Vol. 78 Wednesday, No. 49 March 13, 2013

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; Final Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16052 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION • Mail: Docket Management Facility, A. Proceedings to Carry Out the 1992/1994 U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 Track Safety Standards Rulemaking Federal Railroad Administration New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12– Mandates 140, Washington, DC 20590. B. Proceedings To Carry Out the 1994 49 CFR Parts 213 and 238 Passenger Equipment Safety Standards • Hand Delivery: Docket Management Rulemaking Mandate [Docket No. FRA–2009–0036, Notice No. 2] Facility, U.S. Department of C. Identification of Key Issues for Future Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Rulemaking RIN 2130–AC09 Avenue SE., Room W12–140 on the D. RSAC Overview Ground level of the West Building, E. Establishment of the Passenger Safety Vehicle/Track Interaction Safety between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday Working Group Standards; High-Speed and High Cant through Friday, except Federal holidays. F. Establishment of the Task Force G. Development of the NPRM Deficiency Operations Instructions: All submissions must H. Development of the Final Rule AGENCY: Federal Railroad include the agency name and docket IV. Technical Background Administration (FRA), Department of number or Regulatory Identification A. Lessons Learned and Operational Experience Transportation (DOT). Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Note that all petitions and comments B. Research and Computer Modeling ACTION: Final rule. received will be posted without change V. Discussion of Specific Comments and Conclusions SUMMARY: FRA is amending the Track to www.regulations.gov, including any A. EU and SNCF Comments on Track Safety Standards and Passenger personal information. Please see the Geometry Standards Equipment Safety Standards to promote Privacy Act heading in the B. Wheel Unloading Ffrom Wind on the safe interaction of rail vehicles with SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of Superelevated Curves the track over which they operate under this document for Privacy Act VI. Section-by-Section Analysis a variety of conditions at speeds up to information related to any submitted VII. Regulatory Impact and Notices petitions, comments, or materials. A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and 220 m.p.h. The final rule revises DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures standards for track geometry and safety Docket: For access to the docket to B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive limits for vehicle response to track read background documents, petitions Order 13272 conditions, enhances vehicle/track for reconsideration, or comments C. Paperwork Reduction Act qualification procedures, and adds received, go to www.regulations.gov D. Federalism Implications flexibility for permitting high cant anytime or visit the Docket Management E. Environmental Impact deficiency train operations through Facility, U.S. Department of F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 curves at conventional speeds. The rule Transportation, 1200 New Jersey G. Energy Impact accounts for a range of vehicle types Avenue SE., Room W12–140 on the H. Trade Impact I. Privacy Act that are currently in operation, as well Ground level of the West Building, as vehicle types that may likely be used between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday I. Executive Summary in future high-speed or high cant through Friday, except Federal holidays. Having considered the public deficiency rail operations, or both. The FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John comments in response to FRA’s May 10, rule is based on the results of simulation J. Mardente, Engineer, Office of Railroad 2010, proposed rule on vehicle/track studies designed to identify track Safety, Mail Stop 25, Federal Railroad interaction safety, see 75 FR 25928, FRA geometry irregularities associated with Administration, 1200 New Jersey issues this final rule amending the unsafe wheel/rail forces and Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 Track Safety Standards, 49 CFR part accelerations, thorough reviews of (telephone 202–493–1335); Ken Rusk, 213, and the Passenger Equipment vehicle qualification and revenue Staff Director, Track Division, Office of Safety Standards, 49 CFR part 238, service test data, and consideration of Railroad Safety, Mail Stop 25, Federal applicable to high-speed and high cant international practices. Railroad Administration, 1200 New deficiency train operations. (As DATES: This final rule is effective July Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC explained more fully in the preamble, 11, 2013. The incorporation by reference 20590 (telephone 202–493–6236); Ali below, train operations at cant of a certain publication listed in the rule Tajaddini, Program Manager for deficiency involve traveling through is approved by the Director of the Vehicle/Track Interaction, Office of curves faster than the balance speed; the Federal Register as of July 11, 2013. Railroad Policy and Development, Mail higher the train speed is above the Petitions for reconsideration must be Stop 20, Federal Railroad balance speed, the higher the cant received on or before May 13, 2013. Administration, 1200 New Jersey deficiency.) Since FRA’s high-speed Comments in response to petitions for Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 track safety standards and passenger reconsideration must be received on or (telephone 202–493–6438); or Daniel L. equipment safety standards were issued before June 26, 2013. Alpert, Supervisory Trial Attorney, in the late 1990s, FRA and interested ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration Office of Chief Counsel, Mail Stop 10, industry members have identified and comments on petitions for Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 various issues for possible future reconsideration: Any petitions for New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, rulemaking. Some of these issues reconsideration or comments on DC 20590 (telephone 202–493–6026). resulted from the gathering of petitions for reconsideration related to operational experience in applying the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Docket No. FRA–2009–0036, Notice No. safety standards to Amtrak’s high-speed, 2, may be submitted by any of the Table of Contents for SUPPLEMENTARY Acela Express (Acela) trainsets, as well following methods: INFORMATION as to higher-speed commuter railroad • Web site: The Federal eRulemaking I. Executive Summary operations. Other issues arose from Portal, www.regulations.gov. Follow the II. Statutory Background research conducted, allowing FRA to Web site’s online instructions for A. Track Safety Standards gather new information with which to submitting comments. B. Passenger Equipment Safety Standards evaluate the safety of high-speed and • Fax: 202–493–2251. III. Proceedings to Date high cant deficiency rail operations.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16053

FRA has addressed these issues with the existing before this final rule, a railroad II. Statutory Background assistance of the Railroad Safety could insist that a carbuilder provide A. Track Safety Standards Advisory Committee (RSAC), which trainsets that could meet acceleration unanimously recommended the requirements on track at the maximum The first Federal Track Safety requirements contained in this final allowable deviations. FRA is unaware of Standards were published on October rule. any such trainsets that are available that 20, 1971, following the enactment of the Among the final rule’s main would have complied with the former Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, accomplishments, the rule: rule under all permitted conditions and • Revises performance standards and Public Law 91–458, 84 Stat. 971 also meet other requirements for service specifications for track geometry for the (October 16, 1970), in which Congress higher-speed track classes, track Classes in the United States. This final rule granted to FRA comprehensive 6 through 9 (speeds greater than 80 makes it more likely that railroads will authority over ‘‘all areas of railroad miles per hour (m.p.h.) for freight and specify equipment that is currently safety.’’ See 36 FR 20336. FRA 90 m.p.h. for passenger operations). produced, and thus could reduce the envisioned the new Standards to be an FRA has reviewed the performance costs of procurements, although Amtrak evolving set of safety requirements standards in light of advanced disagrees in its comments (and FRA subject to continuous revision allowing simulations that were developed to believes that, even without procurement the regulations to keep pace with support the rulemaking effort, as benefits, the costs of the rule are still industry innovations and agency discussed in Section IV, below, and is justified by the benefits). Operations at research and development. The most refining those standards to focus on high cant deficiency allow trains to comprehensive revision of the identified safety concerns and remove operate more rapidly around curves. Standards resulted from the Rail Safety any unnecessary costs. This can dramatically reduce the time Enforcement and Review Act of 1992, • Adds flexibility through procedures required for any given trip. Streamlined Public Law 102–365, 106 Stat. 972 for safely permitting high cant testing requirements make it much (Sept. 3, 1992), later amended by the deficiency operations on the lower- easier to qualify a trainset on additional Federal Railroad Safety Authorization speed track classes, track Classes 1 track once it has been qualified on any through 5, without the need for Act of 1994, Public Law 103–440, 108 track, and provide more flexibility for obtaining a waiver. In order to take Stat. 4615 (November 2, 1994). The monitoring trainset performance in advantage of high cant deficiency amended statute is codified at 49 U.S.C. operations and the resultant savings in service. 20142 and required the Secretary of travel time, the equipment must be Nothing in the rule will increase the Transportation (Secretary) to review and qualified and the track must be overall costs of procuring equipment or then revise the Track Safety Standards, maintained to more stringent standards of testing that equipment to validate which are contained in 49 CFR part 213. to permit the higher speeds through compliance with the rule. In fact, the The Secretary has delegated such curves. rule will reduce those costs. statutory responsibilities to the • Institutes more cost-effective Although the provisions for high cant Administrator of FRA (see 49 CFR 1.89), equipment qualification and in-service deficiency operations on all track which as discussed below, carried out monitoring requirements. Railroads can classes are permissive in nature and the review and the rulemaking discontinue annual use of instrumented proceedings. wheelsets for in-service validation as a create no additional net costs, railroads general requirement and avoid some that avail themselves of these provisions B. Passenger Equipment Safety tests that have not provided useful data. will incur some costs. The first will be Standards Further, the final rule makes it easier to the one-time cost of programming the In September 1994, the Secretary qualify vehicles on additional segments software of automated track inspection of track once they are qualified on any vehicles to include the new standards convened a meeting of representatives track, extending territories in which required by the rule, and the second from all sectors of the rail industry with qualified equipment may operate. will be the cost of maintaining the track the goal of enhancing rail safety. As one • Clarifies that individuals qualified in curves to tighter geometric standards. of the initiatives arising from this Rail to inspect track need only understand FRA conservatively estimates that it will Safety Summit, the Secretary the portions of the regulation relevant to cost $292,000 as a one-time expense to announced that DOT would develop the inspections they conduct and the update track inspection software to safety standards for rail passenger work they perform, given, in particular, reflect the changes in this rule. equipment over a 5-year period. In the provisions added for high cant However, FRA is not certain whether November 1994, Congress adopted the deficiency operations in lower-speed overall maintenance costs will be higher Secretary’s schedule for implementing track classes. or lower with high cant deficiency rail passenger equipment safety In analyzing the economic impacts of operations, as trains otherwise would regulations and included it in the the final rule, FRA does not find that have more frequently slowed down from Federal Railroad Safety Authorization any existing operation will be adversely the line speed before entering curves Act of 1994. Congress also authorized affected by these changes, nor does FRA and then accelerated back to the line the Secretary to consult with various find that the changes will induce any speed after exiting the curves, adding organizations involved in passenger net costs. train operations for purposes of FRA expects three types of benefits: wear and tear to both equipment and prescribing and amending these Benefits related to equipment track. In any case, the difference in procurement for passenger trains at maintenance costs is not included as a regulations, as well as issuing orders speeds exceeding 90 m.p.h., benefits factor in the analysis. pursuant to them. Section 215 of this Act is codified at 49 U.S.C. 20133. from operations at high cant deficiency The rule creates net benefits and will for passenger trains at speeds up to 90 facilitate the expansion of passenger rail m.p.h, and benefits from streamlined service. testing requirements. Under the rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16054 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

III. Proceedings to Date B. Proceedings To Carry Out the 1994 CFR part 238 and secondarily at 49 CFR Passenger Equipment Safety Standards parts 216, 223, 229, 231, and 232. A. Proceedings To Carry Out the 1992/ Rulemaking Mandate 1994 Track Safety Standards C. Identification of Key Issues for Future Rulemaking Mandates FRA formed the Passenger Equipment Rulemaking Safety Standards Working Group to While FRA had completed these To help fulfill the statutory mandates provide FRA with advice in developing rulemakings, FRA and interested described in Section II.A, FRA decided the regulations mandated by Congress. industry members began identifying that the proceeding to revise part 213 On June 17, 1996, FRA published an various issues for possible future should advance under RSAC, which advance notice of proposed rulemaking rulemaking. Some of these issues was established on March 11, 1996. (A (ANPRM) concerning the establishment resulted from the gathering of fuller discussion of RSAC is provided of comprehensive safety standards for operational experience in applying the below.) In turn, RSAC formed the Track railroad passenger equipment. See 61 new safety standards to Amtrak’s Acela Working Group, comprised of FR 30672. The ANPRM provided trainsets, as well as to higher-speed approximately 30 representatives from background information on the need for commuter railroad operations. These railroads, rail labor organizations, trade such standards, offered preliminary included concerns raised by railroads associations, State government, track ideas on approaching passenger safety and rail equipment manufacturers as to equipment manufacturers, and FRA, to issues, and presented questions on the application of the new safety develop and draft a proposed rule for various passenger safety topics. standards and the consistency between revising part 213. The Track Working Following consideration of comments the requirements contained in part 213 Group identified issues for discussion received on the ANPRM and advice and those in part 238. Other issues arose from several sources, in addition to the from FRA’s Passenger Equipment Safety from research conducted, allowing FRA statutory mandates issued by Congress Standards Working Group, FRA to gather new information with which to in 1992 and in 1994. Ultimately, the published an NPRM on September 23, evaluate the safety of high-speed and high cant deficiency rail operations. Track Working Group recommended a 1997, to establish comprehensive safety FRA decided to address these issues proposed rule to the full RSAC body, standards for railroad passenger equipment. See 62 FR 49728. In with the assistance of RSAC. which in turn formally recommended to FRA notes that train operation at cant the Administrator of FRA that FRA addition to requesting written comment on the NPRM, FRA also solicited oral deficiency involves traveling through a issue the proposed rule as it was curve faster than the balance speed. drafted. comment at a public hearing held on November 21, 1997. FRA considered the Balance speed for any given curve is the On July 3, 1997, FRA published an comments received on the NPRM and speed at which the lateral component of NPRM that included substantially the prepared a final rule, which was centrifugal force will be exactly same rule text and preamble as that published on May 12, 1999. See 64 FR compensated (or balanced) by the developed by the Track Working Group. 25540. corresponding component of the gravitational force. When operating The NPRM generated comment, and After publication of the final rule, following consideration of the above the balance speed, there is a net interested parties filed petitions seeking lateral force to the outside of the curve. comments received, FRA published a FRA’s reconsideration of certain final rule in the Federal Register on Cant deficiency is measured in inches requirements contained in the rule. and is the amount of superelevation that June 22, 1998, see 63 FR 33992, which, These petitions generally related to the effective September 21, 1998, revised would need to be added to the existing following subject areas: Structural track to balance this centrifugal force the Track Safety Standards in their design; fire safety; training; inspection, with this gravitational force to realize no entirety. testing, and maintenance; and net lateral force measured in the plane To address the modern railroad movement of defective equipment. On of the rails. For every curve, there is a operating environment, the final rule July 3, 2000, FRA issued a response to balance speed at which the cant included standards specifically the petitions for reconsideration relating deficiency is zero based on the actual applicable to high-speed train to the inspection, testing, and superelevation built into the track. The operations in a new subpart G. Prior to maintenance of passenger equipment, higher the train speed is above the the 1998 final rule, the Track Safety the movement of defective passenger balance speed, the higher the cant Standards had addressed six classes of equipment, and other miscellaneous deficiency. provisions related to mechanical issues track, Classes 1 through 6, that contained in the final rule. See 65 FR D. RSAC Overview permitted passenger and freight trains to 41284. On April 23, 2002, FRA travel at speeds up to 110 m.p.h.; As mentioned above, in March 1996, responded to all remaining issues raised passenger trains had been allowed to FRA established RSAC as a forum for in the petitions for reconsideration, with developing consensus recommendations operate at speeds over 110 m.p.h. under the exception of those relating to fire to FRA’s Administrator on rulemakings conditional waiver granted by FRA. safety. See 67 FR 19970. Finally, on and other safety program issues. The FRA revised the requirements for Class June 25, 2002, FRA completed its Committee includes representation from 6 track, included them in new subpart response to the petitions for all of the agency’s major stakeholders, G, and also added in it three new classes reconsideration by publishing a including railroads, labor organizations, of track, track Classes 7 through 9, response to those petitions concerning suppliers and manufacturers, and other designating standards for track over the fire safety portion of the rule. See 67 interested parties. A list of member which trains may travel at speeds up to FR 42892. (For more detailed groups follows: 200 m.p.h. The new subpart G was information on the petitions for • American Association of Private intended to function as a set of ‘‘stand reconsideration and FRA’s response to Railroad Car Owners (AAPRCO); alone’’ regulations governing any track them, please see these three rulemaking • American Association of State identified as belonging to one of these documents.) The product of this Highway and Transportation Officials high-speed track classes. rulemaking was codified primarily at 49 (AASHTO);

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16055

• American Chemistry Council; establishes a working group that • AASHTO; • American Petroleum Institute; possesses the appropriate expertise and • Amtrak; • American Public Transportation representation of interests to develop • APTA, including members from Association (APTA); recommendations to FRA for action on Bombardier, Inc., Herzog Transit • American Short Line and Regional the task. These recommendations are Services, Inc., Interfleet Technology, Railroad Association (ASLRRA); developed by consensus. A working Inc. (Interfleet, formerly LDK • American Train Dispatchers group may establish one or more task Engineering, Inc.), Long Island Rail Association; forces to develop facts and options on Road (LIRR), Maryland Transit • Association of American Railroads a particular aspect of a given task. The Administration (MTA), Metro-North (AAR); individual task force then provides that Commuter Railroad Company, Northeast • Association of Railway Museums; information to the working group for Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad • Association of State Rail Safety consideration. When a working group Corporation, Southern California Managers (ASRSM); comes to unanimous consensus on Regional Rail Authority, and • Brotherhood of Locomotive recommendations for action, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Engineers and Trainmen (BLET); package is presented to the full RSAC Transportation Authority (SEPTA); • Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way for a vote. If the proposal is accepted by • ASLRRA; Employes Division (BMWED); a simple majority of RSAC, the proposal • BLET; • Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen is formally recommended to FRA. FRA • BRS; (BRS); then determines what action to take on • FTA; • Chlorine Institute; the recommendation. Because FRA staff • NARP; • Federal Transit Administration members play an active role at the • RSI; (FTA); * working group level in discussing the • SMWIA; • Fertilizer Institute; issues and options and in drafting the • STA; • High Speed Ground Transportation language of the consensus proposal, • TCIU/BRC; Association; FRA is often favorably inclined toward • TSA; • Institute of Makers of Explosives; the RSAC recommendation. However, • TWU; and • International Association of FRA is in no way bound to follow the • UTU. Machinists and Aerospace Workers; recommendation, and the agency Staff from DOT’s John A. Volpe • International Brotherhood of exercises its independent judgment on National Transportation Systems Center Electrical Workers; whether the recommended rule achieves (Volpe Center) attended all of the • Labor Council for Latin American the agency’s regulatory goal, is soundly meetings and contributed to the Advancement; * supported, and is in accordance with technical discussions. Staff from the • League of Railway Industry policy and legal requirements. Often, NTSB also participated in the Working Women; * FRA varies in some respects from the Group’s meetings. The Working Group • National Association of Railroad RSAC recommendation in developing has held 14 meetings on the following Passengers (NARP); the actual regulatory proposal or final dates and in the following locations: • National Association of Railway rule. Any such variations would be • September 9–10, 2003, in Business Women; * noted and explained in the rulemaking Washington, DC; • National Conference of Firemen & document issued by FRA. However, to • November 6, 2003, in Philadelphia, Oilers; the maximum extent practicable, FRA PA; • National Railroad Construction and utilizes RSAC to provide consensus • May 11, 2004, in Schaumburg, IL; Maintenance Association; recommendations with respect to both • October 26–27, 2004, in Linthicum/ • National Railroad Passenger proposed and final agency action. If Baltimore, MD; Corporation (Amtrak); RSAC is unable to reach consensus on • March 9–10, 2005, in Ft. • National Transportation Safety a recommendation for action, the task is Lauderdale, FL; • Board (NTSB); * withdrawn and FRA determines the best September 7, 2005, in Chicago, IL; • • Railway Supply Institute (RSI); course of action. March 21–22, 2006, in Ft. • Safe Travel America (STA); Lauderdale, FL; • E. Establishment of the Passenger Safety • September 12–13, 2006, in Orlando, Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Working Group Transporte; * FL; • • Sheet Metal Workers International On May 20, 2003, FRA presented, and April 17–18, 2007, in Orlando, FL; • Association (SMWIA); RSAC accepted, the task of reviewing December 11, 2007, in Ft. • Tourist Railway Association, Inc.; existing passenger equipment safety Lauderdale, FL; • • Transport Canada; * needs and programs and recommending June 18, 2008, in Baltimore, MD; • • Transport Workers Union of consideration of specific actions that November 13, 2008, in Washington, America (TWU); could be useful in advancing the safety DC; • • Transportation Communications of rail passenger service. The RSAC June 8, 2009, in Washington, DC; International Union/BRC (TCIU/BRC); established the Passenger Safety and • • Transportation Security Working Group (Working Group) to September 16, 2010, in Chicago, IL. handle this task and develop Administration (TSA); * and F. Establishment of the Task Force • United Transportation Union recommendations for the full RSAC to (UTU). consider. Members of the Working Due to the variety of issues involved, Group, in addition to FRA, include the at its November 2003 meeting the * Indicates associate, non-voting following: Working Group established four task membership. • AAR, including members from forces—smaller groups to develop When appropriate, FRA assigns a task BNSF Railway Company (BNSF), CSX recommendations on specific issues to RSAC, and after consideration and Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), and Union within each group’s particular area of debate, RSAC may accept or reject the Pacific Railroad Company; expertise. Members of the task forces task. If the task is accepted, RSAC • AAPRCO; include various representatives from the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16056 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

