33992 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 213

[Docket No. RST–90–1, Notice No. 8]

RIN 2130–AA75

Track Safety Standards

AGENCY: Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA), Department of

Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: FRA amends the Track Safety

Standards to update and enhance its

track safety regulatory program. To

address today’s railroad operating

environment, these amendments present

additional regulatory requirements,

including standards specifically

addressing high speed train operations.

FRA issues these changes to improve

track safety and provide the railroad

industry with the flexibility needed to

effect a safer and more efficient use of

resources. The amendments reflect

recommendations submitted to FRA by

the Railroad Safety Advisory

Committee. The provisions included in

this notice become effective with this

rule. However, FRA anticipates that

further amendments will be added to

address the use of Gage Restraint

Measuring Systems.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is

effective September 21, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Allison H. MacDowell, Office of Safety

Enforcement, Federal Railroad

Administration, 400 Seventh Street,

S.W., Mail Stop 25, Washington, D.C.

20590 (telephone: 202–632–3344), or

Nancy Lummen Lewis, Office of Chief

Counsel, Federal Railroad

Administration, 400 Seventh Street,

S.W., Mail Stop 10, Washington, D.C.

20590 (telephone: 202–632–3174).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

The first Federal Track Safety

Standards were implemented in

October, 1971, following the enactment

of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of

1970 in which Congress granted to FRA

comprehensive authority over ‘‘all areas

of railroad safety.’’ See 36 FR 20336 and

49 U.S.C. 20101 et seq. 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.

FRA amended the Track Safety

Standards with minor revisions several

times in the past two decades. It began

a project to revise the standards

extensively in 1978, but later withdrew

the effort when investigation revealed

that considerably more data collection

and analysis were necessary to support

recommended revisions. A less

extensive revision of the Track Safety

Standards was issued in November,

1982. Since then, FRA has acquired

much information crucial to further

development of the Track Safety

Standards through the enhanced

statistical analysis capabilities resulting

from additional field reporting

requirements and improved data

collection processes.

Statutory Background

The Rail Safety Enforcement and

Review Act of 1992, Public Law 102–

365, 106 Stat. 972 (September 3, 1992),

later amended by the Federal Railroad

Safety Authorization Act of 1994, Public

Law 103–440, 108 Stat. 4615 (November

2, 1994), requires FRA to revise the

track safety regulations contained in 49

CFR Part 213. Now codified at 49 U.S.C.

§ 20142, the amended statute requires:

(a) Review of Existing Regulations.—Not

later than March 3, 1993, the Secretary of

Transportation shall begin a review of

Department of Transportation regulations

related to track safety standards. The review

at least shall include an evaluation of—

(1) Procedures associated with maintaining

and installing continuous welded rail and its

attendant structure, including cold weather

installation procedures;

(2) The need for revisions to regulations on

track excepted from track safety standards;

and

(3) Employee safety.

(b) Revision of Regulations.—Not later than

September 1, 1995, the Secretary shall

prescribe regulations and issue orders to

revise track safety standards, considering

safety information presented during the

review under subsection (a) of this section

and the report of the Comptroller General

submitted under subsection (c) of this

section.

* * * * *

(d) Identification of Internal Rail Defects.—

In carrying out subsections (a) and (b), the

Secretary shall consider whether or not to

prescribe regulations and issue orders

concerning—

(1) Inspection procedures to identify

internal rail defects, before they reach

imminent failure size, in rail that has

significant shelling; and

(2) Any specific actions that should be

taken when a rail surface condition, such as

shelling, prevents the identification of

internal defects.

Petitions for Rulemaking

In May, 1990, the Brotherhood of

Maintenance of Way Employes (BMWE)

filed a petition with FRA to revise the

Track Safety Standards. The petition

suggested substantive changes to the

standards, the addition of new

regulations addressing recent

developments in the industry, as well as

the reinstatement of many of the

regulations deleted from the standards

in 1982. The BMWE also petitioned

FRA to further address employee safety

by incorporating in the Track Safety

Standards certain sections of the

Occupational Safety and Health

Standards presently administered by the

U.S. Department of Labor.

In March, 1992, the Association of

American Railroads (AAR) submitted to

FRA a list of recommended revisions to

the Track Safety Standards. The AAR

suggested some changes in the wording

of existing regulations to provide

additional flexibility to accommodate

future innovations in railroad

technology. Several suggested revisions

included new approaches to

determining compliance with certain

existing regulations. Most notable

among those was AAR’s proposal that

the revised track standards permit the

use of a Gage Restraint Measuring

System (GRMS) in place of detailed

crosstie and fastener requirements.

Proceedings to Date

On November 16, 1992, FRA

published an Advance Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in this

docket. See 57 FR 54038. The ANPRM

summarized FRA’s knowledge about

developments in the rail industry in the

past two decades and then posed some

52 questions regarding how those

developments should be addressed in

the revised track safety standards.

The ANPRM also announced plans for

four public workshops in which

technically-knowledgeable persons with

specialized experience in track

maintenance were invited to share their

views with FRA in an informal setting.

The workshops were fact-finding

sessions comprised of informal giveand-take exchanges between industry,

labor, and government professionals

charged with the administration of the

track safety standards on a day-to-day

basis. They constituted an initial step by

FRA to use more active collaboration

with labor, railroad management,

manufacturers, state governments, and

public interest associations in

structuring the revised regulations.

Participants in the workshops

included representatives of major and

short line railroads, the AAR, the

American Short Line Railroad

Association (ASLRA), the BMWE, as

well as individuals with a particular

interest in certain areas of the track

safety standards. In addition to the

workshops, FRA invited interested
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 33993

persons to submit written comments to

the questions posed in the ANPRM.

Approximately 30 individuals,

railroads, and industry groups

submitted their suggestions and

observations.

Following one workshop which

included an extensive discussion about

the safety of maintenance-of-way

employees, FRA decided to isolate that

issue from this proceeding so that it

could be addressed thoroughly in a

separate rulemaking. That issue became

the focus of a proceeding addressing

roadway worker safety, FRA’s first

negotiated rulemaking. FRA established

its first formal regulatory negotiation

committee in 1994. After months of

discussions and debates, the committee

reached consensus conclusions and

recommended provisions for an NPRM

to the Federal Railroad Administrator

(Administrator) on May 17, 1995. An

NPRM based upon those

recommendations was published on

March 14, 1996 (see 61 FR 10528), and

a final rule was issued on December 16,

1996 (see 61 FR 65959). Thus, a

significant portion of the mandate of the

Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act

of 1992 calling for a general revision of

the Track Safety Standards already has

become effective.

The Railroad Safety Advisory

Committee and the Track Working

Group

In past rulemakings, interested parties

generally have approached the

proceedings in an adversarial manner, a

tactic that often inhibited the

development of the best regulatory

solutions to resolve difficult safety

issues. In addition, parties also have

resorted to pressuring Congress for

legislation that would grant regulatory

results with which FRA disagreed or

were at odds with FRA’s regulatory

agenda. FRA concluded, therefore, that

inclusion of these parties in its

regulatory process would result in a

more positive approach to developing

the best solutions to pressing safety

problems.

Although FRA gathered much

information in the 1993 track

workshops, as well as in similar

workshops associated with other

rulemaking proceedings, the agency

recognized that continued use of these

‘‘ad hoc’’ collaborative procedures for

each rulemaking was not the most

effective means of accomplishing the

agency’s goal of achieving a more

consensus-based regulatory program.

Following the success in 1995 of the

negotiated rulemaking addressing

roadway worker safety, FRA decided

that several pending rulemakings,

including this proceeding to revise Part

213, should advance under a new

rulemaking model that relies upon

consensus among various members of

the affected industry and the regulated

community. On March 11, 1996, FRA

announced formation of the Railroad

Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC), the

centerpiece of the agency’s new

regulatory program which emphasizes

rulemaking by consensus with those

most affected by the agency’s

regulations. See 61 FR 740.

The RSAC is comprised of 48

individual representatives drawn from

27 member organizations. The

membership of the RSAC is

representative of those interested in

railroad safety issues, including railroad

owners, manufacturers, labor groups,

state government groups, and public

interest associations. It’s sponsor is the

Administrator, who recommends

specific issues for it to address. The

RSAC operates by consensus. It is

authorized to establish smaller

‘‘working groups’’ to research and

initially address the issues

recommended by the Administrator and

accepted by the RSAC to resolve.

Most of the text of this final rule was

recommended to FRA by the RSAC. The

committee was tasked by the

Administrator to formulate and present

to FRA recommendations for new

regulations and revisions of existing

ones.

In accordance with established RSAC

procedures, 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 the revision of

Part 213. It met periodically over a span

of six months in 1996.

The Track Working Group identified

issues for discussion from several

sources. One source of issues was, of

course, the statutory mandates issued by

Congress in 1992 and in 1994. Two

other sources were the BMWE’s petition

and AAR proposals. Several issues came

to the Track Working Group by way of

requests for consideration made by

FRA’s track safety Technical Resolution

Committee. The group also examined

track issues involved in a number of

recommendations made to FRA by the

National Transportation Safety Board

(NTSB) in the past decade. Discussions

utilized information acquired by FRA

through its research and development

program, as well as from findings from

routine agency investigations and

accident investigations. Finally, the

Track Working Group systematically

surveyed the existing regulations to

identify those sections and subsections

that needed updating or, in some cases,

deletion.

At a public meeting on October 31,

1996, the Track Working Group

presented its proposed rule to the RSAC

for approval to recommend it to the

Administrator. As required by RSAC

procedures, each provision in the

proposed rule had received unanimous

approval by the members of the Track

Working Group. At the request of the

BMWE, the RSAC agreed to defer the

vote on whether to recommend the

proposed rule to the Administrator to

provide that organization additional

time to inform its members. At the time

of the formal vote by mail on November

21, 1996, representatives of many of the

labor unions withdrew support of the

proposed rule and recommended that it

be returned to the Track Working Group

for further discussion.

Despite the lack of support by many

RSAC representatives of rail labor, the

number of votes cast in favor of

recommending the proposed rule to the

Administrator exceeded the number

necessary for a simple majority. RSAC’s

procedures provide that where there is

a majority vote to recommend to the

Administrator a rule presented to the

RSAC with full consensus of the

working group that produced it, the

RSAC will recommend adoption of the

rule by the Administrator. Following

those procedures, the RSAC formally

recommended to the Administrator that

FRA issue the proposed rule as it was

drafted.

On July 3, 1997, FRA published a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

which included substantially the same

rule text and preamble developed by the

Track Working Group. See 62 FR 36138.

In developing the regulatory evaluation

for the NPRM, FRA attempted to

incorporate additional data in the cost/

benefit analysis beyond the impact data

provided by the Track Working Group.

In the NPRM, FRA requested additional

relevant data to use in the regulatory

evaluation for this final rule, but parties

who had access to relevant data did not

respond to that request.

Comments and Responses

The NPRM generated comments from

12 sources. Four of the commenters,

namely, the AAR, the BMWE, the

ASLRA, and Amtrak, were represented

on the Track Working Group and helped

draft the recommended rule which

became the basis for the NPRM. All four

of those commenters expressed support

for the RSAC process.

The BMWE stated that it agrees with

many of the revisions proposed in the

NPRM, but that the standards proposed
33994 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

therein ‘‘do not go far enough to ensure

the integrity of the track structure.’’ The

BMWE stated that ‘‘several significant

deficiencies’’ led that group, as well as

RSAC members representing other labor

organizations, to recommend to RSAC

that the proposed rule as drafted by the

Track Working Group be returned to

that group for further consideration.

The AAR, in its comments to the

docket, stated that it continues to

support the NPRM and the language

drafted by the Track Working Group.

However, the AAR also added a request

that should FRA revise any of the

proposed rule in direct response to

comments by RSAC participants who

withdrew support of the rule drafted by

the Track Working Group, then FRA

would also re-examine the positions the

AAR originally expressed about those

issues. The AAR stated that its support

of the proposed rule reflects that

organization’s willingness to

compromise some of its positions in the

interest in reaching consensus about the

proposed rule in the Track Working

Group. Therefore, the AAR’s general

support of the NPRM should not be

misconstrued as agreement by the

organization with each and every

provision of the NPRM.

FRA has not significantly changed the

NPRM based on comments from other

RSAC participants who withdrew

support for the rule proposed by the

Track Working Group. Thus the AAR’s

suggested revisions based on that

contingency are not examined in the

‘‘Section By Section Analysis’’ portion

of this final rule.

Continuous Welded Rail (CWR)

In the first track safety standards

published in 1971, § 213.119 dealt with

CWR in a rather general manner, stating

simply that CWR must be installed at a

rail temperature that prevents lateral

displacement of track or pull-aparts of

rail ends, and that it should not be

disturbed at rail temperatures higher

than the installation or adjusted

installation temperature. (See 36 FR

20341.) In 1979, when FRA proposed a

significant revision of Part 213, the

agency suggested that this subsection be

eliminated because it provided ‘‘little

guidance to railroads’’ and was

‘‘difficult to enforce.’’ The agency

further stated that research had ‘‘not

advanced to the point where specific

safety requirements can be established.’’

(See 44 FR 52114.) However, when the

proposed revision was withdrawn in

1981 (see 46 FR 32896), the proposal to

eliminate § 213.119 was also

abandoned. In the November, 1982

revisions to the Track Safety Standards,

§ 213.119 was deleted.

In the Rail Safety Enforcement and

Review Act of 1992, Congress mandated

FRA to evaluate procedures for

installing and maintaining CWR. In

1994, in the Federal Railroad

Authorization Act, Congress added an

evaluation of cold weather installation

procedures to that mandate. In light of

the evaluation of those procedures, as

well as information resulting from

FRA’s own research and development,

this final rule returns CWR procedures

to Part 213.

CWR is naturally subjected to high

compressive and tensile forces which, if

not adequately restrained, can result in

track buckling or pull-aparts. The

potential for track buckling increases as

the ambient air temperature increases

while the potential for pull-aparts

increases as the ambient air temperature

decreases. Track buckling tends to occur

under train movement and therefore can

be instantaneous and somewhat

unpredictable.

In recent years, FRA engaged in a

research program to develop criteria and

guidelines for improving CWR’s

resistance to buckling. The program

sought to (1) define critical forces and

conditions associated with track

buckling, (2) quantify parameters which

govern the resistance of track to

buckling, and (3) develop technology to

detect incipient failures prior to track

buckling. Railroads have also invested

considerable resources into CWR

research and employee training which

has resulted in a marked decrease in the

number of reportable buckled track

incidents over the last decade. FRA’s

Accident/Incident data base reveals that

the number of reportable buckled track

derailments has been reduced by

approximately 50% since 1985,

dropping from a yearly average of

approximately 60 instances to

approximately 30 such occurrences per

year.

How a railroad provides the adequate

lateral resistance to prevent track

buckling may vary from railroad to

railroad. The Track Working Group

found that consistent methodology is

not as important as effective

methodology in installing and

maintaining CWR. Therefore, the Track

Working Group’s recommendations and

the new subsection (§ 213.119) are

premised on the concept that the

regulations should provide railroads

with as much flexibility as safely

feasible. The new subsection allows

railroads to develop and implement

their individual CWR programs based

on procedures which have proven

effective for them over the years. At a

minimum, procedures shall be

developed for the installation,

adjustment, maintenance, and

inspection of CWR, as well as a training

program and minimal requirements for

recordkeeping. FRA fully expects the

railroad industry to take advantage of

continuing research initiatives to update

and enhance their CWR procedures, and

cautions railroads not to develop less

than acceptable CWR procedures as a

means to lessen the effect of regulatory

oversight. FRA will monitor the

railroads’ adherence to these procedures

as well as the overall effectiveness of the

CWR programs.

While the CWR provision, as

proposed, received support from some

commenters (the NTSB), others were

critical of the new provision. The AAR

called it ‘‘a classic case of

overregulation’’ and suggested that the

provision require track owners only to

have CWR procedures and training

programs in effect and accessible to

FRA. While it supported the provision

as a means to enhance track safety, the

BMWE also advised that the provision

lacks a means to address railroads’ noncompliance with their own CWR

programs. The ASLRA suggested that

railroads should have the option of

excluding from their CWR plans any

trackage over which trains do not

operate at speeds over 30 m.p.h. and

which do not exceed one million gross

ton miles in traffic annually. The AAR

also stated that it generally supports the

provision as drafted by the Track

Working Group and that its suggestions

for changes were to be considered only

in the event FRA decides to revise the

proposed provision in response to

recommendations of other RSAC

participants who, after helping to draft

the recommended NPRM, withdrew

support for the recommendation. All

three commenters who expressed

negative comments were active

participants in the Track Working

Group and helped to draft the language

which adds the provision for CWR in

this final rule.

Excepted Track

With some limitations, the excepted

track regulation permits railroads to

designate track as ‘‘excepted’’ from

compliance with minimum safety

requirements for roadbed, track

geometry and track structure. FRA

added the excepted track provision

(§ 213.4) to the regulations in 1982 in

response to an industry outcry for

regulatory relief on those rail lines

producing little or no income. FRA

believed that without some relief for

low density lines, railroads would

accelerate abandonment of those lines

rather than invest their slim resources

where returns would be limited.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 33995

Therefore, the 1982 revision provided

the industry with a means to operate

over designated tracks without

complying with the substantive

requirements of the Track Safety

Standards. FRA believed that the

designated tracks would be located in

yards or otherwise on comparatively

level terrain in areas where the

likelihood was remote that a derailment

would endanger a train crew or the

general public.

The 1982 provision contains a

number of operating restrictions,

including limitations on where excepted

track can be located and the number of

cars containing hazardous materials

(five) that can be hauled in one train.

Maximum speed is 10 m.p.h., and

passenger service is prohibited.

Despite these limitations, railroads

have embraced the concept of excepted

track. In 1992, an FRA survey revealed

the existence of approximately 12,000

miles of designated excepted track

nationwide, far more than FRA

envisioned when the provision was

added to the regulations. Recent surveys

conducted by the AAR and the ASLRA

indicate that between 8,000 and 9,000

miles of excepted track presently exist

nationwide.

Comments to the ANPRM, the NPRM,

as well as some opinions expressed

within the Track Working Group,

showed that many railroads favor

maintaining an excepted track provision

in the Track Safety Standards. They

argued that accident and injury data do

not support the notion that trackage in

‘‘excepted’’ status presents any

significant safety hazard. FRA’s data

show that between 1990 and 1995,

track-caused derailments on excepted

track caused three reportable injuries

and one release of hazardous materials.

In commenting on the NPRM, the

ASLRA stated that, in a recent survey of

short line railroads, 146 railroads that

reported having excepted track had 122

reportable accidents in a five-year

period from 1991 through 1995. Of

those accidents, 87 were track-related.

The ASLRA strenuously argued that

short line railroads depend on the

excepted track provision in order to

keep certain track segments in business.

Many short lines operate over track they

acquired just before abandonment by a

major railroad. A significant number of

those lines serve only a handful of

industries with comparatively small

gross tonnage. The ASLRA commented

that the cost to short line railroads to

upgrade and maintain excepted track

would exceed $230 million. Elimination

of the excepted track provision would

cause the abandonment of

approximately 95 lines affecting 1,063

shippers who may be then compelled to

use highway transportation.

Approximately 65% of all reportable

derailments on excepted track from

1988 through the third quarter of 1995

were track-caused. Of those, nearly 33%

were attributed to wide gage as a result

of defective crossties or rail fasteners.

Several commenters expressed approval

of some type of gage restriction. The

BMWE suggested that the revised

provision should also address the

condition and placement of ties and

fasteners, as well as switch maintenance

and rail/joint bar defects.

The AAR commented that the gage

restrictions proposed in the NPRM

should be eliminated. The AAR stated

that there are situations where wide

gage is safe, for instance, in road

crossings. In those cases, pavement

would have to be destroyed and

replaced to correct wide gage when the

pavement would have restricted wheel

position and prevented a derailment.

The AAR also stated that it recommends

that the gage restriction be eliminated

only if FRA decides to revise the

proposed provision based on the

comments of other RSAC participants

who helped draft the recommendations

and then later withdrew support of

them. Otherwise, the AAR supports the

NPRM as drafted by the Track Working

Group.

Because none of the commenters

presented FRA with a compelling

reason to make further changes to the

gage restrictions in the excepted track

provision, this final rule adopts the

language as recommended by the Track

Working Group and as proposed in the

NPRM. Under this final rule, track

owners must maintain gage to a 581⁄4′′

standard and perform periodic switch

inspections.

FRA and state inspectors have found

instances where railroads have taken

advantage of the permissive language in

the 1982 provision to conduct

operations in a manner not envisioned

when FRA drafted the provision. For

example, a railroad removes a segment

of track from the excepted designation

only long enough to move a train with

more than five cars carrying hazardous

materials, or to operate an excursion

passenger train, and then replaces the

segment in excepted status as soon as

the movement is completed. The BMWE

and the NTSB suggested that the revised

provision include time limits for the use

of this provision over any segment of

track. The final rule adopts the language

as proposed in the NPRM and requires

railroads to provide FRA with

notification 10 days prior to removing

track from excepted status.

The revision also changes the word

‘‘revenue’’ to ‘‘occupied’’ in describing

passenger trains prohibited from

operating over excepted track. This

change codifies FRA’s long-standing

interpretation of the 1982 provision

which allowed trains on excepted track

to be occupied by crews, work gangs,

and other railroad employees attending

to their job-related duties. It is also

designed to dispel the misconception by

some railroads that passengers could be

hauled over excepted track as long as

they were not charged, and the railroad

received no ‘‘revenue,’’ for their

transportation. The purpose of the

passenger prohibition is to safeguard

railroad passengers; its purpose is not

concerned with the revenue-generating

power of passenger service.

Liability Standard

The current track regulations are

enforced against a track owner ‘‘who

knows or has notice’’ that the track does

not meet compliance standards. This

knowledge standard is unique to the

track regulations; other FRA regulations

are based on strict liability. The

knowledge standard is founded on the

notion that railroads cannot prevent the

occurrence of some defects in track

structures that are continually changing

in response to the loads imposed on

them by traffic and effects of weather.

Many defects may not be detected even

when the track owner exercises

reasonable care. Therefore, track owners

should be held responsible only for

those defects about which they know or

should know. Today, even after years of

track abandonments by major railroads,

the industry is responsible for

maintaining about 200,000 miles of

track. Many defects occur suddenly in

remote areas, making it difficult for even

the most diligent track inspectors to

keep pace with all defects as they

happen.

With a knowledge standard attached

to the track regulations, railroads are

held liable for non-compliance or civil

penalties for only those defects that they

knew about or those that are so evident

the railroad is deemed to have known

about them. FRA and state inspectors

meet this knowledge standard in a

number of ways. Sometimes they record

and notify a railroad of a defect that

they find, and then re-inspect later to

see if the defect has been repaired. If it

has not, they may cite the railroad for

a violation of the track safety standards.

While this method provides a failsafe

way of proving railroad notice of a

defect, it is not always practicable for

inspectors to perform follow-up

inspections. Such a system would make

railroads responsible only for defects
33996 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

FRA already has detected, which is

clearly not a sufficient incentive to

comply.

Often, inspectors choose to inspect

the railroad’s own inspection records to

see if a defect they have noted is

recorded there. If it is, the inspection

record forms proof that the railroad had

notice of the defect. If the defect is not

recorded in the railroad’s inspection

records, but is of the nature that it

would have had to exist at the time of

the railroad’s last inspection (for

example, defective crossties or certain

breaks that are covered with rust) and

would have been detected with the

exercise of reasonable care, the defect’s

existence constitutes constructive

knowledge by the railroad and the

railroad is cited for a violation. FRA’s

reading of its ‘‘knows or has notice’’

standard has been its long-standing

enforcement policy and is explained in

FRA’s Track Enforcement Manual.

In its petition, the BMWE suggested

that FRA put track owners under a strict

liability standard by removing the

phrase ‘‘knows or has notice’’ from

§ 213.5. Under that standard, any defect

found by an FRA inspector could be

written as a violation regardless of the

railroad’s ignorance of it or the

railroad’s opportunity to have detected

it under the required inspection

schedule. The AAR requested in its

petition that FRA develop performance

standards for the track regulations.

Certain defects would not be cited as

long as the track is performing safely,

making unnecessary many of the

regulations (for example, inspection

requirements and the minimum number

of crossties). The inherent weakness in

such a proposal is that railroads will

develop differing internal requirements

for track inspection and maintenance.

Some railroads may not be as vigilant as

others in spotting defects or potential

defects. Track defects compromising

safety may not be discovered until the

track fails, causing a derailment and

possibly injuries and death.

Neither the BMWE nor the AAR

provided FRA with cost/benefit

information to support their respective

requests.

The Track Working Group considered

and rejected both proposals, finding that

the existing language, as it has been

enforced to date, strikes the best balance

of all interests. Therefore, the NPRM

proposed to leave the standard of

liability unchanged. In its comments on

the NPRM, the BMWE again proposed

that the standard of liability be changed

to that of strict liability. According to

the BMWE, the current language

encourages railroads to under-report

track defects and offers the railroads no

disincentive from assigning railroad

track inspectors ‘‘overly-expansive

inspection territories’’ resulting in less

thorough and comprehensive track

inspections.

In preparing this final rule, FRA

weighed the BMWE comments, as well

as its own enforcement experience,

against the consensus-based

recommendation of the Track Working

Group which representatives of the

railroads, FRA, and labor developed.

FRA has concluded that the Track

Working Group struck the right balance,

and thus in this final rule, railroads will

continue to be held liable for track

defects of which they knew or had

notice. Even if a railroad has not

recorded those defects, notice may

include constructive knowledge of

defects that, by their nature, would have

had to be in existence when the railroad

was last required to perform an

inspection.

Moreover, the penalty provision now

makes clear what has been the law for

many years, i.e., that anyone who makes

a false report under the safety laws is

liable for criminal penalties under 49

U.S.C. 21311. This should provide an

additional deterrent to anyone who

would purposely under-report defects.

Tourist Railroads

The Track Safety Standards apply to

only those tourist railroads that operate

on the general system. FRA estimates

that approximately 95 tourist railroads

operating over 1,350 miles of standard

gage track off the general system are not

currently subject to the track safety

standards. The agency sees the need to

address this growing market and

increasing safety exposure in the area of

track safety, as well as other areas of rail

operation.

In April, 1996, FRA referred tourist

railroad safety issues to the RSAC. The

RSAC, in turn, established a working

group comprised of agency and tourist

railroad industry representatives to

analyze the industry’s unique aspects

and formulate recommendations for

appropriate regulation of that

specialized industry. Among the issues

the working group will examine is track

safety. The findings of that group may

or may not lead to a recommendation by

the RSAC that the Track Safety

Standards should be revised to apply to

all tourist railroads. However, if such a

recommendation is the result, FRA may

then consider initiating a separate

rulemaking to address that issue. The

NTSB took the opportunity of this

proceeding to express its opinion that

the Track Safety Standards should apply

to tourist railroads both on and off the

general system. Because many issues

affecting tourist railroads are still under

consideration by FRA, this final rule

includes no changes to the Track Safety

Standards that are directed specifically

to those railroads.

Gage Restraint Measurement System

Historically, railroads assess a track’s

ability to maintain gage through visual

inspections of crossties and rail

fasteners. However, the inability of the

track structure to maintain gage

sometimes becomes apparent only after

a derailment occurs. Many railroads

throughout the country have

successfully tested the GRMS, which

was developed under a joint FRA/

industry research project.

Accident statistics taken from FRA’s

Annual Accident/Incident Bulletins

reveal that from 1985 through 1995,

reportable wide gage derailments from

defective crossties and fasteners totaled

2,232 instances and cost the industry

over 60 million dollars in damages.

Current crosstie and fastener

maintenance techniques rely heavily on

visual inspections by track inspectors,

whose subjective knowledge is based on

varying degrees of experience and

training. The subjective nature of those

inspections sometimes creates

inconsistent determinations about the

ability of individual crossties and

fasteners to restrain track gage. Crossties

may not always exhibit strong

indications of good or bad condition. If

a crosstie in questionable condition is

removed from track prematurely, its

maximum service life is unnecessarily

shortened resulting in added

maintenance costs for the railroad. Yet,

a crosstie of questionable condition left

too long in track can cause a wide-gage

derailment with its inherent risk of

injury to railroad personnel and

passengers and damage to property. In

many instances of gage failure caused by

defective crossties and/or fasteners, the

static or unloaded gage is within the

limits prescribed by the current track

standards. However, when a train

applies an abnormally high lateral load

to a section of track that contains

marginal crosstie or fastener conditions,

the result is often a wide gage

derailment.

In 1993, FRA granted CSX

Transportation a waiver of compliance

for the purpose of conducting a test

program to evaluate the GRMS

performance-based standard using

FRA’s research vehicle, in lieu of

existing crosstie and rail fastening

requirements, on nearly 500 miles of

various track segments. The experience

gained under this waiver has provided

FRA with the opportunity to continually

make adjustments to the conditional
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 33997

requirements of the waiver to the point

where the technology has proven itself

to be a more consistent method of

objectively determining crosstie and

fastener effectiveness. FRA believes the

technology is now ready to be deployed

within the industry.

The Track Working Group could not

reach consensus about how the revised

Track Safety Standards should address

GRMS technology. The RSAC therefore

recommended that a small task group

continue evaluating the possibility of

developing GRMS standards for broader

application within the industry.

Nevertheless, some parties submitted

comments to the NPRM concerning the

use of GRMS. The NTSB recommended

that the revised standards incorporate

the use of advanced track inspection

technologies, such as track geometry

cars, GRMS, light-weight loading

fixtures, and state-of-the-art rail

inspection methods for internal rail

defects. In its comments to the NPRM,

the BMWE reiterated its position that

GRMS technology be used in

conjunction with current inspection

requirements. The AAR, in its

comments, repeated its position that the

revised Track Safety Standards should

allow alternate inspection procedures

that would permit railroads to use some

combination of geometry cars,

measurement equipment and

instrumentation such as GRMS, hyrail

inspections, and other means of

inspecting in place of the required

visual inspections. At the publication of

this final rule, the task group continues

to work to reconcile the differences and

reach a consensus on what type of

GRMS provision would be most

effective. FRA, for its part, is still

examining the points made for and

against incorporation of a GRMS

provision and is not prepared to resolve

the issue at this time. However, FRA

anticipates coming to resolution in the

near future. All of the relevant issues

appear to have been identified and

discussed in this proceeding.

High Speed Rail Standards

The current Track Safety Standards

include six classes of track that permit

passenger and freight trains to travel up

to 110 m.p.h. Passenger trains have been

allowed to operate at speeds over 125

m.p.h under conditional waiver granted

by FRA. This final rule adds three new

classes of track that designate standards

for track over which trains may travel at

speeds up to 200 m.p.h. Standards for

high speed track classes will be

contained in a new Subpart G of Part

213 which will cover track Classes 6

through 9. The new subpart is intended

to function as ‘‘stand alone’’ regulations

governing any track identified as

belonging to one of these higher classes.

In other words, the track owner needs

to refer only to Subpart G for

compliance with the Track Safety

Standards for track over which railroads

operate trains at the speeds associated

with the high speed track classes.

However, if that same track does not

meet the standards in Subpart G at any

time, the other subparts (A through F)

apply.

These track standards constitute only

one of several components comprising a

regulatory program permitting trains to

travel at high speeds. FRA also may

address high speed issues in regulations

outside of Part 213, such as emergency

preparedness, wheel conditions, braking

systems, and grade crossings. These

track standards are an integral part of

that larger regulatory scheme.

FRA’s approach to track safety

standards for high speeds is based on

the fundamental principle that vehicles

in the high speed regime must

demonstrate that they will not exceed

minimum vehicle/track performance

safety limits when operating on

specified track. In addition, railroads

must monitor the vehicle/track system

to ensure that the safety limits will be

met under traffic conditions.

A panel of experts in high speed rail

transportation worked with the Track

Safety Working Group to provide

recommendations for vehicle/track

performance limits and track geometry.

The panel identified acceleration and

wheel/rail force safety criteria by

reviewing technical studies, considering

foreign experience and practices, and

performing independent computer

simulation and analytical studies. Once

it identified vehicle/track performance

limits, the panel developed specific

geometry safety criteria. The panel also

recommended requirements necessary

for track structure to sustain the forces

generated by vehicles at high speeds.

In developing this final rule, FRA

sought out the best available technical

data about dynamic performance of

vehicle/track systems to devise safety

standards that are practical to

implement. The high speed standards in

this notice provide for the qualification

of vehicles; geometry standards for gage,

surface, and alinement; track structure;

and inspection requirements for both

automated and visual inspections.

While some of the sections in the new

Subpart G are identical, or nearly

identical, to their counterparts in other

sections of the regulation, the standards

for high speed operations generally

differ markedly from those for the lower

track classes which cover a much

broader range of railroad vehicles.

Several sections have no counterpart in

the standards for the lower classes of

track because they address issues

unique to the high speed environment.

Other sections are simply modifications

of the requirements for the lower track

classes.

Comments to the new Subpart G

proposed in the NPRM came from

Amtrak, the NTSB, Bombardier GEC

Alsthom Consortium, Union Switch and

Signal, and the Director of Ground

Transportation of the French Ministere

de l’Equipment des Transports et du

Logement. The commenters were

generally supportive of the new

standards, but they offered suggestions

for modifying some sections in the

subpart. Their specific comments are

addressed in this notice under segment

designated as ‘‘Section by Section

Analysis.’’

A representative for the Florida

Overland eXpress responded to the

NPRM with a request that FRA remove

from the final rule reference to Florida

Overland eXpress’s plans to operate

trains at very high speeds. Florida

Overland eXpress petitioned FRA in

1996 for a Rule of Particular

Applicability for its proposed operation.

Such a rule would include a variety of

railroad safety regulations, including

track safety regulations, that would

apply only to the Florida Overland

eXpress. FRA issued a Notice of Rule of

Particular Applicability, published on

December 12, 1997. See 62 FR 65478.

Florida Overland eXpress objected to a

reference to that operation in the NPRM

because this rule of general applicability

will not apply to its operation. FRA

agrees that the reference in the NPRM to

the Florida Overland eXpress, without

explanation of its unique circumstances,

may mislead others into believing that

this rule will apply to that operation. It

will not.

Following the closure of the comment

period for the NPRM (September 15,

1997), the Volpe National

Transportation Systems Center (VNTSC)

issued a working paper entitled

‘‘Evaluation of Proposed High Speed

Track Surface Geometry Specification,’’

dated December 1, 1997. The working

paper evaluated the response of

different high speed locomotive designs

to track profile geometry variations.

Because the VNTSC working paper

contained relevant and useful

information for this final rule but was

not available at the time of the

publication of the NPRM, FRA placed

the paper in the docket for this

proceeding and issued a special notice

on December 12, 1997, inviting public

comment on its content. See 62 FR

65401. The comment period for the
33998 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

VNTSC working paper expired on

December 22, 1997. FRA received only

one response to the special notice. The

AAR noted that it would not be able to

provide comment on the VNTSC

working paper without knowing how

FRA would use the report to set the

geometry standards for the high speed

classes of track.

Torch Cut Rails

Torch cutting rail, a practice that was

widespread in the railroad industry

until a few years ago, is now used by

most railroads only for emergency

repairs in Classes 3 through 5 track.

Technology has advanced to the point

where cutting rail with the various types

of rail saws that are readily available is

more efficient than torch cutting. FRA

lacks reliable data on the number of

existing torch cuts. The railroads report

that torch cuts no longer exist on Class

6 track, and the torch cuts remaining in

Class 5 track nationwide probably

number ‘‘in the hundreds.’’

Nevertheless, torch cuts from years ago

when the practice was more prevalent

still exist and are believed to pose a

safety hazard.

In 1983, following its investigation of

an Amtrak derailment in Texas, the

NTSB recommended that torch cuts be

removed and that trains move at only 10

m.p.h. over torch cuts made in

emergency situations or as a preparatory

step in field welding. It should be noted,

however, that the rail involved in the

Texas accident had a type of high alloy

content which the industry now

recognizes as inferior. It is no longer

used in the industry.

Because rails that have been torch-cut

have a greater tendency to develop

fractures in the short term, the NPRM

proposed that the practice of torchcutting rails in Classes 3 through 5 track

should be prohibited in the future

except for emergency temporary repairs.

The NPRM further proposed that

existing torch cuts in Class 3 track over

which regularly scheduled passenger

trains operate should be inventoried and

any torch cuts that are found later but

are not listed on the inventory must be

removed. Torch cuts in Class 4 track

must be removed within two years of

the effective date of this final rule, and

torch cuts in Class 5 track must be

removed within one year. Because torch

cuts existing on yard tracks and main

tracks where trains operate at slow

speeds (Classes 1 and 2) do not pose as

high a risk, the NPRM proposed that

existing torch cuts in Classes 1 and 2

track be allowed to remain.

In commenting on the NPRM, the

NTSB suggested that torch cuts should

be prohibited and eliminated from all

track in classes above Class 1, and

movement over torch cuts should be

restricted to 10 m.p.h. The BMWE

commented that torch cutting should be

prohibited in all classes above Class 2,

and that existing torch cuts in Class 2

track should be removed within a

reasonable time. The AAR commented

that the torch cut provision should

simply prohibit torch cutting in Classes

3 through 5 track. However, the AAR

further stated that it generally supports

the NPRM and offered this suggestion to

be considered only in the event FRA

decides to change the proposed

provision in accordance with the

comments of other RSAC participants

who helped draft the provision and then

later withdrew support of the RSAC

recommendations.

This final rule adopts the proposed

rule as drafted by the Track Working

Group, approved by majority consensus

of the RSAC, and proposed in the

NPRM. The comment by the NTSB, that

torch cuts should be removed from any

track class above Class 1, is based upon

the NTSB’s investigation of the 1983

Amtrak derailment in Texas. However,

FRA’s analysis of the derailment

indicates that the high alloy content of

the rail at the site of the accident played

a larger part in causing the derailment

than did the torch cut. Therefore, FRA

is not persuaded by the NTSB’s

analysis. The BMWE offered no clear

explanation of its proposal to prohibit

all torch cuts in track classes above

Class 2. Similarly, FRA was not

persuaded by AAR’s argument that

accident statistics fail to support a torch

cut regulation that requires anything

more than a prohibition against any

future torch cutting in track classes

above Class 3. FRA believes that

existing torch cuts in the higher classes

of track may pose a danger of

derailment.

Other Issues

Plant Railroads and Industrial Spurs

In general, FRA has elected not to

exercise jurisdiction over the safety of

railroads that conduct their operations

exclusively within an industrial or

military installation. FRA chose this

self-imposed limitation because such

operations have not demonstrated the

same degree and frequency of track

problems found on tracks in the general

system which are subject to heavier

tonnages and more frequent use.

Nevertheless, FRA recognizes its

responsibility for the safety of railroad

employees and operations inside such

facilities where a general system

railroad provides service on that

property, either by picking up and

placing cars for transportation in

interstate commerce or by switching for

the plant. The same responsibility

applies to operations on privately

owned industrial spurs used exclusively

by a main line railroad to serve an

industry.

The applicability section of the

current Track Safety Standards (§ 213.3)

excludes track ‘‘located inside an

installation which is not part of the

general railroad system of

transportation.’’ This broad statement

implies that the track standards do not

apply anywhere inside a plant,

regardless of who operates there or the

type of operations that occur on the

plant track. However, § 213.3 must be

read in conjunction with 49 C.F.R. Part

209, Appendix A, which explains that

the track owner of any plant railroad

trackage over which a general system

railroad operates is responsible for the

condition of track used by the general

system railroad. With the entrance of a

general system railroad, the plant does

not become part of the general system,

but it does lose some of its insularity as

to that part of the track used by the

general system railroad.

Since the enactment of the Federal

Railroad Safety Act of 1970, FRA has

had at its disposal statutory authority to

issue emergency orders to repair or

discontinue use of industrial or plant

trackage should the agency find that

conditions of the track pose a hazard of

death or injury. See 49 U.S.C. § 20901.

It is FRA’s opinion that this emergency

order authority is sufficient power to

ensure track safety within plants, as

well as other installations (e.g., military

installations). However, if conditions or

events in the future tend to demonstrate

that track safety within plants or

installations should be more specifically

regulated, FRA will seek to change the

applicability of this Part in a future

rulemaking. This final rule leaves the

application section of the Track Safety

Standards unchanged.

Train Speed/Preemption

Under the current Track Safety

Standards, FRA has only an indirect

role in determining speed limits.

Railroads set train speed in their

timetables or train orders. Once a

railroad sets a train speed, it must then

maintain the track according to FRA

standards for the class of track that

corresponds to that train speed. The

signal and train control regulations also

fix limits on train speed based upon the

type of signal system that is in place. If

the railroad fails to comply with track

or signal system requirements for speed

at which trains are operated, the

railroad is subject to penalty.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 33999

FRA’s current regulations governing

train speed do not afford any adjustment

of train speeds in urban settings or at

grade crossings. This omission is

intentional. FRA believes that locally

established speed limits may result in

hundreds of individual speed

restrictions along a train’s route,

increasing safety hazards and causing

train delays. The safest train maintains

a steady speed. Every time a train must

slow down and then speed up, safety

hazards, such as buff and draft forces,

are introduced. These kinds of forces

can enhance the chance of derailment

with its attendant risk of injury to

employees, the traveling public, and

surrounding communities.

FRA always has contended that

Federal regulations preempt any local

speed restrictions on trains. Section

20106 of Title 49, United States Code

(formerly 45 U.S.C. § 434) declares

that—

[l]aws, regulations, and orders related to

railroad safety shall be nationally uniform to

the extent practicable. A State may adopt or

continue in force an additional or more

stringent law, regulation, or order related to

railroad safety when the law, regulation, or

order—(1) is necessary to eliminate or reduce

an essentially local safety hazard; (2) is not

incompatible with a law, regulation, or order

of the United States Government; and (3)

does not unreasonable burden interstate

commerce.

FRA’s long-held belief that Part 213

preempts local speed laws was verified

by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1993 in

the case CSX v. Easterwood, 507 U.S.

658 (1993). The Court held that legal

duties imposed on railroads by a state’s

common law of negligence fall within

the scope of preemption provision of 49

U.S.C. 20106, which preempts any state

‘‘law, rule, regulation, order or standard

relating to railroad safety.’’ The Court

said that preemption of such state laws

‘‘will lie only if the federal regulations

substantially subsume the subject matter

of the relevant state law.’’ Easterwood,

664. However, the Court further stated

that because Part 213 ties certain track

requirements to train speed, it should be

viewed as ‘‘covering the subject matter’’

of speed limits.

Notwithstanding some of the language

in Easterwood that a cursory reading

may otherwise indicate, FRA has never

assumed the task of setting train speed.

Rather, the agency holds railroads

responsible for minimizing the risk of

derailment by properly maintaining

track for the speed they set themselves.

For example, if a railroad wants its

freight trains to operate at 59 m.p.h.

between two certain locations, it must

maintain the tracks between those

locations to Class 4 standards.

Moreover, there are significant safety

reasons for facilitating the fastest transit

of trains throughout the railroad system.

For example, the risk of releases of

hazardous materials is reduced by

minimizing the time such shipments

spend in transportation. It would be

poor public policy to allow local

governments to attempt to lower their

risk by raising everyone’s risk and by

clogging the transportation system.

Railroads have strong economic motives

to minimize the time shipments spend

in transportation, so public safety and

employee safety are best served by

setting and enforcing the standards

railroads must meet to travel at

particular speeds.

In recent years, FRA has encountered

increasing pressure from communities

along railroad rights-of-way to set

slower train speeds on main tracks

located in urban areas. They typically

cite the inherent dangers of grade

crossings, pedestrian safety, as well as

the risk of derailments of rail cars

containing hazardous materials.

