25928 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Parts 213 and 238 

[Docket No. FRA–2009–0036, Notice No. 1] 

RIN 2130–AC09 

Vehicle/Track Interaction Safety 

Standards; High-Speed and High Cant 

Deficiency Operations 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: FRA is proposing to amend 

the Track Safety Standards and 

Passenger Equipment Safety Standards 

applicable to high-speed and high cant 

deficiency train operations in order to 

promote the safe interaction of rail 

vehicles with the track over which they 

operate. The proposal would revise 

existing limits for vehicle response to 

track perturbations and add new limits 

as well. The proposal accounts for a 

range of vehicle types that are currently 

used and may likely be used on future 

high-speed or high cant deficiency rail 

operations, or both. The proposal is 

based on the results of simulation 

studies designed to identify track 

geometry irregularities associated with 

unsafe wheel/rail forces and 

accelerations, thorough reviews of 

vehicle qualification and revenue 

service test data, and consideration of 

international practices. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by July 9, 2010. Comments 

received after that date will be 

considered to the extent possible 

without incurring additional expense or 

delay. 

FRA anticipates being able to resolve 

this rulemaking without a public, oral 

hearing. However, if FRA receives a 

specific request for a public, oral 

hearing prior to June 9, 2010, one will 

be scheduled and FRA will publish a 

supplemental notice in the Federal 

Register to inform interested parties of 

the date, time, and location of any such 

hearing. 

ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments 

related to Docket No. FRA–2009–0036, 

Notice No. 1, may be submitted by any 

of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Docket Management 

Facility, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Instructions: Note that all comments 

received will be posted without change 

to http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided. 

Please see the Privacy Act discussion, 

below. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov anytime, or to the 

Docket Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

J. Mardente, Engineer, Office of Railroad 

Safety, Mail Stop 25, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 

(telephone 202–493–1335); Ali 

Tajaddini, Program Manager for 

Vehicle/Track Interaction, Office of 

Railroad Policy and Development, Mail 

Stop 20, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 

(telephone 202–493–6438); or Daniel L. 

Alpert, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief 

Counsel, Mail Stop 10, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 

(telephone 202–493–6026). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Supplementary 

Information 

I. Statutory Background 

A. Track Safety Standards 

B. Passenger Equipment Safety Standards 

II. Proceedings to Date 

A. Proceedings To Carry Out the 1992/1994 

Track Safety Standards Rulemaking 

Mandates 

B. Proceedings To Carry Out the 1994 

Passenger Equipment Safety Standards 

Rulemaking Mandate 

C. Identification of Key Issues for Future 

Rulemaking 

D. RSAC Overview 

E. Establishment of the Passenger Safety 

Working Group 

F. Establishment of the Task Force 

G. Development of the NPRM 

III. Technical Background 

A. Lessons Learned and Operational 

Experience 

B. Research and Computer Modeling 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis 

V. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive 

Order 13272 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

D. Federalism Implications 

E. Environmental Impact 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

G. Energy Impact 

H. Trade Impact 

I. Privacy Act 

I. Statutory Background 

A. Track Safety Standards 

The first Federal Track Safety 

Standards were published on October 

20, 1971, following the enactment of the 

Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, 

Public Law 91–458, 84 Stat. 971 

(October 16, 1970), in which Congress 

granted to FRA comprehensive 

authority over ‘‘all areas of railroad 

safety.’’ See 36 FR 20336. FRA 

envisioned the new Standards to be an 

evolving set of safety requirements 

subject to continuous revision allowing 

the regulations to keep pace with 

industry innovations and agency 

research and development. The most 

comprehensive revision of the 

Standards resulted from the Rail Safety 

Enforcement and Review Act of 1992, 

Public Law 102–365, 106 Stat. 972 

(Sept. 3, 1992), later amended by the 

Federal Railroad Safety Authorization 

Act of 1994, Public Law 103–440, 108 

Stat. 4615 (November 2, 1994). The 

amended statute is codified at 49 U.S.C. 

20142 and required the Secretary of 

Transportation (Secretary) to revise the 

Track Safety Standards, which are 

contained in 49 CFR part 213. The 

Secretary delegated the statutory 

rulemaking responsibilities to the 

Administrator of the Federal Railroad 

Administration. See 49 CFR 1.49. 

B. Passenger Equipment Safety 

Standards 

In September 1994, the Secretary 

convened a meeting of representatives 

from all sectors of the rail industry with 

the goal of enhancing rail safety. As one 

of the initiatives arising from this Rail 

Safety Summit, the Secretary 

announced that DOT would develop 

safety standards for rail passenger 

equipment over a 5-year period. In 

November 1994, Congress adopted the 

Secretary’s schedule for implementing 

rail passenger equipment safety 

regulations and included it in the 

Federal Railroad Safety Authorization 

Act of 1994. Congress also authorized 

the Secretary to consult with various 

organizations involved in passenger 

train operations for purposes of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25929 

prescribing and amending these 

regulations, as well as issuing orders 

pursuant to them. Section 215 of this 

Act is codified at 49 U.S.C. 20133. 

II. Proceedings to Date 

A. Proceedings To Carry Out the 1992/ 

1994 Track Safety Standards 

Rulemaking Mandates 

To help fulfill the statutory mandates, 

FRA decided that the proceeding to 

revise part 213 should advance under 

the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee 

(RSAC), which was established on 

March 11, 1996. (A fuller discussion of 

RSAC is provided below.) In turn, RSAC 

formed a Track Working Group, 

comprised of approximately 30 

representatives from railroads, rail 

labor, trade associations, State 

government, track equipment 

manufacturers, and FRA, to develop and 

draft a proposed rule for revising part 

213. The Track Working Group 

identified issues for discussion from 

several sources, in addition to the 

statutory mandates issued by Congress 

in 1992 and in 1994. Ultimately, the 

Track Working Group recommended a 

proposed rule to the full RSAC body, 

which in turn formally recommended to 

the Administrator of FRA that FRA 

issue the proposed rule as it was 

drafted. 

On July 3, 1997, FRA published an 

NPRM which included substantially the 

same rule text and preamble developed 

by the Track Working Group. The 

NPRM generated comment, and 

following consideration of the 

comments received, FRA published a 

final rule in the Federal Register on 

June 22, 1998, see 63 FR 33992, which, 

effective September 21, 1998, revised 

the Track Safety Standards in their 

entirety. 

To address the modern railroad 

operating environment, the final rule 

included standards specifically 

applicable to high-speed train 

operations in a new subpart G. Prior to 

the 1998 final rule, the Track Safety 

Standards had addressed six classes of 

track that permitted passenger and 

freight trains to travel up to 110 m.p.h.; 

passenger trains had been allowed to 

operate at speeds over 110 m.p.h. under 

conditional waiver granted by FRA. 

FRA revised the requirements for Class 

6 track, included them in new subpart 

G, and also added three new classes of 

track in subpart G, track Classes 7 

through 9, designating standards for 

track over which trains may travel at 

speeds up to 200 m.p.h. The new 

subpart G was intended to function as 

a set of ‘‘stand alone’’ regulations 

governing any track identified as 

belonging to one of these high-speed 

track classes. 

B. Proceedings To Carry Out the 1994 

Passenger Equipment Safety Standards 

Rulemaking Mandate 

FRA formed the Passenger Equipment 

Safety Standards Working Group to 

provide FRA with advice in developing 

the regulations mandated by Congress. 

On June 17, 1996, FRA published an 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

(ANPRM) concerning the establishment 

of comprehensive safety standards for 

railroad passenger equipment. See 61 

FR 30672. The ANPRM provided 

background information on the need for 

such standards, offered preliminary 

ideas on approaching passenger safety 

issues, and presented questions on 

various passenger safety topics. 

Following consideration of comments 

received on the ANPRM and advice 

from FRA’s Passenger Equipment Safety 

Standards Working Group, FRA 

published an NPRM on September 23, 

1997, to establish comprehensive safety 

standards for railroad passenger 

equipment. See 62 FR 49728. In 

addition to requesting written comment 

on the NPRM, FRA also solicited oral 

comment at a public hearing held on 

November 21, 1997. FRA considered the 

comments received on the NPRM and 

prepared a final rule, which was 

published on May 12, 1999. See 64 FR 

25540. 

After publication of the final rule, 

interested parties filed petitions seeking 

FRA’s reconsideration of certain 

requirements contained in the rule. 

These petitions generally related to the 

following subject areas: structural 

design; fire safety; training; inspection, 

testing, and maintenance; and 

movement of defective equipment. On 

July 3, 2000, FRA issued a response to 

the petitions for reconsideration relating 

to the inspection, testing, and 

maintenance of passenger equipment, 

the movement of defective passenger 

equipment, and other miscellaneous 

provisions related to mechanical issues 

contained in the final rule. See 65 FR 

41284. On April 23, 2002, FRA 

responded to all remaining issues raised 

in the petitions for reconsideration, with 

the exception of those relating to fire 

safety. See 67 FR 19970. Finally, on 

June 25, 2002, FRA completed its 

response to the petitions for 

reconsideration by publishing a 

response to those petitions concerning 

the fire safety portion of the rule. See 67 

FR 42892. (For more detailed 

information on the petitions for 

reconsideration and FRA’s response to 

them, please see these three rulemaking 

documents.) The product of this 

rulemaking was codified primarily at 49 

CFR part 238 and secondarily at 49 CFR 

parts 216, 223, 229, 231, and 232. 

C. Identification of Key Issues for Future 

Rulemaking 

While FRA had completed these 

rulemakings, FRA and interested 

industry members began identifying 

various issues for possible future 

rulemaking. Some of these issues 

resulted from the gathering of 

operational experience in applying the 

new safety standards to Amtrak’s highspeed, Acela Express (Acela) trainsets, 

as well as to higher-speed commuter 

railroad operations. These included 

concerns raised by railroads and rail 

equipment manufacturers as to the 

application of the new safety standards 

and the consistency between the 

requirements contained in part 213 and 

those in part 238. Other issues arose 

from the conduct of research, allowing 

FRA to gather new information with 

which to evaluate the safety of highspeed and high cant deficiency rail 

operations. FRA decided to address 

these issues with the assistance of 

RSAC. 

FRA notes that train operation at cant 

deficiency involves traveling through a 

curve faster than the balance speed. 

Balance speed for any given curve is the 

speed at which the lateral component of 

centrifugal force will be exactly 

compensated (or balanced) by the 

corresponding component of the 

gravitational force. When operating 

above the balance speed, there is a net 

lateral force to the outside of the curve. 

Cant deficiency is measured in inches 

and is the amount of superelevation that 

would need to be added to the existing 

track in order to balance this centrifugal 

force with this gravitational force to 

realize no net lateral force measured in 

the plane of the rails. For every curve, 

there is a balance speed at which the 

cant deficiency is zero based on the 

actual superelevation built into the 

track. In general terms, the higher the 

train speed through a curve, the higher 

the cant deficiency. 

D. RSAC Overview 

As mentioned above, in March 1996, 

FRA established RSAC, which provides 

a forum for developing consensus 

recommendations to FRA’s 

Administrator on rulemakings and other 

safety program issues. The Committee 

includes representation from all of the 

agency’s major stakeholders, including 

railroads, labor organizations, suppliers 

and manufacturers, and other interested 

parties. A list of member groups follows: 

• American Association of Private Railroad 

Car Owners (AAPRCO); 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

25930 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

• American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials (AASHTO); 

• American Chemistry Council; 

• American Petroleum Institute; 

• American Public Transportation 

Association (APTA); 

• American Short Line and Regional 

Railroad Association; 

• American Train Dispatchers Association; 

• Association of American Railroads 

(AAR); 

• Association of Railway Museums; 

• Association of State Rail Safety Managers 

(ASRSM); 

• Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers 

and Trainmen (BLET); 

• Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way 

Employees Division (BMWED); 

• Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen 

(BRS); 

• Chlorine Institute; 

• Federal Transit Administration (FTA);* 

• Fertilizer Institute; 

• High Speed Ground Transportation 

Association (HSGTA); 

• Institute of Makers of Explosives; 

• International Association of Machinists 

and Aerospace Workers; 

• International Brotherhood of Electrical 

Workers (IBEW); 

• Labor Council for Latin American 

Advancement;* 

• League of Railway Industry Women;* 

• National Association of Railroad 

Passengers (NARP); 

• National Association of Railway 

Business Women;* 

• National Conference of Firemen & Oilers; 

• National Railroad Construction and 

Maintenance Association; 

• National Railroad Passenger Corporation 

(Amtrak); 

• National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB);* 

• Railway Supply Institute (RSI); 

• Safe Travel America (STA); 

• Secretaria de Comunicaciones y 

Transporte;* 

• Sheet Metal Workers International 

Association (SMWIA); 

• Tourist Railway Association, Inc.; 

• Transport Canada;* 

• Transport Workers Union of America 

(TWU); 

• Transportation Communications 

International Union/BRC (TCIU/BRC); 

• Transportation Security 

Administration;* and 

• United Transportation Union (UTU). 

*Indicates associate, non-voting 

membership. 

When appropriate, FRA assigns a task 

to RSAC, and after consideration and 

debate, RSAC may accept or reject the 

task. If the task is accepted, RSAC 

establishes a working group that 

possesses the appropriate expertise and 

representation of interests to develop 

recommendations to FRA for action on 

the task. These recommendations are 

developed by consensus. A working 

group may establish one or more task 

forces to develop facts and options on 

a particular aspect of a given task. The 

individual task force then provides that 

information to the working group for 

consideration. If a working group comes 

to unanimous consensus on 

recommendations for action, the 

package is presented to the full RSAC 

for a vote. If the proposal is accepted by 

a simple majority of RSAC, the proposal 

is formally recommended to FRA. FRA 

then determines what action to take on 

the recommendation. Because FRA staff 

members play an active role at the 

working group level in discussing the 

issues and options and in drafting the 

language of the consensus proposal, 

FRA is often favorably inclined toward 

the RSAC recommendation. However, 

FRA is in no way bound to follow the 

recommendation, and the agency 

exercises its independent judgment on 

whether the recommended rule achieves 

the agency’s regulatory goal, is soundly 

supported, and is in accordance with 

policy and legal requirements. Often, 

FRA varies in some respects from the 

RSAC recommendation in developing 

the actual regulatory proposal or final 

rule. Any such variations would be 

noted and explained in the rulemaking 

document issued by FRA. If the working 

group or full RSAC body is unable to 

reach consensus on a recommendation 

for action, FRA moves ahead to resolve 

the issue(s) through traditional 

rulemaking proceedings. 

E. Establishment of the Passenger Safety 

Working Group 

On May 20, 2003, FRA presented, and 

RSAC accepted, the task of reviewing 

existing passenger equipment safety 

needs and programs and recommending 

consideration of specific actions that 

could be useful in advancing the safety 

of rail passenger service. The RSAC 

established the Passenger Safety 

Working Group (Working Group) to 

handle this task and develop 

recommendations for the full RSAC to 

consider. Members of the Working 

Group, in addition to FRA, include the 

following: 

• AAR, including members from 

BNSF Railway Company (BNSF), CSX 

Transportation, Inc., and Union Pacific 

Railroad Company; 

• AAPRCO; 

• AASHTO; 

• Amtrak; 

• APTA, including members from 

Bombardier, Inc., Herzog Transit 

Services, Inc., Interfleet Technology, 

Inc. (formerly LDK Engineering, Inc.), 

Long Island Rail Road (LIRR), Maryland 

Transit Administration (MTA), MetroNorth Commuter Railroad Company, 

Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter 

Railroad Corporation, Southern 

California Regional Rail Authority, and 

Southeastern Pennsylvania 

Transportation Authority; 

• BLET; 

• BRS; 

• FTA; 

• HSGTA; 

• IBEW; 

• NARP; 

• RSI; 

• SMWIA; 

• STA; 

• TCIU/BRC; 

• TWU; and 

• UTU. 

Staff from DOT’s John A. Volpe 

National Transportation Systems Center 

(Volpe Center) attended all of the 

meetings and contributed to the 

technical discussions. Staff from the 

NTSB also participated in the Working 

Group’s meetings. The Working Group 

has held 13 meetings on the following 

dates and in the following locations: 

• September 9–10, 2003, in 

Washington, DC; 

• November 6, 2003, in Philadelphia, 

PA; 

• May 11, 2004, in Schaumburg, IL; 

• October 26–27, 2004, in Linthicum/ 

Baltimore, MD; 

• March 9–10, 2005, in Ft. 

Lauderdale, FL; 

• September 7, 2005, in Chicago, IL; 

• March 21–22, 2006, in Ft. 

Lauderdale, FL; 

• September 12–13, 2006, in Orlando, 

FL; 

• April 17–18, 2007, in Orlando, FL; 

• December 11, 2007, in Ft. 

Lauderdale, FL; 

• June 18, 2008, in Baltimore, MD; 

• November 13, 2008, in Washington, 

DC; and 

• June 8, 2009, in Washington, DC. 

F. Establishment of the Task Force 

Due to the variety of issues involved, 

at its November 2003 meeting the 

Working Group established four task 

forces—smaller groups to develop 

recommendations on specific issues 

within each group’s particular area of 

expertise. Members of the task forces 

include various representatives from the 

respective organizations that are part of 

the larger Working Group. One of these 

task forces was assigned to identify and 

develop issues and recommendations 

specifically related to the inspection, 

testing, and operation of passenger 

equipment as well as concerns related to 

the attachment of safety appliances on 

passenger equipment. An NPRM on 

these topics was published on December 

8, 2005 (see 70 FR 73069), and a final 

rule was published on October 19, 2006 

(see 71 FR 61835). Another of these task 

forces was assigned to develop 

recommendations related to window 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25931 

glazing integrity, structural 

crashworthiness, and the protection of 

occupants during accidents and 

incidents. The work of this task force 

led to the publication of an NPRM 

focused on enhancing the front end 

strength of cab cars and multiple-unit 

(MU) locomotives on August 1, 2007 

(see 72 FR 42016), and the publication 

of a final rule on January 8, 2010 (see 

75 FR 1180). Another task force, the 

Emergency Preparedness Task Force, 

was established to identify issues and 

develop recommendations related to 

emergency systems, procedures, and 

equipment. An NPRM on these topics 

was published on August 24, 2006 (see 

71 FR 50276), and a final rule was 

published on February 1, 2008 (see 73 

FR 6370). The fourth task force, the 

Track/Vehicle Interaction Task Force 

(also identified as the Vehicle/Track 

Interaction Task Force, or Task Force), 

was established to identify issues and 

develop recommendations related to the 

safety of vehicle/track interactions. 

Initially, the Task Force was charged 

with considering a number of issues, 

including vehicle-centered issues 

involving flange angle, tread conicity, 

and truck equalization; the necessity for 

instrumented wheelset tests for 

operations at speeds from 90 to 125 

m.p.h.; consolidation of vehicle 

trackworthiness criteria in parts 213 and 

238; and revisions of track geometry 

standards. The Task Force was given the 

responsibility of addressing other 

vehicle/track interaction safety issues 

and to recommend any research 

necessary to facilitate their resolution. 

Members of the Task Force, in addition 

to FRA, include the following: 

• AAR; 

• Amtrak; 

• APTA, including members from 

Bombardier, Interfleet Technology, Inc., 

LIRR, LTK Engineering Services, Port 

Authority Trans-Hudson, and STV Inc.; 

• BMWED; and 

• BRS. 

Staff from the Volpe Center attended 

all of the meetings and contributed to 

the technical discussions through their 

comments and presentations. In 

addition, staff from ENSCO, Inc., 

attended all of the meetings and 

contributed to the technical discussions, 

as a contractor to FRA. Both the Volpe 

Center and ENSCO, Inc., have supported 

FRA in the preparation of this NPRM. 

The Task Force has held 28 meetings 

on the following dates and in the 

following locations: 

• April 20–21, 2004, in Washington, 

DC; 

• May 24, 2004, in Springfield, VA 

(technical subgroup only); 

• June 24–25, 2004, in Washington, 

DC; 

• July 6, 2004, in Washington, DC 

(technical subgroup only); 

• July 22, 2004, in Washington, DC 

(technical subgroup only); 

• August 24–25, 2004, in Washington, 

DC; 

• October 12–14, 2004, in 

Washington, DC; 

• December 9, 2004, in Washington, 

DC; 

• February 10, 2005, in Washington, 

DC; 

• April 7, 2005, in Washington, DC; 

• August 24, 2005, in Washington, 

DC; 

• November 3–4, 2005, in 

Washington, DC; 

• January 12–13, 2006, in 

Washington, DC; 

• March 7–8, 2006, in Washington, 

DC; 

• April 25, 2006, in Washington, DC; 

• May 23, 2006, in Washington, DC; 

• July 25–26, 2006, in Cambridge, 

MA; 

• September 7–8, 2006, in 

Washington, DC; 

• November 14–15, 2006, in 

Washington, DC; 

• January 24–25, 2007, in 

Washington, DC; 

• March 29–30, 2007, in Cambridge, 

MA; 

• April 26, 2007, in Springfield, VA; 

• May 17–18, 2007, in Cambridge, 

MA; 

• June 25–26, 2007, in Arlington, VA; 

• August 8–9, 2007, in Cambridge, 

MA; 

• October 9–11, 2007 in Washington, 

DC; 

• November 19–20, 2007, in 

Washington, DC; and 

• February 27–28, 2008, in 

Cambridge, MA. 

This list includes meetings of a 

technical subgroup comprised of 

representatives of the larger Task Force. 

These subgroup meetings were often 

convened the day before the larger Task 

Force meetings to focus on more 

advanced, technical issues. The results 

of these meetings were then presented at 

the larger Task Force meetings and, in 

turn, included in the minutes of those 

Task Force meetings. 

G. Development of the NPRM 

This NPRM was developed to address 

a number of the concerns raised and 

issues discussed during the Task Force 

and Working Group meetings. Minutes 

of each of these meetings have been 

made part of the public docket in this 

proceeding and are available for 

inspection. 

The Task Force recognized that the 

high-speed track safety standards are 

based on the principle that, to ensure 

safety, the interaction of the vehicles 

and the track over which they operate 

must be considered within a systems 

approach that provides for specific 

limits for vehicle response to track 

perturbation(s). From the outset, the 

Task Force strove to develop revisions 

that would: Serve as practical standards 

with sound physical and mathematical 

bases; account for a range of vehicle 

types that are currently used and may 

likely be used on future high-speed or 

high cant deficiency rail operations, or 

both; and not present an undue burden 

on railroads. The Task Force first 

identified key issues requiring attention 

based on experience applying the 

current Track Safety Standards and 

Passenger Equipment Safety Standards, 

and defined the following work efforts: 

• Revise— 

Æ Qualification requirements for 

high-speed or high cant deficiency 

operations, or both; 

Æ Acceleration and wheel/rail force 

safety limits; 

Æ Inspection, monitoring, and 

maintenance requirements; and 

Æ Track geometry limits for highspeed operations. 

• Establish— 

Æ Necessary safety limits for wheel 

profile and truck equalization; 

Æ Consistent requirements for high 

cant deficiency operations covering all 

track classes; and 

Æ Additional track geometry 

requirements for cant deficiencies 

greater than 5 inches. 

• Resolve and reconcile 

inconsistencies between the Track 

Safety Standards and Passenger 

Equipment Safety Standards, and 

between the lower- and higher-speed 

Track Safety Standards. 

Through the close examination of these 

issues, the Task Force developed 

proposals intended to result in 

improved public safety while reducing 

the burden on the railroad industry 

where possible. The proposals were 

arrived at through the results of 

computer simulations of vehicle/track 

dynamics, consideration of international 

practices, and thorough reviews of 

qualification and revenue service test 

data. 

Nonetheless, FRA makes clear that the 

Task Force did not seek to revise 

comprehensively the high-speed Track 

Safety Standards in subpart G of part 

213, and this NPRM does not propose to 

do so. For example, there was no 

consensus within the Task Force to 

consider revisions to the requirements 

for crossties, as members of the Task 

Force believed it was outside of their 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

25932 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

assigned tasks. Nor was there any real 

discussion about revisions to the 

requirements for ballast or other 

sections in subpart G that currently do 

not distinguish requirements by class of 

track. (See § 213.307 in the Section-bySection Analysis, below, for further 

discussion on this point.) FRA therefore 

makes clear that by not proposing 

revisions to these sections in this 

NPRM, FRA does not mean to imply 

that these other sections may not be 

subject to revision in the future. These 

sections may be addressed through a 

separate RSAC effort. Further, FRA does 

invite comment on the need and 

rationale for changes to other sections of 

subpart G not specifically proposed to 

be revised through this NPRM, and 

based upon the comments received and 

their significance to the changes 

specifically proposed herein, FRA may 

consider whether revisions to additional 

requirements in subpart G are necessary 

in the final rule arising from this 

rulemaking. 

Overall, this NPRM is the product of 

FRA’s review, consideration, and 

acceptance of recommendations made 

by the Task Force, Working Group, and 

full RSAC. FRA refers to comments, 

views, suggestions, or recommendations 

made by members of the Task Force, 

Working Group, or full RSAC, as they 

are identified or contained in the 

minutes of their meetings. FRA does so 

to show the origin of certain issues and 

the nature of discussions concerning 

those issues at the Task Force, Working 

Group, and full RSAC level. FRA 

believes this serves to illuminate factors 

it has weighed in making its regulatory 

decisions, as well as the logic behind 

those decisions. The reader should keep 

in mind, of course, that only the full 

RSAC makes recommendations to FRA. 

As noted above, FRA is in no way 

bound to follow RSAC’s 

recommendations, and the agency 

exercises its independent judgment on 

whether the rule achieves the agency’s 

regulatory goal(s), is soundly supported, 

and is in accordance with policy and 

legal requirements. FRA believes that 

this NPRM is consistent with RSAC’s 

recommendations, with the notable 

exception of FRA’s proposal concerning 

Class 9 track. Please see the discussion 

of Class 9 track in § 213.307 of the 

Section-by-Section Analysis, below. 

III. Technical Background 

A. Lessons Learned and Operational 

Experience 

Since the issuance of both the highspeed Track Safety Standards in 1998 

and the Passenger Equipment Safety 

Standards in 1999, experience has been 

gained in qualifying a number of 

vehicles for high-speed and high cant 

deficiency operations and in monitoring 

subsequent performance in revenue 

service operation. These vehicles 

include Amtrak’s Acela Express trainset; 

MTA’s MARC–III multi-level passenger 

car; and New Jersey Transit Rail 

Operations’ (NJTR) ALP–46 locomotive, 

Comet V car, PL–42AC locomotive, and 

multi-level passenger car. Considerable 

data was gathered by testing these 

vehicles at speed over their intended 

service routes using instrumented 

wheelsets to directly measure forces 

between the wheel and rail and using 

accelerometers to record vehicle 

motions. During the course of these 

qualification tests, some uncertainties, 

inconsistencies, and potentially 

restrictive values were identified in the 

interpretation and application of the 

vehicle/track interaction (VTI) safety 

limits currently specified in § 213.333 

and § 213.345 for excessive vehicle 

motions based on measured 

accelerations and in the requirements of 

§ 213.57 and § 213.329 for high cant 

deficiency operation. This information 

and experience in applying the current 

requirements are the foundation for a 

number of the proposals in this NPRM, 

examples of which are provided below. 

Differentiate Between Sustained and 

Transient Carbody Acceleration Events 

During route testing of the MARC–III 

multi-level car at speeds to 125 m.p.h. 

and at curving speeds producing up to 

5 inches of cant deficiency, several 

short-duration, peak-to-peak carbody 

lateral accelerations were recorded that 

exceeded current thresholds but did not 

represent unsafe guidance forces 

simultaneously measured at the wheelto-rail interface. Yet, sustained, carbody 

lateral oscillatory accelerations and 

significant motions were measured on 

occasion at higher speeds in curves even 

though peak-to-peak amplitudes did not 

exceed current thresholds. In addition, 

a truck component issue was identified 

and corrected. 

To recognize and account for wider 

variations in vehicle design, the VTI 

acceleration limits for carbody motions 

are proposed to be divided into separate 

limits for passenger cars from those for 

other vehicles, such as conventional 

locomotives. In addition, new limits for 

sustained, carbody oscillatory 

accelerations are proposed to be added 

to differentiate between single 

(transient) events and repeated 

(sustained) oscillations. As a result, the 

carbody transient acceleration limits for 

single events, previously set 

conservatively to control for both single 

and repeated oscillations, can be made 

more specific and relaxed as 

appropriate. FRA believes that this 

added specificity in the rule would 

reduce or eliminate altogether the need 

for railroads to provide clarification or 

perform additional analysis, or both, 

following a qualification test run to 

distinguish between transient and 

sustained oscillations. Based on the 

small energy content associated with 

high-frequency acceleration events of 

the carbody, any transient acceleration 

peaks lasting less than 50 milliseconds 

are proposed to be excluded from the 

carbody acceleration limits. Other 

clarifying changes include the proposed 

addition of minimum requirements for 

sampling and filtering of the 

acceleration data. These changes were 

proposed after considerable research 

into the performance of existing 

vehicles during qualification testing and 

revenue operations. Overall, it was 

found that the existing carbody 

oscillatory acceleration limits need not 

be as stringent to protect against events 

leading to vehicle or passenger safety 

issues. 

