Monday, May 10, 2010

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 25928 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Ground Floor, Room W12–140, B. Research and Computer Modeling Washington, DC 20590. IV. Section-by-Section Analysis Federal Railroad Administration • Hand Delivery: Docket Management V. Regulatory Impact and Notices Facility, U.S. Department of A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 49 CFR Parts 213 and 238 Regulatory Policies and Procedures Transportation, 1200 New Jersey B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive [Docket No. FRA–2009–0036, Notice No. 1] Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Order 13272 Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC, C. Paperwork Reduction Act RIN 2130–AC09 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday D. Federalism Implications through Friday, except Federal holidays. E. Environmental Impact Vehicle/Track Interaction Safety • Fax: 202–493–2251. F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Standards; High-Speed and High Cant Instructions: Note that all comments G. Energy Impact Deficiency Operations received will be posted without change H. Trade Impact I. Privacy Act AGENCY: Federal Railroad to http://www.regulations.gov, including Administration (FRA), Department of any personal information provided. I. Statutory Background Transportation (DOT). Please see the Privacy Act discussion, A. Track Safety Standards below. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking The first Federal Track Safety (NPRM). Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or Standards were published on October SUMMARY: FRA is proposing to amend comments received, go to http:// 20, 1971, following the enactment of the the Track Safety Standards and www.regulations.gov anytime, or to the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, Passenger Equipment Safety Standards Docket Management Facility, U.S. Public Law 91–458, 84 Stat. 971 applicable to high-speed and high cant Department of Transportation, 1200 (October 16, 1970), in which Congress deficiency train operations in order to New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building granted to FRA comprehensive ‘‘ promote the safe interaction of rail Ground Floor, Room W12–140, authority over all areas of railroad ’’ vehicles with the track over which they Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 safety. See 36 FR 20336. FRA envisioned the new Standards to be an operate. The proposal would revise p.m., Monday through Friday, except evolving set of safety requirements existing limits for vehicle response to Federal holidays. Follow the online subject to continuous revision allowing track perturbations and add new limits instructions for accessing the dockets. the regulations to keep pace with as well. The proposal accounts for a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John industry innovations and agency range of vehicle types that are currently J. Mardente, Engineer, Office of Railroad research and development. The most used and may likely be used on future Safety, Mail Stop 25, Federal Railroad comprehensive revision of the high-speed or high cant deficiency rail Administration, 1200 New Jersey Standards resulted from the Rail Safety operations, or both. The proposal is Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 Enforcement and Review Act of 1992, based on the results of simulation (telephone 202–493–1335); Ali Public Law 102–365, 106 Stat. 972 studies designed to identify track Tajaddini, Program Manager for (Sept. 3, 1992), later amended by the geometry irregularities associated with Vehicle/Track Interaction, Office of Federal Railroad Safety Authorization unsafe wheel/rail forces and Railroad Policy and Development, Mail Act of 1994, Public Law 103–440, 108 accelerations, thorough reviews of Stop 20, Federal Railroad Stat. 4615 (November 2, 1994). The vehicle qualification and revenue Administration, 1200 New Jersey amended statute is codified at 49 U.S.C. service test data, and consideration of Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 20142 and required the Secretary of international practices. (telephone 202–493–6438); or Daniel L. Transportation (Secretary) to revise the DATES: Written comments must be Alpert, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Track Safety Standards, which are received by July 9, 2010. Comments Counsel, Mail Stop 10, Federal Railroad contained in 49 CFR part 213. The received after that date will be Administration, 1200 New Jersey Secretary delegated the statutory considered to the extent possible Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 rulemaking responsibilities to the without incurring additional expense or (telephone 202–493–6026). Administrator of the Federal Railroad delay. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Administration. See 49 CFR 1.49. FRA anticipates being able to resolve this rulemaking without a public, oral Table of Contents for Supplementary B. Passenger Equipment Safety hearing. However, if FRA receives a Information Standards specific request for a public, oral I. Statutory Background In September 1994, the Secretary hearing prior to June 9, 2010, one will A. Track Safety Standards convened a meeting of representatives be scheduled and FRA will publish a B. Passenger Equipment Safety Standards from all sectors of the rail industry with supplemental notice in the Federal II. Proceedings to Date the goal of enhancing rail safety. As one Register to inform interested parties of A. Proceedings To Carry Out the 1992/1994 Track Safety Standards Rulemaking of the initiatives arising from this Rail the date, time, and location of any such Mandates Safety Summit, the Secretary hearing. B. Proceedings To Carry Out the 1994 announced that DOT would develop ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments Passenger Equipment Safety Standards safety standards for rail passenger related to Docket No. FRA–2009–0036, Rulemaking Mandate equipment over a 5-year period. In Notice No. 1, may be submitted by any C. Identification of Key Issues for Future November 1994, Congress adopted the of the following methods: Rulemaking Secretary’s schedule for implementing • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to D. RSAC Overview rail passenger equipment safety http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the E. Establishment of the Passenger Safety regulations and included it in the Working Group online instructions for submitting F. Establishment of the Task Force Federal Railroad Safety Authorization comments. Act of 1994. Congress also authorized • G. Development of the NPRM Mail: Docket Management Facility, III. Technical Background the Secretary to consult with various U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 A. Lessons Learned and Operational organizations involved in passenger New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Experience train operations for purposes of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25929

prescribing and amending these belonging to one of these high-speed rulemaking was codified primarily at 49 regulations, as well as issuing orders track classes. CFR part 238 and secondarily at 49 CFR pursuant to them. Section 215 of this parts 216, 223, 229, 231, and 232. B. Proceedings To Carry Out the 1994 Act is codified at 49 U.S.C. 20133. Passenger Equipment Safety Standards C. Identification of Key Issues for Future II. Proceedings to Date Rulemaking Mandate Rulemaking A. Proceedings To Carry Out the 1992/ FRA formed the Passenger Equipment While FRA had completed these 1994 Track Safety Standards Safety Standards Working Group to rulemakings, FRA and interested Rulemaking Mandates provide FRA with advice in developing industry members began identifying the regulations mandated by Congress. various issues for possible future To help fulfill the statutory mandates, On June 17, 1996, FRA published an rulemaking. Some of these issues FRA decided that the proceeding to advance notice of proposed rulemaking resulted from the gathering of revise part 213 should advance under (ANPRM) concerning the establishment operational experience in applying the the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee of comprehensive safety standards for new safety standards to Amtrak’s high- (RSAC), which was established on railroad passenger equipment. See 61 speed, Acela Express (Acela) trainsets, March 11, 1996. (A fuller discussion of FR 30672. The ANPRM provided as well as to higher-speed commuter RSAC is provided below.) In turn, RSAC background information on the need for railroad operations. These included formed a Track Working Group, such standards, offered preliminary concerns raised by railroads and rail comprised of approximately 30 ideas on approaching passenger safety equipment manufacturers as to the representatives from railroads, rail issues, and presented questions on application of the new safety standards labor, trade associations, State various passenger safety topics. and the consistency between the government, track equipment Following consideration of comments requirements contained in part 213 and manufacturers, and FRA, to develop and received on the ANPRM and advice those in part 238. Other issues arose draft a proposed rule for revising part from FRA’s Passenger Equipment Safety from the conduct of research, allowing 213. The Track Working Group Standards Working Group, FRA FRA to gather new information with identified issues for discussion from published an NPRM on September 23, which to evaluate the safety of high- several sources, in addition to the 1997, to establish comprehensive safety speed and high cant deficiency rail statutory mandates issued by Congress standards for railroad passenger operations. FRA decided to address in 1992 and in 1994. Ultimately, the equipment. See 62 FR 49728. In these issues with the assistance of Track Working Group recommended a addition to requesting written comment RSAC. proposed rule to the full RSAC body, on the NPRM, FRA also solicited oral FRA notes that train operation at cant which in turn formally recommended to comment at a public hearing held on deficiency involves traveling through a the Administrator of FRA that FRA November 21, 1997. FRA considered the curve faster than the balance speed. issue the proposed rule as it was comments received on the NPRM and Balance speed for any given curve is the drafted. prepared a final rule, which was speed at which the lateral component of On July 3, 1997, FRA published an published on May 12, 1999. See 64 FR centrifugal force will be exactly NPRM which included substantially the 25540. compensated (or balanced) by the same rule text and preamble developed After publication of the final rule, corresponding component of the by the Track Working Group. The interested parties filed petitions seeking gravitational force. When operating NPRM generated comment, and FRA’s reconsideration of certain above the balance speed, there is a net following consideration of the requirements contained in the rule. lateral force to the outside of the curve. comments received, FRA published a These petitions generally related to the Cant deficiency is measured in inches final rule in the Federal Register on following subject areas: structural and is the amount of superelevation that June 22, 1998, see 63 FR 33992, which, design; fire safety; training; inspection, would need to be added to the existing effective September 21, 1998, revised testing, and maintenance; and track in order to balance this centrifugal the Track Safety Standards in their movement of defective equipment. On force with this gravitational force to entirety. July 3, 2000, FRA issued a response to realize no net lateral force measured in To address the modern railroad the petitions for reconsideration relating the plane of the rails. For every curve, operating environment, the final rule to the inspection, testing, and there is a balance speed at which the included standards specifically maintenance of passenger equipment, cant deficiency is zero based on the applicable to high-speed train the movement of defective passenger actual superelevation built into the operations in a new subpart G. Prior to equipment, and other miscellaneous track. In general terms, the higher the the 1998 final rule, the Track Safety provisions related to mechanical issues train speed through a curve, the higher Standards had addressed six classes of contained in the final rule. See 65 FR the cant deficiency. track that permitted passenger and 41284. On April 23, 2002, FRA D. RSAC Overview freight trains to travel up to 110 m.p.h.; responded to all remaining issues raised passenger trains had been allowed to in the petitions for reconsideration, with As mentioned above, in March 1996, operate at speeds over 110 m.p.h. under the exception of those relating to fire FRA established RSAC, which provides conditional waiver granted by FRA. safety. See 67 FR 19970. Finally, on a forum for developing consensus FRA revised the requirements for Class June 25, 2002, FRA completed its recommendations to FRA’s 6 track, included them in new subpart response to the petitions for Administrator on rulemakings and other G, and also added three new classes of reconsideration by publishing a safety program issues. The Committee track in subpart G, track Classes 7 response to those petitions concerning includes representation from all of the through 9, designating standards for the fire safety portion of the rule. See 67 agency’s major stakeholders, including track over which trains may travel at FR 42892. (For more detailed railroads, labor organizations, suppliers speeds up to 200 m.p.h. The new information on the petitions for and manufacturers, and other interested subpart G was intended to function as reconsideration and FRA’s response to parties. A list of member groups follows: a set of ‘‘stand alone’’ regulations them, please see these three rulemaking • American Association of Private Railroad governing any track identified as documents.) The product of this Car Owners (AAPRCO);

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 25930 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules

• American Association of State Highway individual task force then provides that Southeastern Pennsylvania and Transportation Officials (AASHTO); information to the working group for Transportation Authority; • American Chemistry Council; • • consideration. If a working group comes BLET; American Petroleum Institute; to unanimous consensus on • BRS; • American Public Transportation recommendations for action, the • FTA; Association (APTA); • • American Short Line and Regional package is presented to the full RSAC HSGTA; for a vote. If the proposal is accepted by • IBEW; Railroad Association; • • American Train Dispatchers Association; a simple majority of RSAC, the proposal NARP; • Association of American Railroads is formally recommended to FRA. FRA • RSI; (AAR); then determines what action to take on • SMWIA; • Association of Railway Museums; the recommendation. Because FRA staff • STA; • Association of State Rail Safety Managers members play an active role at the • TCIU/BRC; (ASRSM); working group level in discussing the • TWU; and • • Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers issues and options and in drafting the UTU. and Trainmen (BLET); Staff from DOT’s John A. Volpe • Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way language of the consensus proposal, FRA is often favorably inclined toward National Transportation Systems Center Employees Division (BMWED); (Volpe Center) attended all of the • Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen the RSAC recommendation. However, (BRS); FRA is in no way bound to follow the meetings and contributed to the • Chlorine Institute; recommendation, and the agency technical discussions. Staff from the • Federal Transit Administration (FTA);* exercises its independent judgment on NTSB also participated in the Working • Fertilizer Institute; whether the recommended rule achieves Group’s meetings. The Working Group • High Speed Ground Transportation the agency’s regulatory goal, is soundly has held 13 meetings on the following Association (HSGTA); dates and in the following locations: • supported, and is in accordance with Institute of Makers of Explosives; policy and legal requirements. Often, • September 9–10, 2003, in • International Association of Machinists FRA varies in some respects from the Washington, DC; and Aerospace Workers; • November 6, 2003, in Philadelphia, • International Brotherhood of Electrical RSAC recommendation in developing the actual regulatory proposal or final PA; Workers (IBEW); • • rule. Any such variations would be May 11, 2004, in Schaumburg, IL; Labor Council for Latin American • Advancement;* noted and explained in the rulemaking October 26–27, 2004, in Linthicum/ • League of Railway Industry Women;* document issued by FRA. If the working Baltimore, MD; • • National Association of Railroad group or full RSAC body is unable to March 9–10, 2005, in Ft. Passengers (NARP); Lauderdale, FL; • reach consensus on a recommendation • National Association of Railway for action, FRA moves ahead to resolve September 7, 2005, in Chicago, IL; Business Women;* • the issue(s) through traditional March 21–22, 2006, in Ft. • National Conference of Firemen & Oilers; Lauderdale, FL; • rulemaking proceedings. National Railroad Construction and • September 12–13, 2006, in Orlando, Maintenance Association; E. Establishment of the Passenger Safety FL; • National Railroad Passenger Corporation Working Group • April 17–18, 2007, in Orlando, FL; (Amtrak); • • National Transportation Safety Board On May 20, 2003, FRA presented, and December 11, 2007, in Ft. (NTSB);* RSAC accepted, the task of reviewing Lauderdale, FL; • • Railway Supply Institute (RSI); existing passenger equipment safety June 18, 2008, in Baltimore, MD; • • Safe Travel America (STA); needs and programs and recommending November 13, 2008, in Washington, • Secretaria de Comunicaciones y consideration of specific actions that DC; and • Transporte;* could be useful in advancing the safety June 8, 2009, in Washington, DC. • Sheet Metal Workers International Association (SMWIA); of rail passenger service. The RSAC F. Establishment of the Task Force • Tourist Railway Association, Inc.; established the Passenger Safety • Working Group (Working Group) to Due to the variety of issues involved, Transport Canada;* at its November 2003 meeting the • Transport Workers Union of America handle this task and develop (TWU); recommendations for the full RSAC to Working Group established four task • Transportation Communications consider. Members of the Working forces—smaller groups to develop International Union/BRC (TCIU/BRC); Group, in addition to FRA, include the recommendations on specific issues • Transportation Security following: within each group’s particular area of Administration;* and • expertise. Members of the task forces • AAR, including members from United Transportation Union (UTU). BNSF Railway Company (BNSF), CSX include various representatives from the *Indicates associate, non-voting respective organizations that are part of membership. Transportation, Inc., and Union Pacific Railroad Company; the larger Working Group. One of these When appropriate, FRA assigns a task • AAPRCO; task forces was assigned to identify and to RSAC, and after consideration and • AASHTO; develop issues and recommendations debate, RSAC may accept or reject the • Amtrak; specifically related to the inspection, task. If the task is accepted, RSAC • APTA, including members from testing, and operation of passenger establishes a working group that Bombardier, Inc., Herzog Transit equipment as well as concerns related to possesses the appropriate expertise and Services, Inc., Interfleet Technology, the attachment of safety appliances on representation of interests to develop Inc. (formerly LDK Engineering, Inc.), passenger equipment. An NPRM on recommendations to FRA for action on Long Island Rail Road (LIRR), Maryland these topics was published on December the task. These recommendations are Transit Administration (MTA), Metro- 8, 2005 (see 70 FR 73069), and a final developed by consensus. A working North Commuter Railroad Company, rule was published on October 19, 2006 group may establish one or more task Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter (see 71 FR 61835). Another of these task forces to develop facts and options on Railroad Corporation, Southern forces was assigned to develop a particular aspect of a given task. The California Regional Rail Authority, and recommendations related to window