As to grade crossings, FRA has

consistently maintained that their

danger is a separate issue from train

speed. The physical properties of a

moving train virtually always prevent it

from stopping in time to avoid hitting

an object on the tracks regardless of the

speed at which the train is traveling.

Prevention of grade crossing accidents is

more effectively achieved through the

use of adequate crossing warning

systems and through observance by the

traveling public of crossing restrictions

and precautions. Therefore, FRA

continues to sponsor and/or support

initiatives to improve safety at grade

crossings under the Department of

Transportation’s Grade Crossing Action

Plan. These initiatives are geared

towards enhancing enforcement of

traffic laws at crossings, closing

unneeded crossings, enhancing rail

corridor crossing reviews and

improvements, expanding public

education and Operation Lifesaver

activities, increasing safety at private

crossings, improving data and research

efforts, and preventing rail trespassing.

In January, 1995, FRA implemented

regulations for maintenance, inspection

and testing of warning devices at

crossings, such as lights and gates. See

59 FR 50086. The agency also

implemented regulations requiring

certain locomotives to be equipped with

auxiliary lights making trains more

visible to motorists, railroad employees,

and pedestrians. See 61 FR 8881. FRA

believes that these measures are more

effective approaches to enhancing safety

at grade crossings than an attempt to

design speed limits for each geographic

situation.

FRA received no comments on this

issue following a similar discussion of

the issue in the NPRM.

Vegetation

The vegetation control requirements

of Part 213 currently deal with fire

hazards to bridges, visibility of railroad

signs and signals, interference with

normal trackside duties of employees,

proper functioning of signal and

communication lines, and the ability to

inspect moving equipment (‘‘roll by’’

inspections). The regulation does not

address the issues of motorists’ and

pedestrians’ ability to see warning

devices at highway-rail crossings.

Since 1978, accidents and fatalities at

highway-rail grade crossings have

decreased dramatically due to

engineering improvements at individual

crossings, education of the public, and

greater enforcement of highway traffic

laws. Nevertheless, FRA finds that the

present loss of life, injuries, and

property damage are still unacceptable.

Projections for 1997 based upon nine

months of preliminary data show that

441 people were killed, and 1,525

suffered serious injuries in grade

crossing accidents. Second only to

trespasser fatalities as a leading cause of

death in the railroad industry, highwayrail collisions far out-number fatalities

to railroad employees and passengers.

In lengthy discussions about

vegetation at grade crossings, the Track

Working Group quickly realized that the

issue requires the expertise of entities

not represented on the Track Working

Group or RSAC, e.g., state and federal

highway designers, traffic engineers, as

well as representatives of local

jurisdictions with grade crossings. The

NPRM generated no comments

concerning the issue of vegetation at

grade crossings. FRA agrees with the

assessment reached by the Track

Working Group that the issue requires

the judgment of experts in other

transportation arenas. Therefore, this

final rule adds only one requirement for

railroads in maintaining vegetation.

Under this rule, railroads are required to

clear vegetation away from signs and

signals on railroad rights-of-way at

grade crossings. The additional language

is intended only to cover the clearing of

vegetation at highway-rail grade

crossings to provide adequate visibility

of railroad signs and signals to the

traveling public. It is not intended to

cover or preempt state or local

requirements for the clearing of

vegetation on railroad rights-of-way at

highway-rail grade crossings, nor is it
34000 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

intended to dictate standards for

surrounding landowners.

Because concern about this issue

remains, the FRA Administrator has

recommended that the Department of

Transportation initiate a joint regulatory

proceeding by FRA and the Federal

Highway Administration to address

vegetation maintenance and sight

distances for motorists at grade

crossings. Should the Department of

Transportation decide not to initiate

such a regulatory project, FRA will then

consider the next appropriate action

which may include launching its own

regulatory proceeding.

Metric System

In the 1992 ANPRM, FRA requested

comments in response to a proposal to

create a dual system of measurements,

English and metric, for inclusion in

these regulations. Responses were

varied. Some commenters suggested that

FRA implement metric standards, while

others recommended that a dual system

would be better. Still others argued that

the addition of metric standards,

whether as a single standard or in a dual

system with English standards, would

cause confusion in the industry. They

added that computerized recordkeeping

would have to be re-programmed at a

significant expense.

The RSAC did not recommend the

addition of metric standards in this

proceeding. Although the issue was

raised in the NPRM, it generated no

comments. FRA concludes that the

introduction of metric values into the

regulations is not appropriate at this

time.

Section by Section Analysis—Track

Classes 1–5

The Federal Track Safety Standards,

until now, included only six classes of

track representing speeds up to 110

m.p.h. The regulations applied to all of

the classes. This final rule separates the

classes of track into two general

categories: Classes 1 through 5 for

speeds up to 90 m.p.h. (80 m.p.h. for

freight) and Classes 6 through 9 for

speeds above 90 m.p.h. (80 m.p.h. for

freight). Subparts A through F apply to

Classes 1 through 5, as they always

have. However, the new Subpart G

applies exclusively to Classes 6 through

9. This separation of the classes of track

is designed for better ease of use.

Owners of track over which high speed

trains operate need to refer only to

Subpart G for almost all of the relevant

regulations. (The exceptions are § 213.2,

Preemptive effect; § 213.3, Application;

and § 213.15, Penalties.) On the other

hand, track owners over which train

speeds do not exceed 90 m.p.h.

continue to refer to Subparts A

through .

Class 6 is included in the category for

high speed track, governed by Subpart

G, because the safety issues associated

with that class of track more closely

resemble those associated with the

higher classes.

Section 213.1—Scope of the Part

Proposed rule: An amendment to this

section would eliminate the word

‘‘initial.’’ When the Track Safety

Standards were first published in 1971,

they were referred to as ‘‘initial safety

standards’’ because they were the first

Federal standards addressing track

safety. Twenty-five years and several

amendments later, the current Track

Safety Standards are no longer initial

standards. Therefore this amendment

eliminates a mischaracterization of the

standards by removing the outdated

descriptive ‘‘initial.’’

Comments: Comments received

supported the proposed amendment.

Final rule: The section incorporates

the change as proposed in the NPRM

and adds a sentence to distinguish the

applicability of Subpart G from the

applicability of Subparts A through F.

Subpart G applies to track over which

trains are operated at speeds in excess

of those permitted over Class 5 track, a

maximum of 80 m.p.h. for freight trains

and 90 m.p.h. for passenger trains.

Subpart G is designed to be mostly

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. Such

a railroad needs to refer to the earlier

sections of the Track Safety Standards

only for the general provisions at § 213.2

(preemptive effect), § 213.3

(application), and § 213.1 (Penalties).

On the other hand, railroads which

never operate at speeds in excess of the

maximum Class 5 speeds need not refer

to Subpart G at all.

The final rule also adds language to

this section to state that railroads are not

restricted from adopting and enforcing

more stringent track safety requirements

as long as they are not inconsistent with

the track safety standards in this Part.

This statement is consistent with the

earlier statement that these regulations

are minimum requirements.

Section 213.2—Preemptive Effect

Proposed rule: This section is added

to Part 213 to indicate that states cannot

adopt or continue in force laws related

to the subject matter covered in this

rule, unless such laws are needed to

address a local safety hazard and they

impose no undue burden on interstate

commerce. This section is consistent

with the mandate of 49 U.S.C. 20106,

formerly § 205 of the Federal Railroad

Safety Act of 1970. Although the courts

ultimately determine preemption in any

particular factual context, this section

provides a statement of agency intent

and promotes national uniformity of

regulation in accordance with the

statute.

Comments: Comments received

supported the proposed amendment.

Final rule: The section is modified

slightly so that the language more

closely corresponds to the language of

the statute. See 49 U.S.C. 20106.

Section 213.3—Application

Proposed rule: This section was not

proposed to be amended. The Track

Working Group discussed amending

subsection (b) to reference Appendix A

of Part 209 in an effort to clarify FRA’s

safety policy toward trackage used by

general system railroads within the

confines of installations. According to

Appendix A of Part 209, a plant does

not become a general system railroad,

subject to all of the attendant safety

requirements applied to such railroads,

simply because a general system

railroad operates over a portion of the

plant trackage. Nevertheless, a plant

owner is held liable for the condition of

any plant trackage over which a general

system railroad operates. Under this

policy, FRA will not hold plant owners

responsible for compliance with

ancillary track safety provisions, such as

the requirements for recordkeeping or

inspection frequencies. However, FRA

will judge the safety of the plant

railroad against the substantive safety

requirements in those standards to

assess the need to invoke its emergency

order authority against the plant owner.

The Track Working Group advised

that a reference in Part 213 to Appendix

A of Part 209, which is merely a

statement of FRA policy, could have the

effect of making all provisions of Part

213, including those ancillary

provisions, enforceable against

thousands of plant owners, at least to

the extent general system railroads

operate within plant borders. Such a

result would be more far-reaching than

intended by the RSAC.

Comments: One commenter suggested

that the application of Part 213 be

extended to cover standard gage tourist

railroads which operate off the general

system and meet the FRA’s test for

insularity. This commenter also

suggested that the agency consider

developing track safety standards for

non-standard gage tourist railroad

operations.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34001

Final rule: This section is amended to

conform the discussion of jurisdiction

over rapid transit service to the statute.

See 49 U.S.C. 20102. The statute has

been amended since part 213 was

issued, but § 213.3(b)(2) was never

amended to conform to the statute. The

Track Safety Standards will still exclude

urban area rapid transit systems that are

unconnected to the general system. This

change is not intended make the Track

Safety Standards applicable to rapid

transit whose only connection to the

general system is a switch permitting

receipt of shipments from the general

system.

In response to concerns expressed by

and about tourist railroads, FRA

proffered, and the RSAC accepted, a

task to study tourist railroad concerns.

The RSAC has established a working

group to perform the task. It is

comprised of agency and tourist railroad

industry representatives who are

analyzing the industry’s unique aspects

and formulating recommendations for

appropriate regulation of that

specialized industry. Therefore, the

NPRM proposed no changes in that

regard.

While FRA does not think a reference

to Appendix A to Part 209 would have

the effect feared by the Track Working

Group, FRA declines to exercise its

jurisdiction over plant railroads at this

time because the safety issues now

presented on their track do not warrant

the allocation of agency resources that

would be diverted from matters

presenting greater safety risks. The

agency continues to have safety

jurisdiction over those railroads and

may invoke its statutory emergency

authority if it deems that necessary in

order to safeguard anyone from the

hazard of death or personal injury.

Section 213.4—Excepted Track

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed

to maintain the provision for excepted

track with added restrictions for its use

and maintenance. Since its inception in

1982, the excepted track category has

become an economic issue for some

small railroads, particularly short line

railroads and low volume shippers. It

allows railroads to continue to use, on

a limited basis, low-density trackage

that does not earn sufficient revenue to

justify the expense of maintaining it to

higher track standards. It allows short

lines to acquire and use trackage that

may have been abandoned by larger

railroads, thereby preserving rail service

to shippers and avoiding the necessity

of shifting traffic over those lines from

moving to some other, perhaps more

hazardous, means of transport.

Because the majority of reportable

derailments on excepted track are trackcaused, and the majority of this total are

wide gage-related, the NPRM proposed

to institute a requirement that gage must

not exceed of 581⁄4′′ on excepted track.

This requirement would apply to the

actual gage measurement itself, and

would not extend to the evaluation of

crossties and fasteners which provide

the gage restraint. A clarification was

added to the inspection requirements on

excepted track which specifically

reference turnout inspections required

under this section.

The NPRM also proposed to include

a requirement that railroads notify FRA

at least 10 days before removing

trackage from excepted status. This

provision is intended to prevent the

practice FRA has witnessed in the past

by some railroads who remove trackage

from excepted status only long enough

to move a passenger excursion train or

a train with more than five cars

containing hazardous materials.

Furthermore, the NPRM included an

edit to § 213.4(e)(2) changing the word

‘‘revenue’’ to ‘‘occupied’’ in describing

passenger trains prohibited from

operating over excepted track. This

change addresses a misconception by

some railroads that they could operate

passenger excursion trains over

excepted track as long as they did not

charge passengers admission for a ride.

The proposed change clarifies that the

prohibition is directed toward all

passengers but is not meant to include

train crew members, track maintenance

crews, and other railroad employees

who must travel over the track to attend

to their work duties.

Comments: Comments received

generally supported the proposed

amendments to the excepted track

regulation. However, several

commenters proposed that additional

requirements and restrictions should be

incorporated into the regulation.

Proposals included a total prohibition of

hazardous materials shipments,

additional restrictions on where

excepted track could be utilized,

additional minimum safety standards,

and a time limit for length of time a

track could remain in excepted status.

Final rule: In preparing its

recommended proposed rule, the Track

Working Group discussed at length the

same requirements and restrictions

suggested for inclusion into this final

rule by commenters. The final rule

includes additional regulatory control

over abuses of the excepted track

provision which have been documented

in the past. The final rule also

prescribes a minimum safety standard

for gage that addresses the major causal

factor associated with track-caused

derailments on excepted track.

FRA rejected the suggestion that the

provision should include a prohibition

of all hazardous material shipments.

Many small short line railroads who

operate over excepted track haul

hazardous materials on a regular basis.

A general prohibition would cause

many of these railroads to close

operation, and the hazardous materials

would be hauled by trucks over public

highways. Similarly, a restriction on the

length of time track may remain in

excepted status, and a restriction on

where excepted track could be utilized,

would place an undue burden on many

short line railroads who operate

exclusively on excepted track. Statistics

show that 87 track-caused reportable

accidents occurred on 8,000 to 9,000

miles of excepted track in five years.

These numbers, in FRA’s judgment, do

not justify implementing restrictions

over-burdensome to small railroads.

FRA considered implementing

minimum safety standards, in addition

to the new gage and switch

requirements. However, the ASLRA

estimated that the cost to short line

railroads to improve excepted track to

Class 1 standards would cost the short

line industry some $230 million. FRA

believes that this final rule provides

needed additional measures of safety for

excepted track while maintaining the

regulatory relief the excepted track

provision provides, but under more

restrictive conditional and operational

requirements.

Section 213.5—Responsibility of Track

Owners

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed

to change subsections (c) and (d) to

modify the way in which track owners

may assign compliance responsibility to

another entity. Under the current

regulations, a track owner may petition

the Federal Railroad Administrator to

recognize another party as the one

primarily responsible for the

maintenance and inspection of the

owner’s track. This provision is

intended to facilitate compliance by

track owners whose track is leased to

another entity for operation. Often track

owners (e.g., municipal communities,

county governments) do not have the

necessary expertise to maintain

compliance with Federal track

standards, but their track lessees do.

Thus, track owners can successfully

petition FRA for reassignment of

primary responsibility by providing

certain information about the assigned

party and the relationship of the

assigned party to the track owner. When

such a petition is approved by FRA, the
34002 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

assigned party becomes responsible,

along with the track owner, for

compliance with Part 213.

The change for these subsections

eliminates the approval process by FRA,

shown in years past to be the cause of

unnecessary paperwork. Records show

that FRA has approved almost every

such petition it has reviewed. Under the

subsection proposed in the NPRM, a

track owner could reassign

responsibility to another entity simply

by notifying FRA’s regional

administrator for the FRA region in

which the track is located. The

notification would include the same

information required for the petitions

under the current standards. However,

FRA would discontinue its practice of

publishing in the Federal Register the

petitions for reassignment, along with

requests for public comment. The

reassignments would no longer be

reviewed by FRA’s Railroad Safety

Board.

FRA believes that the change would

not diminish track safety. Although the

intent of the original subsection was to

give FRA some control over who should

be responsible for maintaining track, the

practical application of the subsection

has shown that such control by the

agency is unnecessary. Rather, it is more

important for FRA to know what party

or parties to hold responsible for

compliance with track safety standards.

Therefore, the subsection (c) would

require notification to the agency of

reassignments of track responsibility,

but it would no longer require approval

by FRA now required in subsection (d).

The text currently shown as subsection

(d) would be eliminated.

The NPRM also proposed one minor

change in current subsection (e),

substituting the name ‘‘Surface

Transportation Board’’ for ‘‘Interstate

Commerce Commission.’’ This

substitution is meant to reflect Congress’

action in 1995 to eliminate the Interstate

Commerce Commission and turn over

many of its functions to the new Surface

Transportation Board within the

Department of Transportation. With the

elimination of the current text of

subsection (d), this subsection now

designated as (e) would become

subsection (d).

Comments: Comments received were

supportive of these changes.

Final rule: Subsection (f) of this

section is added to include in the

category of those responsible for

compliance with the track standards

those who perform the function of

complying with the standards, not just

the track owner. For example, this

addition will hold track maintenance

contractors responsible for compliance.

This is not inconsistent with past

enforcement and it conforms to the

authority given FRA by the statute. See

49 U.S.C. 21301 and 1 U.S.C. 1.

Paragraph (e) of this section is

changed to correct a typographical error

in the NPRM. The correct cite for the

Federal law which gives the Surface

Transportation Board authority to direct

rail service is 49 U.S.C. 11123.

Section 213.7—Designation of Qualified

Persons To Supervise Certain Renewals

and Inspect Track

Proposed rule: In the past, FRA has

interpreted this section in a way that

allowed signal maintainers and other

railroad employees to pass trains over

broken rails or pull-aparts in situations

when they were the first on the scene to

investigate a signal or track circuit

problem. Under this interpretation, the

intent of the regulation would not be

violated if signal maintainers or others

had been given selected training relating

to the safe passage of trains over broken

rails and pull-aparts. The BMWE,

however, has argued that this section

was never intended to allow for the

partial qualification of personnel on Part

213 standards.

The RSAC recommended the creation

of a new subsection (d) which

prescribes the manner in which persons

not fully qualified as outlined in

subsections (a) and (b) of this section

may be qualified for the specific

purpose of authorizing train movements

over broken rails and pull-aparts.

Language in the new subsection is

specific to employees with at least one

year of maintenance of way or signal

experience and requires a minimum of

four hours of training and examination

on requirements related to the safe

passage of trains over broken rails and

pull-aparts. The purpose of the

examination is to ascertain the person’s

ability to effectively apply these

requirements. A railroad may use the

examination to determine whether or

not a person should be allowed to

authorize train movements over broken

rails and pull-aparts. However, the

examination is not to be used as a test

to disqualify the person from other

duties.

The maximum speed over broken rails

and pull-aparts shall not exceed 10

m.p.h. However, movement authorized

by a person qualified under this

subsection may further restrict speed

over broken rails and pull-aparts if

warranted by the particular

circumstances. This person must watch

all movements and be prepared to stop

the train if necessary. Fully qualified

persons under § 213.7 must be notified

and dispatched to the location promptly

to assume responsibility for authorizing

train movements and effecting

temporary or permanent repairs. The

word ‘‘promptly’’ is meant to provide

the railroad with some flexibility in

events where there is only one train to

pass over the condition prior to the time

when a fully qualified person would

report for a regular tour of duty, or

where a train is due to pass over the

condition before a fully qualified person

is able to report to the scene. Railroads

should not use persons qualified under

213.7(d) to authorize multiple train

movements over such conditions for an

extended period of time.

Comments: Comments generally

supported the proposed amendments to

this section. One commenter argued that

only those employees fully qualified

under § 213.7 should be designated to

authorize train movements over broken

rails and pull-aparts. FRA disagrees

with this statement. For the narrow

purpose of temporarily authorizing train

movements over broken rails or pull

aparts, a person does not need to be

trained in all of the remedial actions

included in Part 213, as outlined in

§ 213.7.

Several commenters suggested that

§ 213.7 should contain a requirement for

the requalification of employees

designated to inspect track or to

supervise restorations or renewals. A

regulation requiring such requalification

of designated persons would overlap the

existing regulation, as FRA has long

held that the requirement to be

‘‘qualified’’ is a continuing requirement,

not a static one, and it is the

responsibility of the track owner to

assure that persons designated under

this section are qualified at all times.

This mandate for qualification is not

periodic, it is continuing. FRA will

address this issue by issuing a technical

bulletin containing ‘‘good practice’’

industry guidelines for the

requalification of persons designated

under § 213.7, as drafted by the Track

Working Group.

Final rule: FRA believes that persons

who are trained, examined, and

periodically re-examined on specific

issues relating to the singular function

of passing trains over broken rails and

pull-aparts at restricted speed does not

violate the intent of the Track Safety

Standards, nor does this practice

compromise safety provided those

persons demonstrate to the track owner

that they know and understand the

requirements on which they were

examined.

FRA proposes to re-designate

paragraph (d) in the NPRM as paragraph

(c) in the final rule. Similarly, paragraph

(c) in the NPRM will become paragraph
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34003

(d) in the final rule with a reference to

‘‘persons not fully qualified’’ for the

purpose of maintaining records of those

designations. These changes provide for

a more orderly structure of the

requirements of this section and also

recognize FRA’s and the railroads ‘‘need

to know’’ what persons are being

designated under this new paragraph for

purposes of compliance with this part.

Section 213.9—Classes of Track:

Operating Speed Limits

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed

to move Class 6 standards to Subpart G,

a new subpart which establishes track

safety standards for high speed rail

operations. As proposed in the NPRM,

the new subpart would consist of Class

6 and three new track classes, Classes 7

through 9, to accommodate train speeds

up to 200 m.p.h. The Track Working

Group and the RSAC recommended

including Class 6 in the high speed

standards because that class of track

already requires certain heightened

maintenance practices not required by

the lower classes of track.

Comments: Comments received

generally supported the proposed

amendment to this section. One

commenter suggested that the provision

under § 213.9(b) allowing operation for

up to 30 days over track not in

compliance with Class 1 standards was

too liberal, and this option should only

be allowed as an upper limit for track

under emergency repairs.

Final rule: FRA believes that the

option provided the track owner under

subsection (b) of this section, to

continue operations over track not in

full compliance with Class 1 standards,

at Class 1 speeds for a period of not

more than 30 days, is appropriate,

considering the many types of defects

that can occur and the various levels of

risks associated with these defects. The

regulation requires that the person

designated under § 213.7(a) who makes

the determination to continue

operations at Class 1 speeds shall do so

only after personally evaluating the

immediate circumstances and the

associated risks presented by the noncompliance condition, and then

determining that operations may safely

continue.

However, this provision is not meant

to supplant the remedial actions for

defective rails prescribed in § 213.113. If

a person designated under § 213.7

determines that tracks containing

defective rail may continue in use, the

rail must be replaced or the remedial

action prescribed in the table in

§ 213.113 must be initiated.

There are several minor editorial

changes to this section. In subsection

(a), the reference to subsection (c)

contained in the NPRM was deleted in

the final rule because there is no

subsection (c) to this section. The final

rule also cross-references the maximum

allowable speed for excepted track in

the § 213.9(a) table concerning

‘‘Maximum Allowable Operating

Speeds.’’

Otherwise, this section as proposed, is

adopted in this final rule. In grouping

Class 6 with Classes 7 through 9, FRA

does not suggest, and it would be

inaccurate to infer, that Class 6 track or

operation of trains over Class 6 track at

the speeds permitted is in any way

unconventional or unusual. Trains have

been run at those speeds for decades.

Section 213.11—Restoration or Renewal

of Track Under Traffic Conditions

Proposed rule: An added phrase

recommended by the RSAC for the end

of this section would clarify a qualified

inspector’s authority to limit the speed

of trains operating through areas under

restoration or renewal. In the Track

Working Group, the BMWE expressed

concern that the current language of the

section provides no guidance for track

inspectors determining the appropriate

speed through restoration areas. The

language proposed by the NPRM gives

a qualified track inspector discretion to

set train speed through a work area, but

does not allow the inspector to

authorize trains to operate at speeds

faster than the maximum speed for the

appropriate track class. This change

does not represent a change to past

interpretation and enforcement of this

section; it is merely a clarification of

established policy.

Comments: Comments received

supported the proposed amendment.

Final rule: The section as proposed is

adopted in this final rule.

Section 213.13—Measuring Track Not

Under Load

Proposed rule: The proposed rule

recommended no changes to this

section.

Comments: One commenter suggested

that the phrase ‘‘under a loaded

condition’’ should be more clearly

defined.

Final rule: FRA considers that the

dynamic loading conditions applied by

train operations is implicit in the phrase

‘‘under a loaded condition’’ and

therefore the final rule is adopted as

proposed by the NPRM.

Section 213.15—Penalties

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed

no changes to this section. The section

covers all subparts to this part,

including the new Subpart G.

Comments: One commenter advised

FRA that Appendix B had not been

revised to reflect entries for the new

§ 213.119 addressing Continuous

Welded Rail (CWR).

Final rule: The final rule changes this

section in several ways. The section is

now entitled, ‘‘Penalties’’ rather than

‘‘Civil penalties’’ because it now

includes a provision for criminal

penalties. The authority for FRA to

initiate criminal penalties is granted by

the statute at 49 U.S.C. 21311.

The section also adds language to

indicate that ‘‘person’’ as used in this

section is defined by the statute at 1

U.S.C. 1 and includes, but is not limited

to, a railroad, manager, supervisor,

official, agent of the railroad, owner,

manufacturer, lessor or lessee of railroad

equipment or track, independent

contractor to the railroad.

The section also changes the

maximum penalties FRA is authorized

to assess for violations of the provisions

of this Part. The maximum penalty is

raised from $10,000 to $11,000 for

violations, and from $20,000 to $22,000

for willful violations. This change is

included to comply with the provisions

of the Debt Collection Improvement Act

of 1996 which requires Federal agencies

to adjust civil monetary penalties to

counter inflation’s effect of diminishing

the impact of these penalties. See Pub.

L. 104–134, April 26, 1996. According

to the Act, the inflation adjustment is to

be calculated by increasing the

maximum civil monetary penalty by the

percentage that the Consumer Price

Index for the month of June, 1995,

exceeds the Consumer Price Index for

the month of June of the last calendar

year in which the amount of the penalty

was last set or adjusted. The initial

adjustment, however, may not exceed

10 percent. Hence, the maximum

penalties for violations of this Part are

increased by 10 percent. In addition, the

minimum civil penalty amount shown

in this section is changed from $250 to

$500 to conform with Rail Safety

Enforcement and Review Act of 1992,

codified at 49 U.S.C. 21301.

In further compliance with the Debt

Collection Improvement Act, FRA

reviewed existing penalties contained in

Appendix B of Part 213. After

examination of those penalties and

FRA’s enforcement policies, FRA

decided that the existing penalties

require no adjustment at this time.

The civil penalties shown in

Appendix B of the NPRM did not

include penalties for CWR, torch cut

rail, new provisions in excepted track or

Subpart G. The Appendix B in this final

rule includes penalties for the new

provisions in the final rule. Because
34004 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

FRA’s civil penalties are statements of

policy, notice and comment of these

changes were not required.

Section 213.17—Exemptions

Proposed rule: The Track Working

Group considered a proposal by the

BMWE that this section be eliminated.

However, the group agreed that the

existing language allowing for the

temporary suspension of certain track

standards is appropriate and

exemptions are necessary for the

industry to experiment with alternative

methods of compliance and new

technology. Further, FRA is required by

law to consider appropriately suggested

waiver requests and has adopted

generally applicable procedures for

doing so in 49 CFR Part 211. Therefore,

the NPRM recommended that this

section be left as currently written.

Comments: No comments received.

Final rule: The title of this section, as

well as the language of the section itself,

are changed by the replacement of

‘‘exemptions’’ with ‘‘waivers.’’ This

language change makes the section

consistent with the language contained

in 49 U.S.C. 20103, as well as 49 CFR

Part 211.

Section 213.19—Information Collection

Proposed rule: The addition of this

section was not proposed in the NPRM.

Comments: No comments were

received concerning this addition.

Final rule: FRA adds this section to

show which sections of this part have

been approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

compliance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995. See 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq. The requirement for

approval by OMB has been added since

the Track Safety Standards were first

issued. While subsequent revisions to

the track standards have received OMB

approval, those approvals have not been

reflected in the standards themselves.

Section 213.31—Scope

Proposed rule: The Track Working

Group discussed this section and

recommended that it remain as

currently written.

Comments: FRA received no

comments.

Final rule: FRA agrees with the

recommendation of the Track Working

Group and this section as proposed is

adopted in this final rule.

Section 213.33—Drainage

Proposed rule: In its 1990 petition for

revision of the track standards, the

BMWE requested that this section be

expanded to include more specific

requirements for drainage and water

diversion around track roadbeds,

addressing water seeping toward the

track, water falling upon the roadbed,

cross drainage, and the use of

geotextiles. The proposal was discussed

by the Track Working Group, as was a

proposal by the AAR that merely

modified the phrase ‘‘clear of

obstruction’’ to ‘‘sufficiently clear of

obstruction.’’ The NPRM proposed to

follow an RSAC recommendation that

the section be left unchanged.

Comments: No comments received.

Final rule: The section as proposed is

adopted in this final rule.

Section 213.37—Vegetation

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed

to add a phrase to subsection (b) to

include a requirement to clear

vegetation from signs and signals along

railroad rights-of-way and at highwayrail grade crossings. The current

regulation stipulates only that

vegetation cannot interfere with

visibility of railroad signs and signals.

Because the scope of Part 213 limits

vegetation requirements to railroad

property, this proposal was not

intended to be an attempt to dictate

standards for surrounding landowners.

The additional language was intended

only to cover the clearing of vegetation

at highway-rail grade crossings to

provide adequate visibility to the

traveling public of railroad signs and

signals; it was not intended to cover or

preempt state or local requirements for

the clearing of vegetation on railroad

rights-of-way at highway-rail grade

crossings.

Comments: Comments received

supported the proposed amendment.

Final rule: The final rule includes one

minor change to the rule text of this

section to correct an error regarding the

effective date for compliance with the

change. In the NPRM, paragraphs (b)(1)

and (2) were both exempt from

compliance for a period of one year

following the effective date of the rule.

The requirement for controlling

vegetation along the right-of-way so that

it does not obstruct the visibility of

railroad signs and signals, as outlined in

paragraph (b)(1), has been a requirement

of the Track Safety Standards since their

inception. The final rule will clarify that

only paragraph (b)(2), which was added

to enhance visibility to the traveling

public of railroad signs and signals at

highway-rail crossings, will be exempt

from compliance for one year following

the effective date of the rule.

Section 213.51—Scope

Proposed rule: The Track Working

Group discussed this section and

recommended that it remain as

currently written.

Comments: FRA received no

comments.

Final rule: FRA agrees with the

recommendation of the Track Working

Group and this section as proposed is

adopted in this final rule.

Section 213.53—Gage

Proposed rule: The proposed rule

recommended no changes to this

section.

Comments: No comments received.

Final rule: The final rule includes one

minor editorial change to this section.

The section now cross-references the

maximum allowable gage for excepted

track in the gage table under § 213.53(b)

which was inadvertently omitted in the

NPRM.

Section 213.55—Alinement

Proposed rule: The NPRM introduced

a 31-foot chord requirement, in addition

to the present 62-foot chord

requirement, for measuring alinement

on curves in Classes 3 through 5 track.

The RSAC, on advice from the Track

Working Group, recommended this

addition to control transient short

wavelength variations in alinement.

This control was considered necessary

to introduce an averaging approach for

the application of the Vmax formula

which determines the maximum

allowable operating speed for each

curve. The change in the application of

the Vmax formula is discussed in

§ 213.57 of this notice.

Comments: Comments received

supported the proposed amendment.

Final rule: The section as proposed is

adopted in this final rule.

Section 213.57—Curves; Elevation and

Speed Limitations

Proposed rule: The existing

subsection (a) limits the design

elevation on curves to a maximum of six

inches. However, this subsection also

provides for a deviation from this design

elevation, which is contained in the

§ 213.63 table. For a curve elevated to

six inches in Class 1 track, the allowable

deviation would be three inches and

therefore any point in that curve could

have as much as nine inches of

elevation and remain in compliance. For

a similar situation in Class 3 track, any

point in that curve could have as much

as seven and three-fourths inches of

elevation and still be in compliance. For

modern rail cars with a high center of

gravity, low speed curve negotiation

under excessive levels of superelevation

places the vehicle in an increased state

of overbalance. This condition creates

the possibility of wheel unloading and
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34005

subsequent wheel climb when warp

conditions are encountered within the

curve.

The Track Working Group considered

the characteristics of the present-day

vehicle fleet and concluded that a lower

limit on maximum elevation in a curve

should be prescribed in the regulations.

Therefore, the NPRM proposed to revise

subsection (a) to limit the amount of

crosslevel at any point in a curve to not

more than eight inches on Classes 1 and

2 track, and not more than seven inches

on Classes 3 through 5 track.

Subsection (b) of this section

addresses the maximum allowable

operating speed for curved track. The

equilibrium speed on a curve is the

speed where the resultant force of the

weight and centrifugal force is

perpendicular to the plane of the track.

The American Railway Engineering and

Maintenance-of-way Association’s

(AREMA) Manual of Engineering,

Chapter 5, states that passenger cars

have been shown to ride comfortably

around a curve at a speed which

produces three inches of underbalance,

or otherwise stated, three inches less

elevation than would be required to

produce equilibrium conditions. The

AREMA Manual sets forth a formula

based on the steady-state forces

involved in curve negotiation which is

commonly referred to as the Vmax

formula. This formula considers the

variables of elevation, curvature, and

the amount of unbalanced elevation or

cant deficiency in determining the

maximum curving speed. (Note: FRA

considers the terms ‘‘unbalanced

elevation’’ and ‘‘cant deficiency’’ to be

interchangeable.) The present standards

under paragraph (b) limit curving speed

based on a maximum of three inches of

unbalance or cant deficiency and is

commonly referred to as the ‘‘three-inch

unbalance formula.’’ FRA has granted

waivers for other levels of unbalance on

specified equipment.

Over the years, railroad engineers

have differed as to the application of

this three-inch unbalance formula.

Some engineers have suggested the

designed elevation and curvature

should be used to calculate the

maximum operating speed around a

curve. Other engineers recommend that

an average of the entire curve or

segment of the curve better recognizes

situations where steady-state conditions

change. For example, the elevation may

be decreased through a road crossing to

accommodate road levels and then

increased beyond the crossing.

Recognizing the origin and purpose of

the Vmax formula, the Track Working

Group recommended that an average of

the alinement and crosslevel

measurements through a track segment

in the body of the curve should be used

in the formula to arrive at the maximum

authorized speed. This approach

recognizes the ‘‘steady-state’’ purpose of

the formula. Transient locations (points)

are covered by the alinement and track

surface tables. Normally, approximately

10 stations are used through the track

segment, spaced at 15′6′′ apart. If the

length of the body of the curve is less

than 155 feet, measurements should be

taken for the full length of the body of

the curve.

This uniform or averaging technique

over the 10 stations through the track

segment is consistent with the concept

used by the vehicle/track dynamicists

who discuss ‘‘g’’ levels in steady-state

conditions, often considered to be one

or two seconds. At 80 m.p.h., a vehicle

will have traversed approximately 118

feet of track in one second.

Measurements taken over 155 feet (10

stations at 15′6′′) provide the necessary

distance to determine the behavior of

the vehicle over the one- or two-second

steady-state interval.

Analysis has shown that, although

application of the Vmax formula on a

point-by-point basis is overly

conservative, it does provide for the

coverage of certain combinations of

alinement and crosslevel deviations in

Classes 3 through 5 track which could

result in wheel climb derailments.

However, further analysis has shown

that these transient short-wavelength

anomalies can be covered by the

introduction of a 31-foot chord to the

alinement table contained in § 213.55.

The Track Working Group also

recommended the addition of new

paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f) which

will permit curving speeds based on

four inches of unbalance or cant

deficiency for certain categories of

equipment that demonstrate safe

curving performance at this level of

unbalance. The means of qualification is

a basic procedure known as a ‘‘static

lean’’ test that has been used many

times in recent years for the testing of

equipment for operation at higher cant

deficiencies. Although four inches of

cant deficiency is usually applied to

passenger trains, other types of

equipment with comparable suspension

systems, centers of gravity, and crosssectional areas may perform equally

well. Standard freight equipment,

however, typically does not have the

prerequisite vehicle characteristics

which would allow curving speeds

based on more than three inches of cant

deficiency. The Track Working Group

recommended that FRA review the

information provided by the track

owner or operator to verify safe curving

performance and approve the proposal

before the vehicles are operated at four

inches of cant deficiency.

The NPRM proposed to revise

Appendix A, which currently contains a

table specifying the maximum allowable

operating speed for each curve based on

three inches of cant deficiency. Under

this proposed change, Appendix A

would be amended to include two

tables. Table 1 would be identical to the

current table, while Table 2 would

specify curving speeds based on four

inches of cant deficiency.

Comments: Comments received

supported the proposed amendments.

Final rule: FRA adds paragraph (g) to

this section to afford track owners or

railroads operating above Class 5 speeds

an option to qualify equipment at cant

deficiencies greater than four inches in

lower track classes. Track owners or

railroads operating under the provisions

of Subpart G may exercise the option on

lower track classes (Classes 1 through 5)

that are contiguous with high speed

territory without first petitioning FRA

for a waiver from compliance with the

other provisions of § 213.57.

Under paragraph (g), a track owner or

railroad operating under Subpart G on

track that is contiguous to lower speed

track may request FRA approval to

operate at a higher level of cant

deficiency using the same procedures

available under § 213.329(c) and (d).

The track owner or railroad must submit

to FRA for approval a test plan which

will determine through engineering

analysis the safety limits for lateral

carbody accelerations which can be

used as a surrogate measure to

determine the amount of wheel

unloading under cant deficient

operation.

Upon FRA approval of the test plan,

the track owner or railroad may conduct

incrementally increasing train speed test

runs to demonstrate that wheel

unloading is within the prescribed

safety limits. Once the test is completed

and FRA approves a level of cant

deficient operation, paragraph (g)

requires geometry car inspections and

acceleration measurements to confirm

the integrity of the vehicle/track

interaction on the curves.

The provision in paragraph (g) does

not apply to track owners or railroads

which operate trains in only Classes 1

through 5. FRA must consider other

factors associated with track in Classes

1 through 5, such as the likelihood of a

decrease in overall track quality and an

absence of information generated

through vehicle qualification testing

procedures as required under § 213.345.

Therefore, a track owner or railroad

wishing to operate in Classes 1 through
34006 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

5 at cant deficiencies greater than four

inches must petition FRA for a waiver.

Section 213.59—Elevation of Curved

Track; Runoff

Proposed rule: The Track Working

Group discussed this section and

recommended that it remain as

currently written.

Comments: FRA received no

comments.

Final rule: FRA agrees with the

recommendation of the Track Working

Group and this section as proposed is

adopted in this final rule.

§ 213.63—Track Surface

Proposed rule: The present track

surface table contained in this section

was established in the original

standards more than 20 years ago and

has served the industry well as a

minimum safety requirement. However,

some of the parameters need updating to

recognize the knowledge gained from

investigation of derailment causes,

engineering analysis, and changes in

terminology. Therefore, the NPRM

proposed several changes to track

surface requirements to better address

current knowledge of track/vehicle

interaction.

The NPRM proposed that the

parameter referring to the rate of runoff

at the end of a track raise and the

parameter for deviation from uniform

profile should both remain unchanged.

The profile parameter is conservative for

single occurrences on both rails and less

conservative for repeated perturbations.

In the 1982 revisions to the Track

Safety Standards, the requirement for

maintenance of curve records, including

degree of curvature and the amount of

elevation designated in curves was

removed. Since that time, the term

‘‘designated elevation’’ has been

controversial and difficult to apply. The

NPRM proposed to remove that term

from the revised table.

The NPRM also proposed to revise the

way the Track Safety Standards address

transition spirals. For many curves,

especially in the lower track classes,

track maintenance personnel often differ

as to the locations where spirals begin

and end, as well as to the measured

runoff rate. In view of the somewhat

subjective nature of the concept of

uniform runoff in spirals, the proposed

changes in this notice use a different

approach from runoff or ‘‘variation in

crosslevel in spirals’’ and incorporate

this parameter into another parameter.

In the present track surface table, the

maximum variation in crosslevel in

spirals could exceed that allowed on

tangents and in the full body of curves

over the same distance. The mechanism

for derailment in the body of the curve

is the same as in the spiral. The NPRM

proposed that the differences in

crosslevel in spirals be included in one

parameter to simplify the table and

correct the discrepancy that currently

exists. The NPRM also proposed that the

existing parameters referring to

‘‘deviation from designated elevation’’

and ‘‘variation in crosslevel’’ in spirals

are unnecessary, provided spiral

variations in crosslevel are included in

the ‘‘warp’’ parameter. The ‘‘warp’’

parameter is measured by determining

the difference in crosslevel between two

points less than 62-feet apart.

While the difference in crosslevel

parameter (warp) addresses the majority

of situations where wheel climb or rock

off can occur, three footnotes are added

to the table to address specific

situations.

The footnote identified by an asterisk

inside the table addresses the present

practice on some railroads to design a

greater runoff of elevation in spirals due

to physical restrictions on the length of

spirals. Spiral runoff in new

construction must be designed and

maintained within the limits shown in

the table for difference in crosslevel.

Footnote 1 is included to address the

known derailment cause where a warp

occurs in conjunction with an amount

of curve elevation that approaches the

maximum typically in use. When a

vehicle is in an unbalanced condition

on this curve elevation and encounters

a warp condition, the vehicle is

subjected to wheel/rail forces that could

result in wheel climb.

Footnote 2 is included to address the

harmonic rock off problem of which the

railroad industry has been aware for

many years. Under repeated warp

conditions, the vehicle can experience

an increase in side-to-side rocking that

may result in wheel climb in curves or

center plate separation on tangents.

Comments: Comments received

supported the proposed amendments.

One commenter questioned the use of

the terms ‘‘variation’’ and ‘‘difference,’’

and recommended the consistent use of

one or the other, but not both.

Final rule: The term ‘‘variation’’ only

appears in the statement behind the

asterisk inside the track surface table.

The term ‘‘variation’’ is used because

this statement refers to the previous

warp standard for spirals which used

the same term. In certain locations, the

prior standard for warp in spirals will

be grandfathered due to physical

restrictions and therefore FRA believes

the terms should be consistent. In all

other instances in this section, the term

‘‘difference’’ is used exclusively. The

final rule makes one change in the track

surface table under the parameter

described as the difference in crosslevel

between any two points less than 62 feet

apart, or commonly referred to as the

‘‘warp’’ parameter. The results of recent

track twist (warp) studies conducted at

the Transportation Technology Center

(TTC), where three different vehicle

types were tested to determine their

responses to crosslevel and combined

crosslevel/alinement perturbations on

tangent and curved test zones, indicate

that a limit for warp of 21⁄4 inches for

Class 2 track would be more appropriate

than the proposed limit of 21⁄2 inches by

RSAC. The report of the TTC testing was

not available to the Track Working

Group when their recommendations

were made.

Section 213.101—Scope

Proposed rule: The Track Working

Group discussed this section and

recommended that it remain as

currently written.

Comments: FRA received no

comments.

Final rule: FRA agrees with the

recommendation of the Track Working

Group and this section as proposed is

adopted in this final rule.

Section 213.103—Ballast; General

Proposed rule: The Track Working

Group discussed this section and

recommended that it remain as

currently written.

Comments: FRA received no

comments.

Final rule: FRA agrees with the

recommendation of the Track Working

Group and this section as proposed is

adopted in this final rule.

Section 213.109—Crossties

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed

to amend this section to include several

recommendations made by the Track

Working Group and adopted by the

RSAC. After reviewing FRA’s Accident/

Incident data base, the Track Working

Group concluded that wide gage

resulting from defective crossties

continues to be the single largest causal

factor associated with track-caused

reportable derailments.