Establish Consistent Requirements for 

High Cant Deficiency Operations for All 

Track Classes 

Several issues related to operation at 

higher cant deficiencies (higher speeds 

in curves) have also been addressed, 

based particularly on route testing of the 

Acela trainsets on Amtrak’s Northeast 

Corridor. In sharper curves, for which 

cant deficiency was high but vehicle 

speeds were reflective of a lower track 

class, it was found that stricter track 

geometry limits were necessary, for the 

same track class, in order to provide an 

equivalent margin of safety for 

operations at higher cant deficiency. 

Second, although the current Track 

Safety Standards prescribe limits on 

geometry variations existing in 

isolation, it was recognized that a 

combination of alinement and surface 

variations, none of which individually 

amounts to a deviation from the 

Standards, may nonetheless result in 

undesirable response as defined by the 

VTI limits. This finding is significant 

because trains operating at high cant 

deficiency increase the lateral force 

exerted on track during curving and, in 

many cases, may correspondingly 

reduce the margin of safety associated 

with vehicle response to combined track 

variations. Qualification of Amtrak’s 

conventional passenger equipment to 

operate at cant deficiencies up to 5 

inches has also highlighted the need to 

ensure compatibility between the 

requirements for low- (§ 213.57) and 

high-speed (§ 213.329) operations. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25933 

Streamline Testing Requirements for 

Similar Vehicles 

This NPRM includes a proposal that 

vehicles with minor variations in their 

physical properties (such as suspension, 

mass, interior arrangements, and 

dimensions) that do not result in 

significant changes to their dynamic 

characteristics be considered of the 

same type for vehicle qualification 

purposes. If such similarity can be 

established to FRA’s satisfaction, such 

vehicles would not be required to 

undergo full qualification testing, which 

can be more costly. In other cases, 

however, the variations between car 

parameters may warrant partial or full 

dynamic testing. For example, the 

approval process for NJTR’s Comet V car 

to operate at speeds up to 100 m.p.h. 

exemplified the need for clarification of 

whether vehicles similar (but not 

identical) to vehicles that have 

undergone full qualification testing 

should be subjected to full qualification 

testing themselves. NJTR had sought 

relief from the instrumented wheelset 

testing required in § 213.345 by stating 

that the Comet V car was similar to the 

Comet IV car. The Comet V car was 

represented to FRA to have truck and 

suspension components nearly identical 

to the Comet IV car already in service 

and operating at 100-m.p.h. speeds for 

many years. However, examination by 

FRA revealed enough differences 

between the vehicles to at least warrant 

dynamic testing using accelerometers on 

representative routes. Results of the 

testing showed distinct behaviors 

between the cars and provided 

additional data that was necessary for 

qualifying the Comet V. 

Refine Criteria for Detecting Truck 

Hunting 

During route testing of Acela trainsets, 

high-frequency lateral acceleration 

oscillations of the coach truck frame 

were detected by the test 

instrumentation in a mild curve at high 

speed. However, the onboard sensors, 

installed per specification on every 

truck, did not respond to these events. 

Based on these experiences, the truck 

lateral acceleration limit, used for the 

detection of truck hunting, is proposed 

to be tightened from 0.4g to 0.3g and 

include a requirement that the value 

must exceed that limit for more than 2 

seconds for there to be an exceedance. 

Analyses conducted by FRA have 

shown that this would help to better 

identify the occurrences of excessive 

truck hunting, while excluding highfrequency, low-amplitude oscillations 

that would not require immediate 

attention. In addition, to improve the 

process for analyzing data while the 

vehicle is negotiating spiral track 

segments, the limit would now require 

that the RMSt (root mean squared with 

linear trend removed) value be used 

rather than the RMSm (root mean 

squared with mean removed) value. 

Finally, placement of the truck frame 

lateral accelerometer to detect truck 

hunting would be more rigorously 

specified to be as near an axle as is 

practicable. Analyses conducted by FRA 

have shown that when hunting motion 

(which is typically a combination of 

truck lateral and yaw) has a large truck 

yaw component, hunting is best 

detected by placing an accelerometer on 

the truck frame located above an axle. 

An accelerometer placed in the middle 

of the truck frame will not always 

provide early detection of truck hunting 

when yaw motion of the truck is large. 

Revise Periodic Monitoring 

Requirements for Class 8 and 9 Track 

Based on data collected to date, and 

so that the required inspection 

frequency better reflects experienced 

degradation rates, the periodic vehicle/ 

track interaction monitoring frequency 

contained in § 213.333 for operations at 

track Class 8 and 9 speeds is proposed 

to be reduced from once per day to four 

times per week for carbody 

accelerations, and twice within 60 days 

for truck accelerations. In addition, a 

clause is proposed to be added to allow 

the track owner or railroad operating the 

vehicle type to petition FRA, after a 

specified amount of time or mileage, to 

eliminate the truck accelerometer 

monitoring requirement. Data gathered 

has shown that these monitoring 

requirements may be adjusted without 

materially diminishing operational 

safety. Nonetheless, FRA notes that in 

addition to these requirements, 

pursuant to § 238.427, truck acceleration 

would continue to be constantly 

monitored on each Tier II vehicle under 

the Passenger Equipment Safety 

Standards in order to determine if 

hunting oscillations of the vehicle are 

occurring during revenue operation. 

B. Research and Computer Modeling 

As a result of advancements made 

over the last few decades, computer 

models of rail vehicles interacting with 

track have become practical and reliable 

tools for predicting the behavior and 

safety of rail vehicles under specified 

conditions. These models can serve as 

reliable substitutes for performing 

actual, on-track testing, which otherwise 

may be more difficult—and likely more 

costly—to perform than to model. 

Models for such behavior typically 

represent the vehicle body, wheelsets, 

truck frames, and other major vehicle 

components as rigid bodies connected 

with elastic and damping elements and 

include detailed representation of the 

non-linear wheel/rail contact mechanics 

(i.e., non-linear frictional contact forces 

between the wheels and rails modeled 

as functions of the relative velocities 

between the wheel and rail contacts, i.e., 

creepages). The primary dynamic input 

to these models is track irregularities, 

which can be created analytically (such 

as versines, cusps, etc.) or based on 

actual measurements. 

There are a number of industry codes 

available with generally-accepted 

approaches for solving the equations of 

motion describing the dynamic behavior 

of rail vehicles. These models require 

accurate knowledge of vehicle 

parameters, including the inertia 

properties of each of the bodies as well 

as the characteristics of the main 

suspension components and 

connections. To obtain reliable 

predictions, the models must also 

consider the effects of parameter nonlinearities within the vehicles and in the 

wheel/rail contact mechanics, as well as 

incorporate detailed characterization of 

the track as input including the range of 

parameters and non-linearities 

encountered in service. 

In order to develop the proposed 

revisions to track geometry limits in the 

Track Safety Standards, several 

computer models of rail vehicles have 

been used to assess the response of 

vehicle designs to a wide range of track 

conditions corresponding to limiting 

conditions allowed for each class of 

track. Simulation studies have been 

performed using computer models of 

Amtrak’s AEM–7 locomotive, Acela 

power car, Acela coach car, and Amfleet 

coach equipment. Since the 1998 

revisions to the track geometry limits, 

which were based on models of 

hypothetical, high-speed vehicles, 

models of the subsequently-introduced 

Acela power car and coach car have 

been developed. In the case of the Acela 

power car, the model proved capable of 

reproducing a wide range of vehicle 

responses observed during acceptance 

testing, including examples of potential 

safety concerns. 

For purposes of this NPRM, an 

extensive matrix of simulation studies 

involving all four vehicle types was 

used to determine the amplitude of 

track geometry alinement anomalies, 

surface anomalies, and combined 

surface and alinement anomalies that 

result in undesirable response as 

defined by the proposed revision to the 

VTI limits. These simulations were 

performed using two coefficients of 

friction (0.1 and 0.5), two analytical 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

25934 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

anomaly shapes (bump and ramp), and 

combinations of speed, curvature, and 

superelevation to cover a range of cant 

deficiency. The results provided the 

basis for establishing the refinements to 

the geometry limits proposed in this 

NPRM. For illustration purposes, two 

examples of results from the simulation 

studies that were performed for 

determining safe amplitudes of track 

geometry are being provided in this 

document: one illustrates the effect of 

combined geometry defects; the other 

illustrates isolated alinement geometry 

defects. 

Figure 1 depicts an example 

summarizing the results of the Acela 

power car at 130 m.p.h. and 9 inches of 

cant deficiency over combined 124-foot 

wavelength defects. The darker-shaded 

squares represent a combination of 

alinement and surface perturbations 

where at least one of the proposed VTI 

safety criteria is exceeded, and the solid, 

black-lined polygon represents the 

proposed track geometry limits. Similar 

results for other cars, speeds and cant 

deficiencies, and defect wavelengths 

were created and reviewed. As shown, 

without the addition of the combined 

defect limit in the upper right and lower 

left corners (which has the effect of 

limiting geometry in the up-and-in and 

down-and-out corners), the single-defect 

limits would permit track geometry 

conditions that could cause the 

proposed VTI safety criteria to be 

exceeded. For many of these high-speed 

and high cant deficiency conditions, the 

net axle lateral force safety criterion was 

found to be the limiting safety 

condition. 

Figure 2 depicts an example result for 

the single-defect simulations, 

summarizing the response of the Acela 

power car at 130 m.p.h. and 9 inches of 

cant deficiency over isolated alinement 

defects. Each vertical bar represents the 

amplitude of the largest alinement 

perturbation that will not cause an 

exceedance of one of the proposed VTI 

safety criteria. Similar results for other 

cars, speeds and cant deficiencies, and 

defect wavelength were created and 

reviewed. In addition, similar results for 

this range of analysis parameters (cars, 

speeds and cant deficiencies, and defect 

wavelength) were created and reviewed 

using isolated, surface geometry defects. 

These example results show that, with 

one exception, current limits 

sufficiently protect against such 

exceedances under the modeled 

conditions. The proposed VTI limit for 

net axle lateral force was not found to 

be met under the existing 124-foot midchord offset (MCO) geometry limit for 

track alinement, which the modeling 

showed to be set too permissively. 

Consequently, FRA is proposing to 

tighten this geometry limit to prevent 

unsafe vehicle dynamic response. 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25935 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–C 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP10MY10.005</GPH>
25936 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

As part of this proposed rule, and as 

discussed further in the Section-bySection Analysis, simulations using 

computer models would be required 

during the vehicle qualification process 

as an important tool for the assessment 

of vehicle performance. These 

simulations are intended not only to 

augment on-track, instrumented 

performance assessments but also to 

provide a means for identifying vehicle 

dynamic performance issues prior to 

service to validate suitability of a 

vehicle design for operation over its 

intended route. In order to evaluate 

safety performance as part of the vehicle 

qualification process, simulations 

would be conducted using both a 

measured track geometry segment 

representative of the full route, and an 

analytically-defined track segment 

containing geometry perturbations 

representative of minimally compliant 

track conditions for the respective class. 

This Minimally Compliant Analytical 

Track (or MCAT) would be used to 

qualify both new vehicles for operation 

and vehicles previously qualified (on 

other routes) for operation over new 

routes. MCAT consists of nine sections; 

each section is designed to test a 

vehicle’s performance in response to a 

specific type of perturbation (hunting 

perturbation, gage narrowing, gage 

widening, repeated and single surface 

perturbations, repeated and single 

alinement perturbations, short warp, 

and combined down-and-out 

perturbations). Typical simulation 

parameters (that are to be varied) 

include: speed, cant deficiency, gage, 

and wheel profile. Figure 3 depicts time 

traces of the percent of wheel unloading 

for the Acela coach in a simulated run 

over MCAT segments that would be 

required for analyzing high cant 

deficiency curving performance at 160 

m.p.h. 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP10MY10.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25937 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis 

Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part 

213, Track Safety Standards 

Subpart A—General 

Section 213.1 Scope of Part 

This section was amended in the 1998 

Track Safety Standards final rule to 

distinguish the applicability of subpart 

G from that of subparts A through F, as 

a result of subpart G’s addition to this 

part by that final rule. Subpart G applies 

to track over which trains are operated 

at speeds exceeding those permitted for 

Class 5 track, which supports maximum 

speeds of 80 m.p.h. for freight trains and 

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

G was intended to be comprehensive, so 

that a railroad operating at speeds above 

Class 5 maximum speeds may refer to 

subpart G for all of the substantive track 

safety requirements for high-speed rail 

and need refer to the sections of the 

Track Safety Standards applicable to 

lower-speed operations only for the 

general provisions at § 213.2 

(Preemptive effect), § 213.3 

(Application), and § 213.15 (Penalties). 

At the same time, railroads that do not 

operate at speeds in excess of the 

maximum Class 5 speeds need not 

directly refer to subpart G at all. 

FRA seeks to maintain this general 

structure of part 213 for ease of use, and 

the requirements of subpart G would 

continue not to apply directly to 

operations at Class 1 through 5 track 

speeds. However, in proposing to add 

new requirements governing high cant 

deficiency operations for track Classes 1 

through 5, certain sections of subparts C 

and D would refer railroads operating at 

high cant deficiencies to specific 

sections of subpart G. In such 

circumstances, only the specificallyreferenced section(s) of subpart G would 

apply, and only as provided. As 

discussed in this Section-by-Section 

Analysis, below, the proposed addition 

of requirements for high cant deficiency 

operations over lower-speed track 

classes would permit railroads to 

operate at higher cant deficiencies over 

these track classes by complying with 

the terms of the regulation instead of a 

waiver. Currently, railroads must 

petition FRA for a waiver and then 

obtain FRA’s approval to operate at high 

cant deficiencies over lower-speed track 

classes. 

FRA believes that the approach 

proposed in this rulemaking would 

minimize the addition of detailed 

requirements for high cant deficiency 

operations in subparts C and D. 

Moreover, FRA does not believe it 

necessary to amend this section on the 

scope of this part, because only certain 

requirements of subpart G would apply 

to lower-speed track classes and only 

indirectly through cross-references to 

those requirements in subpart G for high 

cant deficiency operations. FRA 

believes that this approach is consistent 

with the current organization of this 

part, as existing § 213.57 already 

references subpart G for when a track 

owner or railroad operating above Class 

5 track speeds requests approval to 

operate at greater than 4 inches of cant 

deficiency on curves in Class 1 through 

5 track contiguous to the high-speed 

track. Nonetheless, FRA invites both 

comment on this proposed approach 

and suggestions for any alternative 

approach for maintaining the ease of use 

of this part. In this regard, FRA invites 

comment on whether the subpart 

headings should be modified to make 

their application clearer to the rail 

operations they address, and, if so, in 

what way(s). 

As a separate matter, FRA notes that 

it is not proposing to revise and re-issue 

the Track Safety Standards in full, as 

was done in the 1998 final rule. Instead, 

FRA is proposing to amend only certain 

portions of the Track Safety Standards. 

Therefore, the final rule arising from 

this rulemaking will need to ensure that 

both the new and revised sections 

appropriately integrate with those 

sections of this part that are not 

amended, and that appropriate time is 

provided to phase-in the new and 

amended sections. In general, the Task 

Force recommended that both new and 

revised sections become applicable one 

year after the date the final rule is 

published. This phase-in period is 

intended to allow the track owner or 

operating railroad, or both, sufficient 

time to prepare for and adjust to 

meeting the new requirements. 

Examples of such adjustments may 

include changes to operating, 

inspection, or maintenance practices, 

such as for compliance with §§ 213.57, 

213.329, 213.332, 213.333 and 213.345, 

as they would be revised. 

FRA is also considering providing the 

track owner or operating railroad the 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP10MY10.007</GPH>
25938 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

option of electing to comply sooner with 

the new and amended requirements, 

upon written notification to FRA. Such 

a request for earlier application of the 

new and amended requirements would 

indicate the track owner’s or railroad’s 

readiness and ability to comply with all 

of the new and amended requirements— 

not just certain of those requirements. 

Because of the interrelationship of the 

proposed changes, FRA believes that 

virtually all of the changes would need 

to apply at the same time to maintain 

their integrity. FRA invites comment on 

formalizing this approach for the final 

rule. FRA does note that since it intends 

for the final rule to become effective 60 

days after its publication, and since 

there cannot be two different sections of 

the same CFR unit under the same 

section heading, FRA may need to move 

current sections of part 213 that would 

be revised to a temporary appendix to 

allow for continued compliance with 

those sections for a track owner or 

railroad electing not to comply sooner 

with the revised sections of part 213. 

Use of such an appendix would be 

consistent with FRA practice. 

Section 213.7 Designation of Qualified 

Persons To Supervise Certain Renewals 

and Inspect Track 

This section recognizes that work on 

or about a track structure supporting 

heavy freight trains or passenger 

operations, or both, demands the 

highest awareness of employees of the 

need to perform their work properly. At 

the same time, the current wording of 

this section literally requires that each 

individual designated to perform such 

work know and understand the 

requirements of this part, detect 

deviations from those requirements, and 

prescribe appropriate remedial action to 

correct or safely compensate for those 

deviations, regardless whether that 

knowledge, understanding, and ability 

with regard to all of this part is 

necessary for that individual to perform 

his or her duties. While qualified 

persons designated under this section 

have not been directly required to know, 

understand, and apply the requirements 

of subpart G (pursuant to § 213.1(b)), the 

proposed addition of vehicle 

qualification and testing requirements 

for high cant deficiency operations in 

these lower-speed track classes would 

in particular add a level of complexity 

that may be outside of the purview of 

track foremen and inspectors in 

fulfilling their duties. 

As a result, the Task Force 

recommended and FRA agrees that this 

rulemaking make clear that the 

requirements for a person to be qualified 

under this section concern those 

portions of this part necessary for the 

performance of that person’s duties. 

FRA is therefore proposing to add to the 

end of paragraph (a)(2)(i) the words 

‘‘that apply to the restoration and 

renewal of track for which he or she is 

responsible,’’ and to add to the end of 

paragraph (b)(2)(i) the words ‘‘that apply 

to the inspection of track for which he 

or she is responsible.’’ This proposal 

would continue to require that a person 

designated under this section possess 

the knowledge, understanding, and 

ability necessary to supervise the 

restoration and renewal of track, or to 

perform inspections of track, or both, for 

which he or she is responsible. Yet, this 

proposal would make clear that the 

person would not be required to know, 

understand, or apply specific 

requirements of this part not necessary 

to the fulfillment of that person’s duties. 

FRA does not believe that safety would 

be in any way diminished by this 

proposal. FRA does believe that this 

clarification is consistent with the intent 

of the Track Safety Standards. 

Subpart C—Track Geometry 

Section 213.55 Track Alinement 

This section specifies the maximum 

alinement deviations allowed for 

tangent and curved track in Classes 1 

through 5. Alinement (also spelled 

‘‘alignment’’ and literally meant to 

indicate ‘‘a line’’) is the localized 

variation in curvature of each rail. On 

tangent track, the intended curvature is 

zero, and thus the alinement is 

measured as the variation or deviation 

from zero. In a curve, the alinement is 

measured as the variation or deviation 

from the ‘‘uniform’’ alinement over a 

specified distance. 

FRA is proposing to modify the 

section heading so that it reads ‘‘Track 

alinement,’’ instead of ‘‘Alinement,’’ to 

better conform with the format of other 

sections in the part. The primary change 

to this section would be the addition of 

a new paragraph (b) containing tighter, 

single-deviation geometry limits for 

operations above 5 inches of cant 

deficiency on curved track. These limits 

would include both 31-foot and 62-foot 

MCO limits. A footnote would be added 

for track Classes 1 and 2 in paragraph 

(b), noting that restraining rails or other 

systems may be required for derailment 

prevention. The current limits in 

paragraph (a) would remain unchanged. 

FRA believes that adding the track 

geometry limits in paragraph (b) is 

necessary to provide an equivalent 

margin of safety for operations at higher 

cant deficiency. These proposed limits 

are based on the results of simulation 

studies, as discussed in section III.B. of 

the preamble, above, to determine the 

safe amplitudes of track geometry 

alinement variations. For higher cant 

deficiency operations, curved track 

geometry limits are to be applied only 

when track curvature is greater than 

0.25 degree. 

Section 213.57 Curves; Elevation and 

Speed Limitations 

In general, this section specifies the 

requirements for safe curving speeds in 

track Classes 1 through 5. FRA is 

proposing substantial changes to this 

section, including modification and 

clarification of the qualification 

requirements and approval process for 

vehicles intended to operate at more 

than 3 inches of cant deficiency. For 

consistency with the higher speed 

standards in subpart G, cant deficiency 

would no longer be limited to a 

maximum of 4 inches in track Classes 1 

through 5. Currently, this section 

specifies qualification requirements for 

vehicles intended to operate at up to 

only 4 inches of cant deficiency on track 

Classes 1 through 5 unless the track is 

contiguous to a higher-speed track. 

Consequently, vehicles intended to 

operate at more than 4 inches of cant 

deficiency on routes not contiguous to 

a higher-speed track currently must file 

for and obtain a waiver in accordance 

with part 211 of this chapter. FRA is 

therefore proposing to establish 

procedures for such vehicles to operate 

safely at greater than 4 inches of cant 

deficiency without the necessity of 

obtaining a waiver. 

Paragraph (a) would be revised in two 

respects. The first sentence of paragraph 

(a) currently provides that the maximum 

crosslevel of the outside rail of a curve 

may not be more than 8 inches on track 

Classes 1 and 2, and 7 inches on Classes 

3 through 5. This requirement would be 

restated to provide that the maximum 

elevation of the outside rail of a curve 

may not be more than 8 inches on track 

Classes 1 and 2, and 7 inches on track 

Classes 3 through 5. Crosslevel is a 

function of elevation differences 

between two rails, and is the focus of 

other provisions of this proposal, 

specifically § 213.63, Track surface. The 

proposed clarification here is intended 

to limit the elevation of a single rail. 

The Task force had recommended 

removing the second sentence, which 

provides that ‘‘[e]xcept as provided in 

§ 213.63, the outside rail of a curve may 

not be lower than the inside rail.’’ 

Concern had been raised in the Task 

Force that this statement potentially 

conflicts with the limits in § 213.63 for 

‘‘the deviation from * * * reverse 

crosslevel elevation on curves.’’ FRA has 

decided that the second sentence of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25939 

paragraph (a) should be re-written more 

clearly to restrict configuring track so 

that the outside rail of a curve is 

designed to be lower than the inside 

rail, while allowing for a deviation of up 

to the limits provided in § 213.63. This 

requirement in paragraph (a) is intended 

to restrict configuring track so that the 

outside rail of a curve is, by design, 

lower than the inside rail; the limits at 

issue in § 213.63 govern local deviations 

from uniform elevation—from the 

designed elevation—that occur as a 

result of changes in conditions. Rather 

than conflict, these provisions 

complement each other, addressing both 

the designed layout of a curve and 

deviations from that layout through 

actual use. 

Paragraph (b) has been added to 

address potential vehicle rollover and 

passenger safety issues should a vehicle 

be stopped or traveling at very low 

speed on superelevated curves. For this 

cant-excess condition the rule would 

require that all vehicles requiring 

qualification under § 213.345 must 

demonstrate that when stopped on a 

curve having a maximum uniform 

elevation of 7 inches, no wheel unloads 

to a value less than 50 percent of its 

static weight on level track. This 

requirement would include an 

allowance for side-wind loading on the 

vehicle to prevent complete unloading 

of the wheels on the high (elevated) rail 

and incipient rollover. 

In paragraph (c), the Vmax formula sets 

the maximum allowable operating speed 

for curved track based on the qualified 

cant deficiency (inches of unbalance), 

Eu, for the vehicle type. Clarification 

would be added in a new footnote 2 to 

allow the vehicle to operate at the cant 

deficiency for which it is approved, Eu, 

plus 1 inch, if actual elevation of the 

outside rail, Ea, and degree of track 

curvature, D, change as a result of track 

degradation. This 1-inch margin would 

provide a tolerance to account for the 

effects of local crosslevel or curvature 

conditions on Vmax that may result in 

the operating cant deficiency exceeding 

that approved for the equipment. 

Without this tolerance, these conditions 

could generate a limiting speed 

exception, and some railroads have 

adopted the approach of reducing the 

operating cant deficiency of the vehicle 

in order to avoid these exceptions. 

FRA also notes that it was the 

consensus of the Task Force to clarify 

footnote 1 to state, in part, that actual 

elevation, Ea, for each 155-foot track 

segment in the body of the curve is 

determined by averaging the elevation 

for 11 points through the segment at 

15.5-foot spacing—instead of 10 points, 

as expressly provided in the current 

footnote. FRA’s Track Safety Standards 

Compliance Manual (Manual) explains 

that the ‘‘actual elevation and curvature 

to be used in the [Vmax] formula are 

determined by averaging the elevation 

and curvature for 10 points, including 

the point of concern for a total of 11, 

through the segment at 15.5-[foot] 

station spacing.’’ See the guidance on 

§ 213.57 provided in Chapter 5 of the 

Manual, which is available on FRA’s 

Web site at http://www.fra.dot.gov/ 

downloads/safety/ 

track_compliance_manual/ 

TCM%205.PDF. This clarification to 

footnote 1 would make the footnote 

more consistent with the manner in 

which the rule is intended to be 

applied. 

Existing footnote 2 would be 

redesignated as footnote 3 without 

substantive change. 

Paragraph (d) would provide that all 

vehicle types are considered qualified 

for up to 3 inches of cant deficiency, as 

allowed by the current rule. 

Paragraph (e) would be modified to 

specify the requirements for vehicle 

qualification over track with more than 

3 inches of cant deficiency. The existing 

static lean requirements for 4 inches of 

cant deficiency limit the carbody roll to 

5.7 degrees with respect to the 

horizontal when the vehicle is standing 

on track with 4 inches of 

superelevation, and limit the vertical 

wheel load remaining on the raised 

wheels to no less than 60% of their 

static level values and carbody roll to 

8.6 degrees with respect to the 

horizontal when the vehicle is standing 

(stationary) on track with 6 inches of 

superelevation. The proposed 

requirements would not limit the cant 

deficiency to 4 inches, and would not 

impose the 6-inch superelevation static 

lean requirement specifically for 4-inch 

cant deficiency qualification. The latter 

requirement is intended to be addressed 

in paragraph (b), as discussed above, for 

all vehicles requiring qualification 

under § 213.345. 

The proposed requirements in 

paragraph (e) could be met by either 

static or dynamic testing. The static lean 

test would limit the vertical wheel load 

remaining on the raised wheels to no 

less than 60% of their static level values 

and the roll of a passenger carbody to 

8.6 degrees with respect to the 

horizontal, when the vehicle is standing 

on track with superelevation equal to 

the intended cant deficiency. The 

dynamic test would limit the steadystate vertical wheel load remaining on 

the low rail wheels to no less than 60% 

of their static level values and the lateral 

acceleration in a passenger car to 0.15g 

steady-state, when the vehicle operates 

through a curve at the intended cant 

deficiency. (Please note that steadystate, carbody lateral acceleration, i.e., 

the tangential force pulling passengers 

to one side of the carbody when 

traveling through a curve at higher than 

the balance speed, should not be 

confused with sustained, carbody lateral 

oscillatory accelerations, i.e., 

continuous side-to-side oscillations of 

the carbody in response to track 

conditions, whether on curved or 

tangent track.) This 0.15g steady-state 

lateral acceleration limit in the dynamic 

test would provide consistency with the 

8.6-degree roll limit in the static lean 

test, in that it corresponds to the lateral 

acceleration a passenger would 

experience in a standing vehicle whose 

carbody is at a roll angle of 8.6 degrees 

with respect to the horizontal. The 5.7- 

degree roll limit, which limits steadystate, carbody lateral acceleration to 

0.1g, would be eliminated from the 

existing rule. 

Measurements and supplemental 

research indicate that a steady-state, 

carbody lateral acceleration limit of 

0.15g is considered to be the maximum, 

steady-state lateral acceleration above 

which jolts from vehicle dynamic 

response to track deviations can present 

a hazard to passenger safety. While 

other FRA vehicle/track interaction 

safety criteria principally address 

external safety hazards that may cause 

a derailment, such as damage to track 

structure and other conditions at the 

wheel/rail interface, the steady-state 

carbody lateral acceleration limit 

specifically addresses the safety of the 

interior occupant environment. For 

comparison purposes, it is notable that 

European standards, such as 

International Union of Railways (UIC) 

Code 518, Testing and Approval of 

Railway Vehicles from the Point of View 

of Their Dynamic Behaviour—Safety— 

Track Fatigue—Ride Quality, have 

adopted a steady-state, carbody lateral 

acceleration limit of 0.15g. FRA does 

recognize that making a comparison 

with such a specific limit in another 

body of standards needs to take into 

account what related limits are provided 

in the compared standards and what the 

nature of the operating environment is 

to which the compared standards apply. 

FRA therefore invites comment whether 

such a comparison is appropriate here— 

whether, for example, there are 

enhanced or additional vehicle/track 

safety limits that apply to European 

operations, either through industry 

practice or governing standards, or both. 

