Document ID: FRA-2009-0036-0003
Agency: fra
Document Type: Rule
Title: High-Speed and High Cant Deficiency Operations: Vehicle/Track Interaction Safety Standards
Posted Date: 2010-05-10T04:00Z

[Federal Register: May 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 89)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 25927-25979]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10my10-21]                         

[[Page 25927]]

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

Part II

Department of Transportation

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

Federal Railroad Administration

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

49 CFR Parts 213 and 238

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

[[Page 25928]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Parts 213 and 238

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

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

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Supplementary Information

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

I. Statutory Background

A. Track Safety Standards

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

B. Passenger Equipment Safety Standards

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

[[Page 25929]]

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

II. Proceedings to Date

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

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

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

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

C. Identification of Key Issues for Future Rulemaking

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

D. RSAC Overview

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

     American Association of Private Railroad Car Owners 
(AAPRCO);

[[Page 25930]]

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

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

E. Establishment of the Passenger Safety Working Group

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

F. Establishment of the Task Force

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

[[Page 25931]]

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

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

G. Development of the NPRM

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

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

[[Page 25932]]

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

III. Technical Background

A. Lessons Learned and Operational Experience

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

[[Page 25933]]

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

B. Research and Computer Modeling

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

[[Page 25934]]

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

[[Page 25935]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.005

BILLING CODE 4910-06-C

[[Page 25936]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.006

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

[[Page 25937]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.007

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis

Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part 213, Track Safety Standards

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

[[Page 25938]]

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

[[Page 25939]]

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

[[Page 25940]]

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

[[Page 25941]]

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

[[Page 25942]]

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

[[Page 25943]]

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

[[Page 25944]]

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

[[Page 25945]]

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

[[Page 25946]]

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

[[Page 25947]]

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

[[Page 25948]]

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

Appendix A to Part 213--Maximum Allowable Curving Speeds

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

Appendix B to Part 213--Schedule of Civil Penalties

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

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

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

[[Page 25949]]

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

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

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

Appendix A to Part 238--Schedule of Civil Penalties

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

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

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

[[Page 25950]]

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

V. Regulatory Impact and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

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

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

[[Page 25951]]

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

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

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

[[Page 25952]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 25953]]

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

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272

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

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

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

[[Page 25954]]

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

[[Page 25955]]

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

    All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, 
searching existing data sources, gathering or maintaining the needed 
data, and reviewing the information. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits comments concerning: Whether these 
information collection requirements are necessary for the proper 
performance of the functions of FRA, including whether the information 
has practical utility; the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of 
the information collection requirements; the quality, utility, and 
clarity of the information to be collected; and whether the burden of 
collection of information on those who are to respond, including 
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology, may be minimized. For information or a copy of 
the paperwork package submitted to OMB, contact Mr. Robert Brogan, 
Information Clearance Officer, Federal Railroad Administration, at 202-
493-6292, or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Information Clearance Officer, Federal 
Railroad Administration, at 202-493-6132.
    Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the 
collection of information requirements should direct them to Mr. Robert 
Brogan or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Third Floor, Washington, DC 20590. Comments may 
also be submitted via e-mail to Mr. Brogan or Ms. Toone at the 
following, respective addresses: 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

[[Page 25956]]

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

E. Environmental Impact

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

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

G. Energy Impact

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

H. Trade Impact

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

[[Page 25957]]

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

I. Privacy Act

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

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 213

    Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

49 CFR Part 238

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

The Proposed Rule

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

PART 213--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart A--General

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

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

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

Subpart C--Track Geometry

    3. Section 213.55 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  213.55  Track alinement.

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

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

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

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

    4. Section 213.57 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  213.57  Curves; elevation and speed limitations.

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

[[Page 25958]]

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

Where:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sec.  213.63  Track surface.

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

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

[[Page 25959]]

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

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

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

    6. Section 213.65 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  213.65  Combined alinement and surface deviations.

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.014

Where:

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.015

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

Sec.  213.110  Gage restraint measurement systems.

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

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

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

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

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

PLG24 = UTG + A x (LTG - UTG)

Where:

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

[[Page 25960]]

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

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

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

Where:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sec.  213.305  Designation of qualified individuals; general 
qualifications.

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

Sec.  213.307  Classes of track: Operating speed limits.

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

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

[[Page 25961]]

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

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

Sec.  213.323  Track gage.

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

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

    11. Section 213.327 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  213.327  Track alinement.

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

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

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

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

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  The deviation from       The deviation from       The deviation from
                                                                                uniformity of the mid-   uniformity of the mid-   uniformity of the mid-
               Class of track                            Track type             chord offset for a 31-   chord offset for a 62-  chord offset for a 124-
                                                                                foot chord may not be    foot chord may not be    foot chord may not be
                                                                                 more than-- (inches)     more than-- (inches)     more than--(inches)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 6 track...............................  Curved \1\.....................                    \1/2\                    \5/8\                   1\1/4\
Class 7 track...............................  Curved \1\.....................                    \1/2\                    \1/2\                        1
Class 8 track...............................  Curved \1\.....................                    \1/2\                    \1/2\                    \3/4\

[[Page 25962]]

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

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

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

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

Sec.  213.329  Curves; elevation and speed limitations.

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.018

Where:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 25963]]

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

Sec.  213.331  Track surface.

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

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

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

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

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Class of track
                     Track surface (inches)                      -----------------------------------------------
                                                                       6           7           8           9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The deviation from uniform profile on either rail at the mid-          \3/4\       \3/4\       \1/2\       \3/8\
 ordinate of a 31-foot chord may not be more than...............
The deviation from uniform profile on either rail at the mid-          \3/4\       \3/4\       \3/4\       \1/2\
 ordinate of a 62-foot chord may not be more than...............

[[Page 25964]]

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

    14. Section 213.332 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  213.332   Combined alinement and surface deviations.

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.019

Where--

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.020

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

Sec.  213.333  Automated vehicle inspection systems.

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

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

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

Where--

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:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.021

Where--

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

[[Page 25965]]

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

[[Page 25966]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.023

[[Page 25967]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.024

[[Page 25968]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.025

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

Sec.  213.345  Vehicle/track system qualification.

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

[[Page 25969]]

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

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

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

[[Page 25970]]

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

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

Appendix A to Part 213--Maximum Allowable Curving Speeds

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

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

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

[[Page 25971]]

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

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

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

[[Page 25972]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 25973]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.008

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

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

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

Where:

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

    (c) Required simulations.

[[Page 25974]]

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

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

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

[[Page 25975]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.009

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

[[Page 25976]]

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

[[Page 25977]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.011

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

[[Page 25978]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.012

BILLING CODE 4910-06-C

PART 238--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart C--Specific Requirements for Tier I Passenger Equipment

    21. Section 238.227 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  238.227  Suspension system.

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

Subpart E--Specific Requirements for Tier II Passenger Equipment

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

Sec.  238.427  Suspension system.

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

[[Page 25979]]

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

Sec.  238.428  Overheat sensors.

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

Appendix C to Part 238 [Removed and Reserved]

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

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