
Compliance.
213.7--Designation of Qualified
Persons to Supervise Certain
Renewals and Inspect Track:
--Designations.............. 728 railroads...... 1,500 names........ 10 minutes......... 250
--Employees trained in CWR 31 railroads....... 80,000 employees... 90 minutes......... 120,000
procedures.
--Written authorizations and 31 railroads....... 80,000 10 minutes + 60 93,333
recorded exams. authorizations + minutes.
80,000 exams.
--Designations (partially 31 railroads....... 250 names.......... 10 minutes......... 42
qualified) under paragraph
(d) of this section.
213.17--Waivers................. 728 railroads...... 6 petitions........ 24 hours........... 144
213.57--Curves; Elevation and
Speed Limitations:
--Request to FRA for vehicle 728 railroads...... 2 requests/ 40 hours........... 80
type approval. documents.
--Notification to FRA prior 728 railroads...... 2 notifications.... 45 minutes......... 2
to implementation of higher
curving speeds.
--Railroad notification to 728 railroads...... 2 notifications.... 45 minutes......... 2
FRA of providing commuter/
passenger service over
trackage of more than 1
track owner with same
vehicle type.

[[Page 25954]]

--Written consent of other 728 railroads...... 2 consents......... 8 hours............ 16
affected track owners by
railroad.
213.110-- Gage Restraint
Measurement Systems (GRMS):
--Implementing GRMS--notices 728 railroads...... 5 notifications + 1 45 minutes/4 hours. 8
and reports. technical report.
--GRMS vehicle output 728 railroads...... 50 reports......... 5 minutes.......... 4
reports.
--GRMS vehicle exception 728 railroads...... 50 reports......... 5 minutes.......... 4
reports.
--GRMS/PTLF procedures for 728 railroads...... 4 procedure 2 hours............ 8
data integrity. documents.
--GRMS training programs/ 728 railroads...... 2 programs + 5 16 hours........... 112
sessions. sessions.
--GRMS inspection records... 728 railroads...... 50 records......... 2 hours............ 100
213.118--Continuous Welded Rail
(CWR); Plan Review and
Approval:
--Plans..................... 728 railroads...... 728 reviewed plans. 4 hours............ 2,912
--Notification to FRA and 728 railroads...... 728 notifications + 15 minutes + 2 2,849
employees of plan effective 80,000 minutes.
date. notifications.
--Written submissions in 728 railroads...... 20 submissions..... 2 hours............ 40
support of plan.
--FRA-required revisions to 728 railroads...... 20 reviewed plans.. 1 hour............. 20
CWR plan.
213.119--Continuous Welded rail
(CWR), Plan Contents:
--Fracture report for each 239 railroads/1 12,000 reports..... 10 minutes......... 2,000
broken CWR joint bar. association.
--Petition for technical 1 association...... 1 petition......... 15 minutes......... .25
conference on fracture
reports.
--Training programs on CWR 239 railroads/1 240 amended 1 hour............. 240
procedures. association. programs.
--Annual CWR training of 31 railroads....... 80,000 employees... 30 minutes......... 40,000
employees.
--Recordkeeping (track with 239 railroads...... 2,000 records...... 10 minutes......... 333
CWR).
--Recordkeeping for CWR rail 239 railroads...... 360,000 records.... 2 minutes.......... 12,000
joints.
--Periodic records for CWR 239 railroads...... 480,000 records.... 1 minute........... 8,000
rail joints.
--Copy of track owner's CWR 728 railroads...... 239 manuals........ 10 minutes......... 40
procedures.
213.233--Track Inspections:
--Notations................. 728 railroads...... 12,500 notations... 1 minute........... 208
213.241--Inspection Records..... 728 railroads...... 1,542,089 records.. Varies............. 1,672,941
213.303--Responsibility for 2 railroads........ 1 petition......... 8 hours............ 8
Compliance.
213.305--Designation of
Qualified Individuals; General
Qualifications:
--Designations.............. 2 railroads........ 150 designations... 10 minutes......... 25
--Designations (partially 2 railroads........ 20 designations.... 10 minutes......... 3
qualified) under paragraph
(d) of this section.
213.317--Waivers............ 2 railroads........ 1 petition......... 80 hours........... 80
213.329-- Curves, Elevation and
Speed Limitations:
--FRA approval of qualified 728 railroads...... 2 documents........ 40 hours........... 80
vehicle types based on
results of testing.
--Written notification to 728 railroads...... 2 notifications.... 45 minutes......... 2
FRA 30 days prior to
implementation of higher
curving speeds.
--Written notification to 728 railroads...... 2 notifications.... 45 minutes......... 2
FRA by railroad providing
commuter/passenger Service
over trackage of more than
1 track owner with same
vehicle type.
--Written consent of other 728 railroads...... 2 consents......... 8 hours............ 16
affected track owners by
railroad.
213.333--Automated Vehicle
Inspection Systems:
--Track Geometry Measurement 10 railroads....... 18 reports......... 30 hours........... 540
System (TGMS): reports.
--TGMS: copies of most 10 railroads....... 13 printouts....... 20 hours........... 260
recent exception printouts.
--Notification to track 10 railroads....... 5 notifications.... 40 hours........... 200
personnel when onboard
accelerometers indicate
track-related problem (new
requirement).
--Requests for an alternate 10 railroads....... 10 requests........ 40 hours........... 400
location for device
measuring lateral
accelerations (new
requirement).
--Report to FRA providing 10 railroads....... 2,080 reports...... 6 hours............ 12,480
analysis of collected
monitoring data (new
requirement).
213.341--Initial Inspection of
New Rail and Welds:
--Mill inspection--copy of 2 railroads........ 2 reports.......... 16 hours........... 32
manufacturer's report.

[[Page 25955]]

--Welding plan inspection 2 railroads........ 2 reports.......... 16 hours........... 32
report.
--Inspection of field welds. 2 railroads........ 125 records........ 20 minutes......... 42
213.343--Continuous Welded Rail
(CWR):
--Recordkeeping............. 2 railroads........ 150 records........ 10 minutes......... 25
213.345--Vehicle/Track System
Qualification:
--Qualification program for 10 railroads....... 10 programs........ 120 hours.......... 1,200
all vehicle types operating
at track Class 6 speeds or
above or at curving speeds
above 5 inches of cant
deficiency (new
requirement).
--Qualification program for 10 railroads....... 10 programs........ 80 hours........... 800
previously qualified
vehicle types (new
requirement).
213.347--Automotive or Railroad
Crossings at Grade:
--Protection plans.......... 1 railroad......... 2 plans............ 8 hours............ 16
213.369--Inspection Records:
--Record of inspection of 2 railroads........ 500 records........ 1 minute........... 8
track.
--Internal defect 2 railroads........ 50 records......... 5 minutes.......... 4
inspections and remedial
action taken.
Appendix D--Minimally Compliant
Analytical Track (MCAT)
Simulations Used for Qualifying
Vehicles to Operate at High
Speeds and at High Cant
Deficiencies:
--Identification of non- 10 railroads....... 20 identified 160 hours.......... 3,200
redundant suspension system elements/
element or component that components.
may present a single point
of failure (new
requirement).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. For information or a copy of
the paperwork package submitted to OMB, contact Mr. Robert Brogan,
Information Clearance Officer, Federal Railroad Administration, at 202-
493-6292, or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Information Clearance Officer, Federal
Railroad Administration, at 202-493-6132.
Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
collection of information requirements should direct them to Mr. Robert
Brogan or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Third Floor, Washington, DC 20590. Comments may
also be submitted via e-mail to Mr. Brogan or Ms. Toone at the
following, respective addresses: [email protected], or
[email protected]. Copies of such comments may also be submitted
to OMB at the Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th St., NW.,
Washington, DC 20590, Attn: FRA OMB Desk Officer, or via e-mail at
[email protected].
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 is best assured of having its full effect if
received 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.
FRA is not authorized to impose a penalty on persons for violating
information collection requirements that do not display a current OMB
control number, if required. FRA intends to obtain current OMB control
numbers for any new information collection requirements resulting from
this rulemaking action prior to the effective date of the final rule.
The OMB control number, when assigned, will be announced by separate
notice in the Federal Register.

D. Federalism Implications

This NPRM has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'' (see 64 FR
43255 (Aug. 10, 1999)). Executive Order 13132 requires FRA to develop
an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue
a regulation with federalism implications that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs and that is not required by statute, unless the
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, the agency
consults with State and local governments, or the agency consults with
State and local government officials early in the process of developing
the regulation. Where a regulation has federalism implications and
preempts State law, the agency seeks to consult with State and local
officials in the process of developing the regulation.
FRA has determined that this regulatory action will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, nor on the

[[Page 25956]]

distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. In addition, FRA has determined that this regulatory action
would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local
governments. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of
Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
However, the final rule arising from this regulatory action would
have preemptive effect. Section 20106 of title 49, United States Code,
(Section 20106) provides that States may not adopt or continue in
effect any law, regulation, or order related to railroad safety or
security that covers the subject matter of a regulation prescribed or
issued by the Secretary of Transportation (with respect to railroad
safety matters) or the Secretary of Homeland Security (with respect to
railroad security matters), except when the State law, regulation, or
order qualifies under the ``essentially local safety or security
hazard'' exception to Section 20106. The intent of Section 20106 is to
promote national uniformity in railroad safety and security standards.
49 U.S.C. 20106(a)(1). Thus, subject to a limited exception for
essentially local safety or security hazards, the final rule arising
from this rulemaking would establish a uniform Federal safety standard
that must be met, and State requirements covering the same subject
matter are displaced, whether those State requirements are in the form
of a State law (including common law), regulation, or order.
While the final rule arising from this rulemaking would establish
Federal standards of care which preempt State standards of care, the
final rule would not preempt an action under State law seeking damages
for personal injury, death, or property damage alleging that a party
has failed to comply with the Federal standard of care established by
this rulemaking, including a plan or program required by this
rulemaking. Provisions of a plan or program which exceed the
requirements of this rulemaking are not included in the Federal
standard of care.
FRA does note that under 49 U.S.C. 20701-20703 (formerly the
Locomotive (Boiler) Inspection Act) (LBIA), the field of locomotive
safety is preempted, extending to the design, the construction, and the
material of every part of the locomotive and tender and all
appurtenances thereof. To the extent that this rulemaking establishes
requirements affecting locomotive safety, the scope of preemption is
provided by 49 U.S.C. 20701-20703.
In sum, FRA has analyzed this regulatory action in accordance with
the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. As
explained above, FRA has determined that this regulatory action has no
federalism implications, other than the preemption of State laws
covering the subject matter of this rulemaking, which occurs by
operation of law under 49 U.S.C. 20106 whenever FRA issues a rule or
order, and under the LBIA (49 U.S.C. 20701-20703) by its terms.
Accordingly, FRA has determined that preparation of a federalism
summary impact statement for this proposed rule is not required.