Increasing the steady-state, carbody 

lateral acceleration limit from 0.1g to 

0.15g would allow for operations at 

higher cant deficiency on the basis of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

25940 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

acceleration before tilt compensation is 

necessary. This increase in cant 

deficiency without requiring tilt 

compensation would be larger for a 

vehicle design whose carbody is less 

disposed to roll on its suspension when 

subjected to an unbalance force, since 

carbody roll on curved track has a direct 

effect on steady-state, carbody lateral 

acceleration. For example, a vehicle 

having a completely rigid suspension 

system (S = 0) would have no carbody 

roll and could operate without a tilt 

system at a cant deficiency as high as 9 

inches, at which point the steady-state, 

carbody lateral acceleration would be 

0.15g, which would correlate to an 8.6- 

degree roll angle between the floor and 

the horizontal when the vehicle is 

standing on a track with 9 inches of 

superelevation. The suspension 

coefficient ‘‘S’’ is the ratio of the roll 

angle of the carbody on its suspension 

(measured relative to the inclination of 

the track) to the cant angle of the track 

(measured relative to the horizontal) for 

a stationary vehicle standing on a track 

with superelevation. A suspension 

coefficient of 0 is theoretical but neither 

practical nor desirable, because of the 

need for flexibility in the suspension 

system to handle track conditions and 

provide for occupant comfort and safety. 

Assuming that a car has some flexibility 

in its suspension system, say S = 0.3, the 

car could operate without a tilt system 

at a cant deficiency as high as 

approximately 7 inches, at which point 

the steady-state, carbody lateral 

acceleration would be 0.15g, which 

would correlate to an 8.6-degree roll 

angle between the floor and the 

horizontal when the vehicle is standing 

on track with 7 inches of 

superelevation. To operate at higher 

cant deficiencies and not exceed these 

limits, the vehicle would need to be 

equipped with a tilt system so that the 

floor actively tilts to compensate for the 

forces that would otherwise cause these 

limits to be exceeded. 

Under current FRA requirements, 

using the above examples, a vehicle 

having a completely rigid suspension 

system (S = 0) could operate without a 

tilt system at a cant deficiency no higher 

than 6 inches, at which point the 

steady-state, carbody lateral acceleration 

would be 0.1g, which would correlate to 

a 5.7-degree roll angle between the floor 

and the horizontal when the vehicle is 

standing on track with 6 inches of 

superelevation. Assuming that a vehicle 

has some flexibility in its suspension 

system, again say S = 0.3, the vehicle 

could operate without a tilt system at a 

cant deficiency no higher than 

approximately 4.7 inches, at which 

point the steady-state, carbody lateral 

acceleration would be 0.1g, which 

would correlate to a 5.7-degree roll 

angle between the floor and the 

horizontal when the vehicle is standing 

on track with 4.7 inches of 

superelevation. 

FRA notes that the less stringent 

steady-state, carbody lateral acceleration 

limit and carbody roll angle limit 

proposed in this rule would reduce the 

need to equip vehicles with tilt systems 

at higher cant deficiencies—and 

seemingly the costs associated with 

such features, as well. Moreover, by 

facilitating higher cant deficiency 

operations, savings could also result 

from shortened trip times. These savings 

could be particularly beneficial to 

passenger operations in emerging highspeed rail corridors, enabling faster 

operations through curves. 

Of course, any such savings should 

not come at the expense of safety, and 

FRA is proposing additional track 

geometry requirements for operations 

above 5 inches of cant deficiency, 

whether or not the vehicles are 

equipped with tilt systems. These 

additional track geometry requirements 

were developed to control for 

undesirable vehicle response to track 

conditions that could pose derailment 

concerns. They may also help to control 

in some way for transient, carbody 

acceleration events that could pose ride 

safety concerns for passengers subjected 

to higher steady-state, carbody lateral 

acceleration levels, but they were not 

specifically developed to address such 

concerns and their effect has not been 

modeled. These additional track 

geometry requirements are being 

proposed to apply only to operations 

above 5 inches of cant deficiency, where 

steady-state, carbody lateral acceleration 

would approach 0.15g for typical 

vehicle designs. In this regard, during 

Task Force discussions, Amtrak stated 

that Amfleet equipment has been 

operating at up to 5 inches of cant 

deficiency (with approximately 0.13g 

steady-state, carbody lateral acceleration 

levels) without resulting in passenger 

ride safety issues. FRA is also not aware 

of any general passenger safety issue 

involving passengers losing their 

balance and falling due to excessive 

steady-state, carbody lateral acceleration 

levels in current operations. 

Nonetheless, a transient carbody 

acceleration event that poses no 

derailment safety concern could very 

well cause a standing passenger to lose 

his or her balance and fall. Although 

FRA is not aware of much published 

data on the effect transient, carbody 

acceleration events have on passenger 

ride safety, it is recognized that the 

presence of steady-state, carbody lateral 

acceleration will generally reduce the 

margin of safety for standing passengers 

to withstand transient, lateral 

acceleration events and not lose their 

balance. If such passenger ride safety 

issues were more clearly identified, 

additional track geometry or other limits 

could potentially be proposed to 

address them. However, based on the 

information available to the Task Force, 

it did not recommend additional limits 

to address potential passenger ride 

safety concerns that may result from 

transient, carbody acceleration events 

alone or when combined with steadystate, carbody lateral acceleration. The 

Task Force also took into account that, 

as a mode of transportation offered to 

the general public, passenger rail travel 

need provide for passenger comfort. As 

a result, the riding characteristics of 

passenger rail vehicles should by 

railroad practice be held first to 

acceptable passenger ride comfort 

criteria, which would be more stringent 

than those for passenger ride safety. 

To fully inform FRA’s decisions in 

preparing the final rule arising from this 

NPRM, FRA is specifically inviting 

public comment on this discussion and 

the proposal to set the steady-state, 

carbody lateral acceleration limit at 

0.15g. FRA requests specific comment 

on whether the proposed rule 

appropriately provides for passenger 

ride safety, and if not, requests that the 

commenters state what additional 

requirement(s) should be imposed, if 

any. 

The proposed changes to this section 

would also separate and clarify the 

submittal requirements to FRA to obtain 

approval for the qualifying cant 

deficiency of a vehicle type (paragraph 

(f)) and to notify FRA prior to the 

implementation of the approved higher 

curving speeds (paragraph (g)). 

Additional clarification in paragraph (f) 

has been proposed regarding the 

submission of suspension maintenance 

information. This proposed requirement 

regarding the submission of suspension 

maintenance information would apply 

to vehicle types not subject to parts 238 

or 229 of this chapter, such as a freight 

car operated in a freight train, and only 

to safety-critical components. Paragraph 

(g) would also clarify that in approving 

the request made pursuant to paragraph 

(f), FRA may impose conditions 

necessary for safely operating at the 

higher curving speeds. 

FRA notes that existing footnote 3 

would be redesignated as footnote 4 and 

modified in conformance with these 

proposed changes. The existing footnote 

reflects that this section currently 

allows a maximum of 4 inches of cant 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25941 

deficiency; hence, the static lean test 

requirement to raise the car on one side 

by 4 inches. The existing footnote also 

specifies a cant excess requirement of 6 

inches; hence, the requirement to then 

alternately lower the car to the other 

side by 6 inches. In the proposed 

revisions to this section, the 4-inch limit 

on cant deficiency would be removed 

and the cant-excess requirement would 

be addressed in revised paragraph (b), as 

discussed above, for all vehicles 

requiring qualification under § 213.345. 

Thus, this footnote would refer to ‘‘the 

proposed cant deficiency’’ instead of 4 

inches of cant deficiency. FRA also 

notes that the statement in the current 

footnote that the ‘‘test procedure may be 

conducted in a test facility’’ would be 

removed. Testing may of course be 

conducted in a test facility but it is not 

mandated, and is not necessary to 

continue to reference in the footnote. 

Existing paragraph (e) would be 

moved to new paragraph (h) and 

revised, principally by substituting 

‘‘same vehicle type’’ for ‘‘same class of 

equipment’’ to be consistent with the 

proposed use of ‘‘vehicle type’’ in the 

regulation. 

Paragraph (i) would be added to 

reference pertinent sections of subpart 

G, §§ 213.333 and 213.345, that contain 

requirements related to operations 

above 5 inches of cant deficiency. These 

sections include requirements for 

periodic track geometry measurements, 

monitoring of carbody acceleration, and 

vehicle/track system qualification. 

Specifically, in § 213.333, FRA is 

proposing to add periodic inspection 

requirements using a Track Geometry 

Measurement System (TGMS) to 

determine compliance with § 213.53, 

Track gage; § 213.55(b), Track 

alinement; § 213.57, Curves; elevation 

and speed limitations; § 213.63, Track 

surface; and § 213.65, Combined 

alinement and surface deviations. In 

sharper curves, for which cant 

deficiency was high but vehicle speeds 

were reflective of a lower track class, it 

was found that stricter track geometry 

limits were necessary, for the same track 

class, in order to provide an equivalent 

margin of safety for operations at higher 

cant deficiency. FRA is also proposing 

to add periodic monitoring 

requirements for cardbody 

accelerations, to determine compliance 

with the VTI safety limits in § 213.333. 

Moreover, the vehicle/track system 

qualification requirements in § 213.345 

would apply to vehicle types intended 

to operate at any curving speed 

producing more than 5 inches of cant 

deficiency, and include, as appropriate, 

a combination of computer simulations, 

carbody acceleration testing, truck 

acceleration testing, and wheel/rail 

force measurements. FRA believes that 

these proposed requirements are 

necessary to apply to operations at high 

cant deficiency on lower-speed track 

classes. Section 213.369(f) would also 

be referenced, to make clear that 

inspection records be kept in 

accordance with the requirements of 

§ 213.333, as appropriate. 

Paragraph (j) would be added to 

clarify that vehicle types that have been 

permitted by FRA to operate over track 

with a cant deficiency, Eu, greater than 

3 inches prior to the date of publication 

of the final rule in the Federal Register, 

would be considered qualified under 

this section to operate at any such 

permitted cant deficiency over the 

previously operated track segments(s). 

Before the vehicle type could operate 

over another track segment at such a 

cant deficiency, the vehicle type would 

have to be qualified as provided in this 

section. 

Paragraph (k) would be added as a 

new paragraph to define ‘‘vehicle’’ and 

‘‘vehicle type,’’ as used in this section. 

As the term ‘‘vehicle’’ is used elsewhere 

in this part and the term ‘‘vehicle type’’ 

would be significant to the application 

of this section, both terms would be 

defined here. 

Section 213.63 Track Surface 

Track surface is the evenness or 

uniformity of track in short distances 

measured along the tread of the rails. 

Under load, the track structure 

gradually deteriorates due to dynamic 

and mechanical wear effects of passing 

trains. Improper drainage, unstable 

roadbed, inadequate tamping, and 

deferred maintenance can create surface 

irregularities, which can lead to serious 

consequences if ignored. 

The current section specifies track 

surface requirements and would be redesignated as paragraph (a). Paragraph 

(a) would generally mirror the current 

section but would substitute the date 

‘‘June 22, 1998’’ for the words ‘‘prior to 

the promulgation of this rule’’ in the 

asterisked portion of the table. The 

asterisk was added in the 1998 final rule 

and refers to that final rule, which was 

promulgated on June 22, 1998; 

consequently, FRA is proposing that the 

wording be made clearer so that it refers 

to the 1998 final rule—not the final rule 

arising from this NPRM. 

The primary substantive change to 

this section would be the addition of 

new paragraph (b) containing tighter, 

single-deviation geometry limits for 

operations above 5 inches of cant 

deficiency on curved track. These limits 

would include both 31-foot and 62-foot 

MCO limits and a new limit for the 

difference in crosslevel between any 

two points less than 10 feet apart. FRA 

believes that adding these track 

geometry limits is necessary to provide 

an equivalent margin of safety for 

operations at higher cant deficiency. 

These proposed limits are based on the 

results of simulation studies, as 

discussed in Section III.B. of the 

preamble, above, to determine the safe 

amplitudes of track geometry surface 

variations. 

Section 213.65 Combined Alinement 

and Surface Deviations 

FRA is proposing to add a new 

section containing limits addressing 

combined alinement and surface 

deviations that would apply only to 

operations above 5 inches of cant 

deficiency. An equation-based safety 

limit would be established for alinement 

and surface deviations occurring in 

combination within a single chord 

length of each other. The limits in this 

section would be used only with a 

TGMS and applied on the outside rail 

in curves. 

Although the current Track Safety 

Standards prescribe limits on geometry 

variations existing in isolation, FRA 

recognizes that a combination of 

alinement and surface variations, none 

of which individually amounts to a 

deviation from the requirements in this 

part, may result in undesirable vehicle 

response. Moreover, trains operating at 

high cant deficiencies will increase the 

lateral wheel force exerted on track 

during curving, thereby decreasing the 

margin of safety associated with the VTI 

wheel force safety limits in § 213.333. 

To address these concerns, simulation 

studies were performed, as discussed in 

Section III.B. of the preamble, above, to 

determine the safe amplitudes of 

combined track geometry variations. 

Results show that this proposed 

equation-based safety limit is necessary 

to provide a margin of safety for vehicle 

operations at higher cant deficiencies. 

Section 213.110 Gage Restraint 

Measurement Systems 

This section specifies procedures for 

using a Gage Restraint Measuring 

System (GRMS) to assess the ability of 

track to maintain proper gage. FRA is 

proposing to amend this section to make 

it consistent with proposed changes to 

the GRMS requirements in § 213.333, 

the counterpart to this section in 

subpart G. Specifically, FRA is 

proposing to replace the Gage Widening 

Ratio (GWR) with the Gage Widening 

Projection (GWP), which would 

compensate for the weight of the testing 

vehicle. FRA believes that use of the 

GWP would provide at least the same 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

25942 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

level of safety and is supported by 

research results documented in the 

report titled ‘‘Development of Gage 

Widening Projection Parameter for the 

Deployable Gage Restraint Measurement 

System’’ (DOT/FRA/ORD–06/13, 

October 2006), which is available on 

FRA’s Web site at http:// 

www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/ 

ord0613.pdf. Moreover, by making the 

criteria consistent with the proposed 

changes to the GRMS requirements in 

§ 213.333, a track owner or railroad 

would not have to modify a GRMS 

survey to compute a GWR for track 

Classes 1 through 5, and then a GWP for 

track Classes 6 through 9. The GWP 

formula would apply regardless of the 

class of track. 

In substituting the GWP value for the 

GWR value, FRA is proposing to make 

a number of conforming changes to this 

section, principally to ensure that the 

terminology and references are 

consistent. These changes would be 

more technical than substantive, and 

they are neither intended to diminish 

nor add to the requirements of this 

section. In this regard, FRA notes that it 

is correcting the table in paragraph (l) to 

renumber the remedial action specified 

for a second level exception. The 

remedial action should be designated as 

(1), (2), and (3) in the ‘‘Remedial action 

required’’ column, consistent with how 

it is specified for a first level 

exception—not designated as footnote 2, 

(1), and (2), as it currently is. 

FRA also notes that new footnote 5 

would be added to this section, stating 

that ‘‘GRMS equipment using load 

combinations developing L/V ratios that 

exceed 0.8 shall be operated with 

caution to protect against the risk of 

wheel climb by the test wheelset.’’ This 

footnote is identical in substance to 

existing footnote 7 (proposed to be 

redesignated to footnote 10 due to 

footnote renumbering), which is 

applicable to § 213.333, and would thus 

further promote conformity between 

this section and its subpart G 

counterpart. 

Subpart G—Train Operations at Track 

Classes 6 and Higher 

Section 213.305 Designation of 

Qualified Individuals; General 

Qualifications 

This section recognizes that work on 

or about a track structure supporting 

high-speed train operations demands 

the highest awareness of employees of 

the need to perform their work properly. 

At the same time, the current wording 

of this section literally requires that 

each individual designated to perform 

such work know and understand the 

requirements of this subpart, detect 

deviations from those requirements, and 

prescribe appropriate remedial action to 

correct or safely compensate for those 

deviations, regardless whether that 

knowledge, understanding, and ability 

with regard to all of subpart G is 

necessary for that individual to perform 

his or her duties. For example, 

knowledge and understanding of 

specific vehicle qualification and testing 

requirements may be unnecessary for 

the performance of a track inspector’s 

duties. 

As a result, the Task Force 

recommended and FRA agrees that this 

rulemaking make clear that the 

requirements for a person to be qualified 

under subpart G concern those portions 

of this subpart necessary for the 

performance of that person’s duties. 

FRA is therefore proposing to add to the 

end of paragraph (a)(2)(i) the words 

‘‘that apply to the restoration and 

renewal of the track for which he or she 

is responsible,’’ and to add to the end of 

paragraph (b)(2)(i) the words ‘‘that apply 

to the inspection of the track for which 

he or she is responsible.’’ 

This proposal would continue to 

require that a person designated under 

this section has the knowledge, 

understanding, and ability necessary to 

supervise the restoration and renewal of 

subpart G track, or to perform 

inspections of subpart G track, or both, 

for which he or she is responsible. At 

the same time, this proposal would 

make clear that the person would not be 

required to know or understand specific 

requirements of this subpart not 

necessary to the fulfillment of that 

person’s duties. FRA does not believe 

that safety would be in any way 

diminished by this proposal. FRA 

believes that this proposal reflects what 

was intended when this section was 

established in the 1998 final rule. 

Section 213.307 Classes of Track: 

Operating Speed Limits 

Currently, this subpart provides for 

the operation of trains at progressively 

higher speeds up to 200 m.p.h. over four 

separate classes of track, Classes 6 

through 9. The Task Force 

recommended that standards for Class 9 

track be removed from this subpart and 

that the maximum allowable speed for 

Class 8 track be lowered from 160 

m.p.h. to 150 m.p.h. Class 9 track was 

established in the 1998 final rule 

because of the possibility that certain 

operations would achieve speeds of up 

to 200 m.p.h. In addition, a maximum 

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

Class 8 track in the 1998 final rule 

because trainsets had operated in this 

country up to that speed for periods of 

several months under waivers for testing 

and evaluation. 

Although it was viewed in the 1998 

final rule that standards for Class 9 track 

were useful benchmarks for future 

planning with respect to vehicle/track 

interaction, track structure, and 

inspection requirements, the Task Force 

noted that operations at speeds in 

excess of 150 m.p.h. are currently 

authorized by FRA only in conjunction 

with a rule of particular applicability 

(RPA) that addresses the overall safety 

of the operation as a system, per 

footnote 2 of this section. The vehicle/ 

track interaction, track structure, and 

inspection requirements in an RPA 

would likely be specific to both the 

operation and system components used. 

Track geometry measurement systems, 

safety criteria, and safety limits might be 

quite different than currently defined. 

The Task Force therefore recommended 

that the safety of operations above 150 

m.p.h. be addressed using a system 

safety approach and regulated through 

an RPA specific to the intended 

operation, and that the safety 

parameters in this subpart for general 

application to operations above 150 

m.p.h. be removed, as a result. 

Nonetheless, FRA has identified the 

continued need for benchmark 

standards addressing the highest speeds 

likely to be achieved by the most 

forward-looking, potential high-speed 

rail projects. As a result, FRA and the 

Volpe Center have conducted additional 

research and vehicle/track interaction 

simulations at higher speeds and 

concluded that Class 9 vehicle/track 

safety standards can be safely extended 

to include the highest contemplated 

speeds proposed to date—speeds of up 

to 220 m.p.h. FRA is including these 

benchmark standards in this NPRM. 

FRA does intend to continue its 

discussions with the RSAC Task Force 

as any comments are addressed 

following the publication of this NPRM, 

and as noted earlier, the Task Force did 

not consider a comprehensive revision 

of all of Subpart G, including those 

requirements that are not distinguished 

by class of track. In this regard, ‘‘ballast 

pickup’’ (or flying ballast) has been 

subsequently identified as a potential 

issue for high-speed operations that may 

merit further consideration. Of course, 

FRA makes clear that the Class 9 

standards would remain only as 

benchmark standards with the 

understanding that the final suitability 

of track safety standards for operations 

above 150 m.p.h. will be determined by 

FRA only after examination of the entire 

operating system, including the subject 

equipment, track structure, and other 

system attributes. Direct FRA approval 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25943 

is required for any such high-speed 

operation, whether through an RPA or 

another regulatory proceeding. 

As a separate matter, FRA notes that 

the rule would require the testing and 

evaluation of equipment for 

qualification purposes at a speed of 5 

m.p.h. over the maximum intended 

operating speed, in accordance with 

§ 213.345, and that, for example, this 

would require equipment intended to 

operate at a maximum speed of 160 

m.p.h. to be tested at 165 m.p.h. FRA 

therefore makes clear that operating at 

speeds up to 165 m.p.h. for vehicle 

qualification purposes under this 

subpart would necessarily continue, 

subject to the requirements for the 

planning and safe conduct of such test 

operations. These test operations are 

separate from general purpose 

operations on Class 8 track that would 

be limited to a maximum speed of 160 

m.p.h. 

In addition, FRA is proposing to 

slightly modify the section heading so 

that it reads ‘‘Classes of track: operating 

speed limits,’’ using the plural form of 

‘‘class.’’ This change is intended to make 

the section heading conform with the 

heading for § 213.9, the counterpart to 

this section for lower-speed track 

classes. 

Section 213.323 Track Gage 

This section contains minimum and 

maximum limits for gage, including 

limits for the change in gage within any 

31-foot distance. FRA is proposing to 

modify the limit for the change in gage 

within any 31-foot distance from 1⁄2 inch 

to 3⁄4 inch for Class 6 track. During Task 

Force discussions, Amtrak raised 

concern that for track constructed with 

wood ties and cut spikes, the 1⁄2-inch 

variation in gage limit is difficult to 

maintain. Tolerance values for the rail 

base, tie plate shoulders, and spikes can 

result in a 1⁄2-inch gage variation in 

well-maintained track, particularly due 

to daily temperature fluctuations of rail 

and associated heat-induced stresses. 

In response to Amtrak’s concern, FRA 

conducted modeling of track with 

variations in gage up to 3⁄4 inch in 31- 

foot distances and found no safety 

concerns for the equipment modeled. 

Modeling was also conducted using 20 

miles of actual measured track geometry 

with these variations in gage for speeds 

up to 115 m.p.h. without showing safety 

concerns for the equipment modeled. As 

a result, FRA believes that modifying 

this limit for the change of gage for Class 

6 track, with a maximum permitted 

speed of 110 m.p.h, would not diminish 

safety and would reduce the burden on 

the track owner or railroad to maintain 

safe gage. 

Section 213.327 Track Alinement 

FRA is proposing to change this 

section primarily to add tighter, singledeviation geometry limits for operations 

above 5 inches of cant deficiency. These 

would include 31-foot, 62-foot, and 124- 

foot MCO limits in revised paragraph 

(c), with the current text of paragraph (c) 

moving to a new paragraph (d). As 

discussed in Section III.B. of the 

preamble, above, simulation studies 

have been performed to determine the 

safe amplitudes of track geometry 

alinement variations. Results of these 

studies have shown that the track 

geometry limits proposed in revised 

paragraph (c) are necessary in order to 

provide a margin of safety for operations 

at higher cant deficiency. 

In addition, the current singledeviation, track alinement limits in 

paragraph (b) would be revised so as to 

distinguish between limits for tangent 

and curved track. Specifically, the 62- 

foot MCO limit for Class 6 curved track 

would be narrowed to five-eighths of an 

inch, while the tangent track limit 

would remain at the existing value of 

three-quarters of an inch. This proposed 

change is intended to provide 

consistency between the alinement 

limits for track Classes 5 and 6, as the 

Class 5 limit for curved track in § 213.55 

is five-eighths of an inch. The 62-foot 

MCO limits for Class 7 and Class 8 

tangent track would be increased to 

three-quarters of an inch, while the 

curved track limit would remain at the 

existing value of one-half of an inch. 

The 124-foot MCO limits for Class 8 

tangent track would be increased to an 

inch, while the curved track limit would 

remain at the existing value of threequarters of an inch. These proposed 

changes are also based on results of the 

simulations studies, as discussed in 

section III.B. of the preamble, above. 

Other changes proposed herein 

include adding a paragraph (e), and 

modifying the section heading to better 

conform with the format of other 

sections in this part. Paragraph (e) is an 

adaptation of footnotes 1 and 2 from 

§ 213.55, describing the ends of the 

chord and the line rail. Paragraph (e) 

would apply to all of the requirements 

in this section and is consistent with 

current practice. 

Section 213.329 Curves; Elevation and 

Speed Limitations 

Determining the maximum speed that 

a vehicle may safely operate around a 

curve is based on the degree of track 

curvature, actual elevation, and amount 

of unbalanced elevation, where the 

actual elevation and curvature are 

derived by a moving average technique. 

This approach, as codified in this 

section, is as valid in the high-speed 

regime as it is in the lower-speed track 

classes, and § 213.57 is the counterpart 

to this section for track Classes 1 

through 5. FRA is proposing to revise 

this section, in particular to modify and 

clarify the qualification requirements 

and approval process for vehicles 

intended to operate at more than 3 

inches of cant deficiency. 

Paragraph (a) currently provides that 

the maximum crosslevel on the outside 

rail of a curve may not be more than 7 

inches. This requirement would be 

restated to provide that the maximum 

elevation of the outside rail of a curve 

may not be more than 7 inches. 

Crosslevel is a function of elevation 

differences between two rails, and is the 

focus of other provisions of this 

proposal, specifically § 213.331, Track 

surface. The proposed clarification here 

is intended to limit the elevation of a 

single rail. 

FRA notes that the Task Force 

recommended moving to § 213.331 the 

second requirement of paragraph (a), 

which provides that ‘‘[t]he outside rail of 

a curve may not be more than 1⁄2 inch 

lower than the inside rail.’’ Instead, FRA 

has decided that this requirement 

should be re-written more clearly to 

restrict configuring track so that the 

outside rail of a curve is designed to be 

lower than the inside rail, while 

allowing for a deviation of up to onehalf of an inch as provided in § 213.331, 

which now includes a proposal for a 

limit for reverse crosslevel deviation. 

This requirement in paragraph (a) is 

intended to restrict configuring track so 

that the outside rail of a curve is 

designed to be lower than the inside 

rail; the limits at issue in § 213.331 

govern local deviations from uniform 

elevation—from the designed 

elevation—that occur as a result of 

changes in conditions. Rather than 

conflict, these provisions complement 

each other, addressing both the 

designed layout of a curve and 

deviations from that layout that result 

from actual use and wear. 

Paragraph (b) has been added to 

address potential vehicle rollover and 

passenger safety issues should a vehicle 

be stopped or traveling at very low 

speed on superelevated curves. For this 

cant-excess condition the rule would 

require that all vehicles requiring 

qualification under § 213.345 must 

demonstrate that when stopped on a 

curve having a maximum uniform 

elevation of 7 inches, no wheel unloads 

to a value less than 50 percent of its 

static weight on level track. This 

proposed requirement would include an 

allowance for side-wind loading on the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

25944 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

vehicle to prevent complete unloading 

of the wheels on the high (elevated) rail 

and incipient rollover. 

Paragraph (c) would continue to 

specify the Vmax equation that sets the 

maximum allowable curving speed 

based on the qualified cant deficiency, 

Eu, for a vehicle type. New footnote 7 is 

proposed to be added to allow the 

vehicle to operate at the qualified cant 

deficiency for which it is approved, Eu, 

plus one-half of an inch, if actual 

elevation of the outside rail, Ea, and 

degree of track curvature, D, change as 

a result of track degradation. This onehalf-inch margin would provide a 

tolerance to account for the effects of 

local crosslevel or curvature conditions 

on Vmax that may result in the operating 

cant deficiency exceeding that approved 

for the equipment. Without this 

tolerance, these conditions could 

generate a limiting speed exception and 

some railroads have adopted the 

approach of reducing the operating cant 

deficiency of the vehicle in order to 

avoid these exceptions. 

Existing footnote 4 would be 

redesignated as footnote 6, and a 

statement within the existing footnote 

would be removed regarding the 

application of the Vmax equation to the 

spirals on both ends of the curve if Eu

exceeds 4 inches. The Vmax equation is 

intended to be applied in the body of 

the curve where the cant deficiency will 

be the greatest and the actual elevation 

and degree of curvature are determined 

according to the moving average 

techniques defined in the footnotes. 

Within spirals, where the degree of 

curvature and elevation are changing 

continuously, local deviations from 

uniform elevation and degree of 

curvature are governed by the limits in 

§ 213.327 and § 213.331. 

Existing footnote 5 would be 

redesignated as footnote 8 without 

substantive change. 

Paragraph (d) would be revised to 

provide that all vehicle types are 

considered qualified for up to 3 inches 

of cant deficiency, as allowed by the 

current rule. 

Paragraph (e) currently specifies two 

static lean test requirements for vehicle 

qualification for more than 3 inches of 

cant deficiency. When a vehicle is 

standing on superelevation equal to the 

proposed cant deficiency, the first 

requirement limits the vertical wheel 

load remaining on the raised wheels to 

no less than 60% of their static level 

values and the roll of a passenger 

carbody to 5.7 degrees with respect to 

the horizontal. The second, existing 

requirement addresses potential rollover and passenger safety issues should 

a vehicle be stopped or traveling at very 

low speed on superelevated curves, by 

limiting the vertical wheel load 

remaining on the raised wheels to no 

less than 60% of their static level values 

and the roll of a passenger carbody to 

8.6 degrees with respect to the 

horizontal. The latter requirement is 

intended to be addressed in paragraph 

(b), as discussed above, for all vehicles 

requiring qualification under § 213.345. 