respective organizations that are part of Staff from the Volpe Center attended • June 29, 2011, in Washington, DC the larger Working Group. One of these all of the meetings and contributed to (via teleconference). task forces was assigned to identify and the technical discussions through their This list includes meetings of a develop issues and recommendations comments and presentations. In technical subgroup comprised of specifically related to the inspection, addition, staff from ENSCO, Inc., representatives of the larger Task Force. testing, and operation of passenger attended all of the meetings and These subgroup meetings were often equipment as well as concerns related to contributed to the technical discussions, convened the day before the larger Task the attachment of safety appliances on as a contractor to FRA. Both the Volpe Force meetings to focus on more passenger equipment. An NPRM on Center and ENSCO, Inc., have supported advanced, technical issues. The results these topics was published on December FRA throughout this rulemaking. of these meetings were then presented at 8, 2005 (see 70 FR 73069), and a final The Task Force has held 32 meetings the larger Task Force meetings and, in rule was published on October 19, 2006 on the following dates and in the turn, included in the minutes of those (see 71 FR 61835). Another of these task following locations: Task Force meetings. Minutes of each of • forces was assigned to develop April 20–21, 2004, in Washington, these meetings have been made part of recommendations related to window DC; the public docket in this proceeding and • glazing integrity, structural May 24, 2004, in Springfield, VA are available for inspection. crashworthiness, and the protection of (technical subgroup only); occupants during accidents and • June 24–25, 2004, in Washington, G. Development of the NPRM incidents. The work of this task force DC; The NPRM was developed to address • led to the publication of an NPRM July 6, 2004, in Washington, DC a number of the concerns raised and focused on enhancing the front end (technical subgroup only); issues discussed during Task Force and • strength of cab cars and multiple-unit July 22, 2004, in Washington, DC Working Group meetings. The Task (MU) locomotives on August 1, 2007 (technical subgroup only); Force recognized that the high-speed • (see 72 FR 42016), and the publication August 24–25, 2004, in Washington, track safety standards are based on the of a final rule on January 8, 2010 (see DC; principle that, to ensure safety, the • 75 FR 1180). Another task force, the October 12–14, 2004, in interaction of the vehicles and the tracks Emergency Preparedness Task Force, Washington, DC; • over which they operate must be was established to identify issues and December 9, 2004, in Washington, considered within a systems approach develop recommendations related to DC; • that provides for specific limits for emergency systems, procedures, and February 10, 2005, in Washington, vehicle response to track equipment. An NPRM on these topics DC; perturbation(s). From the outset, the • April 7, 2005, in Washington, DC; was published on August 24, 2006 (see • Task Force strove to develop revisions 71 FR 50276), and a final rule was August 24, 2005, in Washington, that would: Serve as practical standards published on February 1, 2008 (see 73 DC; with sound physical and mathematical • November 3–4, 2005, in FR 6370). bases; account for a range of vehicle Washington, DC; The fourth task force, the Track/ types that are currently used and may • January 12–13, 2006, in Vehicle Interaction Task Force (also likely be used on future high-speed or Washington, DC; identified as the Vehicle/Track high cant deficiency rail operations, or • March 7–8, 2006, in Washington, Interaction Task Force, or Task Force), both; and not present an undue burden DC; was established to identify issues and • April 25, 2006, in Washington, DC; on railroads. The Task Force first develop recommendations related to the • May 23, 2006, in Washington, DC; identified key issues requiring attention safety of vehicle/track interactions. • July 25–26, 2006, in Cambridge, based on experience applying the Track Initially, the Task Force was charged MA; Safety Standards and Passenger with considering a number of issues, • September 7–8, 2006, in Equipment Safety Standards, and including vehicle-centered issues Washington, DC; defined the following work efforts: involving wheel flange angle, tread • November 14–15, 2006, in • Revise— conicity, and truck equalization; the Washington, DC; Æ Qualification requirements for necessity for instrumented wheelset • January 24–25, 2007, in high-speed and high cant deficiency tests for operations at speeds from 90 to Washington, DC; operations; 125 m.p.h.; consolidation of vehicle • March 29–30, 2007, in Cambridge, Æ Acceleration and wheel/rail force trackworthiness criteria in parts 213 and MA; safety limits; 238; and revisions of the track geometry • April 26, 2007, in Springfield, VA; Æ Inspection, monitoring, and standards. The Task Force was given the • May 17–18, 2007, in Cambridge, maintenance requirements; and responsibility of addressing other MA; Æ Track geometry limits for high- vehicle/track interaction safety issues • June 25–26, 2007, in Arlington, VA; speed operations. and to recommend any research • August 8–9, 2007, in Cambridge, • Establish— necessary to facilitate their resolution. MA; Æ Necessary safety limits for wheel Members of the Task Force, in addition • October 9–11, 2007 in Washington, profile and truck equalization; to FRA, include the following: DC; Æ Consistent requirements for high • AAR; • November 19–20, 2007, in cant deficiency operations covering all • AASHTO; Washington, DC; track classes; and • Amtrak; • February 27–28, 2008, in Æ Additional track geometry • APTA, including members from Cambridge, MA; requirements for cant deficiencies Bombardier, Interfleet, LIRR, LTK • August 5–6, 2010, in Rockville, MD; greater than 5 inches. Engineering Services, Port Authority • August 23, 2010, in Washington, DC • Resolve and reconcile Trans-Hudson, and STV Inc.; (via teleconference); inconsistencies between the Track • BMWED; and • September 7, 2010, in Washington, Safety Standards and Passenger • BRS. DC (via teleconference); and Equipment Safety Standards, and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16057

between the lower- and higher-speed of Transportation (NCDOT), SEPTA, using instrumented wheelsets to Track Safety Standards. Socie´te´ Nationale des Chemins de fer measure forces directly between the Through the close examination of these Franc¸ais (French National Railway wheel and rail and using accelerometers issues, the Task Force developed Company, shortened as SNCF), and a to record vehicle motions. During the proposals intended to result in private citizen. As discussed below, course of these qualification tests, some improved public safety while reducing FRA sought clarification from SNCF on uncertainties, inconsistencies, and the burden on the railroad industry SNCF’s initial written comments to the potentially restrictive values were where possible. The proposals were docket, and SNCF supplemented its identified in the interpretation and arrived at through the results of comments in response to FRA’s request. application of the vehicle/track computer simulations of vehicle/track FRA’s request and SNCF’s response interaction (VTI) safety limits then dynamics, consideration of international have been made part of the public specified in § 213.333 and § 213.345 for practices, and thorough reviews of docket in this proceeding. excessive vehicle motions based on qualification and revenue service test FRA convened the Task Force to measured accelerations and in the data. discuss the comments received on the requirements of § 213.57 and § 213.329 Nonetheless, in the NPRM published NPRM and to help achieve consensus for high cant deficiency operation. The in the Federal Register on May 10, on recommendations concerning their information and experience in applying 2010, see 75 FR 25928, FRA made clear incorporation into this final rule. After these requirements helped lay the foundation for a number of the changes that the Task Force did not seek to four meetings and subsequent electronic made in this rulemaking, examples of revise comprehensively the high-speed communications, the Task Force which are provided below. Track Safety Standards in subpart G of reached consensus on recommendations part 213, and the NPRM did not propose for the text of the final rule. The Differentiate Between Sustained to do so. For example, there was no recommendations were accepted by the Oscillatory and Transient Carbody consensus within the Task Force to Working Group and unanimously Acceleration Events approved by the full RSAC as the consider revisions to the requirements During route testing of the MARC–III for crossties, as members of the Task Committee’s recommendations to the FRA Administrator. Finding that the multi-level car at speeds up to 125 Force believed it was outside of their m.p.h. and at curving speeds producing assigned tasks. Nor was there any real recommendations help fulfill the agency’s regulatory goals, are soundly up to 5 inches of cant deficiency, discussion about revisions to the several short-duration, peak-to-peak requirements for ballast or other supported, and in accordance with policy and legal requirements, FRA has carbody lateral accelerations were sections in subpart G that currently do recorded that exceeded regulatory not distinguish requirements by class of adopted these recommendations in this final rule. thresholds but did not represent unsafe track. (See § 213.307 in the Section-by- guidance forces simultaneously Section Analysis, below, for further FRA notes that throughout the preamble discussion of this final rule, measured at the wheel-to-rail interface. discussion on this point.) FRA therefore However, repeated (sustained) carbody made clear that by not proposing FRA refers to comments, views, suggestions, or recommendations made lateral oscillatory accelerations and revisions to these sections in the NPRM, significant motions were measured on FRA did not mean to imply that these by members of the Task Force, Working Group, or full RSAC, as they are occasion at higher speeds in curves even other sections may not be subject to though peak-to-peak amplitudes did not revision in the future, such as through identified or contained in meeting minutes or other materials in the public exceed the thresholds. A truck a separate RSAC effort. Further, FRA component issue was identified as a invited comment on the need and docket. FRA does so to show the origin of certain issues and the nature of cause of the excessive accelerations and rationale for changes to other sections of thereafter corrected. discussions concerning those issues at subpart G not specifically proposed to To recognize and account for wider the Task Force, Working Group, and full be revised through the NPRM, noting variations in vehicle design, this final that based upon the comments received RSAC level. FRA believes this serves to rule divides the VTI acceleration limits and their significance to the changes illuminate factors it has weighed in into separate limits for passenger cars specifically proposed, FRA may making its regulatory decisions, as well from those for other vehicles, such as consider whether revisions to additional as the rationale for those decisions. conventional locomotives. In addition, requirements in subpart G are necessary IV. Technical Background new limits for sustained, carbody in this final rule. oscillatory accelerations have been A. Lessons Learned and Operational added to differentiate between single H. Development of the Final Rule Experience (transient) events and repeated FRA notified the public of its options Since the issuance of both the high- (sustained) oscillations. As a result, the to submit written comments on the speed Track Safety Standards in 1998 carbody transient acceleration limits for NPRM and to request a public, oral and the Passenger Equipment Safety single events, previously set hearing on the NPRM as well. No Standards in 1999, experience has been conservatively to control for both single request for a public hearing was gained in qualifying a number of and repeated oscillations, are now more received. However, a number of vehicles for high-speed and high cant specific and, as appropriate, relaxed. interested parties did submit written deficiency operations and in monitoring FRA believes that this added specificity comments to the docket in this subsequent performance in revenue in the rule will reduce or eliminate proceeding, and FRA considered all of service operation. These vehicles altogether the need for railroads to these comments in preparing the final include Amtrak’s Acela trainset; MTA’s provide clarification or perform rule. Specifically, written comments MARC–III multi-level passenger car; and additional analysis, or both, to were received from AAR, Amtrak, NJ Transit’s ALP–46 locomotive, Comet distinguish between transient and Bombardier, the European Union (EU), V car, PL–42AC locomotive, and multi- sustained oscillations following a Florida Department of Transportation level passenger car. Considerable data qualification test run. Based on the (FDOT), New Jersey Transit Corporation was gathered by testing these vehicles at small energy content associated with (NJ Transit), North Carolina Department speed over their intended service routes high-frequency acceleration events of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16058 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

the carbody, transient acceleration interior arrangements, or dimensions) removed) value be used rather than the peaks lasting less than 50 milliseconds that do not result in significant changes RMSm (root mean squared with mean are excluded from the carbody to their dynamic performance (i.e., are removed) value. acceleration limits. Other clarifying dynamically similar) be considered of Finally, placement of the truck frame changes include the addition of the same vehicle type for vehicle lateral accelerometer to detect truck minimum requirements for sampling qualification purposes. Provided that hunting has been more rigorously and filtering of the acceleration data. this similarity can be established to specified to be as near an axle as is These changes followed considerable FRA’s satisfaction, these vehicles are practicable. Analyses conducted by FRA research into the performance of not required to repeat full qualification have shown that when hunting motion existing vehicles during qualification testing of the vehicle type to which they (which is typically a combination of testing and revenue operation. Overall, belong, thereby saving the costs truck lateral motion and yaw) has a it was found that the carbody oscillatory associated with full testing. In other large truck yaw component, hunting is acceleration limits need not be as cases, however, the variations between best detected by placing an stringent to protect against events car parameters may warrant partial or accelerometer on the truck frame leading to vehicle or passenger safety full dynamic testing. For example, the located above an axle. FRA has found issues. approval process for NJ Transit’s Comet that an accelerometer placed in the V car to operate at speeds up to 100 middle of the truck frame will not Establish Consistent Requirements for m.p.h. exemplified the need for always provide early detection of truck High Cant Deficiency Operations for All clarification of whether vehicles similar hunting when yaw motion of the truck Track Classes (but not identical) to vehicles that have is large. Several issues related to operation at undergone full qualification testing higher cant deficiencies (higher speeds Revise Periodic Monitoring should be subjected to full qualification Requirements for Class 8 and 9 Track in curves) have also been addressed, testing themselves. NJ Transit had based particularly on route testing of the sought relief from the instrumented Based on collected data, and so that Acela trainsets on Amtrak’s Northeast wheelset testing required in § 213.345 the required inspection frequency better Corridor. In sharper curves, for which by stating that the Comet V car was reflects experienced degradation rates, cant deficiency was high but vehicle similar to the Comet IV car. The Comet the periodic vehicle/track interaction speeds were reflective of a lower track V car was represented to FRA to have monitoring frequency contained in class, it was found that stricter track truck and suspension components § 213.333 for operations at track Class 8 geometry limits were necessary, for the nearly identical to the Comet IV car and 9 speeds has been reduced from same track class, in order to provide an already in service and operating at 100- once per day to four times per week for equivalent margin of safety for m.p.h. speeds for many years. However, carbody accelerations, and twice within operations at higher cant deficiency. examination by FRA revealed enough 60 days for truck accelerations. In These stricter limits have been adopted differences between the vehicles to at addition, a clause has been added to in this final rule. Second, although the least warrant dynamic testing using allow the track owner or railroad Track Safety Standards have prescribed accelerometers on representative routes. operating the vehicle type subject to the limits on geometry variations existing in Results of the testing showed distinct monitoring to petition FRA, after a isolation, it was recognized that a behaviors between the cars and specified amount of time or mileage, to combination of track alinement (also provided additional data that was eliminate the truck accelerometer spelled ‘‘alignment’’ and literally meant necessary for qualifying the Comet V. monitoring requirement. Data gathered to indicate ‘‘a line’’) and surface has shown that these monitoring variations, none of which individually Refine Criteria for Detecting Truck requirements could be adjusted without amounts to a deviation from the Hunting materially diminishing operational Standards, may nonetheless result in During route testing of Acela trainsets, safety. In this regard, FRA notes that undesirable response as defined by the high-frequency lateral acceleration safety is also provided pursuant to VTI limits. This finding was significant oscillations of the coach truck frame § 238.427 in that truck acceleration because trains operating at high cant were detected by the test continues to be constantly monitored on deficiency increase the lateral force instrumentation in a mild curve at high each Tier II vehicle under the Passenger exerted on track during curving and, in speed. However, the onboard sensors, Equipment Safety Standards in order to many cases, may correspondingly installed per specification on every determine if hunting oscillations of the reduce the margin of safety associated truck, did not respond to these events. vehicle are occurring during revenue with vehicle response to combined track Based on these experiences, the truck operation. variations. Sections 213.65 and 213.332 lateral acceleration safety limit, used for have been added to the rule, as a result. the detection of truck hunting, has been B. Research and Computer Modeling Qualification of Amtrak’s conventional tightened from 0.4g to 0.3g and provides As a result of advancements made passenger equipment to operate at cant that the 0.3g value must be exceeded for over the last few decades, computer deficiencies up to 5 inches also more than 2 seconds for there to be an models of rail vehicles interacting with highlighted the need to ensure exceedance. Analyses conducted by track have become practical and reliable compatibility between the requirements FRA have shown that this change will tools for predicting the behavior and for low- (§ 213.57) and high-speed better help to identify the occurrences of safety of these vehicles under a variety (§ 213.329) cant deficiency operations; excessive truck hunting, while of conditions. These models can serve these requirements have been modified, excluding high-frequency, low- as reliable substitutes for performing accordingly. amplitude oscillations that do not actual, on-track testing, which otherwise require immediate attention. In may be more difficult—and likely more Streamline Testing Requirements for addition, to improve the process for costly—to perform than to model. Similar Vehicles analyzing data while vehicles are Models for such behavior typically This final rule provides that vehicles negotiating spiral track segments, the represent the vehicle body, wheelsets, with minor variations in their physical limit now requires that the RMSt (root truck frames, and other major vehicle properties (such as suspension, mass, mean squared with linear trend components as rigid bodies connected

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16059

with elastic and damping elements and acceptance testing, including examples attempt to control all possible include detailed representation of the of potential safety concerns. combinations. The figure shows that non-linear wheel/rail contact mechanics For purposes of this rulemaking, an without the addition of the combined (i.e., non-linear frictional contact forces extensive matrix of simulation studies defect limits in the upper right and between the wheels and rails modeled involving all four vehicle types was lower left quadrants, which effectively as functions of the relative velocities used to determine the amplitude of limit track geometry in the up-and-in between the wheel and rail contacts, track geometry alinement anomalies, and down-and-out cases, the single- i.e., creepages). The primary dynamic surface anomalies, and combined defect limits would otherwise permit input to these models is track surface and alinement anomalies that conditions that could cause the VTI irregularities, which can be created result in undesirable response. These safety criteria to be exceeded. For many analytically (such as versines, cusps, simulations were performed using two of these high-speed and high cant etc.) or based on actual measurements. coefficients of friction (0.1 and 0.5), two deficiency conditions, the net axle There are a number of industry codes analytical anomaly shapes (bump and lateral force safety criterion was found available with generally accepted ramp), and combinations of speed, to be the limiting safety condition. approaches for solving the equations of curvature, and superelevation to cover a motion describing the dynamic behavior range of cant deficiency. The results Figure 2 depicts an example of rail vehicles. These models require provided the basis for establishing the summarizing the modeling results of the accurate knowledge of vehicle revisions to the geometry limits adopted Acela power car on Class 7 track at 130 parameters, including the inertia in this final rule. For illustration m.p.h. and 9 inches of cant deficiency properties of each of the bodies as well purposes, two examples are provided of over isolated track alinement defects as the characteristics of the main results from simulation studies that having 124-foot wavelengths. Each suspension components and were performed for determining safe vertical bar represents the amplitude of connections. To obtain reliable amplitudes of track geometry: One the largest alinement perturbation that predictions, the models must also illustrates the effect of combined track will not cause an exceedance of one of consider the effects of suspension non- alinement and profile defects; the other the VTI safety criteria. Similar results linearities within the vehicles and in the illustrates isolated track alinement for other vehicles, speeds and cant wheel/rail contact mechanics, as well as defects. deficiencies, and defect wavelengths incorporate detailed characterization of Figure 1 depicts an example were created and reviewed. In addition, the track as input, including the range summarizing the modeling results of the similar results for this range of analysis of parameters and non-linearities Acela power car at 130 m.p.h. and 9 parameters (vehicles, speeds and cant encountered in service. inches of cant deficiency over deficiencies, and defect wavelengths) In order to develop revisions to the combined, 62-foot-wavelength defects. were created and reviewed using track geometry limits in the Track Safety The darker-shaded squares represent a isolated, surface geometry defects. Standards, several computer models of combination of track alinement and These example results show that, with rail vehicles have been used to assess surface perturbations where at least one two exceptions, the geometry limits in the response of vehicle designs to a of the VTI safety criteria adopted in this the 1998 Track Safety Standards have wide range of track conditions final rule is exceeded, and the solid, sufficiently protected against such corresponding to limiting conditions black-lined polygon represents the track exceedances under the modeled allowed for each class of track. geometry limits that have been adopted conditions. Specifically, the VTI limits Simulation studies have been performed in the final rule. Similar results for other for net axle lateral force and peak-to- using computer models of Amtrak’s vehicles, speeds and cant deficiencies, peak carbody lateral acceleration were AEM–7 locomotive, Acela power car, and defect wavelengths were created exceeded on track at the 124-foot, mid- Acela coach car, and Amfleet coach and reviewed. The track geometry limits chord offset (MCO) limit for alinement. equipment. In the time since the 1998 for the combined perturbations (solid The modeling showed this limit to be revisions to the track geometry limits, line) were developed following set too permissively for high cant which were largely based on models of consideration of all of these results. deficiency operations. Consequently, hypothetical, high-speed vehicles, Figure 1 displays how one example case FRA proposed to tighten this alinement models of the subsequently-introduced compares with these track geometry limit from 1.25 inches to 1.0 inch for Acela power car and coach car have limits. As shown, the combined Class 7 track operations above 5 inches been developed. In the case of the Acela perturbation limits address the most of cant deficiency to prevent unsafe power car, the model has proven severe combination conditions, though vehicle dynamic response. FRA has capable of reproducing a wide range of for computational simplicity and adopted this proposal in this final rule. vehicle responses observed during implementation purposes, they do not BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16060 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER13MR13.004 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16061

As specified in this final rule, track segment containing geometry parameters (that vary) include: Speed, simulations using computer models are perturbations representative of cant deficiency, gage, and wheel profile. now required during the vehicle minimally compliant track conditions Figure 3 depicts time traces of the qualification process as an important for the respective track class— percent of wheel unloading for the tool for the assessment of vehicle Minimally Compliant Analytical Track Acela coach in a simulated run over performance. These simulations are (or MCAT). MCAT is intended to be MCAT segments for analyzing high cant intended not only to augment on-track, used to qualify both new vehicles for deficiency curving performance at 160 instrumented performance assessments operation and vehicles previously m.p.h. In this example the most severe but also to provide a means for qualified (on other routes) for operation response occurs over the warp segment identifying vehicle dynamic over new routes. MCAT consists of nine of track. At 9 inches of cant deficiency performance issues prior to service to sections; each section is designed to test and a speed of 160 m.p.h., vehicle validate the suitability of a vehicle a vehicle’s performance in response to response exceeds the permitted limit for design for operation over its intended a specific type of perturbation (hunting a wheel to unload to less than 15 route. In order to evaluate safety perturbation, gage narrowing, gage percent of its static vertical wheel load performance as part of the vehicle widening, repeated and single surface for 5 or more continuous feet, as qualification process, simulations are perturbations, repeated and single provided in table of VTI safety limits in required using both a measured track alinement perturbations, short warp, § 213.333. Please see the Section-by- geometry segment representative of the and combined down-and-out Section Analysis for a further discussion full route, and an analytically defined perturbations). Typical simulation of MCAT.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER13MR13.005 16062 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

V. Discussion of Specific Comments and provide a level of ride comfort as well. network. These questions were intended Conclusions However, FRA encourages and expects to clarify FRA’s understanding of As noted above, FRA received written railroads to adopt their own internal, SNCF’s practices (recognizing that both comments in response to the NPRM stricter track maintenance policies to the track geometry standards used by from a number of interested parties. address other concerns such as ride SNCF, as well as the measurements and Most of the comments are discussed in comfort. Thus, FRA expects that a high- calculations used to evaluate the Section-by-Section Analysis or in speed rail system should normally compliance with its standards, are the Regulatory Impact and Notices operate well within the maximum implemented in a manner different from portion of this final rule directly with allowable track geometry safety limits. FRA’s standards) and gather any the provisions and statements to which As discussed above, to establish the specific information SNCF has to they specifically relate. Other comments safety limits proposed in the NPRM, indicate the need for track geometry apply more generally to the final rule as FRA conducted a set of engineering and limits stricter than those proposed in a whole, and FRA is discussing them vehicle/track dynamic interaction the NPRM. here. Please note that the order in which simulation studies, using a range of Having considered the comments and the comments are discussed in this representative vehicles (i.e., not supplemental response, FRA continues document, whether by issue or by developed for a particular vehicle type) to believe that the approach taken in commenter, is not intended to reflect to identify specific track geometry limits the significance of the comment raised that would provide for safety in the this rulemaking sets appropriate track or the standing of the commenter. envisioned speed ranges. These studies geometry limits and safely accounts for modeled the effects of specific track vehicle behavior in response to track A. EU and SNCF Comments on Track geometry variations (consisting of a full geometry conditions. Based on the Geometry Standards range of wavelengths likely to affect information available to FRA, FRA does FRA received comments from both vehicle dynamics) on the safe response not find that more stringent track the EU and SNCF expressing concerns of the candidate vehicles. In addition, geometry limits are necessary for the that, in general, the proposed revisions comparisons were made between the purposes of safety. In this regard, to the Track Safety Standards would proposed limits derived from these SNCF’s supplemental response noted permit significantly larger track modeling results and the track geometry inconsistencies with FRA’s initial geometry variations than equivalent limits used by SNCF, to assess their understanding of SNCF limits which, European limits. According to these validity. These comparisons were made when taken into account, indicate that commenters, such larger track geometry for track Classes 6 through 9. FRA’s geometry limits actually provide variations could compromise the safety FRA sought clarification from SNCF tighter controls on alignment variations. of high-speed operations or have an on its comments on the NPRM, as noted Moreover, SNCF stated that it was about impact on the achievable comfort values above. FRA prepared a brief to start research to integrate vehicle presentation outlining the general in high-speed service, or both. dynamics more fully into its own track FRA’s track geometry standards are approach it followed in proposing the geometry limits, and expressed interest safety standards and specify minimum NPRM’s safety limits, using the Class 9 in SNCF and FRA combining their safety requirements (i.e., maximum limits as a specific example. This allowable track geometry variations that presentation was sent to SNCF along experience to share information and do not compromise safety). The with three questions related to track examine issues together. FRA welcomes standards do not address ride comfort, geometry and safety criteria currently in the opportunity for such cooperation except to the extent that they inherently use in the French high-speed rail and a dialogue with SCNF is ongoing.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER13MR13.006 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16063