Gage widening forces applied to the

track structure from the movement of

rolling stock tend to increase as track

curvature increases. Therefore, the

NPRM proposed to increase the number

of effective crossties required under

subsection (c) for turnouts and curved

track with over two degrees of

curvature. The purpose of this proposed

requirement was to strengthen the track

structure to enable it to better resist

such forces.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34007

In Class 1 track, the required number

of crossties in any 39-foot segment of

track would increase from five to six; in

Class 2 track, from eight to nine; in

Class 3 track, from eight to 10; and in

Classes 4 and 5 track, from 12 to 14.

These changes were proposed to become

effective two years after the effective

date of the final rule.

Under subsection (d), the NPRM

proposed an optional requirement for

the number and placement of crossties

near rail joints in Classes 3 through 5

track. The existing requirement calls for

one crosstie within a specified distance

from the rail joint location, while the

proposed optional requirement would

allow two crossties, one on each side of

the joint, within a specified distance

from the rail joint location. FRA

previously examined both standards

under various static loading conditions.

The results indicated that the proposed

optional requirement provides equal or

better joint support than the present

requirement.

The NPRM also proposed to add a

new subsection (e) to address track

constructed without conventional

crossties, such as concrete-slab track.

The existing standards do not address

this type of construction in which the

running rails are secured through

fixation to another structural member.

The proposed addition addressed this

type of track construction by requiring

railroads to maintain gage, surface, and

alinement to the standards specified in

subsections (b)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii).

Comments: Comments received

supported the proposed amendments.

One commenter suggested that the

GRMS technology be incorporated into

this section.

Final rule: As discussed earlier in the

preamble to this final rule, a separate

task group continues to evaluate GRMS

technology for possible incorporation

into the Track Safety Standards.

The final rule includes subsection (c)

as it is currently written, as well as

subsection (d) to become effective two

years after the effective date of this final

rule.

The section as proposed is adopted in

this final rule with renumbering of the

subsections. Subsection (d) in the

NPRM appears as subsection (f) in the

final rule, and subsection (e) in the

NPRM appears as subsection (g) in the

final rule.

Section 213.113—Defective Rails

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed

several substantive changes to this

section which reflect the results of

FRA’s on-going rail integrity research

program. The results indicate the need

to revise the remedial action tables and

specifications to more adequately

address the risks of rail failure,

reserving the most restrictive actions on

limiting operating speed for those rail

defects which are large enough to

present a risk of service failure.

Because ‘‘zero percent’’ entries serve

no useful purpose, they should be

dropped from the remedial action

tables. Similarly, ‘‘100 percent’’ of rail

head cross-sectional area is not a

meaningful dividing point for transverse

defects. The proposed revisions to the

remedial action table for transverse

defects placed a lower limit of five

percent of the rail head cross-sectional

area. If a transverse defect is reported to

be less than five percent, no remedial

action would be required under the

revised standards. Defects reported less

than five percent are not consistently

found during rail breaking programs and

therefore defect determination within

this size range is not always reliable.

Furthermore, if the determination is

reliable, defect growth to service failure

size within the newly established

testing frequency under § 213.237 is

highly unlikely. The proposed revisions

to the remedial action table for

transverse defects also established one

or more mid-range defect sizes, between

five percent and 100 percent, each of

which would require specific remedial

actions.

In the proposed revised remedial

action table, all longitudinal defects

were combined within one group

subject to identical remedial actions

based on their reported size. These

types of longitudinal defects all share

similar growth rates and the same

remedial actions are appropriate to each

type. The lower limit of ‘‘0’’ inches was

eliminated and the size divisions were

revised upward slightly to reflect FRA’s

research findings which indicate that

this class of rail defect has a relatively

slow growth rate.

The ‘‘0’’ inch lower limit was

eliminated also for bolt hole cracks and

broken bases. The proposed revision

also included minor changes in the size

divisions for bolt hole cracks, as well as

changes in the required remedial action

for broken bases less than 6 inches and

damaged rail.

The NPRM also proposed to add

‘‘Flattened Rail’’ to the rail defect table.

Although it is not a condition shown to

affect the structural integrity of the rail

section, it can result in less-thandesirable dynamic vehicle responses in

the higher speed ranges. The flattened

rail condition is identified in the table,

as well as in the definition portion of

subsection (b), as being 3⁄8 inches or

more in depth and 8 inches or more in

length.

The Track Working Group discussed

at length a ‘‘break out in rail head,’’ but

was unable to agree on a standard

definition. The RSAC therefore

recommended that the industry

continue to be guided by FRA’s current

interpretation that a break out in the rail

head consists of a piece physically

separated from the parent rail.

The NPRM also proposed to make

several substantive revisions to the

remedial actions specified under

‘‘Notes’’ in subsection (a)(2) of this

section. A new note ‘‘A2’’ was added to

address the mid-range transverse defect

sizes which were added to the table.

This remedial action allows for train

operations to continue at a maximum of

10 m.p.h. for up to 24 hours, following

a visual inspection by a person

designated under § 213.7.

Note ‘‘B’’, which currently does not

define a limiting speed, was changed to

limit speed to 30 m.p.h. or the

maximum allowable speed under

§ 213.9 for the class of track concerned,

whichever is lower.

Notes ‘‘C’’, ‘‘D’’, and ‘‘H’’ were revised

to limit the operating speed, following

the application of joint bars, to 50

m.p.h. or the maximum allowable speed

under § 213.9 for the class of track

concerned, whichever is lower.

Presently, the standards limit speed to

60 m.p.h. or the maximum allowable

speed under § 213.9 for the class of track

concerned, whichever is lower.

A second paragraph in Note ‘‘C,’’ the

remedial action which applies

specifically to detail fractures, engine

burn fractures, and defective welds,

proposed a significant change to the

current standards. This revision

addressed defects which are discovered

in Classes 3 through 5 track during an

internal rail inspection required under

§ 213.237, and whose size is determined

not to be in excess of 25 percent of the

rail head cross-sectional area. For these

specific defects, a track owner may

operate for up to four days at a speed

limited to 50 m.p.h. or the maximum

allowable speed under § 213.9 for the

class of track concerned, whichever is

lower. If the defective rail is not

removed or a permanent repair made

within four days of discovery, the speed

is limited to 30 m.p.h. until joint bars

are applied.

Under the existing standards, these

types of defects, predominant on heavy

utilization trackage, would require a 30

m.p.h. restriction until joint bars are

applied. Practice within the industry

today is to operate the rail test vehicle

until the number of defects found

exceeds the railroad’s ability to effect

immediate repairs. At that time the rail

test vehicle is shut down for the day.
34008 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

The purpose of this practice is to reduce

speed restrictions which not only affect

the railroad’s ability to move trains, but

also can produce undesirable in-train

forces that can lead to derailments.

However, prematurely shutting down

rail test car operations negate any

possibility of discovering larger and

more serious defects that may lie just

ahead.

Furthermore, the results of FRA’s

research indicate that defects of this

type and size range have a predictable

slow growth life. Research indicates that

even on the most heavily utilized

trackage in use today, defects of this

type and size are unlikely to grow to

service failure size in four days.

Comments: Comments received

generally supported the proposed

amendments to this section. One

commenter suggested that definitions

for ‘‘bolt hole crack,’’ ‘‘defective weld,’’

and ‘‘head-web separation’’ should be

added to subsection (b). This

commenter also suggested that remedial

actions for certain rail defects, which

are expressed in terms of an ‘‘either/or’’

option, could be made less ambiguous

by bracketing those options.

One commenter suggested that a

periodic re-examination of ‘‘flattened

rails’’ should be required so that the

severity and growth rate of this rail

defect can be monitored. This

commenter also suggested that ‘‘shelled

rail’’ should be defined as a rail defect

which would require some specified

remedial action.

One commenter argued that when a

track owner voluntarily elects to

conduct a continuous search for internal

defects on Class 1 and 2 track where

regulatory requirements for inspections

of this type are non-existent, any rail

defects found should be subject to the

requirements of only remedial action B,

regardless of the defect type or size of

the defect. The commenter argued that

such a provision would ensure that

there is not a regulatory disincentive for

voluntarily conducting internal rail

inspections on Class 1 and 2 track.

Another commenter suggested that

FRA’s definition of ‘‘break out in rail

head’’ should be more restrictive than

the present version. This commenter

also suggested that the final rule should

set parameters for determining

‘‘excessive rail wear’’ in a manner

similar to the methods used to measure

excessive wheel wear prescribed in the

49 CFR Part 215, Railroad Freight Car

Safety Standards.

Final rule: The Track Working Group

discussed at length the issues associated

with ‘‘flattened rail’’ (localized

collapsed head rail) and ‘‘shelled rail.’’

FRA and industry research indicates

that these occurrences are more

accurately categorized as rail surface

conditions, not rail defects, as they do

not in themselves cause service failure

of the rail.

FRA believes that the risk of detail

fractures being masked by ‘‘shelled rail’’

conditions was appropriately addressed

in the proposed rule by specifying more

restrictive inspection intervals and by

requiring specific remedial actions to be

taken when surface conditions such as

‘‘shelled rail’’ prevent a valid inspection

for internal defects. The proposed rule

addresses the issue of ‘‘flattened rail’’ in

terms of a specified remedial action for

those of a certain depth and length. FRA

believes that further monitoring of

‘‘flattened rail’’ conditions can be

accomplished without prescribing

regulations which mandate inspection

procedures beyond which already exist.

FRA’s rail integrity research program

will continue to study ‘‘shelled rail’’

and ‘‘flattened rail’’ conditions, and in

the event that research indicates

additional regulation is necessary in the

future, FRA will not hesitate to do so.

The Track Working Group was unable

to improve FRA’s current definition of

a ‘‘break out in rail head.’’ The current

definition, when viewed in terms of the

remedial action which it requires when

met, has been considered too liberal

under certain circumstances, while

conversely, it has also been considered

too conservative under other

circumstances. The circumstances

primarily dictated by the type and size

of defect, along with the location of the

defect in the rail. FRA believes that

under the current remedial action

requirement, the current definition for

‘‘break out in rail head’’ is adequate.

The issue of ‘‘excessive rail wear’’

continues to be evaluated by FRA’s rail

integrity research program. FRA

believes that insufficient data exist at

this time which would indicate that

parameters for this condition should be

proposed as a minimum safety standard.

FRA believes that the remedial action

tables and specifications in this final

rule better address the risks associated

with rail failure. These risks are

primarily dependent upon defect type

and size and should not be dependent

upon the manner or mechanism which

reveals the existence of the defect. FRA

believes that providing special

regulatory relief for defects found

during voluntary inspections for

internal rail defects would not be a

prudent approach to take. However, in

revising the remedial action table, FRA

has sought to provide enhanced

flexibility where warranted by safety

considerations.

FRA agrees that additional definitions

would be helpful, so this final rule adds

definitions for ‘‘bolt hole crack,’’

‘‘defective weld,’’ and ‘‘head-web

separation.’’ FRA also agrees that

bracketing certain ‘‘either/or’’ remedial

actions will clarify the intent of those

requirements.

With the exception of these minor

changes, the rule is adopted as proposed

by the Track Working Group and

endorsed by the RSAC.

Section 213.115—Rail End Mismatch

Proposed rule: The Track Working

Group discussed this section and

recommended that it remain as

currently written.

Comments: FRA received no

comments.

Final rule: FRA agrees with the

recommendation of the Track Working

Group and this section as proposed is

adopted in this final rule.

Section 213.119—Continuous Welded

Rail (CWR); General

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed

to introduce a requirement for railroads

to establish and place in effect written

procedures to address CWR. These

procedures must address the

installation, adjustment, maintenance

and inspection of CWR track, and

include a formal training program for

the application of these procedures. The

procedures, including a program for

training, must be submitted to FRA

within six months following the

effective date of this rule. Although

many railroads already have in effect a

CWR program, FRA will review each

submitted set of procedures for

compliance with the individual

requirements of the proposed

regulation.

Within the last decade, through the

determined efforts of researchers from

industry and government, along with

experience gained from accident

investigators and track maintenance

people, the railroad industry has gained

a better comprehension of the

mechanics of laterally unstable CWR

track. As a result, the industry has

identified maintenance procedures that

are critical to maintaining CWR track

stability.

As proposed, the requirements do not

detail how each procedure is to be

carried out. Rather, they identify the

basic safety issues and permit railroads

to develop and implement their own

procedures to address those issues,

provided the procedures are consistent

with current research results as well as

findings from practical experience

documented in recent years. The

procedures should be clear, concise, and
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34009

easy to understand by maintenance-ofway employees. A comprehensive

training program must be in place for

the application of these procedures.

The proposed regulation requires the

designation of a ‘‘desired rail

installation temperature range’’ for the

geographic area in which the CWR is

located. By definition contained in the

proposed regulation, ‘‘desired rail

installation temperature range’’ is the

rail temperature range at which forces in

CWR should not cause a track buckle in

extreme heat, or a pull-apart during cold

weather. Current general practice within

the industry, based to a large extent on

research findings, is to establish a

‘‘desired rail installation temperature

range’’ which is considerably higher

than the annual mean temperature for

the geographic area in which the CWR

is located. The regulation, as proposed

in the NPRM, provides railroads with

flexibility to establish the ‘‘desired rail

installation temperature range’’ based

on the characteristics of the specific

territory involved and the historical

knowledge acquired through the

application of past procedures.

When CWR is installed and anchored/

fastened at the ‘‘desired rail installation

temperature range,’’ it is considered to

be in its initial ‘‘stress-free’’ state, where

the net longitudinal force is equal to

zero. Research discloses that many

factors, some of which are unavoidable,

like dynamics of train operation, the

necessary lining and surfacing of the

track structure, and performing rail

repairs all contribute to a gradual

lowering over time of the initial rail

installation temperature range which

increases the potential for track

buckling. This phenomenon

substantiates the need to install and

anchor/fasten CWR at a relatively high

rail installation temperature range.

Maintenance of the ‘‘desired rail

installation temperature range’’ is

critical to ensuring CWR stability.

Therefore, the procedures for

installation, adjustment, effecting rail

repairs, and repairing track buckles or

pull-aparts must compare the existing

rail temperature with the ‘‘desired rail

installation temperature range’’ for the

area concerned.

The procedures also must address

several other topics, such as rail

anchoring, controlling train speed when

CWR track has been disturbed, ballast

re-consolidation, inspections, and

recordkeeping for the installation of

CWR and rail repairs that do not

conform to the railroad written

procedures. A track owner may update

or modify CWR procedures as

necessary, upon notification to FRA of

those changes.

Development of individual CWR

programs could prove burdensome for

many small railroads. As recommended

by the Track Working Group, FRA will

work with the ASLRA to develop a

generic set of CWR procedures to apply

to low speed/low tonnage Class 2 and

Class 3 railroad operations.

Comments: Comments generally

supported the proposed amendment.

One commenter questioned the need for

certain railroads that only conduct low

speed/low tonnage operations to adopt

written procedures addressing CWR.

Another commenter questioned FRA’s

enforceability of the proposed new

section.

Final rule: The details of these

procedures are to be based on research

findings and sound engineering

principles. FRA is committed to

working with ASLRA to develop a

generic set of CWR procedures with

wide applicability for the spectrum of

smaller railroads. FRA believes that

certain requirements contained in the

generic procedures, such as a

requirement to operate at reduced speed

following maintenance work which

disturbs the track, will not have an

impact on a railroad that normally only

operates at 10 m.p.h. Other

requirements of this generic set of

procedures would also be less

burdensome due to the nature of most

low speed/low tonnage operations.

This new section is enforceable to the

extent that CWR procedures must be

developed and implemented, and

employees responsible for their

application must be trained on these

procedures. In the proper exercise of its

enforcement discretion, the agency is

unlikely to take enforcement action

against minor deviations from CWR

procedures unless, together with other

violations, they are part of a larger

problem.

Section 213.121—Rail Joints

Proposed rule: Under existing

subsection (a), the phrase ‘‘proper

design and dimension’’ often has been

interpreted to prohibit the use of any

joint bar on a rail section for which it

was not specifically designed. This

interpretation does not consider the fact

that certain joint bars are

interchangeable between different rail

sections. Therefore, the NPRM proposed

to change the word ‘‘proper’’ to

‘‘structurally sound’’ in subsection (a).

In subsection (b), the NPRM proposed

to add the modifier ‘‘excessive’’ in front

of the phrase ‘‘vertical movement.’’ The

existing language in this subsection

implies that no vertical movement of

either rail could be allowed when all

bolts are tight. This interpretation is too

strict. FRA’s Enforcement Manual

suggests that FRA inspectors evaluate

excessive vertical movement when

determining compliance with this

paragraph. This change would make the

rule conform to sound practices.

The NPRM proposed to extend to

Class 2 track the prohibition of torch

cutting bolt holes in rail. The reference

to joint bars was removed, the subject to

be covered in the proposed new

subsection (h) which restricts the

practice of re-configuring joint bars.

Joint bars for older rail sections are

becoming increasingly difficult to find

and are no longer being manufactured.

Therefore, the new subsection (h)

prohibits the re-configuration of joint

bars in Classes 3 through 5 track, but not

in Classes 1 and 2 track.

Comments: Comments generally

supported the proposed amendments.

One commenter agreed that the term

‘‘structurally sound’’ is more technically

correct, but stated that the term provides

no additional guidance as to what joint

bars are interchangeable with various

rail sections. Several commenters

suggested that the prohibition on

reconfiguring joint bars with a torch

should be extended to Class 2 track.

Another commenter suggested that the

term ‘‘excessive’’ should be quantified.

Final rule: FRA believes the risks in

the lower speed track classes are

minimal when a railroad torch cuts bolt

holes in joint bars and reconfigures joint

bars with a torch. The most critical of

joint bar failures are those in which the

bar cracks or breaks through the middle

two bolt holes. If this were to happen as

a result of reconfiguring by a torch, a

regulation already exists which

prohibits any cracks or breaks in this

area of the joint bar for any class of

track.

FRA believes that the term

‘‘excessive’’ in the context of this

section should be left to the discretion

of a qualified person based on that

person’s evaluation of what risks may be

associated with any particular set of

conditions. FRA agrees that additional

guidance should be provided for the

interpretation of ‘‘structurally sound’’

joint bars and will work with the

industry to develop and issue guidelines

in the form of a Technical Bulletin

addressing the interchange ability of

joint bars between various rail sections.

This approach is similar to a recent

recommendation issued by FRA’s

Technical Resolution Committee.

The rule is adopted as proposed by

the NPRM.

Section 213.122—Torch Cut Rail

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed

this new section to address the proper
34010 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

handling of rails cut by the use of a

torch. The practice of torch-cutting rail

at one time was commonplace on

railroads, but was discontinued in

higher speed track several years ago

when better saws were developed and

railroads discovered that rails that have

been torch-cut have a greater tendency

to develop fractures. Today, on track

Classes 3 and above, the practice is used

almost exclusively for temporary

emergency repairs, such as quickly

returning a track to service following a

derailment or washout. These locations

are then quickly replaced with new rail.

The purpose of this section is to outlaw

the practice of torch cutting rails, except

for emergency repairs, on all track in

classes above Class 2. Train speed on

track that has been torch cut for

emergency repairs made after the

effective date of this rule must be

reduced to the maximum allowable

speed for Class 2 until the torch cut rail

is replaced.

The proposed section also provides

railroads with guidance for eliminating

old torch cut rail in track Classes 3

through 5. The industry believes no

torch cuts exist in Class 6 track. Torch

cuts in Class 5 track must be eliminated

within a year of the effective date of this

final rule, while torch cuts in Class 4

track must be removed within two

years. Within one year of the effective

date of this final rule, railroads must

inventory existing torch cuts in any

Class 3 track over which regularly

scheduled passenger trains operate.

Those torch cuts found and inventoried

will be ‘‘grandfathered in.’’ Any torch

cuts that are found on such track after

the expiration of one year and that are

not inventoried will be limited

immediately to Class 2 speed and

removed within 30 days of discovery. If

a railroad chooses to upgrade a segment

of track from Classes 1 or 2 to Class 3,

and regularly scheduled passenger

trains operate over that track, the

railroad must remove any torch cuts

before the speeds can be increased

beyond the maximum allowable for

Class 2 track. If a railroad chooses to

upgrade a segment of track from any

class of track to Class 4 or 5, it must

remove all torch cuts.

Comments: Comments received

generally supported the proposed

amendments. Several commenters

suggested that torch cut rail ends be

prohibited in all but Class 1 track. One

commenter also suggested that existing

torch cut rail ends be restricted to 10

m.p.h..

Final rule: FRA believes the risks

associated with torch cut rail ends in

Class 2 track are minimal based on

lower speeds and lower impact loads. If

rail defects were to develop as a result

of torch cut rail ends, requirements

already exist which would address

them. FRA also believes that existing

torch cut rail ends have survived the

early mortality rate which is associated

with rails that fail due to poor torch

cutting practices, and therefore existing

torch cuts do not present a significant

risk, given the low frequency of

expected failure and lower accident

severity at Class 2 speeds.

The rule is adopted as proposed by

the NPRM.

Section 213.123—Tie Plates

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed

to add a new subsection (b) to this

section which reads, ‘‘In Classes 3

through 5 track, no metal object which

causes a concentrated load by solely

supporting a rail shall be allowed

between the base of rail and the bearing

surface of the tie plate.’’ The specific

reference to ‘‘metal object’’ is intended

to include only those items of track

material which pose the greatest

potential for broken base rails such as

track spikes, rail anchors, and shoulders

of tie plates. The phrase ‘‘causes a

concentrated load by solely supporting

a rail’’ further clarifies the intent of the

regulation to apply only in those

instances where there is clear physical

evidence that the metal object is placing

substantial load on the rail base, as

indicated by lack of load on adjacent

ties.

Comments: Comments supported the

proposed amendment.

Final rule: The rule is adopted as

proposed by the NPRM.

Section 213.127—Rail Fastening

Systems

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed

to change the title of this section from

‘‘Rail fastenings’’ to ‘‘Rail fastening

systems’’ and to reduce the language of

the regulation to one sentence which

reads, ‘‘Track shall be fastened by a

system of components which effectively

maintains gage within the limits

prescribed in § 213.53(b).’’

The change to ‘‘rail fastening

systems’’ more adequately addresses the

many individual components of

modern-day elastic fastening systems,

such as pads, insulator clips, and

shoulder inserts. The failure of certain

critical components within the system

could adversely affect the ability of the

individual fastener to provide adequate

gage restraint. The revised language of

the regulation provides for an

evaluation of all components within the

system, if necessary, in order to evaluate

whether they are affording effective gage

restraint.

The RSAC considered the current

reference to qualified Federal or State

track inspectors and the definition of a

qualified State track inspector to be

redundant, given the adoption of Part

212. Therefore, the NPRM proposed to

delete the phrase ‘‘qualified Federal or

State track inspector,’’ as well as the last

sentence of the current section which

contains the definition of a qualified

state track inspector.

Comments: Comments supported the

proposed amendment. One commenter

suggested that the GRMS technology be

incorporated into this section.

Final rule: As discussed earlier in the

preamble to this final rule, a separate

task group continues to evaluate GRMS

technology for possible incorporation

into the Track Safety Standards. The

rule is adopted as proposed by the

NPRM.

Section 213.133—Turnouts and Track

Crossings Generally

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed

to retain the language of subsection (a)

which reads, ‘‘In turnouts and track

crossings, the fastenings must be intact

and maintained so as to keep the

components securely in place.’’ The

AAR proposed to revise the language to

say, ‘‘ * * * the fastenings must be

maintained for the safe passage of

trains.’’ The AAR contended that

turnout and track crossings are designed

with a high degree of redundancy,

making it unnecessary for each fastening

to be intact to maintain safety. However,

the RSAC recommended that the

regulations allow track inspectors

discretion to evaluate immediate

circumstances in determining what

level of remedial action is necessary for

loose or missing fastenings. RSAC

recommended that inspectors be

provided specific guidance about

interpreting this provision, such as the

guidance contained in technical bulletin

T–95–09 recently issued by FRA.

The NPRM proposed to change

subsection (b) to reflect proposals

presented by the BMWE and by the

AAR and FRA. The RSAC

recommended that rail anchoring

requirements be extended to include

Class 3 trackage and that ‘‘rail anchors’’

be changed to ‘‘rail anchoring ‘‘ so that

rail anchoring would include elastic rail

fasteners.

Comments: Comments supported the

proposed amendments.

Final rule: The rule is adopted as

proposed by the NPRM.

Section 213.135—Switches

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed

to revise subsection (b) to consider the

existence of reinforcing bars or straps on
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34011

switch points where joint bars cannot be

applied to certain rail defects, as

required under § 213.113(a)(2), because

of the physical configuration of the

switch. In these instances, remedial

action B will govern, and a person

designated under § 213.7(a), who has at

least one year of supervisory experience

in track maintenance, will limit train

speed to that not exceeding 30 m.p.h. or

the maximum allowable under

§ 213.9(a) for the appropriate class of

track, whichever is lower. Of course, the

person may exercise the options under

§ 213.5(a) when appropriate.

The RSAC did not recommend

specific dimensions for determining

when switch points are ‘‘unusually

chipped or worn,’’ as provided for in

subsection (h). FRA stated that its

Accident/Incident data base indicates

that worn or broken switch points are

the largest single cause of derailments

within the general category of ‘‘Frogs,

Switches, and Appliances.’’ However,

the AAR contended that developing

meaningful numbers for these

measurements would be a difficult task

because most of these derailments are

related also to other causal factors such

as wheel flange condition, truck

stiffness, and train handling

characteristics. The NPRM, therefore,

proposed to retain the current wording

in subsection (h), allowing qualified

individuals to evaluate immediate

circumstances to determine when

switch points are ‘‘unusually chipped or

worn.’’

The NPRM also proposed a new

subsection (i) to read, ‘‘Tongue and

plain mate switches, which by design

exceed Class 1 and excepted track

maximum gage limits, are permitted in

Class 1 and excepted track.’’ This new

subsection provides an exemption for

this item of specialized track work,

primarily used in pavement or street

railroads, which by design does not

conform to the maximum gage limits

prescribed for Class 1 and excepted

track.

Comments: Comments generally

supported the proposed amendments.

One commenter suggested that the term

‘‘unusually chipped or worn’’ be

quantified.

Final rule: FRA believes that the term

‘‘unusually chipped or worn’’ in the

context of this section should be left to

the discretion of a qualified person

based on that person’s evaluation of

what risks may be associated with any

particular set of circumstances. The rule

is adopted as proposed by the NPRM.

Section 213.137—Frogs

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed

to add a new subsection (d) to this

section, which reads, ‘‘Where frogs are

designed as flange-bearing, flangeway

depth may be less than that shown for

Class 1 if operated at Class 1 speeds.’’

This subsection provides an exemption

for an item of specialized track work

which by design does not conform to

the minimum flangeway depth

requirements prescribed in subsection

(a) of this section.

Comments: Comments received

supported the proposed amendment.

Final rule: The rule is adopted as

proposed by the NPRM.

Section 213.139—Spring Rail Frogs

Proposed rule: The proposed rule

recommended no changes to this

section.

Comments: No comments were

received.

Final rule: This final rule inserts the

word ‘‘compression’’ for that of the

phrase ‘‘a tension’’ in subsection (d) to

correct a technical error in wording. In

order for the wing rail to be held tight

against the point rail, the spring must be

in compression and not in tension.

Except for this minor change, the rule

is adopted as proposed by the NPRM.

Section 213.141—Self-Guarded Frogs

Proposed rule: The Track Working

Group discussed this section and

recommended that it remain as

currently written.

Comments: FRA received no

comments.

Final rule: FRA agrees with the

recommendation of the Track Working

Group and this section as proposed is

adopted in this final rule.

Section 213.143—Frog Guard Rails and

Guard Faces; Gage

Proposed rule: To facilitate an easier

understanding of the requirements

contained in this section, the NPRM

proposed to add a diagram to illustrate

the method for measuring guard check

gage and guard face gage. The proposal

contained no substantive changes to this

section.

Comments: Comments supported the

proposed amendment.

Final rule: The rule is adopted as

proposed by the NPRM.

Section 213.201—Scope

Proposed rule: The Track Working

Group discussed this section and

recommended that it remain as

currently written.

Comments: FRA received no

comments.

Final rule: FRA agrees with the

recommendation of the Track Working

Group and this section as proposed is

adopted in this final rule.

Section 213.205—Derails

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed

to add language to this section designed

to ensure that derails are maintained to

function properly. The RSAC

recommended these changes as

additional safety features for train

crews, as well as railroad employees

working on and around tracks.

Comments: Comments supported the

proposed amendments.

Final rule: The rule is adopted as

proposed by the NPRM.

Section 213.231—Scope

Proposed rule: The Track Working

Group discussed this section and

recommended that it remain as

currently written.

Comments: FRA received no

comments.

Final rule: FRA agrees with the

recommendation of the Track Working

Group and this section as proposed is

adopted in this final rule.

Section 213.233—Track Inspections

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed

several changes to subsection (b). The

five m.p.h. restriction over highway

crossings is eliminated to permit safe

operation of vehicles through highway

traffic. However, the subsection would

still require an inspector to perform an

adequate inspection, regardless of how

the inspector operates over the crossing.

Also, the word ‘‘switch’’ is replaced by

the word ‘‘turnout’’ to clarify the track

device originally intended to be

addressed in the regulation.

The Track Working Group considered

advising the RSAC to recommend

specific speed restrictions for inspection

vehicles. However, after several lengthy

discussions, the group suggested instead

that this subsection provide the

individual inspector with sole

discretion in determining vehicle speed

based on track conditions, inspection

requirements, and other circumstances

that may vary from day to day and

location to location. The group also

suggested the insertion of a footnote at

the end of this section which indicates

this discretion is not limited by any

other part of this section, and is

extended to determine sight distance

(‘‘visibility remains unobstructed by any

cause’’) which is referenced in

paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.

The existing language under

subsection (b) does not specify how

many tracks may be inspected in one

pass of an inspection vehicle in

multiple track territory. FRA has never

issued interpretive language regarding

this issue, opting to judge the overall

effectiveness of the inspection program
34012 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

rather than the specific manner in

which it was conducted. The NPRM

proposed to establish some guidelines

for hyrail inspections conducted in

multiple track territory.

As a result, subsection (b), as

proposed in the NPRM, contains

additional language specifying the

number of additional tracks that can be

inspected, depending on whether one or

two qualified individuals are in the

vehicle, and depending on the distance

between adjacent tracks measured

between track centerlines. Inspectors

may inspect multiple tracks from hy-rail

vehicles only if their view of the tracks

inspected is unobstructed by tunnels,

differences in ground level, or any other

circumstance that would prevent an

unobstructed inspection of all the tracks

they are inspecting. The revised

subsection also requires railroad to

traverse each main track bi-weekly and

each siding monthly, and to so note on

the appropriate track inspection records.

With respect to the inspection

frequency required in subsection (c),

neither the Track Working Group nor

the RSAC could reach agreement in

determining a frequency requirement

that would be based on speed, tonnage,

or track usage. Therefore, the NPRM did

not propose to change the language in

this subsection.

Comments: Comments generally

supported the proposed amendments.

Several commenters suggested that the

requirements that address inspections in

multiple track territory should be more

restrictive. Several commenters

suggested that a maximum speed limit

should be set when performing

inspections for compliance with this

part, one of which suggested a

maximum speed of 15 m.p.h..

Final rule: FRA believes that the

appropriate vehicle inspection speed

over a particular territory is subject to

many variables, i.e., track condition,

type of track construction, weather

conditions, time of day, as well as many

others which may only be apparent to

the individual inspector at that moment

in time. With this in mind, FRA believes

that the appropriate vehicle speed for

any particular set of conditions should

be determined by the person performing

the inspection, including those

performed in multiple track territory.

The final rule provides for the

inspector’s discretion as it involves

inspection speed and sight distance.

This final rule also changes this

section by cross-referencing excepted

track in the § 213.233(c) table for

required inspection frequency.

Section 213.235—Inspection of

Switches, Track Crossings, and Lift Rail

Assemblies or Other Transition Devices

on Moveable Bridges

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed

to change subsection (a) by adding the

word ‘‘turnout’’ after the word ‘‘switch’’

to clarify the track device and the intent

of the requirement which is to inspect

the entire turnout. The word ‘‘switch’’ is

retained to include switch point derails

or any other device which is not

considered a full turnout.

The NPRM proposed a second

sentence to be added to subsection (a)

which reads, ‘‘Each switch in Classes 3

through 5 track that is held in position

only by the operating mechanism and

one connecting rod shall be operated to

all of its positions during one inspection

in every three-month period.’’ The

nature of this type of switch requires a

thorough inspection of the critical parts,

some of which are non-redundant.

Thorough inspection is best

accomplished by operating the switch

mechanism to allow for a better

inspection of these components. The

phrase ‘‘all positions’’ is intended to

cover slip switches and lap switches.

In subsection (b), the word ‘‘turnout’’

is added after the word ‘‘switch’’ for the

same reasons explained above.

Comments: Comments generally

supported the proposed amendments.

One commenter suggested that all

switch mechanisms should be operated

during inspections required under this

section.

Final rule: FRA believes that a

requirement to operate all switch

mechanisms on a monthly basis would

be too burdensome on the industry,

especially in some geographical

locations that are subject to snow, ice,

and freezing conditions for many

months of the year.

The final rule includes several

changes to this section. On November

23, 1996, more than three weeks after

the Track Working Group had submitted

its recommendations for revision of the

Track Safety Standards to the RSAC, an

Amtrak passenger train derailed on the

moveable bridge over the Hackensack

River in Secaucus, New Jersey. This

derailment was the result of a

malfunctioning lift rail assembly which

provides the transition from the

moveable span to the fixed span on the

bridge. Because of this derailment, FRA

believes that transition devices on

moveable bridges should be addressed

in the revised Track Safety Standards.

Therefore, this final rule adds

moveable bridge lift rail assemblies and

other transition devices to the

inspection requirements in this section.

This section adds only a requirement to

visually inspect on foot; it is not

intended to impose additional

functional requirements for bridge lift

rail assemblies beyond what is already

required by the Track Safety Standards.

However, FRA considers these

assemblies to be no less critical than

switches or track crossings, and they

should be subject to monthly on-foot

visual inspections by a person qualified

under § 213.7.

In addition, this section is

restructured in order to reference the

operation of specified switch operating

mechanisms in a separate subsection

(b). This change is designed to

emphasize the importance of these nonredundant mechanisms.

Section 213.237—Inspection of Rail

Proposed rule: Under existing

subsection (a), the Track Safety

Standards require Classes 4 and 5 track,

as well as Class 3 track over which

passenger trains operate, to be tested

annually for internal rail defects. This

requirement was established at a time

when main line freight traffic was

considerably lighter than it is today. At

the time the original standards were

drafted, test frequencies generally

equated to intervals between 15 and 20

million gross tons (MGTs), although

there existed some track that carried 40

MGTs or more in one year. As a matter

of practice, railroads generally test more

often than presently required under the

standards, with intervals between tests

typically ranging from 20 to 30 MGTs.

These typical intervals define a good

baseline for generally accepted

maintenance practices, and the

industry’s rail quality managers

consider these limits as points of

departure for adjustment of test

schedules to account for the effects of

specific track characteristics,

maintenance, traffic, and weather.

The NPRM proposed to leave

unchanged the present annual test

requirement for Classes 4 and 5 track

and Class 3 track over which passenger

trains operate, based on risk factors

associated with freight train speeds and

passenger train operations. However,

with the high utilization trackage that

now exists on Class 1 freight railroads,

the original requirement based solely on

the passage of time, without regard to

tonnage, is no longer adequate.

Selecting an appropriate frequency of

rail testing is a complex and somewhat

controversial task involving many

different factors including temperature

differential, curvature, residual stresses,

rail sections, and cumulative tonnage.

Taking into consideration all of the

above factors, FRA’s research suggests
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34013

that 40 MGTs is the maximum tonnage

that can be hauled between rail tests

and still allow a safe window of

opportunity for detection of an internal

rail flaw before it propagates in size to

service failure. The NPRM proposed

that intervals be set at once per year or

40 MGTs, whichever is shorter, for

Classes 4 and 5 track and for Class 3

track over which passenger trains

operate.

The NPRM also proposed that Class 3

trackage not supporting passenger traffic

be subject to testing for internal rail

defects. FRA’s Accident/Incident data

point to a need for inclusion of all Class

3 trackage in a railroad’s rail testing

program. Therefore, the NPRM proposed

to add a requirement that Class 3 track

over which passenger trains do not

operate be tested once a year or once

very 30 MGTs, whichever is longer.

The NPRM proposed the limit of once

a year or 30 MGTs because a more

frequent testing cycle or a cycle

identical to that proposed for Classes 4

and 5 track would be too burdensome

for the industry. The proposed limits are

designed to give short line railroads and

low tonnage branch lines some relief

from the introduction of a new

regulatory requirement and still reduce

the present risks associated with not

testing Class 3 track at all.

The NPRM also proposed the addition

of subsections (d) and (e). Subsection (d)

addresses the case where a valid search

for internal rail defects could not be

made because of rail surface conditions.

Several types of technologies are

presently employed to continuously

search for internal rail defects, some

with varying means of displaying and

monitoring search signals. A continuous

search is intended to mean an

uninterrupted search by whatever

technology is being used, so that there

are no segments of rail which are not

tested. If the test is interrupted, i.e., as

a result of rail surface conditions which

inhibit the transmission or return of the

signal, then the test over that segment of

rail may not be valid because it was not

continuous. Therefore, as proposed in

the NPRM, a non-test is not defined in

absolute technical terms. Rather, the

provision leaves this judgment to the

rail test equipment operator who is

uniquely qualified on that equipment.

As proposed in the NPRM, subsection

(e) specifies the options available to a

railroad following a non-test due to rail

surface conditions. These options must

be exercised prior to the expiration of

time or tonnage limits specified in

paragraph (a) of this section.

Comments: Comments supported the

proposed amendments.

Final rule: The rule is adopted as

proposed by the NPRM.

Section 213.239—Special Inspections

Proposed rule: The RSAC

recommended no change to this section,

and likewise, the NPRM proposed no

change to the language in the regulation.

However, the preamble of the NPRM

provided an explanation of agency

policy interpreting the section.

Comments: One commenter referred

to the Notice of Safety Advisory 97–1,

issued by FRA on September 4, 1997.

See 62 FR 46793. The commenter

recommended that the provisions

contained in the advisory be adopted as

regulations under this section.

Because of a number of fairly recent

train derailments caused by unexpected

track damage from moving water, FRA

deemed it appropriate to issue the safety

advisory to provide railroads with

recommended procedures that reflect

best industry practice for special track

inspections. The procedures include: (1)

prompt notification of dispatchers of

expected bad weather; (2) limits on train

speed on all track subject to flood

damage, following the issuance of a

flash flood warning, until special

inspection can be performed; (3)

identification of bridges carrying Class 4

or higher track which are vulnerable to

flooding and over which passenger

trains operate; (4) availability of

information about each bridge, such as

identifying marks, for those who may be

called to perform a special inspection;

(5) training programs and refresher

training for those who perform special

inspections; and (6) availability of a

bridge maintenance or engineering

employee to assist the track inspectors

in interpreting the inspectors’ findings.

Final rule: The rule is adopted as

proposed by the NPRM, and does not

incorporate the procedures outlined in

the Notice of Safety Advisory 97–1. As

it stated in that advisory, FRA believes

that this section is necessarily general in

nature, because it is not practical to

specify in a minimum safety standard

all the conditions which could trigger a

special inspection, nor the manner in

which any particular special inspection

should be conducted. Of course, all

such inspections should be conducted

so as to effectively prevent derailments,

and the procedures included in the

safety advisory are designed to aid

railroads in performing effective

inspections.

Although this section contains a

sample list of surprise events that

routinely occur in nature, FRA does not

view this provision as limited to only

the occurrences listed or to only natural

disasters. The section addresses the

need to inspect after ‘‘other

occurrences’’ which include such

natural phenomena as temperature

extremes, as well as unexpected events

that are human-made, e.g., a vehicle that

falls on the tracks from an overhead

bridge, a water main break that floods a

track roadbed, or terrorist activity that

damages track. This interpretation is not

new; FRA has always viewed this

section to encompass sudden events of

all kinds that affect the safety and

integrity of track.

Section 213.241—Inspection Records

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed

to change the requirement that railroads

retain a record of each track inspection

at division headquarters for at least one

year. When this provision in subsection

(b) was first written, railroads

maintained many division headquarters

throughout their systems, making it

relatively convenient for railroads to

maintain inspection records at these

locations. Over the years, however,

railroads consolidated many of their

headquarters, often naming only a few

locations as ‘‘division headquarters.’’

FRA has contended that maintaining

inspection records in only a few

locations over a system that may

include thousands of miles of track was

not in keeping with the spirit of the

regulation. Railroads have argued, on

the other hand, that compelling them to

maintain headquarters for no other

purpose than to store records was a

burdensome requirement.

The NPRM proposed to allow

railroads to designate a location within

100 miles of each state where records

can be viewed by FRA track inspectors

following 10 days notice by FRA. The

provision does not require the railroads

to maintain the records at these

designated locations, only to be able to

provide viewing of them at the locations

within 10 days after notification. The

proposal stipulates locations within 100

miles of each state, rather than locations

in each state, to accommodate those

railroads whose operations may cross a

state’s line by only a few miles. In those

cases, the railroad could designate a

location in a neighboring state, provided

the location is within 100 miles of that

state’s border.

A change to subsection (c) requires a

track owner to record any locations

where a proper rail inspection cannot be

performed because of rail surface

conditions. A new provision at

§ 213.237(d) specifies that if rail surface

conditions prohibit the railroad from

conducting a proper search for rail

defects, a test of that rail does not fulfill

the requirements of § 213.237(a) which

requires a search for internal defects at
34014 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

specific intervals. The new language in

subsection (c) of this section requires a

recordkeeping of those instances.

The NPRM also proposed to add a

provision for maintaining and retrieving

electronic records of track inspections.

Patterned after an experimental program

successfully tried by the former

Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad

with oversight by FRA, the provision in

subsection (e) allows each railroad to

design its own electronic system as long

as the system meets the specified

criteria to safeguard the integrity and

authenticity of each record. The

provision also requires that railroads

make available paper copies of

electronic records when needed by FRA

or by railroad track inspectors.

Comments: Comments supported the

proposed amendments.

Final rule: The rule is adopted as

proposed by the NPRM.

Section by Section Analysis—High

Speed Track Standards

Section 213.301—Scope of Subpart

Proposed rule: Subpart G applies to

track required to support the passage of

passenger and freight equipment in

specific speed ranges higher than those

permitted over Class 5 track. For those

speeds above Class 5, the track and the

vehicles operated on the track must be

considered as an integral system. Of

course, conventional passenger

equipment has been operated for

decades by many railroads at speeds up

to 110 m.p.h. and on the Northeast

Corridor by Amtrak and its predecessors

at speeds up to 125 m.p.h. This subpart

does not apply to technologies such as

magnetic levitation that do not use

flanged wheel equipment.

Comments: No comments were

received pertaining to this section.

Final rule: A minor change in this

section clarifies that Subpart G begins at

a speed greater than 90 miles per hour

(not at 91 miles per hour) for qualified

passenger equipment and a speed

greater than 80 miles per hour (not 81

miles per hour) for qualified freight

equipment.

Section 213.303—Responsibility for

Compliance

Proposed rule: Only two response

options are available under this

paragraph. Track owners who know or

have notice of non-compliance with this

subpart may either bring the track into

compliance with the subpart or halt

operations over that track. This section

does not offer the railroad the option of

operating under this subpart with the

supervision of a qualified person, as in

the standards for track Classes 1 through

5. Such an option would permit too

much opportunity for disaster from

human error. Under this subpart, if a

track does not comply with the

requirements of its class, it must be

repaired immediately or train speeds

must be reduced to the maximum speed

for the track class with which the track

complies. It may be necessary on

occasion for the track owner to reduce

the class of track to Class 5 or below.