The proposed requirements in 

paragraph (e) could be met by either 

static or dynamic testing and are related 

to the proposed changes to the 

requirements in § 213.57. As proposed 

to be revised, the static lean test would 

limit the vertical wheel load remaining 

on the raised wheels to no less than 

60% of their static level values and the 

roll of a passenger carbody to 8.6 

degrees with respect to the horizontal, 

when the vehicle is standing on track 

with superelevation equal to the 

intended cant deficiency. The dynamic 

test would limit the steady-state vertical 

wheel load remaining on the low rail 

wheels to no less than 60% of their 

static level values and the lateral 

acceleration in a passenger car to 0.15g 

steady-state, when the vehicle operates 

through a curve at the intended cant 

deficiency. This 0.15g steady-state 

lateral acceleration limit in the dynamic 

test would provide consistency with the 

8.6-degree roll limit in the static lean 

test, in that it corresponds to the lateral 

acceleration a passenger would 

experience in a standing (stationary) 

vehicle whose carbody is at a roll angle 

of 8.6 degrees with respect to the 

horizontal. The 5.7-degree roll limit, 

which limits steady-state, carbody 

lateral acceleration to 0.1g, would be 

eliminated from the existing rule. 

The discussion of proposed 

§ 213.57(e) should be read in connection 

with the requirements proposed in this 

paragraph. FRA refers commenters to 

that discussion and is generally not 

repeating it here. As noted, the less 

stringent steady-state, carbody lateral 

acceleration limit and carbody roll angle 

limit proposed in this rule would 

reduce the need to equip vehicles with 

tilt systems at higher cant deficiencies— 

and seemingly the costs associated with 

such features, as well. Moreover, by 

facilitating higher cant deficiency 

operations, savings could also result 

from shortened trip times. These savings 

could be particularly beneficial to 

passenger operations in emerging highspeed rail corridors, enabling faster 

operations through curves. 

Of course, any such savings should 

not come at the expense of safety, and 

FRA is proposing additional track 

geometry requirements for operations 

above 5 inches of cant deficiency, 

whether or not the vehicles are 

equipped with tilt systems. These 

additional track geometry requirements 

were developed to control for 

undesirable vehicle response to track 

conditions that could pose derailment 

concerns. They may also help to control 

in some way for transient, carbody 

acceleration events that could pose ride 

safety concerns for passengers subjected 

to higher steady-state, carbody lateral 

acceleration levels, but they were not 

specifically developed to address such 

concerns and their effect has not been 

modeled. These additional track 

geometry requirements are being 

proposed to apply only to operations 

above 5 inches of cant deficiency, where 

steady-state, carbody lateral acceleration 

would approach 0.15g for typical 

vehicle designs. FRA does note that 

higher cant deficiencies are necessary to 

support high-speed operations on 

curved track, and, as a result, the 

additional track geometry requirements 

proposed in the NPRM for such high 

cant deficiency operations would likely 

be implicated. 

FRA is not aware of any general 

passenger safety issue involving 

passengers losing their balance and 

falling due to excessive steady-state, 

carbody lateral accelerations in current 

operations. Yet, as noted in the 

discussion of § 213.57(e), FRA is 

concerned in particular about the effect 

transient, carbody lateral acceleration 

events that pose no derailment safety 

concerns may nonetheless have on 

passenger ride safety when combined 

with increased steady-state, carbody 

lateral acceleration forces. 

Consequently, to fully inform FRA’s 

decisions in preparing the final rule 

arising from this NPRM, FRA is 

specifically inviting public comment on 

the proposal to set the steady-state, 

carbody lateral acceleration limit at 

0.15g. FRA requests specific comment 

on whether the proposed rule 

appropriately provides for passenger 

ride safety, and if not, requests that the 

commenters state what additional 

requirement(s) should be imposed, if 

any. 

The proposed changes also separate 

and clarify the submittal requirements 

to FRA to obtain approval for the 

qualifying cant deficiency of a vehicle 

type (paragraph (f)) and to notify FRA 

prior to the implementation of the 

approved higher curving speeds 

(paragraph (g)). Additional clarification 

has been proposed regarding the 

submission of suspension maintenance 

information. This proposed requirement 

regarding the submission of suspension 

maintenance information would apply 

to vehicle types not subject to part 238 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25945 

or part 229 of this chapter, and only to 

safety-critical components. Paragraph 

(g) would also make clear that in 

approving the request made pursuant to 

paragraph (f), FRA may impose 

conditions necessary for safely 

operating at the higher curving speeds. 

FRA notes that existing footnote 6 

would be redesignated as footnote 9 and 

modified in conformance with the 

proposed changes. The existing footnote 

offers an example test procedure that 

provides measurements for up to 6 

inches of cant deficiency and 7 inches 

of cant excess. This footnote would be 

modified for the general condition of 

‘‘the proposed cant deficiency’’ rather 

than a specific example, and the cant 

excess requirement would be addressed 

through paragraph (b). FRA also notes 

that the statement in the current 

footnote that the ‘‘test procedure may be 

conducted in a test facility’’ would be 

removed. Testing may of course be 

conducted in a test facility but it is not 

mandated, and is not necessary to 

continue to reference in the footnote. 

The requirements of existing 

paragraph (f) would be moved to 

paragraph (h) and revised, principally 

by substituting ‘‘same vehicle type’’ for 

‘‘same class of equipment’’ to be 

consistent with the proposed use of 

‘‘vehicle type’’ in the regulation. 

Paragraph (i) is proposed to be added 

to clarify that vehicle types that have 

been permitted by FRA to operate at a 

cant deficiency, Eu, greater than 3 inches 

prior to [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 

THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], would be considered 

qualified under this section to operate at 

any such permitted cant deficiency over 

the previously operated track 

segments(s). Before the vehicle type 

could operate over another track 

segment at such cant deficiency, the 

vehicle type would have to be qualified 

as provided in this section. 

Paragraph (j) would be a new 

paragraph for defining ‘‘vehicle’’ and 

‘‘vehicle type,’’ as used in this section 

and in §§ 213.333 and 213.345. These 

terms would have the same meaning as 

in proposed § 213.57(k) and are being 

defined here so that they would apply 

to the appropriate sections of subpart G. 

Section 213.331 Track Surface 

This section is the counterpart to 

§ 213.63 and is intended for higherspeed track classes. 

Three changes have been proposed to 

the existing single-deviation, track 

surface limits in paragraph (a). 

Specifically, the 124-foot MCO limit for 

Class 9 track would be reduced to 1 

inch. This proposed change is based on 

a review of simulation results of Acela 

equipment. Further, the limit for the 

difference in crosslevel between any 

two points less than 62 feet apart would 

be reduced to 11⁄4 inch for Class 8 track, 

and 1 inch for Class 9 track. These 

proposed changes are intended to 

provide consistent safety limits based 

on the results of simulation studies 

conducted for short warp conditions. 

In addition, three new limits are 

proposed to be added to the existing 

single-deviation, track surface limits in 

paragraph (a). Two of these limits 

(deviation from zero crosslevel on 

tangent track, and reverse elevation for 

curved track), although not explicitly 

stated in the current table, are 

applicable to track Classes 6 through 9 

because these higher track classes must 

meet at least the minimum geometry 

requirements for track Classes 1 through 

5. These two limits would be expressly 

added in order to make this section 

comprehensive. Specifically, the 

existing 1-inch limit for deviation from 

zero crosslevel on tangent Class 5 track, 

as specified in § 213.63, would be added 

for track Classes 6 through 9. Second, 

the 1⁄2-inch reverse elevation limit for 

curved track, as currently specified in 

§ 213.329(a), would be moved to this 

section. The third limit, a new limit for 

the difference in crosslevel between any 

two points less than 10 feet apart (short 

warp), would be added to paragraph (a). 

It should be noted that the Task Force 

proposed that the existing 1-inch runoff 

limit for Class 5 track, as specified in 

§ 213.63, be added for higher track 

classes. However, FRA believes that 

appropriate surface requirements have 

already been established in § 213.331 

that address this issue and thus has not 

included this limit in the proposed rule. 

FRA is proposing to add tighter 

geometry limits for operations above 5 

inches of cant deficiency in revised 

paragraph (b). These would include 124- 

foot MCO limits and a new limit for the 

difference in crosslevel between any 

two points less than 10-feet apart (short 

warp). The text of existing paragraph (b) 

would be moved to new paragraph (c). 

As discussed in Section III.B. of the 

preamble, above, simulation studies 

have been performed to determine the 

safe amplitudes of surface track 

geometry variations. Results show that 

the proposed track geometry limits 

proposed in revised paragraph (b) are 

necessary in order to provide an 

equivalent margin of safety for 

operations at higher cant deficiency. 

Section 213.332 Combined Alinement 

and Surface Deviations 

FRA is proposing to add a new 

section containing limits addressing 

combined alinement and surface 

deviations that would apply only to 

high-speed operations above 5 inches of 

cant deficiency, as well as any operation 

at Class 9 speeds. An equation-based 

safety limit would be established for 

alinement and surface deviations 

occurring in combination within a 

single chord length of each other. The 

limits in this section would be used 

only with a TGMS. They would be 

applied on the outside rail in curves, 

and for Class 9 track operations would 

be applied on the outside rail in curves 

as well as to any of the two rails of a 

tangent section. 

See the discussion of § 213.65, which 

is the companion provision to this 

section for lower-speed classes of track. 

Section 213.333 Automated Vehicle 

Inspection Systems 

FRA is proposing many significant 

changes to this section, which contains 

requirements for automated 

measurement systems—namely, track 

geometry measurement systems, gage 

restraint measurement systems, and the 

systems necessary to monitor vehicle/ 

track interaction (acceleration and 

wheel/rail forces). 

In paragraph (a), FRA is proposing to 

add TGMS inspection requirements for 

low-speed, high cant deficiency 

operations, which would apply as 

required by § 213.57(i). As previously 

noted, FRA believes that these 

requirements are appropriate and 

necessary for operations at high cant 

deficiency on lower-speed track classes. 

FRA is also proposing to add TGMS 

inspection requirements for Class 6 

track. For Class 7 track, FRA is 

proposing to reduce slightly the 

minimum period between required 

TGMS inspections. The current Class 7 

track inspection frequency of twice 

within 120 calendar days with not less 

than 30 days between inspections 

would be reduced to not less than 25 

days between inspections so that more 

frequent inspections could be 

performed, for example, monthly. This 

would provide the railroad additional 

flexibility for operational reasons to 

comply in the event of incomplete 

inspections. The proposed frequency 

would require that the time interval 

between any two successive inspections 

be not less than 25 calendar days and 

not more than 95 calendar days. The 

current Class 8 and 9 track TGMS 

inspection frequency of twice within 60 

calendar days with not less than 15 days 

between inspections would be reduced 

to not less than 12 days between 

inspections so that more frequent 

inspections could be performed, for 

example, bi-weekly. This would also 

provide the railroad additional 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

25946 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

flexibility for operational reasons to 

comply in the event of incomplete 

inspections. The proposed frequency 

would require that the time interval 

between any two successive inspections 

be not less than 12 calendar days and 

not more than 48 calendar days. 

In paragraph (b), FRA is proposing to 

amend the TGMS sampling interval to 

not exceed 1 foot. This requirement is 

in line with current practices to provide 

sufficient data to identify track geometry 

perturbations. 

In paragraph (c), FRA is proposing to 

specify the application of the added 

TGMS inspection requirements for high 

cant deficiency operations on lowerspeed track classes. These requirements 

in subpart G would apply to vehicle 

types intended to operate at any curving 

speed producing more than 5 inches of 

cant deficiency, as provided in 

§ 213.57(i). Existing requirements for 

track Classes 6 through 9 would be 

amended to reference § 213.332, the 

newly proposed section for combined 

alinement and surface defects. 

Paragraphs (d) through (g) would 

remain unchanged. 

As noted in the discussion of 

§ 213.110, FRA is also proposing 

changes to the GRMS testing 

requirements in paragraphs (h) and (i), 

to reflect recommendations made in the 

FRA report titled ‘‘Development of Gage 

Widening Projection Parameter for the 

Deployable Gage Restraint Measurement 

System,’’ see above. These changes 

include replacing the GWR equation 

(and all references to GWR) with a GWP 

equation, which would compensate for 

the weight of the testing vehicle. This 

correction would result in more uniform 

strength measurements across the 

variety of testing vehicles that are in 

operation. FRA is also proposing that 

the Class 8 and 9 track inspection 

frequency of once per year with not less 

than 180 days between inspections be 

rewritten to require at least one 

inspection per calendar year with not 

less than 170 days between inspections, 

to allow some additional flexibility in 

scheduling inspections. The proposed 

frequency would require that the time 

interval between any two successive 

inspections would not be less than 170 

days and not more than 730 days. 

FRA is proposing to revise the 

wording and requirements in 

paragraphs (j) and (k), which relate to 

carbody and truck accelerometer 

monitoring. Proposed changes include 

adding the option to use a portable 

device when performing the 

acceleration monitoring and clarifying 

where the carbody and truck 

accelerometers would be located. 

Monitoring requirements would be 

added for operations above 5 inches of 

cant deficiency on track Classes 1 

through 6, in order to provide for the 

safety of these operations. These 

proposed requirements for monitoring 

high cant deficiency operations would 

apply to vehicle types qualified to 

operate at any curving speed producing 

more than 5 inches of cant deficiency, 

as provided in §§ 213.57(i) and 

§ 213.345(a), as appropriate. The 

monitoring requirements and 

qualification requirements in the rule 

for carbody and truck accelerations 

would thereby continue to work 

together, as the current monitoring 

requirements for track Classes 7 through 

9 are likewise intended to apply to 

vehicles that have been qualified to 

operate under § 213.345. 

As discussed in Section III.A. of the 

preamble, FRA is proposing to revise 

the requirement in existing paragraph (j) 

to monitor carbody and truck 

accelerations each day on at least one 

vehicle in one train operating at track 

Class 8 and 9 speeds. Based on data 

collected to date and to reduce 

unnecessary burden on the track owner 

or railroad operating the vehicle type, 

this monitoring frequency would be 

reduced from once per day to at least 

four times per week for carbody 

accelerations, and twice within 60 days 

for truck accelerations. In addition, a 

clause would be added to revised 

paragraph (k) to allow the track owner 

or operating railroad to petition FRA, 

after a specified amount of time or 

mileage, to eliminate the periodic 

vehicle track interaction truck 

accelerometer monitoring requirement 

for Class 8 and 9 track. Nonetheless, 

FRA notes that in addition to these 

requirements, pursuant to § 238.427, 

truck acceleration is continuously 

monitored on each Tier II vehicle in 

order to determine if hunting 

oscillations of the vehicle are occurring 

during revenue operation. 

FRA is proposing to modify the 

current requirement in paragraph (l) for 

conducting instrumented wheelset 

(IWS) testing on Class 8 and 9 track so 

that IWS testing would no longer be a 

general requirement applicable for all 

Class 8 and 9 track. Instead, the specific 

necessity to perform this testing would 

be determined by FRA on a case-by-case 

basis, after performing a review of a 

report annually submitted to it detailing 

the accelerometer monitoring data 

collected in accordance with paragraphs 

(j) and (k) of this section. A thorough 

review of the Acela trainset IWS data, as 

well as consideration of the economics 

associated with the testing, revealed that 

there was significant cost and little 

apparent safety benefit to justify IWS 

testing as a general requirement on an 

annual basis. FRA believes that the 

testing and monitoring requirements in 

this section, as a whole, that would be 

generally required, together with FRA’s 

oversight and ability to impose IWS 

testing requirements as needed, would 

be sufficient to maintain safety at a 

lower cost. 

FRA is proposing to make conforming 

changes to paragraph (m), which 

currently requires that the track owner 

maintain a copy of the most recent 

exception printouts for the inspections 

required under current paragraphs (k) 

and (l) of this section. Because of the 

proposed revisions to this section, 

paragraph (m) would reference the 

inspections required under paragraphs 

(j) and (k) of this section, and paragraph 

(l), as appropriate, should IWS testing 

be required. FRA notes that the Task 

Force did not specifically propose to 

retain paragraph (m), seemingly because 

of the proposed addition in paragraph 

(l) of an annual requirement to provide 

an analysis of the monitoring data 

gathered for operations on track Classes 

8 and 9. However, while this proposed 

reporting requirement in paragraph (l) 

would be new, it is intended to support 

amending the IWS testing requirements 

so that IWS testing would no longer be 

generally required for Class 8 and 9 

operations, as discussed above. 

Moreover, the reporting requirement is 

only an annual one and, by virtue of 

applying only to Class 8 and 9 

operations, would not address lowerspeed operations. In addition, the Task 

Force did not specifically propose to 

amend § 213.369(f), which provides that 

each vehicle/track interaction safety 

record required under §§ 213.333(g) and 

(m) be made available for inspection 

and copying by FRA at a specified 

location. In fact, the Task Force did 

recommend referencing § 213.369(f) for 

lower-speed, high cant deficiency 

operations, as proposed in § 213.57(i). 

Overall, FRA believes that it was an 

oversight for the Task Force not to 

propose retaining paragraph (m) and 

that it is both good practice and 

essential for FRA oversight to continue 

keeping the most recent records of 

exceptions as provided in paragraph 

(m). FRA is therefore proposing to retain 

paragraph (m), as modified. 

Substantial changes are proposed to 

be made to the content of the Vehicle/ 

Track Interaction Safety Limits Table 

(VTI Table). In general, the 

‘‘Requirements’’ for most of the limits 

are proposed to be clarified or updated. 

Specifically, the Single Wheel Vertical 

Load Ratio limit would be tightened 

from 0.10 to 0.15 to ensure an adequate 

safety margin for wheel unloading. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25947 

The Net Axle Lateral L/V Ratio limit 

would be modified from 0.5, to 0.4 + 

5.0/Va, so as to take into account the 

effect of axle load and would more 

appropriately reflect the cumulative, 

detrimental effect of track panel shift 

from heavier vehicles. This net axle 

lateral load limit is intended to control 

excessive lateral track shift and is 

sensitive to a number of track 

parameters. The well-established, 

European Prud’homme limit is a 

function of the axle load and this 

sensitivity was desired to differentiate 

between coach car and heavier 

locomotive loads. The Volpe Center’s 

Treda (Track REsidual Deflection 

Analysis) simulation work, testing at 

TTCI, and comparison to the 

Prud’homme limit all indicated the 

dependence on axle load and the 

importance of initial small lateral 

deflections. Representatives of the Task 

Force independently reviewed the 

Volpe Center analysis and concurred 

with the proposed change. The limiting 

condition would allow for a small initial 

deformation and assumes a stable 

configuration with the accumulation of 

additional traffic. 

Due to variations in vehicle design 

requirements and passenger ride safety, 

the carbody acceleration limits are 

proposed to be divided into separate 

limits for ‘‘Passenger Cars’’ and those for 

‘‘Other Vehicles’’ (such as conventional 

locomotives). In addition, the carbody 

transient acceleration limits are 

proposed to be modified from 0.5g 

lateral and 0.6g vertical, to 0.65g for 

passenger cars and 0.75g for other 

vehicles in the lateral direction and 1.0g 

for both passenger cars and other 

vehicles in the vertical direction. These 

changes were proposed after 

considerable research into the 

performance of existing vehicles during 

qualification testing and revenue 

operations. Overall, it was found that 

the existing carbody transient 

acceleration limits need not be as 

stringent to protect against events 

leading to vehicle or passenger safety 

issues. 

Based on the small energy content 

associated with high-frequency 

acceleration events of the carbody, FRA 

is proposing to add text to exclude any 

transient acceleration peaks lasting less 

than 50 milliseconds. Other changes 

proposed include the addition of new 

limits for sustained carbody lateral and 

vertical oscillatory accelerations, as well 

as the addition of minimum 

requirements for sampling and filtering 

of the acceleration data. The sustained 

carbody oscillatory acceleration limits 

have been proposed in response to a 

review of data that was obtained during 

qualification testing for the MARC–III 

multi-level passenger car, as discussed 

in Section III.A. of the preamble. The 

sustained carbody oscillatory 

acceleration limits are proposed to be 

0.10g RMSt for passenger cars and 0.12g 

RMSt for other vehicles in the lateral 

direction, and 0.25g RMSt for both 

passenger cars and other vehicles in the 

vertical direction. These new limits 

would require that the RMSt (root mean 

squared with linear trend removed) 

value be used in order to attenuate the 

effects of the linear variation in 

oscillatory accelerations resulting from 

negotiation of track segments with 

changes in curvature or grade by design, 

such as spirals. Root mean squared 

values would be determined over a 

sliding 4-second window with linear 

trend removed and be sustained for 

more than 4 seconds. Acceleration 

measurements would be processed 

through a low pass filter with a 

minimum cut-off frequency of 10 Hz 

and the sample rate for oscillatory 

acceleration data would be at least 100 

samples per second. 

The last set of proposed changes to 

the VTI Table concern the truck lateral 

acceleration limit used for the detection 

of truck hunting. This limit would be 

tightened from 0.4g to 0.3g and would 

specify that the value must exceed that 

limit for more than 2 seconds. Analyses 

conducted by FRA have shown that this 

would help to better identify the 

occurrences of excessive truck hunting, 

while excluding high-frequency, lowamplitude oscillations that would not 

require immediate attention. In 

addition, the revised limit would 

require that the RMSt value be used 

rather than the RMSm (root mean 

squared with mean removed) value. 

FRA believes this proposed change 

would improve the process for 

analyzing data while the vehicle is 

negotiating spiral track segments. 

Section 213.345 Vehicle/Track System 

Qualification 

As part of the 1998 Track Safety 

Standards final rule, all rolling stock 

(both passenger and freight) was 

required to be qualified for operation for 

its intended track class. However, this 

section ‘‘grandfathered’’ equipment that 

had already operated in specified track 

classes. Rolling stock operating in Class 

6 track within one year prior to the 

promulgation of the 1998 final rule was 

considered qualified. Further, vehicles 

operating at Class 7 track speeds under 

conditional waivers prior to the 

promulgation of the 1998 rule were 

qualified for Class 7 track, including 

equipment that was then-operating on 

the Northeast Corridor at Class 7 track 

speeds. For equipment not 

‘‘grandfathered,’’ qualification testing 

was intended to ensure that the 

equipment not exceed the VTI Table 

limits specified in § 213.333 at any 

speed less than 10 m.p.h. above the 

proposed maximum operating speed. 

FRA is proposing a number of 

significant changes to this section, 

whose heading would be modified from 

‘‘Vehicle qualification testing’’ to 

‘‘Vehicle/track system qualification’’ to 

more appropriately reflect the 

interaction of the vehicle and the track 

over which it operates as a system. 

These changes include modifying and 

clarifying this section’s substantive 

requirements, reorganizing the structure 

and layout of the rule text, and revising 

the qualification procedures. Among the 

changes proposed, lower-speed, high 

cant deficiency operations would be 

subject to this section in accordance 

with § 213.57(i). 

Paragraph (a), as proposed to be 

revised, would require all vehicle types 

intended to operate at Class 6 speeds or 

above or at any curving speed producing 

more than 5 inches of cant deficiency to 

be qualified for operation for their 

intended track classes in accordance 

with this subpart. For qualification 

purposes, the current over-speed testing 

requirement would be reduced from 10 

m.p.h. to 5 m.p.h. above the maximum 

proposed operating speed. FRA agrees 

with the Task Force’s view that the 

existing 10 m.p.h. over-speed testing 

requirement, which was established as 

part of the 1998 final rule, is overly 

conservative based on improved speed 

control and display technology 

deployed in current operations. 

Paragraph (b) would address 

qualification of existing vehicle types 

and make clear that grandfathered 

equipment would be considered 

qualified to operate over previouslyoperated track segment(s) only. 

Grandfathered equipment would not be 

qualified to operate over new routes 

(even at the same track speeds) without 

meeting the requirements of this 

section. 

Paragraph (c) would contain the 

requirements for new vehicle 

qualification. The additional (and 

tighter) carbody acceleration limits in 

current paragraph (b) for new vehicle 

qualification are proposed to be 

removed. In their place, this section 

would refer to § 213.333 for the 

applicable VTI limits for accelerations 

and wheel/rail forces. This change was 

proposed after considerable research 

into the performance of existing 

vehicles during qualification testing and 

revenue operations. Overall, it was 

found that the acceleration limits in 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

25948 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

current paragraph (b) need not be as 

stringent to protect against events 

leading to vehicle or passenger safety 

issues. 

For new vehicles intending to operate 

at track Class 6 speeds or above, or at 

any curving speed producing more than 

5 inches of cant deficiency, the 

qualification requirements would 

include, as appropriate, a combination 

of computer simulations, carbody 

acceleration testing, truck acceleration 

testing, and wheel/rail force 

measurements. Computer simulations 

would be required for all operations at 

track Class 6 through Class 9 speeds or 

for any operations above 6 inches of 

cant deficiency. These simulations 

would be conducted on both an 

analytically defined track segment 

representative of minimally compliant 

track conditions (MCAT) for the 

respective track classes as specified in 

appendix D to this part and on a track 

segment representative of the full route 

on which the vehicle type is intended 

to operate. (See the discussion of MCAT 

in appendix D, below.) Carbody 

acceleration testing would be required 

for all operations at track Class 6 speeds 

or above, or for any operations above 5 

inches of cant deficiency. Truck 

acceleration testing would be required 

for all operations at track Class 6 speeds 

or above. Wheel/rail force 

measurements, through the use of 

instrumented wheelsets (or equivalent 

devices), would be required for all 

operations at track Class 7 speeds or 

above, or for any operations above 6 

inches of cant deficiency. 

In paragraph (d), FRA is proposing to 

add a qualification requirement for 

previously qualified vehicles intended 

to operate on new track segments. This 

requirement would ensure that when 

qualified vehicles currently in operation 

are intended to operate on a new route, 

the new vehicle/track system is 

adequately examined for deficiencies 

prior to revenue service operation. For 

previously qualified vehicles intending 

to operate on new routes at track Class 

6 through Class 9 speeds and at cant 

deficiencies greater than 4 inches, or at 

any curving speed producing more than 

5 inches of cant deficiency, the 

qualification requirements would also 

include, as appropriate, a combination 

of computer simulations, carbody 

acceleration testing, truck acceleration 

testing, and wheel/rail force 

measurements. Specifically, for all 

operations at track Class 7 speeds or 

above, or for any operations above 6 

inches of cant deficiency, either 

computer simulations or measurement 

of wheel/rail forces would be required. 

For track Classes 6 through 9, carbody 

acceleration testing would be required 

for all operations above 4 inches of cant 

deficiency. Carbody acceleration testing 

would also be required for any 

operations above 5 inches of cant 

deficiency. For all operations at track 

Class 7 through Class 9 speeds, truck 

acceleration testing would be required. 

Paragraph (e) would clarify the 

current requirements in existing 

paragraph (c) for the content of the 

qualification test plan and would add a 

requirement for the plan to be submitted 

to FRA at least 60 days prior to 

conducting the testing. 

Paragraph (f) would contain the 

requirements for conducting 

qualification testing, expanding on the 

current requirements in this section. For 

instance, this paragraph would 

expressly require that a TGMS vehicle 

be operated over the intended test route 

within 30 days prior to the start of the 

testing. This paragraph would also make 

clear that any exceptions to the safety 

limits that occur on track or at speeds 

that are not part of the test do not need 

to be reported. For example, any 

exception to the safety limits that would 

occur at speeds below track Class 6 

speeds when the cant deficiency is at or 

below 5 inches would not need to be 

reported. 

Paragraph (g) contains the 

requirements for reporting to FRA the 

results of the qualification program. 

Pursuant to paragraph (h), FRA would 

approve a maximum train speed and 

value of cant deficiency for revenue 

service, based on the test results and 

submissions. Paragraph (h) would also 

make clear that FRA may impose 

conditions necessary for safely 

operating at the maximum train speed 

and value of cant deficiency approved 

for revenue service. 

Section 213.355 Frog Guard Rails and 

Guard Faces; Gage 

This section currently sets limits for 

guard check and guard face gage for 

track Classes 6 through 9. FRA is 

proposing to make minor changes to the 

way in which the requirements of this 

section are formatted. However, no 

substantive change is intended. 

Appendix A to Part 213—Maximum 

Allowable Curving Speeds 

This appendix currently contains two 

charts showing maximum allowable 

operating speeds in curves, by degree of 

curvature and inches of unbalance (cant 

deficiency). Table 1 applies to curves 

with 3 inches of unbalance; Table 2 to 

curves with 4 inches of unbalance. 

Because FRA is proposing to increase 

allowable cant deficiencies, this 

appendix would be expanded to include 

two additional tables, Tables 3 and 4, 

which would apply, respectively, to 

curves with 5 and 6 inches of 

unbalance. While this rule does provide 

for operations at higher levels of 

unbalance, for convenience FRA is 

including those additional tables that it 

believes would be helpful for more 

common use. 

Appendix B to Part 213—Schedule of 

Civil Penalties 

Appendix B to part 213 contains a 

schedule of civil penalties for use in 

connection with this part. FRA intends 

to revise the schedule of civil penalties 

in issuing the final rule to reflect 

revisions made to part 213. Because 

such penalty schedules are statements 

of agency policy, notice and comment 

are not required prior to their issuance. 

See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Nevertheless, 

commenters are invited to submit 

suggestions to FRA describing the types 

of actions or omissions for each 

proposed regulatory section, either 

added or revised, that would subject a 

person to the assessment of a civil 

penalty. Commenters are also invited to 

recommend what penalties may be 

appropriate, based upon the relative 

seriousness of each type of violation. 

Appendix D to Part 213—Minimally 

Compliant Analytical Track (MCAT) 

Simulations Used for Qualifying 

Vehicles To Operate at High Speeds and 

at High Cant Deficiencies 

The Track Safety Standards require 

that vehicles demonstrate safe operation 

for various track conditions. 