B. Wheel Unloading From Wind on the 8.6-degree roll requirement for this VI. Section-by-Section Analysis Superelevated Curves stationary condition. However, FRA is Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part Several comments were raised on not aware of passenger rail equipment 213, Track Safety Standards FRA’s proposal in §§ 213.57(b) and currently in service in the United States 213.329(b) of the NPRM that all vehicles that would not have met the proposal, Subpart A—General requiring qualification of the vehicle/ and the proposal was therefore Section 213.1 Scope of Part principally intended to ensure that new track system under § 213.345 This section was amended in the 1998 passenger rail equipment designs for demonstrate that when stopped on a Track Safety Standards final rule to high-speed or high cant deficiency curve having a maximum uniform distinguish the applicability of subpart elevation of 7 inches, no wheel unloads operation would continue to address G from that of subparts A through F, as to a value less than 50 percent of its this wheel unloading concern. In this a result of subpart G’s addition to this static weight on level track. This regard, FRA had suggested in the Task part by that final rule. Subpart G applies proposed modification to the 1998 Force to limit the proposal only to new to track over which trains operate at Track Safety Standards was intended to passenger cars—focusing the provisions speeds exceeding those permitted for address potential vehicle rollover and on new passenger cars (or new Class 5 track, which supports maximum passenger safety issues from side-wind passenger car types), particularly those speeds of 80 m.p.h. for freight trains and loading should a vehicle be stopped or with higher centers of gravity, to ensure 90 m.p.h. for passenger trains. Subpart traveling at very low speeds on highly that they do not excessively unload G was intended to be comprehensive, so superelevated curves, helping to prevent from wind when stationary on highly that a railroad operating at speeds above complete unloading of the wheels on superelevated curves. Nevertheless, the Class 5 maximum speeds may refer to the high (elevated) rail and incipient Task Force could not reach agreement subpart G for all of the substantive track rollover. on criteria by which to evaluate such safety requirements for high-speed rail In commenting on this proposal, excessive unloading. FRA understood and need refer to the sections of the Bombardier raised concern that only from the Task Force that the same Track Safety Standards applicable to vehicles seeking qualification under criteria may not be appropriate for all lower-speed operations only for general § 213.345 would be subject to the railroads and would depend on specific provisions, i.e., § 213.1 (Scope), § 213.3 proposed requirement, even though the operating characteristics and the (Application), and § 213.15 (Penalties). underlying safety issue relates to all operating environment (e.g, the criteria At the same time, railroads that do not vehicle types operating at any speed and should account for the fact that the risk operate at speeds in excess of the any cant deficiency—not just vehicles is higher in high-wind regions). maximum Class 5 speeds need not seeking qualification under § 213.345. Ultimately, the Task Force did not directly refer to subpart G at all. Bombardier stated that a similar believe it necessary to specify a general FRA is maintaining this general provision then contained in §§ 213.57 FRA standard by which to determine structure of part 213 for ease of use, and and 213.329 had been proposed to be whether the equipment poses a rollover- the requirements of subpart G continue removed for this reason. Bombardier risk due to wind loading when not to apply directly to operations at also raised concern as to the effect the stationary on a superelevated curve. Class 1 through 5 track speeds. proposal would have on existing, However, in adding new requirements qualified multi-level passenger FRA does make clear in this final rule governing high cant deficiency equipment. Amtrak commented that that for all equipment operating at cant operations for track Classes 1 through 5, only high-speed equipment would in deficiencies above 3 inches, certain sections of subparts C and D effect be subject to the proposal, and yet §§ 213.57(d) and 213.329(d) continue to refer railroads operating at those high the proposal had not been justified for require that when positioned on track cant deficiencies to specific sections of any equipment, be it high-speed, with a uniform superelevation equal to subpart G. In such circumstances, only conventional, or freight. NCDOT also the proposed cant deficiency, no wheel the specifically-referenced section(s) of commented that if rollover from side- of the vehicle may unload to a value less subpart G apply, and only as provided. wind loading when stopped on a than 60 percent of its static value on As discussed in this Section-by-Section superelevated curve is a safety issue, perfectly level track. This 60-percent Analysis, below, the addition of then the proposal should apply to either limit retains an allowance for the effects requirements for high cant deficiency all vehicles, regardless of operating of wind loading on the risk of operations over lower-speed track speed or cant deficiency, or none. Like equipment rollover at the proposed cant classes in this final rule permits Bombardier, NCDOT noted concern that deficiency. Please see the discussion of railroads to operate at higher cant the proposal could affect the §§ 213.57(d) and 213.329(d) in the deficiencies over these track classes procurement and qualification of bi- Section-by-Section Analysis, below. without requiring a waiver. Prior to this level passenger equipment. Nonetheless, FRA notes that the change in the regulation, railroads had After extensive discussion within the underlying safety issue of equipment to petition FRA for approval by waiver Task Force in response to these rollover from wind loading when to operate at the higher cant deficiencies comments, FRA has decided not to stationary on a superelevated curve is over the lower-speed track classes. adopt the proposal. The proposal would not otherwise addressed in the FRA believes that the approach in this have effectively superseded the regulations. Consequently, in the rulemaking minimizes the addition of requirements in §§ 213.57 and 213.329 absence of a specific Federal standard, detailed requirements for high cant for vehicles seeking qualification under FRA expects that each railroad will deficiency operations in subparts C and § 213.345, in that, for a vehicle stopped identify appropriate safety criteria by D. Moreover, with one exception noted or traveling at very low speeds on a which to evaluate the risk of equipment below, FRA has not found it necessary highly superelevated curve, it would rollover from wind loading when to amend this section on the scope of have lowered the 60-percent unloading stationary on a superelevated curve, and this part, because only certain limit to 50 percent, since dynamic then make the determination that the requirements of subpart G apply to effects on wheel unloading would not risk has been safely addressed using lower-speed track classes and only be a factor, and would have eliminated those criteria. indirectly for high cant deficiency

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16064 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

operations by cross-referencing the portions of the Track Safety Standards. the new requirements. FRA has further requirements. FRA believes that this Therefore, FRA explained in the NPRM considered the preparations that may be approach is consistent with the that this final rule needs to ensure that necessary, including changes to organization of this part; for example, both the new and revised sections operating, inspection, and maintenance the 1998 Track Safety Standards final appropriately integrate with those practices, and believes that they can be rule revised § 213.57 to reference sections of this part that are not completed (and implemented) within subpart G for when a track owner or amended, and that appropriate time is this period. In particular, FRA believes railroad operating above Class 5 track provided to phase-in the new and that it should take no more than a speeds requests approval to operate at amended sections. FRA noted that, in month of labor hours to prepare all of greater than 4 inches of cant deficiency general, the Task Force recommended a railroad’s automated, vehicle-based on curves in Class 1 through 5 track that both new and revised sections inspection systems and software to contiguous to the high-speed track. See become applicable one year after the measure and process the necessary 63 FR 33992, 34033. date the final rule is published, to allow parameters to determine compliance In the NPRM, FRA invited both the track owner or operating railroad, or with this rule, based on the relatively comment on the proposal and both, sufficient time to prepare for and limited changes to the existing safety suggestions for any alternative approach adjust to meeting the new requirements. limits and the number of new for maintaining the ease of use of this Examples of such adjustments may parameters that must be calculated. FRA part, including whether the subpart include changes to operating, also notes that the 1998 Track Safety headings should be modified to make inspection, or maintenance practices, Standards final rule took effect 90 days their application clearer to the rail such as for compliance with §§ 213.57, after its publication, see 63 FR 33991– operations they address, and, if so, in 213.329, 213.332, 213.333 and 213.345, 33992, although certain provisions were what way(s). FRA did receive a as amended. made applicable at a later date. comment from the AAR suggesting that FRA also explained that it was the phrase ‘‘Except as provided in considering providing the track owner Section 213.7 Designation of Qualified section 213.65,’’ be added at the or operating railroad the option of Persons to Supervise Certain Renewals beginning of the second sentence in electing to comply sooner with the new and Inspect Track paragraph (a) of this section. The AAR and amended requirements, upon This section recognizes that work on noted that the second sentence in written notification to FRA. FRA noted or about a track structure supporting paragraph (a) provided that the that such a request for earlier heavy freight trains or passenger requirements in part 213 apply to application of the new and amended operations, or both, demands the specific track conditions ‘‘in isolation,’’ requirements would indicate the track highest awareness of employees of the while this rulemaking is adding new owner’s or railroad’s readiness and need to perform their work properly. At § 213.65 to address ‘‘combined’’ track ability to comply with all of the new the same time, the wording of this alinement and surface deviations. and amended requirements—not just section has literally required that each Therefore, the AAR recommended certain of those requirements. Because individual designated to perform such adding the introductory text to make of the interrelationship of the work know and understand the § 213.1 consistent with new § 213.65. amendments, FRA believes that requirements of this part, detect This final rule adopts the AAR’s virtually all of them need to apply deviations from those requirements, and recommendation to make this section simultaneously to maintain their prescribe appropriate remedial action to consistent with the changes to this part. integrity. FRA invited comment on correct or safely compensate for those Yet, in this regard, more than § 213.65 formalizing this approach for this final deviations, regardless whether that is being added that addresses conditions rule; however, no specific comment was knowledge, understanding, and ability existing in combination. For example, received. with respect to all of this part were § 213.332 is also being added in subpart In preparing the final rule, FRA necessary for that individual to perform G to address combined track alinement decided that the more appropriate way his or her duties. While qualified and surface deviations for the higher- to implement the rule’s requirements is persons designated under this section speed track classes, and the MCAT to make the rule effective 120 days after have not been directly required to know, qualification requirements in new its publication, rather than generally understand, or apply requirements Appendix D address ‘‘combined make the revisions applicable one year applicable only to higher-speed track perturbation.’’ As a result, the final rule after publication. While FRA did note in classes in subpart G (pursuant to modifies paragraph (a) by adding the the NPRM that it intended the final rule § 213.1(b)), the addition of vehicle introductory words ‘‘In general’’ at the to become effective 60 days after its qualification and testing requirements beginning of the second sentence. While publication, FRA also explained that for high cant deficiency operations in the requirements in this part do apply, since there cannot be two different lower-speed track classes, in particular, in general, to track conditions existing sections of the same CFR unit in effect adds a level of complexity that may be in isolation, the provisions discussed under the same section heading, a outside the purview of track foremen above are not focused exclusively on temporary appendix was being and inspectors in fulfilling their duties. track conditions in isolation, and this considered to separate revised sections As a result, the Task Force modification preserves flexibility for from their former provisions to allow for recommended and FRA agrees that this encompassing these and other similar continued compliance with those rule add text clarifying that the provisions without specifically former sections for a track owner or requirements for a person to be qualified enumerating them. The Task Force, railroad not electing to comply sooner under this section concern those including the AAR, concurred with this with all of the revised sections of part portions of this part necessary for the modification to the final rule. 213. By lengthening the effective date of performance of that person’s duties. As a separate matter, FRA noted that the final rule so that all of the changes This section continues to require that a it was not proposing to revise and re- go into effect simultaneously but at a person designated under it possess the issue the Track Safety Standards in full, later time, the rule is clearer and knowledge, understanding, and ability as was done in the 1998 final rule. provides additional time in which to necessary to supervise the restoration Instead, FRA is amending only certain make preparations for complying with and renewal of track, or to perform

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16065

inspections of track, or both, for which deficiency operation in track Classes 1 deviation geometry limits for operations he or she is responsible. Yet, adding the through 5. Continuing with the example above 5 inches of cant deficiency on text makes clear that the person is not of § 213.55, should track curvature be no curved track, and includes both 31-foot required to know or understand specific greater than 0.25 degree, the limits in and 62-foot MCO limits. These limits requirements of this part not necessary § 213.55(a) for tangent track apply. For are based on the results of simulation to the fulfillment of that person’s duties. practical consideration in the way studies to determine the safe amplitudes In this regard, the AAR commented that curvature is determined, and based on of track geometry alinement variations. these changes are particularly needed in dynamic simulations of VTI See Technical Background, Section light of the adoption of high cant performance by and experience with IV.B, above. FRA believes that adding deficiency requirements in this final Acela trainsets on Amtrak’s Northeast the track geometry limits in paragraph rule. FRA does not believe that safety Corridor, a 0.25-degree (15-minute) (b) is necessary to provide an equivalent will be in any way diminished by these curvature was chosen as this margin of safety for operations at higher changes, and they were supported by demarcation. This same reasoning cant deficiency. FRA also notes that, as the Task Force. applies to the inclusion of this provision proposed, the requirements for track Classes 1 and 2 in paragraph (b) Section 213.14 Application of for the proper application of track reference footnote 2 of paragraph (b), Requirements to Curved Track geometry limits not only in § 213.55, but also in §§ 213.63, 213.327 and 213.331, which provides that restraining rails or This is a new section that is being as specifically cited by Bombardier. other systems may be required for added to help define the application of Therefore, the Task Force recommended derailment prevention. requirements for curved track, following applying this provision to each of these As provided in § 213.14, limits for publication of and comment on the sections. curved track in paragraph (b) apply only NPRM. Rather than define what is Additionally, in preparing the final to track having a curvature greater than meant by curved track in each section rule FRA noted that since curved track 0.25 degree. Consequently, it is where requirements for curved track limits apply elsewhere in this part, unnecessary to add proposed footnote 5, appear, FRA believes it more whether or not high cant deficiency which would have contained the same appropriate to provide the definition operations are conducted over the track, instruction. Please see § 213.14 for a full here for all of part 213. This new section this provision for determining when to discussion of the application of curved states that, unless otherwise provided in apply curved track limits could apply to track limits. this part, requirements specified for those sections as well. FRA examined curved track apply only to track having Section 213.57 Curves; Elevation and all of part 213 and found it appropriate Speed Limitations a curvature greater than 0.25 degree. to apply this provision generally This final rule makes substantial This definition is intended to apply in throughout the entirety of the part, changes to this section, which specifies all sections where limits for curved unless otherwise specified. The Task track are specified, unless otherwise the requirements for safe curving speeds Force concurred with this addition, but provided. in track Classes 1 through 5. Notably, nevertheless recommended that FRA As further explanation, in its changes have been made to the comments on the NPRM Bombardier restate this section in subpart G to make qualification requirements and approval observed that the track geometry clear that it applies together with the procedures for vehicles intended to alinement limits proposed in § 213.55(b) other provisions governing the high- operate at more than 3 inches of cant were those recommended by the Task speed track classes. FRA has therefore deficiency. For consistency with the Force, except for what was proposed as added an identical provision in subpart higher speed standards in subpart G, footnote 5—i.e., that curved track limits G; please see the discussion of cant deficiency is no longer limited to be applied only when track curvature is § 213.313. FRA believes that these new a maximum of 4 inches in track Classes greater than 0.25 degree. See 75 FR sections will help to ensure that curved 1 through 5. Prior to this change, this 25957. Bombardier stated that this track limits are applied in a uniform and section specified qualification proposed footnote was not included in proper manner. requirements for vehicles intended to the rule text recommended by the Task Subpart C—Track Geometry operate only up to 4 inches of cant Force and that FRA did not provide a deficiency on track Classes 1 through 5 technical justification for its inclusion Section 213.55—Track Alinement unless the track was contiguous to a in the proposed rule. Bombardier This section specifies the maximum higher-speed track. Consequently, believed that this proposed footnote alinement deviations allowed for vehicles intended to operate at more would only be applicable at very high tangent and curved track in Classes 1 than 4 inches of cant deficiency on speeds and would therefore be through 5. Alinement is the localized routes not contiguous to a higher-speed irrelevant. Consequently, Bombardier variation in curvature of each rail. On track were only permitted to operate recommended the proposed footnote’s tangent track, the intended curvature is under a waiver in accordance with part deletion in § 213.55(b), as well as in the zero, and thus the alinement is 211 of this chapter. This section now following sections regarding application measured as the variation or deviation includes procedures for such vehicles to of curved track limits: §§ 213.63(b), from zero. In a curve, the alinement is operate safely at higher cant deficiencies 213.327(b) and (c), and 213.331(a) and measured as the variation or deviation without the necessity of obtaining a (b). from the ‘‘uniform’’ alinement over a waiver. In discussing the proposed footnote specified distance. As proposed, the Both portions of paragraph (a) are with the Task Force, the Task Force section heading has been modified so revised; the first portion is revised as recognized that the primary intent was that it reads ‘‘Track alinement,’’ instead proposed without any comment. The to provide a definitive demarcation of of ‘‘Alinement,’’ for clarity. maximum elevation of the outside rail curved track from tangent track so that The former track alinement limits in of a curve may not be more than 8 track inspectors and automated track this section have been redesignated as inches on track Classes 1 and 2, and 7 geometry measurement systems can paragraph (a) and remain unchanged. inches on track Classes 3 through 5. properly apply the more stringent track Paragraph (b) has been added as a new Formerly, the provision had been stated geometry limits required for high cant provision containing tighter, single- in terms of the maximum crosslevel of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16066 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

the outside rail, with the same limits. As reverse elevation has been designed into outsides of superelevated curves. crosslevel is a function of elevation curves. Specifically, NJ Transit cited According to the AAR, there is no differences between two rails, and is switches in interlockings at several realistic alternative to such designs, and specifically addressed by other junctions such as its Roseville Avenue they have been used for over a century. provisions of this rule, specifically Interlocking, potentially impacting 65 The AAR also cited the use of reverse § 213.63, this clarification is intended to daily trains destined to and from the superelevation on industrial or other focus the provision on the maximum Montclair Line; Amtrak’s Hunter tracks where there is a hard pull around allowable elevation of a single rail. Interlocking, potentially impacting 53 sharp curves and reverse elevation is Numerous comments were received daily NJ Transit trains destined to and used to prevent ‘‘stringlining’’ on FRA’s proposal concerning the from the Raritan Valley Line; its Far derailments. The AAR maintained that second portion of paragraph (a), Hills Interlocking, potentially impacting FRA incorrectly asserted in the NPRM however, to restrict configuring track so 49 daily NJ Transit Gladstone Line that § 213.63 is intended to address only that the outside rail of a curve is trains; and other possible locations at those changes that occur ‘‘through designed to be lower than the inside rail junctions on the Northeast Corridor that actual use,’’ stating that § 213.63 clearly while allowing for a deviation up to the would be potentially impacted. NJ is intended to address situations, as limits provided in § 213.63. In issuing Transit believed that future interlocking discussed above, that occur at the the NPRM, FRA noted that the Task reconfigurations could also be affected if design stage as well. Nor did the AAR Force had recommended removing this the physical characteristics preclude believe there to be a conflict between portion of paragraph (a), which formerly even the temporary location of a turnout §§ 213.57(a) and 213.63. The AAR stated stated that ‘‘[e]xcept as provided in in a curve that might involve reverse that § 213.57(a) addresses the general § 213.63, the outside rail of a curve may elevation, and therefore requested that rule that the outside of the rail may not not be lower than the inside rail.’’ the proposal not be adopted. be lower than the inside of the rail, Concern had been raised in the Task Likewise, Amtrak objected to the while § 213.63 addresses situations Force that this statement potentially proposal, believing that it would where the general rule does not apply. conflicted with the limits in § 213.63 for represent a fundamental restructuring of Noting that the proposed change was ‘‘the deviation from * * * reverse basic track design and geometry tenets not part of the Task Force’s consensus crosslevel elevation on curves.’’ and that implementation of the on the proposed rule, the AAR Nonetheless, FRA had believed that proposed language would have recommended that FRA either delete the these provisions complemented each enormous consequences for rail service second sentence in paragraph (a) or other—rather than conflict—addressing (both passenger and freight) on the retain the original wording in the both the designed layout of a curve and Northeast Corridor. Amtrak noted that regulation. deviations from that layout through there are more than 77 locations on the After considering the comments on actual use. In the NPRM, FRA stated Northeast Corridor between the proposal and discussing them with that the requirement in paragraph (a) Washington, Boston, and Harrisburg the Task Force, FRA is modifying the was intended to be a design restriction where reverse elevation exists in track rule to state that the outside rail of a against configuring track so that the by design. According to Amtrak, in the curve may not be lower than the inside outside rail of a curve is lower than the majority of these locations, the design rail by design, except when engineered inside rail, while the limits at issue in has been in service for more than 100 to address specific track or operating § 213.63 were to govern local deviations years without causing any safety issues. conditions, and that the limits in from uniform elevation—i.e., from the Amtrak raised concern that compliance § 213.63 apply in all cases. FRA designed elevation—that occur as a with the rule as proposed would continues to believe that the former rule result of changes in conditions. engender myriad problems, such as text could give the mistaken impression However, as discussed below, FRA forcing it to take large sections of the that it is appropriate to design reverse recognizes that its proposal should have Northeast Corridor out of service that elevation into curves as the nominal been more complete, and FRA is contain curves with reverse elevation by condition for all curves. Nonetheless, modifying the final rule based on the design. Amtrak cited the example of the FRA appreciates the comments raised, comments received. River Interlocking north of Baltimore noting that reverse elevation is designed In commenting on the NPRM, SEPTA that would need to be taken out of into certain curves both out of necessity noted that there are at least two service, inhibiting the Norfolk Southern and for safety reasons. FRA did not situations when it is desirable to Railway Company’s access to the Port of intend its proposal to nullify such incorporate minimal reverse elevation Baltimore. Amtrak stated that engineering design. As modified, the by design: (1) In grade crossings in reconstructing some or all of the rule text addresses both the concerns which the roadway profile is opposed to existing reverse-elevated curves would raised by FRA and those raised by the the desired track elevation; and (2) in be a massive, time-consuming and commenters, and the Task Force special trackwork where a turnout may prohibitively expensive undertaking concurred with the revision. be located in a slight curve which is that would take years to implement and As explained in the discussion of opposite the turnout curve. SEPTA cost in excess of $200 million. specific comments and conclusions stated that in these situations The AAR also objected to the section of the preamble, above, what incorporating reverse elevation may be proposal, believing that it resulted from was proposed as paragraph (b) is not desired to minimize the potential a misunderstanding as to when it is included in this final rule. Please see highway hazard in a grade crossing and appropriate for the outside rail to be Wheel Unloading from Wind on properly accommodate connections to lower than the inside rail (for track Superelevated Curves, Section V.B., for sidings and other facilities. Accordingly, Classes 5 and below). The AAR noted an explanation of FRA’s treatment of SEPTA believed that criteria should be that there are times when, by design, the that proposal, as well as of paragraph developed to permit a minimal amount outside rail must be lower than the (d), below. Instead, what was proposed of reverse superelevation by design. inside rail. For example, the AAR cited as paragraph (c) is designated as NJ Transit also commented that the that at thousands of mainline locations paragraph (b) in this final rule. proposal would impact a significant the outside rail is lower than the inside As proposed, the Vmax formula in number of switches in its system where rail where turnouts come off the paragraph (b) determines the maximum