When this occurs, the requirements for

the lower classes (1–5) will apply.

Comments: No comments were

received pertaining to this section.

Final rule: FRA decided to delete the

proposed subsection (d), which

discussed directed service by the

Surface Transportation Board, because

this provision is not needed in the high

speed context.

FRA decided to add a new subsection

(d) of this section to include in the

category of those responsible for

compliance with the track standards

those who perform the function of

complying with the standards, not just

the track owner. This is consistent with

the counterpart regulation for Classes 1

through 5 track in § 213.5(f). It conforms

to the authority given FRA by the

statute. See 49 U.S.C. 21301 and 1

U.S.C. 1.

Section 213.305—Designation of

Qualified Individuals; General

Qualifications

Proposed rule: Work on or about a

track structure supporting qualified high

speed passenger trains demands the

highest awareness of employees about

the need to perform work properly.

A person may be qualified to perform

restorations and renewals under this

subpart in three ways. First, the person

may combine five or more years of

supervisory experience in track

maintenance for track Class 4 or higher

and the successful completion of a

course offered by the employer or by a

college level engineering program,

supplemented by special on-the-job

training. Second, a person may be

qualified by a combination of at least

one year of supervisory experience in

track maintenance of Class 4 or higher,

80 hours of specialized training or in a

college level program, supplemented

with on-the-job training. Under the third

option, a railroad employee with at least

two years of experience in maintenance

of high speed track can achieve

qualification status by completing 120

hours of specialized training in

maintenance of high speed track,

provided by the employer or by a

college level engineering program,

supplemented by special on-the-job

training.

Similarly, a person may be qualified

to perform track inspections in Classes

6, 7, 8 and 9 by attaining five or more

years of experience in inspection in

track Class 4 or higher and by

completing a course taught by the

employer or by a college level

engineering program, supplemented by

special on-the-job training. Or, the

person may be qualified by attaining a

combination of at least one year of

experience in track inspection in Class

4 and higher and by successfully

completing 80 hours of specialized

training in the inspection of high speed

track provided by the employer or by a

college level engineering program,

supplemented with on-the-job training.

Finally, a person may be qualified by

attaining two years of experience in

track maintenance in Class 4 and above

and by successfully completing 120

hours of specialized training in the

inspection of high speed track provided

by the employer or by a college level

engineering program, supplemented by

special on-the-job training provided by

the employer with emphasis on the

inspection of high speed track. The

third option is intended to provide a

way for employees with two years of

experience in the maintenance of high

speed track to gain the necessary

training to be qualified to inspect track.

For both categories of qualifications,

the person must have experience in

Class 4 track or above. To properly

maintain and inspect Class 4 track or

higher requires a level of knowledge of

track geometry and track conditions that

are not as readily obtained at lower

classes. Persons who are qualified for

high speed track must know how to

work, maintain, and measure high

quality track. Experience in Class 4

track is established as a lower limit to

provide a pool of candidates, that may

be drawn from freight railroads, who

would provide the necessary experience

on well-maintained track.

This section also includes specific

requirements for qualifications of

persons charged with maintaining and

inspecting CWR. Training of employees

in CWR procedures is essential for high

speed operations. Each person

inspecting and maintaining CWR must

understand how CWR behaves and how

to prevent track buckles and other

adverse track reactions to thermal and

dynamic loading.

Comments: No comments were

received pertaining to this section.

Final rule: A minor change to

subsection (e) has been made to clarify

that records must be maintained for

those employees qualified to supervise

movements over broken rails.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34015

Section 213.307—Class of Track:

Operating Speed Limits

Proposed rule: For several years,

passenger service on the Northeast

Corridor has operated at 125 m.p.h.

under conditional waivers granted by

FRA. Amtrak has established specific

procedures for this category of speed

from which the railroad industry has

accumulated valuable knowledge about

track behavior in this speed range. The

speed of 125 m.p.h. is the natural

boundary for the maximum allowable

operating speed for Class 7 track.

Because trainsets have operated in this

country at speeds up to 160 m.p.h. for

periods of several months under waivers

for testing and evaluation, the maximum

limit of 160 m.p.h. is established for

Class 8. In the next several years, certain

operations may achieve speeds of up to

200 m.p.h. Class 9 track is established

for this possibility. The exceptions for

the maximum allowable operating

speeds for each class of track parallels

the standards for the lower classes,

except that a speed of 10 m.p.h over the

maximum intended operating speeds is

permitted during the qualification phase

per Section 213.345.

Although high speed rail is most often

considered in terms of passenger travel,

non-passenger high speed train service

(e.g., the mail trains operated by Amtrak

on the Northeast Corridor) is also a

possibility. All equipment, whether

used for passenger or freight, must

demonstrate the same vehicle/track

performance and be qualified on the

high speed track. Hazardous materials,

except for limited and small quantities,

may not move in bulk on trains operated

at high speeds. The limitations noted

are similar to those involved in

commercial passenger and freight air

travel.

Comments: The Florida Overland

eXpress commented that a reference to

that project in the section-by-section

analysis of the NPRM may seem to

erroneously suggest that the

requirements established for Class 9

track apply to that project.

Final rule: FRA agrees that the

language in the preamble to the NPRM

may have been confusing. This analysis

clarifies that Subpart G is not applicable

to the Florida Overland eXpress. The

proposed rule itself did not reference

that proposed operation, so the language

in the rule remains unchanged for the

final rule.

FRA does not presently foresee

authorization of mixed passenger and

conventional freight operations above

150 m.p.h. Accordingly, passenger

equipment safety standards, as

proposed, address equipment for speeds

only to 150 m.p.h. FRA expects to

handle service above 150 m.p.h. through

rules of particular applicability.

Nevertheless, standards contained here

are useful benchmarks for future

planning with respect to track/vehicle

interaction, track structure, and

inspection requirements.

Section 213.309—Restoration or

Renewal of Track Under Traffic

Condition

Proposed rule: This section addresses

two elements of concern: (1) that the

stability of the track structure not be

significantly degraded and (2) that

roadway worker safety not be

compromised. For restoration under

traffic conditions, this section allows

only track maintenance that does not

affect the safe passage of trains and

involves the replacement of worn,

broken, or missing components or

fastenings or minor levels of spot

surfacing.

Comments: No comments were

received pertaining to this section.

Final rule: The section as proposed is

adopted in this final rule.

Section 213.311—Measuring Track

Under Load; section 213.317 Waivers;

section 213.319 Drainage

Proposed rule: Proposed language for

these sections is identical to the similar

sections for track Classes 1 to 5

(§§ 213.13, 213.17, and 213.33).

Comments: Refer to the corresponding

sections in classes 1–5 for comments.

Final rule: The sections as proposed

are adopted in this final rule, with

minor language changes to § 213.317.

Section 213.321—Vegetation

Proposed rule: These sections are

identical to the corresponding sections

in the standards for track Classes 1

though 5.

Comments: Refer to the corresponding

sections in classes 1–5 for comments.

Final rule: The section as proposed is

adopted in this final rule.

Section 213.323—Track Gage

Proposed rule: This section

introduces limits for change in gage.

Analysis has shown that an abrupt

change in gage can produce significant

wheel forces at high speeds. The

minimum and maximum limits for gage

values Classes 6, 7, 8 and 9 were set to

minimize the onset of truck hunting.

Comments: No comments were

received pertaining to this section.

Final rule: With the exception of one

minor change, the section as proposed

is adopted in this final rule. The title of

the heading in the fourth column of the

gage table was changed from ‘‘the

change of gage in 31 feet’’ to ‘‘the

change of gage within 31 feet’’ to clarify

that the change of gage parameter

applies between two points anywhere

within a 31-foot distance along the

track, including two points exactly 31

feet apart.

Section 213.327—Alinement

Proposed rule: Uniformity is

established by averaging the offset

values for nine points centered around

each point along the track at a spacing

specified in the table. Uniformity

defined in this way applies anywhere—

curves, tangent segments, and spirals.

Analysis has shown that points in

transition areas such as around the

‘‘point-of-spiral-to-curve’’ can be

included in this averaging technique.

No distinction is made as to where the

uniform calculation takes place.

Tangent, curve, and spiral transitions

have historically been difficult to

determine in the field. The use of the

uniformity filter obviates the need to

make determinations based on the

identification of these transitions.

This section provides three chord

lengths for different types of vehicle/

track interaction modes. Chords of 31-,

62-, and 124-foot lengths provide

control of single and multiple defects in

the wavelength bands most likely to

affect vehicle dynamics and ride

quality.

The 62-foot chord was selected

because of its proximity to the truck

center spacing of most high speed

passenger vehicles. In phase carbody

resonance modes such as bounce, roll

and sway are most affected by track

anomalies with a wavelength that is

near the truck center spacing. Control of

track geometry limits based on the 62-

foot chord will help reduce the

magnitude of such carbody motion. This

chord also is predominantly used for

track Classes 1 through 5 and is familiar

to track inspection and maintenance

personnel.

The 31-foot chord controls short

wavelength defects that can result in

high wheel forces over a short portion

of track. These forces may not produce

excessive carbody motion, yet their

action on the wheels and truck may

cause derailment. Most foreign high

speed railroads use a 10-meter chord

which is approximately equal in length

to the 31-foot chord required in this

section.

To control longer wavelengths, most

foreign high speed railroads use a 30- or

40-meter chord. The 124-foot chord,

which is approximately equal to a 40-

meter chord, provides a means to locate

and measure longer wavelength track

anomalies. These long-wavelength
34016 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

anomalies provide dynamic input to the

high speed rail vehicles and can excite

carbody resonance modes at high

speeds. Excessive carbody motion can

lead to poor carbody accelerations and

wheel/rail forces, and in the extreme,

may also cause derailment.

Addition of this chord length allows

measurement of anomalies with

wavelengths up to 300 feet. The

Japanese National Railway adopted a

40-meter chord after recent speed

increases on its Tokaido line. Research

and testing indicated a stronger

correlation between carbody motion and

track geometry limits based on 40-meter

mid-chord offsets.

Comments: No comments were

received pertaining to this section.

Final rule: The final rule includes two

changes to limits shown in the

alinement tables. The permissible limit

for track Class 9 for a single alinement

deviation for a 124-foot chord is

changed from one-half inch to threequarters inch, and the Class 9 limit for

three or more non-overlapping

deviations for a 124-foot chord is

changed from three-eighths to one-half

inch. The limits for these two

parameters shown in the NPRM were

overly conservative, based on the

recommendations of the technical

experts who worked with the task group

that developed the proposed high speed

standards. These recommendations are

contained in the report, ‘‘Track and

Vehicle-Track Interaction Safety

Assurance for U.S. High Speed Rail’’,

July 1997, which is contained in the

public docket for these proceedings.

Section 213.329—Curves, Elevation and

Speed Limitations

Proposed rule: The determination of

the maximum speed that a vehicle may

operate around a curve is based on the

degree of curvature, actual elevation,

and amount of unbalanced elevation

where the actual elevation and

curvature are derived by a moving

average technique. This approach is as

valid in the high speed regime as in the

lower classes. The moving average

technique recognizes the steady state

(one or two second duration) nature of

the Vmax formula.

The maximum operating speed for

each curve is determined by the Vmax

formula:

V

E E

D

a u max . = +

0 0007

where:

Vmax = Maximum allowable operating

speed (miles per hour).

Ea = Actual elevation of the outside rail

(inches).

Eu = Unbalance elevation or cant

deficiency

D = Degree of curvature (degrees).

While the cant deficiency proposed in

Classes 1 through 5 is three or four

inches, cant deficiencies proposed for

qualified high speed train are

considerably higher. FRA has granted

waivers for up to nine inches for

revenue service and up to twelve inches

for testing for qualified equipment.

Higher cant deficiencies are allowed for

high speed trains that may include

tilting systems. The qualification testing

will ensure that the vehicle will not

exceed the vehicle/track safety

performance limits set forth in this

subpart when operating at these higher

cant deficiencies.

In order to qualify the vehicle at

higher cant deficiencies, the railroad

must provide technical testing

information using the same procedures

that have been used in past years for

waivers for higher cant deficiencies.

This procedure is commonly called the

‘‘static lean test’’ where the vehicle is

elevated on one side and wheel loads

are measured and the roll angle is

determined. Based on acceptable testing

information and other technical

submissions, FRA will approve the

higher cant deficiencies for the specific

vehicle type.

The maximum crosslevel on the

outside of a curve is established at seven

inches. Elevation in excess of that

amount presents a safety consideration

for freight trains with high centers of

gravity, operating at lower speeds in the

curve.

Comments: The Bombardier GEC

Alsthom Consortium (Bombardier/GEC)

commented that this section permits

FRA to approve a higher of level of cant

deficiency, but the same option does not

exist for track classes 1 through 5.

Furthermore, Bombardier/GEC urged

that the requirements concerning the

roll angle between the floor of the

vehicle and the horizontal should be

deleted and explained that this method

was not valid for non-tilting equipment.

Final rule: FRA agrees that the

concept of the roll angle would not

apply to non-tilting power cars and has

changed paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) to

apply the requirements for the roll angle

only to passenger-carrying equipment.

FRA has changed § 213.57 in track

Classes 1 through 5 to address the

commenter’s concern.

FRA has deleted footnote 2 from

paragraph (f) of this section because it

is no longer necessary. If a waiver

previously has been granted to the

railroad to operate at a higher level of

cant deficiency, the railroad or FRA

should have the static lean and other

information readily available for

consideration of FRA approval required

under this section. This will allow the

present waiver, including conditional

requirements not necessarily compatible

with Subpart G, to be replaced with an

FRA approval process which

incorporates all necessary requirements

under this new subpart.

FRA considered the issue of the

difference between a curve that has been

introduced in high speed track as a

result of maintenance or geometry

degradation and a curve that was

introduced by design. In either case,

superelevation may or may not be

present and trains may experience an

unbalanced condition. FRA believes

that the deviations from uniform profile

and uniform alinement, as outlined in

sections 213.331 and 213.327, will not

preclude longer wavelength

misalinements on the order of 200 feet

or greater that resemble the

characteristics of a curve, from being

treated as a curve for which the

unbalance formula defined in this

section will be applied.

Section 213.331—Track Surface

Proposed rule: The chord lengths in

the table are selected for the same

reasons discussed in § 213.327

(alinement). The multiple chords

measure different surface anomaly

wavelengths.

The surface table addresses both

single and multiple events. Studies have

shown that the smaller limits are

necessary when surface anomalies

repeat themselves three more times over

the specified chord length. The

parameter commonly called ‘‘warp,’’ the

difference in crosslevel between any

two points, does not require a specific

limit for repeated warp conditions at

high speeds.

Comments: Bombardier/GEC and the

French Ministere de l’Equipment, des

Transports et du Logement separately

expressed concerns that the limits for

track geometry have been extended from

the present class 6 standards, permitting

more track defects in the high speed

track classes. As an example,

Bombardier/GEC said that the proposed

rule would permit a single 1.25 inch

mid-ordinate offset on a 62 ft. chord for

a profile condition, compared to the

current requirement of 0.5 inch. In

addition, Bombardier/GEC questioned

why the difference in crosslevel

between two points less than 62 feet

apart is lower for Classes 4 and 5 track

than it is for Classes 6 through 9 track.

Bombardier/GEC urged that the values

for all the geometry limits be ‘‘verified

by industry’’ before the rule is
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34017

promulgated. The Bombardier/GEC also

pointed out that the titles in the tables

defining surface requirements should

not have the ‘‘inches’’ in them since

class of track is not defined in inches.

The AAR commented that the NPRM

included an inconsistency between

§ 213.63 for track Classes 1 to 5 and

§ 213.331 in regard to repeated low

joints. The AAR suggested that footnote

2 to the warp parameter (the difference

in crosslevel between any two points

less than 62 feet apart) should apply to

§ 213.331 for track Classes 6 through 9.

The AAR notes that a condition which

is a defect in track Classes 1 through 5

should also be a defect in the higher

track classes.

Final rule: FRA has adopted the

proposed geometry standards except for

a few changes in the limits for the track

profile parameter. The changes in the

profile parameters are based on a recent

study conducted at the VNTSC.

FRA believes it is crucial to revise the

standards for Class 6 track. Years of

experience by Amtrak on the Northeast

Corridor indicate a lack of correlation

between the former Class 6 standards

and adverse vehicle responses. Adverse

vehicle response occasionally occurred

on track that was in compliance; on the

other hand, track that was not in

compliance sometimes did not

contribute to any adverse vehicle

response.

In response to the concern that the

‘‘warp parameter’’ permits a greater

difference in crosslevel between any

two points less than 62 feet apart for the

higher classes than is permitted in the

lower classes, FRA notes that the limit

established for Classes 6 through 9

track, one and one-half inches, is the

same limit established for Class 5 track.

Therefore, FRA does not believe that a

discrepancy exists. In addition, FRA

believes the format in the surface tables

in this section does not need

modification since it is similar to the

surface table in § 213.63 for the lower

classes, a format that has been used in

the track standards for many years.

The geometry standards are based on

the recommendations of a panel of

experts who conducted extensive

studies, reviewed foreign practice, and

recommended to the RSAC the safety

limits shown in the proposed rule. The

recommendations of this panel are

contained in a working paper dated

July, 1997, and entitled ‘‘Track and

Vehicle Interaction Safety Assurance for

U.S. High Speed Rail.’’ The working

paper is part of the docket for this

proceeding. The proposed high speed

standards were based on the principle

that the high speed track and the

equipment operating on high speed

track are an integral system.

Following the publication of the

NPRM, the VNTSC completed a report

entitled ‘‘Evaluation of Proposed High

Speed Track Surface Geometry

Specification’’, dated November 10,

1997, which is in the docket of these

proceedings. The study describes an

evaluation of the responses of different

high speed locomotive designs to track

profile geometry variations. The

working paper focuses on a comparative

analysis of high speed locomotive

designs with carbody-mounted traction

motors and locomotive designs with

truck-mounted traction motors. The

minimum amplitudes of track profile

variations required to cause excessive

vertical accelerations in the operator’s

cab and to cause suspension bottoming

are compared with the maximum

amplitudes prescribed in the proposed

high speed standards. The analysis

shows that a locomotive design with

truck-mounted traction motors requires

an approximately 33 percent smaller

track profile variation amplitude to

cause excessive vertical accelerations

than a locomotive design with carbodymounted traction motors. These results

indicate that a locomotive with truckmounted traction motors may exceed

the proposed minimum safety limits for

a single profile event that were

proposed in the NPRM for Subpart G.

In light of those findings, FRA has

adopted the proposed surface limits

contained in the NPRM, except that the

geometry limits for profile are reduced,

based on the results of the VNTSC

study. This final rule requires that the

deviation from uniform profile on either

rail at the midordinate of a 31-foot

chord may not exceed one inch for track

Classes 6 and 7. The deviation from

uniform profile on either rail at the

midordinate of a 62-foot chord has now

been set to one inch for track Classes 6,

7 and 8 and three-quarters of an inch for

track Class 9. Similarly, for three or

more non-overlapping deviations in

track surface, each deviation from

uniform profile on either rail at the

midordinate of a 31-foot chord may not

exceed three-quarters of an inch for

track Classes 6 and 7. Also, for three or

more non-overlapping deviation in track

surface, each deviation from uniform

profile on either rail at the midordinate

of a 62-foot chord has been changed to

three-quarters for track Classes 6, 7 and

8 and one-half inch for track Class 9.

FRA concurs with the comments

made by the AAR in regard to repeated

low joints. For consistency with

§ 213.63, footnote two with a minor

modification has been added to the table

in § 213.331(a).

Section 213.333—Automated Vehicle

Inspection Systems

Comments were received from

Amtrak and from Bombardier/GEC in

regard to the proposed requirements for

automated measurement systems. These

systems include the track geometry

measurement system, the gage restraint

measurement system, and the systems

necessary to monitor vehicle/track

interaction (acceleration and wheel/rail

force requirements). Because of the

complexity of these systems and the

technical nature of the comments, the

following discussion addresses each

automated measurement system

separately in the order of the paragraphs

in the proposed rule.

Track Geometry Measurement System

(TGMS), Paragraphs (a) Through (g)

Proposed rule: Railroads that operate

trains at speeds above 110 m.p.h.

universally employ automatic track

geometry measuring systems to generate

data to point out train safety hazards in

the track structure. Reliance upon only

visual inspections to locate small track

irregularities is difficult. In France, track

geometry measuring vehicles are

operated quarterly over high speed lines

for the purpose of collecting track

maintenance data.

Comments: Comments were received

concerning the track geometry system.

Final rule: No changes to paragraphs

(a) through (g) were made in the final

rule.

Gage Restraint Measurement System,

Paragraphs (h) and (i)

Proposed rule: The GRMS is primarily

used on timber-tied track of certain

freight railroads, to evaluate the

effectiveness, on a continuous basis, of

rail/tie fastening systems. This section

requires the use of GRMS in Classes 8

and 9 to measure the gage restraint of

the track, including the strength of the

ties and the ability of the fastenings to

maintain gage. Specified safety limits

were established after testing on the

Northeast Corridor where the track is

predominately concrete-tied with timber

tie turnouts. GRMS on concrete ties is

effective in identifying defective ties

and conditions with missing fasteners or

a relaxation of toe load of gage-side rail

fasteners. GRMS is required in Classes

8 and 9 to measure the resistance of the

track to forces generated by wheel

flanging in the gaging space. The use of

the GRMS is necessary to insure

sufficient gage restraint at the gage

limits set to control truck hunting.

Comments: Bombardier/GEC

commented that the GRMS

requirements are unnecessary. It stated
34018 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

that the GRMS could be a beneficial tool

when used to inspect lower classes of

track built with wooden ties, and any

requirement for regular GRMS

inspection should be limited to lower

track classes and tracks with wooden

ties where a cost/safety benefit can be

shown.

Final rule: FRA does not agree with

the recommendation that the GRMS be

restricted to timber-tied track. While

most of the industry’s GRMS experience

has been on timber-tied track, FRA and

Amtrak jointly conducted a program to

evaluate the performance of FRA’s

GRMS on the Northeast Corridor, a

route with large numbers of concrete

ties. This joint evaluation program

indicated that the GRMS is an important

safety tool for the measurement of gage

restraint in concrete ties, as well as

timber ties. The evaluation program also

concluded that the optimum GRMS

safety criterion for concrete ties is the

gage-widening ratio (GWR) which is

based on the unloaded track gage,

loaded track gage and actual lateral load

applied.

The GWR limit to the high speed

standards is a completely different

concept than the application of the

GRMS technology discussed for the

lower track classes. This preamble

describes various proposals for

implementation of GRMS technology for

lower track classes, such as the use of

a GRMS to supplant certain crosstie and

fastener requirements in the track safety

standards. While the GRMS is new to

the high speed environment, FRA

concludes that GRMS inspections in the

higher classes is important to confirm

the safety of crossties and fasteners. The

GRMS is an important tool which has

been proven to identify missing

fasteners and help locate other

conditions that can affect the ability of

both timber and concrete crossties to

maintain track gage.

Paragraphs (h) and (i) are unchanged

from the proposed rule with two

exceptions. Since there is no

requirement to calculate Projected

Loaded Gage (PLG24) in Classes 8 and

9, the reference to PLG 24 has been

removed from the final rule. Several

other minor word changes have been

made in the language of the rule text to

agree with the current language being

proposed by the GRMS Task Group.

Vehicle/Track Safety Measurement

Systems, Paragraph (j)

Proposed rule: The proposed rule

required functional carbody and truck

frame accelerometers on at least two

vehicles of every train in track Classes

8 and 9. The track owner would be

required to have in effect written

procedures when these devices indicate

a possible track-related condition.

Comments: Both Amtrak and

Bombardier/GEC in separate comments

state that the requirements in paragraph

(j) are unnecessary. Both commenters

objected to the requirement for

accelerometers on every train, except for

lateral truck frame accelerometers, and

also objected to the requirement for

written procedures for the notification

of track personnel. The commenters

argued that such a requirement would

likely create significant availability

problems for various operators due to

the reliability of such permanently

installed equipment.

In its comments to the docket, Amtrak

re-evaluated an earlier endorsement of a

requirement for carbody accelerometers

on every train and now recommends

that this paragraph be replaced with a

requirement for written procedures

when on-board crews report indication

of a possible track-related condition.

Amtrak said that it had earlier assumed

that these monitoring systems would be

autonomous ‘‘black boxes’’ that would

be on each train and report exception to

the engineer or directly to the

dispatcher. Amtrak said that further

investigation into the application of this

requirement raised doubts about the

necessity for the frequency of the

monitoring as well as the ability of an

operator to ensure compliance with that

frequency because ‘‘track deterioration

is a slow process occurring over long

periods of time.’’ In addition, Amtrak

stated that it has had in place for years

a process by which engineers report

rough track when they encounter it.

Final rule: FRA has received widely

differing opinions about the use of

accelerometers on daily trains. Some

experts point out that accelerometers on

every train would be extremely useful to

locate track conditions that may need

correction. Other experts have differing

opinions. The French National Railway

(SNCF), for example, employs lateral

truck-mounted accelerometers to

address truck hunting on every train,

but uses vertical and lateral carbody

accelerometers only on a vehicle which

inspects about twice each month. Those

who advocate accelerometers on two

cars in every train believe that they may

indicate a track-caused response if both

vehicles exhibit similar readings. On the

other hand, if only one vehicle shows a

high acceleration, the cause may be

attributed to the dynamics of that

vehicle only, not the track. Some

experts believe that a requirement to

equip every train with carbody and

truck frame accelerometers would be

costly to implement and would have

questionable safety benefits.

However, many experts believe that a

requirement for carbody and truck frame

accelerometers on one train per day

would accomplish several important

safety goals that can not be achieved

with a periodic program such as the one

on the SNCF. The principal advantage is

that conditions such as a culvert this is

settling would be identified before the

next periodic inspection.

While FRA agrees with the

commenters that lateral and vertical

accelerometers on every train would be

unnecessary and that track does

generally deteriorate slowly, FRA

believes that some undesirable track

geometry conditions may occur between

periodic inspections for geometry and

vehicle/track safety. The engineer’s

subjective perception of rough track

conditions would be enhanced with

available technology. FRA concludes

that a requirement for functioning

carbody and truck-mounted

accelerometers on at least one train per

day is needed to address those

conditions that may occur on a daily

basis, such as a culvert which has

settled or a track condition that may be

inadvertently introduced during track

repair. These conditions may not be

noticeable to a locomotive engineer.

The final rule is changed to require

that at least one vehicle in one train per

day operating in Classes 8 and 9 shall

be equipped with functioning on-board

truck frame and carbody accelerometers.

Each track owner shall have in effect

written procedures for the notification

of track personnel when on-board

accelerometers on trains in Classes 8

and 9 indicate a possible track-related

condition. The implementation of this

requirement and the extent of human

involvement in the process and the

specific acceleration levels that would

trigger notification of track personnel is

being left up to the railroad.

Paragraph (k)

Proposed rule: In paragraph (k), the

proposed rule requires that for track

Classes 7, 8 and 9, an instrumented car

having dynamic response characteristics

representative of other equipment

assigned to service, or a portable device

that monitors on-board instrumentation

on trains, shall be operated over the

track at the revenue speed profile at

least twice within 60 days with not less

than 15 days between inspections. The

instrumented car or the portable device

shall monitor vertically and laterally

oriented accelerometers on the vehicle’s

floor level and lateral truck-mounted

accelerometers. If the carbody lateral,

carbody vertical, or truck frame lateral

safety limits in this section are
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34019

exceeded, speeds will be reduced until

these safety limits are not exceeded.

Comments: Both Amtrak and

Bombardier/GEC were generally

supportive of this paragraph which

requires periodic measurements of truck

frame and carbody accelerations.

Amtrak recommended that two vehicles

be used, rather than one, and

Bombardier/GEC questioned the

requirement that the accelerometers be

mounted above the axle where they

would be subjected to damage from

snow, ballast, and debris. Bombardier/

GEC also stated that the rule should

make clear what the remedial action

should be taken when these limits are

exceeded.

Final rule: FRA agrees with the

comments regarding the placement of

the accelerometers and has revised the

paragraph to clarify the remedial action

that must be taken when these safety

limits are exceeded. Paragraph (k) is

changed to remove the requirement that

the accelerometers on the truck frame

shall be mounted ‘‘directly above the

axle.’’ Instead the accelerometers must

be mounted on the truck frame. While

Amtrak’s recommendation that two

vehicles be equipped with the

accelerometers, FRA concludes that one

inspection vehicle when combined with

the daily monitoring of accelerometers

and the other inspection requirements

in the rule, will provide the necessary

level of safety. For clarification, the rule

is changed to require that ‘‘if the

carbody lateral, carbody vertical or truck

frame lateral safety limits in the

following table of vehicle/track

interaction safety limits are exceeded,

speeds will be reduced until these safety

limits are not exceeded.’’ These changes

clearly indicate that when the vehicle/

track interaction safety limits are

exceeded on the inspection vehicle, the

speeds of all trains, not just the test

train, shall be reduced until the source

of the exception is corrected, whether

track or vehicle-related.

Paragraph (l)

Proposed rule: In this proposed

section, paragraph (l) would require, for

track Classes 8 and 9, a car equipped

with instrumented wheelsets to be

operated annually to ensure that the

wheel/rail force safety limits are not

exceeded.

Comments: Bombardier/GEC stated

that the rule as proposed is not clear

about whether the requirement for an

annual measurement of wheel/rail

forces using instrumented wheelsets is

intended to ‘‘re-qualify the rolling stock,

or verify the quality of the track.’’

Bombardier/GEC stated that, based on

the practices of all operators of high

speed equipment around the world,

there is no reason to re-qualify a vehicle

design once it has been properly

qualified. Bombardier/GEC also

commented that if the intent of the

measurement is to verify the condition

of the track, it will be less effective as

an indicator than information obtained

from the other requirements in the rule

that are specifically included for that

purpose and which are conducted more

frequently. Bombardier/GEC also

recommended a few technical changes

to the table of vehicle/track interaction

safety limits.

Final rule: The commenter

recommends that the measurement of

wheel/rail forces is only necessary

during the qualification period and is

not necessary to be employed for

periodic inspections. The SNCF relies

on accelerometers for the purpose of

confirming the safety of its high speed

system; however, other high speed

railroads use instrumented wheelsets on

a regular basis to monitor wheel/rail

forces. The final rule establishes safety

criteria for both accelerometers and

wheel/rail forces that must be

monitored during the life of the system.

FRA does not agree with the comment

that accelerometer measurements alone

will ensure safety.

The vehicle/track interaction safety

limits are the cornerstone of the high

speed standards. Vehicle/track

interaction has critical consequences in

railroad safety, and so establishing safe

parameters and developing a

measurement system to adhere to those

parameters is highly important for any

track safety program. There are several

hazardous and unacceptable vehicle/

track interaction events that are wellknown in railroad engineering, and for

the most part, may occur on existing

high speed operations, including wheel

climb, rail roll-over, vehicle

overturning, gage widening, and track

panel shift.

The safety limits contained in the

Vehicle/Track Interaction Safety Limits

table are derived from technical

literature, years of research, experience

by foreign railroads, and computer

simulation and validation. They must

not be exceeded either during the

qualification phase required under

§ 213.345 or in the periodic

measurement of accelerations and

wheel/rail forces required in this

section.

The minimum vertical wheel load

safety limit is 10 percent of the static

vertical wheel load. The static vertical

wheel load is defined as the load that

the wheel would carry while stationary

on level track. These safety criteria

assure that no excessive wheel

unloading is experienced by any wheel

on the operating vehicle. Significant

wheel unloading greatly increases the

risk of derailment in the dynamic

environment of a vehicle traveling at

high speed.

The ratio of the lateral force that any

wheel exerts on an individual rail to the

vertical force exerted by the same wheel

on the rail (L/V ratio) is limited by the

Nadal formula. The limit on any wheel’s

L/V ratio ensures that the risk of a wheel

climb derailment is minimized. The

wheel flange angle (δ) referenced in the

formula should correspond to actual

measurements of wheel flange angle as

provided by the requirements of the

vehicle qualification testing specified in

§ 213.345.

The net axle lateral force exerted by

any axle on the track should not exceed

50 percent of the static vertical load

exerted by the same axle. This safety

criterion ensures that no excessive track

panel shift or misalinement is produced

by the moving vehicle. For vehicles

operating at high speeds, track panel

shift can produce unsafe carbody and/

or truck motion and, in the extreme, can

cause derailment.

The ratio of the lateral forces that the

wheels on one side of any truck exert on

an individual rail to the vertical forces

exerted by the same wheels on that rail

must not exceed 0.60. This limit ensures

that the risk of a rail rollover derailment

is minimized.

The lateral carbody peak-to-peak

acceleration (defined by the algebraic

difference between the two extreme

values of measured acceleration within

a one-second duration) is limited to 0.5

g. Carbody lateral accelerations above

this limit reflect a very poor ride quality

and a degraded track and/or vehicle

condition.

The vertical carbody peak-to-peak

acceleration (defined by the algebraic

difference between the two extreme

values of measured acceleration within

a one-second duration) is limited to 0.6

g. Carbody vertical accelerations above

this limit also reflect a poor ride quality

and a degraded track and/or vehicle

condition.

The Root Mean Square (RMS) of the

lateral truck acceleration for any twosecond duration is limited to 0.4 g. This

safety limit ensures that no sustained

truck hunting is experienced by the

moving vehicle. Sustained truck

hunting produces undesirable ride

quality and significantly increases the

risk of derailment. The RMS of the

lateral truck acceleration must be

calculated over a two-second window

from which the mean value of the

acceleration has been removed. The

vertical truck zero-to-peak acceleration
34020 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

is limited to 5.0 g. Exceeding this safety

limit can indicate undesirable short

wavelength track anomalies.

Ultimately, vehicle/track interaction

safety is assured by controlling wheel/

rail forces to safe limits. Appropriate

limits for track geometry and vehicle

response acceleration provide strong

indications of the likely wheel/forces

which would be produced by operating

trains. Use of an instrumented wheelset

also provides a level of safety assurance

for new and unusual vehicle designs

that differ from the conventional vehicle

dynamic models that were used to

develop the track geometry and vehicle/

track interaction limits.

FRA believes that an annual

inspection using functioning

instrumented wheelsets must be

implemented as part of a high speed

inspection strategy that includes visual

inspections, geometry car inspections,

periodic carbody and truck-mounted

accelerometer measurements, and other

inspections deemed necessary.

The measurement of wheel/rail forces

and accelerations is necessary to

confirm that the vehicle/track system is

performing within safe limits. The

Japanese National Railway, for example,

employs instrumented wheelsets to

measure wheel/rail forces at a frequency

of approximately every three months.

The purpose of the periodic

measurement of wheel/rail forces

required in this paragraph is to monitor,

or in a sense ‘‘requalify,’’ the vehicle/

track system, not to ‘‘requalify’’ only the

track or only the vehicle design. Neither

the track nor the vehicles on the high

speed track can be considered in

isolation; they must be monitored

together as a system.

The final rule contains a few changes

to the table of vehicle/track interaction

safety limits. A 25 Hz filter is specified

so that important high speed events will

not be filtered from the data and the

location of truck frame accelerometers is

changed in Footnote 3.

Paragraph (m)

Proposed: Paragraph (m) requires the

track owner to maintain a copy of the

most recent exception printouts for the

inspection required under paragraphs

(k) and (l) of this section.

Comments: No comments were

received concerning this paragraph.

Final rule: The paragraph as proposed

is adopted in this final rule.

Section 213.335—Crossties

Proposed rule: Various types of

crossties may be installed in high speed

track provided that the ties maintain the

proper gage, surface and alinement. Slab

track (track imbedded in concrete) or

other construction may also be used if

the construction complies with the

requirements of this section. Because of

the wide use of concrete ties in high

speed track throughout the world, this

section establishes safety requirements

for concrete ties.

The requirements for crossties in this

subpart differ from those in the

corresponding section for crossties in

Classes 1 through 5. For non-concretetied construction, the requirements for

ties parallel those of the lower standards

except that permissive lateral movement

of tie plates is set at 3⁄8 inch instead of 1⁄2 inch and a requirement for rail

holding spikes is added.

For concrete-tied track, effective ties

must not exhibit the known failure

modes listed. These failure modes were

derived largely from experience in the

Northeast Corridor. The number and

distribution requirements of both nonconcrete ties and concrete ties is more

stringent than the requirements for the

lower classes. For example, 14 effective

concrete crossties are required in Class

6, and 16 effective concrete ties are

required in Classes 7, 8 and 9 in each

39-foot segment of track. For both

concrete and timber construction, a

minimum number of non-defective ties

is specified on each side of a defective

tie.

Comments: The AAR commented that

a discrepancy exists in that paragraph

(e) is inconsistent with the required

location of crossties at rail joint

locations for lower speed operations

covered by § 213.109.

Final rule: Review of this section also

reveled a typographical mistake which

is being corrected; in paragraphs (c)(6)

and (d)(6), ‘‘Able’’ is changed to ‘‘So

unable.’’ The discrepancy was

inadvertent and has been corrected. The

measurement is changed from 25 inches

to 24 inches in paragraph (e) to make

this subsection consistent with the

requirements for the lower track classes.

Section 213.337—Defective Rails

Proposed rule: The requirements for

the identification of rail flaws and

appropriate remedial action are valid in

high speed track classes as well as the

lower track classes. This section is

unchanged from the standards for the

lower classes except that language

references to specific lower classes are

deleted as unnecessary. Surface

conditions such as corrugation, shelling,

spalling and checking are not included

in the high speed rail defect table since

these conditions, if they were to

progress to a severe level, would

contribute to dynamic loading

conditions that are addressed by the

requirements for vehicle/track

interaction in § 213.333. The flattened

rail head is especially important to

identify in high speed track because of

the adverse effect on track geometry

caused by this short anomaly in the

surface of the rail head.

Comments: No comments were

received pertaining to this section.

Final rule: To improve clarity,

definitions were added and a small

change was made to include brackets

around some items in the rail flaw table

so that this section is identical to the

corresponding section in the lower track

classes.

Section 213.339—Inspection of Rail in

Service

Proposed rule: A continuous search

for internal rail defects must be made of

all rail in track in track Classes 6, 7, 8

and 9 at a frequency of twice per year.

This requirement is consistent with the

frequency used on Amtrak’s Northeast

Corridor (essentially, Class 6 and 7) and

as well as the approach used in France

which inspects rails twice a year.

Comments: No comments were

received concerning this section.

Final rule: The final rule for this

section is unchanged from the proposed

rule.

Section 213.341—Initial Inspection of

New Rail and Welds

Proposed rule: This section provides

for the initial inspection of new rail,

either at the mill or within 90 days after

installation, and for the initial

inspection of new welds made in new

or used rail. It also provides for

alternatives for these inspections.

Compliance with the initial inspection

of new rail and welds may be

demonstrated by in-service inspection,

mill inspections, welding plant

inspections, and inspections of field

welds.

Comments: No comments were

received concerning this section.

Final rule: The final rule for this

section is unchanged from the proposed

rule.

Section 213.343—Continuous Welded

Rail (CWR)

Proposed rule: As with CWR for the

lower classes of track, FRA will review

the railroad’s written procedures for the

installation, adjustment, maintenance

and inspection of CWR, and training for

the application of these procedures.

Comments: No comments were

received concerning this section.

Final rule: The final rule is unchanged

from the proposed rule for this section.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34021

Section 213.345—Vehicle Qualification

Testing

Proposed rule: All rolling stock, both

passenger and freight, must be qualified

for operation for its intended class. This

section ‘‘grandfathers’’ equipment that

has already operated in the specified

classes. Rolling stock operating in Class

6 within one year prior to the

promulgation of this rule shall be

considered as qualified. Vehicles

operating at Class 7 speeds under

conditional waivers prior to the

promulgation of the rule are qualified

for Class 7 at the current level of cant

deficiency. This includes equipment

that is presently operating on the

Northeast Corridor at Class 7 speeds.

The qualification testing will ensure

that the equipment will not exceed the

vehicle/track performance limits

specified in § 213.333 at any speed less

than 10 m.p.h. above the proposed

maximum operating speed. Testing at a

maximum speed at least 10 m.p.h. above

the proposed operating speed is

required. The test report must include

the design flange angle of the equipment

that will be used for the determination

of the lateral to vertical wheel load

safety limit for the vehicle/track

performance measurements required in

§ 213.333(k).

Subsection (d) requires the operator to

submit an analysis and description of

the signal system and operating

practices to govern operations in Classes

7, 8 and 9. This submission will include

a statement of sufficiency in these areas

for the class of operation intended.

Based on test results and submissions,

FRA will approve a maximum train

speed and value of cant deficiency for

revenue service.

Comments: Bombardier/GEC stated

that this part of the proposed rule is

intended to be followed to qualify

equipment types for their intended

operation on a specific route, not to

determine the operating limits of the

equipment and track, as stated.

Bombardier/GEC said that to achieve

this, it is recommended that the words

‘‘* * * and conduct a test program

sufficient to evaluate the operating

limits of the track and equipment’’ be

replaced with ‘‘* * * and conduct a test

program sufficient to evaluate the safe

operation of the equipment for the

intended service.’’

Bombardier/GEC said that it is not

practical to include a requirement to

suspend the vehicle qualification tests

at the speed where any of the vehicle/

track performance limits in § 213.333

are exceeded. The qualification tests,

according to Bombardier/GEC, should

be completed to determine the safe

operational limits for the equipment

throughout the route. In addition, the

specific location of all violations should

be recorded and the condition of the

track in those locations should be

checked to determine if the noncompliance is related track or

equipment.

Final rule: FRA believes that it is

important not to emphasize the vehicle

component in the qualification testing.

The purpose of this section is not to

conduct a test program to evaluate the

safe operation of the equipment, but to

qualify the vehicle/track system. The

consideration of the high speed track

and the vehicles together as an integral

system is fundamental to the approach

adopted in this final rule. To evaluate

the system, a test program shall

demonstrate vehicle dynamic response

as speeds are incrementally increased

from acceptable Class 6 limits to the

target maximum test speeds.

The commenter believes that the tests

should not be suspended when the

safety limits are reached. However,

these safety limits are set at levels where

continued operation could result in a

derailment. FRA does not believe it

would be prudent to continue the

testing on that portion of track if these

safety limits are reached. However, the

rule is not intended to imply that all

testing must be stopped. It can continue,

but the locations where the limits are

reached must be identified and test

speeds may not be increased at those

locations until corrective action is

taken. This action may be an adjustment

in the track, in the vehicle, or in both

of these system components.

FRA has considered the consistency

of this final rule with the proposed

Passenger Equipment Safety Standards,

Federal Register, September 23, 1997,

and has changed § 213.345(b) to state

that the testing will not exceed the

wheel/rail force safety limits and the

truck lateral accelerations specified in

§ 213.333 and the vertical and lateral

carbody acceleration levels listed in

(b)(1), (2), and (3). FRA believes the

tighter ride quality limits in the

proposed Passenger Equipment Safety

Standards are more appropriate for a

new system. However, as the equipment

and track wear, those tighter ride quality

limits which were used at the time of

system qualification should be used to

establish long-term maintenance levels,

and the limits contained in § 213.333,

which are minimum safety levels,

should be used during the life of the

system to monitor safety.

A small change has been added to

§ 213.345(a) which now states that all

rolling stock types which operate at

Class 6 and above speeds shall be

qualified. This change emphasizes that

trains which operate at Class 5 speeds

or lower on the high speed line do not

need to be qualified to operate on the

high speed track.