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25931

glazing integrity, structural • June 24–25, 2004, in Washington, based on the principle that, to ensure crashworthiness, and the protection of DC; safety, the interaction of the vehicles occupants during accidents and • July 6, 2004, in Washington, DC and the track over which they operate incidents. The work of this task force (technical subgroup only); must be considered within a systems led to the publication of an NPRM • July 22, 2004, in Washington, DC approach that provides for specific focused on enhancing the front end (technical subgroup only); limits for vehicle response to track strength of cab cars and multiple-unit • August 24–25, 2004, in Washington, perturbation(s). From the outset, the (MU) locomotives on August 1, 2007 DC; Task Force strove to develop revisions • (see 72 FR 42016), and the publication October 12–14, 2004, in that would: Serve as practical standards Washington, DC; of a final rule on January 8, 2010 (see • with sound physical and mathematical 75 FR 1180). Another task force, the December 9, 2004, in Washington, bases; account for a range of vehicle DC; Emergency Preparedness Task Force, • types that are currently used and may was established to identify issues and February 10, 2005, in Washington, likely be used on future high-speed or develop recommendations related to DC; high cant deficiency rail operations, or • April 7, 2005, in Washington, DC; emergency systems, procedures, and • August 24, 2005, in Washington, both; and not present an undue burden equipment. An NPRM on these topics DC; on railroads. The Task Force first was published on August 24, 2006 (see • November 3–4, 2005, in identified key issues requiring attention 71 FR 50276), and a final rule was Washington, DC; based on experience applying the published on February 1, 2008 (see 73 • January 12–13, 2006, in current Track Safety Standards and FR 6370). The fourth task force, the Washington, DC; Passenger Equipment Safety Standards, Track/Vehicle Interaction Task Force • March 7–8, 2006, in Washington, and defined the following work efforts: • (also identified as the Vehicle/Track DC; Revise— Interaction Task Force, or Task Force), • April 25, 2006, in Washington, DC; Æ Qualification requirements for was established to identify issues and • May 23, 2006, in Washington, DC; high-speed or high cant deficiency develop recommendations related to the • July 25–26, 2006, in Cambridge, operations, or both; safety of vehicle/track interactions. MA; Æ Acceleration and wheel/rail force Initially, the Task Force was charged • September 7–8, 2006, in safety limits; with considering a number of issues, Washington, DC; Æ Inspection, monitoring, and including vehicle-centered issues • November 14–15, 2006, in maintenance requirements; and involving flange angle, tread conicity, Washington, DC; Æ Track geometry limits for high- and truck equalization; the necessity for • January 24–25, 2007, in speed operations. instrumented wheelset tests for Washington, DC; • Establish— • operations at speeds from 90 to 125 March 29–30, 2007, in Cambridge, Æ Necessary safety limits for wheel m.p.h.; consolidation of vehicle MA; profile and truck equalization; • April 26, 2007, in Springfield, VA; Æ trackworthiness criteria in parts 213 and • Consistent requirements for high 238; and revisions of track geometry May 17–18, 2007, in Cambridge, cant deficiency operations covering all standards. The Task Force was given the MA; track classes; and • June 25–26, 2007, in Arlington, VA; responsibility of addressing other Æ Additional track geometry • August 8–9, 2007, in Cambridge, vehicle/track interaction safety issues requirements for cant deficiencies MA; and to recommend any research • greater than 5 inches. October 9–11, 2007 in Washington, • necessary to facilitate their resolution. DC; Resolve and reconcile Members of the Task Force, in addition • November 19–20, 2007, in inconsistencies between the Track to FRA, include the following: Washington, DC; and Safety Standards and Passenger • AAR; • February 27–28, 2008, in Equipment Safety Standards, and • Amtrak; Cambridge, MA. between the lower- and higher-speed • APTA, including members from This list includes meetings of a Track Safety Standards. Bombardier, Interfleet Technology, Inc., technical subgroup comprised of Through the close examination of these LIRR, LTK Engineering Services, Port representatives of the larger Task Force. issues, the Task Force developed Authority Trans-Hudson, and STV Inc.; These subgroup meetings were often proposals intended to result in • BMWED; and convened the day before the larger Task improved public safety while reducing • BRS. Force meetings to focus on more the burden on the railroad industry Staff from the Volpe Center attended advanced, technical issues. The results where possible. The proposals were all of the meetings and contributed to of these meetings were then presented at arrived at through the results of the technical discussions through their the larger Task Force meetings and, in computer simulations of vehicle/track comments and presentations. In turn, included in the minutes of those dynamics, consideration of international addition, staff from ENSCO, Inc., Task Force meetings. practices, and thorough reviews of attended all of the meetings and qualification and revenue service test contributed to the technical discussions, G. Development of the NPRM data. as a contractor to FRA. Both the Volpe This NPRM was developed to address Nonetheless, FRA makes clear that the Center and ENSCO, Inc., have supported a number of the concerns raised and Task Force did not seek to revise FRA in the preparation of this NPRM. issues discussed during the Task Force comprehensively the high-speed Track The Task Force has held 28 meetings and Working Group meetings. Minutes Safety Standards in subpart G of part on the following dates and in the of each of these meetings have been 213, and this NPRM does not propose to following locations: made part of the public docket in this do so. For example, there was no • April 20–21, 2004, in Washington, proceeding and are available for consensus within the Task Force to DC; inspection. consider revisions to the requirements • May 24, 2004, in Springfield, VA The Task Force recognized that the for crossties, as members of the Task (technical subgroup only); high-speed track safety standards are Force believed it was outside of their

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 25932 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules

assigned tasks. Nor was there any real gained in qualifying a number of more specific and relaxed as discussion about revisions to the vehicles for high-speed and high cant appropriate. FRA believes that this requirements for ballast or other deficiency operations and in monitoring added specificity in the rule would sections in subpart G that currently do subsequent performance in revenue reduce or eliminate altogether the need not distinguish requirements by class of service operation. These vehicles for railroads to provide clarification or track. (See § 213.307 in the Section-by- include Amtrak’s Acela Express trainset; perform additional analysis, or both, Section Analysis, below, for further MTA’s MARC–III multi-level passenger following a qualification test run to discussion on this point.) FRA therefore car; and New Jersey Transit Rail distinguish between transient and makes clear that by not proposing Operations’ (NJTR) ALP–46 locomotive, sustained oscillations. Based on the revisions to these sections in this Comet V car, PL–42AC locomotive, and small energy content associated with NPRM, FRA does not mean to imply multi-level passenger car. Considerable high-frequency acceleration events of that these other sections may not be data was gathered by testing these the carbody, any transient acceleration subject to revision in the future. These vehicles at speed over their intended peaks lasting less than 50 milliseconds sections may be addressed through a service routes using instrumented are proposed to be excluded from the separate RSAC effort. Further, FRA does wheelsets to directly measure forces carbody acceleration limits. Other invite comment on the need and between the wheel and rail and using clarifying changes include the proposed rationale for changes to other sections of accelerometers to record vehicle addition of minimum requirements for subpart G not specifically proposed to motions. During the course of these sampling and filtering of the be revised through this NPRM, and qualification tests, some uncertainties, acceleration data. These changes were based upon the comments received and inconsistencies, and potentially proposed after considerable research their significance to the changes restrictive values were identified in the into the performance of existing specifically proposed herein, FRA may interpretation and application of the vehicles during qualification testing and consider whether revisions to additional vehicle/track interaction (VTI) safety revenue operations. Overall, it was requirements in subpart G are necessary limits currently specified in § 213.333 found that the existing carbody in the final rule arising from this and § 213.345 for excessive vehicle oscillatory acceleration limits need not rulemaking. motions based on measured be as stringent to protect against events Overall, this NPRM is the product of accelerations and in the requirements of leading to vehicle or passenger safety FRA’s review, consideration, and § 213.57 and § 213.329 for high cant issues. acceptance of recommendations made deficiency operation. This information by the Task Force, Working Group, and and experience in applying the current Establish Consistent Requirements for full RSAC. FRA refers to comments, requirements are the foundation for a High Cant Deficiency Operations for All views, suggestions, or recommendations number of the proposals in this NPRM, Track Classes examples of which are provided below. made by members of the Task Force, Several issues related to operation at Working Group, or full RSAC, as they Differentiate Between Sustained and higher cant deficiencies (higher speeds are identified or contained in the Transient Carbody Acceleration Events in curves) have also been addressed, minutes of their meetings. FRA does so During route testing of the MARC–III based particularly on route testing of the to show the origin of certain issues and multi-level car at speeds to 125 m.p.h. Acela trainsets on Amtrak’s Northeast the nature of discussions concerning and at curving speeds producing up to Corridor. In sharper curves, for which those issues at the Task Force, Working 5 inches of cant deficiency, several cant deficiency was high but vehicle Group, and full RSAC level. FRA short-duration, peak-to-peak carbody speeds were reflective of a lower track believes this serves to illuminate factors lateral accelerations were recorded that class, it was found that stricter track it has weighed in making its regulatory exceeded current thresholds but did not geometry limits were necessary, for the decisions, as well as the logic behind represent unsafe guidance forces same track class, in order to provide an those decisions. The reader should keep simultaneously measured at the wheel- equivalent margin of safety for in mind, of course, that only the full to-rail interface. Yet, sustained, carbody operations at higher cant deficiency. RSAC makes recommendations to FRA. lateral oscillatory accelerations and Second, although the current Track As noted above, FRA is in no way significant motions were measured on Safety Standards prescribe limits on bound to follow RSAC’s occasion at higher speeds in curves even geometry variations existing in recommendations, and the agency though peak-to-peak amplitudes did not isolation, it was recognized that a exercises its independent judgment on exceed current thresholds. In addition, combination of alinement and surface whether the rule achieves the agency’s a truck component issue was identified variations, none of which individually regulatory goal(s), is soundly supported, and corrected. amounts to a deviation from the and is in accordance with policy and To recognize and account for wider Standards, may nonetheless result in legal requirements. FRA believes that variations in vehicle design, the VTI undesirable response as defined by the this NPRM is consistent with RSAC’s acceleration limits for carbody motions VTI limits. This finding is significant recommendations, with the notable are proposed to be divided into separate because trains operating at high cant exception of FRA’s proposal concerning limits for passenger cars from those for deficiency increase the lateral force Class 9 track. Please see the discussion other vehicles, such as conventional exerted on track during curving and, in of Class 9 track in § 213.307 of the locomotives. In addition, new limits for many cases, may correspondingly Section-by-Section Analysis, below. sustained, carbody oscillatory reduce the margin of safety associated III. Technical Background accelerations are proposed to be added with vehicle response to combined track to differentiate between single variations. Qualification of Amtrak’s A. Lessons Learned and Operational (transient) events and repeated conventional passenger equipment to Experience (sustained) oscillations. As a result, the operate at cant deficiencies up to 5 Since the issuance of both the high- carbody transient acceleration limits for inches has also highlighted the need to speed Track Safety Standards in 1998 single events, previously set ensure compatibility between the and the Passenger Equipment Safety conservatively to control for both single requirements for low- (§ 213.57) and Standards in 1999, experience has been and repeated oscillations, can be made high-speed (§ 213.329) operations.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25933