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16067

allowable posted timetable operating the RSAC consensus in proposing to standing (stationary) on track with a speed for curved track based on the change the way elevation is calculated. uniform superelevation equal to the qualified cant deficiency (inches of Further, the AAR did not find proposed cant deficiency. Consequently, unbalance), Eu, for the vehicle type. This persuasive FRA’s reliance on the the rule no longer imposes a 6-inch final rule also amends paragraph (b) to Compliance Manual as a justification for superelevation static lean requirement reference a new footnote 2 to permit the changing the requirement, stating that generally; rather, the amount of vehicle type to operate at the cant the Compliance Manual is inconsistent superelevation is dependent on the deficiency for which it is approved, Eu, with the rule text. In discussing these proposed cant deficiency. For example, plus 1 inch, if the actual elevation of the comments with the Task Force, the Task if the proposed cant deficiency is 5 outside rail, Ea, and the degree of track Force agreed that the proposed footnote inches, the superelevation used for curvature, D, change as a result of track be adopted in the final rule. While FRA demonstrating compliance with this degradation. As modified, this stated in the NPRM that it was the paragraph is also 5 inches. paragraph is intended to provide a consensus of the Task Force to clarify The requirements in paragraph (d) tolerance to account for the effects of footnote 1, FRA recognizes that there may be met by either static or dynamic local crosslevel or curvature conditions was no such explicit consensus, as the testing. In either case, the vehicle type on Vmax that may result in the actual AAR noted. Nevertheless, FRA believes must be tested in a ready-for-service cant deficiency exceeding the cant that this clarification to footnote 1 does condition. In consultation with the Task deficiency approved for the equipment, make the footnote more consistent with Force, FRA is clarifying that the vehicle i.e., the actual operating speed may the manner in which the rule is type be tested in a ready-for-service exceed the maximum allowable posted intended to be applied, and it is not condition, i.e., in the same vehicle/track timetable operating speed. Without this intended to add any requirement. In performance condition in which it tolerance, these track conditions could calculating elevation, 10 measurements would be in passenger service. At the generate a limiting speed exception, and are taken from the point of concern—5 same time, FRA is clarifying paragraph some railroads have adopted the on each side—so that 11 points are (e), below, so that the load condition approach of reducing the cant actually averaged, given that the point under which testing is performed is deficiency of the vehicle in order to of concern is included in the calculated included in the description of the test avoid these exceptions. FRA believes average. The AAR did not oppose procedure. For example, the vehicle that this 1-inch tolerance is supported adoption of this clarification after the type may or may not be loaded to by operational experience and Task Force discussion. simulate passengers on board, and this complemented by related standards Former footnote 2 has been information would be necessary for a acting to mitigate safety concerns. For redesignated as footnote 3 without complete evaluation of the vehicle’s instance, the Vmax formula is not substantive change. performance. intended to replace FRA’s track Paragraph (c), proposed as paragraph As noted, the static lean test limits the geometry limits, which more clearly (d) in the NPRM, provides that all vertical wheel load remaining on the focus on individual track irregularities vehicle types are considered qualified raised wheels to no less than 60 percent with shorter wavelengths. These track for up to 3 inches of cant deficiency, as of their static level values and limits the geometry limits apply independently allowed by the former rule. roll of a passenger carbody to 8.6 and act independently to limit the Paragraph (d), proposed as paragraph degrees with respect to the horizontal, maximum allowable speed for a track (e) in the NPRM, is being modified to when the vehicle is standing on track segment based on the condition of the specify the requirements for vehicle with superelevation equal to the track. qualification over track with more than proposed cant deficiency. The dynamic FRA noted in the NPRM that it was 3 inches of cant deficiency. Prior to this test limits the steady-state vertical the consensus of the Task Force to modification, ‘‘static lean’’ qualification wheel load remaining on the low rail clarify footnote 1 to state, in part, that requirements were specified for vehicles wheels to no less than 60 percent of actual elevation, Ea, for each 155-foot intended to operate up to an allowable their static level values and limits the track segment in the body of a curve is 4 inches of cant deficiency on track lateral acceleration in a passenger car to determined by averaging the elevation Classes 1 through 5. These requirements 0.15g steady-state, when the vehicle for 11 points through the segment at limited the carbody roll to 5.7 degrees operates through a curve at the 15.5-foot spacing—instead of for 10 with respect to the horizontal when the proposed cant deficiency. (Please note points, as was stated in the original vehicle was standing on track with 4 that steady-state, carbody lateral footnote. FRA explained that the Track inches of superelevation, and limited acceleration, i.e., the tangential force Safety Standards Compliance Manual the vertical wheel load remaining on the pulling passengers to one side of the (Compliance Manual) provides that the raised wheels to no less than 60 percent carbody when traveling through a curve ‘‘actual elevation and curvature to be of their static level values and carbody at higher than the balance speed, should used in the [Vmax] formula are roll to no more than 8.6 degrees with not be confused with sustained, carbody determined by averaging the elevation respect to the horizontal when the lateral oscillatory accelerations, i.e., and curvature for 10 points, including vehicle was standing (stationary) on continuous side-to-side oscillations of the point of concern for a total of 11, track with 6 inches of superelevation. In the carbody in response to track through the segment at 15.5-[foot] the final rule, cant deficiency is no conditions, whether on curved or station spacing.’’ See the guidance on longer limited to a maximum of 4 inches tangent track.) This 0.15g steady-state § 213.57 provided in Chapter 5 of the in track Classes 1 through 5. The revised lateral acceleration limit in the dynamic Manual, which is available on FRA’s requirements, consistent with the test is intended to provide consistency Web site (www.fra.dot.gov). FRA higher-speed standards in § 213.329, with the 8.6-degree roll limit in the therefore believes that this clarification limit the vertical wheel load remaining static lean test, in that it corresponds to to footnote 1 makes the footnote more on the raised wheels to no less than 60 the lateral acceleration a passenger consistent with the manner in which the percent of their static level values and would experience in a standing vehicle rule is intended to be applied. limit carbody roll for passenger cars to whose carbody is at a roll angle of 8.6 In its comments on the NPRM, the no more than 8.6 degrees with respect degrees with respect to the horizontal. AAR believed that FRA departed from to the horizontal when the vehicle is The former 5.7-degree roll limit, which

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16068 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

limited steady-state, carbody lateral on curved track has a direct effect on FRA notes that the less stringent acceleration to 0.1g, has been removed. steady-state, carbody lateral steady-state, carbody lateral acceleration Measurements and supplemental acceleration. For example, a vehicle limit and carbody roll angle limit research have indicated that a steady- having a completely rigid suspension adopted in this final rule will minimize state, carbody lateral acceleration limit system (S = 0) would have no carbody both the need to equip vehicles with tilt of 0.15g is considered to be the roll and could operate without a tilt systems at higher cant deficiencies and maximum, steady-state lateral system at a cant deficiency as high as 9 the costs associated with such features, acceleration above which jolts from inches, at which point the steady-state, as well. Moreover, by facilitating higher vehicle dynamic response to track carbody lateral acceleration would be cant deficiency operations, savings may deviations can present a hazard to 0.15g, which would correlate to an 8.6- also result from shortened trip times. passenger safety. While other FRA degree roll angle between the floor and These savings may be particularly vehicle/track interaction safety criteria the horizontal when the vehicle is beneficial to passenger operations in principally address external safety standing on track with 9 inches of emerging high-speed rail corridors, hazards that may cause a derailment, superelevation. The suspension enabling faster operations through such as damage to track structure and coefficient ‘‘S’’ is the ratio of the roll curves. other conditions at the wheel/rail angle of the carbody on its suspension Of course, any such savings should interface, the steady-state, carbody (measured relative to the inclination of not come at the expense of safety, and lateral acceleration limit specifically the track) to the cant angle of the track FRA has adopted additional track addresses the safety of the interior (measured relative to the horizontal) for geometry requirements for operations occupant environment. For comparison a stationary vehicle standing on a track above 5 inches of cant deficiency, purposes, it is notable that the with superelevation. A suspension whether or not the vehicles are International Union of Railways (UIC) coefficient of 0 is theoretical but neither equipped with tilt systems. These Code 518, Testing and Approval of practical nor desirable, because of the additional track geometry requirements Railway Vehicles from the Point of View need for flexibility in the suspension were developed to control for of Their Dynamic Behaviour—Safety— system to handle track conditions and undesirable vehicle response to track Track Fatigue—Ride Quality, Ed. 4 provide for occupant comfort and safety. conditions that could pose derailment (2009), has adopted a steady-state, Assuming that a car has some flexibility concerns. Nonetheless, the VTI limits on carbody lateral acceleration limit of in its suspension system, say S = 0.3, the transient accelerations may need to be 0.15g. FRA does recognize that making car could operate without a tilt system stricter when combined with higher a comparison with such a specific limit at a cant deficiency as high as steady-state lateral acceleration, to in another body of standards needs to approximately 7 inches, at which point address passenger ride safety concerns. take into account what related limits are the steady-state, carbody lateral Additional research regarding passenger provided in the compared standards and acceleration would be 0.15g, which response to vibration is needed to what the nature of the operating would correlate to an 8.6-degree roll establish this relationship and model environment is to which the compared angle between the floor and the this effect. While the tighter geometry standards apply. FRA therefore invited horizontal when the vehicle is standing limits at high cant deficiency that have comment whether such a comparison is on track with 7 inches of been added in this final rule were not appropriate here—whether, for example, superelevation. To operate at higher specifically developed to address such concerns, they may help to control there are enhanced or additional cant deficiencies and not exceed the vehicle/track safety limits that apply to transient, carbody acceleration events limits, the vehicle would need to be European operations, either through that could pose ride safety concerns for equipped with a tilt system so that the industry practice or governing passengers subjected to higher steady- floor actively tilts to compensate for the standards, or both. state lateral accelerations. These forces that would otherwise cause the In their comments on the NPRM, additional track geometry requirements limits to be exceeded. SNCF responded that, concerning apply only to operations above 5 inches curves and cant deficiency design, the Under the former FRA requirements, of cant deficiency, where steady-state, limit of 0.15g for steady-state, carbody using the above examples, a vehicle carbody lateral acceleration may lateral acceleration is justified. SNCF having a completely rigid suspension approach 0.15g for typical vehicle stated that this value is usually system (S = 0) could operate without a designs. In this regard, during Task considered a comfort limit for curve tilt system at a cant deficiency no higher Force discussions, Amtrak stated that design and is the limit value accepted than 6 inches, at which point the Amfleet equipment has been operating for passenger cars. SNCF further noted steady-state, carbody lateral acceleration at up to 5 inches of cant deficiency that for freight cars the accepted limit is would be 0.1g, which would correlate to (with approximately 0.13g steady-state, 0.13g, and that, in European rules, the a 5.7-degree roll angle between the floor carbody lateral acceleration levels) 0.15g value corresponds to an and the horizontal when the vehicle is without resulting in passenger ride exceptional value of cant deficiency, standing on track with 6 inches of safety issues. FRA is also not aware of while the recommended value is about superelevation. Assuming that a vehicle any general safety issue involving 0.14g. has some flexibility in its suspension passengers losing their balance and FRA notes that increasing the steady- system, again say S = 0.3, the vehicle falling due specifically to excessive state, carbody lateral acceleration limit could operate without a tilt system at a steady-state, carbody lateral acceleration from 0.1g to 0.15g allows for operations cant deficiency no higher than levels in current operations. at higher cant deficiency on the basis of approximately 4.7 inches, at which Nonetheless, a transient carbody acceleration before tilt compensation is point the steady-state, carbody lateral acceleration event that poses no necessary. This increase in cant acceleration would be 0.1g, which derailment safety concern could very deficiency without requiring tilt would correlate to a 5.7-degree roll well cause a standing passenger to lose compensation is larger for a vehicle angle between the floor and the his or her balance and fall. Although design whose carbody is less disposed horizontal when the vehicle is standing FRA is not aware of much published to roll on its suspension when subjected on track with 4.7 inches of data on the effect that transient, carbody to an unbalance force, since carbody roll superelevation. acceleration events have on passenger

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16069

ride safety, it is recognized that the requirements to FRA to obtain approval § 213.345(i), below. The Task Force presence of steady-state, carbody lateral for the qualifying cant deficiency of a agreed that the purpose of these acceleration will generally reduce the vehicle type (paragraph (e)) and to provisions is the same and therefore margin of safety for standing passengers notify FRA prior to the implementation recommended that the same text be to withstand transient, lateral of the approved higher curving speeds included. FRA agrees and has modified acceleration events and not lose their (paragraph (f)). As discussed above, FRA the rule accordingly. balance. If such passenger ride safety is clarifying paragraph (e) so that the Paragraph (h) was proposed as issues were more clearly identified, load condition under which the testing paragraph (j) in the NPRM to clarify that additional track geometry or other limits is performed is included in the vehicle types that have been permitted could potentially be proposed to description of the test procedure. by FRA to operate at cant deficiencies, address them. However, based on the Additional clarification in paragraph (e) Eu, greater than 3 inches prior to the information available to the Task Force, has been included for submitting date of publication of the final rule in the Task Force did not recommend suspension system maintenance the Federal Register would be additional limits to address potential information. The requirement for considered qualified under this section passenger ride safety concerns that may submitting suspension system to operate at those permitted cant result from transient, carbody maintenance information applies to deficiencies over the previously acceleration events either alone or when vehicle types not subject to parts 238 or operated track segments(s). combined with steady-state, carbody 229 of this chapter, such as a freight car Consequently, before the vehicle type lateral acceleration. The Task Force also operated in a freight train, and then only could operate over another track took into account that, as one of several to safety-critical components. Paragraph segment at such cant deficiencies, FRA modes of transportation offered to the (f) also clarifies that in approving the proposed that the vehicle be qualified as general public, rail travel need provide request made pursuant to paragraph (e), provided in this section. FRA made a a level of passenger comfort to both FRA may impose conditions necessary similar proposal in § 213.329(i) (now attract and retain riders. As a result, the for safely operating at the higher curving § 213.329(h)). riding characteristics of passenger rail speeds. In commenting on the NPRM, Amtrak vehicles should by railroad practice be Former footnote 3 is being stated the tests proposed in this section subject to acceptable criteria for redesignated as footnote 4 and modified and in § 213.329 for the higher-speed passenger ride comfort, and such in conformance with the changes in this track classes would be wasteful to criteria for passenger ride comfort final rule. Former footnote 3 reflected repeat because, unlike the tests should be more stringent than those for that this section previously allowed a proposed for § 213.345, the tests passenger ride safety. Nonetheless, to maximum of 4 inches of cant deficiency; proposed here would not have been fully inform FRA’s decisions in hence, the static lean test requirement to conducted under ‘‘local’’ conditions but preparing the final rule, FRA raise and lower the car on one side by rather in a static testing facility having specifically invited public comment on 4 inches. Former footnote 3 also no connection to the location of the this discussion in the NPRM and the specified a cant excess requirement to proposed service. Amtrak therefore proposal to set the steady-state, carbody raise and lower the car on one side by wondered what types of conditions FRA lateral acceleration limit at 0.15g. FRA 6 inches. As proposed, FRA is removing believed would be uncovered during requested specific comment on whether the 4-inch limit on cant deficiency, and this testing process before permitting the proposed rule appropriately the cant-excess requirement has been the vehicle types to operate at the same provided for passenger ride safety, and addressed, as explained above. Thus, cant deficiencies on other track if not, requested that the commenters this footnote, now footnote 4, refers to segments. Amtrak believed that it would state what additional requirement(s) ‘‘the proposed cant deficiency’’ instead be simply repeating the exact same test should be imposed, if any. of 4 inches of cant deficiency. FRA also on the exact same car at the exact same As noted above, in commenting on notes that, as proposed, it has removed test facility, and therefore found it the NPRM, SNCF agreed that the limit the statement in the former footnote that difficult to find any justification for the of 0.15g for steady-state, carbody lateral the ‘‘test procedure may be conducted proposed limitation. acceleration is justified in that this in a test facility.’’ Testing may of course FRA discussed the proposal and the value is usually considered a comfort be conducted in a test facility, but the comments received with the Task Force. limit for curve design and is the limit statement could cause confusion that The Task Force recommended that value accepted for passenger cars. SNCF testing may be conducted only in a test vehicle types that have been permitted specifically commented that, in facility. No such limitation is intended. by FRA to operate at cant deficiencies, European rules, the 0.15g value Separately, FRA has slightly modified Eu, greater than 3 inches but not corresponds to an exceptional value of the footnote from that proposed in the exceeding 5 inches be considered cant deficiency, while the NPRM based on a concern raised during qualified under this section to operate at recommended value is about 0.14g. FRA the Task Force’s consideration of the those permitted cant deficiencies over sees no conflict with these comments; draft final rule. The test procedure’s all track segments—not only over measurements and supplemental testing sequence could be wrongly previously operated segments. FRA research have indicated that a steady- construed to indicate that the roll angle agrees that extending the nature of the state, carbody lateral acceleration limit is measured after the wheels are qualification in this way is appropriate of 0.15g is considered to be the lowered; FRA agrees and has corrected given that the requirements of this maximum, steady-state lateral this ambiguity. section are static or steady-state and do acceleration above which jolts from Former paragraph (e) is being moved not directly reflect the ‘‘local’’ vehicle dynamic response to track to new paragraph (g), which was interaction of the vehicle and the track. deviations can present a hazard to proposed as paragraph (h) in the NPRM. Paragraph (h)(1) adopts this passenger safety. For the foregoing As revised, this paragraph (g) is recommendation, and FRA makes clear reasons, FRA has therefore adopted the identical to two other provisions in this that it applies not only to previous proposal in the final rule. final rule: § 213.329(g)—the subpart G permission by FRA to operate at these The changes to this section also counterpart to this section—and cant deficiencies, but also prospectively separate and clarify the submittal § 213.345(i). Please see the discussion of to vehicle types when they are approved

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16070 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

by FRA to operate at these cant combination of computer simulations, engineering decisions. The asterisk was deficiencies. Nonetheless, a requirement carbody acceleration testing, truck included in the 1998 final rule and has been included in paragraph (h)(1) acceleration testing, and wheel/rail refers to that final rule, which was that written notice be provided to FRA force measurements. FRA believes that promulgated on June 22, 1998, to no less than 30 calendar days prior to these requirements are necessary to address the practice on some railroads the proposed implementation of such apply to operations at high cant to design a greater runoff of elevation in curving speeds on another track deficiency on lower-speed track classes. spirals due to physical restrictions on segment in accordance with paragraph Section 213.369(f) is also referenced, to the length of spirals. Spiral runoff in (f) of this section. This notice is make clear that inspection records be construction after the promulgation of intended to identify the new track kept in accordance with the that final rule must be designed and segment(s) so that FRA is aware of the requirements of § 213.333, as maintained within the generally- proposed operation, can ensure that appropriate. applicable limits identified in the table appropriate permission has been Paragraph (j), which was proposed as for the difference in crosslevel. provided for it, and otherwise paragraph (k) in the NPRM, is being Consequently, FRA has clarified this administer the requirements of this rule. added as a new paragraph to define section so that the asterisked text FRA notes that pursuant to paragraph ‘‘vehicle’’ and ‘‘vehicle type,’’ as used in effectively continues to refer to the 1998 (i) of this section and § 213.345, this section. As the term ‘‘vehicle’’ is final rule—not this very final rule. Vehicle/track system qualification, used elsewhere in this part and has a The primary substantive change to dynamic testing is required when different meaning than the term this section is the addition of new moving a vehicle type to a new track ‘‘vehicle type,’’ both terms are defined paragraph (b), which contains tighter, segment for operation at cant here for the purposes of this section so single-deviation geometry limits for deficiencies exceeding 5 inches. that this section’s requirements may be operations above 5 inches of cant Accordingly, paragraph (h)(2) makes properly understood and applied. deficiency on curved track. These limits clear that vehicle types that have been include both 31-foot and 62-foot MCO Section 213.59 Elevation of Curved permitted by FRA to operate at cant limits and a new limit for the difference Track; Runoff deficiencies, Eu, greater than 5 inches in crosslevel between any two points shall be considered qualified under this This final rule makes a conforming less than 10 feet apart. FRA believes that section to operate at those permitted change to this section’s reference to adding these track geometry limits is cant deficiencies only for the previously § 213.57(b), to reflect the changes necessary to provide an equivalent operated or identified track segments(s). adopted in that section. The need for margin of safety for operations at higher Please also see the discussion regarding this conforming change had been cant deficiency. These limits are based § 213.329(h). overlooked in the proposed rule. on the results of simulation studies to As proposed, paragraph (i) is being However, the AAR notified FRA and determine the safe amplitudes of track added to reference pertinent sections of other Task Force members of the geometry surface variations. See subpart G—namely, §§ 213.333 and omission and suggested change during Technical Background, Section IV.B, 213.345—that contain requirements RSAC consideration of the final rule, above. related to operations above 5 inches of and no objection was raised. FRA agrees FRA did not receive any comment on cant deficiency. These sections include that the language should conform so as this section, other than the comment requirements for periodic track to avoid confusion, and has modified raised by Bombardier and discussed in geometry measurements, monitoring of paragraph (a) of this section § 213.14 as to the inclusion of proposed carbody acceleration, and vehicle/track accordingly. No other change is footnote 4 specifying that curved track system qualification. Specifically, in intended. surface limits apply only when track § 213.333(c)(1), FRA has added periodic curvature is greater than 0.25 degree. As Section 213.63 Track Surface inspection requirements using a Track noted in the discussion of § 213.14, the Geometry Measurement System (TGMS) Track surface is the evenness or text of the proposed footnote has been to determine compliance with § 213.53, uniformity of track in short distances adopted as § 213.14 primarily to Track gage; § 213.55(b), Track measured along the running surface of distinguish curved track from tangent alinement; § 213.57, Curves; elevation the rails. Under load, the track structure track so that track inspectors and and speed limitations; § 213.63, Track gradually deteriorates due to dynamic automated track geometry measurement surface; and § 213.65, Combined track and mechanical wear effects of passing systems can properly apply the more alinement and surface deviations. In trains. Improper drainage, unstable stringent track geometry limits required sharper curves, for which cant roadbed, inadequate tamping, and for high cant deficiency operation in deficiency was high but vehicle speeds deferred maintenance can create surface track Classes 1 through 5. Should track were reflective of a lower track class, it irregularities, which can lead to serious curvature be less than 0.25 degree, the was found that stricter track geometry consequences if ignored. limits in paragraph (a) apply. limits were necessary, for the same track As proposed in the NPRM, this Consequently, all of the proposals in class, in order to provide an equivalent section is divided into two paragraphs. this section have effectively been margin of safety for operations at higher What was formerly the entirety of this adopted in this final rule without cant deficiency. As proposed in the section (the introductory text, table, and substantive change. NPRM, FRA has also added periodic footnotes) is re-designated as paragraph monitoring requirements for cardbody (a). Paragraph (a) generally mirrors the Section 213.65 Combined Track accelerations, to determine compliance former section but substitutes the date Alinement and Surface Deviations with the VTI safety limits in § 213.333. ‘‘June 22, 1998’’ for the words ‘‘prior to As proposed in the NPRM, FRA is Moreover, the vehicle/track system the promulgation of this rule’’ in the adding this new section containing qualification requirements in § 213.345 asterisked portion of the table limits addressing combined track apply to vehicle types intended to concerning the variation in crosslevel alinement and surface deviations for operate at any curving speed producing on spirals due to physical restrictions operations above 5 inches of cant more than 5 inches of cant deficiency, on spiral length and operating practices deficiency on curved track. (In and include, as appropriate, a and experience as determined by prior preparing the final rule, FRA added