E. Environmental Impact

FRA has evaluated this NPRM in accordance with its ``Procedures for
Considering Environmental Impacts'' (FRA's Procedures) (see 64 FR 28545
(May 26, 1999)) as required by the National Environmental Policy Act
(see 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other environmental statutes, Executive
Orders, and related regulatory requirements. FRA has determined that
this action is not a major FRA action (requiring the preparation of an
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment) because it
is categorically excluded from detailed environmental review pursuant
to section 4(c)(20) of FRA's Procedures. See 64 FR 28547 (May 26,
1999). In accordance with section 4(c) and (e) of FRA's Procedures, the
agency has further concluded that no extraordinary circumstances exist
with respect to this NPRM that might trigger the need for a more
detailed environmental review. As a result, FRA finds that this NPRM is
not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Pursuant to Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency ``shall, unless
otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory
actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector
(other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate
requirements specifically set forth in law).'' Section 202 of the Act
(2 U.S.C. 1532) further requires that ``before promulgating any general
notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in the
promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may
result in expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted
annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and before promulgating any
final rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was
published, the agency shall prepare a written statement'' detailing the
effect on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector.
The proposed rule will not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate,
of $100,000,000 or more (as adjusted annually for inflation) in any one
year, and thus preparation of such a statement is not required.

G. Energy Impact

Executive Order 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a
Statement of Energy Effects for any ``significant energy action.'' See
66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). Under the Executive Order, a ``significant
energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency (normally
published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to
lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including
notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices
of proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is likely
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or
use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy
action.
FRA has evaluated this NPRM in accordance with Executive Order
13211. FRA has determined that this NPRM is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. Consequently, FRA has determined that this regulatory action is
not a ``significant energy action'' within the meaning of the Executive
Order.

H. Trade Impact

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39, 19 U.S.C. 2501 et
seq.) prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or
related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as
safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
FRA has assessed the potential effect of this rulemaking on foreign
commerce and believes that the proposed requirements are consistent
with the Trade Agreements Act. The requirements proposed are safety
standards, which, as noted, are not considered unnecessary obstacles to
trade. Moreover, FRA has sought, to the extent practicable, to state
the requirements in terms of the

[[Page 25957]]

performance desired, rather than in more narrow terms restricted to a
particular vehicle design, so as not to limit different, compliant
designs by any manufacturer--foreign or domestic. FRA has also taken
into consideration of international standards for the safe interaction
of vehicles and the track over which they operate, such as standards
for steady-state, lateral acceleration of passenger carbodies.

I. Privacy Act

Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement published in the Federal Register on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 213

Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

49 CFR Part 238

Passenger equipment, Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

The Proposed Rule

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA proposes to amend
parts 213 and 238 of chapter II, subtitle B of Title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 213--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 213 is revised to read as
follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-20114 and 20142; 28 U.S.C. 2461,
note; and 49 CFR 1.49.

Subpart A--General

2. Section 213.7 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and
(b)(2)(i) to read as follows:

Sec. 213.7 Designation of qualified persons to supervise certain
renewals and inspect track.

(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Knows and understands the requirements of this part that apply
to the restoration and renewal of the track for which he or she is
responsible;
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Knows and understands the requirements of this part that apply
to the inspection of the track for which he or she is responsible;
* * * * *

Subpart C--Track Geometry

3. Section 213.55 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 213.55 Track alinement.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, alinement
may not deviate from uniformity more than the amount prescribed in the
following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tangent track Curved track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The deviation of the The deviation of the The deviation of the
Class of track mid-offset from a 62- mid-ordinate from a 31- mid-ordinate from a 62-
foot line\1\ may not be foot chord\2\ may not foot chord\2\ may not
more than--(inches) be more than--(inches) be more than-- (inches)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 1 track........................ 5 \3\N/A 5
Class 2 track........................ 3 \3\N/A 3
Class 3 track........................ 1\3/4\ 1\1/4\ 1\3/4\
Class 4 track........................ 1\1/2\ 1 1\1/2\
Class 5 track........................ \3/4\ \1/2\ \5/8\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The ends of the line shall be at points on the gage side of the line rail, five-eighths of an inch below the
top of the railhead. Either rail may be used as the line rail; however, the same rail shall be used for the
full length of that tangential segment of the track.
\2\ The ends of the chord shall be at points on the gage side of the outer rail, five-eighths of an inch below
the top of the railhead.
\3\ N/A--Not Applicable.

(b) For operations at a qualified cant deficiency, Eu,
of more than 5 inches, the alinement of the outside rail of the curve
may not deviate from uniformity more than the amount prescribed in the
following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curved track\5\
-------------------------------------------------
The deviation of the The deviation of the
Class of track mid-ordinate from a 31- mid-ordinate from a 62-
foot chord\2\ may not foot chord\2\ may not
be more than--(inches) be more than--(inches)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 1 track\4\.............................................. \3\N/A 1\1/4\
Class 2 track\4\.............................................. \3\N/A 1\1/4\
Class 3 track................................................. \3/4\ 1\1/4\
Class 4 track................................................. \3/4\ \7/8\
Class 5 track................................................. \1/2\ \5/8\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Restraining rails or other systems may be required for derailment prevention.
\5\ Curved track limits shall be applied only when track curvature is greater than 0.25 degree.

4. Section 213.57 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 213.57 Curves; elevation and speed limitations.

(a) The maximum elevation of the outside rail of a curve may not be
more than 8 inches on track Classes 1 and 2, and 7 inches on track
Classes 3 through 5. The outside rail of a curve may not be lower than
the inside rail, except as a result of a deviation as per Sec. 213.63.

[[Page 25958]]

(b) All vehicle types requiring qualification under Sec. 213.345
must demonstrate that when stopped on a curve having a maximum uniform
elevation of 7 inches, no wheel unloads to a value less than 50 percent
of its static weight on level track.
(c) The maximum posted timetable operating speed for each curve is
determined by the following formula--
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.013

Where:

Vmax = Maximum posted timetable operating speed (m.p.h.).
Ea = Actual elevation of the outside rail (inches).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Actual elevation, Ea, for each 155-foot track
segment in the body of the curve is determined by averaging the
elevation for 11 points through the segment at 15.5-foot spacing. If
the curve length is less than 155 feet, average the points through
the full length of the body of the curve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eu = Qualified cant deficiency \2\ (inches) of the
vehicle type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ If the actual elevation, Ea, and degree of
curvature, D, change as a result of track degradation, then the
actual cant deficiency for the maximum posted timetable operating
speed, Vmax, may be greater than the qualified cant
deficiency, Eu. This actual cant deficiency for each
curve may not exceed the qualified cant deficiency, Eu,
plus 1 inch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D = Degree of curvature (degrees).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Degree of curvature, D, is determined by averaging the
degree of curvature over the same track segment as the elevation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) All vehicles are considered qualified for operating on track
with a cant deficiency, Eu, not exceeding 3 inches. Table 1
of appendix A to this part is a table of speeds computed in accordance
with the formula in paragraph (c) of this section, when Eu
equals 3 inches, for various elevations and degrees of curvature.
(e) Each vehicle type must be approved by FRA to operate on track
with a qualified cant deficiency, Eu, greater than 3 inches.
Each vehicle type must demonstrate compliance with the requirements of
either paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this section.
(1) When positioned on track with a uniform superelevation equal to
the proposed cant deficiency:
(i) No wheel of the vehicle unloads to a value less than 60 percent
of its static value on perfectly level track; and
(ii) For passenger cars, the roll angle between the floor of the
equipment and the horizontal does not exceed 8.6 degrees; or
(2) When operating through a constant radius curve at a constant
speed corresponding to the proposed cant deficiency, and if a test plan
is submitted and approved by FRA in accordance with Sec. 213.345 (e)
and (f):
(i) The steady-state (average) load on any wheel, throughout the
body of the curve, is not less than 60 percent of its static value on
perfectly level track; and
(ii) For passenger cars, the steady-state (average) lateral
acceleration measured on the floor of the carbody does not exceed
0.15g.
(f) The track owner or railroad shall transmit the results of the
testing specified in paragraph (e) of this section to FRA requesting
approval for the vehicle type to operate at the desired speeds allowed
under the formula in paragraph (c) of this section. The request shall
be in writing and shall contain, at a minimum, the following
information--
(1) A description of the vehicle type involved, including schematic
diagrams of the suspension system(s) and the estimated location of the
center of gravity above top of rail;
(2) The test procedure \4\ and description of the instrumentation
used to qualify the vehicle and the maximum values for wheel unloading
and roll angles or accelerations that were observed during testing; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ The test procedure may be conducted whereby all the wheels
on one side (right or left) of the vehicle are raised to the
proposed cant deficiency and lowered, and then the vertical wheel
loads under each wheel are measured and a level is used to record
the angle through which the floor of the vehicle has been rotated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) For vehicle types not subject to parts 229 or 238 of this
chapter, procedures or standards in effect that relate to the
maintenance of all safety-critical components of the suspension
system(s) for the particular vehicle type. Safety-critical components
of the suspension system are those that impact or have significant
influence on the roll of the carbody and the distribution of weights on
the wheels.
(g) Upon FRA approval of the request, the track owner or railroad
shall notify FRA's Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief
Safety Officer in writing no less than 30 calendar days prior to the
proposed implementation of the approved higher curving speeds allowed
under the formula in paragraph (c) of this section. The notification
shall contain, at a minimum, identification of the track segment(s) on
which the higher curving speeds are to be implemented. In approving the
request in paragraph (f) of this section, FRA may impose conditions
necessary for safely operating at the higher curving speeds.
(h) A track owner or railroad that provides passenger or commuter
service over trackage of more than one track owner with the same
vehicle type may provide written notification to the FRA with the
written consent of the other affected track owners.
(i) For vehicle types intended to operate at any curving speed
producing more than 5 inches of cant deficiency, the following
provisions of subpart G of this part shall apply: Sec. Sec. 213.333(a)
through (g), (j)(1), (k) and (m), 213.345, and 213.369(f).
(j) Vehicle types that have been permitted by FRA to operate at
cant deficiencies, Eu, greater than 3 inches prior to [DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], shall be
considered qualified under this section to operate at those permitted
cant deficiencies over the previously operated track segment(s).
(k) As used in this section--
(1) Vehicle means a locomotive, as defined in Sec. 229.5 of this
part; a freight car, as defined in Sec. 215.5 of this part; a
passenger car, as defined in Sec. 238.5 of this part; and any rail
rolling equipment used in a train with either a freight car or a
passenger car.
(2) Vehicle type means vehicles with variations in their physical
properties, such as suspension, mass, interior arrangements, and
dimensions that do not result in significant changes to their dynamic
characteristics.
5. Section 213.63 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 213.63 Track surface.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each track
owner shall maintain the surface of its track within the limits
prescribed in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Track Class of track
surface -----------------------------------------------------------
(inches) 1 2 3 4 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The runoff 3\1/2\ 3 2 1\1/2\ 1
in any 31
feet of
rail at the
end of a
raise may
not be more
than
The 3 2\3/4\ 2\1/4\ 2 1\
deviation 1/
from 4\
uniform
profile on
either rail
at the mid-
ordinate of
a 62-foot
chord may
not be more
than

[[Page 25959]]

The 3 2 1\3/4\ 1\1/4\ 1
deviation
from zero
crosslevel
at any
point on
tangent or
reverse
crosslevel
elevation
on curves
may not be
more than
The 3 2\1/4\ 2 1\3/4\ 1\
difference 1/
in 2\
crosslevel
between any
two points
less than
62 feet
apart may
not be more
than*1 2
\*\Where 2 1\3/4\ 1\1/4\ 1 \3/
determined 4\
by
engineering
decision
prior to
June 22,
1998, due
to physical
restriction
s on spiral
length and
operating
practices
and
experience,
the
variation
in
crosslevel
on spirals
per 31 feet
may not be
more than
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Except as limited by Sec. 213.57(a), where the elevation at any
point in a curve equals or exceeds 6 inches, the difference in
crosslevel within 62 feet between that point and a point with greater
elevation may not be more than 1\1/2\ inches.
\2\ However, to control harmonics on Class 2 through 5 jointed track
with staggered joints, the crosslevel differences shall not exceed 1\1/
4\ inches in all of six consecutive pairs of joints, as created by
seven low joints. Track with joints staggered less than 10 feet apart
shall not be considered as having staggered joints. Joints within the
seven low joints outside of the regular joint spacing shall not be
considered as joints for purposes of this footnote.