Computational models have become 

practical and reliable tools for 

understanding the dynamic interaction 

of vehicles and track, as a result of 

advancements made over the last few 

decades. Consequently, portions of the 

qualification requirements in subpart G 

could effectively be met by simulating 

vehicle testing using a suitablyvalidated vehicle model instead of 

testing an actual vehicle over a 

representative track segment. Such 

models are capable of assessing the 

response of vehicle designs to a wide 

range of track conditions corresponding 

to the limiting conditions allowed for 

each class of track. 

Appendix D would be a new 

appendix containing requirements for 

the use of computer simulations to 

comply with the vehicle/track system 

qualification testing requirements 

specified in subpart G of this part. These 

simulations would be performed using a 

track model containing defined 

geometry perturbations at the limits that 

are permitted for a class of track and 

level of cant deficiency. This track 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25949 

model is referred to as MCAT. These 

simulations would be used to identify 

vehicle dynamic performance issues 

prior to service, and demonstrate that a 

vehicle type is suitable for operation on 

the track over which it would operate. 

In order to validate a computer model 

using MCAT, the predicted results must 

be compared to actual data from ontrack, instrumented vehicle performance 

testing using accelerometers, or other 

instrumentation, or both. Validation 

must also demonstrate that the model is 

sufficiently robust to capture 

fundamental responses observed during 

field testing. Disagreements between 

predictions and test data may be 

indicative of inaccurate vehicle 

parameters, such as stiffness and 

damping, or track input. Once validated, 

the computer model can be used for 

assessment of a range of operating 

conditions or even to examine 

modifications to current designs. 

FRA notes that the length of each 

MCAT segment in this appendix is the 

same segment length that was used in 

the modeling of several representative 

high-speed vehicles. See the discussion 

of computer modeling in section III.B. of 

this NPRM, above, for additional 

background. 

Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part 

238, Passenger Equipment Safety 

Standards 

Subpart C—Specific Requirements for 

Tier I Passenger Equipment 

Section 238.227 Suspension System 

FRA is proposing to modify this 

section to conform with the changes 

being proposed to part 213 of this 

chapter and also to provide crossreferences to relevant sections of part 

213. Overall, these proposed revisions 

would help to reconcile the 

requirements of the 1998 Track Safety 

Standards final rule and the 1999 

Passenger Equipment Safety Standards 

final rule for Tier I passenger 

equipment. 

For consistency throughout this part 

and part 213 of this chapter, the term 

‘‘hunting oscillations’’ in paragraph (a) 

would be replaced with the term ‘‘truck 

hunting,’’ which would have the same 

meaning as that for ‘‘truck hunting’’ in 

49 CFR 213.333. Truck hunting would 

be defined in § 213.333 as ‘‘a sustained 

cyclic oscillation of the truck evidenced 

by lateral accelerations exceeding 0.3g 

root mean squared for more than 2 

seconds.’’ The Task Force believed that 

the current term ‘‘hunting oscillations,’’ 

defined as ‘‘lateral oscillations of trucks 

that could lead to a dangerous 

instability,’’ has a less definite meaning 

and could be applied unevenly as a 

result. The Task Force therefore 

preferred using the definition of ‘‘truck 

hunting’’ with its more specific criteria, 

and FRA agrees that more specific 

criteria would provide more certainty. 

Unlike § 213.333, however, paragraph 

(a) of this section would apply to all 

Tier I passenger equipment, regardless 

of track class or level of cant deficiency. 

The existing pre-revenue service 

qualification requirements in paragraph 

(b) are proposed to be revised consistent 

with the proposed revisions to part 213 

of this chapter. Paragraph (b) would also 

be broadened to address revenue service 

operation requirements. Paragraph (b), 

as proposed to be revised, would in 

effect generally summarize the 

qualification and revenue service 

operation requirements of part 213 for 

Tier I passenger equipment. This 

proposed paragraph is not intended to 

impose any requirement itself not 

otherwise contained in part 213. 

Subpart E—Specific Requirements for 

Tier II Passenger Equipment 

Section 238.427 Suspension System 

Similar to the revisions proposed for 

§ 238.227, FRA is proposing to modify 

this section to conform to the changes 

being proposed in part 213 of this 

chapter. Overall, these proposed 

revisions would help to reconcile the 

requirements of the 1998 Track Safety 

Standards final rule and the 1999 

Passenger Equipment Safety Standards 

final rule. 

While paragraph (a)(1) would remain 

unchanged, paragraph (a)(2) would be 

revised in an effort to summarize the 

qualification and revenue service 

operation requirements of part 213 for 

Tier II passenger equipment. The 

reference to the suspension system 

safety standards in appendix C would 

be removed, as discussed below. The 

existing carbody acceleration 

requirements in paragraph (b) would be 

revised consistent with the proposed 

changes to part 213. The current steadystate lateral carbody acceleration limits 

of 0.1g for pre-revenue service 

qualification and 0.12g for service 

operation are proposed to be revised to 

a single limit of 0.15g, to conform to the 

proposed requirements in § 213.329. 

Please see the discussion of § 213.329. 

The remaining carbody acceleration 

requirements would be consolidated by 

referencing the requirements of 

§ 213.333. 

Similar to the proposed revision of 

§ 238.227, the term ‘‘truck hunting’’ in 

paragraph (c) would have the same 

meaning as that proposed for ‘‘truck 

hunting’’ in § 213.333. 

The Task Force believed that the 

overheat sensor requirements in existing 

paragraph (d) are not directly related to 

suspension system safety and should be 

specified elsewhere. FRA agrees that the 

requirements of this paragraph can be 

stated separately for clarity, and is 

therefore proposing to move them to a 

new section, § 238.428. 

Section 238.428 Overheat Sensors 

FRA is proposing to add a new 

section containing the requirements 

currently found in § 238.427(d). No 

change to the current rule text is 

proposed, however. FRA agreed with 

the Task Force that the requirements for 

overheat sensors would be more 

appropriately contained in their own 

section rather than with the 

requirements for suspension systems in 

§ 238.427. 

Appendix A to Part 238—Schedule of 

Civil Penalties 

Appendix A to part 238 contains a 

schedule of civil penalties for use in 

connection with this part. FRA intends 

to revise the schedule of civil penalties 

in issuing the final rule to reflect 

revisions made to part 238. Because 

such penalty schedules are statements 

of agency policy, notice and comment 

are not required prior to their issuance. 

See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Nevertheless, 

commenters are invited to submit 

suggestions to FRA describing the types 

of actions or omissions for each 

proposed regulatory section that would 

subject a person to the assessment of a 

civil penalty. Commenters are also 

invited to recommend what penalties 

may be appropriate, based upon the 

relative seriousness of each type of 

violation. 

Appendix C to Part 238—Suspension 

System Safety Performance Standards 

FRA is proposing to remove and 

reserve appendix C, which currently 

includes the minimum suspension 

system safety performance standards for 

Tier II passenger equipment. FRA 

believes that removing appendix C is 

appropriate in light of the proposal to 

amend § 238.427(a)(2). Currently, 

§ 238.427(a)(2) requires that Tier II 

passenger equipment meet the safety 

performance standards for suspension 

systems contained in appendix C, or 

alternative standards providing at least 

equivalent safety if approved by FRA 

under § 238.21. As discussed above, 

FRA is proposing to revise 

§ 238.427(a)(2) to require compliance 

with the safety standards contained in 

§ 213.333, instead of those in this 

appendix C. Given the proposal to crossreference the requirements in § 213.333, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

25950 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

which are more extensive than the ones 

contained in this appendix C, appendix 

C would no longer be necessary and 

would therefore be removed and 

reserved. 

V. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This proposed rule has been 

evaluated in accordance with existing 

policies and procedures and determined 

to be non-significant under both 

Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

policies and procedures. See 44 FR 

11034; February 26, 1979. FRA has 

analyzed the costs and benefits of this 

proposed rule. FRA believes that the 

cost savings would offset any new cost 

burden. Even if that were not the case, 

FRA is confident that the benefits and 

the cost savings, taken together, would 

exceed any additional cost burden. As 

noted above, the Task Force developed 

proposals intended to result in 

improved public safety while reducing 

the burden on the railroad industry 

where possible. 

Below is an analysis of four main 

things that the proposed rulemaking 

would accomplish: 

1. The rulemaking would revise the 

current regulation in subpart G of part 

213, which has performance standards 

and specifications for track geometry for 

track Classes 6 and higher, and which 

offers affected railroads and car 

manufacturers the ability to arrive at a 

mutually-beneficial set of car dynamics 

and track engineering standards. In 

practice, the one impacted railroad, 

Amtrak, has asked manufacturers to 

build equipment that will meet the 

performance standards at the maximum 

deviations permitted under the 

geometric standards, as opposed to 

geometric parameters that would permit 

current high-speed passenger equipment 

to meet the acceleration and other 

performance requirements. 

Manufacturers state that this has proved 

unworkable because they cannot build 

equipment economically that can meet 

the acceleration and other performance 

standards when the track is at the 

maximum permissible deviations, using 

technology in production today. 

Overall, FRA has reviewed the 

performance standards in light of 

advanced simulations that were 

developed to support the rulemaking 

effort, as discussed in Section III of the 

preamble, and has proposed to refine 

those standards to better focus on 

identified safety concerns and remove 

any unnecessary costs. 

2. The rulemaking would add 

flexibility through procedures for safely 

permitting high cant deficiency 

operations on track Classes 1 through 5, 

without the need for obtaining a waiver. 

In order to take advantage of higher cant 

deficiency operations, a railroad would 

have to qualify the equipment and 

maintain the track to more stringent 

standards. Railroads would take 

advantage of this flexibility to the extent 

that they expect the benefits from doing 

so would exceed the costs. 

3. The rulemaking would institute 

more cost-effective equipment 

qualification and in-service monitoring 

requirements. Railroads could 

discontinue annual use of instrumented 

wheelsets for in-service validation, and 

could avoid some tests that have not 

provided useful data. Further, railroads 

could use MCAT to extend territories in 

which qualified equipment may operate. 

4. The rulemaking would clarify that 

individuals qualified to inspect track 

need only understand the parts of the 

regulation relevant to the inspections 

they conduct and the work they 

perform. 

Impacts 

The proposed changes to geometric 

standards and performance standards 

for high-speed operations would not 

impact any existing high-speed 

operations, which are now limited to 

Amtrak on the Northeast Corridor, but 

would rather promote their safe 

operation. If Amtrak were to attempt to 

operate Acela at the current maximum 

allowable speeds and cant deficiencies 

for which it is qualified, but were to 

allow track deviations to reach current 

limits, the Acela trainset, because of its 

dynamic characteristics, would be 

subject to accelerations in excess of the 

limits now permitted. FRA’s modeling 

to date has shown that Acela, as it is 

currently qualified to operate, would 

meet the safety standards proposed in 

this rulemaking. Future high-speed 

operations would be made simpler, 

because the railroad, if it requires 

equipment manufacturers to provide 

equipment that would meet 

performance requirements on minimally 

compliant track, would find several 

suppliers of off-the-shelf equipment, 

likely lowering bid prices and gaining 

multiple bidders. Assuming that absent 

this rulemaking, railroads would seek to 

have new equipment used in high-speed 

train operations built to performance 

standards at the maximum deviations 

permitted under the geometric 

standards, FRA estimates that future 

high-speed operations would save in the 

neighborhood of $2,000,000 per trainset 

on bids because of the simplification of 

the design process. FRA believes that it 

is not unreasonable to assume that 40 

trainsets would be affected, based on 

current proposals for high-speed rail, 

and has distributed the estimated 

procurement dates in years 6 through 

10. The annual savings would be 

8*$2,000,000 (or $16,000,000) and the 

net discounted savings would be 

$46,774,146. 

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED EQUIPMENT PROCUREMENT BENEFIT

Year Annual benefit Discount factor 

Annual 

discounted 

benefit 

Cumulative 

discounted 

benefit 

1 ..................................................................................................... $0 0.93 $0 $0 

2 ..................................................................................................... 0 0.87 0 0 

3 ..................................................................................................... 0 0.82 0 0 

4 ..................................................................................................... 0 0.76 0 0 

5 ..................................................................................................... 0 0.71 0 0 

6 ..................................................................................................... 16,000,000 0.67 10,661,476 10,661,476 

7 ..................................................................................................... 16,000,000 0.62 9,963,996 20,625,471 

8 ..................................................................................................... 16,000,000 0.58 9,312,146 29,937,617 

9 ..................................................................................................... 16,000,000 0.54 8,702,940 38,640,557 

10 ..................................................................................................... 16,000,000 0.51 8,133,589 46,774,146 

11 ..................................................................................................... 0 0.48 0 46,774,146 

12 ..................................................................................................... 0 0.44 0 46,774,146 

13 ..................................................................................................... 0 0.41 0 46,774,146 

14 ..................................................................................................... 0 0.39 0 46,774,146 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25951 

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED EQUIPMENT PROCUREMENT BENEFIT—Continued 

Year Annual benefit Discount factor 

Annual 

discounted 

benefit 

Cumulative 

discounted 

benefit 

15 ..................................................................................................... 0 0.36 0 46,774,146 

16 ..................................................................................................... 0 0.34 0 46,774,146 

17 ..................................................................................................... 0 0.32 0 46,774,146 

18 ..................................................................................................... 0 0.30 0 46,774,146 

19 ..................................................................................................... 0 0.28 0 46,774,146 

20 ..................................................................................................... 0 0.26 0 46,774,146 

The provisions for high cant 

deficiency operations on all track 

classes are permissive in nature and 

would create no additional costs. A 

railroad could either adhere to these 

provisions in expectation that any 

additional expenditure would trigger 

savings and result in an overall net 

benefit, or simply avoid triggering the 

provisions. High cant deficiency offers 

significant opportunities to reduce trip 

time, as it would reduce the amount of 

time travelled at the slowest speeds. For 

example, to travel a mile, a train could 

take 3 minutes at 20 m.p.h. or 2 minutes 

at 30 m.p.h. Traveling at 30 m.p.h. 

would reduce trip time by a minute. By 

contrast, a train traveling at 120 m.p.h. 

would take 5 minutes to travel 10 miles, 

while a train traveling at 150 mph 

would take 4 minutes to travel the same 

distance, reducing trip time by 1 minute 

relative to the train traveling at 120 

m.p.h. The net time savings from 

traveling one mile at 30 m.p.h. instead 

of at 20 m.p.h. is the same as the time 

savings from traveling 10 miles at 150 

m.p.h. instead of at 120 m.p.h. High 

cant deficiency can allow that kind of 

time savings at lower speeds, and 

therefore offers a relatively low-cost way 

of improving trip time. The United 

States is investing more in passenger 

rail transportation and this would be a 

very good way to make the high-speed 

rail system more efficient. 

FRA believes that use of higher cant 

deficiencies will become much more 

common over the next years, although, 

nearer-term, relatively fewer 

opportunities for new operations at cant 

deficiencies in excess of 5 inches would 

present themselves. In any event, there 

could be a benefit to some operations 

from the potential enhanced speeds. On 

the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak has 

placed values of $2,000,000 annually or 

more for a reduction of 1 minute in total 

travel time on the south end of the 

Northeast Corridor, and in excess of 

$1,000,000 for such a reduction on the 

north end of the Northeast Corridor, for 

its high-speed operations. (See ‘‘Relative 

Impacts of On-Time Performance and 

Travel Time Improvements for Amtrak’s 

Acela Express Service in the NEC,’’ 

February 18, 2009, AECOM, a copy of 

which has been placed in the public 

docket for this rulemaking.) FRA 

estimates that, initially, high-speed 

operations on the Northeast Corridor 

would save 2 minutes of travel time, 

which coupled with Amtrak’s estimate 

for time savings would translate into a 

value of $4,000,000 per year. Similarly, 

other improvements nationwide, such 

as extension of higher cant deficiency 

operations already in service in the 

Northwest, could result in additional 

savings of $4,000,000 per year after the 

cost of improving track geometry is 

considered. For purposes of this 

analysis, FRA estimates that more 

operations would take advantage of high 

cant deficiency possibilities starting in 

about year 6, and that the value would 

be an additional $2,000,000 per year in 

year 6, growing by $2,000,000 per year 

in years 7 through 20, eventually 

reaching an annual benefit of 

$40,000,000 in year 20, for a total 

discounted benefit of $193,714,398 over 

20 years. All of these values are 

speculative, and based on significant 

increases in rail passenger 

transportation. If there is a greater 

increase in passenger transportation the 

savings would be greater; if they are not 

as great, the savings would be lower. 

TABLE 2—ESTIMATED HIGH CANT DEFICIENCY BENEFIT

Year Annual benefit Discount factor Annual discounted benefit 

Cumulative discounted benefit 

1 ..................................................................................................... $8,000,000 0.93 $7,476,636 $7,476,636 

2 ..................................................................................................... 8,000,000 0.87 6,987,510 14,464,145 

3 ..................................................................................................... 8,000,000 0.82 6,530,383 20,994,528 

4 ..................................................................................................... 8,000,000 0.76 6,103,162 27,097,690 

5 ..................................................................................................... 8,000,000 0.71 5,703,889 32,801,579 

6 ..................................................................................................... 10,000,000 0.67 6,663,422 39,465,002 

7 ..................................................................................................... 12,000,000 0.62 7,472,997 46,937,999 

8 ..................................................................................................... 14,000,000 0.58 8,148,127 55,086,126 

9 ..................................................................................................... 16,000,000 0.54 8,702,940 63,789,066 

10 ..................................................................................................... 18,000,000 0.51 9,150,287 72,939,353 

11 ..................................................................................................... 20,000,000 0.48 9,501,856 82,441,209 

12 ..................................................................................................... 22,000,000 0.44 9,768,263 92,209,472 

13 ..................................................................................................... 24,000,000 0.41 9,959,147 102,168,619 

14 ..................................................................................................... 26,000,000 0.39 10,083,248 112,251,867 

15 ..................................................................................................... 28,000,000 0.36 10,148,489 122,400,356 

16 ..................................................................................................... 30,000,000 0.34 10,162,038 132,562,394 

17 ..................................................................................................... 32,000,000 0.32 10,130,380 142,692,774 

18 ..................................................................................................... 34,000,000 0.30 10,059,373 152,752,147 

19 ..................................................................................................... 36,000,000 0.28 9,954,300 162,706,447 

20 ..................................................................................................... 38,000,000 0.26 9,819,922 172,526,370 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

25952 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Improvements in the use of 

monitoring equipment and streamlined 

qualification procedures have the 

potential to reduce costs, without any 

offsetting increases. The reduced need 

for instrumented wheelsets, 

instrumented cars, and related tests 

would save roughly $2,000,000 per year 

on current high-speed operations, and 

have the potential for similar savings on 

planned high-speed operations. FRA 

estimates that two such high-speed 

operations would be in place starting in 

year 6, each saving $2,000,000 per year. 

Further, FRA believes that using MCAT 

to extend the range of qualified 

equipment would save an additional 

$1,500,000 per year in the first five 

years, and that the savings would grow 

by $500,000 per year after year 5, as rail 

passenger transportation expands. 

MCAT would work to enhance safety, 

because the equipment would be shown 

to be safe on minimally compliant track 

and, as a result, would likely be safe 

under foreseeable conditions. In the 

absence of MCAT, the equipment can be 

qualified on very good track, which 

might later deteriorate over time. 

Although accelerometers should 

provide indications of such 

deterioration, ensuring that the 

equipment would be safe on track 

meeting the geometric limits adds to the 

life-cycle safety of a trainset. The total 

savings would grow from $3,500,000 per 

year in year 1 to $15,000,000 in year 20, 

for a total savings of $84,997,881 in 

costs discounted at 7% over 20 years. 

TABLE 3—STREAMLINED TESTING REQUIREMENTS—ESTIMATED COST SAVINGS

Year Annual benefit Discount factor Annual discounted benefit 

Cumulative discounted benefit 

1 ..................................................................................................... $3,500,000 0.93 $3,271,028 $3,271,028 

2 ..................................................................................................... 3,500,000 0.87 3,057,036 6,328,064 

3 ..................................................................................................... 3,500,000 0.82 2,857,043 9,185,106 

4 ..................................................................................................... 3,500,000 0.76 2,670,133 11,855,239 

5 ..................................................................................................... 3,500,000 0.71 2,495,452 14,350,691 

6 ..................................................................................................... 8,000,000 0.67 5,330,738 19,681,429 

7 ..................................................................................................... 8,500,000 0.62 5,293,373 24,974,802 

8 ..................................................................................................... 9,000,000 0.58 5,238,082 30,212,884 

9 ..................................................................................................... 9,500,000 0.54 5,167,371 35,380,254 

10 ..................................................................................................... 10,000,000 0.51 5,083,493 40,463,747 

11 ..................................................................................................... 10,500,000 0.48 4,988,474 45,452,221 

12 ..................................................................................................... 11,000,000 0.44 4,884,132 50,336,353 

13 ..................................................................................................... 11,500,000 0.41 4,772,091 55,108,444 

14 ..................................................................................................... 12,000,000 0.39 4,653,807 59,762,251 

15 ..................................................................................................... 12,500,000 0.36 4,530,575 64,292,826 

16 ..................................................................................................... 13,000,000 0.34 4,403,550 68,696,376 

17 ..................................................................................................... 13,500,000 0.32 4,273,754 72,970,130 

18 ..................................................................................................... 14,000,000 0.30 4,142,095 77,112,225 

19 ..................................................................................................... 14,500,000 0.28 4,009,371 81,121,596 

20 ..................................................................................................... 15,000,000 0.26 3,876,285 84,997,881 

FRA believes that the proposed 

modifications to the qualifications 

requirements would have no net impact, 

as the changes generally codify current 

interpretations. 

The total quantified benefits resulting 

from this regulatory proposal would 

range from $11,500,000 in year 1, to 

$53,000,000 in year 20, with a total, net 

discounted benefit of $304,298,396 over 

20 years at a 7% annual discount rate. 

Of course, such benefits would depend 

on much more extensive use of rail 

passenger transportation, including 

high-speed rail, as envisioned in current 

infrastructure improvement and 

spending plans. 

TABLE 4—TOTAL ESTIMATED BENEFITS

Year Annual benefit Discount factor Annual discounted benefit 

Cumulative discounted benefit 

1 ..................................................................................................... $11,500,000 0.93 $10,747,664 $10,747,664 

2 ..................................................................................................... 11,500,000 0.87 10,044,545 20,792,209 

3 ..................................................................................................... 11,500,000 0.82 9,387,426 30,179,635 

4 ..................................................................................................... 11,500,000 0.76 8,773,295 38,952,929 

5 ..................................................................................................... 11,500,000 0.71 8,199,341 47,152,271 

6 ..................................................................................................... 34,000,000 0.67 22,655,636 69,807,906 

7 ..................................................................................................... 36,500,000 0.62 22,730,366 92,538,272 

8 ..................................................................................................... 39,000,000 0.58 22,698,355 115,236,627 

9 ..................................................................................................... 41,500,000 0.54 22,573,250 137,809,877 

10 ..................................................................................................... 44,000,000 0.51 22,367,369 160,177,246 

11 ..................................................................................................... 30,500,000 0.48 14,490,330 174,667,576 

12 ..................................................................................................... 33,000,000 0.44 14,652,395 189,319,971 

13 ..................................................................................................... 35,500,000 0.41 14,731,238 204,051,209 

14 ..................................................................................................... 38,000,000 0.39 14,737,055 218,788,264 

15 ..................................................................................................... 40,500,000 0.36 14,679,064 233,467,328 

16 ..................................................................................................... 43,000,000 0.34 14,565,588 248,032,915 

17 ..................................................................................................... 45,500,000 0.32 14,404,135 262,437,050 

18 ..................................................................................................... 48,000,000 0.30 14,201,468 276,638,518 

19 ..................................................................................................... 50,500,000 0.28 13,963,671 290,602,189 

20 ..................................................................................................... 53,000,000 0.26 13,696,207 304,298,396 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25953 

Additional cost burden associated 

with information collection is presented 

in Section C., Paperwork Reduction Act, 

below. Such impacts would be 

relatively low compared to the cost 

savings that would result. 

Certain refinements to the testing 

requirements would yield greater 

confidence in the test results and thus 

enhanced safety levels. Such benefits 

are not readily quantifiable, and FRA 

has not attempted to quantify them. 

In summary, the enhanced safety 

levels coupled with the cost savings 

would justify the new cost burden 

resulting from this proposal. FRA 

requests comments on all aspects of its 

economic analysis presented here. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and 

Executive Order 13272 

To ensure that the potential impact of 

this rulemaking on small entities is 

properly considered, FRA developed 

this proposed rule in accordance with 

Executive Order 13272 (‘‘Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking’’) and DOT’s 

policies and procedures to promote 

compliance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires 

an agency to review regulations to 

assess their impact on small entities. An 

agency must conduct a regulatory 

flexibility analysis unless it determines 

and certifies that a rule is not expected 

to have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

The U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA) stipulates in its 

‘‘Size Standards’’ that the largest a 

railroad business firm that is ‘‘for-profit’’ 

may be, and still be classified as a 

‘‘small entity,’’ is 1,500 employees for 

‘‘Line-Haul Operating Railroads,’’ and 

500 employees for ‘‘Switching and 

Terminal Establishments.’’ ‘‘Small 

entity’’ is defined in the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act as a small business that 

is not independently owned and 

operated, and is not dominant in its 

field of operation. SBA’s ‘‘Size 

Standards’’ may be altered by Federal 

agencies after consultation with SBA 

and in conjunction with public 

comment. Pursuant to that authority, 

FRA has published a final policy that 

formally establishes ‘‘small entities’’ as 

Class III railroads, contractors, and 

shippers meeting the economic criteria 

established for Class III railroads in 49 

CFR 1201.1–1, and commuter railroads 

or small governmental jurisdictions that 

serve populations of 50,000 or less. No 

shippers, contractors, or small 

governmental jurisdictions would be 

impacted by this proposal. At present 

there are no small entity commuter 

railroads, and FRA believes that were 

such a small commuter railroad to 

commence operations, it is extremely 

unlikely that it would engage in high 

cant deficiency operations because such 

operations require relatively expensive 

rolling equipment capable of tilting to 

give a safe and comfortable ride to 

passengers. 

The Class III revenue requirement is 

currently $20 million or less in annual 

operating revenue. The $20 million 

limit (which is adjusted by applying the 

railroad revenue deflator adjustment) is 

based on the Surface Transportation 

Board’s (STB) threshold for a Class III 

railroad carrier. FRA uses the same 

revenue dollar limit to determine 

whether a railroad or shipper or 

contractor is a small entity. At present, 

no small entities would be affected by 

either the high-speed provisions or the 

high cant deficiency provisions. To the 

extent that new passenger railroads are 

small entities, and want to take 

advantage of high cant deficiency 

operations and have the means to do so, 

they would benefit. Small freight 

railroads hosting passenger operations 

could recoup any costs of maintaining 

infrastructure, through trackage 

agreements which enable host railroads 

to recover marginal costs of permitting 

passenger operations over their tracks, 

to accommodate high cant deficiency 

operations, or could refuse to host such 

high cant deficiency operations, as 

appropriate. Nonetheless, FRA does not 

foresee any situation under which a 

small entity might be impacted by the 

high speed provisions in this proposal. 

Based on these determinations, FRA 

certifies that it expects that, as a result 

of this rulemaking, there will be no 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. FRA requests 

comments on both this analysis and this 

certification. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 

been submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The sections 

that contain both proposed and current 

information collection requirements, 

and the estimated time to fulfill those 

requirements, are summarized in the 

following table. 

CFR Section Respondent universe Total annual responses Average time per 

response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

213.4—Excepted Track: 

—Designation of track as excepted ............. 200 railroads ................ 20 orders ..................... 15 minutes ................... 5 

—Notification to FRA about removal of excepted track.200 railroads ................ 15 notification .............. 10 minutes ................... 3 

213.5—Responsibility for Compliance ................ 728 railroads ................ 10 notification .............. 8 hours ......................... 80 

213.7—Designation of Qualified Persons to Supervise Certain Renewals and Inspect Track: 

—Designations ............................................. 728 railroads ................ 1,500 names ................ 10 minutes ................... 250 

—Employees trained in CWR procedures ... 31 railroads .................. 80,000 employees ....... 90 minutes ................... 120,000 

—Written authorizations and recorded 

exams.

31 railroads .................. 80,000 authorizations + 

80,000 exams.

10 minutes + 60 minutes.93,333 

—Designations (partially qualified) under 

paragraph (d) of this section.

31 railroads .................. 250 names ................... 10 minutes ................... 42 

213.17—Waivers ................................................. 728 railroads ................ 6 petitions .................... 24 hours ....................... 144 

213.57—Curves; Elevation and Speed Limitations: 

—Request to FRA for vehicle type approval 728 railroads ................ 2 requests/documents 40 hours ....................... 80 

—Notification to FRA prior to implementation of higher curving speeds.728 railroads ................ 2 notifications ............... 45 minutes ................... 2 

—Railroad notification to FRA of providing 

commuter/passenger service over trackage of more than 1 track owner with 

same vehicle type.

728 railroads ................ 2 notifications ............... 45 minutes ................... 2 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

25954 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

CFR Section Respondent universe Total annual responses Average time per 

response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

—Written consent of other affected track 

owners by railroad.