The rule in § 213.345(e) requires the

railroad to submit an analysis and

description of the signal system and

operating practices to govern operations

in Classes 7, 8 and 9. FRA has modified

§ 213.345(f) to make it clear that trains

shall not operate in revenue service

until FRA has approved a maximum

train speed and value of cant deficiency

based on FRA’s review of the test results

and the other submissions by the track

owner.

Section 213.347—Automotive or

Railroad Crossings at Grade and

Moveable Bridges

Proposed rule: There are no highway

or railroad grade crossings on the

Amtrak route between Washington, D.C.

and New York City. Much of this line

is operated by revenue passenger trains

at 125 m.p.h. (Class 7 speeds). Highway

crossings and railroad crossings at grade

(diamonds) may not be present in Class

8 and 9 track.

Technology currently is being

developed that would prevent

inappropriate intrusion of vehicles onto

the railroad rights-of-way. This

technology involves the use of barrier

systems with intrusion detection and

train stop, as well as advance warning

systems. Because the technology is

under development, it would be

premature to include specific

requirements for barrier systems and

related technology in this section.

However, the railroad is required to

submit for approval a description of the

crossing warning system for each

crossing.

Comments: No comments were

received for this section.

Final rule: A minor addition was

added to paragraph (b) to make it clear

that trains shall not operate at Class 7

speeds unless an FRA-approved

warning/barrier system exists on the

track segment and all elements of that

warning/barrier system are functioning.

The rule precludes the presence of

highway grade crossings and rail-to-rail

crossings for the highest speed

operations, track Classes 8 and 9.

Presently no highway-rail crossings

exist on Class 6 track (on Amtrak and

commuter railroads), although highwayrail crossings existed for several years

on Class 6 track on the Northeast

Corridor. FRA believes highway/grade

crossings should be limited in the high

speed regime. Where highway/rail

crossings exist at higher speeds, the
34022 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

railroad should install the most advance

warning/barrier systems available.

FRA is continuing to conduct risk

analysis related to treatments for highspeed crossings. To date, the analysis

demonstrates that risk to a motorist is

not likely to increase with increasing

train speeds above 110 m.p.h. On

average, collision frequency should not

rise (although sight distance may be an

issue in individual situations). Accident

severity in the range of 80 m.p.h. is

already so high that no further increase

in the likelihood of fatal injury in the

motor vehicle should result from

increases in train speed.

However, FRA does not believe that

sufficiently refined analytical

techniques currently exist to predict the

effect of increased speeds on damage to

the passenger train through the initial

collision, possible derailment, and

possible secondary collisions—

including interaction among the units in

the consist. Collisions with heavy

trucks, construction equipment and

agricultural equipment are an issue of

particular concern. FRA believes it is

prudent to take the safe course and

ensure against collisions by the most

secure means possible, rather than risk

the occurrence of a catastrophic event

involving multiple fatalities to crew

members and passengers.

Section 213.349—Rail End Mismatch

Proposed rule: Vertical or horizontal

mismatch of rails at joints must be less

than one-eighth of an inch for Classes 6

through 9. A more restrictive criterion is

not necessary and would be impractical.

Comments: No comments were

received concerning this section.

Final rule: The final rule for this

section is unchanged from the proposed

rule.

Section 213.351—Rail Joints

Proposed rule: This section is less

permissive than its counterpart for the

lower speed classes. Fracture mechanics

tests and analyses demonstrate that

there is no place in the high speed train

operating regime for defective joint bars.

The propagation rate of a crack large

enough to be visible in a joint bar is

unpredictable. Once a joint bar has

ruptured, its companion joint bar is

immediately in danger of overload.

Upon discovery of a defective joint bar,

the track owner must reduce the track

class at the location of the defective bar

and proceed according to the

requirements of Subpart D.

Comments: No comments were

received for this section.

Final rule: The final rule for this

section is unchanged from the proposed

rule.

Section 213.352—Torch Cut Rail

Proposed rule: This section mirrors

the corresponding section (§ 213.122)

track Classes 3 through 5. This

provision prohibits future torch cutting

of rails in high speed track, except for

emergency situations. When a rail end

is torch cut in an emergency situation,

speed over the rail must not exceed the

maximum allowable for Class 2 track.

For existing torch cut rails in Class 6

track, all torch cut rails must be

removed within six months of the

issuance of the final rule of this

proceeding. If after six months from the

issuance of the final rule of this

proceeding any torch cut rail is

discovered in Classes 6 through 9 track,

it must be removed within 30 days, and

speed over that rail must not exceed the

maximum allowable speed for Class 2

track until it is removed.

Comments: No comments were

received for this section.

Final rule: After further review, FRA

determined that the proposed

requirement in § 213.352(a)(2) requiring

speeds in existing Class 7, 8 and 9 track

to be reduced to Class 6 until a torch cut

rail is replaced is unnecessary and has

been deleted. For existing torch cut rail

ends in Class 6 track, all torch cut rail

ends, if any, must be removed within

six months of this rule. Following the

six-month period, if torch cut rail ends

are discovered, train speeds over that

rail must be reduced to the maximum

allowable for Class 2 track until

removed.

Section 213.353—Turnouts, Crossovers

and Lift Rail Assemblies or Other

Transition Devices on Moveable Bridges

Proposed rule: The requirements in

this section are similar to those in the

lower classes. Fastenings must be intact

and maintained so as to keep the

components securely in place. Each

switch, frog, and guard rail must be free

of obstructions that may interfere with

the passage of wheels. Rail anchoring is

required to restrain rail movement

affecting the position of switch points

and frogs.

Experience in this country with the

maintenance of turnouts and crossovers

in high speed territories is limited. The

use of conventional switch and frog

components in present-day 125 m.p.h.

track can produce harsh vehicle

response which, while not necessarily

unsafe, is likely to be less and less

welcome in the future, particularly at

train speeds above 125 m.p.h.

Worldwide, the trend for turnouts and

crossovers in high speed lines is toward

reliance on long switch points and

moveable point frogs. Amtrak has some

limited experience with these features at

fairly high train speeds, and the western

coal railroads have a great deal of

experience, especially with moveable

point frogs, with turnout component

performance in low speed, cumulative

tonnage conditions. This section

requires that the track owner, intending

to operate trains at high speeds, to

develop a turnout and inspection

handbook for the instruction of

employees involved in this work.

Requirements for switches, frogs, and

spring frogs that are present in the

standards for the lower classes are not

specifically listed, but will be addressed

in the railroad’s Guidebook.

The purpose of such a document is to

encourage formal consideration of

problems associated with inspection

and maintenance of these track features

and to establish a consistent system

approach to the performance of related

work.

Comments: No comments were

received for this section.

Final rule: FRA has added a

requirement for the inspection and

maintenance of lift rail assemblies and

other transition devices on moveable

bridges. By introducing this

requirement, FRA is not encouraging

high speeds over moveable bridges.

Currently, the highest speed over a

moveable bridge is 70 m.p.h. However,

in view of the 1997 accident over a lift

rail assembly in New Jersey, FRA

believes it necessary to introduce a

requirement to inspect these transition

devices in the high speed standards to

address the potential that lift rail

technology may change.

Section 213.355—Frog Guard Rails and

Guard Faces; Gage

Proposed rule: The most restrictive

practical measurements for these

important parameters are included. The

limits for guard check and guard face

gage are set at a limit that permits

minimal wear.

Comments: No comments were

received for this section.

Final rule: The final rule for this

section is unchanged from the proposed

rule.

Section 213.357—Derails

Proposed rule: Because it is essential

that railroad rolling stock be prevented

from fouling the track in front of a high

speed train, this section presents strict

requirements for derails to be fully

functional and linked to the signal

systems.

Comments: A railroad supplier

commenting on the NPRM suggested

that derails also serve to prevent

encroachment of main tracks by
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34023

locomotives, trains or maintenance-ofway equipment under power, and

should not be excepted only because of

grade characteristics. The commenter

suggested that a better approach would

be to permit this exception only where

grade characteristics are favorable

(significant ascent toward the main

track) and where trains are not

permitted to clear the main track. The

commenter said that turnouts or

crossings connecting to yard leads or

branch tracks should not be excepted.

The commenter also recommended

that the term ‘‘sidetrack’’ be better

defined or described to make it clear

that the term does not apply to other

main tracks, sidings, or rail-to-rail

crossings. The commenter was

concerned that certain types of derails

may be ineffective and described an

accident that occurred several years ago

when a train moving at over 50 mph

passed over a derail. The commenter

recommended that the rule include a

definition of the term ‘‘derail’’ and

suggested that turnouts, wheel stops,

bollards, etc. may be equally effective in

comparison to a conventional block or

split point derail. The commenter

expressed a concern that gates, chocks,

skates, wire ropes, wood ties, etc., do

not assure the same type of arresting

action. The commenter asked for FRA’s

position on the removal of a length of

rail, a pile of ballast or a bumper post.

The commenter said that the

proposed requirement for each derail to

be ‘‘interlocked’’ with the signal system

should be modified and included in 49

CFR Part 236 which establishes

requirements for hand-operated

switches in ABS and TCS territory. The

commenter said that the addition of

circuit controllers to independent handoperated derails in ABS will be costly

and that such a requirement would tend

to discourage voluntary installation of

sidetrack derails on Classes 2 to 6

trackage.

The commenter also recommended

that the term ‘‘interlocked’’ be replaced

with the term ‘‘interconnected’’ and

suggested that the phrases

‘‘interlocked’’, ‘‘maximally restrictive’’,

‘‘deployed’’, and ‘‘completely

functional’’ are unfamiliar terms and

invite confusion and disagreement. The

commenter said that there would be

little sacrifice of safety in allowing

display of a ‘‘proceed at restricted

speed’’ aspect on the main train when

a sidetrack derail is not in the derailing

position. Finally, the commenter

suggested that this section be moved to

the signal regulations at 49 CFR Part 236

because applicable sections in that part

already apply to derails. For example,

§ 236.205(c) sets forth requirements for

an independently operated fouling point

derail equipped with switch circuit

controller which is not in the derailing

position.

Final rule: FRA does not believe it is

necessary to move the entire section on

derails to the signal rules at 49 CFR Part

236, because the subject of derails is

appropriate for the track standards.

However, FRA may wish to consider

changes in Part 236 at a later date. FRA

agrees with many of commenters

recommendations.

The terms ‘‘industrial’’ and

‘‘sidetrack’’ as proposed may lead to

confusion. FRA, therefore, has modified

the rule to remove these terms and use

terminology which is more common to

the industry. Paragraph (a) now requires

that each track, other than a main track,

which connects with a Classes 7, 8 and

9 main track shall be equipped with a

functioning derail of the correct size and

type. The term ‘‘main track’’ has a

familiar meaning in the railroad

industry and is defined, for example in

§ 236.831(a) and § 240.7.

FRA believes the exception to the

requirement for derails at locations

‘‘where railroad equipment, because of

grade characteristics, cannot move to

foul the main track’’ is reasonable. FRA

believes it is not necessary to go beyond

this exception to address every

conceivable circumstance. FRA points

out that § 213.361 requires the railroad

to submit a right-of-way plan’’ for FRA

approval. This plan must contain

provision for the intrusion of vehicles

from adjacent tracks.

The final rule under § 213.357(b)

explains that a derail is a device which

will physically stop or divert movement

of railroad rolling stock or other railroad

on-track equipment past the location of

the device. Ineffective piles of ballast,

wire ropes, chains, or similar methods

are not sufficient. Other methods may

be as effective as conventional derails in

accomplishing the goal of preventing

the railroad equipment from moving

into the clearance envelope of the high

speed main track.

Paragraphs (c) through (f) of this

section mirror the derail requirements

for the lower track classes in § 213.205.

FRA agrees with the commenter’s

concern about the term ‘‘interlocked’’

because it refers to a particular

arrangement of signals. FRA concurs

with the commenter’s concern that a

requirement for derails to be connected

to the signal system in Class 6 track

would be costly and tend to discourage

voluntary installation of derails. To

address these concerns, paragraph (g) is

changed to read that ‘‘each derail on a

track connected to a Class 7, 8 or 9 main

track shall be interconnected with the

signal system.’’ The term

‘‘interconnected’’ is consistent with the

signal rules in § 235.205, which

requires, in part, that circuits shall be

installed so that each signal governing

train movements into a block will

display its most restrictive aspect

‘‘when an independently operated

fouling point derail equipped with a

switch circuit controller is not in

derailing position.’’

Section 213.359—Track Stiffness

Proposed rule: Track must have

sufficient vertical strength and lateral

strength to withstand the maximum

loads generated at maximum

permissible train speeds, cant

deficiency and lateral or vertical defects

so that the track will return to a

configuration in compliance with the

track performance and geometry

requirements of this subpart. It is

imperative that the track structure is

structurally qualified to accept the loads

without unacceptable deformation.

The track’s resistance to track panel

shift is difficult to quantify. However,

FRA believes that at a future date, it

may be possible, based on ongoing

research addressing track panel shift, to

further refine the safety limit for the Net

Axle L/V Ratio in the table of vehicle/

track interaction safety limits in

§ 213.333. The present limit of 0.5 is

based on an extrapolation of the

Prud’homme limit and experimental

data. An FRA sponsored research

program is currently in place addressing

the development of criteria and possible

safety limits for track shift mitigation

which are driven by the proposition that

lateral loads generated by vehicles

operating under maximum speed, cant

deficiency, thermal loads, and initial

line defect conditions should not cause

the exception of an allowable deflection

limit. Depending upon the specific track

conditions and vehicle characteristics,

permissible net axle lateral to vertical

load ratios for an allowable deflection

limit can be in the range of 0.4 to 0.6.

Key influencing parameters are the track

lateral resistance characteristics, tie/

ballast friction coefficients, vehicle

vertical axle loads, track curvature,

thermal loads, and constant versus

variable lateral axle loads.

Comments: No comments were

received concerning this section.

Final rule: This section is unchanged

from the proposed rule.

Section 213.361—Right-of-Way

Proposed rule: This section requires

that the track owner to submit a barrier

plan, termed a ‘‘right-of-way plan,’’ to

FRA for approval. The plan will

include, at a minimum, provisions in
34024 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

areas of demonstrated need to address

the prevention of vandalism by

trespassers and intrusion of vehicles

from adjacent rights of way. A particular

form of vandalism, the launching of

objects from overhead bridges or

structures, is specifically listed.

Comments: No comments were

received concerning this section.

Final rule: The final rule is unchanged

from the proposed rule for this section.

Section 213.365—Visual Inspections

Proposed rule: Visual inspections are

considered to be an important

component of the railroad’s overall

inspection program. The section largely

parallels the requirements for the lower

classes. The inspection requirements are

twice weekly for Classes 6, 7 and 8 and

three times per week for Class 9.

Turnouts and crossovers must be

inspected in accordance with the

Guidebook required under § 213.353.

The practice in France of operating a

train at reduced speeds following a

period with no train traffic is adopted in

this section.

Comments: Bombardier/GEC said that

the basis to limit the speed of trains in

paragraph (f) to 100 m.p.h. after a traffic

interruption of eight hours is not clear.

Equipment currently is permitted to run

at speeds of 110 m.p.h. on Class 6 track,

and up to 125 m.p.h. on the Northeast

Corridor on the first run of the day. The

proposed rule would limit the speed of

these trains to 100 m.p.h. after the track

is upgraded to Class 8 or Class 9, if the

disruption was greater than eight hours.

Bombardier/GEC recommended that the

rule require the speed to be reduced to

Class 7 speeds if an eight-hour

disruption in service occurs on Class 8

track.

Final rule: FRA believes the

commenter may be misinterpreting the

rule which requires that if no train

traffic operates for a period of eight

hours in track Classes 8 or 9, a train

shall be operated at less than 100 m.p.h.

before the resumption of the maximum

authorized speed. FRA believes the

requirement for one train to operate over

the track is not burdensome and follows

the practice on the SNCF lines for an

early morning pilot train. The rule is

unchanged from the proposed rule for

this section.

Section 213.367—Special Inspections

Proposed rule: The requirements of

this section are the same as those for the

lower track classes except that the

occurrence of temperature extremes is

specifically listed as an event that

requires a track inspection.

Comments: No comments were

received concerning this section.

Final rule: The final rule for this

section is unchanged from the proposed

rule.

Section 213.369—Inspection Records

Proposed rule: The requirements of

this section are the same as those for the

lower track classes.

Comments: No comments were

received for this section.

Final rule: FRA has made one small

change in paragraph (f). The phrase

‘‘Each Track/vehicle Performance

record’’ has been changed to ‘‘Each

Vehicle/track interaction safety record.’’

This change corresponds to the change

in the title for the table of vehicle/track

interaction safety limits in § 213.333.

Appendix A

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed

to add a curving speed chart based on

four inches unbalance. For many years,

the track standards included a curving

speed chart based only on three inches

unbalance. However, the NPRM

proposed to allow qualified equipment

to operate at curving speeds based on

four inches of unbalance, making an

additional chart necessary.

Comments: FRA received no

comments on the new chart.

Final rule: FRA decided that

inclusion of the new chart in Appendix

A is necessary to accommodate the

provision in the final rule which allows

qualified equipment to operate at

curving speeds based on four inches of

unbalance.

Appendix B

Proposed rule: The NPRM stated that

FRA would revise the schedule for civil

penalty assessment as it found

necessary. At the very least, the

schedule would have to be revised to

include civil penalties for the new

subsections added to the Track Safety

Standards. These would include

penalties for §§ 213.4(e)(4) and (f)

(Excepted track), § 213.119 (Continuous

welded rail), § 213.122 (Torch cut rails),

and most of the subsections in Subpart

G.

Comments: FRA received no

comments about the penalty schedule.

Final rule: Under the Debt Collection

Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–

134, 110 Stat. 1321–373), FRA is

required to adjust civil penalties it

administers to incorporate the effects of

inflation. See 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

FRA added penalties to the Schedule

of Civil Penalties to accommodate the

new subsections of the final rule. The

amounts for the new penalties were

chosen based on penalties that have

been used in the enforcement of the

Track Safety Standards for years. For

instance, penalties for violations of most

of the substantive subsections of the

track standards are either $2,500 or

$5,000, the higher penalty being

reserved for the more serious violations.

For those subsections under Subpart G

that have counterparts in Subparts A

through F, the new penalties are the

same as those for their counterparts.

After some consideration, FRA decided

not to include generally higher penalties

for high speed rail because there are

currently few track owners to which

Subpart G will apply. However, FRA

will reconsider this decision in the

future if experience demonstrates the

need to assess higher penalties for

Subpart G.

Regulatory Impact, Executive Order

12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and

Procedures

This final rule has been evaluated in

accordance with existing policies and

procedures. The final rule revising the

Track Safety Standards is considered to

be significant under both Executive

Order 12866 and DOT policies and

procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26,

1979) because of substantial public

interest and safety implications. FRA

has prepared and placed in the docket

a regulatory analysis addressing the

economic impact of the rule. Document

inspection and copying facilities are

available at 1120 Vermont Avenue,

N.W., Seventh Floor, Washington, D.C.

Photocopies may also be obtained by

submitting a written request to the FRA

Docket Clerk at the Office Chief

Counsel, Federal Railroad

Administration, 400 Seventh Street,

S.W., Mail Stop 10, Washington, D.C.

20590.

Ordinarily, in conducting an analysis

of the costs and benefits of a proposed

or final rule, FRA gathers more

extensive economic data than was made

available in this proceeding. However,

in light of the consensus in the Track

Working Group and the majority vote of

the RSAC members, FRA does not

believe more data is necessary. FRA has

relied principally on the

recommendations and experience of the

railroad industry and labor

representatives who, through the RSAC

process, helped develop this rule. The

working group members provided

valuable non-quantitative data on their

preferences. Thus, their unanimous

consensus on the contents of the rule

allows FRA to conclude that the rule is

cost beneficial. Although rail labor

subsequently withdrew its support for

this rulemaking, their objection to the

rule did not relate to the finding that the

rule is cost beneficial. Furthermore, the

railroads, who will bear the burden of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34025

1 Internal FRA estimates show that it would cost

about $2,000 to rerail a single car, and that it costs

about $10,000, conservatively, for an emergency

response to a small derailment, and about $8,000

for about 80 hours of legal time at $100 per hour,

which is also conservative as a measure of the

resources used in response to a derailment.

2Based on an injury between AIS 1, minor, and

AIS 2, moderate, on the Accidental Injury Severity

scale, the society would be willing to pay between

$5,400 and $41,850 to avoid the injury.

3Based on about $200 to relocate, house and feed

an evacuee for one night, plus other costs to society,

such as business, school and road closures, which

come to about four times the individual evacuation

cost.

the costs imposed by the rule, have

continued to support the rule. In its

conclusion, FRA finds that the net effect

of the changes to the existing rule is an

increase in safety and an increase in the

burden on the railroads, but that the

burden on the railroads from the

changes is not likely to be as great as the

benefit, although there was no way to

quantify the magnitude on the net

benefit.

The Track Working Group formed,

reached a consensus on internal

working procedures, and addressed the

issues. Several issues were delegated to

task groups, which are subgroups of the

working group. The procedure remained

the same. The task groups could make

no recommendations until they had a

consensus. The working group would

not adopt any recommendation, even if

a result of a consensus in the task group,

until there was a consensus in the

working group. The full RSAC would

make no recommendation to the

Administrator until there was a majority

consensus in the full RSAC, even if

there was a consensus in the working

group.

An implication of this is that no entity

represented would accept a consensus

agreement, unless the entity he or she

represented would be at least as well off

after the agreement as it had been

before. This analysis therefore uses as a

fundamental assumption that there are

no provisions which will impose drastic

costs on any segment represented by

members of the working group, and

Pareto superiority of the revised rule

over the current rules. Pareto superiority

implies that no party would be willing

to pay to return to the current standards,

although some party might be

indifferent between the current

standards and the revised standard.

There is no implication that this rule is

Pareto optimal, although Pareto

optimality has not been excluded. Were

the rule Pareto optimal, there would not

exist another possible set of rules which

at least one party would be willing to

pay to adopt, and the amount that party

would be willing to pay would be

sufficient, were it given to other parties,

to induce them to agree to the set of

rules. Nor is the final rule assumed to

be optimal. Were it optimal the total net

benefit would be maximized.

The guidance in E.O. 12866 is that we

should select the rule with the

maximum net benefit. We believe we

have done that here, because no party

who is burdened by the rule objected in

comments to the docket following

publication of the NPRM. What we

know is that the revised rule is closer to

the optimum than the current rules. The

guidance in the Regulatory Flexibility

Act is that we should adopt rules that

are flexible, that fit in with how

businesses actually conduct operations,

and that are sensitive to the concerns of

small businesses. Clearly the RSAC

process does this. Had we adopted the

suggestions of labor organizations

objecting to the proposed rule in the full

RSAC and in their comments to the

docket, then we would have produced

a rule with greater benefits and greater

costs, which the FRA believes would

have substantially lower net benefits

than the proposed rule or this final rule.

Estimated Benefit of Changes to the

Track Standards

In 1995, there were 827 reported train

accidents from track-related causes,

which caused about $62 million in

damage to railroad property. These

accidents also caused 17 injuries and

the evacuation of approximately 1,000

people. See Tables 22, 65, and 27,

Accident/Incident Bulletin 164,

Calendar Year 1995, FRA 1996. If each

accident resulted in $20,000 in

miscellaneous costs, such as rerailing

trains, providing emergency response,

and legal costs, then the total

miscellaneous cost would have been

about $16 million.1 If each injury cost

$10,000, then the total injury cost would

be about $170,000.2 If each evacuation

cost $1,000, then the total evacuation

cost would have been about $1 million.3

These costs are further documented in

FRA’s economic analysis, available in

the public docket. The total for all of

these costs would have been about $80

million.

The FRA believes it is conservative to

estimate that these costs will be reduced

by five percent, as the revision

addresses virtually every accident cause

found in the bulletin. That would

provide an estimated benefit of about $4

million per year, or about $40 million in

net present value over 20 years. This

value may be significantly higher, as the

average cost of accidents in certain

categories targeted in the rule tends to

be above average. For instance, broken

rail derailments on main lines (internal

rail flaw detection provisions) and

accidents caused by buckled track (CWR

provisions) tend to be higher-speed

accidents with large railroad damage

totals and greater potential for thirdparty impacts, such as evacuations and

disruptions in adjacent transportation

corridors.

Using reasonably conservative

assumptions, it appears that the net

burden on railroads will be less than $2

million per year, a very small number

when compared to total rail revenues

($37.6 billion in 1995 for Class 1

railroads only). Railroads will receive a

benefit in the form of greater certainty

over the future of track safety standards

as a result of their active participation

in the RSAC process which provided

the framework for the revised rule. They

will also receive some benefit where

existing provisions have been made less

stringent.

It is not clear whether that benefit

exceeds the burden, although it appears

from the willingness of railroads to

consent to the Track Working Group

proposal that they would receive a net

benefit. Of course, the railroads would

be even better off if the provisions

which burden them were removed and

those which benefit them remained.

Other members of the Track Working

Group did not accept that proposal. In

their comments, railroads agreed that

they would rather have FRA implement

the proposed rule as a whole than

continue with the current standards,

although they would prefer that the

proposed rule changed certain

provisions.

Federalism Implications

This final rule has been analyzed

according to the principles of Executive

Order 12612 (‘‘Federalism’’). It has been

determined that these amendments to

Part 213 do not have federalism

implications. As noted previously, the

U.S. Supreme Court, in CSX v.

Easterwood, upheld Federal preemption

of any state or local attempts to regulate

train speed. Nothing in this notice

proposes to change that relationship.

Likewise, the addition to Part 213’s

requirement for vegetation maintenance

near grade crossings is not intended to

preempt any similar existing state or

local requirements. The provisions that

require railroads seeking to operate in

Classes 8 and 9 to have a program

addressing vandalism and trespassing

are directed only to the railroads, and

not to state or local governments. If a

railroad is unable to provide an

adequate program to address these

issues, it will not be allowed to operate

at Classes 8 and 9 speeds. For these

reasons, the preparation of a Federalism

Assessment is not warranted.
34026 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Regulatory Flexibility Act

This notice contains a summary of a

regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) as

required by the provisions of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act at 5 U.S.C.

601–612. FRA completed a RFA as part

of an economic analysis of costs and

benefits, and placed of copy of the RFA

in the docket for this proceeding.

1. Why action by the agency is being

considered:

The Rail Safety Enforcement and

Review Act of 1992, Public Law 102–

365, 106 Stat. 972 (September 3, 1992),

later amended by the Federal Railroad

Safety Authorization Act of 1994, Public

Law 103–440, 108 Stat. 4615 (November

2, 1994), requires FRA to revise the

track safety regulations contained in 49

CFR Part 213. Now codified at 49 U.S.C.

§ 20142, the amended statute requires:

(a) Review of Existing Regulations.—Not

later than March 3, 1993, the Secretary of

Transportation shall begin a review of

Department of Transportation regulations

related to track safety standards. The review

at least shall include an evaluation of—

(1) Procedures associated with maintaining

and installing continuous welded rail and its

attendant structure, including cold weather

installation procedures;

(2) The need for revisions to regulations on

track excepted from track safety standards;

and

(3) Employee safety.

(b) Revision of Regulations.—Not later than

September 1, 1995, the Secretary shall

prescribe regulations and issue orders to

revise track safety standards, considering

safety information presented during the

review under subsection (a) of this section

and the report of the Comptroller General

submitted under subsection ‘‘(c)’’ of this

section.

* * * * *

(d) Identification of Internal Rail Defects.—

In carrying out subsections (a) and (b), the

Secretary shall consider whether or not to

prescribe regulations and issue orders

concerning—

(1) Inspection procedures to identify

internal rail defects, before they reach

imminent failure size, in rail that has

significant shelling; and

(2) Any specific actions that should be

taken when a rail surface condition, such as

shelling, prevents the identification of

internal defects.

The reasons for the actual provisions of

the action considered by the agency are

explained in the body of the analysis.

2. The objectives and legal basis for

the rule:

The objective of the rule is to enhance

the safety of rail transportation,

protecting both those traveling and

working on the system, and those off the

system who might be adversely affected

by a rail incident. The legal basis is

reflected in the response to ‘‘1.’’ above

and in the preamble.

3. A description of and an estimate of

the number of small entities to which

the rule would apply:

The rule would apply to railroads.

Small entities among affected railroads

would all be short line railroads. There

are approximately 700 short line

railroads in the United Sates, but many

of them are not small entities, either

because they are large enterprises as

railroads, or because they are operations

of large entities in other industries.

4. A description of the projected

reporting, recordkeeping and other

compliance requirements of the rule,

including an estimate of the classes of

small entities which will be subject to

the requirement and the type of

professional skills necessary for

preparation of the report or record:

See the Paperwork Reduction Act

analysis.

5. Federal rules which may duplicate,

overlap, or conflict with the rule:

None.

Significant Alternatives

In their comments to the NPRM, labor

organizations suggested certain

enhancements. However, the FRA does

not believe that their suggestions would

have made the rule more flexible; rather,

they would have increased the burden

on small entities significantly with

relatively little commensurate benefit.

1. Differing compliance or reporting

requirements or timetables which take

into account the resources available to

small entities:

In the two sections most likely to

affect small entities, § 213.4 Excepted

Track and § 213.109 Crossties, the final

rule includes a two year phase-in

period.

2. Clarification, consolidation, or

simplification of compliance and

reporting requirements under the rule

for such small entities:

Although their needs were considered

at every step of the process, there was

no way to reduce the burden on small

entities that did not apply as well to

larger entities.

3. Use of performance, rather than

design standards:

Where possible, especially in the

geometry standards, the standards were

tied to performance. Although they were

expressed as specifications, the

underlying performance model ensures

that they will have the same effect as a

performance standard would. In the

high speed standards, vehicle

qualification is expressed strictly as a

performance standard.

4. Exemption from coverage of the

rule, or any part thereof, for such small

entities:

There was no practicable way to

exclude small entities. Further, the low

volume operations of the largest

railroads often serve shippers which are

small entities, and any additional

burden on the low volume lines of large

railroads would likely have adverse

impacts on those small shippers.

Definition of Small Entity

SBREFA incorporates the definition

for ‘‘small entity’’ that is established by

existing law (5 U.S.C. 601, 15 U.S.C.

632, 13 CFR Part 121) for those

businesses to be covered by agency

policies. Generally, a small entity is a

business concern that is independently

owned and operated, and is not

dominant in its field of operation. Also,

‘‘small governmental jurisdictions’’ that

serve populations of 50,000 or less are

small entities. (Commuter railroads are

governmental jurisdictions, and some

may fit within this statutory delineation

for small governmental jurisdictions, or

small entities.) An agency may establish

one or more other definitions for this

term, in consultation with the SBA and

after opportunity for public comment,

that are appropriate to the agency’s

activities.

Pursuant to its statutory authority, the

Small Business Administration (SBA)

promulgated regulations that clarify the

term ‘‘small entity’’ by industry, using

number of employees or annual income

as criteria. See 13 CFR 121.101–108 and

201. In the SBA regulations, main line

railroads with 1,500 or fewer

employees, and switching or terminal

establishments with 500 or fewer

employees constitute small entities. The

SBA regulations do not address

hazardous material shippers in the

railroad industry.

Prior to the SBA regulations

establishing size categories, the

Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC)

developed a classification system for

freight railroads as Class I, II, or III,

based on annual operating revenue.

(The detailed, qualifying criteria for

these classifications are set forth in 49

CFR part 1201.) The Department of

Transportation’s Surface Transportation

Board, which succeeded the ICC, has

not changed these classifications. The

ICC classification system has been used

pervasively by FRA and the railroad

industry to identify entities by size. The

SBA recognized this classification

system as a sound one, and concurs

with FRA’s decision to continue using

it, provided the public has notice of the

classification system in use for any

particular proceeding and an

opportunity to comment on it.

As explained in detail in the ‘‘Interim

Policy Statement Concerning Small
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34027

Entities Subject to the Railroad Safety

Laws,’’ published August 11, 1997 at 62

Fed. Reg. 43024, FRA has decided to

define ‘‘small entity,’’ on an interim

basis, to include only those entities

whose revenues would bring them

within the Class III definition. This

definition is the basis of the small

business analysis for this proceeding.

Effect of This Rule on Small Businesses

All of the small entities directly

affected by this rule are short line

railroads. They are represented by the

ASLRA who participated in the Track

Working Group. The ASLRA was not, of

course, involved in developing those

standards which would not apply to any

of their members, for example, the high

speed track standards. The ASLRA

supported the NPRM as drafted by the

Track Working Group and

recommended by the RSAC. All of the

individual short line railroads that

participated directly in the Track

Working Group agreed to the proposal

as well. In addition, the ASLRA and

several short line railroads participated

in all of the workshops hosted by FRA

in 1993 following the publication of the

ANPRM in this proceeding.

Almost every change in this final rule

will enhance safety. Some provisions

serve to reduce burdens, but in most

cases, the burden is increased,

particularly for the railroads. However,

the Track Working Group considered

the impact on small entities at every

step, and introduced phase-in periods to

mitigate the effect on small entities by

the crosstie standard and the new gage

standard for excepted track. While there

is no clear way to measure the net effect

of the final rule, it is likely the net

benefit will be positive. The RSAC

process was intended to take

rulemaking into areas where data is

sparse, and the end product, as might be

expected, is difficult to quantify.

FRA did not quantify the estimated

annual cost to the average firm, nor

compare it to average annual revenue or

profits, because the relative impact of

the final rule varies more by condition

of the track owned by a railroad than by

the size of the railroad. Railroads with

better, safer track will face

proportionally much smaller effects

from the final rule. The average annual

total cost is likely to be less than $2

million per year for the entire railroad

industry, with more than half of the cost

borne by large railroads. The average

burden per small railroad is likely

therefore to be less than $1,500 per year.

The burden will be greater on railroads

with more track, and lower on railroads

with less.

No provision included in this final

rule will have a very adverse impact on

the affected firms. A proposal which

would have a large beneficial impact is

the GRMS as an alternative to the

crosstie standard. (See previous

discussion in the preamble to this

notice.) Some provisions which at first

impression seem to have a significant

impact, such as an increase in the

number of required crossties, in fact will

have little impact.

For example, this final rule includes

an increase in the number of crossties

required on curved track. In a worst

case, about 30 percent of the Class 1

track of a very small entity might not

comply with the requirement for six ties

per 39-foot section of rail. Of this, 80

percent would not comply with

geometry standards or standards

affecting effective distribution of ties,

which likely would be fixed by adding

enough ties comply or exceed the

standard. The remaining track, about six

percent of all track, would not have

sufficient ties to meet the revised

standard. Some of this track would not

meet the current standard. One tie per

section for six percent of the track

would be slightly more than eight ties

per mile. At a cost of $40 per tie

installed, this would mean a cost of

about $320 per mile, for a worst case. A

railroad with track this poor would have

presented a serious safety hazard in the

first place, and would not be

representative. Most small railroads

currently exceed the revised standard. A

more detailed description of the impact

is contained in the complete IRFA,

found in the docket for this proceeding.

Throughout the discussions of the

Track Working Group, and in the NPRM

for this proceeding, FRA asked for

additional information on benefits and

costs. On occasion, participants shared

such data with FRA. For example, the

ASLRA which conducted a survey of its

members to analyze the potential impact

of increasing the number of crossties

required in a 39-foot segment of track.

At other times, data were not shared

with FRA, and the agency was unable to

determine whether the information was

withheld for proprietary reasons or

whether it simply was not available.

However, by voting in the Track

Working Group and in the RSAC to

accept a provision in the proposed rule,

often as part of a compromise with other

interested parties, the parties’

acceptance of a package of compromises

revealed that they preferred the

compromise position to a position of no

compromise (the existing rule with the

possibility of some other rulemaking

activity). This implies that the burdens

which rail management representatives

accepted likely were not significant.

Details of provisions that will have little

or no impact may be found in the

complete IRFA, found in the docket for

this proceeding.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in this final rule have been

submitted for approval to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The FRA has

analyzed the existing burden, and the

burden under the final rule analyzed

here. According to this analysis, the

total annual burden increases from

about $42,000,000 to about $53,000,000.

However, the overwhelming majority of

this apparent increase is due to a change

in FRA’s assumption regarding wages.

In an earlier analysis under the

Paperwork Reduction Act, the FRA had

assumed a wage of $22 per hour for

recording track inspections, but in the

analysis of this final rule, the FRA used

an assumed wage of $30 per hour. In

addition, the number of railroads

calculated by FRA to be covered by the

regulations increased from 500 to 680.

The sections that contain the new

information collection requirements and

the estimated time to fulfill each

requirement are as follows:

CFR section Respondent

universe

Total annual

responses Average time per response Total annualburden hours

Total annual

burden cost

213.4—Excepted Track:

—Designation of track as excepted 160 railroads .... 32 designations .... 15 minutes .......................... 8 hours ............. $240

—Notification to FRA about removal

of excepted track.

160 railroads .... 40 notifications ...... 10 minutes .......................... 7 hours ............. 210

213.5—Responsibility of track owners .... 620 railroads .... 16 notifications ...... 8 hours ............................... 120 hours ......... 3,600

213.7—Designation of qualified persons

to supervise certain renewals and inspect track:
34028 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

CFR section Respondent

universe

Total annual

responses Average time per response Total annualburden hours

Total annual

burden cost

—Designations (fully qualified) ........ 620 railroads .... 1,500 names ......... 10 minutes .......................... 250 hours ......... 7,500

—Designations (partially qualified) .. 31 railroads ...... 300 names ............ 10 minutes .......................... 50 hours ........... 1,500

—Notification and dispatched to location.N/A ................... N/A ........................ Usual and customary procedure.N/A ................... N/A

213.17—Waivers ..................................... 620 railroads .... 4 petitions ............. 24 hours ............................. 96 hours ........... 2,880

213.57—Curves, elevation and speed

limitations:

—Request to FRA for approval ....... 620 railroads .... 3 requests ............. 40 hours ............................. 120 hours ......... 3,600

—Notification to FRA with written

consent of other affected track

owners.

620 railroads .... 2 notifications ........ 45 minutes .......................... 1.5 hours .......... 45

—Test plan ....................................... 1 railroad .......... 6 plans .................. 16 hours ............................. 96 hours ........... 2,880

213.119—Continuous welded rail

(CWR), general:

—Written procedures ....................... 110 railroads .... 110 procedures ..... 40 hrs. Class I RRs ............ 2,000 hours ...... 60,000

—Training program .......................... 110 railroads .... 110 programs ....... 16 hrs. Class II RRs ........... 1,200 hours ...... 36,000

—Recordkeeping .............................. 110 railroads .... 4,500 records ........ 40 hrs Class I RRs .............

8 hrs Class II RRs ..............

10 minutes ..........................

750 hours ......... 22,500

213.122—Torch cut rail ........................... 20 railroads ...... 2,000 records ........ 5 minutes ............................ 167 hours ......... 5,010

213.233—Track inspections .................... 620 railroads .... 2,500 inspections .. 1 minute ............................. 41.5 hours ........ 1,079

213.237—Inspection of rail ..................... N/A ................... N/A ........................ Usual and customary procedure.N/A ................... N/A

213.241—Inspection records .................. 620 railroads .... Varies .................... Varies ................................. 1,763,991 hours 52,919,730

213.303—Responsibility for Compliance 2 railroads ........ 1 petition ............... 8 hours ............................... 8 hours ............. 240

213.305—Designation of qualified individuals; general qualifications:

—Designations (fully qualified) ........ 2 railroads ........ 150 qualifications .. 10 minutes .......................... 25 hours ........... 750

—Designations (partially qualified) .. 2 railroads ........ 15 qualifications .... 10 minutes .......................... 2.5 hours .......... 75

213.317—Waivers ................................... 2 railroads ........ 1 petition ............... 24 hours ............................. 24 hours ........... 720

213.329—Curves, elevation and speed

limitations:

—FRA approval of qualified equipment and higher curving speeds.2 railroads ........ 1 notification ......... 40 hours ............................. 40 hours ........... 1,200

—Written notification to FRA with

written consent of other affected

track owners.

2 railroads ........ 1 notification ......... 45 minutes .......................... 45 minutes ........ 22.50

213.333—Automated Vehicle Inspection

System

—Track Geometry Measurement

System.

3 railroads ........ 18 reports ............. 20 hours ............................. 360 hours ......... 9,360

—Track/Vehicle Performance Measurement System............................ ............................... ............................................ ........................... ....................

—Written procedures ....................... 1 railroad .......... 1 program ............. 8 hours ............................... 8 hours ............. 240

—Copies of most recent exception

printouts.

2 railroads ........ 13 printouts ........... 20 hours ............................. 260 hours ......... 7,800

213.339—Inspection of rail in service ..... N/A ................... N/A ........................ Usual and customary procedure.N/A ................... N/A

213.341—Initial inspection of new rail

and welds

—Mill inspection ............................... 2 railroads ........ 1 report ................. 8 hours ............................... 8 hours ............. 240

—Welding plant inspection .............. 2 railroads ........ 2 reports ............... 8 hours ............................... 16 hours ........... 480

—Inspection of field welds ............... 2 railroads ........ 200 records ........... 20 minutes .......................... 67 hours ........... 2,010

—Marking of defective rail ............... N/A ................... N/A ........................ Usual and customary procedure.N/A ................... N/A

213.343—Continuous welded rail

(CWR):

—Written procedures ....................... 2 railroads ........ 2 procedures ......... 40 hours ............................. 80 hours ........... 2,400

—Training program .......................... 2 railroads ........ 2 programs ........... 40 hours ............................. 80 hours ........... 2,400

—Recordkeeping .............................. 2 railroads ........ 200 records ........... 10 minutes .......................... 33 hours ........... 990

213.345—Vehicle qualification testing .... 1 railroad .......... 1 report ................. 16 hours ............................. 16 hours ........... 480

213.347—Automotive or railroad crossings at grade

—Protection plans ............................ 1 railroad .......... 2 plans .................. 8 hours ............................... 16 hours ........... 480

213.353—Turnouts and crossovers, generally.1 railroad .......... 1 guidebook .......... 40 hours ............................. 40 hours ........... 1,200

213.361—Right of Way ........................... 1 railroad .......... 1 plan .................... 40 hours ............................. 40 hours ........... 1,200

213.369—Inspection records:

—Record of inspection ..................... 2 railroads ........ 500 records ........... 1 minute ............................. 8 hours ............. 208

—Designation of location where

record should be maintained.

2 railroads ........ 2 designations ...... 15 minutes .......................... 30 minutes ........ 15
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34029

CFR section Respondent

universe

Total annual

responses Average time per response Total annualburden hours

Total annual

burden cost

—Internal defect inspections and remedial action taken.2 railroads ........ 50 records ............. 5 minutes ............................ 4 hours ............. 104

All estimates include the time for

reviewing instructions; searching

existing data sources; gathering or

maintaining the needed data; and

reviewing the information. For

information or a copy of the paperwork

package submitted to OMB contact Mark

Weihofen at 202–632–3303.

FRA cannot impose a penalty on

persons for violating information

collection requirements which do not

display a current OMB control number,

if required. The information collection

requirements contained in this rule have

been approved under OMB control

number 2130–0010.

Environmental Impact

FRA has evaluated these track safety

regulations in accordance with its

procedures for ensuring full

consideration of the potential

environmental impacts of FRA actions,

as required by the National

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.

4321, et seq.) and related directives.

These regulations and this statement of

policy meet the criteria that establish

this as a non-major action for

environmental purposes.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 213

Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

The Final Rule

In consideration of the foregoing, FRA

revises part 213, title 49, Code of

Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 213—TRACK SAFETY

STANDARDS

Subpart A—General

Sec.