(b) For operations at a qualified cant deficiency, Eu,
of more than 5 inches, each track owner shall maintain the surface of
the curve within the limits prescribed in the following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class of track
Track surface \4\ (inches) -----------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The deviation from uniform profile on either rail at N/A \3\ N/A \3\ 1 1 1
the mid-ordinate of a 31-foot chord may not be more
than...............................................
The deviation from uniform profile on either rail at 2\1/4\ 2\1/4\ 1\3/4\ 1\1/4\ 1
the mid-ordinate of a 62-foot chord may not be more
than...............................................
The difference in crosslevel between any two points 2 2 1\3/4\ 1\3/4\ 1\1/2\
less than 10 feet apart (short warp) shall not be
more than..........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ N/A--Not Applicable.
\4\ Curved track surface limits shall be applied only when track curvature is greater than 0.25 degree.

6. Section 213.65 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 213.65 Combined alinement and surface deviations.

On any curved track where operations are conducted at a qualified
cant deficiency, Eu, greater than 5 inches, the combination
of alinement and surface deviations for the same chord length on the
outside rail in the curve, as measured by a TGMS, shall comply with the
following formula:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.014

Where:

Am = measured alinement deviation from uniformity
(outward is positive, inward is negative).
AL = allowable alinement limit as per Sec. 213.55(b)
(always positive) for the class of track.
Sm = measured profile deviation from uniformity (down is
positive, up is negative).
SL = allowable profile limit as per Sec. 213.63(b)
(always positive) for the class of track.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.015

7. Section 213.110 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) through
(f), (l), (p)(2) and (p)(3) to read as follows:

Sec. 213.110 Gage restraint measurement systems.

* * * * *
(c)(1) The track owner shall also provide to FRA sufficient
technical data to establish compliance with the following minimum
design requirements of a GRMS vehicle:
(2) Gage restraint shall be measured between the heads of rail--
(i) At an interval not exceeding 16 inches;
(ii) Under an applied vertical load of no less than 10 kips per
rail; and
(iii) Under an applied lateral load that provides for a lateral/
vertical load ratio of between 0.5 and 1.25 \5\, and a load severity
greater than 3 kips but less than 8 kips per rail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ GRMS equipment using load combinations developing L/V ratios
that exceed 0.8 shall be operated with caution to protect against
the risk of wheel climb by the test wheelset.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) Load severity is defined by the formula:
S = L-cV
Where:

S = Load severity, defined as the lateral load applied to the
fastener system (kips).
L = Actual lateral load applied (kips).
c = Coefficient of friction between rail/tie, which is assigned a
nominal value of 0.4.
V = Actual vertical load applied (kips), or static vertical wheel
load if vertical load is not measured.

(e) The measured gage values shall be converted to a Projected
Loaded Gage 24 (PLG24) as follows--

PLG24 = UTG + A x (LTG - UTG)

Where:

UTG = Unloaded track gage measured by the GRMS vehicle at a point no
less than 10 feet from any lateral or vertical load application.

[[Page 25960]]

LTG = Loaded track gage measured by the GRMS vehicle at a point no
more than 12 inches from the lateral load application point.
A = The extrapolation factor used to convert the measured loaded
gage to expected loaded gage under a 24,000-pound lateral load and a
33,000-pound vertical load.

For all track--
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.016

Note: The A factor shall not exceed a value of 3.184 under any
valid loading configuration.

Where:

L = Actual lateral load applied (kips).
V = Actual vertical load applied (kips), or static vertical wheel
load if vertical load is not measured.

(f) The measured gage and load values shall be converted to a Gage
Widening Projection (GWP) as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.017

* * * * *
(l) The GRMS record of lateral restraint shall identify two
exception levels. At a minimum, the track owner shall initiate the
required remedial action at each exception level as defined in the
following table--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRMS parameters \1\ If measurement value exceeds Remedial action required
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Level Exception
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UTG........................... 58 inches........................................ (1) Immediately protect the
exception location with a 10
m.p.h. speed restriction,
then verify location;
(2) Restore lateral restraint
and maintain in compliance
with PTLF criteria as
described in paragraph (m)
of this section; and
(3) Maintain compliance with
Sec. 213.53(b) as measured
with the PTLF.
LTG........................... 58 inches........................................
PLG24......................... 59 inches........................................
GWP........................... 1.0 inch.........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second Level Exception
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LTG........................... 57\3/4\ inches on Class 4 and 5 track \2\........ (1) Limit operating speed to
no more than the maximum
allowable under Sec. 213.9
for Class 3 track, then
verify location;
(2) Maintain in compliance
with PTLF criteria as
described in paragraph (m)
of this section; and
PLG24......................... 58 inches........................................ (3) Maintain compliance with
Sec. 213.53(b) as measured
with the PTLF.
GWP........................... 0.75 inch........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Definitions for the GRMS parameters referenced in this table are found in paragraph (p) of this section.
\2\ This note recognizes that typical good track will increase in total gage by as much as one-quarter of an
inch due to outward rail rotation under GRMS loading conditions. For Class 2 and 3 track, the GRMS LTG values
are also increased by one-quarter of an inch to a maximum of 58 inches. However, for any class of track, GRMS
LTG values in excess of 58 inches are considered First Level exceptions and the appropriate remedial actions
must be taken by the track owner. This one-quarter-inch increase in allowable gage applies only to GRMS LTG.
For gage measured by traditional methods, or with the use of the PTLF, the table in Sec. 213.53(b) applies.

* * * * *
(p) * * *
(2) Gage Widening Projection (GWP) means the measured gage
widening, which is the difference between loaded and unloaded gage, at
the applied loads, projected to reference loads of 16,000 pounds of
lateral force and 33,000 pounds of vertical force.
(3) L/V ratio means the numerical ratio of lateral load applied at
a point on the rail to the vertical load applied at that same point.
GRMS design requirements specify an L/V ratio of between 0.5 and 1.25.
* * * * *

Subpart G--Train Operations at Track Classes 6 and Higher

8. Section 213.305 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and
(b)(2)(i) to read as follows:

Sec. 213.305 Designation of qualified individuals; general
qualifications.

* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Knows and understands the requirements of this subpart that
apply to the restoration and renewal of the track for which he or she
is responsible;
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Knows and understands the requirements of this subpart that
apply to the inspection of the track for which he or she is
responsible.
* * * * *
9. Section 213.307 is amended by revising the section heading and
paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec. 213.307 Classes of track: Operating speed limits.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and as
otherwise provided in this subpart G, the following maximum allowable
speeds apply:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over track that meets all of the The maximum allowable
requirements prescribed in this subpart operating speed for trains
for-- is \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 6 track.............................. 110 m.p.h.

[[Page 25961]]

Class 7 track.............................. 125 m.p.h.
Class 8 track.............................. 160 m.p.h.\2\
Class 9 track.............................. 220 m.p.h.\2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Freight may be transported at passenger train speeds if the
following conditions are met:
(1) The vehicles utilized to carry such freight are of equal dynamic
performance and have been qualified in accordance with Sec. 213.329
and Sec. 213.345.
(2) The load distribution and securement in the freight vehicle will not
adversely affect the dynamic performance of the vehicle. The axle
loading pattern is uniform and does not exceed the passenger
locomotive axle loadings utilized in passenger service operating at
the same maximum speed.
(3) No carrier may accept or transport a hazardous material, as defined
at 49 CFR 171.8, except as provided in Column 9A of the Hazardous
Materials Table (49 CFR 172.101) for movement in the same train as a
passenger-carrying vehicle or in Column 9B of the Table for movement
in a train with no passenger-carrying vehicles.
\2\ Operating speeds in excess of 150 m.p.h. are authorized by this part
only in conjunction with a rule of particular applicability addressing
other safety issues presented by the system.

* * * * *
10. Section 213.323 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec. 213.323 Track gage.

* * * * *
(b) Gage shall be within the limits prescribed in the following
table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The change of gage
Class of track The gage must be at But not more than-- within 31 feet must not
least-- be greater than--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 6 track....................... 4'8''................... 4'9\1/4\''............. \3/4\''
Class 7 track....................... 4'8''................... 4'9\1/4\''............. \1/2\''
Class 8 track....................... 4'8''................... 4'9\1/4\''............. \1/2\''
Class 9 track....................... 4'8\1/4\''.............. 4'9\1/4\''............. \1/2\''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. Section 213.327 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 213.327 Track alinement.

(a) Uniformity at any point along the track is established by
averaging the measured mid-chord offset values for nine consecutive
points that are centered around that point and spaced according to the
following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chord length Spacing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
31'......................................................... 7'9''
62'......................................................... 15'6''
124'........................................................ 31'0''
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, a single
alinement deviation from uniformity may not be more than the amount
prescribed in the following table:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The deviation from The deviation from The deviation from
uniformity of the mid- uniformity of the mid- uniformity of the mid-
Class of track Tangent/curved track chord offset for a 31- chord offset for a 62- chord offset for a 124-
foot chord may not be foot chord may not be foot chord may not be
more than-- (inches) more than-- (inches) more than--(inches)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 6 track............................... Tangent........................ \1/2\ \3/4\ 1\1/2\
Curved \1\..................... ....................... \5/8\
Class 7 track............................... Tangent........................ \1/2\ \3/4\ 1\1/4\
Curved \1\..................... ....................... \1/2\
Class 8 track............................... Tangent........................ \1/2\ \3/4\ 1
Curved \1\..................... ....................... \1/2\ \3/4\
Class 9 track............................... Tangent........................ \1/2\ \1/2\ \3/4\
Curved \1\.....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Curved track limits shall be applied only when track curvature is greater than 0.25 degree. Track curvature may be established at any point by
averaging the measured 62-foot chord offset values for nine consecutive points that are centered around that point and spaced at 15 feet 6 inches.