728 railroads ................ 2 consents ................... 8 hours ......................... 16 

213.110— Gage Restraint Measurement Systems (GRMS): 

—Implementing GRMS—notices and reports.728 railroads ................ 5 notifications + 1 technical report.45 minutes/4 hours ...... 8 

—GRMS vehicle output reports ................... 728 railroads ................ 50 reports .................... 5 minutes ..................... 4 

—GRMS vehicle exception reports ............. 728 railroads ................ 50 reports .................... 5 minutes ..................... 4 

—GRMS/PTLF procedures for data integrity 728 railroads ................ 4 procedure documents 2 hours ......................... 8 

—GRMS training programs/sessions .......... 728 railroads ................ 2 programs + 5 sessions.16 hours ....................... 112 

—GRMS inspection records ........................ 728 railroads ................ 50 records .................... 2 hours ......................... 100 

213.118—Continuous Welded Rail (CWR); Plan 

Review and Approval: 

—Plans ......................................................... 728 railroads ................ 728 reviewed plans ..... 4 hours ......................... 2,912 

—Notification to FRA and employees of 

plan effective date.

728 railroads ................ 728 notifications + 

80,000 notifications.

15 minutes + 2 minutes 2,849 

—Written submissions in support of plan .... 728 railroads ................ 20 submissions ............ 2 hours ......................... 40 

—FRA-required revisions to CWR plan ....... 728 railroads ................ 20 reviewed plans ....... 1 hour .......................... 20 

213.119—Continuous Welded rail (CWR), Plan 

Contents: 

—Fracture report for each broken CWR 

joint bar.

239 railroads/1 association.12,000 reports ............. 10 minutes ................... 2,000 

—Petition for technical conference on fracture reports.1 association ................ 1 petition ...................... 15 minutes ................... .25 

—Training programs on CWR procedures .. 239 railroads/1 association.240 amended programs.1 hour .......................... 240 

—Annual CWR training of employees ......... 31 railroads .................. 80,000 employees ....... 30 minutes ................... 40,000 

—Recordkeeping (track with CWR) ............. 239 railroads ................ 2,000 records ............... 10 minutes ................... 333 

—Recordkeeping for CWR rail joints ........... 239 railroads ................ 360,000 records ........... 2 minutes ..................... 12,000 

—Periodic records for CWR rail joints ......... 239 railroads ................ 480,000 records ........... 1 minute ....................... 8,000 

—Copy of track owner’s CWR procedures 728 railroads ................ 239 manuals ................ 10 minutes ................... 40 

213.233—Track Inspections: 

—Notations .................................................. 728 railroads ................ 12,500 notations .......... 1 minute ....................... 208 

213.241—Inspection Records ............................. 728 railroads ................ 1,542,089 records ........ Varies ........................... 1,672,941 

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

213.305—Designation of Qualified Individuals; 

General Qualifications: 

—Designations ............................................. 2 railroads .................... 150 designations ......... 10 minutes ................... 25 

—Designations (partially qualified) under 

paragraph (d) of this section.

2 railroads .................... 20 designations ........... 10 minutes ................... 3 

213.317—Waivers ........................................ 2 railroads .................... 1 petition ...................... 80 hours ....................... 80 

213.329— Curves, Elevation and Speed Limitations: 

—FRA approval of qualified vehicle types 

based on results of testing.

728 railroads ................ 2 documents ................ 40 hours ....................... 80 

—Written notification to FRA 30 days prior 

to implementation of higher curving 

speeds.

728 railroads ................ 2 notifications ............... 45 minutes ................... 2 

—Written notification to FRA by railroad 

providing commuter/passenger Service 

over trackage of more than 1 track owner 

with same vehicle type.

728 railroads ................ 2 notifications ............... 45 minutes ................... 2 

—Written consent of other affected track 

owners by railroad.

728 railroads ................ 2 consents ................... 8 hours ......................... 16 

213.333—Automated Vehicle Inspection Systems: 

—Track Geometry Measurement System 

(TGMS): reports.

10 railroads .................. 18 reports .................... 30 hours ....................... 540 

—TGMS: copies of most recent exception 

printouts.

10 railroads .................. 13 printouts .................. 20 hours ....................... 260 

—Notification to track personnel when onboard accelerometers indicate track-related problem (new requirement).10 railroads .................. 5 notifications ............... 40 hours ....................... 200 

—Requests for an alternate location for device measuring lateral accelerations (new 

requirement).

10 railroads .................. 10 requests .................. 40 hours ....................... 400 

—Report to FRA providing analysis of collected monitoring data (new requirement).10 railroads .................. 2,080 reports ............... 6 hours ......................... 12,480 

213.341—Initial Inspection of New Rail and 

Welds: 

—Mill inspection—copy of manufacturer’s 

report.

2 railroads .................... 2 reports ...................... 16 hours ....................... 32 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25955 

CFR Section Respondent universe Total annual responses Average time per 

response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

—Welding plan inspection report ................. 2 railroads .................... 2 reports ...................... 16 hours ....................... 32 

—Inspection of field welds ........................... 2 railroads .................... 125 records .................. 20 minutes ................... 42 

213.343—Continuous Welded Rail (CWR): 

—Recordkeeping ......................................... 2 railroads .................... 150 records .................. 10 minutes ................... 25 

213.345—Vehicle/Track System Qualification: 

—Qualification program for all vehicle types 

operating at track Class 6 speeds or 

above or at curving speeds above 5 

inches of cant deficiency (new requirement).

10 railroads .................. 10 programs ................ 120 hours ..................... 1,200 

—Qualification program for previously qualified vehicle types (new requirement).10 railroads .................. 10 programs ................ 80 hours ....................... 800 

213.347—Automotive or Railroad Crossings at 

Grade: 

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

213.369—Inspection Records: 

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

—Internal defect inspections and remedial 

action taken.

2 railroads .................... 50 records .................... 5 minutes ..................... 4 

Appendix D—Minimally Compliant Analytical 

Track (MCAT) Simulations Used for Qualifying Vehicles to Operate at High Speeds and 

at High Cant Deficiencies: 

—Identification of non-redundant suspension system element or component that 

may present a single point of failure (new 

requirement).

10 railroads .................. 20 identified elements/ 

components.

160 hours ..................... 3,200 

All estimates include the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering or 

maintaining the needed data, and 

reviewing the information. Pursuant to 

44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits 

comments concerning: Whether these 

information collection requirements are 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of FRA, including whether 

the information has practical utility; the 

accuracy of FRA’s estimates of the 

burden of the information collection 

requirements; the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and whether the burden of 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology, may be minimized. For 

information or a copy of the paperwork 

package submitted to OMB, contact Mr. 

Robert Brogan, Information Clearance 

Officer, Federal Railroad 

Administration, at 202–493–6292, or 

Ms. Kimberly Toone, Information 

Clearance Officer, Federal Railroad 

Administration, at 202–493–6132. 

Organizations and individuals 

desiring to submit comments on the 

collection of information requirements 

should direct them to Mr. Robert Brogan 

or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Federal 

Railroad Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., Third Floor, 

Washington, DC 20590. Comments may 

also be submitted via e-mail to Mr. 

Brogan or Ms. Toone at the following, 

respective addresses: 

Robert.Brogan@dot.gov, or 

Kimberly.Toone@dot.gov. Copies of 

such comments may also be submitted 

to OMB at the Office of Management 

and Budget, 725 17th St., NW., 

Washington, DC 20590, Attn: FRA OMB 

Desk Officer, or via e-mail at 

oira_submissions@omb.eop.gov. 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the collection of information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule between 30 and 60 days after 

publication of this document in the 

Federal Register. Therefore, a comment 

is best assured of having its full effect 

if received within 30 days of 

publication. The final rule will respond 

to any OMB or public comments on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this proposal. 

FRA is not authorized to impose a 

penalty on persons for violating 

information collection requirements that 

do not display a current OMB control 

number, if required. FRA intends to 

obtain current OMB control numbers for 

any new information collection 

requirements resulting from this 

rulemaking action prior to the effective 

date of the final rule. The OMB control 

number, when assigned, will be 

announced by separate notice in the 

Federal Register. 

D. Federalism Implications 

This NPRM has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ (see 64 FR 43255 

(Aug. 10, 1999)). Executive Order 13132 

requires FRA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ are defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, the agency may 

not issue a regulation with federalism 

implications that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, the agency consults with 

State and local governments, or the 

agency consults with State and local 

government officials early in the process 

of developing the regulation. Where a 

regulation has federalism implications 

and preempts State law, the agency 

seeks to consult with State and local 

officials in the process of developing the 

regulation. 

FRA has determined that this 

regulatory action will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, nor on the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

25956 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. In addition, FRA 

has determined that this regulatory 

action would not impose substantial 

direct compliance costs on State and 

local governments. Therefore, the 

consultation and funding requirements 

of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. 

However, the final rule arising from 

this regulatory action would have 

preemptive effect. Section 20106 of title 

49, United States Code, (Section 20106) 

provides that States may not adopt or 

continue in effect any law, regulation, or 

order related to railroad safety or 

security that covers the subject matter of 

a regulation prescribed or issued by the 

Secretary of Transportation (with 

respect to railroad safety matters) or the 

Secretary of Homeland Security (with 

respect to railroad security matters), 

except when the State law, regulation, 

or order qualifies under the ‘‘essentially 

local safety or security hazard’’ 

exception to Section 20106. The intent 

of Section 20106 is to promote national 

uniformity in railroad safety and 

security standards. 49 U.S.C. 

20106(a)(1). Thus, subject to a limited 

exception for essentially local safety or 

security hazards, the final rule arising 

from this rulemaking would establish a 

uniform Federal safety standard that 

must be met, and State requirements 

covering the same subject matter are 

displaced, whether those State 

requirements are in the form of a State 

law (including common law), 

regulation, or order. 

While the final rule arising from this 

rulemaking would establish Federal 

standards of care which preempt State 

standards of care, the final rule would 

not preempt an action under State law 

seeking damages for personal injury, 

death, or property damage alleging that 

a party has failed to comply with the 

Federal standard of care established by 

this rulemaking, including a plan or 

program required by this rulemaking. 

Provisions of a plan or program which 

exceed the requirements of this 

rulemaking are not included in the 

Federal standard of care. 

FRA does note that under 49 U.S.C. 

20701–20703 (formerly the Locomotive 

(Boiler) Inspection Act) (LBIA), the field 

of locomotive safety is preempted, 

extending to the design, the 

construction, and the material of every 

part of the locomotive and tender and 

all appurtenances thereof. To the extent 

that this rulemaking establishes 

requirements affecting locomotive 

safety, the scope of preemption is 

provided by 49 U.S.C. 20701–20703. 

In sum, FRA has analyzed this 

regulatory action in accordance with the 

principles and criteria contained in 

Executive Order 13132. As explained 

above, FRA has determined that this 

regulatory action has no federalism 

implications, other than the preemption 

of State laws covering the subject matter 

of this rulemaking, which occurs by 

operation of law under 49 U.S.C. 20106 

whenever FRA issues a rule or order, 

and under the LBIA (49 U.S.C. 20701– 

20703) by its terms. Accordingly, FRA 

has determined that preparation of a 

federalism summary impact statement 

for this proposed rule is not required. 

E. Environmental Impact 

FRA has evaluated this NPRM in 

accordance with its ‘‘Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts’’ 

(FRA’s Procedures) (see 64 FR 28545 

(May 26, 1999)) as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (see 

42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other 

environmental statutes, Executive 

Orders, and related regulatory 

requirements. FRA has determined that 

this action is not a major FRA action 

(requiring the preparation of an 

environmental impact statement or 

environmental assessment) because it is 

categorically excluded from detailed 

environmental review pursuant to 

section 4(c)(20) of FRA’s Procedures. 

See 64 FR 28547 (May 26, 1999). In 

accordance with section 4(c) and (e) of 

FRA’s Procedures, the agency has 

further concluded that no extraordinary 

circumstances exist with respect to this 

NPRM that might trigger the need for a 

more detailed environmental review. As 

a result, FRA finds that this NPRM is 

not a major Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human 

environment. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Pursuant to Section 201 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each 

Federal agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise 

prohibited by law, assess the effects of 

Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments, and the 

private sector (other than to the extent 

that such regulations incorporate 

requirements specifically set forth in 

law).’’ Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 

1532) further requires that ‘‘before 

promulgating any general notice of 

proposed rulemaking that is likely to 

result in the promulgation of any rule 

that includes any Federal mandate that 

may result in expenditure by State, 

local, and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100,000,000 or more (adjusted 

annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and 

before promulgating any final rule for 

which a general notice of proposed 

rulemaking was published, the agency 

shall prepare a written statement’’ 

detailing the effect on State, local, and 

Tribal governments and the private 

sector. The proposed rule will not result 

in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of 

$100,000,000 or more (as adjusted 

annually for inflation) in any one year, 

and thus preparation of such a 

statement is not required. 

G. Energy Impact 

Executive Order 13211 requires 

Federal agencies to prepare a Statement 

of Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant 

energy action.’’ See 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001). Under the Executive Order, a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency (normally 

published in the Federal Register) that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to the 

promulgation of a final rule or 

regulation, including notices of inquiry, 

advance notices of proposed 

rulemaking, and notices of proposed 

rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy; or (2) that is designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

significant energy action. 

FRA has evaluated this NPRM in 

accordance with Executive Order 13211. 

FRA has determined that this NPRM is 

not likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy. Consequently, FRA has 

determined that this regulatory action is 

not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ within 

the meaning of the Executive Order. 

H. Trade Impact 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39, 19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.) 

prohibits Federal agencies from 

engaging in any standards or related 

activities that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. Legitimate domestic 

objectives, such as safety, are not 

considered unnecessary obstacles. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. 

FRA has assessed the potential effect 

of this rulemaking on foreign commerce 

and believes that the proposed 

requirements are consistent with the 

Trade Agreements Act. The 

requirements proposed are safety 

standards, which, as noted, are not 

considered unnecessary obstacles to 

trade. Moreover, FRA has sought, to the 

extent practicable, to state the 

requirements in terms of the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25957 

performance desired, rather than in 

more narrow terms restricted to a 

particular vehicle design, so as not to 

limit different, compliant designs by 

any manufacturer—foreign or domestic. 

FRA has also taken into consideration of 

international standards for the safe 

interaction of vehicles and the track 

over which they operate, such as 

standards for steady-state, lateral 

acceleration of passenger carbodies. 

I. Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of DOT’s dockets by 

the name of the individual submitting 

the comment (or signing the comment, 

if submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement published in the Federal 

Register on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78), or you may visit http:// 

DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

List of Subjects 

49 CFR Part 213 

Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

49 CFR Part 238 

Passenger equipment, Penalties, 

Railroad safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

The Proposed Rule 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, FRA proposes to amend parts 

213 and 238 of chapter II, subtitle B of 

Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as 

follows: 

PART 213—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 213 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20114 and 

20142; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 

1.49. 

Subpart A—General 

2. Section 213.7 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(i) 

to read as follows: 

§ 213.7 Designation of qualified persons to 

supervise certain renewals and inspect 

track. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Knows and understands the 

requirements of this part that apply to 

the restoration and renewal of the track 

for which he or she is responsible; 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Knows and understands the 

requirements of this part that apply to 

the inspection of the track for which he 

or she is responsible; 

* * * * * 

Subpart C—Track Geometry 

3. Section 213.55 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 213.55 Track alinement. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, alinement may not 

deviate from uniformity more than the 

amount prescribed in the following 

table: 

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 3N/A 5 

Class 2 track ................................................................................ 3 3N/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 the 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. 

(b) For operations at a qualified cant 

deficiency, Eu, of more than 5 inches, 

the alinement of the outside rail of the 

curve may not deviate from uniformity 

more than the amount prescribed in the 

following table: 

Class of track 

Curved track5

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 track4 .......................................................................................................................... 3N/A 11⁄4

Class 2 track4 .......................................................................................................................... 3N/A 11⁄4

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

Class 4 track ............................................................................................................................ 3⁄4 7⁄8

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

4 Restraining rails or other systems may be required for derailment prevention. 

5 Curved track limits shall be applied only when track curvature is greater than 0.25 degree. 

4. Section 213.57 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 213.57 Curves; elevation and speed 

limitations. 

(a) The maximum elevation of the 

outside rail of a curve may not be more 

than 8 inches on track Classes 1 and 2, 

and 7 inches on track Classes 3 through 

5. The outside rail of a curve may not 

be lower than the inside rail, except as 

a result of a deviation as per § 213.63. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

25958 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1Actual elevation, Ea, for each 155-foot track 

segment in the body of the curve is determined by 

averaging the elevation for 11 points through the 

segment at 15.5-foot spacing. If the curve length is 

less than 155 feet, average the points through the 

full length of the body of the curve. 2 If the actual elevation, Ea, and degree of 

curvature, D, change as a result of track 

degradation, then the actual cant deficiency for the 

maximum posted timetable operating speed, Vmax, 

may be greater than the qualified cant deficiency, 

Eu. This actual cant deficiency for each curve may 

not exceed the qualified cant deficiency, Eu, plus 1 

inch. 

3 Degree of curvature, D, is determined by 

averaging the degree of curvature over the same 

track segment as the elevation. 

4The test procedure may be conducted whereby 

all the wheels on one side (right or left) of the 

vehicle are raised to the proposed cant deficiency 

and lowered, and then the vertical wheel loads 

under each wheel are measured and a level is used 

to record the angle through which the floor of the 

vehicle has been rotated. 

(b) All vehicle types requiring 

qualification under § 213.345 must 

demonstrate that when stopped on a 

curve having a maximum uniform 

elevation of 7 inches, no wheel unloads 

to a value less than 50 percent of its 

static weight on level track. 

(c) The maximum posted timetable 

operating speed for each curve is 

determined by the following formula— 

V E E

D

a u

max . = +

0 0007

Where: 

Vmax = Maximum posted timetable operating 

speed (m.p.h.). 

Ea = Actual elevation of the outside rail 

(inches).1

Eu = Qualified cant deficiency 2 (inches) of 

the vehicle type. 

D = Degree of curvature (degrees).3

(d) All vehicles are considered 

qualified for operating on track with a 

cant deficiency, Eu, not exceeding 3 

inches. Table 1 of appendix A to this 

part is a table of speeds computed in 

accordance with the formula in 

paragraph (c) of this section, when Eu

equals 3 inches, for various elevations 

and degrees of curvature. 

(e) Each vehicle type must be 

approved by FRA to operate on track 

with a qualified cant deficiency, Eu, 

greater than 3 inches. Each vehicle type 

must demonstrate compliance with the 

requirements of either paragraph (e)(1) 

or (e)(2) of this section. 

(1) When positioned on track with a 

uniform superelevation equal to the 

proposed cant deficiency: 

(i) No wheel of the vehicle unloads to 

a value less than 60 percent of its static 

value on perfectly level track; and 

(ii) For passenger cars, the roll angle 

between the floor of the equipment and 

the horizontal does not exceed 8.6 

degrees; or 

(2) When operating through a constant 

radius curve at a constant speed 

corresponding to the proposed cant 

deficiency, and if a test plan is 

submitted and approved by FRA in 

accordance with § 213.345 (e) and (f): 

(i) The steady-state (average) load on 

any wheel, throughout the body of the 

curve, is not less than 60 percent of its 

static value on perfectly level track; and 

(ii) For passenger cars, the steadystate (average) lateral acceleration 

measured on the floor of the carbody 

does not exceed 0.15g. 

(f) The track owner or railroad shall 

transmit the results of the testing 

specified in paragraph (e) of this section 

to FRA requesting approval for the 

vehicle type to operate at the desired 

speeds allowed under the formula in 

paragraph (c) of this section. The 

request shall be in writing and shall 

contain, at a minimum, the following 

information— 

(1) A description of the vehicle type 

involved, including schematic diagrams 

of the suspension system(s) and the 

estimated location of the center of 

gravity above top of rail; 

(2) The test procedure 4 and 

description of the instrumentation used 

to qualify the vehicle and the maximum 

values for wheel unloading and roll 

angles or accelerations that were 

observed during testing; and 

(3) For vehicle types not subject to 

parts 229 or 238 of this chapter, 

procedures or standards in effect that 

relate to the maintenance of all safetycritical components of the suspension 

system(s) for the particular vehicle type. 

Safety-critical components of the 

suspension system are those that impact 

or have significant influence on the roll 

of the carbody and the distribution of 

weights on the wheels. 

(g) Upon FRA approval of the request, 

the track owner or railroad shall notify 

FRA’s Associate Administrator for 

Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer in 

writing no less than 30 calendar days 

prior to the proposed implementation of 

the approved higher curving speeds 

allowed under the formula in paragraph 

(c) of this section. The notification shall 

contain, at a minimum, identification of 

the track segment(s) on which the 

higher curving speeds are to be 

implemented. In approving the request 

in paragraph (f) of this section, FRA may 

impose conditions necessary for safely 

operating at the higher curving speeds. 

(h) A track owner or railroad that 

provides passenger or commuter service 

over trackage of more than one track 

owner with the same vehicle type may 

provide written notification to the FRA 

with the written consent of the other 

affected track owners. 

(i) For vehicle types intended to 

operate at any curving speed producing 

more than 5 inches of cant deficiency, 

the following provisions of subpart G of 

this part shall apply: §§ 213.333(a) 

through (g), (j)(1), (k) and (m), 213.345, 

and 213.369(f). 

(j) Vehicle types that have been 

permitted by FRA to operate at cant 

deficiencies, Eu, greater than 3 inches 

prior to [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 

THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], shall be considered 

qualified under this section to operate at 

those permitted cant deficiencies over 

the previously operated track 

segment(s). 

(k) As used in this section— 

(1) Vehicle means a locomotive, as 

defined in § 229.5 of this part; a freight 

car, as defined in § 215.5 of this part; a 

passenger car, as defined in § 238.5 of 

this part; and any rail rolling equipment 

used in a train with either a freight car 

or a passenger car. 

(2) Vehicle type means vehicles with 

variations in their physical properties, 

such as suspension, mass, interior 

arrangements, and dimensions that do 

not result in significant changes to their 

dynamic characteristics. 

5. Section 213.63 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 213.63 Track surface. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, each track owner 

shall maintain the surface of its track 

within the limits prescribed in the 

following table: 

Track surface (inches) 

Class of track 

1 2 3 4 5 

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


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP10MY10.013</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25959 

5 GRMS equipment using load combinations 

developing L/V ratios that exceed 0.8 shall be 

operated with caution to protect against the risk of 

wheel climb by the test wheelset. 

Track surface (inches) 

Class of track 

1 2 3 4 5 

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 June 22, 1998, 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. 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 seven low joints. Track with joints staggered less than 10 feet apart shall not be considered 

as having staggered joints. Joints within the seven low joints outside of the regular joint spacing shall not be considered as joints for purposes of 

this footnote. 

(b) For operations at a qualified cant 

deficiency, Eu, of more than 5 inches, 

each track owner shall maintain the 

surface of the curve within the limits 

prescribed in the following table: 

Track surface 4 (inches) 

Class of track 

1 2 3 4 5 

The deviation from uniform profile on either rail at the mid-ordinate of a 31- 

foot chord may not be more than .................................................................. N/A3 N/A3 1 1 1 

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

foot chord may not be more than .................................................................. 21⁄4 21⁄4 13⁄4 11⁄4 1 

The difference in crosslevel between any two points less than 10 feet apart 

(short warp) shall not be more than ............................................................... 2 2 13⁄4 13⁄4 11⁄2

3 N/A—Not Applicable. 

4 Curved track surface limits shall be applied only when track curvature is greater than 0.25 degree. 

6. Section 213.65 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 213.65 Combined alinement and surface 

deviations. 

On any curved track where operations 

are conducted at a qualified cant 

deficiency, Eu, greater than 5 inches, the 

combination of alinement and surface 

deviations for the same chord length on 

the outside rail in the curve, as 

measured by a TGMS, shall comply 

with the following formula: 

3

4

× +≤1 A

A

S

S

m

L

m

L

Where: 

Am = measured alinement deviation from 

uniformity (outward is positive, inward 

is negative). 

AL = allowable alinement limit as per 

§ 213.55(b) (always positive) for the class 

of track. 

Sm = measured profile deviation from 

uniformity (down is positive, up is 

negative). 

SL = allowable profile limit as per § 213.63(b) 

(always positive) for the class of track. 

A

A

S

S

m A

L

m

L

+ = the absolute (positive) value of the result of m

L

m

A L

S

S

+ ⋅

7. Section 213.110 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c) through (f), (l), 

(p)(2) and (p)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 213.110 Gage restraint measurement 

systems. 

* * * * * 

(c)(1) The track owner shall also 

provide to FRA sufficient technical data 

to establish compliance with the 

following minimum design 

requirements of a GRMS vehicle: 

(2) Gage restraint shall be measured 

between the heads of rail— 

(i) At an interval not exceeding 16 

inches; 

(ii) Under an applied vertical load of 

no less than 10 kips per rail; and 

(iii) Under an applied lateral load that 

provides for a lateral/vertical load ratio 

of between 0.5 and 1.25 5, and a load 

severity greater than 3 kips but less than 

8 kips per rail. 

(d) Load severity is defined by the 

formula: 

S = L¥cV 

Where: 

S = Load severity, defined as the lateral load 

applied to the fastener system (kips). 

L = Actual lateral load applied (kips). 

c = Coefficient of friction between rail/tie, 

which is assigned a nominal value of 0.4. 

V = Actual vertical load applied (kips), or 

static vertical wheel load if vertical load 

is not measured. 

(e) The measured gage values shall be 

converted to a Projected Loaded Gage 24 

(PLG24) as follows— 

PLG24 = UTG + A × (LTG ¥ UTG) 

Where: 

UTG = Unloaded track gage measured by the 

GRMS vehicle at a point no less than 10 

feet from any lateral or vertical load 

application. 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP10MY10.014</MATH> EP10MY10.015</MATH>
25960 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

LTG = Loaded track gage measured by the 

GRMS vehicle at a point no more than 

12 inches from the lateral load 

application point. 

A = The extrapolation factor used to convert 

the measured loaded gage to expected 

loaded gage under a 24,000-pound lateral 

load and a 33,000-pound vertical load. 

For all track— 

A

LV LV =

( ) ×− × − × ×− × ( )

13 513

001 000258 009 001 000258 2

.

. . .. .

Note: The A factor shall not exceed a value 

of 3.184 under any valid loading 

configuration. 

Where: 

L = Actual lateral load applied (kips). 

V = Actual vertical load applied (kips), or 

static vertical wheel load if vertical load 

is not measured. 

(f) The measured gage and load values 

shall be converted to a Gage Widening 

Projection (GWP) as follows: 

GWP LTG UTG

L V = − ( ) ×− ×

8 26

0 258

.

.

* * * * * 

(l) The GRMS record of lateral 

restraint shall identify two exception 

levels. At a minimum, the track owner 

shall initiate the required remedial 

action at each exception level as defined 

in the following table— 

GRMS 

parameters 1 If measurement value exceeds Remedial action required 

First Level Exception 

UTG ................... 58 inches ..................................... (1) Immediately protect the exception location with a 10 m.p.h. speed restriction, then 

verify location; 

(2) Restore lateral restraint and maintain in compliance with PTLF criteria as described in 

paragraph (m) of this section; and 

(3) Maintain compliance with § 213.53(b) as measured with the PTLF. 

LTG ................... 58 inches.

PLG24 ............... 59 inches.

GWP .................. 1.0 inch.

Second Level Exception 

LTG ................... 573⁄4 inches on Class 4 and 5 

track 2.

(1) Limit operating speed to no more than the maximum allowable under § 213.9 for 

Class 3 track, then verify location; 

(2) Maintain in compliance with PTLF criteria as described in paragraph (m) of this section; and 

PLG24 ............... 58 inches ..................................... (3) Maintain compliance with § 213.53(b) as measured with the PTLF. 

GWP .................. 0.75 inch.

1 Definitions for the GRMS parameters referenced in this table are found in paragraph (p) of this section. 

2This note recognizes that typical good track will increase in total gage by as much as one-quarter of an inch due to outward rail rotation 

under GRMS loading conditions. For Class 2 and 3 track, the GRMS LTG values are also increased by one-quarter of an inch to a maximum of 

58 inches. However, for any class of track, GRMS LTG values in excess of 58 inches are considered First Level exceptions and the appropriate 

remedial actions must be taken by the track owner. This one-quarter-inch increase in allowable gage applies only to GRMS LTG. For gage 

measured by traditional methods, or with the use of the PTLF, the table in § 213.53(b) applies. 

* * * * * 

(p) * * * 

(2) Gage Widening Projection (GWP) 

means the measured gage widening, 

which is the difference between loaded 

and unloaded gage, at the applied loads, 

projected to reference loads of 16,000 

pounds of lateral force and 33,000 

pounds of vertical force. 

(3) L/V ratio means the numerical 

ratio of lateral load applied at a point on 

the rail to the vertical load applied at 

that same point. GRMS design 

requirements specify an L/V ratio of 

between 0.5 and 1.25. 

* * * * * 

Subpart G—Train Operations at Track 

Classes 6 and Higher 

8. Section 213.305 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(i) 

to read as follows: 

§ 213.305 Designation of qualified 

individuals; general qualifications. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Knows and understands the 

requirements of this subpart that apply 

to the restoration and renewal of the 

track for which he or she is responsible; 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Knows and understands the 

requirements of this subpart that apply 

to the inspection of the track for which 

he or she is responsible. 