213.1 Scope of part.

213.2 Preemptive effect.

213.3 Application.

6213.4 Excepted track.

213.5 Responsibility for compliance.

213.7 Designation of qualified persons to

supervise certain renewals and inspect

track.

213.9 Classes of track: operating speed

limits.

213.11 Restoration or renewal of track

under traffic conditions.

213.13 Measuring track not under load.

213.15 Penalties.

213.17 Waivers.

213.19 Information collection.

Subpart B—Roadbed

213.31 Scope.

213.33 Drainage.

213.37 Vegetation.

Subpart C—Track Geometry

213.51 Scope.

213.53 Gage.

213.55 Alinement.

213.57 Curves; elevation and speed

limitations.

213.59 Elevation of curved track; runoff.

213.63 Track surface.

Subpart D—Track Structure

213.101 Scope.

213.103 Ballast; general.

213.109 Crossties.

213.113 Defective rails.

213.115 Rail end mismatch.

213.119 Continuous welded rail (CWR);

general.

213.121 Rail joints.

213.122 Torch cut rail.

213.123 Tie plates.

213.127 Rail fastening systems.

213.133 Turnouts and track crossings

generally.

213.135 Switches.

213.137 Frogs.

213.139 Spring rail frogs.

213.141 Self-guarded frogs.

213.143 Frog guard rails and guard faces;

gage.

Subpart E—Track Appliances and TrackRelated Devices

213.201 Scope.

213.205 Derails

Subpart F—Inspection

213.231 Scope.

213.233 Track inspections.

213.235 Inspection of switches, track

crossings, and lift rail assemblies or

other transition devices on moveable

bridges.

213.237 Inspection of rail.

213.239 Special inspections.

213.241 Inspection records.

Subpart G—Train Operations at Track

Classes 6 and Higher

213.301 Scope of subpart.

213.303 Responsibility for compliance.

213.305 Designation of qualified

individuals; general qualifications.

213.307 Class of track; operating speed

limits.

213.309 Restoration or renewal of track

under traffic conditions.

213.311 Measuring track not under load.

213.317 Waivers.

213.319 Drainage.

213.321 Vegetation.

213.323 Track gage.

213.327 Alinement.

213.329 Curves, elevation and speed

limitations.

213.331 Track surface.

213.333 Automated vehicle inspection

systems.

213.334 Ballast; general.

213.335 Crossties.

213.337 Defective rails.

213.339 Inspection of rail in service.

213.341 Initial inspection of new rail and

welds.

213.343 Continuous welded rail (CWR).

213.345 Vehicle qualification testing.

213.347 Automotive or railroad crossings at

grade.

213.349 Rail end mismatch.

213.351 Rail joints.

213.352 Torch cut rail.

213.353 Turnouts, crossovers, and lift rail

assemblies or other transition devices on

moveable bridges.

213.355 Frog guard rails and guard faces;

gage.

213.357 Derails.

213.359 Track stiffness.

213.361 Right of way.

213.365 Visual inspections.

213.367 Special inspections.

213.369 Inspection records.

Appendix A to Part 213—Maximum

Allowable Curving Speeds

Appendix B to Part 213—Schedule of Civil

Penalties

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20114 and

20142; 28 U.S.C. 2461; and 49 CFR 1.49(m).

Subpart A—General

§ 213.1 Scope of part.

(a) This part prescribes minimum

safety requirements for railroad track

that is part of the general railroad

system of transportation. The

requirements prescribed in this part

apply to specific track conditions

existing in isolation. Therefore, a

combination of track conditions, none of

which individually amounts to a

deviation from the requirements in this

part, may require remedial action to

provide for safe operations over that

track. This part does not restrict a

railroad from adopting and enforcing

additional or more stringent

requirements not inconsistent with this

part.

(b) Subparts A through F apply to

track Classes 1 through 5. Subpart G and

213.2, 213.3, and 213.15 apply to track

over which trains are operated at speeds

in excess of those permitted over Class

5 track.

§ 213.2 Preemptive effect.

Under 49 U.S.C. 20106, issuance of

these regulations preempts any State

law, regulation, or order covering the
34030 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

same subject matter, except an

additional or more stringent law,

regulation, or order that is necessary to

eliminate or reduce an essentially local

safety hazard; is not incompatible with

a law, regulation, or order of the United

States Government; and that does not

impose an unreasonable burden on

interstate commerce.

§ 213.3 Application.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph

(b) of this section, this part applies to all

standard gage track in the general

railroad system of transportation.

(b) This part does not apply to track—

(1) Located inside an installation

which is not part of the general railroad

system of transportation; or

(2) Used exclusively for rapid transit

operations in an urban area that are not

connected with the general railroad

system of transportation.

§ 213.4 Excepted track.

A track owner may designate a

segment of track as excepted track

provided that—

(a) The segment is identified in the

timetable, special instructions, general

order, or other appropriate records

which are available for inspection

during regular business hours;

(b) The identified segment is not

located within 30 feet of an adjacent

track which can be subjected to

simultaneous use at speeds in excess of

10 miles per hour;

(c) The identified segment is

inspected in accordance with 213.233(c)

and 213.235 at the frequency specified

for Class 1 track;

(d) The identified segment of track is

not located on a bridge including the

track approaching the bridge for 100 feet

on either side, or located on a public

street or highway, if railroad cars

containing commodities required to be

placarded by the Hazardous Materials

Regulations (49 CFR part 172), are

moved over the track; and

(e) The railroad conducts operations

on the identified segment under the

following conditions:

(1) No train shall be operated at

speeds in excess of 10 miles per hour;

(2) No occupied passenger train shall

be operated;

(3) No freight train shall be operated

that contains more than five cars

required to be placarded by the

Hazardous Materials Regulations (49

CFR part 172); and

(4) The gage on excepted track shall

not be more than 4 feet 101⁄4 inches.

This paragraph (e)(4) is applicable

September 21, 1999.

(f) A track owner shall advise the

appropriate FRA Regional Office at least

10 days prior to removal of a segment

of track from excepted status.

§ 213.5 Responsibility for compliance.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph

(b) of this section, any owner of track to

which this part applies who knows or

has notice that the track does not

comply with the requirements of this

part, shall—

(1) Bring the track into compliance;

(2) Halt operations over that track; or

(3) Operate under authority of a

person designated under § 213.7(a), who

has at least one year of supervisory

experience in railroad track

maintenance, subject to conditions set

forth in this part.

(b) If an owner of track to which this

part applies designates a segment of

track as ‘‘excepted track’’ under the

provisions of § 213.4, operations may

continue over that track without

complying with the provisions of

subparts B, C, D, and E of this part,

unless otherwise expressly stated.

(c) If an owner of track to which this

part applies assigns responsibility for

the track to another person (by lease or

otherwise), written notification of the

assignment shall be provided to the

appropriate FRA Regional Office at least

30 days in advance of the assignment.

The notification may be made by any

party to that assignment, but shall be in

writing and include the following—

(1) The name and address of the track

owner;

(2) The name and address of the

person to whom responsibility is

assigned (assignee);

(3) A statement of the exact

relationship between the track owner

and the assignee;

(4) A precise identification of the

track;

(5) A statement as to the competence

and ability of the assignee to carry out

the duties of the track owner under this

part; and

(6) A statement signed by the assignee

acknowledging the assignment to him of

responsibility for purposes of

compliance with this part.

(d) The Administrator may hold the

track owner or the assignee or both

responsible for compliance with this

part and subject to penalties under

§ 213.15.

(e) A common carrier by railroad

which is directed by the Surface

Transportation Board to provide service

over the track of another railroad under

49 U.S.C. 11123 is considered the owner

of that track for the purposes of the

application of this part during the

period the directed service order

remains in effect.

(f) When any person, including a

contractor for a railroad or track owner,

performs any function required by this

part, that person is required to perform

that function in accordance with this

part.

§ 213.7 Designation of qualified persons to

supervise certain renewals and inspect

track.

(a) Each track owner to which this

part applies shall designate qualified

persons to supervise restorations and

renewals of track under traffic

conditions. Each person designated

shall have—

(1) At least—

(i) 1 year of supervisory experience in

railroad track maintenance; or

(ii) A combination of supervisory

experience in track maintenance and

training from a course in track

maintenance or from a college level

educational program related to track

maintenance;

(2) Demonstrated to the owner that he

or she—

(i) Knows and understands the

requirements of this part;

(ii) Can detect deviations from those

requirements; and

(iii) Can prescribe appropriate

remedial action to correct or safely

compensate for those deviations; and

(3) Written authorization from the

track owner to prescribe remedial

actions to correct or safely compensate

for deviations from the requirements in

this part.

(b) Each track owner to which this

part applies shall designate qualified

persons to inspect track for defects.

Each person designated shall have—

(1) At least—

(i) 1 year of experience in railroad

track inspection; or

(ii) A combination of experience in

track inspection and training from a

course in track inspection or from a

college level educational program

related to track inspection;

(2) Demonstrated to the owner that he

or she—

(i) Knows and understands the

requirements of this part;

(ii) Can detect deviations from those

requirements; and

(iii) Can prescribe appropriate

remedial action to correct or safely

compensate for those deviations; and

(3) Written authorization from the

track owner to prescribe remedial

actions to correct or safely compensate

for deviations from the requirements of

this part, pending review by a qualified

person designated under paragraph (a)

of this section.

(c) Persons not fully qualified to

supervise certain renewals and inspect

track as outlined in paragraphs (a) and

(b) of this section, but with at least one
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34031

year of maintenance-of-way or signal

experience, may pass trains over broken

rails and pull aparts provided that—

(1) The track owner determines the

person to be qualified and, as part of

doing so, trains, examines, and reexamines the person periodically within

two years after each prior examination

on the following topics as they relate to

the safe passage of trains over broken

rails or pull aparts: rail defect

identification, crosstie condition, track

surface and alinement, gage restraint,

rail end mismatch, joint bars, and

maximum distance between rail ends

over which trains may be allowed to

pass. The sole purpose of the

examination is to ascertain the person’s

ability to effectively apply these

requirements and the examination may

not be used to disqualify the person

from other duties. A minimum of four

hours training is adequate for initial

training; (2) The person deems it safe and train

speeds are limited to a maximum of 10

m.p.h. over the broken rail or pull apart; (3) The person shall watch all

movements over the broken rail or pull

apart and be prepared to stop the train

if necessary; and (4) Person(s) fully qualified under

§ 213.7 of this part are notified and

dispatched to the location promptly for

the purpose of authorizing movements

and effecting temporary or permanent

repairs. (d) With respect to designations under

paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this

section, each track owner shall maintain

written records of—

(1) Each designation in effect;

(2) The basis for each designation; and

(3) Track inspections made by each

designated qualified person as required

by § 213.241. These records shall be

kept available for inspection or copying

by the Federal Railroad Administration

during regular business hours.

§ 213.9 Classes of track: operating speed

limits.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph

(b) of this section and §§ 213.57(b),

213.59(a), 213.113(a), and 213.137(b)

and (c), the following maximum

allowable operating speeds apply—

[In miles per hour]

Over track that meets all of the requirements prescribed in this part for—

The maximum allowable operating

speed for freight

trains is—

The maximum allowable operating

speed for passenger trains is—

Excepted track ............................................................................................................................................. 10 N/A

Class 1 track ................................................................................................................................................ 10 15

Class 2 track ................................................................................................................................................ 25 30

Class 3 track ................................................................................................................................................ 40 60

Class 4 track ................................................................................................................................................ 60 80

Class 5 track ................................................................................................................................................ 80 90

(b) If a segment of track does not meet

all of the requirements for its intended

class, it is reclassified to the next lowest

class of track for which it does meet all

of the requirements of this part.

However, if the segment of track does

not at least meet the requirements for

Class 1 track, operations may continue

at Class 1 speeds for a period of not

more than 30 days without bringing the

track into compliance, under the

authority of a person designated under

§ 213.7(a), who has at least one year of

supervisory experience in railroad track

maintenance, after that person

determines that operations may safely

continue and subject to any limiting

conditions specified by such person.

§ 213.11 Restoration or renewal of track

under traffic conditions.

If during a period of restoration or

renewal, track is under traffic

conditions and does not meet all of the

requirements prescribed in this part, the

work on the track shall be under the

continuous supervision of a person

designated under § 213.7(a) who has at

least one year of supervisory experience

in railroad track maintenance, and

subject to any limiting conditions

specified by such person. The term

‘‘continuous supervision’’ as used in

this section means the physical

presence of that person at a job site.

However, since the work may be

performed over a large area, it is not

necessary that each phase of the work be

done under the visual supervision of

that person.

§ 213.13 Measuring track not under load.

When unloaded track is measured to

determine compliance with

requirements of this part, the amount of

rail movement, if any, that occurs while

the track is loaded must be added to the

measurements of the unloaded track.

§ 213.15 Penalties.

(a) Any person who violates any

requirement of this part or causes the

violation of any such requirement is

subject to a civil penalty of at least $500

and not more than $11,000 per

violation, except that: Penalties may be

assessed against individuals only for

willful violations, and, where a grossly

negligent violation or a pattern of

repeated violations has created an

imminent hazard of death or injury to

persons, or has caused death or injury,

a penalty not to exceed $22,000 per

violation may be assessed. ‘‘Person’’

means an entity of any type covered

under 1 U.S.C. 1, including but not

limited to the following: a railroad; a

manager, supervisor, official, or other

employee or agent of a railroad; any

owner, manufacturer, lessor, or lessee of

railroad equipment, track, or facilities;

any independent contractor providing

goods or services to a railroad; any

employee of such owner, manufacturer,

lessor, lessee, or independent

contractor; and anyone held by the

Federal Railroad Administrator to be

responsible under § 213.5(d) or

§ 213.303(c). Each day a violation

continues shall constitute a separate

offense. See appendix B to this part for

a statement of agency civil penalty

policy.

(b) Any person who knowingly and

willfully falsifies a record or report

required by this part may be subject to

criminal penalties under 49 U.S.C.

21311.

§ 213.17 Waivers.

(a) Any owner of track to which this

part applies, or other person subject to

this part, may petition the Federal

Railroad Administrator for a waiver

from any or all requirements prescribed

in this part. The filing of such a petition

does not affect that person’s

responsibility for compliance with that

requirement while the petition is being

considered.

(b) Each petition for a waiver under

this section shall be filed in the manner

and contain the information required by

part 211 of this chapter.
34032 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

1Actual elevation for each 155 foot track segment

in the body of the curve is determined by averaging

the elevation for 10 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 .

2 Degree of curvature is determined by averaging

the degree of curvature over the same track segment

as the elevation.

(c) If the Administrator finds that a

waiver is in the public interest and is

consistent with railroad safety, the

Administrator may grant the exemption

subject to any conditions the

Administrator deems necessary. Where

a waiver is granted, the Administrator

publishes a notice containing the

reasons for granting the waiver.

213.19 Information collection.

(a) The information collection

requirements of this part were reviewed

by the Office of Management and

Budget pursuant to the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.) and are assigned OMB control

number 2130–0010.

(b) The information collection

requirements are found in the following

sections: §§ 213.4, 213.5, 213.7, 213.17,

213.57, 213.119, 213.122, 213.233,

213.237, 213.241, 213.303, 213.305,

213.317, 213.329, 213.333, 213.339,

213.341, 213.343, 213.345, 213.353,

213.361, 213.369.

Subpart B—Roadbed

§ 213.31 Scope.

This subpart prescribes minimum

requirements for roadbed and areas

immediately adjacent to roadbed.

§ 213.33 Drainage.

Each drainage or other water carrying

facility under or immediately adjacent

to the roadbed shall be maintained and

kept free of obstruction, to

accommodate expected water flow for

the area concerned.

§ 213.37 Vegetation.

Vegetation on railroad property which

is on or immediately adjacent to

roadbed shall be controlled so that it

does not—

(a) Become a fire hazard to trackcarrying structures;

(b) Obstruct visibility of railroad signs

and signals:

(1) Along the right-of-way, and

(2) At highway-rail crossings; (This

paragraph (b)(2) is applicable September

21, 1999.)

(c) Interfere with railroad employees

performing normal trackside duties;

(d) Prevent proper functioning of

signal and communication lines; or

(e) Prevent railroad employees from

visually inspecting moving equipment

from their normal duty stations.

Subpart C—Track Geometry

§ 213.51 Scope.

This subpart prescribes requirements

for the gage, alinement, and surface of

track, and the elevation of outer rails

and speed limitations for curved track.

§ 213.53 Gage.

(a) Gage is measured between the

heads of the rails at right-angles to the

rails in a plane five-eighths of an inch

below the top of the rail head.

(b) Gage shall be within the limits

prescribed in the following table—

Class of track The gage must be at least— But not more than—

Excepted track ...................................................................... N/A ........................................................................................ 4′101⁄4′′.

Class 1 track ......................................................................... 4′8′′ ....................................................................................... 4′10′′.

Class 2 and 3 track .............................................................. 4′8′′ ....................................................................................... 4′93⁄4′′.

Class 4 and 5 track .............................................................. 4′8′′ ....................................................................................... 4′91⁄2′′.

§ 213.55 Alinement.

Alinement may not deviate from uniformity more than the amount prescribed in the following table:

Class of track

Tangent track Curved track

The deviation of

the mid-offset

from a 62-foot

line1 may not be

more than—

(inches)

The deviation of

the mid-ordinate

from a 31-foot

chord2 may not

be more than—

(inches)

The deviation of

the mid-ordinate

from a 62-foot

chord2 may not

be more than—

(inches)

Class 1 track .............................................................................................................. 5 3 N/A 5

Class 2 track .............................................................................................................. 3 3 N/A 3

Class 3 track .............................................................................................................. 13⁄4 11⁄4 13⁄4

Class 4 track .............................................................................................................. 11⁄2 1 11⁄2

Class 5 track .............................................................................................................. 3⁄4 1⁄2 5⁄8

1The 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 track. 2The 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.

§ 213.57 Curves; elevation and speed

limitations.

(a) The maximum crosslevel on 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.

Except as provided in § 213.63, the

outside rail of a curve may not be lower

than the inside rail. (The first sentence

of paragraph (a) is applicable September

21, 1999.)

(b)(1) The maximum allowable

operating speed for each curve is

determined by the following formula—

V

E

D

a max . = + 3

0 0007

Where—

Vmax = Maximum allowable operating

speed (miles per hour).

Ea = Actual elevation of the outside rail

(inches).1

D = Degree of curvature (degrees).2

(2) Table 1 of Appendix A is a table

of maximum allowable operating speed

computed in accordance with this

formula for various elevations and

degrees of curvature.

(c)(1) For rolling stock meeting the

requirements specified in paragraph (d)

of this section, the maximum operating

speed for each curve may be determined

by the following formula—
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34033

3The test procedure may be conducted in a test

facility whereby all the wheels on one side (right

or left) of the equipment are alternately raised and

lowered by 4 and 6 inches and the vertical wheel

loads under each wheel are measured and a level

is used to record the angle through which the floor

of the equipment has been rotated.

V

E

D

a max . = + 4

0 0007

Where—

Vmax = Maximum allowable operating

speed (miles per hour).

Ea = Actual elevation of the outside rail

(inches).1

D = Degree of curvature (degrees).2

(2) Table 2 of Appendix A is a table

of maximum allowable operating speed

computed in accordance with this

formula for various elevations and

degrees of curvature.

(d) Qualified equipment may be

operated at curving speeds determined

by the formula in paragraph (c) of this

section, provided each specific class of

equipment is approved for operation by

the Federal Railroad Administration and

the railroad demonstrates that:

(1) When positioned on a track with

a uniform 4-inch superelevation, the roll

angle between the floor of the

equipment and the horizontal does not

exceed 5.7 degrees; and

(2) When positioned on a track with

a uniform 6 inch superelevation, no

wheel of the equipment unloads to a

value of 60 percent of its static value on

perfectly level track, and the roll angle

between the floor of the equipment and

the horizontal does not exceed 8.6

degrees.

(3) The track owner shall notify the

Federal Railroad Administrator no less

than 30 calendar days prior to the

proposed implementation of the higher

curving speeds allowed under the

formula in paragraph (c) of this section.

The notification shall be in writing and

shall contain, at a minimum, the

following information—

(i) A complete description of the class

of equipment involved, including

schematic diagrams of the suspension

systems and the location of the center of

gravity above top of rail;

(ii) A complete description of the test

procedure 3 and instrumentation used to

qualify the equipment and the

maximum values for wheel unloading

and roll angles which were observed

during testing;

(iii) Procedures or standards in effect

which relate to the maintenance of the

suspension system for the particular

class of equipment; and

(iv) Identification of line segment on

which the higher curving speeds are

proposed to be implemented.

(e) A track owner, or an operator of a

passenger or commuter service, who

provides passenger or commuter service

over trackage of more than one track

owner with the same class of equipment

may provide written notification to the

Federal Railroad Administrator with the

written consent of the other affected

track owners.

(f) Equipment presently operating at

curving speeds allowed under the

formula in paragraph (c) of this section,

by reason of conditional waivers granted

by the Federal Railroad Administration,

shall be considered to have successfully

complied with the requirements of

paragraph (d) of this section.

(g) A track owner or a railroad

operating above Class 5 speeds, may

request approval from the Federal

Railroad Administrator to operate

specified equipment at a level of cant

deficiency greater than four inches in

accordance with § 213.329(c) and (d) on

curves in Class 1 through 5 track which

are contiguous to the high speed track

provided that—

(1) The track owner or railroad

submits a test plan to the Federal

Railroad Administrator for approval no

less than thirty calendar days prior to

any proposed implementation of the

higher curving speeds. The test plan

shall include an analysis and

determination of carbody acceleration

safety limits for each vehicle type which

indicate wheel unloading of 60 percent

in a steady state condition and 80

percent in a transient (point by point)

condition. Accelerometers shall be

laterally-oriented and floor-mounted

near the end of a representative vehicle

of each type;

(2) Upon FRA approval of a test plan,

the track owner or railroad conducts

incrementally increasing train speed test

runs over the curves in the identified

track segment(s) to demonstrate that

wheel unloading is within the limits

prescribed in paragraph (g)(1) of this

section;

(3) Upon FRA approval of a cant

deficiency level, the track owner or

railroad inspects the curves in the

identified track segment with a Track

Geometry Measurement System (TGMS)

qualified in accordance with § 213.333

(b) through (g) at an inspection

frequency of at least twice annually

with not less than 120 days interval

between inspections; and

(4) The track owner or railroad

operates an instrumented car having

dynamic response characteristics that

are representative of other equipment

assigned to service or a portable device

that monitors on-board instrumentation

on trains over the curves in the

identified track segment at the revenue

speed profile at a frequency of at least

once every 90 days with not less than

30 days interval between inspections.

The instrumented car or the portable

device shall monitor a laterally-oriented

accelerometer placed near the end of the

vehicle at the floor level. If the carbody

lateral acceleration measurement

exceeds the safety limits prescribed in

paragraph (g)(1), the railroad shall

operate trains at curving speeds in

accordance with paragraph (b) or (c) of

this section; and

(5) The track owner or railroad shall

maintain a copy of the most recent

exception printouts for the inspections

required under paragraphs (g)(3) and (4)

of this section.

§ 213.59 Elevation of curved track; runoff.

(a) If a curve is elevated, the full

elevation shall be provided throughout

the curve, unless physical conditions do

not permit. If elevation runoff occurs in

a curve, the actual minimum elevation

shall be used in computing the

maximum allowable operating speed for

that curve under § 213.57(b).

(b) Elevation runoff shall be at a

uniform rate, within the limits of track

surface deviation prescribed in § 213.63,

and it shall extend at least the full

length of the spirals. If physical

conditions do not permit a spiral long

enough to accommodate the minimum

length of runoff, part of the runoff may

be on tangent track.

§ 213.63 Track surface.

Each owner of the track to which this

part applies shall maintain the surface

of its track within the limits prescribed

in the following table:

Track surface

Class of track

1

(inches)

2

(inches)

3

(inches)

4

(inches)

5

(inches)

The runoff in any 31 feet of rail at the end of a raise may not be more than. ............ 31⁄2 3 2 11⁄2 1

The deviation from uniform profile on either rail at the mid-ordinate of a 62-foot

chord may not be more than .................................................................................... 3 23⁄4 21⁄4 2 11⁄4
34034 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Track surface

Class of track

1

(inches)

2

(inches)

3

(inches)

4

(inches)

5

(inches)

The deviation from zero crosslevel at any point on tangent or reverse crosslevel

elevation on curves may not be more than .............................................................. 3 2 13⁄4 11⁄4 1

The difference in crosslevel between any two points less than 62 feet apart may not

be more than* 1, 2 ...................................................................................................... 3 21⁄4 2 13⁄4 11⁄2

* Where determined by engineering decision prior to the promulgation of this rule,

due to physical restrictions on spiral length and operating practices and experience, the variation in crosslevel on spirals per 31 feet may not be more than ....... 2 13⁄4 11⁄4 1 3⁄4

1Except as limited by § 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 11⁄2 inches. (Footnote 1 is applicable December 21, 1999.) 2 However, to control harmonics on Class 2 through 5 jointed track with staggered joints, the crosslevel differences shall not exceed 11⁄4 inches

in all of six consecutive pairs of joints, as created by 7 low joints. Track with joints staggered less than 10 feet shall not be considered as having

staggered joints. Joints within the 7 low joints outside of the regular joint spacing shall not be considered as joints for purposes of this footnote.

(Footnote 2 is applicable September 21, 1999.)

Subpart D—Track Structure

§ 213.101 Scope.

This subpart prescribes minimum

requirements for ballast, crossties, track

assembly fittings, and the physical

conditions of rails.

§ 213.103 Ballast; general.

Unless it is otherwise structurally

supported, all track shall be supported

by material which will —

(a) Transmit and distribute the load of

the track and railroad rolling equipment

to the subgrade;

(b) Restrain the track laterally,

longitudinally, and vertically under

dynamic loads imposed by railroad

rolling equipment and thermal stress

exerted by the rails;

(c) Provide adequate drainage for the

track; and

(d) Maintain proper track crosslevel,

surface, and alinement.

§ 213.109 Crossties.

(a) Crossties shall be made of a

material to which rail can be securely

fastened.

(b) Each 39 foot segment of track shall

have—

(1) A sufficient number of crossties

which in combination provide effective

support that will—

(i) Hold gage within the limits

prescribed in § 213.53(b);

(ii) Maintain surface within the limits

prescribed in § 213.63; and

(iii) Maintain alinement within the

limits prescribed in § 213.55.

(2) The minimum number and type of

crossties specified in paragraphs (c) and

(d) of this section effectively distributed

to support the entire segment; and

(3) At least one crosstie of the type

specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of

this section that is located at a joint

location as specified in paragraph (f) of

this section.

(c) Each 39 foot segment of: Class 1

track shall have five crossties; Classes 2

and 3 track shall have eight crossties;

and Classes 4 and 5 track shall have 12

crossties, which are not:

(1) Broken through;

(2) Split or otherwise impaired to the

extent the crossties will allow the

ballast to work through, or will not hold

spikes or rail fasteners;

(3) So deteriorated that the tie plate or

base of rail can move laterally more than

1⁄2 inch relative to the crossties; or

(4) Cut by the tie plate through more

than 40 percent of a ties’ thickness.

(d) Each 39 foot segment of track shall

have the minimum number and type of

crossties as indicated in the following

table (this paragraph (d) is applicable

September 21, 2000)

Class of track

Tangent

track and

curves ≤2

degrees

Turnouts

and

curved

track over

2 degrees

Class 1 track ............. 5 6

Class of track

Tangent

track and

curves ≤2

degrees

Turnouts

and

curved

track over

2 degrees

Class 2 track ............. 8 9

Class 3 track ............. 8 10

Class 4 and 5 track ... 12 14

(e) Crossties counted to satisfy the

requirements set forth in the table in

paragraph (d) of this section shall not

be—

(1) Broken through;

(2) Split or otherwise impaired to the

extent the crossties will allow the

ballast to work through, or will not hold

spikes or rail fasteners;

(3) So deteriorated that the tie plate or

base of rail can move laterally 1⁄2 inch

relative to the crossties; or

(4) Cut by the tie plate through more

than 40 percent of a crosstie’s thickness

this paragraph (e) is applicable

September 21, 2000.

(f) Class 1 and Class 2 track shall have

one crosstie whose centerline is within

24 inches of each rail joint location, and

Classes 3 through 5 track shall have one

crosstie whose centerline is within 18

inches of each rail joint location or, two

crossties whose centerlines are within

24 inches either side of each rail joint

location. The relative position of these

ties is described in the following

diagrams:

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34035

Each rail joins in Classes 1 and 2 track shall be supported by at least one crosstie specified in paragraphs (c) and

(d) of this section whose centerline is within 48′′ shown above.

Each rail joins in Classes 3 through 5 track shall be supported by either at least one crosstie specified in paragraphs

(c) and (d) of this section whose centerline is within 36′′ shown above, or:

Two crossties, one on each side of the rail joint, whose centerlines are within 24′′ of the rail joint location shown

above.

BILLING CODE 4910–06–C

(g) For track constructed without

crossties, such as slab track, track

connected directly to bridge structural

components and track over servicing

pits, the track structure shall meet the

requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (ii),

and (iii) of this section.

§ 213.113 Defective rails.

(a) When an owner of track to which

this part applies learns, through

inspection or otherwise, that a rail in

that track contains any of the defects

listed in the following table, a person

designated under § 213.7 shall

determine whether or not the track may

continue in use. If he determines that

the track may continue in use, operation

over the defective rail is not permitted

until—

(1) The rail is replaced; or

(2) The remedial action prescribed in

the table is initiated.

Defect

Length of defect (inch) Percent of rail head crosssectional area weakened by

defect

If defective rail is not

replaced, take the remedial action prescribed in note More than But not more than

Less than But not less

than

Transverse fissure ......................................... ............................... ............................... 70

100

5

70

100

B.

A2.

A.

Compound fissure .......................................... ............................... ............................... 70

100

5

70

100

B.

A2.

A.

Detail fracture ................................................ ............................... ............................... 25 5 C.

Engine burn fracture ...................................... ............................... ............................... 80 25 D.
34036 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Defect

Length of defect (inch) Percent of rail head crosssectional area weakened by

defect

If defective rail is not

replaced, take the remedial action prescribed in note More than But not more than

Less than But not less

than

Defective weld ............................................... ............................... ............................... 100 80

100

[A2] or [ E and H].

[A] or [E and H].

Horizontal split head ...................................... 1 ............................ 2 ............................ ...................... ...................... H and F.

Vertical split head .......................................... 2 ............................ 4 ............................ ...................... ...................... I and G.

Split web ........................................................ 4 ............................ ............................... ...................... ...................... B.

Piped rail ........................................................ (1) ........................... (1) ........................... (1) ...................... A.

Head web separation ............................... ............................... ...................... ......................

1⁄2 .......................... 1 ............................ ...................... ...................... H and F.

Bolt hole crack ............................................... 1 ............................ 11⁄2 ........................ ...................... ...................... H and G.

11⁄2 ........................ ............................... ...................... ...................... B. (1) ........................... (1) ........................... (1) ...................... A.

Broken base ................................................... 1 ............................ 6 ............................ ...................... ...................... D.

6 ............................ ............................... ...................... ...................... [A] or [E and I].

Ordinary break ............................................... ............................... ............................... ...................... ...................... A or E.

Damaged rail ................................................. ............................... ............................... ...................... ...................... D.

Flattened rail .................................................. Depth ≥ 3⁄8 and

Length ≥ 8.

............................... ...................... ...................... H.

1Break out in rail head.

Notes

A. Assign person designated under § 213.7

to visually supervise each operation over

defective rail.

A2. Assign person designated under

§ 213.7 to make visual inspection. After a

visual inspection, that person may authorize

operation to continue without continuous

visual supervision at a maximum of 10

m.p.h. for up to 24 hours prior to another

such visual inspection or replacement or

repair of the rail.

B. Limit operating speed over defective rail

to that as authorized by a person designated

under § 213.7(a), who has at least one year of

supervisory experience in railroad track

maintenance. The operating speed cannot be

over 30 m.p.h. or the maximum allowable

speed under § 213.9 for the class of track

concerned, whichever is lower.

C. Apply joint bars bolted only through the

outermost holes to defect within 20 days after

it is determined to continue the track in use.

In the case of Classes 3 through 5 track, limit

operating speed over defective rail to 30

m.p.h. until joint bars are applied; thereafter,

limit speed to 50 m.p.h. or the maximum

allowable speed under § 213.9 for the class of

track concerned, whichever is lower. When

a search for internal rail defects is conducted

under § 213.237, and defects are discovered

in Classes 3 through 5 which require

remedial action C, the operating speed shall

be limited to 50 m.p.h., or the maximum

allowable speed under § 213.9 for the class of

track concerned, whichever is lower, for a

period not to exceed 4 days. If the defective

rail has not been removed from the track or

a permanent repair made within 4 days of the

discovery, limit operating speed over the

defective rail to 30 m.p.h. until joint bars are

applied; thereafter, limit speed to 50 m.p.h.

or the maximum allowable speed under

§ 213.9 for the class of track concerned,

whichever is lower.

D. Apply joint bars bolted only through the

outermost holes to defect within 10 days after

it is determined to continue the track in use.

In the case of Classes 3 through 5 track, limit

operating speed over the defective rail to 30

m.p.h. or less as authorized by a person

designated under § 213.7(a), who has at least

one year of supervisory experience in

railroad track maintenance, until joint bars

are applied; thereafter, limit speed to 50

m.p.h. or the maximum allowable speed

under § 213.9 for the class of track

concerned, whichever is lower.

E. Apply joint bars to defect and bolt in

accordance with § 213.121(d) and (e).

F. Inspect rail 90 days after it is determined

to continue the track in use.

G. Inspect rail 30 days after it is

determined to continue the track in use.

H. Limit operating speed over defective rail

to 50 m.p.h. or the maximum allowable

speed under § 213.9 for the class of track

concerned, whichever is lower.

I. Limit operating speed over defective rail

to 30 m.p.h. or the maximum allowable

speed under § 213.9 for the class of track

concerned, whichever is lower.

(b) As used in this section—

(1) Transverse fissure means a

progressive crosswise fracture starting

from a crystalline center or nucleus

inside the head from which it spreads

outward as a smooth, bright, or dark,

round or oval surface substantially at a

right angle to the length of the rail. The

distinguishing features of a transverse

fissure from other types of fractures or

defects are the crystalline center or

nucleus and the nearly smooth surface

of the development which surrounds it.

(2) Compound fissure means a

progressive fracture originating in a

horizontal split head which turns up or

down in the head of the rail as a smooth,

bright, or dark surface progressing until

substantially at a right angle to the

length of the rail. Compound fissures

require examination of both faces of the

fracture to locate the horizontal split

head from which they originate.

(3) Horizontal split head means a

horizontal progressive defect originating

inside of the rail head, usually onequarter inch or more below the running

surface and progressing horizontally in

all directions, and generally

accompanied by a flat spot on the

running surface. The defect appears as

a crack lengthwise of the rail when it

reaches the side of the rail head.

(4) Vertical split head means a

vertical split through or near the middle

of the head, and extending into or

through it. A crack or rust streak may

show under the head close to the web

or pieces may be split off the side of the

head.

(5) Split web means a lengthwise

crack along the side of the web and

extending into or through it.

(6) Piped rail means a vertical split in

a rail, usually in the web, due to failure

of the shrinkage cavity in the ingot to

unite in rolling.

(7) Broken base means any break in

the base of the rail.

(8) Detail fracture means a progressive

fracture originating at or near the

surface of the rail head. These fractures

should not be confused with transverse

fissures, compound fissures, or other

defects which have internal origins.

Detail fractures may arise from shelly

spots, head checks, or flaking.

(9) Engine burn fracture means a

progressive fracture originating in spots

where driving wheels have slipped on

top of the rail head. In developing

downward they frequently resemble the

compound or even transverse fissures

with which they should not be confused

or classified.

(10) Ordinary break means a partial or

complete break in which there is no sign
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34037

of a fissure, and in which none of the

other defects described in this

paragraph (b) are found.

(11) Damaged rail means any rail

broken or injured by wrecks, broken,

flat, or unbalanced wheels, slipping, or

similar causes.

(12) Flattened rail means a short

length of rail, not at a joint, which has

flattened out across the width of the rail

head to a depth of 3⁄8 inch or more

below the rest of the rail. Flattened rail

occurrences have no repetitive

regularity and thus do not include

corrugations, and have no apparent

localized cause such as a weld or engine

burn. Their individual length is

relatively short, as compared to a

condition such as head flow on the low

rail of curves.

(13) Bolt hole crack means a crack

across the web, originating from a bolt

hole, and progressing on a path either

inclined upward toward the rail head or

inclined downward toward the base.

Fully developed bolt hole cracks may

continue horizontally along the head/

web or base/web fillet, or they may

progress into and through the head or

base to separate a piece of the rail end

from the rail. Multiple cracks occurring

in one rail end are considered to be a

single defect. However, bolt hole cracks

occurring in adjacent rail ends within

the same joint must be reported as

separate defects.

(14) Defective weld means a field or

plant weld containing any

discontinuities or pockets, exceeding 5

percent of the rail head area

individually or 10 percent in the

aggregate, oriented in or near the

transverse plane, due to incomplete

penetration of the weld metal between

the rail ends, lack of fusion between

weld and rail end metal, entrainment of

slag or sand, under-bead or other

shrinkage cracking, or fatigue cracking.

Weld defects may originate in the rail

head, web, or base, and in some cases,

cracks may progress from the defect into

either or both adjoining rail ends.

(15) Head and web separation means

a progressive fracture, longitudinally

separating the head from the web of the

rail at the head fillet area.

§ 213.115 Rail end mismatch.

Any mismatch of rails at joints may

not be more than that prescribed by the

following table—

Class of track

Any mismatch of rails at joints may

not be more than the following—

On the tread of

the rail ends

(inch)

On the gage side

of the rail ends

(inch)

Class 1 track ................................................................................................................................................ 1⁄4 1⁄4

Class 2 track ................................................................................................................................................ 1⁄4 3⁄16

Class 3 track ................................................................................................................................................ 3⁄16 3⁄16

Class 4 and 5 track ...................................................................................................................................... 1⁄8 1⁄8

§ 213.119 Continuous welded rail (CWR);

general.

Each track owner with track

constructed of CWR shall have in effect

and comply with written procedures

which address the installation,

adjustment, maintenance and inspection

of CWR, and a training program for the

application of those procedures, which

shall be submitted to the Federal

Railroad Administration by December

21, 1998. FRA reviews each plan for

compliance with the following—

(a) Procedures for the installation and

adjustment of CWR which include—

(1) Designation of a desired rail

installation temperature range for the

geographic area in which the CWR is

located; and

(2) De-stressing procedures/methods

which address proper attainment of the

desired rail installation temperature

range when adjusting CWR.

(b) Rail anchoring or fastening

requirements that will provide sufficient

restraint to limit longitudinal rail and

crosstie movement to the extent

practical, and specifically addressing

CWR rail anchoring or fastening

patterns on bridges, bridge approaches,

and at other locations where possible

longitudinal rail and crosstie movement

associated with normally expected

train-induced forces, is restricted.

(c) Procedures which specifically

address maintaining a desired rail

installation temperature range when

cutting CWR including rail repairs, intrack welding, and in conjunction with

adjustments made in the area of tight

track, a track buckle, or a pull-apart.

Rail repair practices shall take into

consideration existing rail temperature

so that—

(1) When rail is removed, the length

installed shall be determined by taking

into consideration the existing rail

temperature and the desired rail

installation temperature range; and

(2) Under no circumstances should

rail be added when the rail temperature

is below that designated by paragraph

(a)(1) of this section, without provisions

for later adjustment.

(d) Procedures which address the

monitoring of CWR in curved track for

inward shifts of alinement toward the

center of the curve as a result of

disturbed track.

(e) Procedures which control train

speed on CWR track when—

(1) Maintenance work, track

rehabilitation, track construction, or any

other event occurs which disturbs the

roadbed or ballast section and reduces

the lateral or longitudinal resistance of

the track; and

(2) In formulating the procedures

under this paragraph (e), the track

owner shall—

(i) Determine the speed required, and

the duration and subsequent removal of

any speed restriction based on the

restoration of the ballast, along with

sufficient ballast re-consolidation to

stabilize the track to a level that can

accommodate expected train-induced

forces. Ballast re-consolidation can be

achieved through either the passage of

train tonnage or mechanical

stabilization procedures, or both; and

(ii) Take into consideration the type of

crossties used.

(f) Procedures which prescribe when

physical track inspections are to be

performed to detect buckling prone

conditions in CWR track. At a

minimum, these procedures shall

address inspecting track to identify—

(1) Locations where tight or kinky rail

conditions are likely to occur;

(2) Locations where track work of the

nature described in paragraph (e)(1) of

this section have recently been

performed; and

(3) In formulating the procedures

under this paragraph (f), the track owner

shall—

(i) Specify the timing of the

inspection; and
34038 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

(ii) Specify the appropriate remedial

actions to be taken when buckling prone

conditions are found.

(g) The track owner shall have in

effect a comprehensive training program

for the application of these written CWR

procedures, with provisions for periodic

re-training, for those individuals

designated under § 213.7 of this part as

qualified to supervise the installation,

adjustment, and maintenance of CWR

track and to perform inspections of

CWR track.

(h) The track owner shall prescribe

recordkeeping requirements necessary

to provide an adequate history of track

constructed with CWR. At a minimum,

these records must include:

(1) Rail temperature, location and date

of CWR installations. This record shall

be retained for at least one year; and

(2) A record of any CWR installation

or maintenance work that does not

conform with the written procedures.

Such record shall include the location

of the rail and be maintained until the

CWR is brought into conformance with

such procedures.

(i) As used in this section—

(1) Adjusting/de-stressing means the

procedure by which a rail’s temperature

is re-adjusted to the desired value. It

typically consists of cutting the rail and

removing rail anchoring devices, which

provides for the necessary expansion

and contraction, and then re-assembling

the track.

(2) Buckling incident means the

formation of a lateral mis-alinement

sufficient in magnitude to constitute a

deviation from the Class 1 requirements

specified in § 213.55 of this part. These

normally occur when rail temperatures

are relatively high and are caused by

high longitudinal compressive forces.

(3) Continuous welded rail (CWR)

means rail that has been welded

together into lengths exceeding 400 feet.

(4) Desired rail installation

temperature range means the rail

temperature range, within a specific

geographical area, at which forces in

CWR should not cause a buckling

incident in extreme heat, or a pull-apart

during extreme cold weather.

(5) Disturbed track means the

disturbance of the roadbed or ballast

section, as a result of track maintenance

or any other event, which reduces the

lateral or longitudinal resistance of the

track, or both.

(6) Mechanical stabilization means a

type of procedure used to restore track

resistance to disturbed track following

certain maintenance operations. This

procedure may incorporate dynamic

track stabilizers or ballast consolidators,

which are units of work equipment that

are used as a substitute for the

stabilization action provided by the

passage of tonnage trains.

(7) Rail anchors means those devices

which are attached to the rail and bear

against the side of the crosstie to control

longitudinal rail movement. Certain

types of rail fasteners also act as rail

anchors and control longitudinal rail

movement by exerting a downward

clamping force on the upper surface of

the rail base.

(8) Rail temperature means the

temperature of the rail, measured with

a rail thermometer.

(9) Tight/kinky rail means CWR

which exhibits minute alinement

irregularities which indicate that the rail

is in a considerable amount of

compression.

(10) Train-induced forces means the

vertical, longitudinal, and lateral

dynamic forces which are generated

during train movement and which can

contribute to the buckling potential.