(c) For operations at a qualified cant deficiency, Eu,
of more than 5 inches, a single alinement deviation from uniformity of
the outside rail of the curve may not be more than the amount
prescribed in the following table:

[[Page 25962]]

Class 9 track............................... Curved \1\..................... \1/2\ \1/2\ \3/4\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Curved track limits shall be applied only when track curvature is greater than 0.25 degree.

(d) For three or more non-overlapping deviations from uniformity in
track alinement occurring within a distance equal to five times the
specified chord length, each of which exceeds the limits in the
following table, each track owner shall maintain the alinement of the
track within the limits prescribed for each deviation:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The deviation from The deviation from The deviation from
uniformity of the mid- uniformity of the mid- uniformity of the mid-
Class of track chord offset for a 31- chord offset for a 62- chord offset for a 124-
foot chord may not be foot chord may not be foot chord may not be
more than-- (inches) more than-- (inches) more than--(inches)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 6 track........................ \3/8\ \1/2\ 1
Class 7 track........................ \3/8\ \3/8\ \7/8\
Class 8 track........................ \3/8\ \3/8\ \1/2\
Class 9 track........................ \3/8\ \3/8\ \1/2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(e) For purposes of complying with this section, the ends of the
chord shall be at points on the gage side of the rail, five-eighths of
an inch below the top of the railhead. On tangent track, either rail
may be used as the line rail; however, the same rail shall be used for
the full length of that tangential segment of the track. On curved
track, the line rail is the outside rail of the curve.
12. Section 213.329 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 213.329 Curves; elevation and speed limitations.

(a) The maximum elevation of the outside rail of a curve may not be
more than 7 inches. The outside rail of a curve may not be lower than
the inside rail, except as a result of a deviation as per Sec.
213.331.
(b) All vehicle types requiring qualification under Sec. 213.345
must demonstrate that when stopped on a curve having a maximum uniform
elevation of 7 inches, no wheel unloads to a value less than 50 percent
of its static weight on level track.
(c) The maximum posted timetable operating speed for each curve is
determined by the following formula:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.018

Where:

Vmax = Maximum posted timetable operating speed (m.p.h.).
Ea = Actual elevation of the outside rail (inches).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ Actual elevation, Ea, for each 155-foot track
segment in the body of the curve is determined by averaging the
elevation for 11 points through the segment at 15.5-foot spacing. If
the curve length is less than 155 feet, average the points through
the full length of the body of the curve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eu = Qualified cant deficiency \7\ (inches) of the
vehicle type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ If the actual elevation, Ea, and degree of
curvature, D, change as a result of track degradation, then the
actual cant deficiency for the maximum posted timetable operating
speed, Vmax, may be greater than the qualified cant deficiency,
Eu. This actual cant deficiency for each curve may not
exceed the qualified cant deficiency, Eu, plus one-half
inch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D = Degree of curvature (degrees).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ Degree of curvature, D, is determined by averaging the
degree of curvature over the same track segment as the elevation.

(d) All vehicles are considered qualified for operating on track
with a cant deficiency, Eu, not exceeding 3 inches. Table 1
of appendix A to this part is a table of speeds computed in accordance
with the formula in paragraph (c) of this section, when Eu
equals 3 inches, for various elevations and degrees of curvature.
(e) Each vehicle type must be approved by FRA to operate on track
with a qualified cant deficiency, Eu, greater than 3 inches.
Each vehicle type must demonstrate compliance with the requirements of
either paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this section.
(1) When positioned on a track with a uniform superelevation equal
to the proposed cant deficiency:
(i) No wheel of the vehicle unloads to a value less than 60 percent
of its static value on perfectly level track; and
(ii) For passenger cars, the roll angle between the floor of the
equipment and the horizontal does not exceed 8.6 degrees; or
(2) When operating through a constant radius curve at a constant
speed corresponding to the proposed cant deficiency, and a test plan is
submitted and approved by FRA in accordance with Sec. 213.345(e) and
(f):
(ii) The steady-state (average) load on any wheel, throughout the
body of the curve, is not to be less than 60 percent of its static
value on perfectly level track; and
(iii) For passenger cars, the steady-state (average) lateral
acceleration measured on the floor of the carbody does not exceed
0.15g.
(f) The track owner or railroad shall transmit the results of the
testing specified in paragraph (e) of this section to FRA requesting
approval for the vehicle type to operate at the desired speeds allowed
under the formula in paragraph (c) of this section. The request shall
be in writing and shall contain, at a minimum, the following
information--
(1) A description of the vehicle type involved, including schematic
diagrams of the suspension system(s) and the estimated location of the
center of gravity above top of rail;
(2) The test procedure \9\ and description of the instrumentation
used to qualify the vehicle and the maximum values for wheel unloading
and roll angles or accelerations that were observed during testing; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ The test procedure may be conducted whereby all the wheels
on one side (right or left) of the vehicle are raised to the
proposed cant deficiency and lowered, and then the vertical wheel
loads under each wheel are measured and a level is used to record
the angle through which the floor of the vehicle has been rotated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) For vehicle types not subject to part 238 or part 229 of this
chapter, procedures or standards in effect that relate to the
maintenance of all safety-critical components of the suspension
system(s) for the particular vehicle type.

[[Page 25963]]

Safety-critical components of the suspension system are those that
impact or have significant influence on the roll of the carbody and the
distribution of weights on the wheels.
(g) Upon FRA approval of the request, the track owner or railroad
shall notify FRA's Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief
Safety Officer in writing no less than 30 calendar days prior to the
proposed implementation of the approved higher curving speeds allowed
under the formula in paragraph (c) of this section. The notification
shall contain, at a minimum, identification of the track segment(s) on
which the higher curving speeds are to be implemented. In approving the
request in paragraph (f) of this section, FRA may impose conditions
necessary for safely operating at the higher curving speeds.
(h) A track owner or railroad that provides passenger or commuter
service over trackage of more than one track owner with the same
vehicle type may provide written notification to FRA with the written
consent of the other affected track owners.
(i) Vehicle types that have been permitted by FRA to operate at
cant deficiencies, Eu, shall be considered qualified under
this section to operate at those permitted cant deficiencies over the
previously operated track segment(s).
(j) As used in this section and in Sec. Sec. 213.333 and 213.345--
(1) Vehicle means a locomotive, as defined in Sec. 229.5 of this
part; a freight car, as defined in Sec. 215.5 of this part; a
passenger car, as defined in Sec. 238.5 of this part; and any rail
rolling equipment used in a train with either a freight car or a
passenger car.
(2) Vehicle type means vehicles with variations in their physical
properties, such as suspension, mass, interior arrangements, and
dimensions that do not result in significant changes to their dynamic
characteristics.
13. Section 213.331 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 213.331 Track surface.

(a) For a single deviation in track surface, each track owner shall
maintain the surface of its track within the limits prescribed in the
following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class of track
Track surface (inches) -----------------------------------------------
6 7 8 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The deviation from uniform \1\ profile on either rail at the mid- 1 1 \3/4\ \1/2\
ordinate of a 31-foot chord may not be more than...............
The deviation from uniform profile on either rail at the mid- 1 1 1 \3/4\
ordinate of a 62-foot chord may not be more than...............
Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the 1\3/4\ 1\1/2\ 1\1/4\ 1
deviation from uniform profile on either rail at the mid-
ordinate of a 124-foot chord may not be more than..............
The deviation from zero crosslevel at any point on tangent track 1 1 1 1
may not be more than...........................................
Reverse elevation on curves \3\ may not be more than............ \1/2\ \1/2\ \1/2\ \1/2\
The difference in crosslevel between any two points less than 62 1\1/2\ 1\1/2\ 1\1/4\ 1
feet apart may not be more than \2\............................
On curved track,\3\ the difference in crosslevel between any two 1\1/4\ 1\1/8\ 1 \3/4\
points less than 10 feet apart (short warp) may not be more
than...........................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Uniformity for profile is established by placing the midpoint of the specified chord at the point of maximum
measurement.
\2\ However, to control harmonics on jointed track with staggered joints, the crosslevel differences shall not
exceed 1 inch in all of six consecutive pairs of joints, as created by seven low joints. Track with joints
staggered less than 10 feet apart shall not be considered as having staggered joints. Joints within the seven
low joints outside of the regular joint spacing shall not be considered as joints for purposes of this
footnote.
\3\ Curved track limits shall be applied only when track curvature is greater than 0.25 degree.

(b) For operations at a qualified cant deficiency, Eu,
of more than 5 inches, a single deviation in track surface shall be
within the limits prescribed in the following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class of track
Track surface \4\ (inches) -----------------------------------------------
6 7 8 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference in crosslevel between any two points less than 10 1\1/4\ 1 \3\ 1 \3/4\
feet apart (short warp) may not be more than...................
The deviation from uniform profile on either rail at the mid- 1\1/2\ 1\1/4\ 1\1/4\ 1
ordinate of a 124-foot chord may not be more than..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For curves with a qualified cant deficiency, Eu, of more than 7 inches, the difference in crosslevel between
any two points less than 10 feet apart (short warp) may not be more than three-quarters of an inch.
\4\ Curved track surface limits shall be applied only when track curvature is greater than 0.25 degree.

(c) For three or more non-overlapping deviations in track surface
occurring within a distance equal to five times the specified chord
length, each of which exceeds the limits in the following table, each
track owner shall maintain the surface of the track within the limits
prescribed for each deviation:

[[Page 25964]]

The deviation from uniform profile on either rail at the mid- 1\1/4\ 1 \7/8\ \5/8\
ordinate of a 124-foot chord may not be more than..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14. Section 213.332 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 213.332 Combined alinement and surface deviations.

(a) This section applies to any curved track where operations are
conducted at a qualified cant deficiency, Eu, greater than 5
inches, and to all Class 9 track, either curved or tangent.
(b) For the conditions defined in paragraph (a) of this section,
the combination of alinement and surface deviations for the same chord
length on the outside rail in a curve and on any of the two rails of a
tangent section, as measured by a TGMS, shall comply with the following
formula:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.019

Where--

Am = measured alinement deviation from uniformity
(outward is positive, inward is negative).
AL = allowable alinement limit as per Sec. 213.327(c)
(always positive) for the class of track.
Sm = measured profile deviation from uniformity (down is
positive, up is negative).
SL = allowable profile limit as per Sec. Sec. 213.331(a)
and 213.331 (b) (always positive) for the class of track.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.020

15. Section 213.333 is amended by revising paragraphs (a),(b)(1)
and (b)(2),
(c), (h) through (m), and the Vehicle/Track Interaction Safety
Limits table to read as follows:

Sec. 213.333 Automated vehicle inspection systems.