Streamline Testing Requirements for process for analyzing data while the truck frames, and other major vehicle Similar Vehicles vehicle is negotiating spiral track components as rigid bodies connected This NPRM includes a proposal that segments, the limit would now require with elastic and damping elements and vehicles with minor variations in their that the RMSt (root mean squared with include detailed representation of the physical properties (such as suspension, linear trend removed) value be used non-linear wheel/rail contact mechanics mass, interior arrangements, and rather than the RMSm (root mean (i.e., non-linear frictional contact forces dimensions) that do not result in squared with mean removed) value. between the wheels and rails modeled Finally, placement of the truck frame significant changes to their dynamic as functions of the relative velocities lateral accelerometer to detect truck characteristics be considered of the between the wheel and rail contacts, i.e., hunting would be more rigorously same type for vehicle qualification creepages). The primary dynamic input specified to be as near an axle as is to these models is track irregularities, purposes. If such similarity can be practicable. Analyses conducted by FRA which can be created analytically (such established to FRA’s satisfaction, such have shown that when hunting motion as versines, cusps, etc.) or based on vehicles would not be required to (which is typically a combination of actual measurements. undergo full qualification testing, which truck lateral and yaw) has a large truck There are a number of industry codes can be more costly. In other cases, yaw component, hunting is best available with generally-accepted however, the variations between car detected by placing an accelerometer on approaches for solving the equations of parameters may warrant partial or full the truck frame located above an axle. motion describing the dynamic behavior dynamic testing. For example, the An accelerometer placed in the middle of rail vehicles. These models require approval process for NJTR’s Comet V car of the truck frame will not always accurate knowledge of vehicle to operate at speeds up to 100 m.p.h. provide early detection of truck hunting parameters, including the inertia exemplified the need for clarification of when yaw motion of the truck is large. properties of each of the bodies as well whether vehicles similar (but not as the characteristics of the main Revise Periodic Monitoring identical) to vehicles that have suspension components and Requirements for Class 8 and 9 Track undergone full qualification testing connections. To obtain reliable should be subjected to full qualification Based on data collected to date, and predictions, the models must also testing themselves. NJTR had sought so that the required inspection consider the effects of parameter non- relief from the instrumented wheelset frequency better reflects experienced linearities within the vehicles and in the testing required in § 213.345 by stating degradation rates, the periodic vehicle/ wheel/rail contact mechanics, as well as that the Comet V car was similar to the track interaction monitoring frequency incorporate detailed characterization of Comet IV car. The Comet V car was contained in § 213.333 for operations at the track as input including the range of represented to FRA to have truck and track Class 8 and 9 speeds is proposed parameters and non-linearities suspension components nearly identical to be reduced from once per day to four encountered in service. to the Comet IV car already in service times per week for carbody In order to develop the proposed and operating at 100-m.p.h. speeds for accelerations, and twice within 60 days revisions to track geometry limits in the many years. However, examination by for truck accelerations. In addition, a Track Safety Standards, several FRA revealed enough differences clause is proposed to be added to allow computer models of rail vehicles have between the vehicles to at least warrant the track owner or railroad operating the been used to assess the response of dynamic testing using accelerometers on vehicle type to petition FRA, after a vehicle designs to a wide range of track representative routes. Results of the specified amount of time or mileage, to conditions corresponding to limiting testing showed distinct behaviors eliminate the truck accelerometer conditions allowed for each class of between the cars and provided monitoring requirement. Data gathered track. Simulation studies have been additional data that was necessary for has shown that these monitoring performed using computer models of qualifying the Comet V. requirements may be adjusted without Amtrak’s AEM–7 locomotive, Acela Refine Criteria for Detecting Truck materially diminishing operational power car, Acela coach car, and Amfleet Hunting safety. Nonetheless, FRA notes that in coach equipment. Since the 1998 addition to these requirements, revisions to the track geometry limits, During route testing of Acela trainsets, pursuant to § 238.427, truck acceleration which were based on models of high-frequency lateral acceleration would continue to be constantly hypothetical, high-speed vehicles, oscillations of the coach truck frame monitored on each Tier II vehicle under models of the subsequently-introduced were detected by the test the Passenger Equipment Safety Acela power car and coach car have instrumentation in a mild curve at high Standards in order to determine if been developed. In the case of the Acela speed. However, the onboard sensors, hunting oscillations of the vehicle are power car, the model proved capable of installed per specification on every occurring during revenue operation. reproducing a wide range of vehicle truck, did not respond to these events. responses observed during acceptance Based on these experiences, the truck B. Research and Computer Modeling testing, including examples of potential lateral acceleration limit, used for the As a result of advancements made safety concerns. detection of truck hunting, is proposed over the last few decades, computer For purposes of this NPRM, an to be tightened from 0.4g to 0.3g and models of rail vehicles interacting with extensive matrix of simulation studies include a requirement that the value track have become practical and reliable involving all four vehicle types was must exceed that limit for more than 2 tools for predicting the behavior and used to determine the amplitude of seconds for there to be an exceedance. safety of rail vehicles under specified track geometry alinement anomalies, Analyses conducted by FRA have conditions. These models can serve as surface anomalies, and combined shown that this would help to better reliable substitutes for performing surface and alinement anomalies that identify the occurrences of excessive actual, on-track testing, which otherwise result in undesirable response as truck hunting, while excluding high- may be more difficult—and likely more defined by the proposed revision to the frequency, low-amplitude oscillations costly—to perform than to model. VTI limits. These simulations were that would not require immediate Models for such behavior typically performed using two coefficients of attention. In addition, to improve the represent the vehicle body, wheelsets, friction (0.1 and 0.5), two analytical

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 25934 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25935

BILLING CODE 4910–06–C

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP10MY10.005 25936 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP10MY10.006 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25937

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis through 5, certain sections of subparts C 5 track contiguous to the high-speed and D would refer railroads operating at track. Nonetheless, FRA invites both Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part high cant deficiencies to specific comment on this proposed approach 213, Track Safety Standards sections of subpart G. In such and suggestions for any alternative Subpart A—General circumstances, only the specifically- approach for maintaining the ease of use Section 213.1 Scope of Part referenced section(s) of subpart G would of this part. In this regard, FRA invites apply, and only as provided. As comment on whether the subpart This section was amended in the 1998 discussed in this Section-by-Section headings should be modified to make Track Safety Standards final rule to Analysis, below, the proposed addition their application clearer to the rail distinguish the applicability of subpart of requirements for high cant deficiency operations they address, and, if so, in G from that of subparts A through F, as operations over lower-speed track what way(s). a result of subpart G’s addition to this classes would permit railroads to As a separate matter, FRA notes that part by that final rule. Subpart G applies operate at higher cant deficiencies over it is not proposing to revise and re-issue to track over which trains are operated these track classes by complying with the Track Safety Standards in full, as at speeds exceeding those permitted for the terms of the regulation instead of a was done in the 1998 final rule. Instead, Class 5 track, which supports maximum waiver. Currently, railroads must FRA is proposing to amend only certain speeds of 80 m.p.h. for freight trains and petition FRA for a waiver and then portions of the Track Safety Standards. 90 m.p.h. for passenger trains. Subpart obtain FRA’s approval to operate at high Therefore, the final rule arising from G was intended to be comprehensive, so cant deficiencies over lower-speed track this rulemaking will need to ensure that that a railroad operating at speeds above classes. both the new and revised sections Class 5 maximum speeds may refer to FRA believes that the approach appropriately integrate with those subpart G for all of the substantive track proposed in this rulemaking would sections of this part that are not safety requirements for high-speed rail minimize the addition of detailed amended, and that appropriate time is and need refer to the sections of the requirements for high cant deficiency provided to phase-in the new and Track Safety Standards applicable to operations in subparts C and D. amended sections. In general, the Task lower-speed operations only for the Moreover, FRA does not believe it Force recommended that both new and general provisions at § 213.2 necessary to amend this section on the revised sections become applicable one (Preemptive effect), § 213.3 scope of this part, because only certain year after the date the final rule is (Application), and § 213.15 (Penalties). requirements of subpart G would apply published. This phase-in period is At the same time, railroads that do not to lower-speed track classes and only intended to allow the track owner or operate at speeds in excess of the indirectly through cross-references to operating railroad, or both, sufficient maximum Class 5 speeds need not those requirements in subpart G for high time to prepare for and adjust to directly refer to subpart G at all. cant deficiency operations. FRA meeting the new requirements. FRA seeks to maintain this general believes that this approach is consistent Examples of such adjustments may structure of part 213 for ease of use, and with the current organization of this include changes to operating, the requirements of subpart G would part, as existing § 213.57 already inspection, or maintenance practices, continue not to apply directly to references subpart G for when a track such as for compliance with §§ 213.57, operations at Class 1 through 5 track owner or railroad operating above Class 213.329, 213.332, 213.333 and 213.345, speeds. However, in proposing to add 5 track speeds requests approval to as they would be revised. new requirements governing high cant operate at greater than 4 inches of cant FRA is also considering providing the deficiency operations for track Classes 1 deficiency on curves in Class 1 through track owner or operating railroad the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP10MY10.007 25938 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25939

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 25940 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25941

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 25942 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25943

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 25944 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25945

or part 229 of this chapter, and only to equipment. Further, the limit for the deviations that would apply only to safety-critical components. Paragraph difference in crosslevel between any high-speed operations above 5 inches of (g) would also make clear that in two points less than 62 feet apart would cant deficiency, as well as any operation approving the request made pursuant to be reduced to 11⁄4 inch for Class 8 track, at Class 9 speeds. An equation-based paragraph (f), FRA may impose and 1 inch for Class 9 track. These safety limit would be established for conditions necessary for safely proposed changes are intended to alinement and surface deviations operating at the higher curving speeds. provide consistent safety limits based occurring in combination within a FRA notes that existing footnote 6 on the results of simulation studies single chord length of each other. The would be redesignated as footnote 9 and conducted for short warp conditions. limits in this section would be used modified in conformance with the In addition, three new limits are only with a TGMS. They would be proposed changes. The existing footnote proposed to be added to the existing applied on the outside rail in curves, offers an example test procedure that single-deviation, track surface limits in and for Class 9 track operations would provides measurements for up to 6 paragraph (a). Two of these limits be applied on the outside rail in curves inches of cant deficiency and 7 inches (deviation from zero crosslevel on as well as to any of the two rails of a of cant excess. This footnote would be tangent track, and reverse elevation for tangent section. modified for the general condition of curved track), although not explicitly See the discussion of § 213.65, which ‘‘the proposed cant deficiency’’ rather stated in the current table, are is the companion provision to this than a specific example, and the cant applicable to track Classes 6 through 9 section for lower-speed classes of track. excess requirement would be addressed because these higher track classes must Section 213.333 Automated Vehicle through paragraph (b). FRA also notes meet at least the minimum geometry Inspection Systems that the statement in the current requirements for track Classes 1 through footnote that the ‘‘test procedure may be 5. These two limits would be expressly FRA is proposing many significant conducted in a test facility’’ would be added in order to make this section changes to this section, which contains removed. Testing may of course be comprehensive. Specifically, the requirements for automated conducted in a test facility but it is not existing 1-inch limit for deviation from measurement systems—namely, track mandated, and is not necessary to zero crosslevel on tangent Class 5 track, geometry measurement systems, gage continue to reference in the footnote. as specified in § 213.63, would be added restraint measurement systems, and the The requirements of existing for track Classes 6 through 9. Second, systems necessary to monitor vehicle/ paragraph (f) would be moved to the 1⁄2-inch reverse elevation limit for track interaction (acceleration and paragraph (h) and revised, principally curved track, as currently specified in wheel/rail forces). by substituting ‘‘same vehicle type’’ for § 213.329(a), would be moved to this In paragraph (a), FRA is proposing to ‘‘same class of equipment’’ to be section. The third limit, a new limit for add TGMS inspection requirements for consistent with the proposed use of the difference in crosslevel between any low-speed, high cant deficiency ‘‘vehicle type’’ in the regulation. two points less than 10 feet apart (short operations, which would apply as Paragraph (i) is proposed to be added warp), would be added to paragraph (a). required by § 213.57(i). As previously to clarify that vehicle types that have It should be noted that the Task Force noted, FRA believes that these been permitted by FRA to operate at a proposed that the existing 1-inch runoff requirements are appropriate and cant deficiency, Eu, greater than 3 inches limit for Class 5 track, as specified in necessary for operations at high cant prior to [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF § 213.63, be added for higher track deficiency on lower-speed track classes. THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL classes. However, FRA believes that FRA is also proposing to add TGMS REGISTER], would be considered appropriate surface requirements have inspection requirements for Class 6 qualified under this section to operate at already been established in § 213.331 track. For Class 7 track, FRA is any such permitted cant deficiency over that address this issue and thus has not proposing to reduce slightly the the previously operated track included this limit in the proposed rule. minimum period between required segments(s). Before the vehicle type FRA is proposing to add tighter TGMS inspections. The current Class 7 could operate over another track geometry limits for operations above 5 track inspection frequency of twice segment at such cant deficiency, the inches of cant deficiency in revised within 120 calendar days with not less vehicle type would have to be qualified paragraph (b). These would include 124- than 30 days between inspections as provided in this section. foot MCO limits and a new limit for the would be reduced to not less than 25 Paragraph (j) would be a new difference in crosslevel between any days between inspections so that more paragraph for defining ‘‘vehicle’’ and two points less than 10-feet apart (short frequent inspections could be ‘‘vehicle type,’’ as used in this section warp). The text of existing paragraph (b) performed, for example, monthly. This and in §§ 213.333 and 213.345. These would be moved to new paragraph (c). would provide the railroad additional terms would have the same meaning as As discussed in Section III.B. of the flexibility for operational reasons to in proposed § 213.57(k) and are being preamble, above, simulation studies comply in the event of incomplete defined here so that they would apply have been performed to determine the inspections. The proposed frequency to the appropriate sections of subpart G. safe amplitudes of surface track would require that the time interval geometry variations. Results show that between any two successive inspections Section 213.331 Track Surface the proposed track geometry limits be not less than 25 calendar days and This section is the counterpart to proposed in revised paragraph (b) are not more than 95 calendar days. The § 213.63 and is intended for higher- necessary in order to provide an current Class 8 and 9 track TGMS speed track classes. equivalent margin of safety for inspection frequency of twice within 60 Three changes have been proposed to operations at higher cant deficiency. calendar days with not less than 15 days the existing single-deviation, track between inspections would be reduced surface limits in paragraph (a). Section 213.332 Combined Alinement to not less than 12 days between Specifically, the 124-foot MCO limit for and Surface Deviations inspections so that more frequent Class 9 track would be reduced to 1 FRA is proposing to add a new inspections could be performed, for inch. This proposed change is based on section containing limits addressing example, bi-weekly. This would also a review of simulation results of Acela combined alinement and surface provide the railroad additional

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 25946 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25947

