Vehicle/Track Interaction Safety Standards; High-Speed and High Cant Deficiency Operations, 25928-25979 [2010-10624]

Agencies

• Federal Railroad Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

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



[[Page 25927]]

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

Part II





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Railroad Administration



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



49 CFR Parts 213 and 238



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

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

[[Page 25928]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Parts 213 and 238

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


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

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments related to Docket No. FRA-2009-0036, 
Notice No. 1, may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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 ca