(a) A qualifying Track Geometry Measuring System (TGMS) shall be
operated at the following frequency:
(1) For operations at a qualified cant deficiency, Eu,
of more than 5 inches on track Classes 1 through 5, at least twice per
calendar year with not less than 120 days between inspections.
(2) For track Class 6, at least once per calendar year with not
less than 170 days between inspections. For operations at a qualified
cant deficiency, Eu, of more than 5 inches on track Class 6,
at least twice per calendar year with not less than 120 days between
inspections.
(3) For track Class 7, at least twice within any 120-day period
with not less than 25 days between inspections.
(4) For track Classes 8 and 9, at least twice within any 60-day
period with not less than 12 days between inspections.
(b) * * *
(1) Track geometry measurements shall be taken no more than 3 feet
away from the contact point of wheels carrying a vertical load of no
less than 10,000 pounds per wheel;
(2) Track geometry measurements shall be taken and recorded on a
distance-based sampling interval not exceeding 1 foot; and
* * * * *
(c) A qualifying TGMS shall be capable of measuring and processing
the necessary track geometry parameters, at an interval of no more than
every 1 foot, to determine compliance with--
(1) For operations at a qualified cant deficiency, Eu,
of more than 5 inches on track Classes 1 through 5: Sec. 213.53, Track
gage; Sec. 213.55(b), Track alinement; Sec. 213.57, Curves; elevation
and speed limitations; Sec. 213.63, Track surface; and Sec. 213.65,
Combined alinement and surface deviations.
(2) For track Classes 6 through 9: Sec. 213.323, Track gage; Sec.
213.327, Track alinement; Sec. 213.329, Curves; elevation and speed
limitations; Sec. 213.331, Track surface; and for operations at a cant
deficiency of more than 5 inches Sec. 213.332, Combined alinement and
surface deviations.
* * * * *
(h) For track Classes 8 and 9, a qualifying Gage Restraint
Measuring System (GRMS) shall be operated at least once per calendar
year with at least 170 days between inspections. The lateral capacity
of the track structure shall not permit a Gage Widening Projection
(GWP) greater than 0.5 inch.
(i) A GRMS shall meet or exceed minimum design requirements
specifying that--
(1) Gage restraint shall be measured between the heads of the rail:
(i) At an interval not exceeding 16 inches;
(ii) Under an applied vertical load of no less than 10 kips per
rail; and
(iii) Under an applied lateral load that provides for lateral/
vertical load ratio of between 0.5 and 1.25,\10\ and a load severity
greater than 3 kips but less than 8 kips per rail. Load severity is
defined by the formula:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ GRMS equipment using load combinations developing L/V
ratios that exceed 0.8 shall be operated with caution to protect
against the risk of wheel climb by the test wheelset.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S = L-cV

Where--

(2) The measured gage and load values shall be converted to a GWP
as follows:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.021

Where--

UTG = Unloaded track gage measured by the GRMS vehicle at a point no
less than 10 feet from any lateral or vertical load application.
LTG = Loaded track gage measured by the GRMS vehicle at a point no
more than 12 inches from the lateral load application.
L = Actual lateral load applied (kips).
V = Actual vertical load applied (kips), or static vertical wheel
load if vertical load is not measured.
GWP = Gage Widening Projection, which means the measured gage
widening, which is the difference between loaded and unloaded gage,
at the applied loads, projected to reference loads of 16,000 pounds
of lateral force and 33,000 pounds of vertical force.

[[Page 25965]]

(j) A vehicle having dynamic response characteristics that are
representative of other vehicles assigned to the service shall be
operated over the route at the revenue speed profile. The vehicle shall
either be instrumented or equipped with a portable device that monitors
onboard instrumentation on trains. Track personnel shall be notified
when onboard accelerometers indicate a possible track-related problem.
The tests shall be conducted at the following frequency, unless
otherwise determined by FRA after reviewing the test data required by
this subpart:
(1) For operations at a qualified cant deficiency, Eu,
of more than 5 inches on track Classes 1 through 6, carbody
acceleration shall be monitored at least once each calendar quarter
with not less than 25 days between inspections on at least one
passenger car of each type that is assigned to the service; and
(2) For operations at track Class 7 speeds, carbody and truck
accelerations shall be monitored at least twice within any 60-day
period with not less than 12 days between inspections on at least one
passenger car of each type that is assigned to the service; and
(3) For operations at track Classes 8 and 9 speeds, carbody
acceleration shall be monitored at least four times within any 7-day
period with not more than 3 days between inspections on at least one
non-passenger and one passenger carrying vehicle of each type that is
assigned to the service. Truck acceleration shall be monitored at least
twice within any 60-day period with not less than 12 days between
inspections on at least one passenger carrying vehicle of each type
that is assigned to the service.
(k)(1) The instrumented vehicle or the portable device, as required
in paragraph (j) of this section, shall monitor vertical and lateral
accelerations. The accelerometers shall be placed on the floor of the
vehicle as near the center of a truck as practicable.
(2) In addition, a device for measuring lateral accelerations shall
be mounted on a truck frame at a longitudinal location as close as
practicable to an axle's centerline (either outside axle for trucks
containing more than 2 axles), or, if approved by FRA, at an alternate
location. After monitoring this data for 2 years, or 1 million miles,
whichever occurs first, the track owner or railroad may petition FRA
for exemption from this requirement.
(3) If any of the carbody lateral, carbody vertical, or truck frame
lateral acceleration safety limits in this section's table of vehicle/
track interaction safety limits is exceeded, appropriate speed
restrictions shall be applied until corrective action is taken.
(l) For track Classes 8 and 9, the track owner or railroad shall
submit a report to FRA, once each calendar year, which provides an
analysis of the monitoring data collected in accordance with paragraphs
(j) and (k) of this section. Based on a review of the report, FRA may
require that an instrumented vehicle having dynamic response
characteristics that are representative of other vehicles assigned to
the service be operated over the track at the revenue speed profile.
The instrumented vehicle shall be equipped to measure wheel/rail
forces. If any of the wheel/rail force limits in this section's table
of vehicle/track interaction safety limits is exceeded, appropriate
speed restrictions shall be applied until corrective action is taken.
(m) The track owner or railroad shall maintain a copy of the most
recent exception printouts for the inspections required under
paragraphs (j), (k), and (l) of this section, as appropriate.
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P

[[Page 25966]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.023

[[Page 25967]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.024

[[Page 25968]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.025

BILLING CODE 4910-06-C
16. Section 213.345 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 213.345 Vehicle/track system qualification.

(a) General. All vehicle types intended to operate at track Class 6
speeds or above or at any curving speed producing more than 5 inches of
cant deficiency shall be qualified for operation for their intended
track classes in accordance with this subpart. A qualification program
shall be used to ensure that the vehicle/track system will not exceed
the wheel/rail force safety limits and the carbody and truck
acceleration criteria specified in Sec. 213.333--
(1) At any speed up to and including 5 m.p.h. above the proposed
maximum operating speed; and
(2) On track meeting the requirements for the class of track
associated with the proposed maximum operating speed. For purposes of
qualification testing, speeds that are up to 5 m.p.h. in excess of the
maximum allowable speed for each class are permitted.
(b) Existing vehicle type qualification. Vehicle types previously
qualified or permitted to operate at track Class 6 speeds or above or
at any curving speeds producing more than 5 inches of cant deficiency
prior to [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], shall be considered as being successfully qualified under
the requirements of this section for operation at the previously
operated speeds and cant deficiencies over the previously operated
track segment(s).
(c) New vehicle type qualification. Vehicle types not previously
qualified under this subpart be qualified in accordance with the
requirements of this paragraph (c).
(1) Simulations. For vehicle types intended to operate at track
Class 6 speeds or above, or at any curving speed producing more than 6
inches of cant deficiency, analysis of vehicle/track performance
(computer simulations) shall be conducted using an industry recognized
methodology on:
(i) An analytically defined track segment representative of
minimally compliant track conditions (MCAT--Minimally Compliant
Analytical Track) for the respective track classes as specified in
appendix D to this part; and
(ii) A track segment representative of the full route on which the
vehicle type is intended to operate. Both simulations and physical
examinations of the route's track geometry shall be used to determine a
track segment representative of the route.
(2) Carbody acceleration. For vehicle types intended to operate at
track Class 6 speeds or above, or at any curving speed producing more
than 5 inches of cant deficiency, qualification testing conducted over
a representative segment of the route shall ensure that the vehicle
type will not exceed the carbody lateral and vertical acceleration
safety limits specified in Sec. 213.333.
(3) Truck lateral acceleration. For vehicle types intended to
operate at track Class 6 speeds or above, qualification testing
conducted over a representative segment of the route shall ensure that
the vehicle type will not exceed the truck lateral acceleration safety
limit specified in Sec. 213.333.
(4) Wheel/rail force measurement. For vehicle types intended to
operate at track Class 7 speeds or above, or at any curving speed
producing more than 6 inches of cant deficiency, qualification testing
conducted over a representative segment of the route shall ensure that
the vehicle type will not exceed the wheel/rail force safety limits
specified in Sec. 213.333.
(d) Previously qualified vehicle types. Vehicle types previously
qualified under this subpart for a track class and cant deficiency on
one route may be

[[Page 25969]]