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 25948 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules

current paragraph (b) need not be as acceleration testing would be required two additional tables, Tables 3 and 4, stringent to protect against events for all operations above 4 inches of cant which would apply, respectively, to leading to vehicle or passenger safety deficiency. Carbody acceleration testing curves with 5 and 6 inches of issues. would also be required for any unbalance. While this rule does provide For new vehicles intending to operate operations above 5 inches of cant for operations at higher levels of at track Class 6 speeds or above, or at deficiency. For all operations at track unbalance, for convenience FRA is any curving speed producing more than Class 7 through Class 9 speeds, truck including those additional tables that it 5 inches of cant deficiency, the acceleration testing would be required. believes would be helpful for more qualification requirements would Paragraph (e) would clarify the common use. include, as appropriate, a combination current requirements in existing of computer simulations, carbody paragraph (c) for the content of the Appendix B to Part 213—Schedule of acceleration testing, truck acceleration qualification test plan and would add a Civil Penalties testing, and wheel/rail force requirement for the plan to be submitted Appendix B to part 213 contains a measurements. Computer simulations to FRA at least 60 days prior to schedule of civil penalties for use in would be required for all operations at conducting the testing. connection with this part. FRA intends track Class 6 through Class 9 speeds or Paragraph (f) would contain the to revise the schedule of civil penalties for any operations above 6 inches of requirements for conducting in issuing the final rule to reflect cant deficiency. These simulations qualification testing, expanding on the revisions made to part 213. Because would be conducted on both an current requirements in this section. For such penalty schedules are statements analytically defined track segment instance, this paragraph would of agency policy, notice and comment representative of minimally compliant expressly require that a TGMS vehicle are not required prior to their issuance. track conditions (MCAT) for the be operated over the intended test route See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Nevertheless, respective track classes as specified in within 30 days prior to the start of the commenters are invited to submit appendix D to this part and on a track testing. This paragraph would also make suggestions to FRA describing the types segment representative of the full route clear that any exceptions to the safety of actions or omissions for each on which the vehicle type is intended limits that occur on track or at speeds proposed regulatory section, either to operate. (See the discussion of MCAT that are not part of the test do not need added or revised, that would subject a in appendix D, below.) Carbody to be reported. For example, any person to the assessment of a civil acceleration testing would be required exception to the safety limits that would penalty. Commenters are also invited to for all operations at track Class 6 speeds occur at speeds below track Class 6 recommend what penalties may be or above, or for any operations above 5 speeds when the cant deficiency is at or appropriate, based upon the relative inches of cant deficiency. Truck below 5 inches would not need to be seriousness of each type of violation. acceleration testing would be required reported. Appendix D to Part 213—Minimally for all operations at track Class 6 speeds Paragraph (g) contains the Compliant Analytical Track (MCAT) or above. Wheel/rail force requirements for reporting to FRA the Simulations Used for Qualifying measurements, through the use of results of the qualification program. Vehicles To Operate at High Speeds and instrumented wheelsets (or equivalent Pursuant to paragraph (h), FRA would at High Cant Deficiencies devices), would be required for all approve a maximum train speed and operations at track Class 7 speeds or value of cant deficiency for revenue The Track Safety Standards require above, or for any operations above 6 service, based on the test results and that vehicles demonstrate safe operation inches of cant deficiency. submissions. Paragraph (h) would also for various track conditions. In paragraph (d), FRA is proposing to make clear that FRA may impose Computational models have become add a qualification requirement for conditions necessary for safely practical and reliable tools for previously qualified vehicles intended operating at the maximum train speed understanding the dynamic interaction to operate on new track segments. This and value of cant deficiency approved of vehicles and track, as a result of requirement would ensure that when for revenue service. advancements made over the last few qualified vehicles currently in operation decades. Consequently, portions of the are intended to operate on a new route, Section 213.355 Frog Guard Rails and qualification requirements in subpart G the new vehicle/track system is Guard Faces; Gage could effectively be met by simulating adequately examined for deficiencies This section currently sets limits for vehicle testing using a suitably- prior to revenue service operation. For guard check and guard face gage for validated vehicle model instead of previously qualified vehicles intending track Classes 6 through 9. FRA is testing an actual vehicle over a to operate on new routes at track Class proposing to make minor changes to the representative track segment. Such 6 through Class 9 speeds and at cant way in which the requirements of this models are capable of assessing the deficiencies greater than 4 inches, or at section are formatted. However, no response of vehicle designs to a wide any curving speed producing more than substantive change is intended. range of track conditions corresponding 5 inches of cant deficiency, the to the limiting conditions allowed for qualification requirements would also Appendix A to Part 213—Maximum each class of track. include, as appropriate, a combination Allowable Curving Speeds Appendix D would be a new of computer simulations, carbody This appendix currently contains two appendix containing requirements for acceleration testing, truck acceleration charts showing maximum allowable the use of computer simulations to testing, and wheel/rail force operating speeds in curves, by degree of comply with the vehicle/track system measurements. Specifically, for all curvature and inches of unbalance (cant qualification testing requirements operations at track Class 7 speeds or deficiency). Table 1 applies to curves specified in subpart G of this part. These above, or for any operations above 6 with 3 inches of unbalance; Table 2 to simulations would be performed using a inches of cant deficiency, either curves with 4 inches of unbalance. track model containing defined computer simulations or measurement Because FRA is proposing to increase geometry perturbations at the limits that of wheel/rail forces would be required. allowable cant deficiencies, this are permitted for a class of track and For track Classes 6 through 9, carbody appendix would be expanded to include level of cant deficiency. This track

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25949

model is referred to as MCAT. These result. The Task Force therefore The Task Force believed that the simulations would be used to identify preferred using the definition of ‘‘truck overheat sensor requirements in existing vehicle dynamic performance issues hunting’’ with its more specific criteria, paragraph (d) are not directly related to prior to service, and demonstrate that a and FRA agrees that more specific suspension system safety and should be vehicle type is suitable for operation on criteria would provide more certainty. specified elsewhere. FRA agrees that the the track over which it would operate. Unlike § 213.333, however, paragraph requirements of this paragraph can be In order to validate a computer model (a) of this section would apply to all stated separately for clarity, and is using MCAT, the predicted results must Tier I passenger equipment, regardless therefore proposing to move them to a be compared to actual data from on- of track class or level of cant deficiency. new section, § 238.428. track, instrumented vehicle performance The existing pre-revenue service Section 238.428 Overheat Sensors testing using accelerometers, or other qualification requirements in paragraph FRA is proposing to add a new instrumentation, or both. Validation (b) are proposed to be revised consistent section containing the requirements must also demonstrate that the model is with the proposed revisions to part 213 currently found in § 238.427(d). No sufficiently robust to capture of this chapter. Paragraph (b) would also fundamental responses observed during change to the current rule text is be broadened to address revenue service proposed, however. FRA agreed with field testing. Disagreements between operation requirements. Paragraph (b), predictions and test data may be the Task Force that the requirements for as proposed to be revised, would in indicative of inaccurate vehicle overheat sensors would be more effect generally summarize the parameters, such as stiffness and appropriately contained in their own qualification and revenue service damping, or track input. Once validated, section rather than with the operation requirements of part 213 for the computer model can be used for requirements for suspension systems in Tier I passenger equipment. This assessment of a range of operating § 238.427. proposed paragraph is not intended to conditions or even to examine impose any requirement itself not Appendix A to Part 238—Schedule of modifications to current designs. Civil Penalties FRA notes that the length of each otherwise contained in part 213. MCAT segment in this appendix is the Subpart E—Specific Requirements for Appendix A to part 238 contains a same segment length that was used in Tier II Passenger Equipment schedule of civil penalties for use in the modeling of several representative connection with this part. FRA intends Section 238.427 Suspension System high-speed vehicles. See the discussion to revise the schedule of civil penalties of computer modeling in section III.B. of Similar to the revisions proposed for in issuing the final rule to reflect this NPRM, above, for additional § 238.227, FRA is proposing to modify revisions made to part 238. Because background. this section to conform to the changes such penalty schedules are statements of agency policy, notice and comment Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part being proposed in part 213 of this chapter. Overall, these proposed are not required prior to their issuance. 238, Passenger Equipment Safety See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Nevertheless, Standards revisions would help to reconcile the requirements of the 1998 Track Safety commenters are invited to submit Subpart C—Specific Requirements for Standards final rule and the 1999 suggestions to FRA describing the types Tier I Passenger Equipment Passenger Equipment Safety Standards of actions or omissions for each final rule. proposed regulatory section that would Section 238.227 Suspension System subject a person to the assessment of a FRA is proposing to modify this While paragraph (a)(1) would remain civil penalty. Commenters are also section to conform with the changes unchanged, paragraph (a)(2) would be invited to recommend what penalties being proposed to part 213 of this revised in an effort to summarize the may be appropriate, based upon the chapter and also to provide cross- qualification and revenue service relative seriousness of each type of references to relevant sections of part operation requirements of part 213 for violation. 213. Overall, these proposed revisions Tier II passenger equipment. The would help to reconcile the reference to the suspension system Appendix C to Part 238—Suspension requirements of the 1998 Track Safety safety standards in appendix C would System Safety Performance Standards Standards final rule and the 1999 be removed, as discussed below. The FRA is proposing to remove and Passenger Equipment Safety Standards existing carbody acceleration reserve appendix C, which currently final rule for Tier I passenger requirements in paragraph (b) would be includes the minimum suspension equipment. revised consistent with the proposed system safety performance standards for For consistency throughout this part changes to part 213. The current steady- Tier II passenger equipment. FRA and part 213 of this chapter, the term state lateral carbody acceleration limits believes that removing appendix C is ‘‘hunting oscillations’’ in paragraph (a) of 0.1g for pre-revenue service appropriate in light of the proposal to would be replaced with the term ‘‘truck qualification and 0.12g for service amend § 238.427(a)(2). Currently, hunting,’’ which would have the same operation are proposed to be revised to § 238.427(a)(2) requires that Tier II meaning as that for ‘‘truck hunting’’ in a single limit of 0.15g, to conform to the passenger equipment meet the safety 49 CFR 213.333. Truck hunting would proposed requirements in § 213.329. performance standards for suspension be defined in § 213.333 as ‘‘a sustained Please see the discussion of § 213.329. systems contained in appendix C, or cyclic oscillation of the truck evidenced The remaining carbody acceleration alternative standards providing at least by lateral accelerations exceeding 0.3g requirements would be consolidated by equivalent safety if approved by FRA root mean squared for more than 2 referencing the requirements of under § 238.21. As discussed above, seconds.’’ The Task Force believed that § 213.333. FRA is proposing to revise the current term ‘‘hunting oscillations,’’ Similar to the proposed revision of § 238.427(a)(2) to require compliance defined as ‘‘lateral oscillations of trucks § 238.227, the term ‘‘truck hunting’’ in with the safety standards contained in that could lead to a dangerous paragraph (c) would have the same § 213.333, instead of those in this instability,’’ has a less definite meaning meaning as that proposed for ‘‘truck appendix C. Given the proposal to cross- and could be applied unevenly as a hunting’’ in § 213.333. reference the requirements in § 213.333,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 25950 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules

which are more extensive than the ones performance requirements. for high-speed operations would not contained in this appendix C, appendix Manufacturers state that this has proved impact any existing high-speed C would no longer be necessary and unworkable because they cannot build operations, which are now limited to would therefore be removed and equipment economically that can meet Amtrak on the Northeast Corridor, but reserved. the acceleration and other performance would rather promote their safe standards when the track is at the V. Regulatory Impact and Notices operation. If Amtrak were to attempt to maximum permissible deviations, using operate Acela at the current maximum A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT technology in production today. allowable speeds and cant deficiencies Regulatory Policies and Procedures Overall, FRA has reviewed the for which it is qualified, but were to performance standards in light of This proposed rule has been allow track deviations to reach current advanced simulations that were evaluated in accordance with existing limits, the Acela trainset, because of its policies and procedures and determined developed to support the rulemaking effort, as discussed in Section III of the dynamic characteristics, would be to be non-significant under both subject to accelerations in excess of the Executive Order 12866 and DOT preamble, and has proposed to refine those standards to better focus on limits now permitted. FRA’s modeling policies and procedures. See 44 FR to date has shown that Acela, as it is 11034; February 26, 1979. FRA has identified safety concerns and remove any unnecessary costs. currently qualified to operate, would analyzed the costs and benefits of this 2. The rulemaking would add meet the safety standards proposed in proposed rule. FRA believes that the flexibility through procedures for safely this rulemaking. Future high-speed cost savings would offset any new cost permitting high cant deficiency operations would be made simpler, burden. Even if that were not the case, operations on track Classes 1 through 5, because the railroad, if it requires FRA is confident that the benefits and without the need for obtaining a waiver. equipment manufacturers to provide the cost savings, taken together, would In order to take advantage of higher cant equipment that would meet exceed any additional cost burden. As deficiency operations, a railroad would noted above, the Task Force developed performance requirements on minimally have to qualify the equipment and compliant track, would find several proposals intended to result in maintain the track to more stringent improved public safety while reducing suppliers of off-the-shelf equipment, standards. Railroads would take likely lowering bid prices and gaining the burden on the railroad industry advantage of this flexibility to the extent where possible. multiple bidders. Assuming that absent that they expect the benefits from doing this rulemaking, railroads would seek to Below is an analysis of four main so would exceed the costs. things that the proposed rulemaking 3. The rulemaking would institute have new equipment used in high-speed would accomplish: more cost-effective equipment train operations built to performance 1. The rulemaking would revise the qualification and in-service monitoring standards at the maximum deviations current regulation in subpart G of part requirements. Railroads could permitted under the geometric 213, which has performance standards discontinue annual use of instrumented standards, FRA estimates that future and specifications for track geometry for wheelsets for in-service validation, and high-speed operations would save in the track Classes 6 and higher, and which could avoid some tests that have not neighborhood of $2,000,000 per trainset offers affected railroads and car provided useful data. Further, railroads on bids because of the simplification of manufacturers the ability to arrive at a could use MCAT to extend territories in the design process. FRA believes that it mutually-beneficial set of car dynamics which qualified equipment may operate. is not unreasonable to assume that 40 and track engineering standards. In 4. The rulemaking would clarify that trainsets would be affected, based on practice, the one impacted railroad, individuals qualified to inspect track current proposals for high-speed rail, Amtrak, has asked manufacturers to need only understand the parts of the and has distributed the estimated build equipment that will meet the regulation relevant to the inspections procurement dates in years 6 through performance standards at the maximum they conduct and the work they 10. The annual savings would be deviations permitted under the perform. geometric standards, as opposed to 8*$2,000,000 (or $16,000,000) and the geometric parameters that would permit Impacts net discounted savings would be current high-speed passenger equipment The proposed changes to geometric $46,774,146. to meet the acceleration and other standards and performance standards

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25951

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED EQUIPMENT PROCUREMENT BENEFIT—Continued

Annual Cumulative Year Annual benefit Discount factor discounted discounted benefit benefit

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

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

TABLE 2—ESTIMATED HIGH CANT DEFICIENCY BENEFIT

Annual dis- Cumulative dis- Year Annual benefit Discount factor counted benefit counted 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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 25952 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules

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

TABLE 3—STREAMLINED TESTING REQUIREMENTS—ESTIMATED COST SAVINGS

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

TABLE 4—TOTAL ESTIMATED BENEFITS

Annual dis- Cumulative dis- Year Annual benefit Discount factor counted benefit counted 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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25953

Additional cost burden associated may be, and still be classified as a whether a railroad or shipper or with information collection is presented ‘‘small entity,’’ is 1,500 employees for contractor is a small entity. At present, in Section C., Paperwork Reduction Act, ‘‘Line-Haul Operating Railroads,’’ and no small entities would be affected by below. Such impacts would be 500 employees for ‘‘Switching and either the high-speed provisions or the relatively low compared to the cost Terminal Establishments.’’ ‘‘Small high cant deficiency provisions. To the savings that would result. entity’’ is defined in the Regulatory extent that new passenger railroads are Certain refinements to the testing Flexibility Act as a small business that small entities, and want to take requirements would yield greater is not independently owned and advantage of high cant deficiency confidence in the test results and thus operated, and is not dominant in its operations and have the means to do so, enhanced safety levels. Such benefits field of operation. SBA’s ‘‘Size they would benefit. Small freight are not readily quantifiable, and FRA Standards’’ may be altered by Federal railroads hosting passenger operations has not attempted to quantify them. agencies after consultation with SBA could recoup any costs of maintaining In summary, the enhanced safety and in conjunction with public infrastructure, through trackage levels coupled with the cost savings comment. Pursuant to that authority, agreements which enable host railroads would justify the new cost burden FRA has published a final policy that to recover marginal costs of permitting resulting from this proposal. FRA formally establishes ‘‘small entities’’ as passenger operations over their tracks, requests comments on all aspects of its Class III railroads, contractors, and to accommodate high cant deficiency economic analysis presented here. shippers meeting the economic criteria operations, or could refuse to host such established for Class III railroads in 49 high cant deficiency operations, as B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and CFR 1201.1–1, and commuter railroads appropriate. Nonetheless, FRA does not Executive Order 13272 or small governmental jurisdictions that foresee any situation under which a To ensure that the potential impact of serve populations of 50,000 or less. No small entity might be impacted by the this rulemaking on small entities is shippers, contractors, or small high speed provisions in this proposal. properly considered, FRA developed governmental jurisdictions would be Based on these determinations, FRA this proposed rule in accordance with impacted by this proposal. At present certifies that it expects that, as a result Executive Order 13272 (‘‘Proper there are no small entity commuter of this rulemaking, there will be no Consideration of Small Entities in railroads, and FRA believes that were significant impact on a substantial Agency Rulemaking’’) and DOT’s such a small commuter railroad to number of small entities. FRA requests policies and procedures to promote commence operations, it is extremely comments on both this analysis and this compliance with the Regulatory unlikely that it would engage in high certification. Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). cant deficiency operations because such C. Paperwork Reduction Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires operations require relatively expensive an agency to review regulations to rolling equipment capable of tilting to The information collection assess their impact on small entities. An give a safe and comfortable ride to requirements in this proposed rule have agency must conduct a regulatory passengers. been submitted to the Office of flexibility analysis unless it determines The Class III revenue requirement is Management and Budget (OMB) for and certifies that a rule is not expected currently $20 million or less in annual review and approval in accordance with to have a significant economic impact operating revenue. The $20 million the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 on a substantial number of small limit (which is adjusted by applying the (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The sections entities. railroad revenue deflator adjustment) is that contain both proposed and current The U.S. Small Business based on the Surface Transportation information collection requirements, Administration (SBA) stipulates in its Board’s (STB) threshold for a Class III and the estimated time to fulfill those ‘‘Size Standards’’ that the largest a railroad carrier. FRA uses the same requirements, are summarized in the railroad business firm that is ‘‘for-profit’’ revenue dollar limit to determine following table.