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16071

‘‘track’’ to the section heading for Section 213.110 Gage Restraint § 213.333, Automated vehicle-based consistency with the section headings Measurement Systems inspection systems, thereby promoting for § 213.55, Track alinement, and This section specifies procedures for conformity between this section and its § 213.63, Track surface.) An equation- using a Gage Restraint Measurement subpart G counterpart. based safety limit is provided for track System (GRMS) to assess the ability of Paragraph (e) has been modified from alinement and surface deviations track to maintain proper gage. As the proposal in the NPRM. In its occurring in combination within a proposed, FRA has amended this comments on the NPRM, Bombardier single chord length of each other. The section to make it consistent with the stated that in proposed paragraph (e), it limits in this section are intended to be changes to the GRMS requirements in appeared that the formula for the used only with a TGMS, and applied on § 213.333, the counterpart to this section extrapolation factor ‘‘A’’ may have been incorrect since the lateral load ‘‘L’’ and the outside rail in curves. in subpart G. Specifically, FRA has replaced the former Gage Widening the vertical load ‘‘V’’ were expressed in Although the Track Safety Standards kips—not pounds. In this regard, have prescribed limits on geometry Ratio (GWR) with the Gage Widening Projection (GWP), which is intended to Bombardier also suggested changing the variations existing in isolation, FRA has compensate for the weight of the testing proposed text describing the 24,000- recognized that a combination of track vehicle. FRA believes that use of the pound lateral load and 33,000-pound alinement and surface variations, none GWP provides at least the same level of vertical load to express the loads in of which individually amounts to a safety, and its inclusion is supported by kips, for consistency. The Task Force deviation from the requirements in this research results documented in the concurred with Bombardier’s comments part, may nevertheless result in report titled ‘‘Development of Gage and recommended revising the text and undesirable vehicle response. Moreover, Widening Projection Parameter for the the equation accordingly. FRA agrees trains operating at high cant deficiencies Deployable Gage Restraint Measurement and is adopting the recommended increase the lateral wheel force exerted System’’ (DOT/FRA/ORD–06/13, changes in the final rule text. FRA is on track during curving, thereby October 2006), which is available on also making a conforming change to this decreasing the margin of safety FRA’s Web site. Moreover, by making section by modifying the text defining associated with the VTI safety limits in the criteria consistent with the changes GWP in paragraph (p). Likewise, in § 213.333. To address these concerns, to the GRMS requirements in § 213.333, § 213.333(i)(2), FRA is modifying the simulation studies were performed to a track owner or railroad does not need rule so that the units are determine the safe amplitudes of to modify a GRMS survey to calculate correspondingly stated in kips. combined track geometry variations. See the GWR for track Classes 1 through 5, Subpart G—Train Operations at Track Technical Background, Section IV.B, and then separately calculate the GWP Classes 6 and Higher for track Classes 6 through 9. The same above. Results of this research showed Section 213.305 Designation of GWP formula applies, regardless of the that the addition of this equation-based Qualified Individuals; General class of track. safety limit is necessary to provide a Qualifications margin of safety for vehicle operations In substituting GWP for GWR, FRA at higher cant deficiencies. has also made a number of conforming This section recognizes that work on changes to this section, principally to or about a track structure supporting One comment was raised on this ensure that the terminology and high-speed train operations demands section following publication of the references are consistent. These changes the highest awareness of employees of NPRM. Bombardier commented that the are generally more technical than the need to perform their work properly. references in the proposed equation substantive, and they are neither At the same time, the wording of this identifying variables AL and SL should intended to diminish nor add to the section has literally required that each be clarified if the intent is to use the requirements of this section. In this individual designated to perform such alinement and surface limits in regard, as proposed in the NPRM, FRA work know and understand the §§ 213.55(a) and 213.63(a), respectively, has corrected the table in paragraph (l) requirements of this subpart, detect when operating at cant deficiencies to renumber the remedial action deviations from those requirements, and greater than 5 inches in curves not specified for a second level exception. prescribe appropriate remedial action to exceeding 0.25 degree. Bombardier The remedial action should have been correct or safely compensate for those noted that, alternatively, if its designated as (1), (2), and (3) in the deviations, regardless whether that recommendation to remove the footnote ‘‘Remedial action required’’ column, knowledge, understanding, and ability concerning the application of curved consistent with the manner in which with regard to all of subpart G were track limits in §§ 213.55(b) and remedial action is specified for a first necessary for that individual to perform 213.63(b) were accepted, this concern level exception—not designated as his or her duties. For example, would be resolved. footnote 2, (1), and (2). In addition, in knowledge and understanding of preparing the final rule, FRA has specific vehicle qualification and testing In response to this comment and as a reformatted the table to distinguish requirements may be unnecessary for result of Task Force discussions more clearly between first level and the performance of a track inspector’s following publication of the NPRM, second level exceptions. duties. FRA has added § 213.14 to make clear FRA has also added footnote 5 to this As a result, the Task Force that limits specified for curved track section, as proposed in the NPRM, recommended and FRA agrees that this apply only to track having a curvature stating that ‘‘GRMS equipment using rule clarify that the requirements for a greater than 0.25 degree. As discussed load combinations developing L/V person to be qualified under subpart G in § 213.14, by defining curved track as ratios that exceed 0.8 shall be operated concern those portions of this subpart track having a curvature greater than with caution to protect against the risk necessary for the performance of that 0.25 degree, the rule makes clear when of wheel climb by the test wheelset.’’ person’s duties. This section continues the requirements for curved track apply. This footnote is identical in substance to to require that a person designated This section is therefore adopted as what is now designated as footnote 10 under it has the knowledge, proposed without substantive change. (formerly footnote 7), which applies to understanding, and ability necessary to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16072 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

supervise the restoration and renewal of parameters in this subpart for general this section for lower-speed track subpart G track, or to perform application to operations above 150 classes. inspections of subpart G track, or both, m.p.h. be removed. In its comments on the NPRM, for which he or she is responsible. At Nonetheless, in the NPRM, FRA Bombardier raised concern that FRA the same time, adding the text makes explained that it had identified the had not adopted the recommendation of clear that such a designated person is continued need for benchmark the Task Force to remove standards for not required to know or understand standards addressing the highest speeds Class 9 track and reduce the maximum specific requirements of this subpart not likely to be achieved by the most operating speed for Class 8 track to 150 necessary to the fulfillment of that forward-looking, high-speed rail m.p.h. In particular, Bombardier raised person’s duties. FRA does not believe projects. And, as a result, FRA and the concern that FRA conducted research that safety is in any way diminished by Volpe Center had conducted additional without the involvement of the Task these changes, and they were supported research and vehicle/track interaction Force, and that one of the principles by the Task Force. FRA believes that simulations at higher speeds and used by the Task Force for evaluating these changes reflect what was intended concluded that Class 9 vehicle/track any changes to the track geometry when this section was established in the safety standards can be safely extended standards at high speed or high cant 1998 final rule. to include the highest speeds proposed deficiency was to use representative to date—speeds of up to 220 m.p.h. FRA vehicles that had actually been designed Section 213.307 Classes of Track: and qualified for such operations. Operating Speed Limits therefore included these standards in the NPRM. FRA did note its intent to Bombardier believed that the use of the The 1998 final rule added subpart G continue its discussions with the Task Acela power car to determine track to provide for the operation of trains at Force as any comments were addressed geometry standards for Class 9 track, by progressively higher speeds up to 200 following the publication of the NPRM. conducting simulations at 220 m.p.h. m.p.h. over four separate classes of FRA also noted that the Task Force did and 9 inches of cant deficiency, was track—Classes 6 through 9. Standards not consider a comprehensive revision inappropriate since the equipment was for the highest-speed track, Class 9 of all of Subpart G, including those designed and qualified for operation at track, for speeds above 160 m.p.h. up to requirements that are not distinguished 150 m.p.h. Bombardier added that 200 m.p.h., were established looking by class of track. In addition, FRA stated appropriate track geometry safety limits ahead to the possibility that certain that the Class 9 standards would remain for speeds up to 220 m.p.h. can only be operations would achieve those speeds. only as benchmark standards with the developed with a vehicle model that has In addition, a maximum limit of 160 understanding that the final suitability been validated up to that speed, and m.p.h. was established for Class 8 track of track safety standards for operations that track standards developed based on because trainsets had operated in this an invalidated vehicle model could above 150 m.p.h. would be determined country safely up to that speed for deter the implementation of some high- by FRA only after examination of the periods of several months under waivers speed rail systems and provide a false entire operating system, including the for testing and evaluation. See 63 FR sense of security. 34015. subject equipment, track structure, and Bombardier also noted that it was In developing the NPRM, the Task other system attributes. FRA explained unsure what the term ‘‘benchmark Force recommended that standards for that direct FRA approval is required for standard’’ entails in a regulation and Class 9 track be removed from this any such high-speed rail operation, requested that FRA clarify this issue. subpart and that the maximum whether through an RPA or another Bombardier also asked for clarification allowable speed for Class 8 track be regulatory proceeding. as to FRA’s statement that direct FRA lowered from 160 m.p.h. to 150 m.p.h. As a separate matter, FRA noted that approval is required for any such high- Although it was viewed in the 1998 the rule would require the testing and speed operation, whether through an final rule that standards for Class 9 track evaluation of equipment for RPA or another regulatory proceeding. were useful benchmarks for future qualification purposes at a speed of 5 Bombardier asked what other regulatory planning with respect to vehicle/track m.p.h. above the maximum intended proceeding can be used, and noted that interaction, track structure, and operating speed, in accordance with former footnote 2 indicated only an RPA inspection requirements, the Task Force § 213.345, and that, for example, this proceeding. Bombardier reiterated the noted that operations at speeds in would require equipment intended to Task Force recommendation to excess of 150 m.p.h. were authorized by operate at Class 8 track’s maximum eliminate track Class 9 requirements in FRA only in conjunction with a rule of speed of 160 m.p.h. to be tested at 165 all sections and to limit track Class 8 particular applicability (RPA) m.p.h. Therefore, FRA made clear that speeds to 150 m.p.h. Bombardier stated addressing the overall safety of the operating at speeds up to 165 m.p.h. for that safety standards for speeds above operation as a system, per former vehicle qualification purposes under 150 m.p.h. should be contained in an footnote 2 of this section. It was thought this subpart would necessarily be RPA and be based on the maximum that the vehicle/track interaction, track permitted to continue on Class 8 track, operating speed and specific equipment structure, and inspection requirements subject to the requirements for the and track characteristics for the in an RPA would likely be specific to planning and safe conduct of such test proposed high-speed rail system. both the operation and the system operations. These test operations are FDOT also commented on this components used, and track geometry distinct from service operations on Class section, and referenced the high-speed measurement systems, safety criteria, 8 track that would be limited to a rail project then-planned for top speeds and safety limits might be quite maximum speed of 160 m.p.h. of 168 m.p.h. between Tampa and different than currently defined. The Finally, FRA proposed to slightly Orlando, and 186 m.p.h. between Task Force therefore recommended that modify the section heading so that it Orlando and Miami, Florida. FDOT the safety of operations above 150 reads ‘‘Classes of track: operating speed understood that because the maximum m.p.h. be addressed using a system limits,’’ using the plural form of ‘‘class.’’ operating speed would be above 150 safety approach and regulated through This change is intended to make the m.p.h., the system would be regulated an RPA specific to the intended section heading consistent with the through an RPA that would be specific operation, and that the safety heading for § 213.9, the counterpart to to the particular operation and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16073

technology selected for this application. it is well known that allowable track not 150 m.p.h. Footnote 2 of this section In this light, based on FRA’s discussion geometry defects determined by was added together with the rest of in the NPRM and the need for FRA to simulation are highly dependent on subpart G to the Track Safety Standards ascertain the suitability of Class 9 both vehicle suspension and track in 1998—the year following FRA’s standards for each proposed high-speed stiffness characteristics and that, as issuance of a proposed RPA to establish rail operation, it wasn’t clear to FDOT such, the suitability of the safety safety standards for the Florida whether the benchmark standards geometry limits contained in the NPRM Overland eXpress (FOX) high-speed rail would prove beneficial or a deterrent to for high-speed equipment operating system. See 62 FR 65478, December 12, implementing high-speed rail in the over slab track is very questionable, 1997. (The FOX rulemaking was United States. Noting FRA’s intent to adding that the inspection and terminated after the State of Florida continue discussion with the Task maintenance requirements for slab track withdrew financial support for the Force, FDOT encouraged FRA and the are very different from those that are project, see 65 FR 50952, August 22, Task Force to resolve any differences on required for ballasted track. FDOT 2000.) Moreover, subpart G preceded this issue and to assure that the final encouraged FRA to address this issue in the issuance of the Passenger Equipment rule will be compatible with the proven the final rule or to clarify that the final Safety Standards in 1999, which require high-speed rail technologies and rule only governs ballasted track. And, FRA regulatory approval for the systems that will be contemplated for should the latter be the case, there operation of Tier II passenger the high-speed rail systems planned in would be a further need to regulate all equipment, i.e., passenger equipment Florida and elsewhere in the United vehicle/track interaction issues where operating at speeds above 125 m.p.h. States. FDOT added that a final rule slab track is used through an RPA. and not exceeding 150 m.p.h. See, governing the operation of a high-speed The issues of the maximum speed generally, 49 CFR 238.111(b) and rail system must be based on a systems limit for Class 8 track and standards for 238.501, et seq. Amtrak’s Acela operates approach that includes the Class 9 track were the subject of much at these Tier II speeds, and it has done characteristics of both the infrastructure discussion within the Task Force. so for over a decade through FRA and rolling stock. Consequently, to Ultimately, the Task Force concurred approval. In this regard, FRA makes ensure compatibility of the various with FRA’s proposal in the NPRM to clear that the revisions to this footnote aspects of the system, the governing maintain Class 8 track’s maximum neither impose any new requirement on regulation should include requirements speed at 160 m.p.h., retain Class 9 track Acela, nor alter any aspect of FRA’s for such components as ballast and standards, and increase Class 9 track’s regulatory approval of Acela. crossties, according to FDOT, and either maximum speed to 220 m.p.h. At the same time, the Task Force also Further, this very rulemaking on be addressed in the Track Safety vehicle/track interaction was initiated Standards or included in the governing concurred with revising footnote 2 of this section. As revised, footnote 2 before a more recent effort by FRA to RPA. FDOT expected that these consider and develop standards for the requirements would be based on provides that operating speeds in excess of 125 m.p.h. are authorized by this part safe operation of another tier of high- experience with proven high-speed rail speed rail service. That work is being systems around the world and with only in conjunction with FRA regulatory approval addressing other carried out through the Engineering rolling stock compatible with ‘‘Tier V’’ Task Force of the same RSAC Passenger operations, as defined in FRA’s High- safety issues presented by the railroad system. In addition, footnote 2 also Safety Working Group that has overseen Speed Passenger Rail Safety Strategy. provides that for operations on a the Vehicle/Track Interaction Task Referencing FRA’s mention in the dedicated right-of-way, FRA’s regulatory Force. FRA requested that the NPRM of ‘‘flying ballast’’ as a potential approval may allow for the use of Engineering Task Force develop safety issue for high-speed rail operations, inspection and maintenance criteria and recommendations for the operation of FDOT also commented that slab track procedures in the alternative to those passenger rail equipment at speeds up (ballastless track) is a modern form of contained in this subpart, based upon a to 220 m.p.h., focusing on a new tier of track construction that has been used showing that at least an equivalent level passenger equipment safety standards in successfully throughout the world on of safety is provided. part 238: Tier III, which is predicated on various high-speed rail lines and would The underlying purpose of footnote 2 passenger equipment operating in an be considered as an option for the is to indicate that compliance alone exclusive right-of-way at speeds over system then-planned in Florida. FDOT with the Track Safety Standards does 125 m.p.h., and in a shared right-of-way stated that this construction method not not authorize operations at high speeds; only at speeds not exceeding 125 m.p.h. only addresses the flying ballast safety other safety issues must be addressed in This new tier of safety standards is concern raised by FRA, it also brings their own right for each high-speed rail intended to facilitate the nationwide several construction advantages and system as elements of a comprehensive, deployment of a high-speed rail long-term performance benefits. system-safety-based regulatory approval network, both maximizing the benefits Consequently, FDOT believed that any and compliance program. While the inherent in dedicated high-speed rail regulation governing high-speed rail reference in former footnote 2 to an RPA operation while minimizing the costs operation should address the use of slab for regulating high-speed operations was involved by allowing for the sharing of track. However, FDOT noted that it was appropriate when the Track Safety infrastructure. These standards will not clear how this would be addressed Standards were amended in 1998, based expand FRA’s overall regulatory by the NPRM, in that it appeared that on subsequent developments, footnote 2 framework for high-speed passenger rail the track geometry measurement should more appropriately state that safety, complementing FRA’s existing systems, safety criteria, and inspection high-speed operations are subject to standards for Tier II high-speed rail requirements contained in the NPRM FRA regulatory approval. It is no longer operations on shared rights-of-way. FRA were based on significant experience necessary to specify that FRA regulatory has also been examining, with the and simulations using ballasted track approval be provided through an RPA. assistance of RSAC, requirements for (and FRA-compliant Tier I and Tier II Likewise, this footnote should refer to passenger railroad system safety passenger equipment, in accordance high-speed rail operations as operations planning that would further address with 49 CFR part 238). FDOT stated that conducted at speeds above 125 m.p.h.— safety issues in a comprehensive way,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16074 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

and has issued a proposed rule to way—facilitating innovation and spikes, the 1⁄2-inch variation in gage require commuter and intercity efficiency, while protecting safety. limit was difficult to maintain. passenger railroads to develop and In addition, FRA intends to examine, Tolerance values for the rail base, tie implement system safety programs (see with the assistance of RSAC members, plate shoulders, and spikes can result in 77 FR 55371; Sept. 7, 2012). those requirements of subpart G that it a 1⁄2-inch gage variation in track As noted, the Task Force concurred has not addressed in this rulemaking on constructed with wooden ties, with the NPRM proposal to maintain vehicle/track interaction safety. FRA particularly due to daily temperature Class 8 track’s maximum speed at 160 recognizes that while this rulemaking fluctuations of rail and associated heat- m.p.h., retain Class 9 track standards, makes substantial revisions to the high- induced stresses. In response to and increase Class 9 track’s maximum speed track standards in subpart G, it Amtrak’s concern, FRA conducted speed to 220 m.p.h. Each of FRA’s track was not intended to result in a modeling of track with variations in classes is essentially based on the same comprehensive revision of these gage up to 3⁄4 inch in 31-foot distances foundation, with a set of progressively standards. In this regard, FRA has noted and found no safety concerns for the stricter safety limits as operating speeds that requirements in subpart G that are equipment modeled. Modeling was also increase. While standards for Class 9 not distinguished by class of track, such conducted using 20 miles of actual track are the strictest, they follow the as ballast, merit examination, which measured track geometry with these same fundamental approach as for the was amplified by FDOT in its comments variations in gage for speeds up to 115 lowest-speed class of track, which is concerning ballastless track. FRA is m.p.h. without showing safety concerns essential to support the operation of therefore interested in undertaking a for the equipment modeled. As a result, different types of rail service on the future effort with the assistance of RSAC FRA believes that modifying this limit same track. Class 8 track speeds up to to consider revisions to subpart G not for the change of gage for Class 6 track, 160 m.p.h. have been validated not only addressed in this rulemaking. which has a maximum permitted speed through computer modeling, but also As a final matter, at the of 110 m.p.h., will not diminish safety through actual testing and experience. recommendation of the AAR, footnote 1 and reduces the burden on the track FRA believes that retaining the 160- is being modified. Footnote 1 provides owner or railroad to maintain safe gage. m.p.h. maximum speed is safe for conditions under which freight may be FRA notes that during Task Force supporting rail operations at that speed, transported at passenger train speeds. consideration of the draft final rule, given the requirements associated with The second clause of footnote 1 concern was raised by the AAR and Class 8 track speeds. Although FRA’s references passenger locomotive axle Amtrak as to the application of the 1⁄2- passenger equipment safety standards in loadings utilized in passenger service inch limit for the change in gage within part 238 currently do not provide along with the freight. This clause is any 31-foot distance in Class 7 through standards for operations above 150 modified by adding the words ‘‘if any’’ 9 track. They suggested that clarification m.p.h., FRA has been engaged in after the reference to passenger service, be provided to exclude up to a 1⁄4-inch, developing new Tier III high-speed to make clear that there need not be any designed widening of the gage at switch safety standards for operations up to 220 passenger service on the same line with point locations to enable the stock rail m.p.h., as discussed above. FRA is also the freight service. and the switch point to fit smoothly reexamining the current Tier II together. FRA believes that such an Section 213.313 Application of maximum speed of 150 m.p.h., which exclusion could have safety Requirements to Curved Track was established in 1999, with a view to implications in these high-speed track safely extending that speed to permit This is a new section that is being classes, especially should the switch higher-speed Tier II operations. added to help define the application of point geometry be poorly maintained, In retaining Class 9 track standards requirements for curved track, following and that the need for such an exclusion and extending the maximum speed to publication of and comment on the would potentially arise only in very 220 m.p.h., footnote 2 now provides that NPRM. Please see the discussion of limited circumstances in these track for operations above 125 m.p.h. on a § 213.14, which is identical to this classes, as perhaps when an emergency dedicated right-of-way, FRA’s regulatory section. At the recommendation of Task repair is made in a switch using wooden approval may allow for the use of Force members, FRA is restating this ties in place of concrete ties. inspection and maintenance criteria and section in subpart G to make clear that Nonetheless, FRA agrees that an procedures in the alternative to those it applies together with the other appropriate safety determination could contained in this subpart, based upon a provisions in this subpart. Subpart G is be made upon inspection of the rail showing that at least an equivalent level intended to function as its own set of head profile at the local points of of safety is provided. This addition regulations governing any track concern, and in applying the helps to place in clearer perspective identified as belonging to one of its requirements will give consideration to what FRA intended by describing Class (higher) track classes, and this section’s design modifications that are made for 9 track standards as ‘‘benchmark’’ addition is consistent with the the purpose of ensuring the proper standards in the NPRM, acknowledging comprehensiveness of this subpart. functioning of switches where adjacent the unique system attributes inherent in gage change occurs within 31 feet of the Section 213.323 Track Gage a dedicated right-of-way. Indeed, for switch point. FRA will include such this reason, the provision applies to This section contains the minimum guidance in its Track Safety Standards Class 8 track in a dedicated right-of-way and maximum limits for gage, including Compliance Manual, which is available as well, allowing for FRA approval of limits for the change in gage within any on FRA’s Web site, as part of its overall alternative criteria and procedures that 31-foot distance. As proposed in the revision of the Manual to reflect the are appropriate and safe in such a NPRM, for Class 6 track FRA is changes made in this final rule. defined operating environment. modifying the limit for the change in No other issue was raised on this Moreover, together with the gage within any 31-foot distance from 1⁄2 section, other than the general comment development of Tier III standards in Part inch to 3⁄4 inch. During Task Force from Bombardier on the propriety of 238, this provision is intended to discussions in developing the NPRM, retaining Class 9 track standards. FRA harmonize the regulation of high-speed Amtrak had raised concern that for track has addressed Bombardier’s comment in rail operations on dedicated rights-of- constructed with wooden ties and cut the general discussion of Class 9 track