qualified for operation at the same class and cant deficiency on
another route through analysis and testing in accordance with the
requirements of this paragraph (d).
(1) Simulations or wheel/rail force measurement. For vehicle types
intended to operate at track Class 7 speeds or above, or at any curving
speed producing more than 6 inches of cant deficiency, simulations or
measurement of wheel/rail forces during qualification testing shall
ensure that the vehicle type will not exceed the wheel/rail force
safety limits specified in Sec. 213.333. Simulations, if conducted,
shall be in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
Measurement of wheel/rail forces, if conducted, shall be performed over
a representative segment of the new route.
(2) Carbody acceleration. For vehicle types intended to operate at
any curving speed producing more than 5 inches of cant deficiency, or
at both track Class 6 speeds or above and at any curving speed
producing more than 4 inches of cant deficiency, qualification testing
conducted over a representative segment of the new route shall ensure
that the vehicle type will not exceed the carbody lateral and vertical
acceleration safety limits specified in Sec. 213.333.
(3) Truck lateral acceleration. For vehicle types intended to
operate at track Class 7 speeds or above, simulations or measurement of
truck lateral acceleration during qualification testing shall ensure
that the vehicle type will not exceed the truck lateral acceleration
safety limits specified in Sec. 213.333. Measurement of truck lateral
acceleration, if conducted, shall be performed over a representative
segment of the new route.
(e) Qualification test plan. To obtain the data required to support
the qualification program outlined in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this
section, the track owner or railroad shall submit a qualification test
plan to FRA at least 60 days prior to testing, requesting approval to
conduct the test at the desired speeds and cant deficiencies. This test
plan shall provide for a test program sufficient to evaluate the
operating limits of the track and vehicle type and shall include:
(1) The results of vehicle/track performance simulations as
required in this subpart;
(2) Identification of the representative segment of the route for
qualification testing;
(3) Consideration of the operating environment during qualification
testing, including operating practices and conditions, the signal
system, highway-rail grade crossings, and trains on adjacent tracks;
(4) The design wheel flange angle that will be used for the
determination of the Single Wheel L/V Ratio safety limit specified in
Sec. 213.333;
(5) A target maximum testing speed and a target maximum cant
deficiency in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section;
(6) An analysis and description of the signal system and operating
practices to govern operations in track Classes 7 through 9, which
shall include a statement of sufficiency in these areas for the class
of operation; and
(7) When simulations are required as part of vehicle qualification,
an analysis showing all simulation results.
(f) Qualification test. Upon FRA approval of the qualification test
plan, qualification testing shall be conducted in two sequential stages
as required in this subpart.
(1) Stage-one testing shall include demonstration of acceptable
vehicle dynamic response of the subject vehicle as speeds are
incrementally increased--
(i) On a segment of tangent track, from acceptable track Class 5
speeds to the target maximum test speed (when the target speed
corresponds to track Class 6 and above operations); and
(ii) On a segment of curved track, from the speeds corresponding to
3 inches of cant deficiency to the maximum target maximum cant
deficiency.
(2) When stage-one testing has successfully demonstrated a maximum
safe operating speed and cant deficiency, stage-two testing shall
commence with the subject equipment over a representative segment of
the route as identified in paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
(i) A test run shall be conducted over the route segment at the
speed the railroad will request FRA to approve for such service.
(ii) An additional test run shall be conducted at 5 m.p.h. above
this speed.
(3) When conducting stage-one and stage-two testing, if any of the
monitored safety limits is exceeded, on any segment of track intended
for operation at track Class 6 speed or greater, or on any segment of
track intended for operation at more than 5 inches of cant deficiency,
testing may continue provided the track location(s) where the limits
are exceeded are identified and test speeds are limited at the track
location(s) until corrective action is taken. Corrective action may
include making an adjustment in the track, in the vehicle, or both of
these system components. Measurements taken on track segments intended
for operations below track Class 6 speeds and at 5 inches of cant
deficiency or less are not required to be reported.
(4) Prior to the start of the qualification test program, a
qualifying Track Geometry Measuring System (TGMS) specified in Sec.
213.333 shall be operated over the intended route within 30 calendar
days prior to the start of the qualification test program.
(g) Qualification test results. The track owner or railroad shall
submit a report to FRA detailing all the results of the qualification
program. When simulations are required as part of vehicle
qualification, this report shall include a comparison of simulation
predictions to the actual wheel/rail force or acceleration data, or
both, recorded during full-scale testing. The report shall be submitted
at least 60 days prior to the intended operation of the equipment in
revenue service over the route.
(h) Based on the test results and submissions, FRA will approve a
maximum train speed and value of cant deficiency for revenue service.
FRA may impose conditions necessary for safely operating at the maximum
train speed and value of cant deficiency approved.
17. Section 213.355 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 213.355 Frog guard rails and guard faces; gage.

The guard check and guard face gages in frogs shall be within the
limits prescribed in the following table--

[[Page 25970]]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guard check gage Guard face gage
-------------------------------------------------------------
The distance between the gage
line of a frog to the guard The distance between guard
Class of track line \1\ of its guard rail or lines,\1\ measured across the
guarding face, measured track at right angles to the
across the track at right gage line,\2\ may not be more
angles to the gage line,\2\ than--
may not be less than--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 6, 7, 8 and 9 track......................... 4'6\1/2\'' 4'5''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A line along that side of the flangeway which is nearer to the center of the track and at the same elevation
as the gage line.
\2\ A line five-eighths of an inch below the top of the center line of the head of the running rail, or
corresponding location of the tread portion of the track structure.

18. Appendix A to part 213 is revised to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 213--Maximum Allowable Curving Speeds

This appendix contains four tables identifying maximum allowing
curving speeds based on 3, 4, 5, and 6 inches of unbalance (cant
deficiency), respectively.

Table 1--Three Inches Unbalance
[Elevation of outer rail (inches)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Degree of curvature 0 \1/2\ 1 1\1/2\ 2 2\1/2\ 3 3\1/2\ 4 4\1/2\ 5 5\1/2\ 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum allowable operating speed (m.p.h.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0[deg]30'....................................... 93 100 107 113 120 125 131 136 141 146 151 156 160
0[deg]40'....................................... 80 87 93 98 104 109 113 118 122 127 131 135 139
0[deg]50'....................................... 72 77 83 88 93 97 101 106 110 113 117 121 124
1[deg]00'....................................... 65 71 76 80 85 89 93 96 100 104 107 110 113
1[deg]15'....................................... 59 63 68 72 76 79 83 86 89 93 96 99 101
1[deg]30'....................................... 53 58 62 65 69 72 76 79 82 85 87 90 93
1[deg]45'....................................... 49 53 57 61 64 67 70 73 76 78 81 83 86
2[deg]00'....................................... 46 50 53 57 60 63 65 68 71 73 76 78 80
2[deg]15'....................................... 44 47 50 53 56 59 62 64 67 69 71 73 76
2[deg]30'....................................... 41 45 48 51 53 56 59 61 63 65 68 70 72
2[deg]45'....................................... 39 43 46 48 51 53 56 58 60 62 64 66 68
3[deg]00'....................................... 38 41 44 46 49 51 53 56 58 60 62 64 65
3[deg]15'....................................... 36 39 42 44 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63
3[deg]30'....................................... 35 38 40 43 45 47 49 52 53 55 57 59 61
3[deg]45'....................................... 34 37 39 41 44 46 48 50 52 53 55 57 59
4[deg]00'....................................... 33 35 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 53 55 57
4[deg]30'....................................... 31 33 36 38 40 42 44 45 47 49 50 52 53
5[deg]00'....................................... 29 32 34 36 38 40 41 43 45 46 48 49 51
5[deg]30'....................................... 28 30 32 34 36 38 39 41 43 44 46 47 48
6[deg]00'....................................... 27 29 31 33 35 36 38 39 41 42 44 45 46
6[deg]30'....................................... 26 28 30 31 33 35 36 38 39 41 42 43 44
7[deg]00'....................................... 25 27 29 30 32 34 35 36 38 39 40 42 43
8[deg]00'....................................... 23 25 27 28 30 31 33 34 35 37 38 39 40
9[deg]00'....................................... 22 24 25 27 28 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38
10[deg]00'...................................... 21 22 24 25 27 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 36
11[deg]00'...................................... 20 21 23 24 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
12[deg]00'...................................... 19 20 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2--Four Inches Unbalance
[Elevation of outer rail (inches)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Degree of curvature 0 \1/2\ 1 1\1/2\ 2 2\1/2\ 3 3\1/2\ 4 4\1/2\ 5 5\1/2\ 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum allowable operating speed (m.p.h.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0[deg]30'....................................... 107 113 120 125 131 136 141 146 151 156 160 165 169
0[deg]40'....................................... 93 98 104 109 113 118 122 127 131 135 139 143 146
0[deg]50'....................................... 83 88 93 97 101 106 110 113 117 121 124 128 131
1[deg]00'....................................... 76 80 85 89 93 96 100 104 107 110 113 116 120
1[deg]15'....................................... 68 72 76 79 83 86 89 93 96 99 101 104 107
1[deg]30'....................................... 62 65 69 72 76 79 82 85 87 90 93 95 98
1[deg]45'....................................... 57 61 64 67 70 73 76 78 81 83 86 88 90
2[deg]00'....................................... 53 57 60 63 65 68 71 73 76 78 80 82 85
2[deg]15'....................................... 50 53 56 59 62 64 67 69 71 73 76 78 80
2[deg]30'....................................... 48 51 53 56 59 61 63 65 68 70 72 74 76
2[deg]45'....................................... 46 48 51 53 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72

[[Page 25971]]

3[deg]00'....................................... 44 46 49 51 53 56 58 60 62 64 65 67 69
3[deg]15'....................................... 42 44 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 66
3[deg]30'....................................... 40 43 45 47 49 52 53 55 57 59 61 62 64
3[deg]45'....................................... 39 41 44 46 48 50 52 53 55 57 59 60 62
4[deg]00'....................................... 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 53 55 57 58 60
4[deg]30'....................................... 36 38 40 42 44 45 47 49 50 52 53 55 56
5[deg]00'....................................... 34 36 38 40 41 43 45 46 48 49 51 52 53
5[deg]30'....................................... 32 34 36 38 39 41 43 44 46 47 48 50 51
6[deg]00'....................................... 31 33 35 36 38 39 41 42 44 45 46 48 49
6[deg]30'....................................... 30 31 33 35 36 38 39 41 42 43 44 46 47
7[deg]00'....................................... 29 30 32 34 35 36 38 39 40 42 43 44 45
8[deg]00'....................................... 27 28 30 31 33 34 35 37 38 39 40 41 42
9[deg]00'....................................... 25 27 28 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 40
10[deg]00'...................................... 24 25 27 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
11[deg]00'...................................... 23 24 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
12[deg]00'...................................... 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3--Five Inches Unbalance
[Elevation of outer rail (inches)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Degree of curvature 0 \1/2\ 1 1\1/2\ 2 2\1/2\ 3 3\1/2\ 4 4\1/2\ 5 5\1/2\ 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum allowable operating speed (m.p.h.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0[deg]30'....................................... 120 125 131 136 141 146 151 156 160 165 169 173 177
0[deg]40'....................................... 104 109 113 118 122 127 131 135 139 143 146 150 150
0[deg]50'....................................... 93 97 101 106 110 113 117 121 124 128 131 134 137
1[deg]00'....................................... 85 89 93 96 100 104 107 110 113 116 120 122 125
1[deg]15'....................................... 76 79 83 86 89 93 96 99 101 104 107 110 112
1[deg]30'....................................... 69 72 76 79 82 85 87 90 93 95 98 100 102
1[deg]45'....................................... 64 67 70 73 76 78 81 83 86 88 90 93 95
2[deg]00'....................................... 60 63 65 68 71 73 76 78 80 82 85 87 89
2[deg]15'....................................... 56 59 62 64 67 69 71 73 76 78 80 82 84
2[deg]30'....................................... 53 56 59 61 63 65 68 70 72 74 76 77 79
2[deg]45'....................................... 51 53 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76
3[deg]00'....................................... 49 51 53 56 58 60 62 64 65 67 69 71 72
3[deg]15'....................................... 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 66 68 70
3[deg]30'....................................... 45 47 49 52 53 55 57 59 61 62 64 65 67
3[deg]45'....................................... 44 46 48 50 52 53 55 57 59 60 62 63 65
4[deg]00'....................................... 42 44 46 48 50 52 53 55 57 58 60 61 63
4[deg]30'....................................... 40 42 44 45 47 49 50 52 53 55 56 58 59
5[deg]00'....................................... 38 40 41 43 45 46 48 49 51 52 53 55 56
5[deg]30'....................................... 36 38 39 41 43 44 46 47 48 50 51 52 53
6[deg]00'....................................... 35 36 38 39 41 42 44 45 46 48 49 50 51
6[deg]30'....................................... 33 35 36 38 39 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 49
7[deg]00'....................................... 32 34 35 36 38 39 40 42 43 44 45 46 47
8[deg]00'....................................... 30 31 33 34 35 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
9[deg]00'....................................... 28 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
10[deg]00'...................................... 27 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
11[deg]00'...................................... 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
12[deg]00'...................................... 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 35 36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 4--Six Inches Unbalance
[Elevation of outer rail (inches)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Degree of curvature 0 \1/2\ 1 1\1/2\ 2 2\1/2\ 3 3\1/2\ 4 4\1/2\ 5 5\1/2\ 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum allowable operating speed (m.p.h.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0[deg]30'....................................... 131 136 141 146 151 156 160 165 169 173 177 181 185
0[deg]40'....................................... 113 118 122 127 131 135 139 143 146 150 154 157 160
0[deg]50'....................................... 101 106 110 113 117 121 124 128 131 134 137 140 143
1[deg]00'....................................... 93 96 100 104 107 110 113 116 120 122 125 128 131
1[deg]15'....................................... 83 86 89 93 96 99 101 104 107 110 112 115 117
1[deg]30'....................................... 76 79 82 85 87 90 93 95 98 100 102 105 107
1[deg]45'....................................... 70 73 76 78 81 83 86 88 90 93 95 97 99
2[deg]00'....................................... 65 68 71 73 76 78 80 82 85 87 89 91 93
2[deg]15'....................................... 62 64 67 69 71 73 76 78 80 82 84 85 87