Average time per Total annual CFR Section Respondent universe Total annual responses response burden hours

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 25954 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules

Average time per Total annual CFR Section Respondent universe Total annual responses response burden hours

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25955

Average time per Total annual CFR Section Respondent universe Total annual responses response burden hours

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

All estimates include the time for respective addresses: 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ (see 64 FR 43255 reviewing instructions, searching [email protected], or (Aug. 10, 1999)). Executive Order 13132 existing data sources, gathering or [email protected]. Copies of requires FRA to develop an accountable maintaining the needed data, and such comments may also be submitted process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and reviewing the information. Pursuant to to OMB at the Office of Management timely input by State and local officials 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits and Budget, 725 17th St., NW., in the development of regulatory comments concerning: Whether these Washington, DC 20590, Attn: FRA OMB policies that have federalism information collection requirements are Desk Officer, or via e-mail at implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have necessary for the proper performance of [email protected]. federalism implications’’ are defined in the functions of FRA, including whether OMB is required to make a decision the Executive Order to include the information has practical utility; the concerning the collection of information regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct accuracy of FRA’s estimates of the requirements contained in this proposed effects on the States, on the relationship burden of the information collection rule between 30 and 60 days after between the national government and requirements; the quality, utility, and publication of this document in the the States, or on the distribution of clarity of the information to be Federal Register. Therefore, a comment power and responsibilities among the collected; and whether the burden of is best assured of having its full effect various levels of government.’’ Under collection of information on those who if received within 30 days of Executive Order 13132, the agency may are to respond, including through the publication. The final rule will respond not issue a regulation with federalism use of automated collection techniques to any OMB or public comments on the implications that imposes substantial or other forms of information information collection requirements direct compliance costs and that is not technology, may be minimized. For contained in this proposal. required by statute, unless the Federal information or a copy of the paperwork FRA is not authorized to impose a government provides the funds package submitted to OMB, contact Mr. penalty on persons for violating necessary to pay the direct compliance Robert Brogan, Information Clearance information collection requirements that costs incurred by State and local Officer, Federal Railroad do not display a current OMB control governments, the agency consults with Administration, at 202–493–6292, or number, if required. FRA intends to State and local governments, or the Ms. Kimberly Toone, Information obtain current OMB control numbers for agency consults with State and local Clearance Officer, Federal Railroad any new information collection government officials early in the process Administration, at 202–493–6132. requirements resulting from this of developing the regulation. Where a Organizations and individuals rulemaking action prior to the effective regulation has federalism implications desiring to submit comments on the date of the final rule. The OMB control and preempts State law, the agency collection of information requirements number, when assigned, will be seeks to consult with State and local should direct them to Mr. Robert Brogan announced by separate notice in the officials in the process of developing the or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Federal Federal Register. regulation. Railroad Administration, 1200 New FRA has determined that this Jersey Avenue, SE., Third Floor, D. Federalism Implications regulatory action will not have Washington, DC 20590. Comments may This NPRM has been analyzed in substantial direct effects on the States, also be submitted via e-mail to Mr. accordance with the principles and on the relationship between the national Brogan or Ms. Toone at the following, criteria contained in Executive Order government and the States, nor on the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 25956 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules

distribution of power and principles and criteria contained in rulemaking was published, the agency responsibilities among the various Executive Order 13132. As explained shall prepare a written statement’’ levels of government. In addition, FRA above, FRA has determined that this detailing the effect on State, local, and has determined that this regulatory regulatory action has no federalism Tribal governments and the private action would not impose substantial implications, other than the preemption sector. The proposed rule will not result direct compliance costs on State and of State laws covering the subject matter in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of local governments. Therefore, the of this rulemaking, which occurs by $100,000,000 or more (as adjusted consultation and funding requirements operation of law under 49 U.S.C. 20106 annually for inflation) in any one year, of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. whenever FRA issues a rule or order, and thus preparation of such a However, the final rule arising from and under the LBIA (49 U.S.C. 20701– statement is not required. this regulatory action would have 20703) by its terms. Accordingly, FRA G. Energy Impact preemptive effect. Section 20106 of title has determined that preparation of a 49, United States Code, (Section 20106) federalism summary impact statement Executive Order 13211 requires provides that States may not adopt or for this proposed rule is not required. Federal agencies to prepare a Statement continue in effect any law, regulation, or of Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant order related to railroad safety or E. Environmental Impact energy action.’’ See 66 FR 28355 (May security that covers the subject matter of FRA has evaluated this NPRM in 22, 2001). Under the Executive Order, a a regulation prescribed or issued by the accordance with its ‘‘Procedures for ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as Secretary of Transportation (with Considering Environmental Impacts’’ any action by an agency (normally respect to railroad safety matters) or the (FRA’s Procedures) (see 64 FR 28545 published in the Federal Register) that Secretary of Homeland Security (with (May 26, 1999)) as required by the promulgates or is expected to lead to the respect to railroad security matters), National Environmental Policy Act (see promulgation of a final rule or except when the State law, regulation, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other regulation, including notices of inquiry, or order qualifies under the ‘‘essentially environmental statutes, Executive advance notices of proposed local safety or security hazard’’ Orders, and related regulatory rulemaking, and notices of proposed exception to Section 20106. The intent requirements. FRA has determined that rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant of Section 20106 is to promote national this action is not a major FRA action regulatory action under Executive Order uniformity in railroad safety and (requiring the preparation of an 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is security standards. 49 U.S.C. environmental impact statement or likely to have a significant adverse effect 20106(a)(1). Thus, subject to a limited environmental assessment) because it is on the supply, distribution, or use of exception for essentially local safety or categorically excluded from detailed energy; or (2) that is designated by the security hazards, the final rule arising environmental review pursuant to Administrator of the Office of from this rulemaking would establish a section 4(c)(20) of FRA’s Procedures. Information and Regulatory Affairs as a uniform Federal safety standard that See 64 FR 28547 (May 26, 1999). In significant energy action. must be met, and State requirements accordance with section 4(c) and (e) of FRA has evaluated this NPRM in covering the same subject matter are FRA’s Procedures, the agency has accordance with Executive Order 13211. displaced, whether those State further concluded that no extraordinary FRA has determined that this NPRM is requirements are in the form of a State circumstances exist with respect to this not likely to have a significant adverse law (including common law), NPRM that might trigger the need for a effect on the supply, distribution, or use regulation, or order. more detailed environmental review. As of energy. Consequently, FRA has While the final rule arising from this a result, FRA finds that this NPRM is determined that this regulatory action is rulemaking would establish Federal not a major Federal action significantly not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ within standards of care which preempt State affecting the quality of the human the meaning of the Executive Order. standards of care, the final rule would environment. H. Trade Impact not preempt an action under State law F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act seeking damages for personal injury, The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 death, or property damage alleging that Pursuant to Section 201 of the (Pub. L. 96–39, 19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.) a party has failed to comply with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 prohibits Federal agencies from Federal standard of care established by (Pub. L. 104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each engaging in any standards or related this rulemaking, including a plan or Federal agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise activities that create unnecessary program required by this rulemaking. prohibited by law, assess the effects of obstacles to the foreign commerce of the Provisions of a plan or program which Federal regulatory actions on State, United States. Legitimate domestic exceed the requirements of this local, and Tribal governments, and the objectives, such as safety, are not rulemaking are not included in the private sector (other than to the extent considered unnecessary obstacles. The Federal standard of care. that such regulations incorporate statute also requires consideration of FRA does note that under 49 U.S.C. requirements specifically set forth in international standards and, where 20701–20703 (formerly the Locomotive law).’’ Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C. appropriate, that they be the basis for (Boiler) Inspection Act) (LBIA), the field 1532) further requires that ‘‘before U.S. standards. of locomotive safety is preempted, promulgating any general notice of FRA has assessed the potential effect extending to the design, the proposed rulemaking that is likely to of this rulemaking on foreign commerce construction, and the material of every result in the promulgation of any rule and believes that the proposed part of the locomotive and tender and that includes any Federal mandate that requirements are consistent with the all appurtenances thereof. To the extent may result in expenditure by State, Trade Agreements Act. The that this rulemaking establishes local, and Tribal governments, in the requirements proposed are safety requirements affecting locomotive aggregate, or by the private sector, of standards, which, as noted, are not safety, the scope of preemption is $100,000,000 or more (adjusted considered unnecessary obstacles to provided by 49 U.S.C. 20701–20703. annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and trade. Moreover, FRA has sought, to the In sum, FRA has analyzed this before promulgating any final rule for extent practicable, to state the regulatory action in accordance with the which a general notice of proposed requirements in terms of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25957

performance desired, rather than in List of Subjects § 213.7 Designation of qualified persons to supervise certain renewals and inspect more narrow terms restricted to a 49 CFR Part 213 particular vehicle design, so as not to track. limit different, compliant designs by Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting (a) * * * any manufacturer—foreign or domestic. and recordkeeping requirements. (2) * * * FRA has also taken into consideration of 49 CFR Part 238 (i) Knows and understands the requirements of this part that apply to international standards for the safe Passenger equipment, Penalties, the restoration and renewal of the track interaction of vehicles and the track Railroad safety, Reporting and for which he or she is responsible; over which they operate, such as recordkeeping requirements. standards for steady-state, lateral * * * * * acceleration of passenger carbodies. The Proposed Rule (b) * * * For the reasons discussed in the (2) * * * I. Privacy Act preamble, FRA proposes to amend parts (i) Knows and understands the Anyone is able to search the 213 and 238 of chapter II, subtitle B of requirements of this part that apply to electronic form of all comments Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as the inspection of the track for which he received into any of DOT’s dockets by follows: or she is responsible; the name of the individual submitting PART 213—[AMENDED] * * * * * the comment (or signing the comment, Subpart C—Track Geometry if submitted on behalf of an association, 1. The authority citation for part 213 is revised to read as follows: business, labor union, etc.). You may 3. Section 213.55 is revised to read as review DOT’s complete Privacy Act Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20114 and follows: Statement published in the Federal 20142; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR Register on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 1.49. § 213.55 Track alinement. 19477–78), or you may visit http:// Subpart A—General (a) Except as provided in paragraph DocketsInfo.dot.gov. (b) of this section, alinement may not 2. Section 213.7 is amended by deviate from uniformity more than the revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(i) amount prescribed in the following to read as follows: 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-foot mid-ordinate from a 31- mid-ordinate from a 62- line1 may not be more foot chord2 may not be foot chord2 may not be than—(inches) more than—(inches) more than— (inches)

Class 1 track ...... 5 3N/A 5 Class 2 track ...... 3 3N/A 3 Class 3 track ...... 13⁄4 11⁄4 13⁄4 Class 4 track ...... 11⁄2 1 11⁄2 Class 5 track ...... 3⁄4 1⁄2 5⁄8 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 the alinement of the outside rail of the more than the amount prescribed in the deficiency, Eu, of more than 5 inches, curve may not deviate from uniformity following table:

Curved track5 The deviation of the The deviation of the Class of track mid-ordinate from a 31- mid-ordinate from a 62- foot chord2 may not be foot chord2 may not be more than—(inches) more than—(inches)

Class 1 track4 ...... 3N/A 11⁄4 Class 2 track4 ...... 3N/A 11⁄4 Class 3 track ...... 3⁄4 11⁄4 Class 4 track ...... 3⁄4 7⁄8 Class 5 track ...... 1⁄2 5⁄8 4 Restraining rails or other systems may be required for derailment prevention. 5 Curved track limits shall be applied only when track curvature is greater than 0.25 degree.