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16075

standards in § 213.307. Consequently, FRA believes that adding these track Paragraph (a) formerly provided that FRA is adopting the rule text as geometry limits is necessary to provide the maximum crosslevel on the outside proposed. an equivalent margin of safety for rail of a curve may not be more than 7 operations at higher cant deficiency. inches. As proposed, this provision is Section 213.327 Track Alinement FRA notes that Bombardier raised the being restated to provide that the This section is the subpart G same comment on this section as for maximum elevation of the outside rail counterpart to § 213.55 and is intended other sections concerning the inclusion of a curve may not be more than 7 for higher-speed track classes—Classes 6 of proposed footnote 1 in paragraphs (b) inches. Crosslevel is a function of through 9. As proposed, the section and (c), specifying that curved track elevation differences between two rails, heading is being modified so that it alinement limits apply only when track and is the focus of other provisions of reads ‘‘Track alinement,’’ instead of curvature is greater than 0.25 degree. In this final rule, specifically § 213.331, ‘‘Alinement,’’ for clarity. response to this comment and as a result Track surface. The clarification here is Paragraph (a) remains substantively of Task Force discussions following intended to limit the elevation of a unchanged, as proposed in the NPRM. publication of the NPRM, FRA has single rail. FRA is revising the single-deviation, added § 213.313 to make clear that FRA is also revising the second track alinement limits in paragraph (b) limits specified for curved track apply requirement of paragraph (a), consistent so as to distinguish between limits for only to track having a curvature greater with the revision to § 213.57(a). In the tangent and curved track. Specifically, than 0.25 degree, in lieu of adopting NPRM, FRA noted that the Task Force the 62-foot MCO limit for Class 6 curved proposed footnote 1. By defining curved recommended moving to § 213.331 the track has been narrowed to 5⁄8 inch, second requirement of paragraph (a), while the tangent track limit remains at track as track having a curvature greater than 0.25 degree, the rule makes clear which formerly provided that ‘‘[t]he the value of 3⁄4 inch. This change is when the requirements for curved track outside rail of a curve may not be more intended to provide consistency than 1⁄2 inch lower than the inside rail.’’ between the track alinement limits for apply. As noted, the text of former paragraph Instead, FRA proposed that this track Classes 5 and 6, as the Class 5 requirement be re-written more clearly 5 (c) has been moved to new paragraph (d) limit for curved track in § 213.55 is ⁄8 and remains substantively unchanged. to restrict configuring track so that the inch. The 62-foot MCO limits for Class outside rail of a curve is designed to be FRA is adding new paragraph (e) to 7 and Class 8 tangent track have been lower than the inside rail, while 3 this section, as proposed. Paragraph (e) increased to ⁄4 inch, while the curved allowing for a deviation of up to 1⁄2 inch 1 is an adaptation of footnotes 1 and 2 track limits remain at the value of ⁄2 as provided in § 213.331, which also from § 213.55, and describes the ends of inch. Further, the 124-foot MCO limit included a proposed limit for reverse for Class 8 tangent track has been the chord and the line rail for purposes crosslevel deviation. FRA explained in increased to 1 inch, while the curved of complying with this section. the NPRM that this requirement in track limit remains at the value of 3⁄4 Paragraph (e) applies to all of the paragraph (a) was intended to restrict inch. These changes are also based on requirements in this section and is configuring track so that the outside rail the results of the simulation studies for consistent with current practice. of a curve is lower than the inside rail, determining safe amplitudes of track No other comment was received on while the limits at issue in § 213.331 geometry alinement variations. See this section, other than the general govern local deviations from uniform Technical Background, Section IV.B, comment from Bombardier on the elevation—from the designed above. propriety of retaining Class 9 track elevation—that occur as a result of FRA is reformatting the table in standards. FRA has addressed changes in conditions. Rather than paragraph (b) from that proposed in the Bombardier’s comment in the general conflict, FRA stated these provisions NPRM. The AAR commented that the discussion of Class 9 track standards in complement each other, addressing both table in proposed paragraph (b) was § 213.307. Consequently, FRA adopts the designed layout of a curve and the missing a number of deviation limits for this section as proposed, with paragraph deviations from that layout that result curved track that had been (b) reformatted and curved track defined from actual use and wear. recommended by the Task Force. FRA in new § 213.313. The AAR commented on FRA’s believes that these limits were not Section 213.329 Curves; Elevation and proposal to revise the second clearly identified in the NPRM, and Speed Limitations requirement of paragraph (a), stating therefore appeared to have been that such a sweeping prohibition against omitted, due to the way the table was Determining the maximum speed that the outside rail being lower than the formatted for publication in the Federal a vehicle may safely operate around a inside rail is inappropriate. The AAR Register. Consequently, the table is curve is based on the degree of track explained that turnouts off of gradual being revised to ensure that these values curvature, actual elevation, and amount curves can have small reverse are properly displayed. of unbalanced elevation, where the superelevation by design, even for track The former text of paragraph (c) has actual elevation and curvature are where speeds over 90 m.p.h. are been moved to a new paragraph (d). In derived by a moving average technique. permitted. The AAR also noted that the revised paragraph (c) FRA has added This approach, as codified in this Task Force had recommended tighter, single-deviation geometry limits section, is as valid in the high-speed eliminating this requirement from for operations above 5 inches of cant regime as it is in the lower-speed track paragraph (a), and that, if FRA were deficiency. These additions include 31- classes, and § 213.57 is the counterpart unwilling to adopt that foot, 62-foot, and 124-foot MCO limits. to this section for track Classes 1 recommendation, then the original The track geometry limits in revised through 5. As in § 213.57, FRA has language should be retained. paragraph (c) are based on the results of substantially revised this section, FRA has modified this provision to simulation studies to determine the safe including both modifying and clarifying state that the outside rail of a curve may amplitudes of track geometry alinement the qualification requirements and not be lower than the inside rail by variations, discussed in Section IV.B approval process for vehicles intended design, except when engineered to above, which describes in particular the to operate at more than 3 inches of cant address specific track or operating 124-foot MCO limit for Class 7 track. deficiency. conditions, and that the limits in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16076 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

§ 213.331 apply in all cases. FRA maximum allowable speed for a track horizontal when the vehicle is standing continues to believe that the former rule segment based on the condition of the (stationary) on track with a uniform text could give the mistaken impression track. superelevation equal to the proposed that it is appropriate to design reverse In addition, as proposed, former cant deficiency. Consequently, the rule elevation into curves as the nominal footnote 4 is being redesignated as no longer imposes a 7-inch condition for all curves. Nonetheless, footnote 6, and a statement within the superelevation static lean requirement FRA appreciates from the comments former footnote is being removed generally; rather, the amount of raised that reverse elevation is designed regarding the application of the Vmax superelevation is dependent on the into certain curves both out of necessity equation to the spirals on both ends of proposed cant deficiency. For example, and for safety reasons. FRA did not the curve if Eu exceeds 4 inches. The if the proposed cant deficiency is 6 intend its proposal to nullify such Vmax equation is intended to be applied inches, the superelevation used for engineering design—engineering design in the body of the curve where the cant demonstrating compliance with this of which the track owner and railroad deficiency is the greatest, and the actual paragraph is also 6 inches. are aware in carrying out railroad elevation and degree of curvature are The requirements in paragraph (d) operations and responsibilities safely. determined according to the moving may be met by either static or dynamic As modified, the rule text addresses average techniques defined in footnote testing, and are consistent with the both the concerns raised by FRA and 6, as well as in footnote 8, discussed requirements in § 213.57. As in § 213.57, those raised in the comments, and the below. Within spirals, where the degree the vehicle type must be tested in a Task Force concurred with this revision. of curvature and elevation are changing ready-for service condition. In As explained in the discussion of continuously, local deviations from consultation with the Task Force, FRA specific comments and conclusions uniform elevation and degree of is clarifying that the vehicle type be section of the preamble, above, what curvature are governed by the limits in tested in a ready-for-service condition, was proposed as paragraph (b) is not § 213.327 and § 213.331. i.e., in the same vehicle/track included in this final rule. Please see Former footnote 5 is being performance condition in which it Wheel Unloading from Wind on redesignated as footnote 8 without would be in passenger service. At the Superelevated Curves, Section V.B., for substantive change. same time, FRA is clarifying paragraph a full explanation of FRA’s treatment of Paragraph (c), which was proposed as (e), below, so that the load condition that proposal. Rather, what was paragraph (d) in the NPRM, provides under which testing is performed is proposed as paragraph (c) is designated that all vehicle types are considered to included in the description of the test as paragraph (b). be qualified for up to 3 inches of cant procedure. For example, the vehicle As proposed, in paragraph (b) the deficiency, as allowed since the 1998 type may or may not be loaded to Vmax formula determines the maximum Track Safety Standards final rule. simulate passengers on board, and this allowable posted timetable operating Paragraph (d), which was proposed as information would be necessary for a speed for curved track based on the paragraph (e) in the NPRM, is being complete evaluation of the vehicle’s qualified cant deficiency (inches of modified to specify the requirements for performance. unbalance), Eu, for the vehicle type. This vehicle qualification over track with As noted, the static lean test limits the paragraph also references a new more than 3 inches of cant deficiency in vertical wheel load remaining on the footnote 7 to permit the vehicle type to track Classes 6 through 9. This raised wheels to no less than 60 percent operate at the qualified cant deficiency paragraph formerly specified two sets of of their static level values and limits the 1 for which it is approved, Eu, plus ⁄2 static lean test requirements for vehicle roll of a passenger carbody to 8.6 inch, if actual elevation of the outside qualification for more than 3 inches of degrees with respect to the horizontal, rail, Ea, and degree of track curvature, D, cant deficiency. The first set of when the vehicle is standing on track change as a result of track degradation. requirements limited both the vertical with superelevation equal to the This paragraph is intended to provide a wheel load remaining on the raised proposed cant deficiency. The dynamic tolerance to account for the effects of wheels to no less than 60 percent of test limits the steady-state vertical local crosslevel or curvature conditions their static level values and the roll of wheel load remaining on the low rail on Vmax that may result in the operating a passenger carbody to 5.7 degrees with wheels to no less than 60 percent of cant deficiency exceeding that approved respect to the horizontal, for a vehicle their static level values and limits the for the equipment, i.e, the actual standing on superelevation equal to the lateral acceleration in a passenger car to operating speed may exceed the proposed cant deficiency. The second 0.15g steady-state, when the vehicle maximum allowable posted timetable set of requirements addressed potential operates through a curve at the operating speed. Without this tolerance, roll-over and passenger safety issues proposed cant deficiency. This 0.15g these track conditions could generate a should a vehicle be stopped or traveling steady-state lateral acceleration limit in limiting speed exception, and some at very low speed on a curve with 7 the dynamic test is consistent with the railroads have adopted the approach of inches of superelevation, by limiting 8.6-degree roll limit in the static lean reducing the operating cant deficiency both the vertical wheel load remaining test, in that it corresponds to the lateral of the vehicle in order to avoid these on the raised wheels to no less than 60 acceleration a passenger would exceptions. FRA believes that this 1⁄2 percent of their static level values and experience in a standing (stationary) inch tolerance is supported by the roll of a passenger carbody to 8.6 vehicle whose carbody is at a roll angle operational experience and degrees with respect to the horizontal. of 8.6 degrees with respect to the complemented by related standards In the final rule, the revised horizontal. The former 5.7-degree roll acting to mitigate safety concerns. For requirements, consistent with the limit, which limited steady-state, instance, the Vmax formula is not revised standards in § 213.57 (for lower- carbody lateral acceleration to 0.1g, has intended to replace FRA’s track speed track classes), limit both the been removed. geometry limits, which more clearly vertical wheel load remaining on the FRA notes that the less stringent focus on individual track irregularities raised wheels to no less than 60 percent steady-state, carbody lateral acceleration with shorter wavelengths. These track of their static level values and carbody limit and carbody roll angle limit geometry limits apply independently roll for passenger cars to no more than adopted in this final rule will minimize and act independently to limit the 8.6 degrees with respect to the both the need to equip vehicles with tilt

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16077

systems at higher cant deficiencies and limit at 0.15g. FRA requested specific The cant-excess requirement has also the costs associated with such features, comment on whether the proposed rule been addressed, as explained above. In as well. Moreover, by facilitating higher would appropriately provide for addition, FRA notes that it has removed cant deficiency operations, savings may passenger ride safety, and if not, the statement in the former footnote that also result from shortened trip times. requested that the commenters state the ‘‘test procedure may be conducted These savings may be particularly what additional requirement(s) should in a test facility.’’ Testing may of course beneficial to passenger operations in be imposed, if any. be conducted in a test facility, but the emerging high-speed rail corridors, As noted above, in commenting on statement could cause confusion that enabling faster operations through the NPRM, SNCF agreed that the limit testing may be conducted only in a test curves. of 0.15g for steady-state, carbody lateral facility. No such limitation is intended. Of course, any such savings should acceleration is justified in that this Former paragraph (f) is being moved not come at the expense of safety, and value is usually considered a comfort to new paragraph (g), which was FRA is adopting additional track limit for curve design and is the limit proposed as paragraph (h) in the NPRM. geometry requirements for operations value accepted for passenger cars. SNCF As noted, paragraph (g) is identical to above 5 inches of cant deficiency, specifically commented that, in two other provisions in this final rule: whether or not the vehicles are European rules, the 0.15g value § 213.57(g)—the counterpart to this equipped with tilt systems. These corresponds to an exceptional value of section for lower-speed track classes— additional track geometry requirements cant deficiency, while the and § 213.345(i). The Task Force agreed were developed to control for recommended value is about 0.14g. FRA that the purpose of these paragraphs is undesirable vehicle response to track sees no conflict with these comments; the same and recommended that the conditions that could pose derailment measurements and supplemental same text be included. FRA agreed and concerns. Nonetheless, the VTI limits on research have indicated that a steady- has modified the rule accordingly. transient accelerations may need to be state, carbody lateral acceleration limit Please see the discussion of § 213.345(i), stricter when combined with higher of 0.15g is considered to be the below. steady-state lateral acceleration, to maximum, steady-state lateral As discussed in § 213.57(h), address passenger ride safety concerns. acceleration above which jolts from paragraph (h) was proposed to be added Additional research on passenger vehicle dynamic response to track as paragraph (i) to clarify that vehicle response to vibration is necessary to deviations can present a hazard to types that have been permitted by FRA establish this relationship and model passenger safety. FRA has therefore to operate at cant deficiencies, Eu, this effect. While the tighter geometry adopted the proposal in the final rule. greater than 3 inches prior to the limits at high cant deficiency that have The changes to this section also publication of this final rule in the been added in this final rule were not separate and clarify the submittal Federal Register would be considered specifically developed to address such requirements to FRA to obtain approval qualified under this section to operate at concerns, they may help to control for the qualifying cant deficiency of a those permitted cant deficiencies over transient, carbody acceleration events vehicle type (paragraph (e)), and to the previously-operated track that could pose ride safety concerns for notify FRA prior to the implementation segments(s). Consequently, before the passengers subjected to higher steady- of the approved higher curving speeds vehicle type could operate over another state lateral accelerations. These (paragraph (f)). As discussed above, FRA track segment at such cant deficiencies, additional track geometry requirements is clarifying paragraph (e) so that the FRA proposed that the vehicle type be apply only to operations above 5 inches load condition under which the testing qualified as provided in this section. of cant deficiency, where steady-state, was performed is included in the In commenting on the NPRM, Amtrak carbody lateral acceleration may description of the test procedure. stated that this proposal implicated approach 0.15g for typical vehicle Additional clarification in paragraph (e) issues associated with vehicle designs. FRA does note that higher cant has been included for submitting qualification, and Amtrak referenced its deficiencies are necessary to support suspension system maintenance comments concerning proposed high-speed operations on curved track, information. This requirement for § 213.345(b) and (d). Moreover, Amtrak and, as a result, the additional track submitting suspension system stated that the tests proposed in this geometry requirements contained in this maintenance information applies to section, as in § 213.57 for lower-speed final rule for such high cant deficiency vehicle types not subject to parts 238 or track classes, would be even more operations are likely to be implicated. 229 of this chapter, such as a freight car wasteful because, unlike the tests Moreover, FRA is not aware of any operated in a freight train, and then only proposed for § 213.345, the tests general safety issue involving to safety-critical components. Paragraph proposed here would not have been passengers losing their balance and (f) also clarifies that in approving the conducted under ‘‘local’’ conditions but falling due to excessive steady-state, request made pursuant to paragraph (e), rather in a static testing facility having carbody lateral accelerations in current FRA may impose conditions necessary no connection to the location of the operations. for safely operating at the higher curving proposed service. Amtrak therefore Yet, as explained in the discussion of speeds. wondered what types of conditions FRA § 213.57(d), FRA is concerned in FRA notes that former footnote 6 is believed would be uncovered during particular about the effect transient, being redesignated as footnote 9 and this testing process before permitting carbody lateral acceleration events that modified in conformance with the the vehicle types to operate at the same pose no derailment safety concerns may changes in this final rule. The former cant deficiencies on other track nonetheless have on passenger ride footnote offered an example test segments. Amtrak believed that it would safety when combined with increased procedure providing measurements for be simply repeating the exact same test steady-state, carbody lateral acceleration up to 6 inches of cant deficiency and 7 on the exact same car at the exact same forces. Consequently, to fully inform inches of cant excess. This footnote has test facility, and therefore found it FRA’s decisions in preparing this final been modified to reference testing at difficult to find any justification for the rule, FRA specifically invited public ‘‘the proposed cant deficiency,’’ rather proposed limitation. comment on the proposal to set the than a specific condition, consistent As noted, FRA discussed the proposal steady-state, carbody lateral acceleration with the requirements of this section. and the comments received with the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16078 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

Task Force. The Task Force ‘‘vehicle type,’’ both terms are defined parallels an existing entry in the recommended that vehicle types that here for the purposes of these sections corresponding table in § 213.63 for the have been permitted by FRA to operate so that these sections’ requirements may lower-speed track classes but that there at cant deficiencies, Eu, greater than 3 be properly understood and applied. is a proviso contained in § 213.59(b) that inches but not exceeding 5 inches be These terms have the same meaning as makes allowances for elevation runoff in considered qualified under this section in § 213.57(j). curves. Specifically, the proviso in to operate at those permitted cant Section 213.331 Track Surface § 213.59(b) states: ‘‘If physical deficiencies over all track segments— conditions do not permit a spiral long not only over previously operated This section is the subpart G enough to accommodate the minimum segments. As adopted in paragraph counterpart to § 213.63 and is intended length of runoff, part of the runoff may (h)(1), FRA agrees that extending the for higher-speed track classes. be on tangent track.’’ The AAR believed nature of the qualification in this way is As proposed in the NPRM, FRA is that the proposed restriction on the appropriate for operations on Class 6 making three changes to the single- deviation from zero crosslevel on track given that the requirements of this deviation, track surface limits in tangent track needed a similar proviso, paragraph are static or steady-state and paragraph (a). Specifically, the 124-foot and recommended including the same do not directly reflect the ‘‘local’’ MCO limit for Class 9 track has been text in this paragraph. Amtrak likewise interaction of the vehicle and the track. reduced to 1 inch, based on a review of raised this concern and made the same Further, FRA makes clear that the simulation results of Acela equipment suggestion. The Task Force concurred provision applies not only to previous performance. Further, the limit for the with these commenters, recognizing that permission by FRA to operate at these difference in crosslevel between any the additional text applies to the cant deficiencies, but also prospectively two points less than 62 feet apart has comparable provision for the lower- @ to vehicle types when they are approved been reduced to 1 inches for Class 8 speed classes of track. FRA agrees and track, and 1 inch for Class 9 track. These by FRA to operate at these cant has included the text as footnote 2 to two changes are intended to provide deficiencies. Nonetheless, a requirement this section. Footnote numbering has more consistent safety limits and are has been included in paragraph (h)(1) been modified appropriately to reflect based on simulation studies conducted that written notice be provided to FRA the addition of this new footnote 2. for short warp conditions. no less than 30 calendar days prior to As proposed, FRA is also adding the proposed implementation of such In addition, three new limits are being added to the single-deviation, track tighter geometry limits for operations curving speeds on another track above 5 inches of cant deficiency in segment in accordance with paragraph surface limits in paragraph (a). Two of these limits (deviation from zero revised paragraph (b). These include (f) of this section. This notice is 124-foot MCO limits and a new limit for intended to identify the new track crosslevel on tangent track, and reverse elevation for curved track), although not the difference in crosslevel between any segment(s) so that FRA is aware of the two points less than 10 feet apart (short proposed operation, can ensure that explicitly stated in the table in former paragraph (a), have effectively been warp). The text of former paragraph (b) appropriate permission has been is being moved to new paragraph (c). provided for it, and otherwise applicable to track Classes 6 through 9 because these higher-speed track classes FRA believes that adding these track administer the requirements of this rule. geometry limits is necessary to provide However, FRA does note that must at least meet the minimum an equivalent margin of safety for pursuant to § 213.345, Vehicle/track geometry requirements for the lower- operations at higher cant deficiency. system qualification, dynamic testing is speed track classes. Specifically, the 1- These limits are based on the results of required when moving a vehicle type to inch limit for deviation from zero simulation studies to determine the safe a new track segment for operation at crosslevel on tangent Class 5 track, as cant deficiencies greater than 5 inches specified in § 213.63, is being added as amplitudes of track geometry surface on Class 6 track, or greater than 3 inches a limit for track Classes 6 through 9. variations. See Technical Background, on Class 7 through 9 track, to reflect the Second, the c-inch reverse elevation Section IV.B, above. ‘‘local’’ interaction of the vehicle and limit for curved track, as formerly As noted in § 213.313, FRA received the track over which it operates as a specified in § 213.329(a), is being moved comment on the inclusion of proposed system. Accordingly, paragraph (h)(2) to this paragraph (a). The third limit, a footnote 3, specifying that curved track makes clear that vehicle types that have new limit for the difference in crosslevel surface limits apply only when track been permitted by FRA to operate at between any two points less than 10 feet curvature is greater than 0.25 degree. In response to this comment and as a result cant deficiencies, Eu, greater than 5 apart (short warp), is being added to inches on Class 6 track, or greater than paragraph (a) as well. FRA noted in the of Task Force discussions following 3 inches on Class 7 through 9 track, NPRM that the Task Force proposed that publication of the NPRM, FRA is adding shall be considered qualified under this the existing 1-inch runoff limit for Class § 213.313 to make clear that limits section to operate at those permitted 5 track, as specified in § 213.63, be specified for curved track apply only to cant deficiencies only for the previously added for higher track classes. However, track having a curvature greater than operated or identified track segments(s). FRA believes that appropriate surface 0.25 degree. By defining curved track as Operation of these vehicle types at such requirements have already been track having a curvature greater than cant deficiencies and track class on any established in § 213.331 that address 0.25 degree, the rule clarifies when the other track segment is permitted only in this runoff condition, and thus FRA requirements for curved track apply and accordance with the qualification believes it would be duplicative to makes the adoption of proposed requirements in this subpart. include this 1-inch runoff limit footnote 3 unnecessary. Paragraph (i), proposed as paragraph separately in the text of this paragraph. The remaining comment on this (j), is a new paragraph for defining the In its comments on this section, the section was raised by Bombardier terms ‘‘vehicle’’ and ‘‘vehicle type,’’ as AAR raised concern with the proposed concerning the propriety of retaining used in this section and in §§ 213.333 addition in paragraph (a) of a new Class 9 track standards. FRA has and 213.345. As the term ‘‘vehicle’’ is restriction on the deviation from zero addressed Bombardier’s comment in the used elsewhere in this subpart and has crosslevel on tangent track. The AAR general discussion of Class 9 track a different meaning than the term noted that the proposed requirement standards in § 213.307.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16079