* * * * * 

9. Section 213.307 is amended by 

revising the section heading and 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 213.307 Classes of track: Operating 

speed limits. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section and as otherwise 

provided in this subpart G, the 

following maximum allowable speeds 

apply: 

Over track that meets all of the requirements prescribed in this subpart for— The maximum allowable operating 

speed for trains is 1

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


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP10MY10.016</MATH> EP10MY10.017</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25961 

Over track that meets all of the requirements prescribed in this subpart for— The maximum allowable operating 

speed for trains is 1

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

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

Class 9 track ...................................................................................................................................................... 220 m.p.h.2

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 § 213.329 and 

§ 213.345. 

(2) The load distribution and securement in the freight vehicle will not adversely affect the dynamic performance of the vehicle. The axle loading pattern is uniform and does not exceed the passenger locomotive axle loadings utilized in passenger service operating at the same maximum 

speed. 

(3) No carrier may accept or transport a hazardous material, as defined at 49 CFR 171.8, except as provided in Column 9A of the Hazardous 

Materials Table (49 CFR 172.101) for movement in the same train as a passenger-carrying vehicle or in Column 9B of the Table for movement 

in a train with no passenger-carrying vehicles. 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. 

* * * * * 

10. Section 213.323 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 213.323 Track gage. 

* * * * * 

(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— 

The change of gage 

within 31 feet must not 

be greater than— 

Class 6 track ................................. 4′8′′ ....................................................... 4′91⁄4′′ .................................................... 3⁄4′′ 

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

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

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

11. Section 213.327 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 213.327 Track alinement. 

(a) Uniformity at any point along the 

track is established by averaging the 

measured mid-chord offset values for 

nine consecutive points that are 

centered around that point and spaced 

according to the following table: 

Chord length Spacing 

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

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

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

(b) Except as provided in paragraph 

(c) of this section, a single alinement 

deviation from uniformity may not be 

more than the amount prescribed in the 

following table: 

Class of track Tangent/curved track 

The deviation from uniformity of the mid-chord 

offset for a 31-foot chord 

may not be more than— 

(inches) 

The deviation from uniformity of the mid-chord 

offset for a 62-foot chord 

may not be more than— 

(inches) 

The deviation from uniformity of the mid-chord 

offset for a 124-foot 

chord may not be more 

than—(inches) 

Class 6 track ........................... Tangent .................................. 1⁄2 3⁄4 11⁄2

Curved 1 .................................. 5⁄8

Class 7 track ........................... Tangent .................................. 1⁄2 3⁄4 11⁄4

Curved 1 .................................. 1⁄2

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

Curved 1 .................................. 1⁄2 3⁄4

Class 9 track ........................... Tangent .................................. 1⁄2 1⁄2 3⁄4

Curved 1.

1 Curved track limits shall be applied only when track curvature is greater than 0.25 degree. Track curvature may be established at any point 

by averaging the measured 62-foot chord offset values for nine consecutive points that are centered around that point and spaced at 15 feet 6 

inches. 

(c) For operations at a qualified cant 

deficiency, Eu, of more than 5 inches, a 

single alinement deviation from 

uniformity of the outside rail of the 

curve may not be more than the amount 

prescribed in the following table: 

Class of track Track type 

The deviation from uniformity of the mid-chord 

offset for a 31-foot chord 

may not be more than— 

(inches) 

The deviation from uniformity of the mid-chord 

offset for a 62-foot chord 

may not be more than— 

(inches) 

The deviation from uniformity of the mid-chord 

offset for a 124-foot 

chord may not be more 

than—(inches) 

Class 6 track ........................... Curved 1 .................................. 1⁄2 5⁄8 11⁄4

Class 7 track ........................... Curved 1 .................................. 1⁄2 1⁄2 1 

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

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

25962 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

6Actual elevation, Ea, for each 155-foot track 

segment in the body of the curve is determined by 

averaging the elevation for 11 points through the 

segment at 15.5-foot spacing. If the curve length is 

less than 155 feet, average the points through the 

full length of the body of the curve. 

7 If the actual elevation, Ea, and degree of 

curvature, D, change as a result of track 

degradation, then the actual cant deficiency for the 

maximum posted timetable operating speed, Vmax, 

may be greater than the qualified cant deficiency, 

Eu. This actual cant deficiency for each curve may 

not exceed the qualified cant deficiency, Eu, plus 

one-half inch. 

8 Degree of curvature, D, is determined by 

averaging the degree of curvature over the same 

track segment as the elevation. 

9The test procedure may be conducted whereby 

all the wheels on one side (right or left) of the 

vehicle are raised to the proposed cant deficiency 

and lowered, and then the vertical wheel loads 

under each wheel are measured and a level is used 

to record the angle through which the floor of the 

vehicle has been rotated. 

Class of track Track type 

The deviation from uniformity of the mid-chord 

offset for a 31-foot chord 

may not be more than— 

(inches) 

The deviation from uniformity of the mid-chord 

offset for a 62-foot chord 

may not be more than— 

(inches) 

The deviation from uniformity of the mid-chord 

offset for a 124-foot 

chord may not be more 

than—(inches) 

Class 9 track ........................... Curved 1 .................................. 1⁄2 1⁄2 3⁄4

1 Curved track limits shall be applied only when track curvature is greater than 0.25 degree. 

(d) For three or more non-overlapping 

deviations from uniformity in track 

alinement occurring within a distance 

equal to five times the specified chord 

length, each of which exceeds the limits 

in the following table, each track owner 

shall maintain the alinement of the track 

within the limits prescribed for each 

deviation: 

Class of track 

The deviation from uniformity of the mid-chord 

offset for a 31-foot chord 

may not be more than— 

(inches) 

The deviation from uniformity of the mid-chord 

offset for a 62-foot chord 

may not be more than— 

(inches) 

The deviation from uniformity of the mid-chord 

offset for a 124-foot 

chord may not be more 

than—(inches) 

Class 6 track ................................................................................ 3⁄8 1⁄2 1 

Class 7 track ................................................................................ 3⁄8 3⁄8 7⁄8

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

Class 9 track ................................................................................ 3⁄8 3⁄8 1⁄2

(e) For purposes of complying with 

this section, the ends of the chord shall 

be at points on the gage side of the rail, 

five-eighths of an inch below the top of 

the railhead. On tangent track, either 

rail may be used as the line rail; 

however, the same rail shall be used for 

the full length of that tangential segment 

of the track. On curved track, the line 

rail is the outside rail of the curve. 

12. Section 213.329 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 213.329 Curves; elevation and speed 

limitations. 

(a) The maximum elevation of the 

outside rail of a curve may not be more 

than 7 inches. The outside rail of a 

curve may not be lower than the inside 

rail, except as a result of a deviation as 

per § 213.331. 

(b) All vehicle types requiring 

qualification under § 213.345 must 

demonstrate that when stopped on a 

curve having a maximum uniform 

elevation of 7 inches, no wheel unloads 

to a value less than 50 percent of its 

static weight on level track. 

(c) The maximum posted timetable 

operating speed for each curve is 

determined by the following formula: 

V E E

D

a u

max . = +

0 0007

Where: 

Vmax = Maximum posted timetable operating 

speed (m.p.h.). 

Ea = Actual elevation of the outside rail 

(inches).6

Eu = Qualified cant deficiency 7 (inches) of 

the vehicle type. 

D = Degree of curvature (degrees).8

(d) All vehicles are considered 

qualified for operating on track with a 

cant deficiency, Eu, not exceeding 3 

inches. Table 1 of appendix A to this 

part is a table of speeds computed in 

accordance with the formula in 

paragraph (c) of this section, when Eu

equals 3 inches, for various elevations 

and degrees of curvature. 

(e) Each vehicle type must be 

approved by FRA to operate on track 

with a qualified cant deficiency, Eu, 

greater than 3 inches. Each vehicle type 

must demonstrate compliance with the 

requirements of either paragraph (e)(1) 

or (e)(2) of this section. 

(1) When positioned on a track with 

a uniform superelevation equal to the 

proposed cant deficiency: 

(i) No wheel of the vehicle unloads to 

a value less than 60 percent of its static 

value on perfectly level track; and 

(ii) For passenger cars, the roll angle 

between the floor of the equipment and 

the horizontal does not exceed 8.6 

degrees; or 

(2) When operating through a constant 

radius curve at a constant speed 

corresponding to the proposed cant 

deficiency, and a test plan is submitted 

and approved by FRA in accordance 

with § 213.345(e) and (f): 

(ii) The steady-state (average) load on 

any wheel, throughout the body of the 

curve, is not to be less than 60 percent 

of its static value on perfectly level 

track; and 

(iii) For passenger cars, the steadystate (average) lateral acceleration 

measured on the floor of the carbody 

does not exceed 0.15g. 

(f) The track owner or railroad shall 

transmit the results of the testing 

specified in paragraph (e) of this section 

to FRA requesting approval for the 

vehicle type to operate at the desired 

speeds allowed under the formula in 

paragraph (c) of this section. The 

request shall be in writing and shall 

contain, at a minimum, the following 

information— 

(1) A description of the vehicle type 

involved, including schematic diagrams 

of the suspension system(s) and the 

estimated location of the center of 

gravity above top of rail; 

(2) The test procedure 9 and 

description of the instrumentation used 

to qualify the vehicle and the maximum 

values for wheel unloading and roll 

angles or accelerations that were 

observed during testing; and 

(3) For vehicle types not subject to 

part 238 or part 229 of this chapter, 

procedures or standards in effect that 

relate to the maintenance of all safetycritical components of the suspension 

system(s) for the particular vehicle type. 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP10MY10.018</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25963 

Safety-critical components of the 

suspension system are those that impact 

or have significant influence on the roll 

of the carbody and the distribution of 

weights on the wheels. 

(g) Upon FRA approval of the request, 

the track owner or railroad shall notify 

FRA’s Associate Administrator for 

Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer in 

writing no less than 30 calendar days 

prior to the proposed implementation of 

the approved higher curving speeds 

allowed under the formula in paragraph 

(c) of this section. The notification shall 

contain, at a minimum, identification of 

the track segment(s) on which the 

higher curving speeds are to be 

implemented. In approving the request 

in paragraph (f) of this section, FRA may 

impose conditions necessary for safely 

operating at the higher curving speeds. 

(h) A track owner or railroad that 

provides passenger or commuter service 

over trackage of more than one track 

owner with the same vehicle type may 

provide written notification to FRA with 

the written consent of the other affected 

track owners. 

(i) Vehicle types that have been 

permitted by FRA to operate at cant 

deficiencies, Eu, shall be considered 

qualified under this section to operate at 

those permitted cant deficiencies over 

the previously operated track 

segment(s). 

(j) As used in this section and in 

§§ 213.333 and 213.345— 

(1) Vehicle means a locomotive, as 

defined in § 229.5 of this part; a freight 

car, as defined in § 215.5 of this part; a 

passenger car, as defined in § 238.5 of 

this part; and any rail rolling equipment 

used in a train with either a freight car 

or a passenger car. 

(2) Vehicle type means vehicles with 

variations in their physical properties, 

such as suspension, mass, interior 

arrangements, and dimensions that do 

not result in significant changes to their 

dynamic characteristics. 

13. Section 213.331 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 213.331 Track surface. 

(a) For a single deviation in track 

surface, each track owner shall maintain 

the surface of its track within the limits 

prescribed in the following table: 

Track surface (inches) 

Class of track 

6 7 8 9 

The deviation from uniform 1 profile on either rail at the mid-ordinate 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 mid-ordinate of a 62-foot chord may 

not be more than .................................................................................................................. 1 1 1 3⁄4

Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the deviation from uniform profile on 

either rail at the mid-ordinate of a 124-foot chord may not be more than .......................... 13⁄4 11⁄2 11⁄4 1 

The deviation from zero crosslevel at any point on tangent track may not be more than ..... 1 1 1 1 

Reverse elevation on curves 3 may not be more than ............................................................ 1⁄2 1⁄2 1⁄2 1⁄2

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

more than 2 ........................................................................................................................... 11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄4 1 

On curved track,3 the difference in crosslevel between any two points less than 10 feet 

apart (short warp) may not be more than ............................................................................ 11⁄4 11⁄8 1 3⁄4

1 Uniformity for profile is established by placing the midpoint of the specified chord at the point of maximum measurement. 

2 However, to control harmonics on jointed track with staggered joints, the crosslevel differences shall not exceed 1 inch in all of six consecutive pairs of joints, as created by seven low joints. Track with joints staggered less than 10 feet apart shall not be considered as having staggered joints. Joints within the seven low joints outside of the regular joint spacing shall not be considered as joints for purposes of this footnote. 3 Curved track limits shall be applied only when track curvature is greater than 0.25 degree. 

(b) For operations at a qualified cant 

deficiency, Eu, of more than 5 inches, a 

single deviation in track surface shall be 

within the limits prescribed in the 

following table: 

Track surface 4 (inches) 

Class of track 

6 7 8 9 

The difference in crosslevel between any two points less than 10 feet apart (short warp) 

may not be more than .......................................................................................................... 11⁄4 1 3 1 3⁄4

The deviation from uniform profile on either rail at the mid-ordinate of a 124-foot chord 

may not be more than .......................................................................................................... 11⁄2 11⁄4 11⁄4 1 

3For curves with a qualified cant deficiency, Eu, of more than 7 inches, the difference in crosslevel between any two points less than 10 feet 

apart (short warp) may not be more than three-quarters of an inch. 4 Curved track surface limits shall be applied only when track curvature is greater than 0.25 degree. 

(c) For three or more non-overlapping 

deviations in track surface occurring 

within a distance equal to five times the 

specified chord length, each of which 

exceeds the limits in the following table, 

each track owner shall maintain the 

surface of the track within the limits 

prescribed for each deviation: 

Track surface (inches) 

Class of track 

6 7 8 9 

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

not be more than .................................................................................................................. 3⁄4 3⁄4 3⁄4 1⁄2

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

25964 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

10 GRMS equipment using load combinations 

developing L/V ratios that exceed 0.8 shall be 

operated with caution to protect against the risk of 

wheel climb by the test wheelset. 

Track surface (inches) 

Class of track 

6 7 8 9 

The deviation from uniform profile on either rail at the mid-ordinate of a 124-foot chord 

may not be more than .......................................................................................................... 11⁄4 1 7⁄8 5⁄8

14. Section 213.332 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 213.332 Combined alinement and 

surface deviations. 

(a) This section applies to any curved 

track where operations are conducted at 

a qualified cant deficiency, Eu, greater 

than 5 inches, and to all Class 9 track, 

either curved or tangent. 

(b) For the conditions defined in 

paragraph (a) of this section, the 

combination of alinement and surface 

deviations for the same chord length on 

the outside rail in a curve and on any 

of the two rails of a tangent section, as 

measured by a TGMS, shall comply 

with the following formula: 

3

4

× +≤1 A

A

S

S

m

L

m

L

Where— 

Am = measured alinement deviation from 

uniformity (outward is positive, inward 

is negative). 

AL = allowable alinement limit as per 

§ 213.327(c) (always positive) for the 

class of track. 

Sm = measured profile deviation from 

uniformity (down is positive, up is 

negative). 

SL = allowable profile limit as per 

§§ 213.331(a) and 213.331 (b) (always 

positive) for the class of track. 

A

A

S

S

m A

L

m

L

+ = the absolute (positive) value of the result of m

L

m

A L

S

S

+ ⋅

15. Section 213.333 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a),(b)(1) and (b)(2), 

(c), (h) through (m), and the Vehicle/ 

Track Interaction Safety Limits table to 

read as follows: 

§ 213.333 Automated vehicle inspection 

systems. 

(a) A qualifying Track Geometry 

Measuring System (TGMS) shall be 

operated at the following frequency: 

(1) For operations at a qualified cant 

deficiency, Eu, of more than 5 inches on 

track Classes 1 through 5, at least twice 

per calendar year with not less than 120 

days between inspections. 

(2) For track Class 6, at least once per 

calendar year with not less than 170 

days between inspections. For 

operations at a qualified cant deficiency, 

Eu, of more than 5 inches on track Class 

6, at least twice per calendar year with 

not less than 120 days between 

inspections. 

(3) For track Class 7, at least twice 

within any 120-day period with not less 

than 25 days between inspections. 

(4) For track Classes 8 and 9, at least 

twice within any 60-day period with not 

less than 12 days between inspections. 

(b) * * * 

(1) Track geometry measurements 

shall be taken no more than 3 feet away 

from the contact point of wheels 

carrying a vertical load of no less than 

10,000 pounds per wheel; 

(2) Track geometry measurements 

shall be taken and recorded on a 

distance-based sampling interval not 

exceeding 1 foot; and 

* * * * * 

(c) A qualifying TGMS shall be 

capable of measuring and processing the 

necessary track geometry parameters, at 

an interval of no more than every 1 foot, 

to determine compliance with— 

(1) For operations at a qualified cant 

deficiency, Eu, of more than 5 inches on 

track Classes 1 through 5: § 213.53, 

Track gage; § 213.55(b), Track 

alinement; § 213.57, Curves; elevation 

and speed limitations; § 213.63, Track 

surface; and § 213.65, Combined 

alinement and surface deviations. 

(2) For track Classes 6 through 9: 

§ 213.323, Track gage; § 213.327, Track 

alinement; § 213.329, Curves; elevation 

and speed limitations; § 213.331, Track 

surface; and for operations at a cant 

deficiency of more than 5 inches 

§ 213.332, Combined alinement and 

surface deviations. 

* * * * * 

(h) For track Classes 8 and 9, a 

qualifying Gage Restraint Measuring 

System (GRMS) shall be operated at 

least once per calendar year with at least 

170 days between inspections. The 

lateral capacity of the track structure 

shall not permit a Gage Widening 

Projection (GWP) greater than 0.5 inch. 

(i) A GRMS shall meet or exceed 

minimum design requirements 

specifying that— 

(1) Gage restraint shall be measured 

between the heads of the rail: 

(i) At an interval not exceeding 16 

inches; 

(ii) Under an applied vertical load of 

no less than 10 kips per rail; and 

(iii) Under an applied lateral load that 

provides for lateral/vertical load ratio of 

between 0.5 and 1.25,10 and a load 

severity greater than 3 kips but less than 

8 kips per rail. Load severity is defined 

by the formula: 

S = L¥cV 

Where— 

S = Load severity, defined as the lateral load 

applied to the fastener system (kips). 

L = Actual lateral load applied (kips). 

c = Coefficient of friction between rail/tie, 

which is assigned a nominal value of 0.4. 

V = Actual vertical load applied (kips), or 

static vertical wheel load if vertical load 

is not measured. 

(2) The measured gage and load 

values shall be converted to a GWP as 

follows: 

GWP LTG UTG

L V = − ( ) ×− ×

8 26

0 258

.

.

Where— 

UTG = Unloaded track gage measured by the 

GRMS vehicle at a point no less than 10 

feet from any lateral or vertical load 

application. 

LTG = Loaded track gage measured by the 

GRMS vehicle at a point no more than 

12 inches from the lateral load 

application. 

L = Actual lateral load applied (kips). 

V = Actual vertical load applied (kips), or 

static vertical wheel load if vertical load 

is not measured. 

GWP = Gage Widening Projection, which 

means the measured gage widening, 

which is the difference between loaded 

and unloaded gage, at the applied loads, 

projected to reference loads of 16,000 

pounds of lateral force and 33,000 

pounds of vertical force. 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP10MY10.019</MATH> EP10MY10.020</MATH> EP10MY10.021</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25965 

(j) A vehicle having dynamic response 

characteristics that are representative of 

other vehicles assigned to the service 

shall be operated over the route at the 

revenue speed profile. The vehicle shall 

either be instrumented or equipped with 

a portable device that monitors onboard 

instrumentation on trains. Track 

personnel shall be notified when 

onboard accelerometers indicate a 

possible track-related problem. The tests 

shall be conducted at the following 

frequency, unless otherwise determined 

by FRA after reviewing the test data 

required by this subpart: 

(1) For operations at a qualified cant 

deficiency, Eu, of more than 5 inches on 

track Classes 1 through 6, carbody 

acceleration shall be monitored at least 

once each calendar quarter with not less 

than 25 days between inspections on at 

least one passenger car of each type that 

is assigned to the service; and 

(2) For operations at track Class 7 

speeds, carbody and truck accelerations 

shall be monitored at least twice within 

any 60-day period with not less than 12 

days between inspections on at least one 

passenger car of each type that is 

assigned to the service; and 

(3) For operations at track Classes 8 

and 9 speeds, carbody acceleration shall 

be monitored at least four times within 

any 7-day period with not more than 3 

days between inspections on at least one 

non-passenger and one passenger 

carrying vehicle of each type that is 

assigned to the service. Truck 

acceleration shall be monitored at least 

twice within any 60-day period with not 

less than 12 days between inspections 

on at least one passenger carrying 

vehicle of each type that is assigned to 

the service. 

(k)(1) The instrumented vehicle or the 

portable device, as required in 

paragraph (j) of this section, shall 

monitor vertical and lateral 

accelerations. The accelerometers shall 

be placed on the floor of the vehicle as 

near the center of a truck as practicable. 

(2) In addition, a device for measuring 

lateral accelerations shall be mounted 

on a truck frame at a longitudinal 

location as close as practicable to an 

axle’s centerline (either outside axle for 

trucks containing more than 2 axles), or, 

if approved by FRA, at an alternate 

location. After monitoring this data for 

2 years, or 1 million miles, whichever 

occurs first, the track owner or railroad 

may petition FRA for exemption from 

this requirement. 

(3) If any of the carbody lateral, 

carbody vertical, or truck frame lateral 

acceleration safety limits in this 

section’s table of vehicle/track 

interaction safety limits is exceeded, 

appropriate speed restrictions shall be 

applied until corrective action is taken. 

(l) For track Classes 8 and 9, the track 

owner or railroad shall submit a report 

to FRA, once each calendar year, which 

provides an analysis of the monitoring 

data collected in accordance with 

paragraphs (j) and (k) of this section. 

Based on a review of the report, FRA 

may require that an instrumented 

vehicle having dynamic response 

characteristics that are representative of 

other vehicles assigned to the service be 

operated over the track at the revenue 

speed profile. The instrumented vehicle 

shall be equipped to measure wheel/rail 

forces. If any of the wheel/rail force 

limits in this section’s table of vehicle/ 

track interaction safety limits is 

exceeded, appropriate speed restrictions 

shall be applied until corrective action 

is taken. 

(m) The track owner or railroad shall 

maintain a copy of the most recent 

exception printouts for the inspections 

required under paragraphs (j), (k), and 

(l) of this section, as appropriate. 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

25966 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP10MY10.023</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25967 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP10MY10.024</MATH>
25968 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–C 

16. Section 213.345 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 213.345 Vehicle/track system 

qualification. 

(a) General. All vehicle types 

intended to operate at track Class 6 

speeds or above or at any curving speed 

producing more than 5 inches of cant 

deficiency shall be qualified for 

operation for their intended track 

classes in accordance with this subpart. 

A qualification program shall be used to 

ensure that the vehicle/track system will 

not exceed the wheel/rail force safety 

limits and the carbody and truck 

acceleration criteria specified in 

§ 213.333— 

(1) At any speed up to and including 

5 m.p.h. above the proposed maximum 

operating speed; and 

(2) On track meeting the requirements 

for the class of track associated with the 

proposed maximum operating speed. 

For purposes of qualification testing, 

speeds that are up to 5 m.p.h. in excess 

of the maximum allowable speed for 

each class are permitted. 

(b) Existing vehicle type qualification. 

Vehicle types previously qualified or 

permitted to operate at track Class 6 

speeds or above or at any curving 

speeds producing more than 5 inches of 

cant deficiency prior to [DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], shall be 

considered as being successfully 

qualified under the requirements of this 

section for operation at the previously 

operated speeds and cant deficiencies 

over the previously operated track 

segment(s). 

(c) New vehicle type qualification. 

Vehicle types not previously qualified 

under this subpart be qualified in 

accordance with the requirements of 

this paragraph (c). 

(1) Simulations. For vehicle types 

intended to operate at track Class 6 

speeds or above, or at any curving speed 

producing more than 6 inches of cant 

deficiency, analysis of vehicle/track 

performance (computer simulations) 

shall be conducted using an industry 

recognized methodology on: 

(i) An analytically defined track 

segment representative of minimally 

compliant track conditions (MCAT— 

Minimally Compliant Analytical Track) 

for the respective track classes as 

specified in appendix D to this part; and 

(ii) A track segment representative of 

the full route on which the vehicle type 

is intended to operate. Both simulations 

and physical examinations of the route’s 

track geometry shall be used to 

determine a track segment 

representative of the route. 

(2) Carbody acceleration. For vehicle 

types intended to operate at track Class 

6 speeds or above, or at any curving 

speed producing more than 5 inches of 

cant deficiency, qualification testing 

conducted over a representative 

segment of the route shall ensure that 

the vehicle type will not exceed the 

carbody lateral and vertical acceleration 

safety limits specified in § 213.333. 

(3) Truck lateral acceleration. For 

vehicle types intended to operate at 

track Class 6 speeds or above, 

qualification testing conducted over a 

representative segment of the route shall 

ensure that the vehicle type will not 

exceed the truck lateral acceleration 

safety limit specified in § 213.333. 

(4) Wheel/rail force measurement. For 

vehicle types intended to operate at 

track Class 7 speeds or above, or at any 

curving speed producing more than 6 

inches of cant deficiency, qualification 

testing conducted over a representative 

segment of the route shall ensure that 

the vehicle type will not exceed the 

wheel/rail force safety limits specified 

in § 213.333. 

(d) Previously qualified vehicle types. 

Vehicle types previously qualified 

under this subpart for a track class and 

cant deficiency on one route may be 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP10MY10.025</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25969 

qualified for operation at the same class 

and cant deficiency on another route 

through analysis and testing in 

accordance with the requirements of 

this paragraph (d). 

(1) Simulations or wheel/rail force 

measurement. For vehicle types 

intended to operate at track Class 7 

speeds or above, or at any curving speed 

producing more than 6 inches of cant 

deficiency, simulations or measurement 

of wheel/rail forces during qualification 

testing shall ensure that the vehicle type 

will not exceed the wheel/rail force 

safety limits specified in § 213.333. 

Simulations, if conducted, shall be in 

accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section. Measurement of wheel/rail 

forces, if conducted, shall be performed 

over a representative segment of the 

new route. 

(2) Carbody acceleration. For vehicle 

types intended to operate at any curving 

speed producing more than 5 inches of 

cant deficiency, or at both track Class 6 

speeds or above and at any curving 

speed producing more than 4 inches of 

cant deficiency, qualification testing 

conducted over a representative 

segment of the new route shall ensure 

that the vehicle type will not exceed the 

carbody lateral and vertical acceleration 

safety limits specified in § 213.333. 

(3) Truck lateral acceleration. For 

vehicle types intended to operate at 

track Class 7 speeds or above, 

simulations or measurement of truck 

lateral acceleration during qualification 

testing shall ensure that the vehicle type 

will not exceed the truck lateral 

acceleration safety limits specified in 

§ 213.333. Measurement of truck lateral 

acceleration, if conducted, shall be 

performed over a representative segment 

of the new route. 

(e) Qualification test plan. To obtain 

the data required to support the 

qualification program outlined in 

paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, 

the track owner or railroad shall submit 

a qualification test plan to FRA at least 

60 days prior to testing, requesting 

approval to conduct the test at the 

desired speeds and cant deficiencies. 

This test plan shall provide for a test 

program sufficient to evaluate the 

operating limits of the track and vehicle 

type and shall include: 

(1) The results of vehicle/track 

performance simulations as required in 

this subpart; 

(2) Identification of the representative 

segment of the route for qualification 

testing; 

(3) Consideration of the operating 

environment during qualification 

testing, including operating practices 

and conditions, the signal system, 

highway-rail grade crossings, and trains 

on adjacent tracks; 

(4) The design wheel flange angle that 

will be used for the determination of the 

Single Wheel L/V Ratio safety limit 

specified in § 213.333; 

(5) A target maximum testing speed 

and a target maximum cant deficiency 

in accordance with paragraph (a) of this 

section; 

(6) An analysis and description of the 

signal system and operating practices to 

govern operations in track Classes 7 

through 9, which shall include a 

statement of sufficiency in these areas 

for the class of operation; and 

(7) When simulations are required as 

part of vehicle qualification, an analysis 

showing all simulation results. 

(f) Qualification test. Upon FRA 

approval of the qualification test plan, 

qualification testing shall be conducted 

in two sequential stages as required in 

this subpart. 

(1) Stage-one testing shall include 

demonstration of acceptable vehicle 

dynamic response of the subject vehicle 

as speeds are incrementally increased— 

(i) On a segment of tangent track, from 

acceptable track Class 5 speeds to the 

target maximum test speed (when the 

target speed corresponds to track Class 

6 and above operations); and 

(ii) On a segment of curved track, 

from the speeds corresponding to 3 

inches of cant deficiency to the 

maximum target maximum cant 

deficiency. 

(2) When stage-one testing has 

successfully demonstrated a maximum 

safe operating speed and cant 

deficiency, stage-two testing shall 

commence with the subject equipment 

over a representative segment of the 

route as identified in paragraph (e)(2) of 

this section. 

(i) A test run shall be conducted over 

the route segment at the speed the 

railroad will request FRA to approve for 

such service. 

(ii) An additional test run shall be 

conducted at 5 m.p.h. above this speed. 