(11) Track lateral resistance means

the resistance provided to the rail/

crosstie structure against lateral

displacement.

(12) Track longitudinal resistance

means the resistance provided by the

rail anchors/rail fasteners and the

ballast section to the rail/crosstie

structure against longitudinal

displacement.

§ 213.121 Rail joints.

(a) Each rail joint, insulated joint, and

compromise joint shall be of a

structurally sound design and

dimensions for the rail on which it is

applied.

(b) If a joint bar on Classes 3 through

5 track is cracked, broken, or because of

wear allows excessive vertical

movement of either rail when all bolts

are tight, it shall be replaced.

(c) If a joint bar is cracked or broken

between the middle two bolt holes it

shall be replaced.

(d) In the case of conventional jointed

track, each rail shall be bolted with at

least two bolts at each joint in Classes

2 through 5 track, and with at least one

bolt in Class 1 track.

(e) In the case of continuous welded

rail track, each rail shall be bolted with

at least two bolts at each joint.

(f) Each joint bar shall be held in

position by track bolts tightened to

allow the joint bar to firmly support the

abutting rail ends and to allow

longitudinal movement of the rail in the

joint to accommodate expansion and

contraction due to temperature

variations. When no-slip, joint-to-rail

contact exists by design, the

requirements of this paragraph do not

apply. Those locations when over 400

feet in length, are considered to be

continuous welded rail track and shall

meet all the requirements for

continuous welded rail track prescribed

in this part.

(g) No rail shall have a bolt hole

which is torch cut or burned in Classes

2 through 5 track. For Class 2 track, this

paragraph (g) is applicable September

21, 1999.

(h) No joint bar shall be reconfigured

by torch cutting in Classes 3 through 5

track.

§ 213.122 Torch cut rail.

(a) Except as a temporary repair in

emergency situations no rail having a

torch cut end shall be used in Classes

3 through 5 track. When a rail end is

torch cut in emergency situations, train

speed over that rail end shall not exceed

the maximum allowable for Class 2

track. For existing torch cut rail ends in

Classes 3 through 5 track the following

shall apply—

(1) Within one year of September 21,

1998, all torch cut rail ends in Class 5

track shall be removed;

(2) Within two years of September 21,

1998, all torch cut rail ends in Class 4

track shall be removed; and

(3) Within one year of September 21,

1998, all torch cut rail ends in Class 3

track over which regularly scheduled

passenger trains operate, shall be

inventoried by the track owner.

(b) Following the expiration of the

time limits specified in paragraphs

(a)(1), (2), and (3) of this section, any

torch cut rail end not removed from

Classes 4 and 5 track, or any torch cut

rail end not inventoried in Class 3 track

over which regularly scheduled

passenger trains operate, shall be

removed within 30 days of discovery.

Train speed over that rail end shall not

exceed the maximum allowable for

Class 2 track until removed.

§ 213.123 Tie plates.

(a) In Classes 3 through 5 track where

timber crossties are in use there shall be

tie plates under the running rails on at

least eight of any 10 consecutive ties.

(b) In Classes 3 through 5 track no

metal object which causes a

concentrated load by solely supporting

a rail shall be allowed between the base

of the rail and the bearing surface of the

tie plate. This paragraph (b) is

applicable September 21, 1999.)

§ 213.127 Rail fastening systems.

Track shall be fastened by a system of

components which effectively maintains

gage within the limits prescribed in

§ 213.53(b). Each component of each

such system shall be evaluated to

determine whether gage is effectively

being maintained.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34039

§ 213.133 Turnouts and track crossings

generally.

(a) In turnouts and track crossings, the

fastenings shall be intact and

maintained so as to keep the

components securely in place. Also,

each switch, frog, and guard rail shall be

kept free of obstructions that may

interfere with the passage of wheels.

(b) Classes 3 through 5 track shall be

equipped with rail anchoring through

and on each side of track crossings and

turnouts, to restrain rail movement

affecting the position of switch points

and frogs. For Class 3 track, this

paragraph (b) is applicable September

21, 1999.)

(c) Each flangeway at turnouts and

track crossings shall be at least 11⁄2

inches wide.

§ 213.135 Switches.

(a) Each stock rail must be securely

seated in switch plates, but care shall be

used to avoid canting the rail by

overtightening the rail braces.

(b) Each switch point shall fit its stock

rail properly, with the switch stand in

either of its closed positions to allow

wheels to pass the switch point. Lateral

and vertical movement of a stock rail in

the switch plates or of a switch plate on

a tie shall not adversely affect the fit of

the switch point to the stock rail.

Broken or cracked switch point rails

will be subject to the requirements of

§ 213.113, except that where remedial

actions C, D, or E require the use of joint

bars, and joint bars cannot be placed

due to the physical configuration of the

switch, remedial action B will govern,

taking into account any added safety

provided by the presence of reinforcing

bars on the switch points.

(c) Each switch shall be maintained so

that the outer edge of the wheel tread

cannot contact the gage side of the stock

rail.

(d) The heel of each switch rail shall

be secure and the bolts in each heel

shall be kept tight.

(e) Each switch stand and connecting

rod shall be securely fastened and

operable without excessive lost motion.

(f) Each throw lever shall be

maintained so that it cannot be operated

with the lock or keeper in place.

(g) Each switch position indicator

shall be clearly visible at all times.

(h) Unusually chipped or worn switch

points shall be repaired or replaced.

Metal flow shall be removed to insure

proper closure.

(i) Tongue & Plain Mate switches,

which by design exceed Class 1 and

excepted track maximum gage limits,

are permitted in Class 1 and excepted

track.

§ 213.137 Frogs.

(a) The flangeway depth measured

from a plane across the wheel-bearing

area of a frog on Class 1 track shall not

be less than 13⁄8 inches, or less than 11⁄2

inches on Classes 2 through 5 track.

(b) If a frog point is chipped, broken,

or worn more than five-eighths inch

down and 6 inches back, operating

speed over the frog shall not be more

than 10 m.p.h..

(c) If the tread portion of a frog casting

is worn down more than three-eighths

inch below the original contour,

operating speed over that frog shall not

be more than 10 m.p.h..

(d) Where frogs are designed as

flange-bearing, flangeway depth may be

less than that shown for Class 1 if

operated at Class 1 speeds.

§ 213.139 Spring rail frogs.

(a) The outer edge of a wheel tread

shall not contact the gage side of a

spring wing rail.

(b) The toe of each wing rail shall be

solidly tamped and fully and tightly

bolted.

(c) Each frog with a bolt hole defect

or head-web separation shall be

replaced.

(d) Each spring shall have

compression sufficient to hold the wing

rail against the point rail.

(e) The clearance between the

holddown housing and the horn shall

not be more than one-fourth of an inch.

§ 213.141 Self-guarded frogs.

(a) The raised guard on a self-guarded

frog shall not be worn more than threeeighths of an inch.

(b) If repairs are made to a selfguarded frog without removing it from

service, the guarding face shall be

restored before rebuilding the point.

§ 213.143 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—

Class of track

Guard check gage

The distance between the gage line of a frog to the guard

line 1 of its guard rail or guarding face, measured across

the track at right angles to the gage line 2, may not be less

than—

Guard face gage

The distance between

guard lines 1, measured across the track

at right angles to the

gage line 2, may not

be more than—

Class 1 track ......................................................................... 4′ 61⁄8′′ .................................................................................. 4′ 51⁄4′′

Class 2 track ......................................................................... 4′ 61⁄4′′ .................................................................................. 4′ 51⁄8′′

Class 3 and 4 track .............................................................. 4′ 63⁄8′′ .................................................................................. 4′ 51⁄8′′

Class 5 track ......................................................................... 4′ 61⁄2′′ .................................................................................. 4′ 5′′

1A 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.

2A line 5⁄8 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.

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
34040 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 4910–06–C

Subpart E—Track Appliances and

Track-Related Devices

§ 213.201 Scope.

This subpart prescribes minimum

requirements for certain track

appliances and track-related devices.

§ 213.205 Derails.

(a) Each derail shall be clearly visible.

(b) When in a locked position, a derail

shall be free of lost motion which would

prevent it from performing its intended

function.

(c) Each derail shall be maintained to

function as intended.

(d) Each derail shall be properly

installed for the rail to which it is

applied. (This paragraph (d) is

applicable September 21, 1999.)

Subpart F—Inspection

§ 213.231 Scope.

This subpart prescribes requirements

for the frequency and manner of

inspecting track to detect deviations

from the standards prescribed in this

part.

§ 213.233 Track inspections.

(a) All track shall be inspected in

accordance with the schedule

prescribed in paragraph (c) of this

section by a person designated under

§ 213.7.

(b) Each inspection shall be made on

foot or by riding over the track in a

vehicle at a speed that allows the person

making the inspection to visually

inspect the track structure for

compliance with this part. However,

mechanical, electrical, and other track

inspection devices may be used to

supplement visual inspection. If a

vehicle is used for visual inspection, the

speed of the vehicle may not be more

than 5 miles per hour when passing

over track crossings and turnouts,

otherwise, the inspection vehicle speed

shall be at the sole discretion of the

inspector, based on track conditions and

inspection requirements. When riding

over the track in a vehicle, the

inspection will be subject to the

following conditions—

(1) One inspector in a vehicle may

inspect up to two tracks at one time

provided that the inspector’s visibility

remains unobstructed by any cause and

that the second track is not centered

more than 30 feet from the track upon

which the inspector is riding;

(2) Two inspectors in one vehicle may

inspect up to four tracks at a time

provided that the inspectors’ visibility

remains unobstructed by any cause and

that each track being inspected is

centered within 39 feet from the track

upon which the inspectors are riding;

(3) Each main track is actually

traversed by the vehicle or inspected on

foot at least once every two weeks, and

each siding is actually traversed by the

vehicle or inspected on foot at least

once every month. On high density

commuter railroad lines where track

time does not permit an on track vehicle

inspection, and where track centers are

15 foot or less, the requirements of this

paragraph (b)(3) will not apply; and

(4) Track inspection records shall

indicate which track(s) are traversed by

the vehicle or inspected on foot as

outlined in paragraph (b)(3) of this

section.

(c) Each track inspection shall be

made in accordance with the following

schedule—

Class of track Type of track Required frequency

Excepted track and Class 1, 2, and

3 track.

Main track and sidings ................... Weekly with at least 3 calendar days interval between inspections, or

before use, if the track is used less than once a week, or twice

weekly with at least 1 calendar day interval between inspections, if

the track carries passenger trains or more than 10 million gross

tons of traffic during the preceding calendar year.

Excepted track and Class 1, 2, and

3 track.

Other than main track and sidings Monthly with at least 20 calendar days interval between inspections.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34041

Class of track Type of track Required frequency

Class 4 and 5 track ........................ ........................................................ Twice weekly with at least 1 calendar day interval between inspections.

(d) If the person making the

inspection finds a deviation from the

requirements of this part, the inspector

shall immediately initiate remedial

action.

Note to § 213.233: Except as provided in

paragraph (b) of this section, no part of this

section will in any way be construed to limit

the inspector’s discretion as it involves

inspection speed and sight distance.

§ 213.235 Inspection of switches, track

crossings, and lift rail assemblies or other

transition devices on moveable bridges.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph

(c) of this section, each switch, turnout,

track crossing, and moveable bridge lift

rail assembly or other transition device

shall be inspected on foot at least

monthly.

(b) Each switch in Classes 3 through

5 track that is held in position only by

the operating mechanism and one

connecting rod shall be operated to all

of its positions during one inspection in

every 3 month period.

(c) In the case of track that is used less

than once a month, each switch,

turnout, track crossing, and moveable

bridge lift rail assembly or other

transition device shall be inspected on

foot before it is used.

§ 213.237 Inspection of rail.

(a) In addition to the track inspections

required by § 213.233, a continuous

search for internal defects shall be made

of all rail in Classes 4 through 5 track,

and Class 3 track over which passenger

trains operate, at least once every 40

million gross tons (mgt) or once a year,

whichever interval is shorter. On Class

3 track over which passenger trains do

not operate such a search shall be made

at least once every 30 mgt or once a

year, whichever interval is longer. (This

paragraph (a) is applicable January 1,

1999.

(b) Inspection equipment shall be

capable of detecting defects between

joint bars, in the area enclosed by joint

bars.

(c) Each defective rail shall be marked

with a highly visible marking on both

sides of the web and base.

(d) If the person assigned to operate

the rail defect detection equipment

being used determines that, due to rail

surface conditions, a valid search for

internal defects could not be made over

a particular length of track, the test on

that particular length of track cannot be

considered as a search for internal

defects under paragraph (a) of this

section. (This paragraph (d) is not

retroactive to tests performed prior to

September 21, 1998.

(e) If a valid search for internal defects

cannot be conducted for reasons

described in paragraph (d) of this

section, the track owner shall, before the

expiration of time or tonnage limits—

(1) Conduct a valid search for internal

defects;

(2) Reduce operating speed to a

maximum of 25 miles per hour until

such time as a valid search for internal

defects can be made; or

(3) Remove the rail from service.

§ 213.239 Special inspections.

In the event of fire, flood, severe

storm, or other occurrence which might

have damaged track structure, a special

inspection shall be made of the track

involved as soon as possible after the

occurrence and, if possible, before the

operation of any train over that track.

§ 213.241 Inspection records.

(a) Each owner of track to which this

part applies shall keep a record of each

inspection required to be performed on

that track under this subpart.

(b) Each record of an inspection under

§§ 213.4, 213.233, and 213.235 shall be

prepared on the day the inspection is

made and signed by the person making

the inspection. Records shall specify the

track inspected, date of inspection,

location and nature of any deviation

from the requirements of this part, and

the remedial action taken by the person

making the inspection. The owner shall

designate the location(s) where each

original record shall be maintained for

at least one year after the inspection

covered by the record. The owner shall

also designate one location, within 100

miles of each state in which they

conduct operations, where copies of

records which apply to those operations

are either maintained or can be viewed

following 10 days notice by the Federal

Railroad Administration.

(c) Rail inspection records shall

specify the date of inspection, the

location and nature of any internal

defects found, the remedial action taken

and the date thereof, and the location of

any intervals of track not tested per

§ 213.237(d). The owner shall retain a

rail inspection record for at least two

years after the inspection and for one

year after remedial action is taken.

(d) Each owner required to keep

inspection records under this section

shall make those records available for

inspection and copying by the Federal

Railroad Administration.

(e) For purposes of compliance with

the requirements of this section, an

owner of track may maintain and

transfer records through electronic

transmission, storage, and retrieval

provided that—

(1) The electronic system be designed

so that the integrity of each record is

maintained through appropriate levels

of security such as recognition of an

electronic signature, or other means,

which uniquely identify the initiating

person as the author of that record. No

two persons shall have the same

electronic identity;

(2) The electronic storage of each

record shall be initiated by the person

making the inspection within 24 hours

following the completion of that

inspection;

(3) The electronic system shall ensure

that each record cannot be modified in

any way, or replaced, once the record is

transmitted and stored;

(4) Any amendment to a record shall

be electronically stored apart from the

record which it amends. Each

amendment to a record shall be

uniquely identified as to the person

making the amendment;

(5) The electronic system shall

provide for the maintenance of

inspection records as originally

submitted without corruption or loss of

data;

(6) Paper copies of electronic records

and amendments to those records, that

may be necessary to document

compliance with this part shall be made

available for inspection and copying by

the Federal Railroad Administration at

the locations specified in paragraph (b)

of this section; and

(7) Track inspection records shall be

kept available to persons who

performed the inspections and to

persons performing subsequent

inspections.

Subpart G—Train Operations at Track

Classes 6 and Higher

§ 213.301 Scope of subpart.

This subpart applies to all track used

for the operation of trains at a speed

greater than 90 m.p.h. for passenger

equipment and greater than 80 m.p.h.

for freight equipment.
34042 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

§ 213.303 Responsibility for compliance.

(a) Any owner of track to which this

subpart applies who knows or has

notice that the track does not comply

with the requirements of this subpart,

shall—

(1) Bring the track into compliance; or

(2) Halt operations over that track.

(b) If an owner of track to which this

subpart applies assigns responsibility

for the track to another person (by lease

or otherwise), notification of the

assignment shall be provided to the

appropriate FRA Regional Office at least

30 days in advance of the assignment.

The notification may be made by any

party to that assignment, but shall be in

writing and include the following—

(1) The name and address of the track

owner;

(2) The name and address of the

person to whom responsibility is

assigned (assignee);

(3) A statement of the exact

relationship between the track owner

and the assignee;

(4) A precise identification of the

track;

(5) A statement as to the competence

and ability of the assignee to carry out

the duties of the track owner under this

subpart;

(6) A statement signed by the assignee

acknowledging the assignment to that

person of responsibility for purposes of

compliance with this subpart.

(c) The Administrator may hold the

track owner or the assignee or both

responsible for compliance with this

subpart and subject to the penalties

under § 213.15.

(d) When any person, including a

contractor for a railroad or track owner,

performs any function required by this

part, that person is required to perform

that function in accordance with this

part.

§ 213.305 Designation of qualified

individuals; general qualifications.

Each track owner to which this

subpart applies shall designate qualified

individuals responsible for the

maintenance and inspection of track in

compliance with the safety

requirements prescribed in this subpart.

Each individual, including a contractor

or an employee of a contractor who is

not a railroad employee, designated to:

(a) Supervise restorations and

renewals of track shall meet the

following minimum requirements:

(1) At least;

(i) Five years of responsible

supervisory experience in railroad track

maintenance in track Class 4 or higher

and the successful completion of a

course offered by the employer or by a

college level engineering program,

supplemented by special on the job

training emphasizing the techniques to

be employed in the supervision,

restoration, and renewal of high speed

track; or

(ii) A combination of at least one year

of responsible supervisory experience in

track maintenance in Class 4 or higher

and the successful completion of a

minimum of 80 hours of specialized

training in the maintenance of high

speed track provided by the employer or

by a college level engineering program,

supplemented by special on the job

training provided by the employer with

emphasis on the maintenance of high

speed track; or

(iii) A combination of at least two

years of experience in track

maintenance in track Class 4 or higher

and the successful completion of a

minimum of 120 hours of specialized

training in the maintenance of high

speed track provided by the employer or

by a college level engineering program

supplemented by special on the job

training provided by the employer with

emphasis on the maintenance of high

speed track.

(2) Demonstrate to the track owner

that the individual:

(i) Knows and understands the

requirements of this subpart;

(ii) Can detect deviations from those

requirements; and

(iii) Can prescribe appropriate

remedial action to correct or safely

compensate for those deviations; and

(3) Be authorized in writing by the

track owner to prescribe remedial

actions to correct or safely compensate

for deviations from the requirements of

this subpart and successful completion

of a recorded examination on this

subpart as part of the qualification

process.

(b) Inspect track for defects shall meet

the following minimum qualifications:

(1) At least:

(i) Five years of responsible

experience inspecting track in Class 4 or

above and the successful completion of

a course offered by the employer or by

a college level engineering program,

supplemented by special on the job

training emphasizing the techniques to

be employed in the inspection of high

speed track; or

(ii) A combination of at least one year

of responsible experience in track

inspection in Class 4 or above and the

successful completion of a minimum of

80 hours of specialized training in the

inspection of high speed track provided

by the employer or by a college level

engineering program, supplemented by

special on the job training provided by

the employer with emphasis on the

inspection of high speed track.

(iii) A combination of at least two

years of experience in track

maintenance in Class 4 or above and the

successful completion of a minimum of

120 hours of specialized training in the

inspection of high speed track provided

by the employer or from a college level

engineering program, supplemented by

special on the job training provided by

the employer with emphasis on the

inspection of high speed track.

(2) Demonstrate to the track owner

that the individual:

(i) Knows and understands the

requirements of this subpart;

(ii) Can detect deviations from those

requirements; and

(iii) Can prescribe appropriate

remedial action to correct or safely

compensate for those deviations; and

(3) Be authorized in writing by the

track owner to prescribe remedial

actions to correct or safely compensate

for deviations from the requirements in

this subpart and successful completion

of a recorded examination on this

subpart as part of the qualification

process.

(c) Individuals designated under

paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section that

inspect continuous welded rail (CWR)

track or supervise the installation,

adjustment, and maintenance of CWR in

accordance with the written procedures

established by the track owner shall

have:

(1) Current qualifications under either

paragraph (a) or (b) of this section;

(2) Successfully completed a training

course of at least eight hours duration

specifically developed for the

application of written CWR procedures

issued by the track owner; and

(3) Demonstrated to the track owner

that the individual:

(i) Knows and understands the

requirements of those written CWR

procedures;

(ii) Can detect deviations from those

requirements; and

(iii) Can prescribe appropriate

remedial action to correct or safely

compensate for those deviations; and

(4) Written authorization from the

track owner to prescribe remedial

actions to correct or safely compensate

for deviations from the requirements in

those procedures and successful

completion of a recorded examination

on those procedures as part of the

qualification process. The recorded

examination may be written, or it may

be a computer file with the results of an

interactive training course.

(d) Persons not fully qualified to

supervise certain renewals and inspect

track as outlined in paragraphs (a), (b)

and (c) of this section, but with at least

one year of maintenance of way or
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34043

signal experience, may pass trains over

broken rails and pull aparts provided

that—

(1) The track owner determines the

person to be qualified and, as part of

doing so, trains, examines, and reexamines the person periodically within

two years after each prior examination

on the following topics as they relate to

the safe passage of trains over broken

rails or pull aparts: rail defect

identification, crosstie condition, track

surface and alinement, gage restraint,

rail end mismatch, joint bars, and

maximum distance between rail ends

over which trains may be allowed to

pass. The sole purpose of the

examination is to ascertain the person’s

ability to effectively apply these

requirements and the examination may

not be used to disqualify the person

from other duties. A minimum of four

hours training is adequate for initial

training;

(2) The person deems it safe, and train

speeds are limited to a maximum of 10

m.p.h. over the broken rail or pull apart;

(3) The person shall watch all

movements over the broken rail or pull

apart and be prepared to stop the train

if necessary; and

(4) Person(s) fully qualified under

§ 213.305 of this subpart are notified

and dispatched to the location as soon

as practicable for the purpose of

authorizing movements and effectuating

temporary or permanent repairs.

(e) With respect to designations under

paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of this

section, each track owner shall maintain

written records of:

(1) Each designation in effect;

(2) The basis for each designation,

including but not limited to:

(i) The exact nature of any training

courses attended and the dates thereof;

(ii) The manner in which the track

owner has determined a successful

completion of that training course,

including test scores or other qualifying

results;

(3) Track inspections made by each

individual as required by § 213.369.

These records shall be made available

for inspection and copying by the

Federal Railroad Administration during

regular business hours.

§ 213.307 Class of track: operating speed

limits.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph

(b) of this section and §§ 213.329,

213.337(a) and 213.345(c), the following

maximum allowable operating speeds

apply:

Over track that meets all of the

requirements prescribed in this

subpart for—

The maximum allowable operating speed for

trains 1 is—

Class 6 track ........................... 110 m.p.h.

Class 7 track ........................... 125 m.p.h.

Class 8 track ........................... 160 m.p.h.2

Class 9 track ........................... 200 m.p.h.

1Freight 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 Sections

213.345 and 213.329(d) of this subpart.

(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. 2Operating 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.

(b) If a segment of track does not meet

all of the requirements for its intended

class, it is to be reclassified to the next

lower class of track for which it does

meet all of the requirements of this

subpart. If a segment does not meet all

of the requirements for Class 6, the

requirements for Classes 1 through 5

apply.

§ 213.309 Restoration or renewal of track

under traffic conditions.

(a) Restoration or renewal of track

under traffic conditions is limited to the

replacement of worn, broken, or missing

components or fastenings that do not

affect the safe passage of trains.

(b) The following activities are

expressly prohibited under traffic

conditions:

(1) Any work that interrupts rail

continuity, e.g., as in joint bar

replacement or rail replacement;

(2) Any work that adversely affects

the lateral or vertical stability of the

track with the exception of spot tamping

an isolated condition where not more

than 15 lineal feet of track are involved

at any one time and the ambient air

temperature is not above 95 degrees

Fahrenheit; and

(3) Removal and replacement of the

rail fastenings on more than one tie at

a time within 15 feet.

§ 213.311 Measuring track not under load.

When unloaded track is measured to

determine compliance with

requirements of this subpart, evidence

of rail movement, if any, that occurs

while the track is loaded shall be added

to the measurements of the unloaded

track.

§ 213.317 Waivers.

(a) Any owner of track to which this

subpart applies may petition the Federal

Railroad Administrator for a waiver

from any or all requirements prescribed

in this subpart.

(b) Each petition for a waiver under

this section shall be filed in the manner

and contain the information required by

§§ 211.7 and 211.9 of this chapter.

(c) If the Administrator finds that a

waiver is in the public interest and is

consistent with railroad safety, the

Administrator may grant the waiver

subject to any conditions the

Administrator deems necessary. Where

a waiver is granted, the Administrator

publishes a notice containing the

reasons for granting the waiver.

§ 213.319 Drainage.

Each drainage or other water carrying

facility under or immediately adjacent

to the roadbed shall be maintained and

kept free of obstruction, to

accommodate expected water flow for

the area concerned.

§ 213.321 Vegetation.

Vegetation on railroad property which

is on or immediately adjacent to

roadbed shall be controlled so that it

does not —

(a) Become a fire hazard to trackcarrying structures;

(b) Obstruct visibility of railroad signs

and signals:

(1) Along the right of way, and

(2) At highway-rail crossings;

(c) Interfere with railroad employees

performing normal trackside duties;

(d) Prevent proper functioning of

signal and communication lines; or

(e) Prevent railroad employees from

visually inspecting moving equipment

from their normal duty stations.

§ 213.323 Track gage.

(a) Gage is measured between the

heads of the rails at right-angles to the

rails in a plane five-eighths of an inch

below the top of the rail head.

(b) Gage shall be within the limits

prescribed in the following table:
34044 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

4Actual elevation for each 155 foot track segment

in the body of the curve is determined by averaging

the elevation for 10 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. If Eu exceeds 4 inches, the

Vmax formula applies to the spirals on both ends

of the curve.

5 Degree of curvature is determined by averaging

the degree of curvature over the same track segment

as the elevation.

Class of

track

The gage

must be

at least—

But not

more

than—

The

change

of

gage

within

31 feet

must

not be

greater

than—

6 ................ 4′8′′ ........ 4′91⁄4′′ .... 1⁄2′′

7 ................ 4′8′′ ........ 4′91⁄4′′ .... 1⁄2′′

8 ................ 4′8′′ ........ 4′91⁄4′′ .... 1⁄2′′

9 ................ 4′81⁄4′′ .... 4′91⁄4′′ .... 1⁄2′′

§ 213327 Alinement.

(a) Uniformity at any point along the

track is established by averaging the

measured mid-chord offset values for

nine consecutive points centered

around that point and which are spaced

according to the following table:

Chord length Spacing

31′ ................................................. 7′9′′

62′ ................................................. 15′6′′

124′ ............................................... 31′0′′

(b) For a single deviation, alinement

may not deviate from uniformity more

than the amount prescribed in the

following table:

Class of track

The deviation

from uniformity

of the midchord offset

for a 31-foot

chord may not

be more

than—

(inches)

The deviation

from uniformity

of the midchord offset

for a 62-foot

chord may not

be more

than—

(inches)

The deviation

from uniformity

of the midchord offset

for a 124-foot

chord may not

be more

than—

(inches)

6 .................................................................................................................................................... 1⁄2 3⁄4 11⁄2

7 .................................................................................................................................................... 1⁄2 1⁄2 11⁄4

8 .................................................................................................................................................... 1⁄2 1⁄2 3⁄4

9 .................................................................................................................................................... 1⁄2 1⁄2 3⁄4

(c) 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 owner

of the track to which this subpart applies shall maintain the alinement of the track within the limits prescribed for

each deviation:

Class of track

The deviation

from uniformity

of the midchord offset

for a 31-foot

chord may not

be more

than—

(inches)

The deviation

from uniformity

of the midchord offset

for a 62-foot

chord may not

be more

than—

(inches)

The deviation

from uniformity

of the midchord offset

for a 124-foot

chord may not

be more

than—

(inches)

6 .................................................................................................................................................... 3⁄8 1⁄2 1

7 .................................................................................................................................................... 3⁄8 3⁄8 7⁄8

8 .................................................................................................................................................... 3⁄8 3⁄8 1⁄2

9 .................................................................................................................................................... 3⁄8 3⁄8 1⁄2

§ 213.329 Curves, elevation and speed limitations.

(a) The maximum crosslevel on the outside rail of a curve may not be more than 7 inches. The outside rail

of a curve may not be more than 1⁄2 inch lower than the inside rail.

(b) (1) The maximum allowable operating speed for each curve is determined by the following formula:

V

E E

D

a u max . = +

0 0007

Where—

Vmax = Maximum allowable operating

speed (miles per hour).

Ea = Actual elevation of the outside rail

(inches) 4.

D = Degree of curvature (degrees) 5.

3 = 3 inches of unbalance.

(2) Appendix A includes tables

showing maximum allowable operating

speeds computed in accordance with

this formula for various elevations and

degrees of curvature for track speeds

greater than 90 m.p.h.

(c) For rolling stock meeting the

requirements specified in paragraph (d)

of this section, the maximum operating

speed for each curve may be determined

by the following formula:

V

E

D

a max . = + 3

0 0007

Where—

Vmax = Maximum allowable operating

speed (miles per hour).

Ea = Actual elevation of the outside rail

(inches) 4.

D = Degree of curvature (degrees) 5.

Eu = Unbalanced elevation (inches).

(d) Qualified equipment may be

operated at curving speeds determined

by the formula in paragraph (c) of this

section, provided each specific class of

equipment is approved for operation by
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34045

6The test procedure may be conducted in a test

facility whereby all wheels on one side (right or

left) of the equipment are raised or lowered by six

and then seven inches, 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.

the Federal Railroad Administration and

the railroad demonstrates that—

(1) When positioned on a track with

uniform superelevation, Ea, reflecting

the intended target cant deficiency, Eu,

no wheel of the equipment unloads to

a value of 60 percent or less of its static

value on perfectly level track and, for

passenger-carrying equipment, the roll

angle between the floor of the vehicle

and the horizontal does not exceed 5.7

degrees.

(2) When positioned on a track with

a uniform 7-inch superelevation, no

wheel unloads to a value less than 60%

of its static value on perfectly level track

and, for passenger-carrying equipment,

the angle, measured about the roll axis,

between the floor of the vehicle and the

horizontal does not exceed 8.6 degrees.

(e) The track owner shall notify the

Federal Railroad Administrator no less

than thirty calendar days prior to any

proposed implementation of the higher

curving speeds allowed when the ‘‘Eu’’

term, above, will exceed three inches.

This notification shall be in writing and

shall contain, at a minimum, the

following information:

(1) A complete description of the class

of equipment involved, including

schematic diagrams of the suspension

system and the location of the center of

gravity above top of rail;

(2) A complete description of the test

procedure 6 and instrumentation used to

qualify the equipment and the

maximum values for wheel unloading

and roll angles which were observed

during testing;

(3) Procedures or standards in effect

which relate to the maintenance of the

suspension system for the particular

class of equipment;

(4) Identification of line segment on

which the higher curving speeds are

proposed to be implemented.

(f) A track owner, or an operator of a

passenger or commuter service, who

provides passenger or commuter service

over trackage of more than one track

owner with the same class of

equipment, may provide written

notification to the Federal Railroad

Administrator with the written consent

of the other affected track owners.

§ 213.331 Track surface.

(a) For a single deviation in track

surface, each owner of the track to

which this subpart applies shall

maintain the surface of its track within

the limits prescribed in the following

table:

Track surface

Class of track

6 (inches) 7 (inches) 8 (inches) 9 (inches)

The deviation from uniform 1 profile on either rail at the midordinate of a 31-foot chord may not

be more than ................................................................................................................................. 1 1 3⁄4 1⁄2

The deviation from uniform profile on either rail at the midordinate of a 62-foot chord may not be

more than ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1 1 3⁄4

The deviation from uniform profile on either rail at the midordinate of a 124-foot chord may not

be more than ................................................................................................................................. 13⁄4 11⁄2 11⁄4 11⁄4

The difference in crosslevel between any two points less than 62 feet apart may not be more

than 2 ............................................................................................................................................. 11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄2

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 11⁄4 inches in all of six consecutive pairs of joints, as created by 7 joints. Track with joints staggered less than 10 feet shall not be considered as having staggered joints.

Joints within the 7 low joints outside of the regular joint spacing shall not be considered as joints for purposes of this footnote.

(b) 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 owner of the track to which

this subpart applies shall maintain the surface of the track within the limits prescribed for each deviation:

Track surface

Class of track

6 (inches) 7 (inches) 8 (inches) 9 (inches)

The deviation from uniform profile on either rail at the midordinate of a 31-foot chord may not be

more than ...................................................................................................................................... 3⁄4 3⁄4 1⁄2 3⁄8

The deviation from uniform profile on either rail at the midordinate of a 62-foot chord may not be

more than ...................................................................................................................................... 3⁄4 3⁄4 3⁄4 1⁄2

The deviation from uniform profile on either rail at the midordinate of a 124-foot chord may not

be more than ................................................................................................................................. 11⁄4 1 7⁄8 7⁄8

§ 213.333 Automated vehicle inspection

systems.

(a) For track Class 7, a qualifying

Track Geometry Measurement System

(TGMS) vehicle shall be operated at

least twice within 120 calendar days

with not less than 30 days between

inspections. For track Classes 8 and 9,

it shall be operated at least twice within

60 days with not less than 15 days

between inspections.

(b) A qualifying TGMS shall meet or

exceed minimum design requirements

which specify that—

(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 which

shall not exceed 2 feet; and

(3) Calibration procedures and

parameters are assigned to the system

which assure that measured and

recorded values accurately represent

track conditions. Track geometry

measurements recorded by the system

shall not differ on repeated runs at the

same site at the same speed more than

1/8 inch.

(c) A qualifying TGMS shall be

capable of measuring and processing the

necessary track geometry parameters, at

an interval of no more than every 2 feet,
34046 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

7 GRMS equipment using load combinations

developing L/V ratios which exceed 0.8 shall be operated with caution to protect against the risk of

wheel climb by the test wheelset.

which enables the system to determine

compliance with: § 213.323, Track gage;

§ 213.327, Alinement; § 213.329, Curves;

elevation and speed limitations; and

§ 213.331, Track surface.

(d) A qualifying TGMS shall be

capable of producing, within 24 hours

of the inspection, output reports that —

(1) Provide a continuous plot, on a

constant-distance axis, of all measured

track geometry parameters required in

paragraph (c) of this section;

(2) Provide an exception report

containing a systematic listing of all

track geometry conditions which

constitute an exception to the class of

track over the segment surveyed.

(e) The output reports required under

paragraph (c) of this section shall

contain sufficient location identification

information which enable field forces to

easily locate indicated exceptions.

(f) Following a track inspection

performed by a qualifying TGMS, the

track owner shall, within two days after

the inspection, field verify and institute

remedial action for all exceptions to the

class of track.

(g) The track owner shall maintain for

a period of one year following an

inspection performed by a qualifying

TGMS, copy of the plot and the

exception printout for the track segment

involved, and additional records which:

(1) Specify the date the inspection

was made and the track segment

involved; and

(2) Specify the location, remedial

action taken, and the date thereof, for all

listed exceptions to the class.

(h) For track Classes 8 and 9, a

qualifying Gage Restraint Measurement

System (GRMS) shall be operated at

least once annually with at least 180

days between inspections to

continuously compare loaded track gage

to unloaded gage under a known

loading condition. The lateral capacity

of the track structure shall not permit a

gage widening ratio (GWR) greater than

0.5 inches.

(i) A GRMS shall meet or exceed

minimum design requirements which

specify 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 10,000 pounds per rail;

(iii) Under an applied lateral load

which provides for lateral/vertical load

ratio of between 0.5 and 1.25 7, and a

load severity greater than 3,000 pounds

but less than 8,000 pounds per rail.

Load severity is defined by the

formula—

S = L ¥cV

where:

S = Load severity, defined as the lateral

load applied to the fastener system

(pounds).

L = Actual lateral load applied

(pounds).

c = Coefficient of friction between rail/

tie which is assigned a nominal

value of (0.4).

V = Actual vertical load applied

(pounds).

(2) The measured gage value shall be

converted to a gage widening ratio

(GWR) as follows:

GWR LTG UTG

L = − × ( ) 16 000 ,

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 the point of

application of the lateral load.

L=Actual lateral load applied (pounds).

(j) At least one vehicle in one train per

day operating in Classes 8 and 9 shall

be equipped with functioning on-board

truck frame and carbody accelerometers.

Each track owner shall have in effect

written procedures for the notification

of track personnel when on-board

accelerometers on trains in Classes 8

and 9 indicate a possible track-related

condition.

(k) For track Classes 7 , 8 and 9, an

instrumented car having dynamic

response characteristics that are

representative of other equipment

assigned to service or a portable device

that monitors on-board instrumentation

on trains shall be operated over the

track at the revenue speed profile at a

frequency of at least twice within 60

days with not less than 15 days between

inspections. The instrumented car or the

portable device shall monitor vertically

and laterally oriented accelerometers

placed near the end of the vehicle at the

floor level. In addition, accelerometers

shall be mounted on the truck frame. If

the carbody lateral, carbody vertical, or

truck frame lateral safety limits in the

following table of vehicle/track

interaction safety limits are exceeded,

speeds will be reduced until these safety

limits are not exceeded.

(l) For track Classes 8 and 9, an

instrumented car having dynamic

response characteristics that are

representative of other equipment

assigned to service shall be operated

over the track at the revenue speed

profile annually with not less than 180

days between inspections. The

instrumented car shall be equipped with

functioning instrumented wheelsets to

measure wheel/rail forces. If the wheel/

rail force limits in the following table of

vehicle/track interaction safety limits

are exceeded, speeds will be reduced

until these safety limits are not

exceeded.

(m) The track owner shall maintain a

copy of the most recent exception

printouts for the inspections required

under paragraphs (k) and (l) of this

section.

VEHICLE/TRACK INTERACTION SAFETY LIMITS

Parameter Safety limit Filter/window Requirements

Wheel/Rail Forces 1

Single Wheel Vertical Load Ratio ......................... ≥0.1 ........................... 5 ft .................... No wheel of the equipment shall be permitted to

unload to less than 10% of the static vertical

wheel load. The static vertical wheel load is

defined as the load that the wheel would carry

when stationary on level track. The vertical

wheel load limit shall be increased by the

amount of measurement error.

Single Wheel L/V Ratio ......................................... ≤ tanδ—.5 1 + .5tanδ 5 ft .................... The ratio of the lateral force that any wheel exerts on an individual rail to the vertical force

exerted by the same wheel on the rail shall be

less than the safety limit calculated for the

wheel’s flange angle (δ).
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34047

VEHICLE/TRACK INTERACTION SAFETY LIMITS

Parameter Safety limit Filter/window Requirements

Net Axle L/V Ratio ................................................. ≤ 0.5 .......................... 5 ft .................... The net lateral force exerted by any axle on the

track shall not exceed 50% of the static vertical

load that the axle exerts on the track.

Truck Side L/V Ratio ............................................. ≤ 0.6 .......................... 5 ft .................... The ratio of the lateral forces that the wheels on

one side of any truck exert on an individual rail

to the vertical forces exerted by the same

wheels on that rail shall be less than 0.6.

Accelerations

Carbody Lateral 2 ................................................... ≤ 0.5 g peak-to-peak 10 Hz 1 sec

window.

The peak-to-peak accelerations, measured as

the algebraic difference between the two extreme values of measured acceleration in a

one second time period, shall not exceed 0.5

g.

Carbody Vertical 2 .................................................. ≤ 0.6 g peak-to-peak 10 Hz 1 sec

window.

The peak-to-peak accelerations, measured as

the algebraic difference between the two extreme values of measured acceleration in a

one-second time period, shall not exceed 0.6

g.

Truck Lateral 3 ....................................................... ≤ 0.4 g RMS meanremoved.10 Hz 2 sec

window.

Truck hunting 4 shall not develop below the maximum authorized speed.

1The lateral and vertical wheel forces shall be measured with instrumented wheelsets with the measurements processed through a low pass

filter with a minimum cut-off frequency of 25 Hz. The sample rate for wheel force data shall be at least 250 samples/sec. 2 Carbody lateral and vertical accelerations shall be measured near the car ends at the floor level.

3Truck accelerations in the lateral direction shall be measured on the truck frame. The measurements shall be processed through a filter having a pass band of 0.5 to 10 Hz. 4Truck hunting is defined as a sustained cyclic oscillation of the truck which is evidenced by lateral accelerations in excess of 0.4 g root mean

square (mean-removed) for 2 seconds.

§ 213.334 Ballast; general.

Unless it is otherwise structurally

supported, all track shall be supported

by material which will—

(a) Transmit and distribute the load of

the track and railroad rolling equipment

to the subgrade;

(b) Restrain the track laterally,

longitudinally, and vertically under

dynamic loads imposed by railroad

rolling equipment and thermal stress

exerted by the rails;

(c) Provide adequate drainage for the

track; and

(d) Maintain proper track crosslevel,

surface, and alinement.

§ 213.335 Crossties.

(a) Crossties shall be made of a

material to which rail can be securely

fastened.

(b) Each 39 foot segment of track shall

have—

(1) A sufficient number of crossties

which in combination provide effective

support that will—

(i) Hold gage within the limits

prescribed in § 213.323(b);

(ii) Maintain surface within the limits

prescribed in § 213.331; and

(iii) Maintain alinement within the

limits prescribed in § 213.327.

(2) The minimum number and type of

crossties specified in paragraph (c) of

this section effectively distributed to

support the entire segment; and

(3) Crossties of the type specified in

paragraph (c) of this section that are(is)

located at a joint location as specified in

paragraph (e) of this section.

(c) For non-concrete tie construction,

each 39 foot segment of Class 6 track

shall have fourteen crossties; Classes 7,

8 and 9 shall have 18 crossties which

are not—

(1) Broken through;

(2) Split or otherwise impaired to the

extent the crossties will allow the

ballast to work through, or will not hold

spikes or rail fasteners;

(3) So deteriorated that the tie plate or

base of rail can move laterally 3⁄8 inch

relative to the crossties;

(4) Cut by the tie plate through more

than 40 percent of a crosstie’s thickness;

(5) Configured with less than 2 rail

holding spikes or fasteners per tie plate;

or

(6) So unable, due to insufficient

fastener toeload, to maintain

longitudinal restraint and maintain rail

hold down and gage.

(d) For concrete tie construction, each

39 foot segment of Class 6 track shall

have fourteen crossties, Classes 7, 8 and

9 shall have 16 crossties which are

not—

(1) So deteriorated that the prestress

strands are ineffective or withdrawn

into the tie at one end and the tie

exhibits structural cracks in the rail seat

or in the gage of track;

(2) Configured with less than 2

fasteners on the same rail;

(3) So deteriorated in the vicinity of

the rail fastener such that the fastener

assembly may pull out or move laterally

more than 3⁄8 inch relative to the

crosstie;

(4) So deteriorated that the fastener

base plate or base of rail can move

laterally more than 3⁄8 inch relative to

the crossties;

(5) So deteriorated that rail seat

abrasion is sufficiently deep so as to

cause loss of rail fastener toeload;

(6) Completely broken through; or

(7) So unable, due to insufficient

fastener toeload, to maintain

longitudinal restraint and maintain rail

hold down and gage.

(e) Class 6 track shall have one nondefective crosstie whose centerline is

within 18 inches of the rail joint

location or two crossties whose center

lines are within 24 inches either side of

the rail joint location. Class 7, 8, and 9

track shall have two non-defective ties

within 24 inches each side of the rail

joint.