4. Section 213.57 is revised to read as § 213.57 Curves; elevation and speed and 7 inches on track Classes 3 through follows: limitations. 5. The outside rail of a curve may not (a) The maximum elevation of the be lower than the inside rail, except as outside rail of a curve may not be more a result of a deviation as per § 213.63. than 8 inches on track Classes 1 and 2,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 25958 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules

(b) All vehicle types requiring submitted and approved by FRA in higher curving speeds are to be qualification under § 213.345 must accordance with § 213.345 (e) and (f): implemented. In approving the request demonstrate that when stopped on a (i) The steady-state (average) load on in paragraph (f) of this section, FRA may curve having a maximum uniform any wheel, throughout the body of the impose conditions necessary for safely elevation of 7 inches, no wheel unloads curve, is not less than 60 percent of its operating at the higher curving speeds. to a value less than 50 percent of its static value on perfectly level track; and (h) A track owner or railroad that static weight on level track. (ii) For passenger cars, the steady- provides passenger or commuter service (c) The maximum posted timetable state (average) lateral acceleration over trackage of more than one track operating speed for each curve is measured on the floor of the carbody owner with the same vehicle type may determined by the following formula— does not exceed 0.15g. provide written notification to the FRA (f) The track owner or railroad shall with the written consent of the other transmit the results of the testing EE+ affected track owners. = au specified in paragraph (e) of this section Vmax (i) For vehicle types intended to 0. 0007D to FRA requesting approval for the operate at any curving speed producing vehicle type to operate at the desired more than 5 inches of cant deficiency, Where: speeds allowed under the formula in the following provisions of subpart G of Vmax = Maximum posted timetable operating paragraph (c) of this section. The this part shall apply: §§ 213.333(a) speed (m.p.h.). request shall be in writing and shall through (g), (j)(1), (k) and (m), 213.345, Ea = Actual elevation of the outside rail contain, at a minimum, the following (inches).1 and 213.369(f). 2 information— Eu = Qualified cant deficiency (inches) of (1) A description of the vehicle type (j) Vehicle types that have been the vehicle type. permitted by FRA to operate at cant D = Degree of curvature (degrees).3 involved, including schematic diagrams deficiencies, Eu, greater than 3 inches (d) All vehicles are considered of the suspension system(s) and the estimated location of the center of prior to [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF qualified for operating on track with a THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL cant deficiency, E , not exceeding 3 gravity above top of rail; u (2) The test procedure 4 and REGISTER], shall be considered inches. Table 1 of appendix A to this description of the instrumentation used qualified under this section to operate at part is a table of speeds computed in to qualify the vehicle and the maximum those permitted cant deficiencies over accordance with the formula in values for wheel unloading and roll the previously operated track

paragraph (c) of this section, when Eu angles or accelerations that were segment(s). equals 3 inches, for various elevations observed during testing; and (k) As used in this section— and degrees of curvature. (3) For vehicle types not subject to (1) Vehicle means a locomotive, as (e) Each vehicle type must be parts 229 or 238 of this chapter, defined in § 229.5 of this part; a freight approved by FRA to operate on track procedures or standards in effect that car, as defined in § 215.5 of this part; a with a qualified cant deficiency, Eu, relate to the maintenance of all safety- passenger car, as defined in § 238.5 of greater than 3 inches. Each vehicle type critical components of the suspension this part; and any rail rolling equipment must demonstrate compliance with the system(s) for the particular vehicle type. used in a train with either a freight car requirements of either paragraph (e)(1) Safety-critical components of the or a passenger car. or (e)(2) of this section. suspension system are those that impact (2) Vehicle type means vehicles with (1) When positioned on track with a or have significant influence on the roll variations in their physical properties, uniform superelevation equal to the of the carbody and the distribution of such as suspension, mass, interior proposed cant deficiency: weights on the wheels. arrangements, and dimensions that do (i) No wheel of the vehicle unloads to (g) Upon FRA approval of the request, not result in significant changes to their a value less than 60 percent of its static the track owner or railroad shall notify dynamic characteristics. value on perfectly level track; and FRA’s Associate Administrator for 5. Section 213.63 is revised to read as (ii) For passenger cars, the roll angle Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer in follows: between the floor of the equipment and writing no less than 30 calendar days the horizontal does not exceed 8.6 prior to the proposed implementation of § 213.63 Track surface. degrees; or the approved higher curving speeds (a) Except as provided in paragraph (2) When operating through a constant allowed under the formula in paragraph (b) of this section, each track owner radius curve at a constant speed (c) of this section. The notification shall shall maintain the surface of its track corresponding to the proposed cant contain, at a minimum, identification of within the limits prescribed in the deficiency, and if a test plan is the track segment(s) on which the following table:

Class of track Track surface (inches) 1 2 3 4 5

The runoff in any 31 feet of rail at the end of a raise may not be more than .. 31⁄2 3 2 11⁄2 1 The deviation from uniform profile on either rail at the mid-ordinate of a 62- foot chord may not be more than ...... 3 23⁄4 21⁄4 2 11⁄4

1 4 Actual elevation, Ea, for each 155-foot track maximum posted timetable operating speed, Vmax, The test procedure may be conducted whereby segment in the body of the curve is determined by may be greater than the qualified cant deficiency, all the wheels on one side (right or left) of the averaging the elevation for 11 points through the Eu. This actual cant deficiency for each curve may vehicle are raised to the proposed cant deficiency segment at 15.5-foot spacing. If the curve length is not exceed the qualified cant deficiency, Eu, plus 1 and lowered, and then the vertical wheel loads less than 155 feet, average the points through the inch. under each wheel are measured and a level is used full length of the body of the curve. 3 2 Degree of curvature, D, is determined by to record the angle through which the floor of the If the actual elevation, Ea, and degree of curvature, D, change as a result of track averaging the degree of curvature over the same vehicle has been rotated. degradation, then the actual cant deficiency for the track segment as the elevation.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP10MY10.013 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25959

Class of track Track surface (inches) 1 2 3 4 5

The deviation from zero crosslevel at any point on tangent or reverse crosslevel elevation on curves may not be more than ...... 3 2 13⁄4 11⁄4 1 The difference in crosslevel between any two points less than 62 feet apart may not be more than*1 2 ...... 3 21⁄4 2 13⁄4 11⁄2 *Where determined by engineering decision prior to June 22, 1998, due to physical restrictions on spiral length and operating practices and experi- ence, the variation in crosslevel on spirals per 31 feet may not be more than ...... 2 13⁄4 11⁄4 1 3⁄4 1 Except as limited by § 213.57(a), where the elevation at any point in a curve equals or exceeds 6 inches, the difference in crosslevel within 62 feet between that point and a point with greater elevation may not be more than 11⁄2 inches. 2 However, to control harmonics on Class 2 through 5 jointed track with staggered joints, the crosslevel differences shall not exceed 11⁄4 inches in all of six consecutive pairs of joints, as created by seven low joints. Track with joints staggered less than 10 feet apart shall not be considered as having staggered joints. Joints within the seven low joints outside of the regular joint spacing shall not be considered as joints for purposes of this footnote.

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

Class of track Track surface 4 (inches) 1 2 3 4 5

The deviation from uniform profile on either rail at the mid-ordinate of a 31- foot chord may not be more than ...... N/A 3 N/A 3 1 1 1 The deviation from uniform profile on either rail at the mid-ordinate of a 62- foot chord may not be more than ...... 21⁄4 21⁄4 13⁄4 11⁄4 1 The difference in crosslevel between any two points less than 10 feet apart (short warp) shall not be more than ...... 2 2 13⁄4 13⁄4 11⁄2 3 N/A—Not Applicable. 4 Curved track surface limits shall be applied only when track curvature is greater than 0.25 degree.

6. Section 213.65 is added to read as the outside rail in the curve, as Am = measured alinement deviation from follows: measured by a TGMS, shall comply uniformity (outward is positive, inward with the following formula: is negative). § 213.65 Combined alinement and surface AL = allowable alinement limit as per deviations. § 213.55(b) (always positive) for the class A S of track. On any curved track where operations 3 ×+≤m m 1 Sm = measured profile deviation from are conducted at a qualified cant 4 AL SL uniformity (down is positive, up is deficiency, Eu, greater than 5 inches, the Where: negative). combination of alinement and surface SL = allowable profile limit as per § 213.63(b) deviations for the same chord length on (always positive) for the class of track.

A S A S m +=m the absolute (positive) value of the result of m +⋅m AL SL AL SL

7. Section 213.110 is amended by (ii) Under an applied vertical load of S = Load severity, defined as the lateral load revising paragraphs (c) through (f), (l), no less than 10 kips per rail; and applied to the fastener system (kips). (p)(2) and (p)(3) to read as follows: L = Actual lateral load applied (kips). (iii) Under an applied lateral load that c = Coefficient of friction between rail/tie, § 213.110 Gage restraint measurement provides for a lateral/vertical load ratio which is assigned a nominal value of 0.4. systems. of between 0.5 and 1.25 5, and a load V = Actual vertical load applied (kips), or * * * * * severity greater than 3 kips but less than static vertical wheel load if vertical load 8 kips per rail. is not measured. (c)(1) The track owner shall also (e) The measured gage values shall be provide to FRA sufficient technical data (d) Load severity is defined by the formula: converted to a Projected Loaded Gage 24 to establish compliance with the (PLG24) as follows— following minimum design ¥ S = L cV PLG24 = UTG + A × (LTG ¥ UTG) requirements of a GRMS vehicle: Where: (2) Gage restraint shall be measured Where: between the heads of rail— 5 GRMS equipment using load combinations UTG = Unloaded track gage measured by the developing L/V ratios that exceed 0.8 shall be GRMS vehicle at a point no less than 10 (i) At an interval not exceeding 16 operated with caution to protect against the risk of feet from any lateral or vertical load inches; wheel climb by the test wheelset. application.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP10MY10.014 EP10MY10.015 25960 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules

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

13. 513 A = ()..001×−LV 000258 × −× ... 009() 001 ×− LV 000258 ×2

Note: The A factor shall not exceed a value (f) The measured gage and load values (l) The GRMS record of lateral of 3.184 under any valid loading shall be converted to a Gage Widening restraint shall identify two exception configuration. Projection (GWP) as follows: levels. At a minimum, the track owner Where: shall initiate the required remedial 826. L = Actual lateral load applied (kips). GWP=−() LTG UTG × action at each exception level as defined V = Actual vertical load applied (kips), or LV−×0. 258 in the following table— static vertical wheel load if vertical load is not measured. * * * * *

GRMS If measurement value exceeds Remedial action required parameters 1

First Level Exception

UTG ...... 58 inches ...... (1) Immediately protect the exception location with a 10 m.p.h. speed restriction, then verify location; (2) Restore lateral restraint and maintain in compliance with PTLF criteria as described in paragraph (m) of this section; and (3) Maintain compliance with § 213.53(b) as measured with the PTLF. LTG ...... 58 inches. PLG24 ...... 59 inches. GWP ...... 1.0 inch.

Second Level Exception

LTG ...... 573⁄4 inches on Class 4 and 5 (1) Limit operating speed to no more than the maximum allowable under § 213.9 for track 2. Class 3 track, then verify location; (2) Maintain in compliance with PTLF criteria as described in paragraph (m) of this sec- tion; and PLG24 ...... 58 inches ...... (3) Maintain compliance with § 213.53(b) as measured with the PTLF. GWP ...... 0.75 inch. 1 Definitions for the GRMS parameters referenced in this table are found in paragraph (p) of this section. 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 § 213.53(b) applies.

* * * * * Subpart G—Train Operations at Track (2) * * * (p) * * * Classes 6 and Higher (i) Knows and understands the requirements of this subpart that apply 8. Section 213.305 is amended by (2) Gage Widening Projection (GWP) to the inspection of the track for which revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(i) means the measured gage widening, he or she is responsible. which is the difference between loaded to read as follows: and unloaded gage, at the applied loads, * * * * * § 213.305 Designation of qualified 9. Section 213.307 is amended by projected to reference loads of 16,000 individuals; general qualifications. pounds of lateral force and 33,000 revising the section heading and pounds of vertical force. * * * * * paragraph (a) to read as follows: (a) * * * (3) L/V ratio means the numerical (2) * * * § 213.307 Classes of track: Operating ratio of lateral load applied at a point on (i) Knows and understands the speed limits. the rail to the vertical load applied at requirements of this subpart that apply (a) Except as provided in paragraph that same point. GRMS design to the restoration and renewal of the (b) of this section and as otherwise requirements specify an L/V ratio of track for which he or she is responsible; provided in this subpart G, the between 0.5 and 1.25. * * * * * following maximum allowable speeds * * * * * (b) * * * apply:

Over track that meets all of the requirements prescribed in this subpart for— The maximum allowable operating speed for trains is 1

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP10MY10.016 EP10MY10.017 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25961

Over track that meets all of the requirements prescribed in this subpart for— The maximum allowable operating speed for trains is 1

Class 7 track ...... 125 m.p.h. Class 8 track ...... 160 m.p.h.2 Class 9 track ...... 220 m.p.h.2 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 § 213.329 and § 213.345. (2) The load distribution and securement in the freight vehicle will not adversely affect the dynamic performance of the vehicle. The axle load- ing 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.

* * * * * § 213.323 Track gage. (b) Gage shall be within the limits 10. Section 213.323 is amended by * * * * * prescribed in the following table: revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

The change of gage Class of track The gage must be at least— But not more than— within 31 feet must not be greater than—

Class 6 track ...... 4′8″ ...... 4′91⁄4″ ...... 3⁄4″ Class 7 track ...... 4′8″ ...... 4′91⁄4″ ...... 1⁄2″ Class 8 track ...... 4′8″ ...... 4′91⁄4″ ...... 1⁄2″ Class 9 track ...... 4′81⁄4″ ...... 4′91⁄4″ ...... 1⁄2″

11. Section 213.327 is revised to read centered around that point and spaced (b) Except as provided in paragraph as follows: according to the following table: (c) of this section, a single alinement deviation from uniformity may not be § 213.327 Track alinement. Chord length Spacing more than the amount prescribed in the (a) Uniformity at any point along the ′ ′ ″ following table: track is established by averaging the 31 ...... 7 9 62′ ...... 15′6″ measured mid-chord offset values for 124′ ...... 31′0″ nine consecutive points that are

The deviation from uni- The deviation from uni- The deviation from uni- formity of the mid-chord formity of the mid-chord formity of the mid-chord Class of track Tangent/curved track offset for a 31-foot chord offset for a 62-foot chord offset for a 124-foot may not be more than— may not be more than— chord may not be more (inches) (inches) than—(inches)

Class 6 track ...... Tangent ...... 1⁄2 3⁄4 11⁄2 Curved 1 ...... 5⁄8 Class 7 track ...... Tangent ...... 1⁄2 3⁄4 11⁄4 Curved 1 ...... 1⁄2 Class 8 track ...... Tangent ...... 1⁄2 3⁄4 1 Curved 1 ...... 1⁄2 3⁄4 Class 9 track ...... Tangent ...... 1⁄2 1⁄2 3⁄4 Curved 1. 1 Curved track limits shall be applied only when track curvature is greater than 0.25 degree. Track curvature may be established at any point by averaging the measured 62-foot chord offset values for nine consecutive points that are centered around that point and spaced at 15 feet 6 inches.