Section 213.332 Combined Track speed, high cant deficiency operations, Paragraph (a)(3) concerns TGMS Alinement and Surface Deviations which apply as required by § 213.57(i). inspections for Class 7 track. The former As proposed in the NPRM, FRA is FRA believes that these requirements Class 7 track inspection frequency of adding a new section containing limits are appropriate and necessary for twice within 120 calendar days with not addressing combined track alinement operations at high cant deficiency on less than 30 days between inspections is and surface deviations. These limits lower-speed track classes. being reduced to not less than 25 days apply to high-speed operations on In paragraph (a)(2), FRA is also between inspections in this 120-day curved track above 5 inches of cant adding TGMS inspection requirements period. This change is intended to provide additional operational deficiency, as well as to any operation for Class 6 track, with two different flexibility to fulfill the requirements and at Class 9 speeds. (In preparing the final inspection frequencies depending on allow for more frequent inspections to rule, FRA added ‘‘track’’ to the section the amount of cant deficiency. For be performed regularly, for example, on heading to be consistent with the operations at a qualified cant deficiency, a monthly basis, with additional days in section headings for § 213.327, Track Eu, not exceeding 5 inches, at least one which to complete inspections that may alinement, and § 213.331, Track inspection must be conducted each be interrupted or not started as planned. surface.) An equation-based safety limit calendar year with not less than 170 days between inspections. If the For Class 8 and 9 track in paragraph is provided for track alinement and (a)(4), the former TGMS inspection surface deviations occurring in qualified cant deficiency is more than 5 inches, then at least two inspections frequency of twice within 60 calendar combination within a single chord days with not less than 15 days between length of each other. The limits in this must be conducted each calendar year, with not less than 120 days between inspections is also being reduced to not section are intended to be used only less than 12 days between inspections with a TGMS. These limits are inspections. In its comments on the NPRM, in this 120-day period. This change is applicable on the outside rail in curves, also intended to provide additional as well as to any of the two rails of a however, the AAR stated that the focus of the proposal was on operations with operational flexibility to fulfill the tangent section in Class 9 track. Please requirements and allow for more cant deficiency greater than 5 inches, see the discussion of § 213.65, which is frequent inspections to be performed and that there was no support in the the companion provision to this section regularly, for example, on a bi-weekly record for TGMS inspection for lower-speed classes of track. Please basis, with additional days in which to requirements on Class 6 track having also note that in accordance with complete inspections that may be less cant deficiency. Consequently, the § 213.313, the limits specified for interrupted or not started as planned. curved track apply only to track having AAR maintained that FRA should not In paragraph (b)(1), FRA proposed to a curvature greater than 0.25 degree. adopt TGMS inspection requirements retain the requirement that track The only comment on this section for Class 6 track where the cant geometry measurements be taken no was raised by Bombardier concerning deficiency is not greater than 5 inches. more than 3 feet away from the contact the inclusion of standards for Class 9 FRA believes that TGMS inspection of point of wheels carrying a vertical load track. Specifically, Bombardier stated Class 6 track is required for safety of no less than 10,000 pounds per that the inclusion of combined regardless of the operating cant wheel. In response, the AAR alinement and surface deviations on all deficiency. Nonetheless, the rule does commented that this provision would Class 9 track, both on curves and on take into account that for track with exclude the use of current test platforms tangent track, was not reviewed by the lower amounts of cant deficiency, the (including hi-rail geometry equipment) Task Force. FRA believes that the inspection need not be as frequent— that do not meet this axle load, as well standards are appropriate for Class 9 only once per calendar year. Further, as the development and exploration of track; please see the general discussion discussion within the Task Force in test platforms that do not meet this axle of Class 9 track standards in § 213.307. response to this comment revealed that, load. The AAR believed that, lacking Consequently, this section is being with the exception of a limited amount justification for this requirement, it adopted as proposed without of Class 6 track in the state of New York should be deleted. FRA also notes that substantive change. owned by CSXT over which Amtrak Amtrak commented on proposed operated, all other Class 6 track was paragraphs (b) and (h) as together Section 213.333 Automated Vehicle- inspected by Amtrak with a qualifying creating an internal inconsistency that Based Inspection Systems TGMS meeting the requirements of this would make compliance difficult. FRA is making a number of significant final rule. FRA makes clear that an According to Amtrak, it uses a GRMS as changes to this section, which contains operating railroad may fulfill the its TGMS to take geometry requirements for automated vehicle- requirements of this paragraph, even measurements of record for its Class 8 based measurement systems—i.e., track where it is not the track owner. In this track. Amtrak stated that proposed geometry measurement systems, gage regard, given that Amtrak currently paragraph (b)(1) would require that the restraint measurement systems, and the operates over all Class 6 track, it may measurement be made within 3 feet of systems necessary to monitor vehicle/ conduct TGMS inspections as the the 10,000-pound loaded axle and that track interaction (acceleration and operating railroad on behalf of any this distance requirement is not wheel/rail forces). For clarity, FRA is owner of Class 6 track, and FRA does attainable on vehicles using a contact revising the original section heading not foresee any change that would geometry system such as a GRMS. ‘‘Automated vehicle inspection impact such an arrangement between a Further, Amtrak stated that while it systems’’ to reflect more clearly that the track owner and Amtrak or another would be possible for an entity to inspection systems are vehicle-based— high-speed passenger railroad operation. comply with the requirements of both not necessarily vehicles themselves— Moreover, as discussed below, FRA is proposed paragraphs (b) and (h), Amtrak and are for inspecting track conditions modifying the requirements in the final could not without incurring the time and monitoring vehicle/track rule to address issues raised by the AAR and expense of running two type of interactions. concerning a host freight railroad TGMS tests, where it now runs only In paragraph (a)(1), FRA is adding performing TGMS inspections of its one. Amtrak therefore suggested that a TGMS inspection requirements for low- track in its own right as the track owner. railroad be deemed in compliance with

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16080 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

paragraph (b)(1) when the railroad recommendation to prohibit the use of 2-foot interval, FRA is removing the performs otherwise qualifying TGMS a 2-foot sampling rate, and that FRA distance reference altogether in tests with a GRMS. Amtrak did add that should not adopt this change. In paragraph (c), as it is adequately while CSXT was the only freight addition, Amtrak stated that the 1-foot addressed in paragraph (b). railroad with track affected by interval in proposed paragraphs (b)(2) Paragraphs (d) through (f) remain paragraph (b), if high-speed operations and (c), as discussed below, would unchanged. do proliferate, freight railroads may find conflict with the requirement in During Task Force consideration of themselves unable to comply with the paragraph (h)(1)(i) for GRMS equipment the draft final rule, it was noted that regulations, as proposed, because they to take measurements within a 16-inch former paragraph (g) required the track would no longer be able to rely on their interval. Consequently, Amtrak stated owner to maintain for a period of one hi-rail-mounted TGMS equipment. that it could not meet the requirements year following an inspection performed FRA notes that the actual text of of proposed paragraph (b) with its by a qualifying TGMS, a copy of the plot paragraph (b)(1) as proposed in the current GRMS equipment and operating and the exception ‘‘printout’’ for the NPRM was unchanged from the 1998 practices. track segment involved. Given the Track Safety Standards final rule. What FRA discussed this comment with the proliferation of electronic information was different was the proposal to Task Force, and the Task Force since the 1998 Track Safety Standards expand the application of TGMS concurred with modifying the provision were issued, FRA’s support for inspection requirements to more than to state that track geometry appropriate usage of electronic track Classes 7 through 9, discussed measurements shall be taken and information to comply with FRA’s above. As explained by the AAR in Task recorded on a distance-based sampling requirements, and FRA’s recognition Force meetings, this change would make interval at a nominal distance of 1 foot, that reports of exceptions do not the TGMS requirements applicable to not exceeding 2 feet. FRA agrees with necessarily need to be printed out, FRA equipment used by CSXT for the the Task Force’s recommendation, and has clarified the paragraph by replacing inspection of Class 6 track. To address in the final rule has expressed the 1-foot ‘‘exception printout’’ with ‘‘exception this concern, the text is being revised to sampling interval as the preferable report.’’ FRA has also modified the allow for FRA approval to measure track distance, all else being equal. paragraph to apply the requirements geometry other than as specified in this Nonetheless, FRA recognizes that an expressly to railroads, as well as to track paragraph. Further, the text is being allowance can be made for sampling at owners, consistent with the others revised to express the 10,000-pound up to a 2-foot interval depending on the changes in this rule to provide clearly wheel load in kips, for consistency with circumstances involved, and therefore for railroads to carry out the regulatory related provisions, as suggested by railroads may continue to use requirements, and not only track Bombardier in its comments on the equipment that samples within such a owners. The Task Force concurred with NPRM. Consequently, as revised, 2-foot interval. FRA has modified a these revisions, which clarify FRA’s paragraph (b)(1) states that track related provision in paragraph (c), as intent. geometry measurements shall be taken discussed below. Further, the AAR As noted in the discussion of no more than 3 feet away from the requested that in this final rule, FRA § 213.110, above, FRA is making contact point of wheels carrying a make clear that the use of existing changes to the GRMS testing vertical load of no less than 10 kips per equipment that takes measurement requirements in paragraphs (h) and (i), wheel, unless otherwise approved by samples on a time-based interval is to reflect recommendations made in the FRA. FRA believes that this permitted as long as the equipment FRA report titled ‘‘Development of Gage modification also addresses Amtrak’s produces a measurement within the Widening Projection Parameter for the concern by providing added flexibility specified distance-based sampling Deployable Gage Restraint Measurement for the use of different equipment that interval. Accordingly, FRA makes clear System.’’ These changes include measures track geometry. FRA did not that equipment that takes measurement replacing the GWR equation (and all intend for a railroad to duplicate samples on a time-based interval at a references to GWR) with a GWP measurements to comply with both rate that corresponds to the distance- equation, which is intended to paragraphs (b) and (h). A railroad may based interval specified in this section compensate for the weight of the testing use GRMS equipment to perform indeed complies with this provision. vehicle. This correction is also intended otherwise qualifying TGMS tests. In the In paragraph (c), as proposed, FRA is to result in more uniform strength circumstance raised by Amtrak in its specifying the application of the added measurements across the variety of comments on the NPRM, Amtrak does TGMS inspection requirements for high testing vehicles that are in operation. not need to repeat the testing performed cant deficiency operations on lower- FRA has also modified the Class 8 and using GRMS equipment with one of its speed track classes. These requirements 9 track inspection frequency of once per TGMS vehicles as well. in subpart G apply to vehicle types year with not less than 180 days In paragraph (b)(2), FRA proposed to intended to operate at any curving between inspections to require at least amend the TGMS sampling interval so speed producing more than 5 inches of one inspection per calendar year with that the interval would not exceed 1 cant deficiency, as provided in not less than 170 days between foot. FRA believed this proposal to be in § 213.57(i). Requirements for track inspections. This change is intended to line with current practice for providing Classes 6 through 9 have been amended provide additional operational sufficient data to identify track geometry to reference § 213.332, the new section flexibility in scheduling inspections. perturbations. In commenting on the for combined track alinement and In Bombardier’s comments on the NPRM, however, the AAR stated that surface deviations. In addition, NPRM, in addition to its general there is equipment in use that takes consistent with the modification of concerns on the inclusion of track Class measurements at a 2-foot sampling rate, paragraph (b)(2), as discussed above, 9 standards, Bombardier raised specific and that there is no showing that this FRA is removing the proposed reference concern that there was no justification equipment should be prohibited from in paragraph (c) to measuring and for requiring GRMS to be operated over taking measurements in this way. The processing track geometry parameters at Class 9 track. Bombardier stated that if AAR stated that in developing the an interval of no more than every 1 foot. the track standards for Class 9 track NPRM the Task Force made no While former paragraph (c) referenced a were contained in an RPA, it would be

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16081

expected that the requirements specific monitored at least twice within any 60- equipment operating in a freight train to the operation, such as for ballast and day period with not less than 12 days only at speeds above 125 m.p.h., per the maximum number of allowable between inspections on at least one paragraph (j)(3), and only as defective crossties, would result in a passenger car of each type that is appropriate; specifically, if no passenger superior track structure than currently assigned to the service. This paragraph carrying vehicles are assigned to the required. A GRMS requirement on this essentially restates requirements service, there are no passenger carrying structure would result in a significant applicable to operations on Class 7 track vehicles to monitor. FRA also makes cost with no safety benefit, according to in former paragraph (k), reducing the clear that, in the case of Amtrak’s Acela Bombardier. minimum period between inspections service at track Class 8 speeds, the FRA notes that the requirement to in the 60-day period to not less than 12 carbody acceleration monitoring conduct GRMS testing on Class 9 track days—from not less than 15 days in the requirements of paragraph (j)(3) require was established in the 1998 Track Safety former paragraph. only one power car (locomotive), i.e., Standards final rule and is not a new As discussed in Section IV.A, above, non-passenger carrying vehicle, and one requirement. Nonetheless, FRA FRA is revising the requirement in trailer car (passenger coach) to be recognizes that the underlying issue former paragraph (j) to monitor carbody monitored. FRA recognizes that only raised by Bombardier relates to track and truck accelerations each day on at one type of passenger carrying vehicle is inspection and maintenance standards least one vehicle in one train operating currently assigned to this Acela for a high-speed operation on a at track Class 8 and 9 speeds. Based on service—the cafe´ cars, first class cars, dedicated right-of-way. This concern data collected to date and to reduce and business class cars are all passenger has been addressed in the revision to unnecessary burden on the track owner carrying vehicles of the same dynamic § 213.307, as discussed above. FRA’s or railroad operating the vehicle type, response type. regulatory approval may allow for the this monitoring frequency has been In commenting on the NPRM, Amtrak use of inspection and maintenance reduced from a minimum of once per stated that the proposal to revise criteria and procedures in the day to four times within any 7-day paragraph (k)(1) to require alternative to those contained in this period for carbody accelerations, and accelerometers on the floor of a vehicle, subpart, including the GRMS inspection twice within 60 days for truck as near to the center of a truck as requirements in this paragraph, based accelerations. These requirements are practicable, would be a substantive upon a showing that at least an now found in paragraph (j)(3). change from the requirement to place equivalent level of safety is provided. In its comments on proposed them near the end of the vehicle at the FRA is making one change to paragraph (j), the AAR stated that it floor level. Amtrak noted that paragraph (i) from that proposed in the opposed the monitoring of carbody accelerometers have been mounted NPRM by stating the GWP load in kips acceleration for any track class. The under the floors of its vehicles in the and not pounds, as suggested by AAR stated that these accelerations are machine bay on the centerline next to Bombardier in its comments on the often caused by train handling and other the trucks. Amtrak believed that placing NPRM. The Task Force concurred that normal events unrelated to the the units on the floor would not be an the units should be stated in kips for condition of the track. Requiring option and would result in the creation consistency among measurement units. railroads to monitor carbody of a tripping hazard in the center of the As proposed, FRA is revising the acceleration and address accelerometer passenger aisle. Nor did Amtrak believe wording and requirements in measurements would divert resources that there was a readily-available space paragraphs (j) and (k), which concern from more productive safety endeavors, to locate the accelerometers near the the monitoring of carbody and truck according to the AAR. Further, the AAR centerline within coach cars. Moreover, accelerations. Changes include adding believed that, leaving aside the issue of Amtrak was concerned with locating the option to use a portable device when whether there should be any monitoring accelerometers where they could be performing the acceleration monitoring, of carbody accelerations, proposed subject to being kicked and influenced and clarifying the requirements for paragraph (j) contained contradictory by dropped luggage, which could falsely locating the carbody and truck statements regarding the vehicle to be indicate unsafe readings when there are accelerometers. In paragraph (j)(1), used for monitoring: the first sentence none. Amtrak therefore requested that monitoring requirements have been proposed the use of a vehicle having FRA retain the original language in added for operations above 5 inches of dynamic response characteristics that paragraph (k) relating to placement of cant deficiency on track Classes 1 are representative of other vehicles accelerometers. through 6. These requirements for assigned to the service, while paragraph FRA is revising this final rule in monitoring high cant deficiency (j)(1) proposed to require the use of at response to Amtrak’s comment so that operations apply to vehicle types least one passenger car of each type that paragraph (k)(1) requires the qualified to operate at any curving is assigned to the service. The AAR accelerometers to be attached to the speed producing more than 5 inches of added that freight railroads do not carbody on or under the floor of the cant deficiency, as provided in possess passenger cars. vehicle, as near the center of a truck as § 213.57(i) and § 213.345(a), as As a result of the AAR’s comments practicable. FRA did not intend for the appropriate. Indeed, these monitoring and discussions within the Task Force, proposed text to create the concerns and qualification requirements for the text of paragraph (j) is being revised raised by Amtrak. FRA’s intent in carbody accelerations are intended to be to make clear that the requirements revising the text has been focused on complementary, in the same way as the apply as specified for the combination placing the accelerometers near the monitoring requirements for track of track class, cant deficiencies, and center of a truck—not simply near the Classes 7 through 9 are likewise vehicles subject to paragraphs (j)(1) end of a vehicle. FRA did not intend in intended to continue to apply to through (3). Consequently, the any way to remove the needed vehicles that have been qualified to acceleration monitoring requirements in flexibility for a railroad to locate the operate under § 213.345. paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) for speeds up accelerators on or under the floor. FRA Paragraph (j)(2) applies to operations to 125 m.p.h. do not apply to equipment has revised the rule text accordingly, at track Class 7 speeds, and requires that operated in a freight train. In fact, the and the Task Force concurred with this carbody and truck accelerations be requirements of this section apply to revision.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16082 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

Paragraph (k)(2) is based on former FRA is revising paragraph (k)(3) in specifically propose to retain paragraph paragraph (k) and provides that a device consultation with the Task Force. (m), seemingly because of the proposed for measuring lateral accelerations shall Paragraph (k)(3) provides that if any of addition in paragraph (l) of an annual be mounted on a truck frame at a the carbody lateral, carbody vertical, or requirement to provide an analysis of longitudinal location as close as truck frame lateral acceleration safety the monitoring data gathered for practicable to an axle’s centerline (either limits in this section’s table of vehicle/ operations on track Classes 8 and 9. outside axle for trucks containing more track interaction safety limits is However, while the reporting than 2 axles), or, if approved by FRA, exceeded, corrective action shall be requirement in paragraph (l) is new, it at an alternate location. As proposed, a taken as necessary. Paragraph (k)(3) also is intended to support the change to the provision has been added to allow the provides that track personnel shall be IWS testing requirements so that IWS track owner or operating railroad to notified when the accelerometers testing is no longer generally required petition FRA for an exemption from the indicate a possible track-related for Class 8 and 9 operations, as periodic monitoring requirements in problem. FRA did not intend that a discussed above. Moreover, the paragraph (j) for truck acceleration, after railroad issue a slow order merely reporting requirement is only an annual 2 years, or 1 million miles, whichever because an accelerometer registers a one and, by virtue of applying only to occurs first. FRA does note that, ‘‘hit.’’ FRA intended that corrective Class 8 and 9 operations, does not pursuant to § 238.427, truck acceleration action be taken only as necessary for address lower-speed operations. is continuously monitored on each Tier safety, and has modified the paragraph At the recommendation of the Task II passenger vehicle in order to to make that clearer. Likewise, the Force, paragraph (m) is also being determine if hunting oscillations of the requirement to provide notification to modified to make clear that exception vehicle are occurring during revenue track personnel does not, in itself, data shall be maintained as a record, but operation. require that a slow order must be issued. not necessarily a printed record. Each Paragraph (k)(3) is based on Overall, FRA believes that this railroad or track owner is in the best provisions in former paragraphs (j) and paragraph reflects the intent of the position to determine the most efficient (k). Paragraph (j) formerly provided that former paragraphs and provides the and effective method for keeping this each track owner have in effect written necessary direction and flexibility to the information, and FRA makes clear that procedures for the notification of track track owner or railroad, or both, to the information may be maintained personnel when on-board respond appropriately when the electronically. In this regard, accelerometers on trains in Classes 8 accelerometers record that the safety § 213.369(f) requires that each vehicle/ and 9 indicate a possible track-related limits in the VTI table have been track interaction safety record required problem, and paragraph (k) formerly exceeded. under § 213.333(g) and (m) be made provided that for the periodic testing of FRA is modifying the requirement in available for inspection and copying by equipment in track Classes 7 through 9, paragraph (l) for conducting FRA, and § 213.369(e) sets forth speeds would be reduced if the vehicle/ instrumented wheelset (IWS) testing on conditions for maintaining records in an track interaction safety limits were Class 8 and 9 track. IWS testing is no electronic system. exceeded. In the NPRM, FRA sought to longer a general requirement applicable As proposed, substantial changes are combine the two provisions, proposing for all Class 8 and 9 track. Instead, the being made to the content of the VTI that if any of the carbody lateral, specific need to perform IWS testing safety limits table. In general, most of carbody vertical, or truck frame lateral shall be determined by FRA on a case- the limits have been clarified or acceleration safety limits in this by-case basis, after reviewing a report updated. Specifically, the single wheel section’s table of vehicle/track submitted annually by the track owner vertical load ratio limit has been interaction safety limits is exceeded, or railroad detailing the accelerometer tightened from 0.10 to 0.15 to ensure an appropriate speed restrictions be monitoring data collected in accordance adequate safety margin for wheel applied until corrective action is taken. with paragraphs (j) and (k) of this unloading. In its comments on the NPRM, section. A thorough review of the Acela The net axle lateral L/V ratio limit is Amtrak stated that the proposal in trainset IWS data, as well as being modified from 0.5, to 0.4 + 5.0/Va, paragraph (k)(3) would have required consideration of the economics so as to take into account the effect of Amtrak to issue a mandatory slow order associated with the testing, revealed that axle load and more appropriately reflect when an accelerometer recorded an there were significant cost and little the cumulative, detrimental effect of anomaly. Amtrak believed that the apparent safety benefit to justify IWS track panel shift from heavier vehicles. proposal was completely impractical testing as a general requirement on an This net axle lateral load limit is and did not take into account the reality annual basis. FRA believes that the intended to control excessive lateral of accelerometer testing or railroad testing and monitoring requirements in track shift and is sensitive to a number operations. Amtrak related the example this section, as a whole, together with of track parameters. The well- of an Acela coach with a bad lateral FRA’s oversight and ability to impose established, European Prud’homme damper that had recorded 57 separate IWS testing requirements as needed, are limit is a function of the axle load and ‘‘hits,’’ asserting that under the proposal sufficient to maintain safety at a lower this sensitivity is desired to differentiate Amtrak would have been required to cost. between coach car and heavier have placed slow orders on a large FRA is making conforming changes to locomotive loads. The Volpe Center’s portion of the NEC, impacting all paragraph (m), which, because of the TREDA (Track Residual Deflection intercity and commuter rail operations. revisions to this section, now requires Analysis) simulation work, testing at the Amtrak stated that the original that the track owner or railroad Transportation Technology Center, Inc. provision required Amtrak only to have maintain a copy of the most recent (TTCI), and comparison to the a plan in place to handle accelerometer exception records for the inspections Prud’homme limit all have indicated the data issues, that the requirement had required under paragraphs (j) and (k) of dependence on axle load and the served Amtrak well, and that there was this section, and, as appropriate, importance of initial, small lateral no evidence that mandatory slow orders paragraph (l) should IWS testing be deflections. Representatives of the Task would do anything but result in slower required. FRA noted in publishing the Force independently reviewed the trains. NPRM that the Task Force did not Volpe Center analysis and concurred