(f) For track constructed without

crossties, such as slab track and track

connected directly to bridge structural

components, the track structure shall

meet the requirements of paragraphs

(b)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this section.

(g) In Classes 7, 8 and 9 there shall be

at least three non-defective ties each

side of a defective tie.

(h) Where timber crossties are in use

there shall be tie plates under the

running rails on at least nine of 10

consecutive ties.
34048 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

(i) No metal object which causes a

concentrated load by solely supporting

a rail shall be allowed between the base

of the rail and the bearing surface of the

tie plate.

§ 213.337 Defective rails.

(a) When an owner of track to which

this part applies learns, through

inspection or otherwise, that a rail in

that track contains any of the defects

listed in the following table, a person

designated under § 213.305 shall

determine whether or not the track may

continue in use. If the person

determines that the track may continue

in use, operation over the defective rail

is not permitted until—

(1) The rail is replaced; or

(2) The remedial action prescribed in

the table is initiated—

REMEDIAL ACTION

Defect

Length of defect (inch) Percent of rail head crosssectional area weakened

by defect

If defective rail is not

replaced, take the remedial action prescribed in note More than But not

more than Less than But not less

than

Transverse fissure ......................... 70

100

5

70

100

B.

A2.

A.

Compound fissure .......................... 70

100

5

70

100

B.

A2.

A.

Detail fracture Engine burn fracture

Defective weld.

25

80

100

5

25

80

100

C.

D.

[A2] or [E and H.]

[A] or [E and H].

Horizontal split head Vertical split

head Split web Piped rail.

1 ...........................................................

2 ...........................................................

4 ...........................................................

2

4

H and F.

I and G.

B.

Head web separation (1) ......................................................... (1) (1) A. 1⁄2 .......................................................... 1 H and F.

Bolt hole crack ............................... 1 ........................................................... 11⁄2 H and G.

11⁄2 ........................................................ A.

(1) ......................................................... (1) (1) A.

Broken base ................................... 1 ...........................................................

6 ...........................................................

6 D.

[A] or [E and I].

Ordinary break .............................. A or E.

Damaged rail ................................. D.

Flattened rail .................................. Depth ≥ 3⁄8 and ....................................

Length ≥ 8 ............................................

H.

(1) Break out in rail head.

Notes:

A. Assign person designated under

§ 213.305 to visually supervise each

operation over defective rail.

A2. Assign person designated under

§ 213.305 to make visual inspection. That

person may authorize operation to continue

without visual supervision at a maximum of

10 m.p.h. for up to 24 hours prior to another

such visual inspection or replacement or

repair of the rail.

B. Limit operating speed over defective rail

to that as authorized by a person designated

under § 213.305(a)(1)(i) or (ii). The operating

speed cannot be over 30 m.p.h.

C. Apply joint bars bolted only through the

outermost holes to defect within 20 days after

it is determined to continue the track in use.

Limit operating speed over defective rail to

30 m.p.h. until joint bars are applied;

thereafter, limit speed to 50 m.p.h. When a

search for internal rail defects is conducted

under § 213.339 and defects are discovered

which require remedial action C, the

operating speed shall be limited to 50 m.p.h.,

for a period not to exceed 4 days. If the

defective rail has not been removed from the

track or a permanent repair made within 4

days of the discovery, limit operating speed

over the defective rail to 30 m.p.h. until joint

bars are applied; thereafter, limit speed to 50

m.p.h.

D. Apply joint bars bolted only through the

outermost holes to defect within 10 days after

it is determined to continue the track in use.

Limit operating speed over the defective rail

to 30 m.p.h. or less as authorized by a person

designated under § 213.305(a)(1)(i) or (ii)

until joint bars are applied; thereafter, limit

speed to 50 m.p.h.

E. Apply joint bars to defect and bolt in

accordance with § 213.351(d) and (e).

F. Inspect rail 90 days after it is determined

to continue the track in use.

G. Inspect rail 30 days after it is

determined to continue the track in use.

H. Limit operating speed over defective rail

to 50 m.p.h.

I. Limit operating speed over defective rail

to 30 m.p.h.

(b) As used in this section—

(1) Transverse fissure means a

progressive crosswise fracture starting

from a crystalline center or nucleus

inside the head from which it spreads

outward as a smooth, bright, or dark,

round or oval surface substantially at a

right angle to the length of the rail. The

distinguishing features of a transverse

fissure from other types of fractures or

defects are the crystalline center or

nucleus and the nearly smooth surface

of the development which surrounds it.

(2) Compound fissure means a

progressive fracture originating in a

horizontal split head which turns up or

down in the head of the rail as a smooth,

bright, or dark surface progressing until

substantially at a right angle to the

length of the rail. Compound fissures

require examination of both faces of the

fracture to locate the horizontal split

head from which they originate.

(3) Horizontal split head means a

horizontal progressive defect originating

inside of the rail head, usually onequarter inch or more below the running

surface and progressing horizontally in

all directions, and generally

accompanied by a flat spot on the

running surface. The defect appears as

a crack lengthwise of the rail when it

reaches the side of the rail head.

(4) Vertical split head means a

vertical split through or near the middle

of the head, and extending into or
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34049

through it. A crack or rust streak may

show under the head close to the web

or pieces may be split off the side of the

head.

(5) Split web means a lengthwise

crack along the side of the web and

extending into or through it.

(6) Piped rail means a vertical split in

a rail, usually in the web, due to failure

of the shrinkage cavity in the ingot to

unite in rolling.

(7) Broken base means any break in

the base of the rail.

(8) Detail fracture means a progressive

fracture originating at or near the

surface of the rail head. These fractures

should not be confused with transverse

fissures, compound fissures, or other

defects which have internal origins.

Detail fractures may arise from shelly

spots, head checks, or flaking.

(9) Engine burn fracture means a

progressive fracture originating in spots

where driving wheels have slipped on

top of the rail head. In developing

downward they frequently resemble the

compound or even transverse fissures

with which they should not be confused

or classified.

(10) Ordinary break means a partial or

complete break in which there is no sign

of a fissure, and in which none of the

other defects described in this

paragraph (b) are found.

(11) Damaged rail means any rail

broken or injured by wrecks, broken,

flat, or unbalanced wheels, slipping, or

similar causes.

(12) Flattened rail means a short

length of rail, not a joint, which has

flattened out across the width of the rail

head to a depth of 3⁄8 inch or more

below the rest of the rail. Flattened rail

occurrences have no repetitive

regularity and thus do not include

corrugations, and have no apparent

localized cause such as a weld or engine

burn. Their individual length is

relatively short, as compared to a

condition such as head flow on the low

rail of curves.

(13) Bolt hole crack means a crack

across the web, originating from a bolt

hole, and progressing on a path either

inclined upward toward the rail head or

inclined downward toward the base.

Fully developed bolt hole cracks may

continue horizontally along the head/

web or base/web fillet, or they may

progress into and through the head or

base to separate a piece of the rail end

from the rail. Multiple cracks occurring

in one rail end are considered to be a

single defect. However, bolt hole cracks

occurring in adjacent rail ends within

the same joint shall be reported as

separate defects.

(14) Defective weld means a field or

plant weld containing any

discontinuities or pockets, exceeding 5

percent of the rail head area

individually or 10 percent in the

aggregate, oriented in or near the

transverse plane, due to incomplete

penetration of the weld metal between

the rail ends, lack of fusion between

weld and rail end metal, entrainment of

slag or sand, under-bead or other

shrinkage cracking, or fatigue cracking.

Weld defects may originate in the rail

head, web, or base, and in some cases,

cracks may progress from the defect into

either or both adjoining rail ends.

(15) Head and web separation means

a progressive fracture, longitudinally

separating the head from the web of the

rail at the head fillet area.

§ 213.339 Inspection of rail in service.

(a) A continuous search for internal

defects shall be made of all rail in track

at least twice annually with not less

than 120 days between inspections.

(b) Inspection equipment shall be

capable of detecting defects between

joint bars, in the area enclosed by joint

bars.

(c) Each defective rail shall be marked

with a highly visible marking on both

sides of the web and base.

(d) If the person assigned to operate

the rail defect detection equipment

being used determines that, due to rail

surface conditions, a valid search for

internal defects could not be made over

a particular length of track, the test on

that particular length of track cannot be

considered as a search for internal

defects under § 213.337(a).

(e) If a valid search for internal defects

cannot be conducted for reasons

described in paragraph (d) of this

section, the track owner shall, before the

expiration of time limits—

(1) Conduct a valid search for internal

defects;

(2) Reduce operating speed to a

maximum of 25 miles per hour until

such time as a valid search for internal

defects can be made; or

(3) Remove the rail from service.

§ 213.341 Initial inspection of new rail and

welds.

The track owner shall provide for the

initial inspection of newly

manufactured rail, and for initial

inspection of new welds made in either

new or used rail. A track owner may

demonstrate compliance with this

section by providing for:

(a) In-service inspection—A

scheduled periodic inspection of rail

and welds that have been placed in

service, if conducted in accordance with

the provisions of § 213.339, and if

conducted not later than 90 days after

installation, shall constitute compliance

with paragraphs (b) and (c) of this

section;

(b) Mill inspection—A continuous

inspection at the rail manufacturer’s

mill shall constitute compliance with

the requirement for initial inspection of

new rail, provided that the inspection

equipment meets the applicable

requirements specified in § 213.339. The

track owner shall obtain a copy of the

manufacturer’s report of inspection and

retain it as a record until the rail

receives its first scheduled inspection

under § 213.339;

(c) Welding plant inspection—A

continuous inspection at a welding

plant, if conducted in accordance with

the provisions of paragraph (b) of this

section, and accompanied by a plant

operator’s report of inspection which is

retained as a record by the track owner,

shall constitute compliance with the

requirements for initial inspection of

new rail and plant welds, or of new

plant welds made in used rail; and

(d) Inspection of field welds—An

initial inspection of field welds, either

those joining the ends of CWR strings or

those made for isolated repairs, shall be

conducted not less than one day and not

more than 30 days after the welds have

been made. The initial inspection may

be conducted by means of portable test

equipment. The track owner shall retain

a record of such inspections until the

welds receive their first scheduled

inspection under § 213.339.

(e) Each defective rail found during

inspections conducted under paragraph

(a) or (d) of this section shall be marked

with highly visible markings on both

sides of the web and base and the

remedial action as appropriate under

§ 213.337 will apply.

§ 213.343 Continuous welded rail (CWR).

Each track owner with track

constructed of CWR shall have in effect

written procedures which address the

installation, adjustment, maintenance

and inspection of CWR, and a training

program for the application of those

procedures, which shall be submitted to

the Federal Railroad Administration

within six months following the

effective date of this rule. FRA reviews

each plan for compliance with the

following—

(a) Procedures for the installation and

adjustment of CWR which include—

(1) Designation of a desired rail

installation temperature range for the

geographic area in which the CWR is

located; and

(2) De-stressing procedures/methods

which address proper attainment of the

desired rail installation temperature

range when adjusting CWR.
34050 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

(b) Rail anchoring or fastening

requirements that will provide sufficient

restraint to limit longitudinal rail and

crosstie movement to the extent

practical, and specifically addressing

CWR rail anchoring or fastening

patterns on bridges, bridge approaches,

and at other locations where possible

longitudinal rail and crosstie movement

associated with normally expected

train-induced forces, is restricted.

(c) Procedures which specifically

address maintaining a desired rail

installation temperature range when

cutting CWR including rail repairs, intrack welding, and in conjunction with

adjustments made in the area of tight

track, a track buckle, or a pull-apart.

Rail repair practices shall take into

consideration existing rail temperature

so that—

(1) When rail is removed, the length

installed shall be determined by taking

into consideration the existing rail

temperature and the desired rail

installation temperature range; and

(2) Under no circumstances should

rail be added when the rail temperature

is below that designated by paragraph

(a)(1) of this section, without provisions

for later adjustment.

(d) Procedures which address the

monitoring of CWR in curved track for

inward shifts of alinement toward the

center of the curve as a result of

disturbed track.

(e) Procedures which control train

speed on CWR track when —

(1) Maintenance work, track

rehabilitation, track construction, or any

other event occurs which disturbs the

roadbed or ballast section and reduces

the lateral and/or longitudinal

resistance of the track; and

(2) In formulating the procedures

under this paragraph (e), the track

owner shall—

(i) Determine the speed required, and

the duration and subsequent removal of

any speed restriction based on the

restoration of the ballast, along with

sufficient ballast re-consolidation to

stabilize the track to a level that can

accommodate expected train-induced

forces. Ballast re-consolidation can be

achieved through either the passage of

train tonnage or mechanical

stabilization procedures, or both; and

(ii) Take into consideration the type of

crossties used.

(f) Procedures which prescribe when

physical track inspections are to be

performed to detect buckling prone

conditions in CWR track. At a

minimum, these procedures shall

address inspecting track to identify —

(1) Locations where tight or kinky rail

conditions are likely to occur;

(2) Locations where track work of the

nature described in paragraph (e)(1) of

this section have recently been

performed; and

(3) In formulating the procedures

under this paragraph (f), the track owner

shall—

(i) Specify the timing of the

inspection; and

(ii) Specify the appropriate remedial

actions to be taken when buckling prone

conditions are found.

(g) The track owner shall have in

effect a comprehensive training program

for the application of these written CWR

procedures, with provisions for periodic

re-training, for those individuals

designated under § 213.305(c) of this

part as qualified to supervise the

installation, adjustment, and

maintenance of CWR track and to

perform inspections of CWR track.

(h) The track owner shall prescribe

recordkeeping requirements necessary

to provide an adequate history of track

constructed with CWR. At a minimum,

these records shall include:

(1) Rail temperature, location and date

of CWR installations. This record shall

be retained for at least one year; and

(2) A record of any CWR installation

or maintenance work that does not

conform with the written procedures.

Such record shall include the location

of the rail and be maintained until the

CWR is brought into conformance with

such procedures.

(i) As used in this section—

(1) Adjusting/de-stressing means the

procedure by which a rail’s temperature

is re-adjusted to the desired value. It

typically consists of cutting the rail and

removing rail anchoring devices, which

provides for the necessary expansion

and contraction, and then re-assembling

the track.

(2) Buckling incident means the

formation of a lateral mis-alinement

sufficient in magnitude to constitute a

deviation of 5 inches measured with a

62-foot chord. These normally occur

when rail temperatures are relatively

high and are caused by high

longitudinal compressive forces.

(3) Continuous welded rail (CWR)

means rail that has been welded

together into lengths exceeding 400 feet.

(4) Desired rail installation

temperature range means the rail

temperature range, within a specific

geographical area, at which forces in

CWR should not cause a buckling

incident in extreme heat, or a pull-apart

during extreme cold weather.

(5) Disturbed track means the

disturbance of the roadbed or ballast

section, as a result of track maintenance

or any other event, which reduces the

lateral or longitudinal resistance of the

track, or both.

(6) Mechanical stabilization means a

type of procedure used to restore track

resistance to disturbed track following

certain maintenance operations. This

procedure may incorporate dynamic

track stabilizers or ballast consolidators,

which are units of work equipment that

are used as a substitute for the

stabilization action provided by the

passage of tonnage trains.

(7) Rail anchors means those devices

which are attached to the rail and bear

against the side of the crosstie to control

longitudinal rail movement. Certain

types of rail fasteners also act as rail

anchors and control longitudinal rail

movement by exerting a downward

clamping force on the upper surface of

the rail base.

(8) Rail temperature means the

temperature of the rail, measured with

a rail thermometer.

(9) Tight/kinky rail means CWR

which exhibits minute alinement

irregularities which indicate that the rail

is in a considerable amount of

compression.

(10) Train-induced forces means the

vertical, longitudinal, and lateral

dynamic forces which are generated

during train movement and which can

contribute to the buckling potential.

(11) Track lateral resistance means

the resistance provided to the rail/

crosstie structure against lateral

displacement.

(12) Track longitudinal resistance

means the resistance provided by the

rail anchors/rail fasteners and the

ballast section to the rail/crosstie

structure against longitudinal

displacement.

§ 213.345 Vehicle qualification testing.

(a) All rolling stock types which

operate at Class 6 speeds and above

shall be qualified for operation for their

intended track classes in order to

demonstrate that the vehicle dynamic

response to track alinement and

geometry variations are within

acceptable limits to assure safe

operation. Rolling stock operating in

Class 6 within one year prior to the

promulgation of this subpart shall be

considered as being successfully

qualified for Class 6 track and vehicles

presently operating at Class 7 speeds by

reason of conditional waivers shall be

considered as qualified for Class 7.

(b) The qualification testing shall

ensure that, at any speed less than 10

m.p.h. above the proposed maximum

operating speed, the equipment will not

exceed the wheel/rail force safety limits

and the truck lateral accelerations
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34051

specified in § 213.333, and the testing

shall demonstrate the following:

(1) The vertical acceleration, as

measured by a vertical accelerometer

mounted on the car floor, shall be

limited to no greater than 0.55g single

event, peak-to-peak.

(2) The lateral acceleration, as

measured by a lateral accelerometer

mounted on the car floor, shall be

limited to no greater than 0.3g single

event, peak-to-peak; and

(3) The combination of the lateral

acceleration (L) and the vertical

acceleration (V) within any period of

two consecutive seconds as expressed

by the square root of (V2 + L2) shall be

limited to no greater than 0.604, where

L may not exceed 0.3g and V may not

exceed 0.55g.

(c) To obtain the test data necessary

to support the analysis required in

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section,

the track owner shall have a test plan

which shall consider the operating

practices and conditions, signal system,

road crossings and trains on adjacent

tracks during testing. The track owner

shall establish a target maximum testing

speed (at least 10 m.p.h. above the

maximum proposed operating speed)

and target test and operating conditions

and conduct a test program sufficient to

evaluate the operating limits of the track

and equipment. The test program shall

demonstrate vehicle dynamic response

as speeds are incrementally increased

from acceptable Class 6 limits to the

target maximum test speeds. The test

shall be suspended at that speed where

any of the safety limits specified in

paragraph (b) are exceeded.

(d) At the end of the test, when

maximum safe operating speed is

known along with permissible levels of

cant deficiency, an additional run shall

be made with the subject equipment

over the entire route proposed for

revenue service at the speeds the

railroad will request FRA to approve for

such service and a second run again at

10 m.p.h. above this speed. A report of

the test procedures and results shall be

submitted to FRA upon the completions

of the tests. The test report shall include

the design flange angle of the equipment

which shall be used for the

determination of the lateral to vertical

wheel load safety limit for the track/

vehicle interaction safety measurements

required per § 213.333(k).

(e) As part of the submittal required

in paragraph (d) of the section, the

operator shall include an analysis and

description of the signal system and

operating practices to govern operations

in Classes 7 and 8. This statement shall

include a statement of sufficiency in

these areas for the class of operation.

Operation at speeds in excess of 150

m.p.h. is authorized only in conjunction

with a rule of particular applicability

addressing other safety issues presented

by the system.

(f) Based on test results and

submissions, FRA will approve a

maximum train speed and value of cant

deficiency for revenue service.

§ 213.347 Automotive or railroad

crossings at grade.

(a) There shall be no at-grade (level)

highway crossings, public or private, or

rail-to-rail crossings at-grade on Class 8

and 9 track.

(b) If train operation is projected at

Class 7 speed for a track segment that

will include rail-highway grade

crossings, the track owner shall submit

for FRA’s approval a complete

description of the proposed warning/

barrier system to address the protection

of highway traffic and high speed trains.

Trains shall not operate at Class 7

speeds over any track segment having

highway-rail grade crossings unless:

(1) An FRA-approved warning/barrier

system exists on that track segment; and

(2) All elements of that warning/

barrier system are functioning.

§ 213.349 Rail end mismatch.

Any mismatch of rails at joints may

not be more than that prescribed by the

following table—

Class of track

Any mismatch of rails at joints

may not be more than the following—

On the tread

of the rail

ends (inch)

On the gage

side of the rail

ends (inch)

Class 6, 7, 8 and 9 .................................................................................................................................................. 1⁄8 1⁄8

§ 213.351 Rail joints.

(a) Each rail joint, insulated joint, and

compromise joint shall be of a

structurally sound design and

dimensions for the rail on which it is

applied.

(b) If a joint bar is cracked, broken, or

because of wear allows excessive

vertical movement of either rail when

all bolts are tight, it shall be replaced.

(c) If a joint bar is cracked or broken

between the middle two bolt holes it

shall be replaced.

(d) Each rail shall be bolted with at

least two bolts at each joint.

(e) Each joint bar shall be held in

position by track bolts tightened to

allow the joint bar to firmly support the

abutting rail ends and to allow

longitudinal movement of the rail in the

joint to accommodate expansion and

contraction due to temperature

variations. When no-slip, joint-to-rail

contact exists by design, the

requirements of this section do not

apply. Those locations, when over 400

feet long, are considered to be

continuous welded rail track and shall

meet all the requirements for

continuous welded rail track prescribed

in this subpart.

(f) No rail shall have a bolt hole which

is torch cut or burned.

(g) No joint bar shall be reconfigured

by torch cutting.

§ 213.352 Torch cut rail.

(a) Except as a temporary repair in

emergency situations no rail having a

torch cut end shall be used. When a rail

end with a torch cut is used in

emergency situations, train speed over

that rail shall not exceed the maximum

allowable for Class 2 track. All torch cut

rail ends in Class 6 shall be removed

within six months of September 21,

1998.

(b) Following the expiration of the

time limits specified in paragraph (a) of

this section, any torch cut rail end not

removed shall be removed within 30

days of discovery. Train speed over that

rail shall not exceed the maximum

allowable for Class 2 track until

removed.

§ 213.353 Turnouts, crossovers and lift rail

assemblies or other transition devices on

moveable bridges.

(a) In turnouts and track crossings, the

fastenings must be intact and

maintained so as to keep the

components securely in place. Also,

each switch, frog, and guard rail shall be

kept free of obstructions that may

interfere with the passage of wheels.

Use of rigid rail crossings at grade is

limited per § 213.347.
34052 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

(b) Track shall be equipped with rail

anchoring through and on each side of

track crossings and turnouts, to restrain

rail movement affecting the position of

switch points and frogs. Elastic fasteners

designed to restrict longitudinal rail

movement are considered rail

anchoring.

(c) Each flangeway at turnouts and

track crossings shall be at least 11⁄2

inches wide.

(d) For all turnouts and crossovers,

and lift rail assemblies or other

transition devices on moveable bridges,

the track owner shall prepare an

inspection and maintenance Guidebook

for use by railroad employees which

shall be submitted to the Federal

Railroad Administration. The

Guidebook shall contain at a

minimum—

(1) Inspection frequency and

methodology including limiting

measurement values for all components

subject to wear or requiring adjustment.

(2) Maintenance techniques.

(e) Each hand operated switch shall

be equipped with a redundant operating

mechanism for maintaining the security

of switch point position.

§ 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—

Class of track

Guard check gage—The distance between the gage line of

a frog to the guard line 1 of its guard rail or guarding face,

measured across the track at right angles to the gage

line,2 may not be less than—

Guard face gage—

The distance between

guard lines,1 measured across the track

at right angles to the

gage line,2 may not

be more than—

Class 6 track ......................................................................... 4′ 61⁄2′′ .................................................................................. 4′ 5′′

Class 7 track ......................................................................... 4′ 61⁄2′′ .................................................................................. 4′ 5′′

Class 8 track ......................................................................... 4′ 61⁄2′′ .................................................................................. 4′ 5′′

Class 9 track ......................................................................... 4′ 61⁄2′′ .................................................................................. 4′ 5′′

1A 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.

2A line 5⁄8 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.

§ 213.357 Derails.

(a) Each track, other than a main

track, which connects with a Class 7, 8

or 9 main track shall be equipped with

a functioning derail of the correct size

and type, unless railroad equipment on

the track, because of grade

characteristics cannot move to foul the

main track.

(b) For the purposes of this section, a

derail is a device which will physically

stop or divert movement of railroad

rolling stock or other railroad on-track

equipment past the location of the

device.

(c) Each derail shall be clearly visible.

When in a locked position, a derail shall

be free of any lost motion which would

prevent it from performing its intended

function.

(d) Each derail shall be maintained to

function as intended.

(e) Each derail shall be properly

installed for the rail to which it is

applied.

(f) If a track protected by a derail is

occupied by standing railroad rolling

stock, the derail shall be in derailing

position.

(g) Each derail on a track which is

connected to a Class 7, 8 or 9 main track

shall be interconnected with the signal

system.

§ 213.359 Track stiffness.

(a) Track shall have a sufficient

vertical strength to withstand the

maximum vehicle loads generated at

maximum permissible train speeds, cant

deficiencies and surface defects. For

purposes of this section, vertical track

strength is defined as the track capacity

to constrain vertical deformations so

that the track shall return following

maximum load to a configuration in

compliance with the vehicle/track

interaction safety limits and geometry

requirements of this subpart.

(b) Track shall have sufficient lateral

strength to withstand the maximum

thermal and vehicle loads generated at

maximum permissible train speeds, cant

deficiencies and lateral alinement

defects. For purposes of this section

lateral track strength is defined as the

track capacity to constrain lateral

deformations so that track shall return

following maximum load to a

configuration in compliance with the

vehicle/track interaction safety limits

and geometry requirements of this

subpart.

§ 213.361 Right of way.

The track owner in Class 8 and 9 shall

submit a barrier plan, termed a ‘‘rightof-way plan,’’ to the Federal Railroad

Administration for approval. At a

minimum, the plan will contain

provisions in areas of demonstrated

need for the prevention of—

(a) Vandalism;

(b) Launching of objects from

overhead bridges or structures into the

path of trains; and

(c) Intrusion of vehicles from adjacent

rights of way.

§ 213.365 Visual inspections.

(a) All track shall be visually

inspected in accordance with the

schedule prescribed in paragraph (c) of

this section by a person designated

under § 213.305.

(b) Each inspection shall be made on

foot or by riding over the track in a

vehicle at a speed that allows the person

making the inspection to visually

inspect the track structure for

compliance with this part. However,

mechanical, electrical, and other track

inspection devices may be used to

supplement visual inspection. If a

vehicle is used for visual inspection, the

speed of the vehicle may not be more

than 5 miles per hour when passing

over track crossings and turnouts,

otherwise, the inspection vehicle speed

shall be at the sole discretion of the

inspector, based on track conditions and

inspection requirements. When riding

over the track in a vehicle, the

inspection will be subject to the

following conditions—

(1) One inspector in a vehicle may

inspect up to two tracks at one time

provided that the inspector’s visibility

remains unobstructed by any cause and

that the second track is not centered

more than 30 feet from the track upon

which the inspector is riding;

(2) Two inspectors in one vehicle may

inspect up to four tracks at a time

provided that the inspector’s visibility

remains unobstructed by any cause and

that each track being inspected is

centered within 39 feet from the track

upon which the inspectors are riding;
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34053

(3) Each main track is actually

traversed by the vehicle or inspected on

foot at least once every two weeks, and

each siding is actually traversed by the

vehicle or inspected on foot at least

once every month. On high density

commuter railroad lines where track

time does not permit an on track vehicle

inspection, and where track centers are

15 foot or less, the requirements of this

paragraph (b)(3) will not apply; and

(4) Track inspection records shall

indicate which track(s) are traversed by

the vehicle or inspected on foot as

outlined in paragraph (b)(3) of this

section.

(c) Each track inspection shall be

made in accordance with the following

schedule—

Class of

track Required frequency

6, 7, and

8.

Twice weekly with at least 2 calendar-day’s interval between inspections.

9 ........... Three times per week.

(d) If the person making the

inspection finds a deviation from the

requirements of this part, the person

shall immediately initiate remedial

action.

(e) Each switch, turnout, crossover,

and lift rail assemblies on moveable

bridges shall be inspected on foot at

least weekly. The inspection shall be

accomplished in accordance with the

Guidebook required under § 213.353.

(f) In track Classes 8 and 9, if no train

traffic operates for a period of eight

hours, a train shall be operated at a

speed not to exceed 100 miles per hour

over the track before the resumption of

operations at the maximum authorized

speed.

§ 213.367 Special inspections.

In the event of fire, flood, severe

storm, temperature extremes or other

occurrence which might have damaged

track structure, a special inspection

shall be made of the track involved as

soon as possible after the occurrence

and, if possible, before the operation of

any train over that track.

§ 213.369 Inspection records.

(a) Each owner of track to which this

part applies shall keep a record of each

inspection required to be performed on

that track under this subpart.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph

(e) of this section, each record of an

inspection under § 213.365 shall be

prepared on the day the inspection is

made and signed by the person making

the inspection. Records shall specify the

track inspected, date of inspection,

location and nature of any deviation

from the requirements of this part, and

the remedial action taken by the person

making the inspection. The owner shall

designate the location(s) where each

original record shall be maintained for

at least one year after the inspection

covered by the record. The owner shall

also designate one location, within 100

miles of each state in which they

conduct operations, where copies of

record which apply to those operations

are either maintained or can be viewed

following 10 days notice by the Federal

Railroad Administration.

(c) Rail inspection records shall

specify the date of inspection, the

location and nature of any internal

defects found, the remedial action taken

and the date thereof, and the location of

any intervals of track not tested per

§ 213.339(d). The owner shall retain a

rail inspection record for at least two

years after the inspection and for one

year after remedial action is taken.

(d) Each owner required to keep

inspection records under this section

shall make those records available for

inspection and copying by the Federal

Railroad Administrator.

(e) For purposes of compliance with

the requirements of this section, an

owner of track may maintain and

transfer records through electronic

transmission, storage, and retrieval

provided that—

(1) The electronic system be designed

such that the integrity of each record

maintained through appropriate levels

of security such as recognition of an

electronic signature, or other means,

which uniquely identify the initiating

person as the author of that record. No

two persons shall have the same

electronic identity;

(2) The electronic storage of each

record shall be initiated by the person

making the inspection within 24 hours

following the completion of that

inspection;

(3) The electronic system shall ensure

that each record cannot be modified in

any way, or replaced, once the record is

transmitted and stored;

(4) Any amendment to a record shall

be electronically stored apart from the

record which it amends. Each

amendment to a record shall be

uniquely identified as to the person

making the amendment;

(5) The electronic system shall

provide for the maintenance of

inspection records as originally

submitted without corruption or loss of

data; and

(6) Paper copies of electronic records

and amendments to those records, that

may be necessary to document

compliance with this part, shall be

made available for inspection and

copying by the FRA and track inspectors

responsible under § 213.305. Such paper

copies shall be made available to the

track inspectors and at the locations

specified in paragraph (b) of this

section.

(7) Track inspection records shall be

kept available to persons who

performed the inspection and to persons

performing subsequent inspections.

(f) Each vehicle/track interaction

safety record required under § 213.333

(g), and (m) shall be made available for

inspection and copying by the FRA at

the locations specified in paragraph (b)

of this section.

Appendix A to Part 213—Maximum

Allowable Curving Speeds

TABLE 1.—THREE INCHES UNBALANCE

[Elevation of outer rail (inches)]

Degree of curvature 0 1⁄2 1 11⁄2 2 21⁄2 3 31⁄2 4 41⁄2 5 51⁄2 6

Maximum allowable operating speed (mph)

0°30′ ..................................................... 93 100 107 113 120 125 131 136 141 146 151 156 160

0°40′ ..................................................... 80 87 93 98 103 109 113 118 122 127 131 135 139

0°50′ ..................................................... 72 78 83 88 93 97 101 106 110 113 117 121 124

1°00′ ..................................................... 66 71 76 80 85 89 93 96 100 104 107 110 113

1°15′ ..................................................... 59 63 68 72 76 79 83 86 89 93 96 99 101

1°30′ ..................................................... 54 58 62 66 69 72 76 79 82 85 87 90 93

1°45′ ..................................................... 50 54 57 61 64 67 70 73 76 78 81 83 86

2°00′ ..................................................... 46 50 54 57 60 63 66 68 71 73 76 78 80

2°15′ ..................................................... 44 47 50 54 56 59 62 64 67 69 71 74 76

2°30′ ..................................................... 41 45 48 51 54 56 59 61 63 66 68 70 72

2°45′ ..................................................... 40 43 46 48 51 54 56 58 60 62 65 66 68

3°00′ ..................................................... 38 41 44 46 49 51 54 56 58 60 62 64 66
34054 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1.—THREE INCHES UNBALANCE—Continued

[Elevation of outer rail (inches)]

Degree of curvature 0 1⁄2 1 11⁄2 2 21⁄2 3 31⁄2 4 41⁄2 5 51⁄2 6

3°15′ ..................................................... 36 39 42 45 47 49 51 54 56 57 59 61 63

3°30′ ..................................................... 35 38 40 43 45 47 50 52 54 55 57 59 61

3°45′ ..................................................... 34 37 39 41 44 46 48 50 52 54 55 57 59

4°00′ ..................................................... 33 35 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 55 57

4°30′ ..................................................... 31 33 36 38 40 42 44 45 47 49 50 52 54

5°00′ ..................................................... 29 32 34 36 38 40 41 43 45 46 48 49 51

5°30′ ..................................................... 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 41 43 44 46 47 48

6°00′ ..................................................... 27 29 31 33 35 36 38 39 41 42 44 45 46

6°30′ ..................................................... 26 28 30 31 33 35 36 38 39 41 42 43 45

7°00 ...................................................... 25 27 29 30 32 34 35 36 38 39 40 42 43

8°00′ ..................................................... 23 25 27 28 30 31 33 34 35 37 38 39 40

9°00′ ..................................................... 22 24 25 27 28 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38

10°00′ ................................................... 21 22 24 25 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 35 36

11°00′ ................................................... 20 21 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

12°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 11⁄2 2 21⁄2 3 31⁄2 4 41⁄2 5 51⁄2 6

Maximum allowable operating speed (mph)

0°30′ ..................................................... 107 113 120 125 131 136 141 146 151 156 160 165 169

0°40′ ..................................................... 93 98 104 109 113 118 122 127 131 135 139 143 146

0°50′ ..................................................... 83 88 93 97 101 106 110 113 117 121 124 128 131

1°00′ ..................................................... 76 80 85 89 93 96 100 104 107 110 113 116 120

1°15′ ..................................................... 68 72 76 79 83 86 89 93 96 99 101 104 107

1°30′ ..................................................... 62 65 69 72 76 79 82 85 87 90 93 95 98

1°45′ ..................................................... 57 61 64 67 70 73 76 78 81 83 86 88 90

2°00′ ..................................................... 53 57 60 63 65 68 71 73 76 78 80 82 85

2°15′ ..................................................... 50 53 56 59 62 64 67 69 71 73 76 78 80

2°30′ ..................................................... 48 51 53 56 59 61 63 65 68 70 72 74 76

2°45′ ..................................................... 46 48 51 53 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72

3°00′ ..................................................... 44 46 49 51 53 56 58 60 62 64 65 67 69

3°15′ ..................................................... 42 44 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 66

3°30′ ..................................................... 40 43 45 47 49 52 53 55 57 59 61 62 64

3°45′ ..................................................... 39 41 44 46 48 50 52 53 55 57 59 60 62

4°00′ ..................................................... 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 53 55 57 58 60

4°30′ ..................................................... 36 38 40 42 44 45 47 49 50 52 53 55 56

5°00′ ..................................................... 34 36 38 40 41 43 45 46 48 49 51 52 53

5°30′ ..................................................... 32 34 36 38 39 41 43 44 46 47 48 50 51

6°00′ ..................................................... 31 33 35 36 38 39 41 42 44 45 46 48 49

6°30′ ..................................................... 30 31 33 35 36 38 39 41 42 43 44 46 47

7°00′ ..................................................... 29 30 32 34 35 36 38 39 40 42 43 44 45

8°00′ ..................................................... 27 28 30 31 33 34 35 37 38 39 40 41 42

9°00′ ..................................................... 25 27 28 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 40

10°00′ ................................................... 24 25 27 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

11°00′ ................................................... 23 24 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

12°00′ ................................................... 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Appendix B to Part 213—Schedule of Civil

Penalties

Section Violation Willful Violation 1

Subpart A—General:

213.4(a) Excepted track 2 ................................................................................................................................. $2,500 $5,000

213.4(b) Excepted track 2 ................................................................................................................................. 2,500 5,000

213.4(c) Excepted track 2 .................................................................................................................................. 2,500 5,000

213.4(d) Excepted track 2 ................................................................................................................................. 2,500 5,000

213.4(e):

(1) Excepted track 2 ................................................................................................................................... 5,000 7,500

(2) Excepted track 2 ................................................................................................................................... 7,000 10,000

(3) Excepted track 2 ................................................................................................................................... 7,000 10,000

(4) Excepted track 2 ................................................................................................................................... 5,000 7,500

213.4(f) Excepted track ..................................................................................................................................... 2,000 4,000

213.7 Designation of qualified persons to supervise certain renewals and inspect track ............................... 1,000 2,000

213.9 Classes of track: Operating speed limits ................................................................................................ 2,500 2,500

213.11 Restoration or renewal of track under traffic conditions ...................................................................... 2,500 2,500

213.13 Measuring track not under load ............................................................................................................ 1,000 2,000

Subpart B—Roadbed:

213.33 Drainage ............................................................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000

213.37 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................. 1,000 2,000
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34055

Section Violation Willful Violation 1

Subpart C—Track Geometry:

213.53 Gage ..................................................................................................................................................... 5,000 7,500

13.55 Alinement ................................................................................................................................................ 5,000 7,500

213.57 Curves; elevation and speed limitations ............................................................................................... 2,500 5,000

213.59 Elevation of curved track; runoff ........................................................................................................... 2,500 2,500

213.63 Track surface ............................................................................................................................................... 5,000 7,500

Subpart D—Track surface:

213.103 Ballast; general ................................................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000

213.109 Crossties

(a) Material used ........................................................................................................................................ 1,000 2,000

(b) Distribution of ties ................................................................................................................................ 2,500 5,000

(c) Sufficient number of nondefective ties ................................................................................................. 1,000 2,000

(d) Joint ties ............................................................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000

(e) Track constructed without crossties ..................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000

213.113 Defective rails ..................................................................................................................................... 5,000 7,500

213.115 Rail end mismatch .............................................................................................................................. 2,500 5,000

213.119 Continuous welded rail

(a) through (h) ............................................................................................................................................ 5,000 7,500

213.121 (a) Rail joints ....................................................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000

213.121 (b) Rail joints ....................................................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000

213.121 (c) Rail joints ....................................................................................................................................... 5,000 7,500

213.121 (d) Rail joints ....................................................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000

213.121 (e) Rail joints ....................................................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000

213.121 (f) Rail joints ........................................................................................................................................ 2,500 5,000

213.121 (g) Rail joints ....................................................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000

213.121 (h) Rail joints ....................................................................................................................................... 5,000 7,500

213.122 Torch cut rail ....................................................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000

213.123 Tie plates ............................................................................................................................................ 1,000 2,000

213.127 Rail fastenings .................................................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000

213.133 Turnouts and track crossings, generally ............................................................................................ 1,000 1,000

213.135 Switches:

(a) through (g) ............................................................................................................................................ 2,500 5,000

(h) chipped or worn points ......................................................................................................................... 5,000 7,500

213.137 Frogs ................................................................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000

213.139 Spring rail frogs .................................................................................................................................. 2,500 5,000

213.141 Self-guarded frogs .............................................................................................................................. 2,500 5,000

213.143 Frog guard rails and guard faces; gage ............................................................................................. 2,500 5,000

Subpart E—Track appliances and track-related devices:

213.205 Derails ................................................................................................................................................. 2,500 5,000

Subpart F—Inspection:

213.233 Track inspections ................................................................................................................................ 2,000 4,000

213.235 Switches, crossings, transition devices .............................................................................................. 2,000 4,000

213.237 Inspection of rail ................................................................................................................................. 2,500 5,000

213.239 Special inspections ............................................................................................................................. 2,500 5,000

213.241 Inspection records .............................................................................................................................. 1,000 1,000

Subpart G—High Speed:

213.305 Designation of qualified individuals; general qualifications ................................................................ 1,000 2,000

213.307 Class of track; operating speed limits ................................................................................................ 2,500 5,000

213.309 Restoration or renewal of track under traffic conditions .................................................................... 2,500 5,000

213.311 Measuring track not under load .......................................................................................................... 1,000 2,000

213.319 Drainage ............................................................................................................................................. 2,500 5,000

213.321 Vegetation ........................................................................................................................................... 1,000 2,000

213.323 Track gage .......................................................................................................................................... 5,000 7,500

213.327 Alinement ............................................................................................................................................ 5,000 7,500

213.329 Curves, elevation and speed limits .................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000

213.331 Track surface ...................................................................................................................................... 5,000 7,500

213.333 Automated vehicle inspection systems .............................................................................................. 5,000 7,500

213.335 Crossties

(a) Material used ........................................................................................................................................ 1,000 2,000

(b) Distribution of ties ................................................................................................................................ 2,500 5,000

(c) Sufficient number of nondefective ties, non-concrete .......................................................................... 1,000 2,000

(d) Sufficient number of nondefective concrete ties .................................................................................. 1,000 2,000

(e) Joint ties ............................................................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000

(f) Track constructed without crossties ...................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000

(g) Non-defective ties surrounding defective ties ...................................................................................... 2,500 5,000

(h) Tie plates .............................................................................................................................................. 2,500 5,000

(i) Tie plates ............................................................................................................................................... 1,000 2,000

213.337 Defective rails ..................................................................................................................................... 5,000 7,500

213.339 Inspection of rail in service ................................................................................................................. 2,500 5,000

213.341 Inspection of new rail .......................................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000

213.343 Continuous welded rail (a) through (h) ............................................................................................... 5,000 7,500

213.345 Vehicle qualification testing (a) through (b) ........................................................................................ 5,000 7,500

(c) through (e) ............................................................................................................................................ 2,500 5,000
34056 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Section Violation Willful Violation 1

213.347 Automotive or railroad crossings at grade ......................................................................................... 5,000 7,500

213.349 Rail end mismatch .............................................................................................................................. 2,500 5,000

213.351 (a) Rail joints ....................................................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000

213.351 (b) Rail joints ....................................................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000

213.351 (c) Rail joints ....................................................................................................................................... 5,000 7,500

213.351 (d) Rail joints ..................................................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000

213.351 (e) Rail joints ....................................................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000

213.351 (f) Rail joints ........................................................................................................................................ 5,000 7,500

213.351 (g) Rail joints ....................................................................................................................................... 5,000 7,500

213. 352 Torch cut rails .................................................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000

213.353 Turnouts, crossovers, transition devices ............................................................................................ 1,000 2,000

213.355 Frog guard rails and guard faces; gage ............................................................................................. 2,500 5,000

213.357 Derails ................................................................................................................................................. 2,500 5,000

213.359 Track stiffness ..................................................................................................................................... 5,000 7,500

213.361 Right of way ........................................................................................................................................ 5,000 7,500

213.365 Visual inspections ............................................................................................................................... 2,500 5,000

213.367 Special inspections ............................................................................................................................. 2,500 5,000

213.369 Inspections records ............................................................................................................................. 2,000 4,000

1A penalty may be assessed against an individual only for a willful violation. The Administrator reserves the right to assess a penalty of up to

$22,000 for any violation where circumstances warrant. See 49 CFR Part 209, Appendix A. 2 In addition to assessment of penalties for each instance of noncompliance with the requirements identified by this footnote, track segments

designated as excepted track that are or become ineligible for such designation by virtue of noncompliance with any of the requirements to which

this footnote applies are subject to all other requirements of Part 213 until such noncompliance is remedied.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on June 10,

1998.

Jolene M. Molitoris,

Administrator, Federal Railroad

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–15932 Filed 6–19–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P