[[Page 25972]]

2[deg]30'....................................... 59 61 63 65 68 70 72 74 76 77 79 81 83
2[deg]45'....................................... 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 77 79
3[deg]00'....................................... 53 56 58 60 62 64 65 67 69 71 72 74 76
3[deg]15'....................................... 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 66 68 70 71 73
3[deg]30'....................................... 49 52 53 55 57 59 61 62 64 65 67 69 70
3[deg]45'....................................... 48 50 52 53 55 57 59 60 62 63 65 66 68
4[deg]00'....................................... 46 48 50 52 53 55 57 58 60 61 63 64 65
4[deg]30'....................................... 44 45 47 49 50 52 53 55 56 58 59 60 62
5[deg]00'....................................... 41 43 45 46 48 49 51 52 53 55 56 57 59
5[deg]30'....................................... 39 41 43 44 46 47 48 50 51 52 53 55 56
6[deg]00'....................................... 38 39 41 42 44 45 46 48 49 50 51 52 53
6[deg]30'....................................... 36 38 39 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 49 50 51
7[deg]00'....................................... 35 36 38 39 40 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
8[deg]00'....................................... 33 34 35 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
9[deg]00'....................................... 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
10[deg]00'...................................... 29 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 41
11[deg]00'...................................... 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 39
12[deg]00'...................................... 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 35 36 37 38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Appendix D to part 213 is added to read as follows:

Appendix D to Part 213--Minimally Compliant Analytical Track (MCAT)
Simulations Used for Qualifying Vehicles To Operate at High Speeds and
at High Cant Deficiencies

1. This appendix contains requirements for using computer
simulations to comply with the vehicle/track qualification testing
requirements specified in subpart G of this part. These simulations
shall be performed using a track model containing defined geometry
perturbations at the limits that are permitted for a class of track
and level of cant deficiency. This track model is known as MCAT,
Minimally Compliant Analytical Track. These simulations shall be
used to identify vehicle dynamic performance issues prior to
service, and demonstrate that a vehicle type is suitable for
operation on the track over which it will operate.
2. As specified in Sec. 213.345(c)(1), MCAT shall be used for
the qualification of new vehicle types intended to operate at speeds
corresponding to Class 6 through Class 9 track, or at any curving
speed producing more than 6 inches of cant deficiency. In addition,
as specified in Sec. 213.345(d)(1), MCAT may be used to qualify on
new routes vehicle types that have previously been qualified on
other routes and are intended to operate at speeds corresponding to
Class 7 through Class 9 track, or at any curving speed producing
more than 6 inches of cant deficiency.
3. For a comprehensive safety evaluation, the track owner or
railroad shall identify any non-redundant suspension system element
or component that may present a single point of failure. Additional
MCAT simulations reflecting the fully-degraded mode of the vehicle
type's performance due to such a failure shall be included.
(a) Validation. To validate the vehicle model used for MCAT
simulations under this part, the track owner or railroad shall
obtain vehicle simulation predictions using measured track geometry
data, chosen from the same track section over which testing is to be
performed as determined by Sec. 213.345(c)(1)(ii). These
predictions shall be submitted to FRA in support of the request for
approval of the qualification test plan. Full validation of the
vehicle model used for MCAT simulations under this part shall be
determined when the results of the simulations demonstrate that they
replicate all key responses observed during the qualification test.
(b) MCAT layout. MCAT consists of nine segments, each designed
to test a vehicle's performance in response to a specific type of
track perturbation. The basic layout of MCAT is shown in figure 1 of
this appendix, by type of track (curving or tangent), class of
track, and cant deficiency (CD). The values for wavelength,
[lambda], amplitude of perturbation, a, and segment length, d, are
specified in this appendix.

[[Page 25973]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.008

(1) MCAT segments. MCAT's nine segments contain different types
of track deviations in which the shape of each deviation is a
versine having wavelength and amplitude varied for each simulation
speed as further specified. The nine MCAT segments are defined as
follows:
(i) Hunting perturbation (a1): This segment contains
an alinement deviation on both rails to test vehicle stability on
tangent track having a wavelength, [lambda], of 10 feet and
amplitude of 0.5 inch. This segment is to be used only on tangent
track simulations.
(ii) Gage narrowing (a2): This segment contains an
alinement deviation on one rail to reduce the gage from the nominal
value to the minimum permissible gage or maximum alinement
(whichever comes first).
(iii) Gage widening (a3): This segment contains an
alinement deviation on one rail to increase the gage from the
nominal value to the maximum permissible gage or maximum alinement
(whichever comes first).
(iv) Repeated surface (a9): This segment contains
three consecutive maximum permissible profile variations on each
rail.
(v) Repeated alinement (a4): This segment contains
two consecutive maximum permissible alinement variations on each
rail.
(vi) Single surface (a10, a11): This
segment contains a maximum permissible profile variation on one
rail. If the maximum permissible profile variation alone produces a
condition which exceeds the maximum allowed warp condition, a second
profile variation is also placed on the opposite rail to limit the
warp to the maximum permissible value.
(vii) Single alinement (a5, a6): This
segment contains a maximum permissible alinement variation on one
rail. If the maximum permissible alinement variation alone produces
a condition which exceeds the maximum allowed gage condition, a
second alinement variation is also placed on the opposite rail to
limit the gage to the maximum permissible value.
(viii) Short warp (a12): This segment contains a pair
of profile deviations to produce a maximum permissible 10-foot warp
perturbation. The first is on the outside rail, and the second
follows 10 feet farther on the inside rail. Each deviation has a
wavelength, [lambda], of 20 feet and variable amplitude for each
simulation speed as described below. This segment is to be used only
on curved track simulations.
(ix) Combination perturbation (a7, a8,
a13): This segment contains a maximum permissible down
and out combined geometry condition on the outside rail in the body
of the curve. If the maximum permissible variations produce a
condition which exceeds the maximum allowed gage condition, a second
variation is also placed on the opposite rail as for the MCAT
segments described in paragraphs (b)(1)(vi) and (vii). This segment
is to be used only for curved track simulations at speeds producing
more than 5 inches of cant deficiency on track Classes 6 through 9,
and at speeds producing more than 6 inches of cant deficiency on
track Classes 1 through 5.
(2) Segment lengths: Each MCAT segment shall be long enough to
allow the vehicle's response to the track deviation(s) to damp out.
Each segment shall also have a minimum length as specified in table
1 of this appendix, which references the distances in figure 1 of
this appendix. For curved track segments, the perturbations shall be
placed far enough in the body of the curve to allow for any spiral
effects to damp out.

Table 1 of Appendix D to Part 213--Minimum lengths of MCAT segments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distances (ft)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 d9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1000 1000 1000 1500 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) Degree of curvature. For each simulation involving
assessment of curving performance, the degree of curvature, D, which
generates a particular level of cant deficiency, Eu, for
a given speed, V, shall be calculated using the following equation,
which assumes a curve with 6 inches of superelevation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.022

Where:

D = Degree of curvature (degrees).
V = Simulation speed (m.p.h).
Eu = Cant deficiency (inches).

[[Page 25974]]

(1) To develop a comprehensive assessment of vehicle performance,
simulations shall be performed for a variety of scenarios using MCAT.
These simulations shall be performed to assess performance on tangent
or curved track, or both, depending on the level of cant deficiency and
speed (track class) as shown in table 2 of this appendix.

Table 2 of Appendix D to Part 213
[Required Vehicle Performance Assessment Using MCAT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New vehicle types on New vehicle types on
track classes 1 track classes 6
through 5 and through 8 and
previously qualified previously qualified
vehicle types on vehicle types on
track classes 1 track classes 7 and
through 6 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curved track: cant No simulation MCAT--performance on
deficiency <= 6 inches. required. curve.
Curved track: cant MCAT--performance on MCAT--performance on
deficiency > 6 inches. curve. curve.
Tangent track............... No simulation MCAT--performance on
required. tangent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(i) All simulations shall be performed using the design wheel
profile and a nominal track gage of 56.5 inches, using tables 3, 4, 5,
or 6 of this appendix, as appropriate. In addition, all simulations
involving the assessment of curving performance shall be repeated using
a nominal track gage of 57.0 inches, using tables 4, 5, or 6 of this
appendix, as appropriate.
(ii) If the running profile is different than APTA 340 or APTA 320,
then all simulations shall be repeated using either the APTA 340 or the
APTA 320 wheel profile, depending on the established conicity that is
common for the operation. In lieu of these profiles, an alternative
worn wheel profile may be used if approved by FRA.
(iii) All simulations shall be performed using a wheel/rail
coefficient of friction of 0.5.
(2) Vehicle performance on tangent track Classes 6 through 9. For
maximum vehicle speeds corresponding to track Class 6 and higher, the
MCAT segments described in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(vii) of
this appendix shall be used to assess vehicle performance on tangent
track. A parametric matrix of MCAT simulations shall be performed using
the following range of conditions:
(i) Vehicle speed. Simulations shall ensure that at up to 5 m.p.h.
above the proposed maximum operating speed, the vehicle type shall not
exceed the wheel/rail force and acceleration criteria defined in the
Vehicle/Track Interaction Safety Limits table in Sec. 213.333.
Simulations shall be performed to demonstrate acceptable vehicle
dynamic response by incrementally increasing speed from 95 m.p.h. (115
m.p.h. if a previously qualified vehicle type on an untested route) to
5 m.p.h. above the proposed maximum operating speed (in 5 m.p.h.
increments).
(ii) Perturbation wavelength. For each speed, a set of three
separate MCAT simulations shall be performed. In each MCAT simulation,
every perturbation shall have the same wavelength. The following three
wavelengths, [lambda], are to be used: 31, 62, and 124 feet.
(iii) Amplitude parameters. Table 3 of this appendix provides the
amplitude values for the MCAT segments described in paragraphs
(b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(vii) of this appendix for each speed of the
required parametric MCAT simulations. The last set of simulations shall
be performed at 5 m.p.h. above the proposed maximum operating speed
using the amplitude values in table 3 that correspond to the proposed
maximum operating speed. For qualification of vehicle types involving
speeds greater than track Class 6, the following additional simulations
shall be performed:
(A) For vehicle types being qualified for track Class 7 speeds, one
additional set of simulations shall be performed at 115 m.p.h. using
the track Class 6 amplitude values in table 3 (i.e., a 5 m.p.h.
overspeed on Class 6 track).
(B) For vehicle types being qualified for track Class 8 speeds, two
additional sets of simulations shall be performed. The first set at 115
m.p.h. using the track Class 6 amplitude values in table 3 (i.e., a 5
m.p.h. overspeed on Class 6 track) and a second set at 130 m.p.h. using
the track Class 7 amplitude values in table 3 (i.e., a 5 m.p.h.
overspeed on Class 7 track).
(C) For vehicle types being qualified for track Class 9 speeds,
three additional sets of simulations shall be performed. The first set
at 115 m.p.h. using the track Class 6 amplitude values in table 3
(i.e., a 5 m.p.h. overspeed on Class 6 track), a second set at 130
m.p.h. using the track Class 7 amplitude values in table 3 (i.e., a 5
m.p.h. overspeed on Class 7 track), and a third set at 165 m.p.h. using
the track Class 8 amplitude values in table 3 (i.e., a 5 m.p.h.
overspeed on Class 8 track).