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

The deviation from uni- The deviation from uni- The deviation from uni- formity of the mid-chord formity of the mid-chord formity of the mid-chord Class of track Track type offset for a 31-foot chord offset for a 62-foot chord offset for a 124-foot may not be more than— may not be more than— chord may not be more (inches) (inches) than—(inches)

Class 6 track ...... Curved 1 ...... 1⁄2 5⁄8 11⁄4 Class 7 track ...... Curved 1 ...... 1⁄2 1⁄2 1 Class 8 track ...... Curved 1 ...... 1⁄2 1⁄2 3⁄4

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 25962 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules

The deviation from uni- The deviation from uni- The deviation from uni- formity of the mid-chord formity of the mid-chord formity of the mid-chord Class of track Track type offset for a 31-foot chord offset for a 62-foot chord offset for a 124-foot may not be more than— may not be more than— chord may not be more (inches) (inches) than—(inches)

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

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

The deviation from uni- The deviation from uni- The deviation from uni- formity of the mid-chord formity of the mid-chord formity of the mid-chord Class of track offset for a 31-foot chord offset for a 62-foot chord offset for a 124-foot may not be more than— may not be more than— chord may not be more (inches) (inches) 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

7 (e) For purposes of complying with Eu = Qualified cant deficiency (inches) of and approved by FRA in accordance this section, the ends of the chord shall the vehicle type. with § 213.345(e) and (f): 8 be at points on the gage side of the rail, D = Degree of curvature (degrees). (ii) The steady-state (average) load on five-eighths of an inch below the top of (d) All vehicles are considered any wheel, throughout the body of the the railhead. On tangent track, either qualified for operating on track with a curve, is not to be less than 60 percent rail may be used as the line rail; cant deficiency, Eu, not exceeding 3 of its static value on perfectly level however, the same rail shall be used for inches. Table 1 of appendix A to this track; and the full length of that tangential segment part is a table of speeds computed in (iii) For passenger cars, the steady- of the track. On curved track, the line accordance with the formula in state (average) lateral acceleration rail is the outside rail of the curve. paragraph (c) of this section, when Eu measured on the floor of the carbody 12. Section 213.329 is revised to read equals 3 inches, for various elevations does not exceed 0.15g. as follows: and degrees of curvature. (f) The track owner or railroad shall (e) Each vehicle type must be transmit the results of the testing § 213.329 Curves; elevation and speed approved by FRA to operate on track specified in paragraph (e) of this section limitations. with a qualified cant deficiency, Eu, to FRA requesting approval for the (a) The maximum elevation of the greater than 3 inches. Each vehicle type vehicle type to operate at the desired outside rail of a curve may not be more must demonstrate compliance with the speeds allowed under the formula in than 7 inches. The outside rail of a requirements of either paragraph (e)(1) paragraph (c) of this section. The curve may not be lower than the inside or (e)(2) of this section. request shall be in writing and shall rail, except as a result of a deviation as (1) When positioned on a track with contain, at a minimum, the following per § 213.331. a uniform superelevation equal to the information— (b) All vehicle types requiring proposed cant deficiency: (1) A description of the vehicle type qualification under § 213.345 must (i) No wheel of the vehicle unloads to involved, including schematic diagrams demonstrate that when stopped on a a value less than 60 percent of its static of the suspension system(s) and the curve having a maximum uniform value on perfectly level track; and estimated location of the center of elevation of 7 inches, no wheel unloads (ii) For passenger cars, the roll angle gravity above top of rail; to a value less than 50 percent of its between the floor of the equipment and (2) The test procedure 9 and static weight on level track. the horizontal does not exceed 8.6 description of the instrumentation used (c) The maximum posted timetable degrees; or to qualify the vehicle and the maximum operating speed for each curve is (2) When operating through a constant values for wheel unloading and roll determined by the following formula: radius curve at a constant speed angles or accelerations that were corresponding to the proposed cant observed during testing; and deficiency, and a test plan is submitted (3) For vehicle types not subject to EE+ part 238 or part 229 of this chapter, V = au max 0. 0007D less than 155 feet, average the points through the procedures or standards in effect that full length of the body of the curve. relate to the maintenance of all safety- 7 Where: If the actual elevation, Ea, and degree of critical components of the suspension curvature, D, change as a result of track Vmax = Maximum posted timetable operating system(s) for the particular vehicle type. speed (m.p.h.). degradation, then the actual cant deficiency for the maximum posted timetable operating speed, Vmax, Ea = Actual elevation of the outside rail may be greater than the qualified cant deficiency, 9 6 The test procedure may be conducted whereby (inches). Eu. This actual cant deficiency for each curve may all the wheels on one side (right or left) of the not exceed the qualified cant deficiency, Eu, plus vehicle are raised to the proposed cant deficiency 6 Actual elevation, Ea, for each 155-foot track one-half inch. and lowered, and then the vertical wheel loads segment in the body of the curve is determined by 8 Degree of curvature, D, is determined by under each wheel are measured and a level is used averaging the elevation for 11 points through the averaging the degree of curvature over the same to record the angle through which the floor of the segment at 15.5-foot spacing. If the curve length is track segment as the elevation. vehicle has been rotated.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP10MY10.018 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25963

Safety-critical components of the impose conditions necessary for safely car, as defined in § 215.5 of this part; a suspension system are those that impact operating at the higher curving speeds. passenger car, as defined in § 238.5 of or have significant influence on the roll (h) A track owner or railroad that this part; and any rail rolling equipment of the carbody and the distribution of provides passenger or commuter service used in a train with either a freight car weights on the wheels. over trackage of more than one track or a passenger car. owner with the same vehicle type may (g) Upon FRA approval of the request, (2) Vehicle type means vehicles with provide written notification to FRA with variations in their physical properties, the track owner or railroad shall notify the written consent of the other affected FRA’s Associate Administrator for such as suspension, mass, interior track owners. arrangements, and dimensions that do Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer in (i) Vehicle types that have been not result in significant changes to their writing no less than 30 calendar days permitted by FRA to operate at cant prior to the proposed implementation of dynamic characteristics. deficiencies, Eu, shall be considered the approved higher curving speeds qualified under this section to operate at 13. Section 213.331 is revised to read allowed under the formula in paragraph those permitted cant deficiencies over as follows: (c) of this section. The notification shall the previously operated track § 213.331 Track surface. contain, at a minimum, identification of segment(s). the track segment(s) on which the (j) As used in this section and in (a) For a single deviation in track higher curving speeds are to be §§ 213.333 and 213.345— surface, each track owner shall maintain implemented. In approving the request (1) Vehicle means a locomotive, as the surface of its track within the limits in paragraph (f) of this section, FRA may defined in § 229.5 of this part; a freight 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-ordinate of a 31-foot chord may not be more than ...... 1 1 3⁄4 1⁄2 The deviation from uniform profile on either rail at the mid-ordinate of a 62-foot chord may not be more than ...... 1 1 1 3⁄4 Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the deviation from uniform profile on either rail at the mid-ordinate of a 124-foot chord may not be more than ...... 13⁄4 11⁄2 11⁄4 1 The deviation from zero crosslevel at any point on tangent track may not be more than ..... 1 1 1 1 Reverse elevation on curves 3 may not be more than ...... 1⁄2 1⁄2 1⁄2 1⁄2 The difference in crosslevel between any two points less than 62 feet apart may not be more than 2 ...... 11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄4 1 On curved track,3 the difference in crosslevel between any two points less than 10 feet apart (short warp) may not be more than ...... 11⁄4 11⁄8 1 3⁄4 1 Uniformity for profile is established by placing the midpoint of the specified chord at the point of maximum measurement. 2 However, to control harmonics on jointed track with staggered joints, the crosslevel differences shall not exceed 1 inch in all of six consecu- tive pairs of joints, as created by seven low joints. Track with joints staggered less than 10 feet apart shall not be considered as having stag- gered 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 within the limits prescribed in the deficiency, Eu, of more than 5 inches, a following table: single deviation in track surface shall be

Class of track Track surface 4 (inches) 6 7 8 9

The difference in crosslevel between any two points less than 10 feet apart (short warp) may not be more than ...... 11⁄4 1 3 1 3⁄4 The deviation from uniform profile on either rail at the mid-ordinate of a 124-foot chord may not be more than ...... 11⁄2 11⁄4 11⁄4 1

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 specified chord length, each of which surface of the track within the limits deviations in track surface occurring exceeds the limits in the following table, prescribed for each deviation: within a distance equal to five times the each track owner shall maintain the

Class of track Track surface (inches) 6 7 8 9

The deviation from uniform profile on either rail at the mid-ordinate of a 31-foot chord may not be more than ...... 3⁄4 3⁄4 1⁄2 3⁄8 The deviation from uniform profile on either rail at the mid-ordinate of a 62-foot chord may not be more than ...... 3⁄4 3⁄4 3⁄4 1⁄2

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 25964 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules

Class of track Track surface (inches) 6 7 8 9

The deviation from uniform profile on either rail at the mid-ordinate of a 124-foot chord may not be more than ...... 11⁄4 1 7⁄8 5⁄8

14. Section 213.332 is added to read combination of alinement and surface Am = measured alinement deviation from as follows: deviations for the same chord length on uniformity (outward is positive, inward the outside rail in a curve and on any is negative). § 213.332 Combined alinement and AL = allowable alinement limit as per surface deviations. of the two rails of a tangent section, as measured by a TGMS, shall comply § 213.327(c) (always positive) for the (a) This section applies to any curved with the following formula: class of track. track where operations are conducted at Sm = measured profile deviation from a qualified cant deficiency, Eu, greater uniformity (down is positive, up is 3 A S than 5 inches, and to all Class 9 track, ×+≤m m 1 negative). either curved or tangent. 4 A S SL = allowable profile limit as per (b) For the conditions defined in L L §§ 213.331(a) and 213.331 (b) (always paragraph (a) of this section, the Where— positive) for the class of track.

A S A S m +=m the absolute (positive) value of the result of m +⋅m AL SL AL SL

15. Section 213.333 is amended by necessary track geometry parameters, at severity greater than 3 kips but less than revising paragraphs (a),(b)(1) and (b)(2), an interval of no more than every 1 foot, 8 kips per rail. Load severity is defined (c), (h) through (m), and the Vehicle/ to determine compliance with— by the formula: Track Interaction Safety Limits table to (1) For operations at a qualified cant S = L¥cV read as follows: deficiency, Eu, of more than 5 inches on track Classes 1 through 5: § 213.53, Where— § 213.333 Automated vehicle inspection Track gage; § 213.55(b), Track S = Load severity, defined as the lateral load systems. alinement; § 213.57, Curves; elevation applied to the fastener system (kips). (a) A qualifying Track Geometry and speed limitations; § 213.63, Track L = Actual lateral load applied (kips). Measuring System (TGMS) shall be surface; and § 213.65, Combined c = Coefficient of friction between rail/tie, operated at the following frequency: alinement and surface deviations. which is assigned a nominal value of 0.4. (1) For operations at a qualified cant (2) For track Classes 6 through 9: V = Actual vertical load applied (kips), or deficiency, Eu, of more than 5 inches on static vertical wheel load if vertical load § 213.323, Track gage; § 213.327, Track is not measured. track Classes 1 through 5, at least twice alinement; § 213.329, Curves; elevation per calendar year with not less than 120 and speed limitations; § 213.331, Track (2) The measured gage and load days between inspections. surface; and for operations at a cant values shall be converted to a GWP as (2) For track Class 6, at least once per deficiency of more than 5 inches follows: calendar year with not less than 170 § 213.332, Combined alinement and days between inspections. For surface deviations. 826. operations at a qualified cant deficiency, GWP=−() LTG UTG × * * * * * −× Eu, of more than 5 inches on track Class (h) For track Classes 8 and 9, a LV0. 258 6, at least twice per calendar year with qualifying Gage Restraint Measuring Where— not less than 120 days between System (GRMS) shall be operated at UTG = Unloaded track gage measured by the inspections. least once per calendar year with at least (3) For track Class 7, at least twice GRMS vehicle at a point no less than 10 170 days between inspections. The feet from any lateral or vertical load within any 120-day period with not less lateral capacity of the track structure application. than 25 days between inspections. shall not permit a Gage Widening LTG = Loaded track gage measured by the (4) For track Classes 8 and 9, at least GRMS vehicle at a point no more than twice within any 60-day period with not Projection (GWP) greater than 0.5 inch. (i) A GRMS shall meet or exceed 12 inches from the lateral load less than 12 days between inspections. minimum design requirements application. (b) * * * L = Actual lateral load applied (kips). (1) Track geometry measurements specifying that— V = Actual vertical load applied (kips), or shall be taken no more than 3 feet away (1) Gage restraint shall be measured static vertical wheel load if vertical load from the contact point of wheels between the heads of the rail: is not measured. (i) At an interval not exceeding 16 carrying a vertical load of no less than GWP = Gage Widening Projection, which inches; means the measured gage widening, 10,000 pounds per wheel; (ii) Under an applied vertical load of (2) Track geometry measurements which is the difference between loaded no less than 10 kips per rail; and and unloaded gage, at the applied loads, shall be taken and recorded on a (iii) Under an applied lateral load that projected to reference loads of 16,000 distance-based sampling interval not provides for lateral/vertical load ratio of pounds of lateral force and 33,000 exceeding 1 foot; and between 0.5 and 1.25,10 and a load pounds of vertical force. * * * * * (c) A qualifying TGMS shall be 10 GRMS equipment using load combinations operated with caution to protect against the risk of capable of measuring and processing the developing L/V ratios that exceed 0.8 shall be wheel climb by the test wheelset.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP10MY10.019 EP10MY10.020 EP10MY10.021 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25965

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 25966 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP10MY10.023 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25967

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP10MY10.024 25968 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4910–06–C cant deficiency prior to [DATE OF determine a track segment 16. Section 213.345 is revised to read PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE representative of the route. as follows: IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], shall be (2) Carbody acceleration. For vehicle § 213.345 Vehicle/track system considered as being successfully types intended to operate at track Class qualification. qualified under the requirements of this 6 speeds or above, or at any curving speed producing more than 5 inches of (a) General. All vehicle types section for operation at the previously cant deficiency, qualification testing intended to operate at track Class 6 operated speeds and cant deficiencies over the previously operated track conducted over a representative speeds or above or at any curving speed segment of the route shall ensure that producing more than 5 inches of cant segment(s). (c) New vehicle type qualification. the vehicle type will not exceed the deficiency shall be qualified for carbody lateral and vertical acceleration operation for their intended track Vehicle types not previously qualified under this subpart be qualified in safety limits specified in § 213.333. classes in accordance with this subpart. (3) Truck lateral acceleration. For A qualification program shall be used to accordance with the requirements of this paragraph (c). vehicle types intended to operate at ensure that the vehicle/track system will track Class 6 speeds or above, (1) Simulations. For vehicle types not exceed the wheel/rail force safety qualification testing conducted over a intended to operate at track Class 6 limits and the carbody and truck representative segment of the route shall speeds or above, or at any curving speed acceleration criteria specified in ensure that the vehicle type will not producing more than 6 inches of cant § 213.333— exceed the truck lateral acceleration deficiency, analysis of vehicle/track (1) At any speed up to and including safety limit specified in § 213.333. 5 m.p.h. above the proposed maximum performance (computer simulations) (4) Wheel/rail force measurement. For operating speed; and shall be conducted using an industry vehicle types intended to operate at (2) On track meeting the requirements recognized methodology on: track Class 7 speeds or above, or at any for the class of track associated with the (i) An analytically defined track curving speed producing more than 6 proposed maximum operating speed. segment representative of minimally inches of cant deficiency, qualification For purposes of qualification testing, compliant track conditions (MCAT— testing conducted over a representative speeds that are up to 5 m.p.h. in excess Minimally Compliant Analytical Track) segment of the route shall ensure that of the maximum allowable speed for for the respective track classes as the vehicle type will not exceed the each class are permitted. specified in appendix D to this part; and wheel/rail force safety limits specified (b) Existing vehicle type qualification. (ii) A track segment representative of in § 213.333. Vehicle types previously qualified or the full route on which the vehicle type (d) Previously qualified vehicle types. permitted to operate at track Class 6 is intended to operate. Both simulations Vehicle types previously qualified speeds or above or at any curving and physical examinations of the route’s under this subpart for a track class and speeds producing more than 5 inches of track geometry shall be used to cant deficiency on one route may be

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP10MY10.025 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25969

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 25970 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules

Guard check gage Guard face gage The distance between the gage line of a frog to the The distance between guard Class of track guard 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 angles gage line,2 may not be more to the gage line,2 may not be than— less than—

Class 6, 7, 8 and 9 track ...... 4′61⁄2″ 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 Appendix A to Part 213—Maximum speeds based on 3, 4, 5, and 6 inches of to read as follows: Allowable Curving Speeds unbalance (cant deficiency), respectively.