(3) When conducting stage-one and 

stage-two testing, if any of the 

monitored safety limits is exceeded, on 

any segment of track intended for 

operation at track Class 6 speed or 

greater, or on any segment of track 

intended for operation at more than 5 

inches of cant deficiency, testing may 

continue provided the track location(s) 

where the limits are exceeded are 

identified and test speeds are limited at 

the track location(s) until corrective 

action is taken. Corrective action may 

include making an adjustment in the 

track, in the vehicle, or both of these 

system components. Measurements 

taken on track segments intended for 

operations below track Class 6 speeds 

and at 5 inches of cant deficiency or less 

are not required to be reported. 

(4) Prior to the start of the 

qualification test program, a qualifying 

Track Geometry Measuring System 

(TGMS) specified in § 213.333 shall be 

operated over the intended route within 

30 calendar days prior to the start of the 

qualification test program. 

(g) Qualification test results. The track 

owner or railroad shall submit a report 

to FRA detailing all the results of the 

qualification program. When 

simulations are required as part of 

vehicle qualification, this report shall 

include a comparison of simulation 

predictions to the actual wheel/rail 

force or acceleration data, or both, 

recorded during full-scale testing. The 

report shall be submitted at least 60 

days prior to the intended operation of 

the equipment in revenue service over 

the route. 

(h) Based on the test results and 

submissions, FRA will approve a 

maximum train speed and value of cant 

deficiency for revenue service. FRA may 

impose conditions necessary for safely 

operating at the maximum train speed 

and value of cant deficiency approved. 

17. Section 213.355 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 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— 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

25970 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Class of track 

Guard check gage Guard face 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— 

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, 7, 8 and 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 five-eighths of an inch below the top of the center line of the head of the running rail, or corresponding location of the tread portion of 

the track structure. 

18. Appendix A to part 213 is revised 

to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Part 213—Maximum 

Allowable Curving Speeds 

This appendix contains four tables 

identifying maximum allowing curving 

speeds based on 3, 4, 5, and 6 inches of 

unbalance (cant deficiency), respectively. 

TABLE 1—THREE INCHES UNBALANCE

[Elevation of outer rail (inches)] 

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

Maximum allowable operating speed (m.p.h.) 

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

0°40′ ........................................... 80 87 93 98 104 109 113 118 122 127 131 135 139 

0°50′ ........................................... 72 77 83 88 93 97 101 106 110 113 117 121 124 

1°00′ ........................................... 65 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′ ........................................... 53 58 62 65 69 72 76 79 82 85 87 90 93 

1°45′ ........................................... 49 53 57 61 64 67 70 73 76 78 81 83 86 

2°00′ ........................................... 46 50 53 57 60 63 65 68 71 73 76 78 80 

2°15′ ........................................... 44 47 50 53 56 59 62 64 67 69 71 73 76 

2°30′ ........................................... 41 45 48 51 53 56 59 61 63 65 68 70 72 

2°45′ ........................................... 39 43 46 48 51 53 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 

3°00′ ........................................... 38 41 44 46 49 51 53 56 58 60 62 64 65 

3°15′ ........................................... 36 39 42 44 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 

3°30′ ........................................... 35 38 40 43 45 47 49 52 53 55 57 59 61 

3°45′ ........................................... 34 37 39 41 44 46 48 50 52 53 55 57 59 

4°00′ ........................................... 33 35 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 53 55 57 

4°30′ ........................................... 31 33 36 38 40 42 44 45 47 49 50 52 53 

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

5°30′ ........................................... 28 30 32 34 36 38 39 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 44 

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 30 32 33 34 35 36 

11°00′ ......................................... 20 21 23 24 25 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 (m.p.h.) 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25971 

TABLE 2—FOUR 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°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 

TABLE 3—FIVE 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 (m.p.h.) 

0°30′ ........................................... 120 125 131 136 141 146 151 156 160 165 169 173 177 

0°40′ ........................................... 104 109 113 118 122 127 131 135 139 143 146 150 150 

0°50′ ........................................... 93 97 101 106 110 113 117 121 124 128 131 134 137 

1°00′ ........................................... 85 89 93 96 100 104 107 110 113 116 120 122 125 

1°15′ ........................................... 76 79 83 86 89 93 96 99 101 104 107 110 112 

1°30′ ........................................... 69 72 76 79 82 85 87 90 93 95 98 100 102 

1°45′ ........................................... 64 67 70 73 76 78 81 83 86 88 90 93 95 

2°00′ ........................................... 60 63 65 68 71 73 76 78 80 82 85 87 89 

2°15′ ........................................... 56 59 62 64 67 69 71 73 76 78 80 82 84 

2°30′ ........................................... 53 56 59 61 63 65 68 70 72 74 76 77 79 

2°45′ ........................................... 51 53 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 

3°00′ ........................................... 49 51 53 56 58 60 62 64 65 67 69 71 72 

3°15′ ........................................... 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 66 68 70 

3°30′ ........................................... 45 47 49 52 53 55 57 59 61 62 64 65 67 

3°45′ ........................................... 44 46 48 50 52 53 55 57 59 60 62 63 65 

4°00′ ........................................... 42 44 46 48 50 52 53 55 57 58 60 61 63 

4°30′ ........................................... 40 42 44 45 47 49 50 52 53 55 56 58 59 

5°00′ ........................................... 38 40 41 43 45 46 48 49 51 52 53 55 56 

5°30′ ........................................... 36 38 39 41 43 44 46 47 48 50 51 52 53 

6°00′ ........................................... 35 36 38 39 41 42 44 45 46 48 49 50 51 

6°30′ ........................................... 33 35 36 38 39 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 49 

7°00′ ........................................... 32 34 35 36 38 39 40 42 43 44 45 46 47 

8°00′ ........................................... 30 31 33 34 35 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 

9°00′ ........................................... 28 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 

10°00′ ......................................... 27 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 

11°00′ ......................................... 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 

12°00′ ......................................... 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 35 36 

TABLE 4—SIX INCHES UNBALANCE

[Elevation of outer rail (inches)] 

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

Maximum allowable operating speed (m.p.h.) 

0°30′ ........................................... 131 136 141 146 151 156 160 165 169 173 177 181 185 

0°40′ ........................................... 113 118 122 127 131 135 139 143 146 150 154 157 160 

0°50′ ........................................... 101 106 110 113 117 121 124 128 131 134 137 140 143 

1°00′ ........................................... 93 96 100 104 107 110 113 116 120 122 125 128 131 

1°15′ ........................................... 83 86 89 93 96 99 101 104 107 110 112 115 117 

1°30′ ........................................... 76 79 82 85 87 90 93 95 98 100 102 105 107 

1°45′ ........................................... 70 73 76 78 81 83 86 88 90 93 95 97 99 

2°00′ ........................................... 65 68 71 73 76 78 80 82 85 87 89 91 93 

2°15′ ........................................... 62 64 67 69 71 73 76 78 80 82 84 85 87 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

25972 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 4—SIX 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 

2°30′ ........................................... 59 61 63 65 68 70 72 74 76 77 79 81 83 

2°45′ ........................................... 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 77 79 

3°00′ ........................................... 53 56 58 60 62 64 65 67 69 71 72 74 76 

3°15′ ........................................... 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 66 68 70 71 73 

3°30′ ........................................... 49 52 53 55 57 59 61 62 64 65 67 69 70 

3°45′ ........................................... 48 50 52 53 55 57 59 60 62 63 65 66 68 

4°00′ ........................................... 46 48 50 52 53 55 57 58 60 61 63 64 65 

4°30′ ........................................... 44 45 47 49 50 52 53 55 56 58 59 60 62 

5°00′ ........................................... 41 43 45 46 48 49 51 52 53 55 56 57 59 

5°30′ ........................................... 39 41 43 44 46 47 48 50 51 52 53 55 56 

6°00′ ........................................... 38 39 41 42 44 45 46 48 49 50 51 52 53 

6°30′ ........................................... 36 38 39 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 49 50 51 

7°00′ ........................................... 35 36 38 39 40 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 

8°00′ ........................................... 33 34 35 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 

9°00′ ........................................... 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 

10°00′ ......................................... 29 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 41 

11°00′ ......................................... 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 39 

12°00′ ......................................... 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 35 36 37 38 

19. Appendix D to part 213 is added 

to read as follows: 

Appendix D to Part 213—Minimally 

Compliant Analytical Track (MCAT) 

Simulations Used for Qualifying 

Vehicles To Operate at High Speeds 

and at High Cant Deficiencies 

1. This appendix contains requirements for 

using computer simulations to comply with 

the vehicle/track qualification testing 

requirements specified in subpart G of this 

part. These simulations shall be performed 

using a track model containing defined 

geometry perturbations at the limits that are 

permitted for a class of track and level of cant 

deficiency. This track model is known as 

MCAT, Minimally Compliant Analytical 

Track. These simulations shall be used to 

identify vehicle dynamic performance issues 

prior to service, and demonstrate that a 

vehicle type is suitable for operation on the 

track over which it will operate. 

2. As specified in § 213.345(c)(1), MCAT 

shall be used for the qualification of new 

vehicle types intended to operate at speeds 

corresponding to Class 6 through Class 9 

track, or at any curving speed producing 

more than 6 inches of cant deficiency. In 

addition, as specified in § 213.345(d)(1), 

MCAT may be used to qualify on new routes 

vehicle types that have previously been 

qualified on other routes and are intended to 

operate at speeds corresponding to Class 7 

through Class 9 track, or at any curving speed 

producing more than 6 inches of cant 

deficiency. 

3. For a comprehensive safety evaluation, 

the track owner or railroad shall identify any 

non-redundant suspension system element or 

component that may present a single point of 

failure. Additional MCAT simulations 

reflecting the fully-degraded mode of the 

vehicle type’s performance due to such a 

failure shall be included. 

(a) Validation. To validate the vehicle 

model used for MCAT simulations under this 

part, the track owner or railroad shall obtain 

vehicle simulation predictions using 

measured track geometry data, chosen from 

the same track section over which testing is 

to be performed as determined by 

§ 213.345(c)(1)(ii). These predictions shall be 

submitted to FRA in support of the request 

for approval of the qualification test plan. 

Full validation of the vehicle model used for 

MCAT simulations under this part shall be 

determined when the results of the 

simulations demonstrate that they replicate 

all key responses observed during the 

qualification test. 

(b) MCAT layout. MCAT consists of nine 

segments, each designed to test a vehicle’s 

performance in response to a specific type of 

track perturbation. The basic layout of MCAT 

is shown in figure 1 of this appendix, by type 

of track (curving or tangent), class of track, 

and cant deficiency (CD). The values for 

wavelength, λ, amplitude of perturbation, a, 

and segment length, d, are specified in this 

appendix. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25973 

(1) MCAT segments. MCAT’s nine 

segments contain different types of track 

deviations in which the shape of each 

deviation is a versine having wavelength and 

amplitude varied for each simulation speed 

as further specified. The nine MCAT 

segments are defined as follows: 

(i) Hunting perturbation (a1): This segment 

contains an alinement deviation on both rails 

to test vehicle stability on tangent track 

having a wavelength, λ, of 10 feet and 

amplitude of 0.5 inch. This segment is to be 

used only on tangent track simulations. 

(ii) Gage narrowing (a2): This segment 

contains an alinement deviation on one rail 

to reduce the gage from the nominal value to 

the minimum permissible gage or maximum 

alinement (whichever comes first). 

(iii) Gage widening (a3): This segment 

contains an alinement deviation on one rail 

to increase the gage from the nominal value 

to the maximum permissible gage or 

maximum alinement (whichever comes first). 

(iv) Repeated surface (a9): This segment 

contains three consecutive maximum 

permissible profile variations on each rail. 

(v) Repeated alinement (a4): This segment 

contains two consecutive maximum 

permissible alinement variations on each rail. 

(vi) Single surface (a10, a11): This segment 

contains a maximum permissible profile 

variation on one rail. If the maximum 

permissible profile variation alone produces 

a condition which exceeds the maximum 

allowed warp condition, a second profile 

variation is also placed on the opposite rail 

to limit the warp to the maximum 

permissible value. 

(vii) Single alinement (a5, a6): This segment 

contains a maximum permissible alinement 

variation on one rail. If the maximum 

permissible alinement variation alone 

produces a condition which exceeds the 

maximum allowed gage condition, a second 

alinement variation is also placed on the 

opposite rail to limit the gage to the 

maximum permissible value. 

(viii) Short warp (a12): This segment 

contains a pair of profile deviations to 

produce a maximum permissible 10-foot 

warp perturbation. The first is on the outside 

rail, and the second follows 10 feet farther on 

the inside rail. Each deviation has a 

wavelength, λ, of 20 feet and variable 

amplitude for each simulation speed as 

described below. This segment is to be used 

only on curved track simulations. 

(ix) Combination perturbation (a7, a8, a13): 

This segment contains a maximum 

permissible down and out combined 

geometry condition on the outside rail in the 

body of the curve. If the maximum 

permissible variations produce a condition 

which exceeds the maximum allowed gage 

condition, a second variation is also placed 

on the opposite rail as for the MCAT 

segments described in paragraphs (b)(1)(vi) 

and (vii). This segment is to be used only for 

curved track simulations at speeds producing 

more than 5 inches of cant deficiency on 

track Classes 6 through 9, and at speeds 

producing more than 6 inches of cant 

deficiency on track Classes 1 through 5. 

(2) Segment lengths: Each MCAT segment 

shall be long enough to allow the vehicle’s 

response to the track deviation(s) to damp 

out. Each segment shall also have a minimum 

length as specified in table 1 of this 

appendix, which references the distances in 

figure 1 of this appendix. For curved track 

segments, the perturbations shall be placed 

far enough in the body of the curve to allow 

for any spiral effects to damp out. 

TABLE 1 OF APPENDIX D TO PART 213—MINIMUM LENGTHS OF MCAT SEGMENTS

Distances (ft) 

d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 d9

1000 1000 1000 1500 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 

(3) Degree of curvature. For each 

simulation involving assessment of curving 

performance, the degree of curvature, D, 

which generates a particular level of cant 

deficiency, Eu, for a given speed, V, shall be 

calculated using the following equation, 

which assumes a curve with 6 inches of 

superelevation: 

D E

V

u = +

×

6

0 0007 2 .

Where: 

D = Degree of curvature (degrees). 

V = Simulation speed (m.p.h). 

Eu = Cant deficiency (inches). 

(c) Required simulations. 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2ep10my10.008</GPH> EP10MY10.022</MATH>
25974 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(1) To develop a comprehensive 

assessment of vehicle performance, 

simulations shall be performed for a 

variety of scenarios using MCAT. These 

simulations shall be performed to assess 

performance on tangent or curved track, 

or both, depending on the level of cant 

deficiency and speed (track class) as 

shown in table 2 of this appendix. 

TABLE 2 OF APPENDIX D TO PART 213 

[Required Vehicle Performance Assessment Using MCAT] 

New vehicle types on track classes 1 through 

5 and previously qualified vehicle types on 

track classes 1 through 6 

New vehicle types on track classes 6 through 

8 and previously qualified vehicle types on 

track classes 7 and 8 

Curved track: cant deficiency ≤ 6 inches ........... No simulation required ..................................... MCAT—performance on curve. 

Curved track: cant deficiency > 6 inches ........... MCAT—performance on curve ........................ MCAT—performance on curve. 

Tangent track ..................................................... No simulation required ..................................... MCAT—performance on tangent. 

(i) All simulations shall be performed 

using the design wheel profile and a 

nominal track gage of 56.5 inches, using 

tables 3, 4, 5, or 6 of this appendix, as 

appropriate. In addition, all simulations 

involving the assessment of curving 

performance shall be repeated using a 

nominal track gage of 57.0 inches, using 

tables 4, 5, or 6 of this appendix, as 

appropriate. 

(ii) If the running profile is different 

than APTA 340 or APTA 320, then all 

simulations shall be repeated using 

either the APTA 340 or the APTA 320 

wheel profile, depending on the 

established conicity that is common for 

the operation. In lieu of these profiles, 

an alternative worn wheel profile may 

be used if approved by FRA. 

(iii) All simulations shall be 

performed using a wheel/rail coefficient 

of friction of 0.5. 

(2) Vehicle performance on tangent 

track Classes 6 through 9. For maximum 

vehicle speeds corresponding to track 

Class 6 and higher, the MCAT segments 

described in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through 

(b)(1)(vii) of this appendix shall be used 

to assess vehicle performance on 

tangent track. A parametric matrix of 

MCAT simulations shall be performed 

using the following range of conditions: 

(i) Vehicle speed. Simulations shall 

ensure that at up to 5 m.p.h. above the 

proposed maximum operating speed, 

the vehicle type shall not exceed the 

wheel/rail force and acceleration criteria 

defined in the Vehicle/Track Interaction 

Safety Limits table in § 213.333. 

Simulations shall be performed to 

demonstrate acceptable vehicle dynamic 

response by incrementally increasing 

speed from 95 m.p.h. (115 m.p.h. if a 

previously qualified vehicle type on an 

untested route) to 5 m.p.h. above the 

proposed maximum operating speed (in 

5 m.p.h. increments). 

(ii) Perturbation wavelength. For each 

speed, a set of three separate MCAT 

simulations shall be performed. In each 

MCAT simulation, every perturbation 

shall have the same wavelength. The 

following three wavelengths, λ, are to be 

used: 31, 62, and 124 feet. 

(iii) Amplitude parameters. Table 3 of 

this appendix provides the amplitude 

values for the MCAT segments 

described in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through 

(b)(1)(vii) of this appendix for each 

speed of the required parametric MCAT 

simulations. The last set of simulations 

shall be performed at 5 m.p.h. above the 

proposed maximum operating speed 

using the amplitude values in table 3 

that correspond to the proposed 

maximum operating speed. For 

qualification of vehicle types involving 

speeds greater than track Class 6, the 

following additional simulations shall 

be performed: 

(A) For vehicle types being qualified 

for track Class 7 speeds, one additional 

set of simulations shall be performed at 

115 m.p.h. using the track Class 6 

amplitude values in table 3 (i.e., a 5 

m.p.h. overspeed on Class 6 track). 

(B) For vehicle types being qualified 

for track Class 8 speeds, two additional 

sets of simulations shall be performed. 

The first set at 115 m.p.h. using the 

track Class 6 amplitude values in table 

3 (i.e., a 5 m.p.h. overspeed on Class 6 

track) and a second set at 130 m.p.h. 

using the track Class 7 amplitude values 

in table 3 (i.e., a 5 m.p.h. overspeed on 

Class 7 track). 

(C) For vehicle types being qualified 

for track Class 9 speeds, three additional 

sets of simulations shall be performed. 

The first set at 115 m.p.h. using the 

track Class 6 amplitude values in table 

3 (i.e., a 5 m.p.h. overspeed on Class 6 

track), a second set at 130 m.p.h. using 

the track Class 7 amplitude values in 

table 3 (i.e., a 5 m.p.h. overspeed on 

Class 7 track), and a third set at 165 

m.p.h. using the track Class 8 amplitude 

values in table 3 (i.e., a 5 m.p.h. 

overspeed on Class 8 track). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25975 

(3) Vehicle performance on curved 

Track Classes 6 through 9. For 

maximum vehicle speeds corresponding 

to track Class 6 and higher, the MCAT 

segments described in paragraphs 

(b)(1)(ii) through (b)(1)(ix) in this 

appendix shall be used to assess vehicle 

performance on curved track. For curves 

less than 1 degree, simulations must 

also include the hunting perturbation 

segment described in paragraph (b)(1)(i) 

of this appendix. A parametric matrix of 

MCAT simulations shall be performed 

using the following range of conditions: 

(i) Vehicle speed. Simulations shall 

ensure that at up to 5 m.p.h. above the 

proposed maximum operating speed, 

the vehicle type shall not exceed the 

wheel/rail force and acceleration criteria 

defined in the Vehicle/Track Interaction 

Safety Limits table in § 213.333. 

Simulations shall be performed to 

demonstrate acceptable vehicle dynamic 

response by incrementally increasing 

speed from 95 m.p.h. (115 m.p.h. if a 

previously qualified vehicle type on an 

untested route) to 5 m.p.h. above the 

proposed maximum operating speed (in 

5 m.p.h. increments). 

(ii) Perturbation wavelength. For each 

speed, a set of three separate MCAT 

simulations shall be performed. In each 

MCAT simulation, every perturbation 

shall have the same wavelength. The 

following three wavelengths, λ, are to be 

used: 31, 62, and 124 feet. 

(iii) Track curvature. For each speed 

a range of curvatures shall be used to 

produce cant deficiency conditions 

ranging from greater than 3 inches up to 

the maximum intended for qualification 

(in 1 inch increments). The value of 

curvature, D, shall be determined using 

the equation defined in paragraph (a)(3) 

of this appendix. Each curve shall 

include representations of the MCAT 

segments described in paragraphs 

(b)(1)(ii) through (b)(1)(ix) of this 

appendix and have a fixed 

superelevation of 6 inches. 

(iv) Amplitude parameters. Table 4 of 

this appendix provides the amplitude 

values for each speed of the required 

parametric MCAT simulations for cant 

deficiencies greater than 3 and less than 

or equal to 5 inches. Table 5 of this 

appendix provides the amplitude values 

for each speed of the required 

parametric MCAT simulations for cant 

deficiencies greater than 5 inches. The 

last set of simulations at the maximum 

cant deficiency shall be performed at 5 

m.p.h. above the proposed maximum 

operating speed using the amplitude 

values in table 4 or 5 of this appendix, 

as appropriate, that correspond to the 

proposed maximum operating speed 

and cant deficiency. For these 

simulations, the value of curvature, D, 

shall correspond to the proposed 

maximum operating speed and cant 

deficiency. For qualification of vehicle 

types involving speeds greater than 

track Class 6, the following additional 

simulations shall be performed: 

(A) For vehicle types being qualified 

for track Class 7 speeds, one additional 

set of simulations shall be performed at 

115 m.p.h. using the track Class 6 

amplitude values in table 4 or 5 of this 

appendix, as appropriate (i.e., a 5 m.p.h. 

overspeed on Class 6 track) and a value 

of curvature, D, that corresponds to 110 

m.p.h. and the proposed maximum cant 

deficiency. 

(B) For vehicle types being qualified 

for track Class 8 speeds, two additional 

set of simulations shall be performed. 

The first set of simulations shall be 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP10MY10.009</GPH>
25976 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

performed at 115 m.p.h. using the track 

Class 6 amplitude values in table 4 or 

5 of this appendix, as appropriate (i.e., 

a 5 m.p.h. overspeed on Class 6 track) 

and a value of curvature, D, that 

corresponds to 110 m.p.h. and the 

proposed maximum cant deficiency. 

The second set of simulations shall be 

performed at 130 m.p.h. using the track 

Class 7 amplitude values in table 4 or 

5 of this appendix, as appropriate (i.e., 

a 5 m.p.h. overspeed on Class 7 track) 

and a value of curvature, D, that 

corresponds to 125 m.p.h. and the 

proposed maximum cant deficiency. 

(C) For vehicle types being qualified 

for track Class 9 speeds, three additional 

sets of simulations shall be performed. 

The first set of simulations shall be 

performed at 115 m.p.h. using the track 

Class 6 amplitude values in table 4 or 

5 of this appendix, as appropriate (i.e., 

a 5 m.p.h. overspeed on Class 6 track) 

and a value of curvature, D, that 

corresponds to 110 m.p.h. and the 

proposed maximum cant deficiency. 

The second set of simulations shall be 

performed at 130 m.p.h. using the track 

Class 7 amplitude values in table 4 or 

5 of this appendix, as appropriate (i.e., 

a 5 m.p.h. overspeed on Class 7 track) 

and a value of curvature, D, that 

corresponds to 125 m.p.h. and the 

proposed maximum cant deficiency. 

The third set of simulations shall be 

performed at 165 m.p.h. using the track 

Class 8 amplitude values in table 4 or 

5 of this appendix, as appropriate (i.e., 

a 5 m.p.h. overspeed on Class 8 track) 

and a value of curvature, D, that 

corresponds to 160 m.p.h. and the 

proposed maximum cant deficiency. 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP10MY10.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25977 

(4) Vehicle performance on curved track 

Classes 1 through 5 at high cant deficiency. 

For maximum vehicle speeds corresponding 

to track Classes 1 through 5, the MCAT 

segments described in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) 

through (b)(1)(ix) of this appendix shall be 

used to assess vehicle performance on curved 

track if the proposed maximum cant 

deficiency is greater than 6 inches. For 

curves less than 1 degree, simulations must 

also include the hunting perturbation 

segment described in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of 

this appendix. A parametric matrix of MCAT 

simulations shall be performed using the 

following range of conditions: 

(i) Vehicle speed. Simulations shall ensure 

that at up to 5 m.p.h. above the proposed 

maximum operating speed, the vehicle shall 

not exceed the wheel/rail force and 

acceleration criteria defined in the Vehicle/ 

Track Interaction Safety Limits table in 

§ 213.333. Simulations shall be performed to 

demonstrate acceptable vehicle dynamic 

response at 5 m.p.h. above the proposed 

maximum operating speed. 

(ii) Perturbation wavelength. For each 

speed, a set of two separate MCAT 

simulations shall be performed. In each 

MCAT simulation, every perturbation shall 

have the same wavelength. The following 

two wavelengths, λ, are to be used: 31 and 

62 feet. 

(iii) Track curvature. For a speed 

corresponding to 5 m.p.h. above the 

proposed maximum operating speed, a range 

of curvatures shall be used to produce cant 

deficiency conditions ranging from 6 inches 

up to the maximum intended for 

qualification (in 1 inch increments). The 

value of curvature, D, shall be determined 

using the equation in paragraph (a)(3) of this 

appendix. Each curve shall contain the 

MCAT segments described in paragraphs 

(b)(1)(ii) through (b)(1)(ix) of this appendix 

and have a fixed superelevation of 6 inches. 

(iv) Amplitude parameters. Table 6 of this 

appendix provides the amplitude values for 

the MCAT segments described in paragraphs 

(b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(vii) of this appendix 

for each speed of the required parametric 

MCAT simulations. 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP10MY10.011</GPH>
25978 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–C 

PART 238—[AMENDED] 

20. The authority citation for part 238 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20133, 

20141, 20302–20303, 20306, 20701–20702, 

21301–21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; 

and 49 CFR 1.49. 

Subpart C—Specific Requirements for 

Tier I Passenger Equipment 

21. Section 238.227 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 238.227 Suspension system. 

On or after November 8, 1999— 

(a) All passenger equipment shall 

exhibit freedom from truck hunting at 

all operating speeds. If truck hunting 

does occur, a railroad shall immediately 

take appropriate action to prevent 

derailment. Truck hunting is defined in 

§ 213.333 of this chapter. 

(b) Nothing in this section shall affect 

the requirements of the Track Safety 

Standards in part 213 of this chapter as 

they apply to passenger equipment as 

provided in that part. In particular— 

(1) Pre-revenue service qualification. 

All passenger equipment intended for 

service at speeds greater than 90 mph or 

at any curving speed producing more 

than 5 inches of cant deficiency shall 

demonstrate safe operation during prerevenue service qualification in 

accordance with § 213.345 of this 

chapter and is subject to the 

requirements of either § 213.57 or 

§ 213.329 of this chapter, as appropriate. 

(2) Revenue service operation. All 

passenger equipment intended for 

service at speeds greater than 90 mph or 

at any curving speed producing more 

than 5 inches of cant deficiency is 

subject to the requirements of § 213.333 

of this chapter and either §§ 213.57 or 

213.329 of this chapter, as appropriate. 

Subpart E—Specific Requirements for 

Tier II Passenger Equipment 

22. Section 238.427 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(2), (b), and (c), 

and by removing paragraph (d) to read 

as follows: 

§ 238.427 Suspension system. 

(a) * * * 

(2) All passenger equipment shall 

meet the safety performance standards 

for suspension systems contained in 

part 213 of this chapter, or alternative 

standards providing at least equivalent 

safety if approved by FRA under the 

provisions of § 238.21. In particular— 

(i) Pre-revenue service qualification. 

All passenger equipment shall 

demonstrate safe operation during prerevenue service qualification in 

accordance with § 213.345 of this 

chapter and is subject to the 

requirements of § 213.329 of this 

chapter. 

(ii) Revenue service operation. All 

passenger equipment in service is 

subject to the requirements of 

§§ 213.329 and 213.333 of this chapter. 

(b) Carbody acceleration. A passenger 

car shall not operate under conditions 

that result in a steady-state lateral 

acceleration greater than 0.15g, as 

measured parallel to the car floor inside 

the passenger compartment. Additional 

carbody acceleration limits are specified 

in § 213.333 of this chapter. 

(c) Truck (hunting) acceleration. Each 

truck shall be equipped with a 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP10MY10.012</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25979 

permanently installed lateral 

accelerometer mounted on the truck 

frame. If truck hunting is detected, the 

train monitoring system shall provide 

an alarm to the operator and the train 

shall be slowed to a speed at least 5 

mph less than the speed at which the 

truck hunting stopped. Truck hunting is 

defined in § 213.333 of this chapter. 

23. Section 238.428 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 238.428 Overheat sensors. 

Overheat sensors for each wheelset 

journal bearing shall be provided. The 

sensors may be placed either onboard 

the equipment or at reasonable intervals 

along the railroad’s right-of-way. 

Appendix C to Part 238 [Removed and 

Reserved] 

24. Appendix C to part 238 is 

removed and reserved. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 29, 

2010. 

Joseph C. Szabo, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10624 Filed 5–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2