[[Page 25975]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.009

(3) Vehicle performance on curved Track Classes 6 through 9. For
maximum vehicle speeds corresponding to track Class 6 and higher, the
MCAT segments described in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) through (b)(1)(ix) in
this appendix shall be used to assess vehicle performance on curved
track. For curves less than 1 degree, simulations must also include the
hunting perturbation segment described in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this
appendix. A parametric matrix of MCAT simulations shall be performed
using the following range of conditions:
(i) Vehicle speed. Simulations shall ensure that at up to 5 m.p.h.
above the proposed maximum operating speed, the vehicle type shall not
exceed the wheel/rail force and acceleration criteria defined in the
Vehicle/Track Interaction Safety Limits table in Sec. 213.333.
Simulations shall be performed to demonstrate acceptable vehicle
dynamic response by incrementally increasing speed from 95 m.p.h. (115
m.p.h. if a previously qualified vehicle type on an untested route) to
5 m.p.h. above the proposed maximum operating speed (in 5 m.p.h.
increments).
(ii) Perturbation wavelength. For each speed, a set of three
separate MCAT simulations shall be performed. In each MCAT simulation,
every perturbation shall have the same wavelength. The following three
wavelengths, [lambda], are to be used: 31, 62, and 124 feet.
(iii) Track curvature. For each speed a range of curvatures shall
be used to produce cant deficiency conditions ranging from greater than
3 inches up to the maximum intended for qualification (in 1 inch
increments). The value of curvature, D, shall be determined using the
equation defined in paragraph (a)(3) of this appendix. Each curve shall
include representations of the MCAT segments described in paragraphs
(b)(1)(ii) through (b)(1)(ix) of this appendix and have a fixed
superelevation of 6 inches.
(iv) Amplitude parameters. Table 4 of this appendix provides the
amplitude values for each speed of the required parametric MCAT
simulations for cant deficiencies greater than 3 and less than or equal
to 5 inches. Table 5 of this appendix provides the amplitude values for
each speed of the required parametric MCAT simulations for cant
deficiencies greater than 5 inches. The last set of simulations at the
maximum cant deficiency shall be performed at 5 m.p.h. above the
proposed maximum operating speed using the amplitude values in table 4
or 5 of this appendix, as appropriate, that correspond to the proposed
maximum operating speed and cant deficiency. For these simulations, the
value of curvature, D, shall correspond to the proposed maximum
operating speed and cant deficiency. For qualification of vehicle types
involving speeds greater than track Class 6, the following additional
simulations shall be performed:
(A) For vehicle types being qualified for track Class 7 speeds, one
additional set of simulations shall be performed at 115 m.p.h. using
the track Class 6 amplitude values in table 4 or 5 of this appendix, as
appropriate (i.e., a 5 m.p.h. overspeed on Class 6 track) and a value
of curvature, D, that corresponds to 110 m.p.h. and the proposed
maximum cant deficiency.
(B) For vehicle types being qualified for track Class 8 speeds, two
additional set of simulations shall be performed. The first set of
simulations shall be

[[Page 25976]]

performed at 115 m.p.h. using the track Class 6 amplitude values in
table 4 or 5 of this appendix, as appropriate (i.e., a 5 m.p.h.
overspeed on Class 6 track) and a value of curvature, D, that
corresponds to 110 m.p.h. and the proposed maximum cant deficiency. The
second set of simulations shall be performed at 130 m.p.h. using the
track Class 7 amplitude values in table 4 or 5 of this appendix, as
appropriate (i.e., a 5 m.p.h. overspeed on Class 7 track) and a value
of curvature, D, that corresponds to 125 m.p.h. and the proposed
maximum cant deficiency.
(C) For vehicle types being qualified for track Class 9 speeds,
three additional sets of simulations shall be performed. The first set
of simulations shall be performed at 115 m.p.h. using the track Class 6
amplitude values in table 4 or 5 of this appendix, as appropriate
(i.e., a 5 m.p.h. overspeed on Class 6 track) and a value of curvature,
D, that corresponds to 110 m.p.h. and the proposed maximum cant
deficiency. The second set of simulations shall be performed at 130
m.p.h. using the track Class 7 amplitude values in table 4 or 5 of this
appendix, as appropriate (i.e., a 5 m.p.h. overspeed on Class 7 track)
and a value of curvature, D, that corresponds to 125 m.p.h. and the
proposed maximum cant deficiency. The third set of simulations shall be
performed at 165 m.p.h. using the track Class 8 amplitude values in
table 4 or 5 of this appendix, as appropriate (i.e., a 5 m.p.h.
overspeed on Class 8 track) and a value of curvature, D, that
corresponds to 160 m.p.h. and the proposed maximum cant deficiency.
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.010

[[Page 25977]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.011

(4) Vehicle performance on curved track Classes 1 through 5 at
high cant deficiency. For maximum vehicle speeds corresponding to
track Classes 1 through 5, the MCAT segments described in paragraphs
(b)(1)(ii) through (b)(1)(ix) of this appendix shall be used to
assess vehicle performance on curved track if the proposed maximum
cant deficiency is greater than 6 inches. For curves less than 1
degree, simulations must also include the hunting perturbation
segment described in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this appendix. A
parametric matrix of MCAT simulations shall be performed using the
following range of conditions:
(i) Vehicle speed. Simulations shall ensure that at up to 5
m.p.h. above the proposed maximum operating speed, the vehicle shall
not exceed the wheel/rail force and acceleration criteria defined in
the Vehicle/Track Interaction Safety Limits table in Sec. 213.333.
Simulations shall be performed to demonstrate acceptable vehicle
dynamic response at 5 m.p.h. above the proposed maximum operating
speed.
(ii) Perturbation wavelength. For each speed, a set of two
separate MCAT simulations shall be performed. In each MCAT
simulation, every perturbation shall have the same wavelength. The
following two wavelengths, [lgr], are to be used: 31 and 62 feet.
(iii) Track curvature. For a speed corresponding to 5 m.p.h.
above the proposed maximum operating speed, a range of curvatures
shall be used to produce cant deficiency conditions ranging from 6
inches up to the maximum intended for qualification (in 1 inch
increments). The value of curvature, D, shall be determined using
the equation in paragraph (a)(3) of this appendix. Each curve shall
contain the MCAT segments described in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) through
(b)(1)(ix) of this appendix and have a fixed superelevation of 6
inches.
(iv) Amplitude parameters. Table 6 of this appendix provides the
amplitude values for the MCAT segments described in paragraphs
(b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(vii) of this appendix for each speed of the
required parametric MCAT simulations.

[[Page 25978]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.012

BILLING CODE 4910-06-C

PART 238--[AMENDED]

20. The authority citation for part 238 continues to read as
follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20133, 20141, 20302-20303,
20306, 20701-20702, 21301-21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49
CFR 1.49.

Subpart C--Specific Requirements for Tier I Passenger Equipment

21. Section 238.227 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 238.227 Suspension system.

On or after November 8, 1999--
(a) All passenger equipment shall exhibit freedom from truck
hunting at all operating speeds. If truck hunting does occur, a
railroad shall immediately take appropriate action to prevent
derailment. Truck hunting is defined in Sec. 213.333 of this chapter.
(b) Nothing in this section shall affect the requirements of the
Track Safety Standards in part 213 of this chapter as they apply to
passenger equipment as provided in that part. In particular--
(1) Pre-revenue service qualification. All passenger equipment
intended for service at speeds greater than 90 mph or at any curving
speed producing more than 5 inches of cant deficiency shall demonstrate
safe operation during pre-revenue service qualification in accordance
with Sec. 213.345 of this chapter and is subject to the requirements
of either Sec. 213.57 or Sec. 213.329 of this chapter, as
appropriate.
(2) Revenue service operation. All passenger equipment intended for
service at speeds greater than 90 mph or at any curving speed producing
more than 5 inches of cant deficiency is subject to the requirements of
Sec. 213.333 of this chapter and either Sec. Sec. 213.57 or 213.329
of this chapter, as appropriate.

Subpart E--Specific Requirements for Tier II Passenger Equipment

22. Section 238.427 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2), (b),
and (c), and by removing paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec. 238.427 Suspension system.

(a) * * *
(2) All passenger equipment shall meet the safety performance
standards for suspension systems contained in part 213 of this chapter,
or alternative standards providing at least equivalent safety if
approved by FRA under the provisions of Sec. 238.21. In particular--
(i) Pre-revenue service qualification. All passenger equipment
shall demonstrate safe operation during pre-revenue service
qualification in accordance with Sec. 213.345 of this chapter and is
subject to the requirements of Sec. 213.329 of this chapter.
(ii) Revenue service operation. All passenger equipment in service
is subject to the requirements of Sec. Sec. 213.329 and 213.333 of
this chapter.
(b) Carbody acceleration. A passenger car shall not operate under
conditions that result in a steady-state lateral acceleration greater
than 0.15g, as measured parallel to the car floor inside the passenger
compartment. Additional carbody acceleration limits are specified in
Sec. 213.333 of this chapter.
(c) Truck (hunting) acceleration. Each truck shall be equipped with
a

[[Page 25979]]

permanently installed lateral accelerometer mounted on the truck frame.
If truck hunting is detected, the train monitoring system shall provide
an alarm to the operator and the train shall be slowed to a speed at
least 5 mph less than the speed at which the truck hunting stopped.
Truck hunting is defined in Sec. 213.333 of this chapter.
23. Section 238.428 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 238.428 Overheat sensors.

Overheat sensors for each wheelset journal bearing shall be
provided. The sensors may be placed either onboard the equipment or at
reasonable intervals along the railroad's right-of-way.

Appendix C to Part 238 [Removed and Reserved]

24. Appendix C to part 238 is removed and reserved.

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 29, 2010.
Joseph C. Szabo,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-10624 Filed 5-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P