This appendix contains four tables identifying maximum allowing curving

TABLE 1—THREE INCHES UNBALANCE [Elevation of outer rail (inches)]

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

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

0°30′ ...... 93 100 107 113 120 125 131 136 141 146 151 156 160 0°40′ ...... 80 87 93 98 104 109 113 118 122 127 131 135 139 0°50′ ...... 72 77 83 88 93 97 101 106 110 113 117 121 124 1°00′ ...... 65 71 76 80 85 89 93 96 100 104 107 110 113 1°15′ ...... 59 63 68 72 76 79 83 86 89 93 96 99 101 1°30′ ...... 53 58 62 65 69 72 76 79 82 85 87 90 93 1°45′ ...... 49 53 57 61 64 67 70 73 76 78 81 83 86 2°00′ ...... 46 50 53 57 60 63 65 68 71 73 76 78 80 2°15′ ...... 44 47 50 53 56 59 62 64 67 69 71 73 76 2°30′ ...... 41 45 48 51 53 56 59 61 63 65 68 70 72 2°45′ ...... 39 43 46 48 51 53 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 3°00′ ...... 38 41 44 46 49 51 53 56 58 60 62 64 65 3°15′ ...... 36 39 42 44 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 3°30′ ...... 35 38 40 43 45 47 49 52 53 55 57 59 61 3°45′ ...... 34 37 39 41 44 46 48 50 52 53 55 57 59 4°00′ ...... 33 35 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 53 55 57 4°30′ ...... 31 33 36 38 40 42 44 45 47 49 50 52 53 5°00′ ...... 29 32 34 36 38 40 41 43 45 46 48 49 51 5°30′ ...... 28 30 32 34 36 38 39 41 43 44 46 47 48 6°00′ ...... 27 29 31 33 35 36 38 39 41 42 44 45 46 6°30′ ...... 26 28 30 31 33 35 36 38 39 41 42 43 44 7°00′ ...... 25 27 29 30 32 34 35 36 38 39 40 42 43 8°00′ ...... 23 25 27 28 30 31 33 34 35 37 38 39 40 9°00′ ...... 22 24 25 27 28 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 10°00′ ...... 21 22 24 25 27 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 36 11°00′ ...... 20 21 23 24 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 12°00′ ...... 19 20 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

TABLE 2—FOUR INCHES UNBALANCE [Elevation of outer rail (inches)]

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

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

0°30′ ...... 107 113 120 125 131 136 141 146 151 156 160 165 169 0°40′ ...... 93 98 104 109 113 118 122 127 131 135 139 143 146 0°50′ ...... 83 88 93 97 101 106 110 113 117 121 124 128 131 1°00′ ...... 76 80 85 89 93 96 100 104 107 110 113 116 120 1°15′ ...... 68 72 76 79 83 86 89 93 96 99 101 104 107 1°30′ ...... 62 65 69 72 76 79 82 85 87 90 93 95 98 1°45′ ...... 57 61 64 67 70 73 76 78 81 83 86 88 90 2°00′ ...... 53 57 60 63 65 68 71 73 76 78 80 82 85 2°15′ ...... 50 53 56 59 62 64 67 69 71 73 76 78 80 2°30′ ...... 48 51 53 56 59 61 63 65 68 70 72 74 76 2°45′ ...... 46 48 51 53 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25971

TABLE 2—FOUR INCHES UNBALANCE—Continued [Elevation of outer rail (inches)]

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

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

TABLE 3—FIVE INCHES UNBALANCE [Elevation of outer rail (inches)]

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

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

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

TABLE 4—SIX INCHES UNBALANCE [Elevation of outer rail (inches)]

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

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

0°30′ ...... 131 136 141 146 151 156 160 165 169 173 177 181 185 0°40′ ...... 113 118 122 127 131 135 139 143 146 150 154 157 160 0°50′ ...... 101 106 110 113 117 121 124 128 131 134 137 140 143 1°00′ ...... 93 96 100 104 107 110 113 116 120 122 125 128 131 1°15′ ...... 83 86 89 93 96 99 101 104 107 110 112 115 117 1°30′ ...... 76 79 82 85 87 90 93 95 98 100 102 105 107 1°45′ ...... 70 73 76 78 81 83 86 88 90 93 95 97 99 2°00′ ...... 65 68 71 73 76 78 80 82 85 87 89 91 93 2°15′ ...... 62 64 67 69 71 73 76 78 80 82 84 85 87

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 25972 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 4—SIX INCHES UNBALANCE—Continued [Elevation of outer rail (inches)]

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

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

19. Appendix D to part 213 is added 2. As specified in § 213.345(c)(1), MCAT part, the track owner or railroad shall obtain to read as follows: shall be used for the qualification of new vehicle simulation predictions using vehicle types intended to operate at speeds measured track geometry data, chosen from Appendix D to Part 213—Minimally corresponding to Class 6 through Class 9 the same track section over which testing is Compliant Analytical Track (MCAT) track, or at any curving speed producing to be performed as determined by Simulations Used for Qualifying more than 6 inches of cant deficiency. In § 213.345(c)(1)(ii). These predictions shall be Vehicles To Operate at High Speeds addition, as specified in § 213.345(d)(1), submitted to FRA in support of the request and at High Cant Deficiencies MCAT may be used to qualify on new routes for approval of the qualification test plan. vehicle types that have previously been Full validation of the vehicle model used for 1. This appendix contains requirements for qualified on other routes and are intended to MCAT simulations under this part shall be using computer simulations to comply with operate at speeds corresponding to Class 7 determined when the results of the the vehicle/track qualification testing through Class 9 track, or at any curving speed simulations demonstrate that they replicate requirements specified in subpart G of this producing more than 6 inches of cant all key responses observed during the part. These simulations shall be performed deficiency. qualification test. using a track model containing defined 3. For a comprehensive safety evaluation, (b) MCAT layout. MCAT consists of nine geometry perturbations at the limits that are the track owner or railroad shall identify any segments, each designed to test a vehicle’s permitted for a class of track and level of cant non-redundant suspension system element or performance in response to a specific type of deficiency. This track model is known as component that may present a single point of track perturbation. The basic layout of MCAT MCAT, Minimally Compliant Analytical failure. Additional MCAT simulations is shown in figure 1 of this appendix, by type Track. These simulations shall be used to reflecting the fully-degraded mode of the of track (curving or tangent), class of track, identify vehicle dynamic performance issues vehicle type’s performance due to such a and cant deficiency (CD). The values for prior to service, and demonstrate that a failure shall be included. wavelength, λ, amplitude of perturbation, a, vehicle type is suitable for operation on the (a) Validation. To validate the vehicle and segment length, d, are specified in this track over which it will operate. model used for MCAT simulations under this appendix.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25973

(1) MCAT segments. MCAT’s nine (vi) Single surface (a10, a11): This segment (ix) Combination perturbation (a7, a8, a13): segments contain different types of track contains a maximum permissible profile This segment contains a maximum deviations in which the shape of each variation on one rail. If the maximum permissible down and out combined deviation is a versine having wavelength and permissible profile variation alone produces geometry condition on the outside rail in the amplitude varied for each simulation speed a condition which exceeds the maximum body of the curve. If the maximum as further specified. The nine MCAT allowed warp condition, a second profile segments are defined as follows: permissible variations produce a condition variation is also placed on the opposite rail which exceeds the maximum allowed gage (i) Hunting perturbation (a1): This segment to limit the warp to the maximum condition, a second variation is also placed contains an alinement deviation on both rails permissible value. to test vehicle stability on tangent track on the opposite rail as for the MCAT λ (vii) Single alinement (a5, a6): This segment having a wavelength, , of 10 feet and contains a maximum permissible alinement segments described in paragraphs (b)(1)(vi) amplitude of 0.5 inch. This segment is to be variation on one rail. If the maximum and (vii). This segment is to be used only for used only on tangent track simulations. permissible alinement variation alone curved track simulations at speeds producing (ii) Gage narrowing (a2): This segment more than 5 inches of cant deficiency on contains an alinement deviation on one rail produces a condition which exceeds the track Classes 6 through 9, and at speeds to reduce the gage from the nominal value to maximum allowed gage condition, a second the minimum permissible gage or maximum alinement variation is also placed on the producing more than 6 inches of cant alinement (whichever comes first). opposite rail to limit the gage to the deficiency on track Classes 1 through 5. (iii) Gage widening (a3): This segment maximum permissible value. (2) Segment lengths: Each MCAT segment contains an alinement deviation on one rail (viii) Short warp (a12): This segment shall be long enough to allow the vehicle’s to increase the gage from the nominal value contains a pair of profile deviations to response to the track deviation(s) to damp to the maximum permissible gage or produce a maximum permissible 10-foot out. Each segment shall also have a minimum maximum alinement (whichever comes first). warp perturbation. The first is on the outside length as specified in table 1 of this rail, and the second follows 10 feet farther on (iv) Repeated surface (a9): This segment appendix, which references the distances in the inside rail. Each deviation has a contains three consecutive maximum figure 1 of this appendix. For curved track permissible profile variations on each rail. wavelength, λ, of 20 feet and variable segments, the perturbations shall be placed (v) Repeated alinement (a4): This segment amplitude for each simulation speed as contains two consecutive maximum described below. This segment is to be used far enough in the body of the curve to allow permissible alinement variations on each rail. only on curved track simulations. 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 which assumes a curve with 6 inches of Where: simulation involving assessment of curving superelevation: D = Degree of curvature (degrees). performance, the degree of curvature, D, V = Simulation speed (m.p.h). which generates a particular level of cant 6 + E D = u Eu = Cant deficiency (inches). deficiency, Eu, for a given speed, V, shall be 0. 0007 × V2 calculated using the following equation, (c) Required simulations.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 ep10my10.008 EP10MY10.022 25974 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules

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

TABLE 2 OF APPENDIX D TO PART 213 [Required Vehicle Performance Assessment Using MCAT]

New vehicle types on track classes 1 through New vehicle types on track classes 6 through 5 and previously qualified vehicle types on 8 and previously qualified vehicle types on track classes 1 through 6 track classes 7 and 8

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

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25975

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP10MY10.009 25976 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP10MY10.010 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25977

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP10MY10.011 25978 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4910–06–C (1) Pre-revenue service qualification. (2) All passenger equipment shall PART 238—[AMENDED] All passenger equipment intended for meet the safety performance standards service at speeds greater than 90 mph or for suspension systems contained in 20. The authority citation for part 238 at any curving speed producing more part 213 of this chapter, or alternative continues to read as follows: than 5 inches of cant deficiency shall standards providing at least equivalent Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20133, demonstrate safe operation during pre- safety if approved by FRA under the 20141, 20302–20303, 20306, 20701–20702, revenue service qualification in provisions of § 238.21. In particular— 21301–21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; accordance with § 213.345 of this (i) Pre-revenue service qualification. and 49 CFR 1.49. chapter and is subject to the All passenger equipment shall requirements of either § 213.57 or demonstrate safe operation during pre- Subpart C—Specific Requirements for § 213.329 of this chapter, as appropriate. revenue service qualification in Tier I Passenger Equipment (2) Revenue service operation. All accordance with § 213.345 of this 21. Section 238.227 is revised to read passenger equipment intended for chapter and is subject to the service at speeds greater than 90 mph or as follows: requirements of § 213.329 of this at any curving speed producing more chapter. § 238.227 Suspension system. than 5 inches of cant deficiency is (ii) Revenue service operation. All On or after November 8, 1999— subject to the requirements of § 213.333 passenger equipment in service is (a) All passenger equipment shall of this chapter and either §§ 213.57 or subject to the requirements of exhibit freedom from truck hunting at 213.329 of this chapter, as appropriate. §§ 213.329 and 213.333 of this chapter. all operating speeds. If truck hunting (b) Carbody acceleration. A passenger does occur, a railroad shall immediately Subpart E—Specific Requirements for car shall not operate under conditions take appropriate action to prevent Tier II Passenger Equipment that result in a steady-state lateral derailment. Truck hunting is defined in 22. Section 238.427 is amended by acceleration greater than 0.15g, as § 213.333 of this chapter. revising paragraphs (a)(2), (b), and (c), measured parallel to the car floor inside (b) Nothing in this section shall affect and by removing paragraph (d) to read the passenger compartment. Additional the requirements of the Track Safety as follows: carbody acceleration limits are specified Standards in part 213 of this chapter as in § 213.333 of this chapter. they apply to passenger equipment as § 238.427 Suspension system. (c) Truck (hunting) acceleration. Each provided in that part. In particular— (a) * * * truck shall be equipped with a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP10MY10.012 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25979

permanently installed lateral § 238.428 Overheat sensors. Issued in Washington, DC, on April 29, accelerometer mounted on the truck Overheat sensors for each wheelset 2010. frame. If truck hunting is detected, the journal bearing shall be provided. The Joseph C. Szabo, train monitoring system shall provide sensors may be placed either onboard Administrator. an alarm to the operator and the train the equipment or at reasonable intervals [FR Doc. 2010–10624 Filed 5–7–10; 8:45 am] shall be slowed to a speed at least 5 along the railroad’s right-of-way. BILLING CODE 4910–06–P mph less than the speed at which the truck hunting stopped. Truck hunting is Appendix C to Part 238 [Removed and defined in § 213.333 of this chapter. Reserved] 23. Section 238.428 is added to read 24. Appendix C to part 238 is as follows: removed and reserved.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:26 May 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\10MYP2.SGM 10MYP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2