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16083

with this change. The limiting condition FRA is modifying the proposed maximum operating speed. An allows for a small initial deformation requirement that peak-to-peak carbody exception was provided for equipment and assumes a stable configuration with vertical (transient) accelerations, that had already operated in specified the accumulation of additional traffic. measured as the algebraic difference track classes. Rolling stock operating in Due to variations in vehicle design between the two extreme values of Class 6 track within one year prior to requirements and passenger ride safety, measured acceleration in any 1-second the promulgation of the 1998 final rule the carbody acceleration limits have time period, excluding any peak lasting was considered qualified. Further, been divided into separate limits for less than 50 milliseconds, not exceed vehicles operating at Class 7 track ‘‘Passenger Cars’’ and those for ‘‘Other 1.0g for both ‘‘Passenger Cars’’ and speeds under conditional waivers prior Vehicles’’ (such as conventional ‘‘Other Vehicles.’’ While the final rule to the promulgation of the 1998 final locomotives). In addition, the carbody retains the limit for ‘‘Passenger Cars’’ of rule were qualified for Class 7 track, transient acceleration limits have been 1.0g, the limit for ‘‘Other Vehicles’’ is including equipment that was then- modified from 0.5g lateral and 0.6g changed to 1.25g. operating on the Northeast Corridor at vertical to the following: in the lateral In commenting on the NPRM, Class 7 track speeds. direction, 0.65g for passenger cars and Bombardier stated that this limit had FRA is making a number of significant 0.75g for other vehicles; and, in the been an open issue with the Task Force changes to this section, whose heading vertical direction, 1.0g for both prior to publication of the NPRM and is modified from ‘‘Vehicle qualification passenger cars and other vehicles. These that it should be discussed by the Task testing’’ to ‘‘Vehicle/track system changes were developed after Force prior to promulgating this final qualification,’’ to reflect more considerable research into the rule. Further, in commenting on the appropriately the interaction of the performance of existing vehicles during proposed VTI safety limits, SNCF noted vehicle and the track over which it qualification testing and revenue that it did not consider vertical car body operates as a system. These changes operations. Overall, it was found that acceleration as a safety limit. This issue include modifying and clarifying this the carbody transient acceleration limits was discussed with the Task Force, and section’s substantive requirements, need not be as stringent to protect FRA reevaluated relevant test data, reorganizing the structure and layout of against events leading to vehicle or including wheel/rail loads at the time of the rule text, and revising the passenger safety issues. peak-to-peak acceleration. FRA does not qualification procedures. Among the believe that safety will be compromised specific changes, high cant deficiency Based on the small energy content by changing this limit to 1.25g. operations on lower-speed track classes associated with high-frequency The last set of changes to the VTI are subject to the requirements of this acceleration events of the carbody, FRA table concerns the truck lateral section in accordance with § 213.57(i). is adding text to exclude any transient acceleration limit used for the detection FRA proposed that paragraph (a) acceleration peaks lasting less than 50 of truck hunting. This limit is being require all vehicle types intended to milliseconds. Other changes include the tightened from 0.4g to 0.3g and specifies operate at Class 6 speeds or above, or at addition of new limits for sustained that the value must exceed that limit for any curving speed producing more than carbody lateral and vertical oscillatory more than 2 seconds. Analyses 5 inches of cant deficiency, to be accelerations, as well as the addition of conducted by FRA have shown that this qualified for operation for their minimum requirements for sampling change will help to better identify the intended track classes in accordance and filtering of the acceleration data. occurrences of excessive truck hunting, with this subpart. FRA also proposed The sustained carbody oscillatory while excluding high-frequency, low- that, for qualification purposes, the acceleration limits have been developed amplitude oscillations that do not former over-speed testing requirement in response to a review of data that was require immediate attention. In be reduced from 10 m.p.h. to 5 m.p.h. obtained during qualification testing for addition, this revised limit requires that above the maximum proposed operating the MARC–III multi-level passenger car, the RMSt value be used rather than the speed. FRA noted in the NPRM that it as discussed in Section IV.A. of the RMSm (root mean squared with mean agreed with the Task Force’s view that preamble. The sustained carbody removed) value. FRA believes that this the former 10 m.p.h. over-speed testing oscillatory acceleration limits are 0.10g revision will improve the process for requirement, which was established as RMSt (root mean squared with linear analyzing data while the vehicle is part of the 1998 final rule, had become trend removed) for passenger cars and negotiating spiral track segments. overly conservative based on improved 0.12g RMSt for other vehicles in the Separately, FRA notes that it has speed control and display technology lateral direction, and 0.25g RMSt for retained the entry in the ‘‘Parameter’’ deployed in current operations. both passenger cars and other vehicles column as ‘‘Truck Lateral’’—rather than In commenting on the proposal, the in the vertical direction. These new change it to ‘‘Truck Lateral AAR stated that FRA insert language limits require that the RMSt value be Acceleration’’ as proposed in the NPRM. providing that where the maximum used in order to attenuate the effects of The original entry is stated operating speed is 150 m.p.h., the linear variation in oscillatory appropriately and needs no qualification testing may take place at accelerations resulting from negotiation modification. speeds up to 155 m.p.h. without of track segments with changes in requiring an RPA for operating at speeds curvature or grade by design, such as Section 213.345 Vehicle/Track System in excess of 150 m.p.h., per former spirals. Root mean squared values shall Qualification footnote 2 to § 213.307(a). Specifically, be determined over a sliding 4-second As part of the 1998 Track Safety the AAR suggested that FRA add a window with linear trend removed and Standards final rule, all (passenger and sentence to paragraph (a)(2), stating that be sustained for more than 4 seconds. freight) rolling stock was required to be speeds up to 155 m.p.h. are permitted Acceleration measurements shall be qualified for operation for its intended for the purpose of qualification testing processed through a low pass filter with track class. Qualification testing was without an RPA, where the maximum a minimum cut-off frequency of 10 Hz, intended to demonstrate that the allowable operating speed is 150 m.p.h. and the sample rate for oscillatory equipment not exceed the VTI limits As explained in the discussion of acceleration data need be at least 100 specified in § 213.333 at any speed less § 213.307, above, FRA is modifying the samples per second. than 10 m.p.h. above the proposed rule to make clear that an RPA is not

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16084 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

specifically needed to authorize high- since that speed would surely exceed 5 segment of the actual route using MCAT speed rail operations. Paragraph (a) m.p.h. above the proposed maximum were proposed in lieu of IWS tests for concerns qualification testing to operate operating speed, the lesser speed of 5 speeds up to 110 m.p.h. and up to 6 rail service at such high speeds. No m.p.h. over the proposed maximum inches of cant deficiency. NCDOT stated process or procedure as formal as an operating speed would apply. FRA has that, while this may be a safe and less RPA is necessary to allow such therefore not adopted the suggestion of expensive method, NCDOT believed it qualification testing above the the commenter. not entirely clear whether the vehicle/ maximum speeds proposed for the Paragraph (b) addresses the track model validation requirements in operation. Rather, FRA’s very approval qualification of existing vehicle types the NPRM could be achieved and of the qualification test plan will and provides that such vehicle types approved by FRA in a reasonable provide the necessary oversight to allow previously qualified or permitted to timeframe and at a lower cost than for the safe conduct of testing at such operate at track Class 6 speeds or above conducting IWS tests. NCDOT stated speeds, and testing conducted in or at any curving speeds producing that, since the concept of using accordance with this FRA approval more than 5 inches of cant deficiency simulations as a qualification tool is shall be deemed in compliance with this are considered as being successfully relatively new, it suggested an option be part 213. Accordingly, paragraph (a)(2) qualified under the requirements of this allowed to use simulations or clarifies that for purposes of section for operation at the previously instrumented wheelsets for qualification qualification testing, speeds may exceed operated speeds and cant deficiencies on track Class 6. NCDOT cited that this the maximum allowable operating over the previously operated track concept was proposed in the NPRM for speeds for the class of track in segment(s). FRA makes clear that this qualifying equipment for use on another accordance with the test plan approved qualification applies for operation over corridor at the same speed and cant by FRA. the previously-operated track segment(s) deficiency, and believed it logical to In its comments on the NPRM, only. To qualify such vehicle types to allow this option for new vehicle Bombardier stated that paragraph (a) did operate over new routes (even at the qualification in this lower speed range. not contain a Task Force proposal that same track speeds), the qualification NCDOT suggested that FRA employ this qualification testing take place not only requirements contained in other option as an interim measure until the at any speed up to and including 5 paragraphs of this section must be met. implications of the simulation m.p.h. above the proposed maximum Paragraph (c) contains the requirements have been fully verified operating speed, but also at a speed that requirements for qualifying new vehicle and justified using a detailed cost- produces a cant deficiency greater than types. The additional (and tighter) benefit analysis. In addition, NCDOT 3 inches above the proposed maximum carbody acceleration limits in former noted that this option would allow the cant deficiency, whichever is less. paragraph (b) for new vehicle use of existing instrumentation if it is Bombardier stated that not including qualification have been removed. In compatible with the new vehicle type this proposal seems appropriate on the their place, this section now references seeking qualification. higher track classes, since a 5 m.p.h. § 213.333 for the applicable VTI limits FRA agrees with the commenters that increase in speed through any curve for accelerations and wheel/rail forces. instrumented wheelsets are currently will not result in cant deficiency greater This change resulted from considerable used for qualifying vehicle types than 3 inches over the proposed cant research into the performance of intended to operate at track Class 6 deficiency. However, Bombardier existing vehicles during qualification speeds and that their use for such believed that this may not be the case testing and revenue operations. Overall, qualification purposes should be when conducting such tests on lower- it was found that the acceleration limits permitted to continue. As recommended speed track classes at cant deficiencies in former paragraph (b) need not be as by the Task Force, paragraph (c) is being exceeding 5 inches. Therefore, stringent to protect against events revised by adding a new paragraph Bombardier suggested retaining the leading to vehicle or passenger safety (c)(1) to allow for vehicle types intended proposed language developed by the issues. As further specified in this to operate at track Class 6 speeds to be Task Force, and stated that this paragraph, vehicle types intended to qualified either through simulations or comment affected proposed paragraph operate at track Class 6 speeds or above, the use of instrumented wheelsets to (f)(2)(ii) in this section as well. or at any curving speed producing more demonstrate compliance with the The final rule does not include an than 5 inches of cant deficiency, may be wheel/rail force limits specified in alternative requirement that subject to a combination of computer § 213.333. qualification testing take place at a simulations, carbody acceleration Consequently, what was proposed as speed that produces a cant deficiency testing, truck acceleration testing, and paragraph (c)(1) for computer greater than 3 inches above the wheel/rail force measurements. simulations is being designated as proposed maximum cant deficiency, if In commenting on proposed paragraph (c)(2) and modified to state this speed is less than 5 m.p.h. above paragraph (c), Bombardier stated that for that it applies to new vehicle types the proposed maximum operating new vehicles intended to operate at intended to operate at track Class 7 speed. FRA believes that the 5 m.p.h. track Class 6 speeds, the rule should speeds or above—not Class 6 speeds or over-speed testing requirement is allow an option for vehicles to be above—as well at any curving speed appropriate, especially for the lower- qualified either through simulations or producing more than 6 inches of cant speed track classes, because the wheel/rail force measurements, to be deficiency, as proposed in the NPRM. requirements of this section apply only consistent with what has been allowed FRA notes that, although in accordance to those operations on Class 1 through for vehicle qualification testing. In with § 213.57(i), vehicle types intended 5 track at curving speeds producing addition, NCDOT raised concern that to operate at cant deficiencies greater more than 5 inches of cant deficiency. the proposal would have eliminated the than 5 inches on the lower-speed track For example, a speed that produces a use of instrumented wheelsets for the classes are subject to the requirements cant deficiency greater than 3 inches measurement of wheel/rail forces during of this section, the requirements of above this already high level of cant vehicle qualification testing on track paragraph (c)(2) apply to the lower- deficiency on Class 2 or 3 track would Class 6, noting that computer speed track classes only for operations be unrealistic for testing. Moreover, simulations over a representative at cant deficiencies greater than 6

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16085

inches. This paragraph requires extensive process required by the rule, and builds a new station 5 miles away computer simulations to be conducted including the worst-case MCAT from the existing terminus of Amtrak on both an analytically defined track conditions, there would be high cost service, on the same host railroad’s line. segment representative of minimally with no safety benefit to conducting Amtrak believed that, under FRA’s compliant track conditions (MCAT) for simulations and testing on other routes. proposal, Amtrak would have to re- the respective track classes as specified In addition, Amtrak commented qualify this equipment to operate safely in appendix D to this part and on a track extensively on proposed changes to this over this ‘‘new’’ stretch of railroad, even segment representative of the full route section concerning the ‘‘portability’’ of a though the equipment is operated by the on which the vehicle type is intended vehicle type’s qualification. Amtrak same railroad, and the rail line itself is to operate. (See the discussion of MCAT commented that it could see no maintained by the same railroad to the in appendix D, below.) increased safety benefit from the same standards as the existing line. No comment was specifically raised regulatory scheme proposed by FRA. Amtrak stated that FRA cannot justify on the remaining provisions of proposed According to Amtrak, the proposed the need for this new qualification as paragraph (c), and they have been changes would not be an efficient use of responsive to ‘‘local’’ conditions. There adopted as proposed, newly designated railroad resources in that there would be are no ‘‘local’’ variations to track class as paragraphs (c)(3) through (c)(5). a potentially never-ending series of standards, according to Amtrak; the Paragraph (c)(3) requires carbody qualifications and re-qualifications track is either maintained to the FRA acceleration testing for all operations at required. Amtrak cited as an example standards, or it is not. Amtrak also track Class 6 speeds or above, or for any the safe use of Amfleet equipment for pointed out that portability of operation above 5 inches of cant decades on the Northeast Corridor. equipment qualification could simplify deficiency. FRA notes that, in Amtrak believed that if it sought to use the design and procurement process for accordance with § 213.57(i), vehicle that same Amfleet equipment in the future high-speed and commuter types intended to operate at cant Midwest at the same speeds on track equipment. Knowing a particular design deficiencies greater than 5 inches on the maintained to the same track class already meets FRA safety standards for lower-speed track classes are subject to standards as the Northeast Corridor, known track conditions makes it easier the requirements of this section. then under the proposed regulation to procure equipment, Amtrak stated. Paragraph (c)(4) requires truck Amtrak would have been required to Based on the comments received, the acceleration testing for all operations at qualify the equipment to the new Task Force re-addressed the portability track Class 6 speeds or above. standards. Moreover, Amtrak raised requirements in paragraph (d) for Paragraph (c)(5) provides that concern that FRA would have required previously qualified vehicle types. The measurement of wheel/rail forces, qualification every time it sought to Task Force considered that, although through the use of instrumented operate a type of equipment over a new the vehicle type would be unchanged, wheelsets (or equivalent devices), are portion of the same route. Amtrak stated the vehicle/track system should be required for all operations at track Class that track maintained to a particular appropriately examined for deficiencies 7 speeds or above, or for any operation FRA class standard in one part of the prior to its service operation on a new above 6 inches of cant deficiency. country is, by definition, identical to route where performance-based Again, FRA notes that, although in any other piece of track maintained to standards are relied upon at track Class accordance with § 213.57(i), vehicle that same standard. Amtrak commented 7 speeds or above and at cant types intended to operate at cant that once equipment is qualified to deficiencies exceeding 5 inches. Past deficiencies greater than 5 inches on the operate at a particular speed on a class experience was cited with the high- lower-speed track classes are subject to of track, that qualification should suffice speed and high cant deficiency the requirements of this section, the to ‘‘certify’’ that that equipment can qualification of the Acela trainset where requirements of paragraph (c)(5) apply operate at the speed in question over testing at a well-maintained track Class to the lower-speed track classes only for that class of track anywhere in the 8 test facility did not uncover operations at cant deficiencies greater country. At the same time, Amtrak performance issues that were later than 6 inches. noted that it did not question the need identified during the local vehicle/track In paragraph (d), FRA proposed to for local testing of operational and system testing on the Northeast separate and explicitly define the safety issues; all new and expanded Corridor, where it was intended to qualification requirements for service must be thoroughly vetted to operate. In this regard, the Task Force previously qualified vehicle types make sure that all safety issues are considered the adequacy to which the intended to operate on new track discovered and addressed. new vehicle/track system need be segments. Former paragraph (d) Amtrak added that FRA’s proposal examined during qualification testing to provided for test runs to be made over was counter to the Task Force demonstrate system safety. the entire route intended for revenue recommendation that once a vehicle is At the same time, the Task Force took service, and for previously qualified qualified for a particular speed and cant into account that all of the requirements equipment, the paragraph applied if a deficiency, it would not have to be of revised paragraph (c) in this final new route were proposed at a later date. retested and qualified each time it rule—i.e., wheel/rail force, carbody In commenting on the NPRM, moved to operate at that same cant acceleration and truck lateral Bombardier suggested that for vehicles deficiency on a new track segment. acceleration testing, as well as previously qualified under this subpart Amtrak offered another example to simulations using MCAT and a for a track class and cant deficiency illustrate its concern: Amtrak performs representative track segment—apply to using both wheel/rail force testing on a particular piece of new vehicle qualification for track Class measurements and simulations, the equipment to demonstrate that it can 7 speeds or above, or at any curving vehicles should be qualified at the same operate safely at a particular cant speed producing more than 6 inches of class and cant deficiency on another deficiency. This new service is to be run cant deficiency. The MCAT simulations route without requiring additional over the territory of a freight railroad are independent of the route, and once simulations or track testing. Bombardier host. The equipment is placed in service conducted, will have examined the stated that as the vehicle model would by Amtrak and operates safely. One year vehicle/track system performance under have been fully validated with the later, a State decides to increase service the majority of worst-case conditions

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16086 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

that might be found on any route. types intended to operate on new routes the test plan approved by FRA. However, MCAT cannot account for all at track Class 7 speeds or above, carbody Therefore, this reordering from the wavelengths and combinations of track and truck acceleration testing is NPRM more clearly associates together deviations that may locally exist on a required to demonstrate safe, local the provisions that concern testing given route. vehicle/track system performance. The speed. At the same time, FRA has For consistency within this final rule, carbody acceleration testing clarified what was meant by the ‘‘target’’ the Task Force agreed that the static requirements in paragraph (d)(2) also maximum cant deficiency in proposed lean requirements of § 213.57(d) and apply to previously qualified vehicle paragraph (e)(5). The final rule makes § 213.329(d), once met, are independent types intended to operate on new routes clear that this cant deficiency is the of the route and noted that no further at cant deficiencies exceeding 5 inches. ‘‘maximum testing cant deficiency,’’ i.e., analysis or testing with respect to these Paragraph (e) clarifies the the maximum cant deficiency intended requirements is necessary for previously requirements in former paragraph (c) for (targeted) during qualification testing. In qualified vehicle types. In addition, the content of the qualification testing addition, FRA recognizes that not every vehicle types that have been permitted plan and adds a requirement for the curve tested in a track segment need or to operate at cant deficiencies greater plan to be submitted to FRA at least 60 will require the same level of cant than 3 inches but not exceeding 5 days prior to conducting the testing. deficiency, and therefore, FRA does not inches are considered to be qualified In response to a comment from expect all test operations to be under the new rule for all operations at Bombardier, FRA is consolidating conducted at the maximum cant track Class 6 speeds and below. In the proposed paragraph (e)(1), for including deficiency specified in a track segment final rule, no testing or simulations are in the testing plan the results of for each curve within that segment. FRA required for previously qualified vehicle required vehicle/track performance intends that issues specific to individual types intending to operate on new simulations, with proposed paragraph qualification tests, such as the targeted routes at track Class 1 through Class 6 (e)(7), for including in the testing plan cant deficiency for each curve, be speeds and at cant deficiencies not an analysis of simulation results, when addressed in the qualification testing exceeding 5 inches. simulations are required as part of plan, program, and approval process. As provided in paragraph (d)(1), for vehicle qualification. Together, both Paragraph (f) contains the all operations at track Class 7 speeds or paragraphs were potentially duplicative requirements for conducting above and cant deficiencies exceeding 5 and are now addressed in paragraph qualification testing upon FRA approval inches, or for any operation above 6 (e)(6), which provides that the testing of the test plan, expanding on the inches of cant deficiency, simulations or plan shall include the results of vehicle/ original requirements in this section. measurement of wheel/rail forces is track performance simulations that are For instance, this paragraph expressly required to demonstrate safe, local required by this section. As a requires that TGMS equipment be vehicle/track system performance on a consequence, the remaining paragraphs, operated over the intended test route new route. For performance-based proposed as paragraphs (e)(2) through within 30 days prior to the start of the standards that address the vehicle/track (6), are designated as paragraphs (e)(1) testing, to help ensure the integrity of system, simulations are especially through (5) in this final rule. the test results. This paragraph also useful for demonstrating that when FRA notes that paragraph (e)(3) is makes clear that exceptions to the safety qualified vehicles are intended to being modified from the proposal in limits that occur on track or at speeds operate on a new route, the new paragraph (e)(4) to provide that the test that are not part of the test do not need vehicle/track system is adequately plan identify the maximum angle found to be reported. Specifically, any examined for deficiencies prior to on the gage face of the designed (newly exception to the safety limits that occurs revenue service operation. The Task profiled) wheel flange referenced with at speeds below track Class 6 speeds Force did recognize that, once run for respect to the axis of the wheelset that when the cant deficiency is at or below the MCAT deviations, a fully-validated will be used for the determination of the 5 inches does not need to be reported. vehicle model required for qualifying Single Wheel L/V Ratio safety limit During Task Force consideration of new vehicle types under this final rule specified in § 213.333. This the draft final rule, Interfleet need not be repeated. Only a simulation modification is consistent with the recommended that FRA set a timeframe for a representative track segment from proposal in the NPRM and clarifies that for FRA approval of testing plans so that the new route is required, as the results the designed wheel flange is of a wheel the track owner or railroad can schedule of the MCAT simulations will be kept newly profiled to that which is intended testing and plan related activities that on file and be available for reference. for service. are resource- or time-critical, or both. As noted, for previously qualified In addition, paragraph (e)(4) is being FRA notes that for this reason, and as vehicle types intended to operate on modified from the proposal in proposed, paragraph (e) specifies that a new routes at track Class 1 through paragraph (e)(5), to provide that the test qualification testing plan be submitted Class 6 speeds and at cant deficiencies plan identify the target maximum to FRA at least 60 days prior to not exceeding 5 inches, the testing speed in accordance with conducting the testing. This 60-day requirements of this paragraph (d) do paragraph (a) of this section and the period is for the benefit of FRA not apply. Should the proposed cant maximum testing cant deficiency. primarily to allow sufficient time to deficiency exceed 5 inches but not During Task Force consideration of the review and approve the plan, and to exceed 6 inches for operations at track draft final rule, Interfleet noted that the seek clarification from the submitter as Class 1 through 6 speeds, carbody reference to paragraph (a) concerns the necessary. In some cases, the review and acceleration testing under paragraph maximum testing speed but that, as approval may be able to be (d)(2) is required to demonstrate safe, proposed, the reference appeared after accomplished in less than 60 days; in local vehicle/track system performance the mention of the target maximum cant other cases, the process may take longer, on a new route; however, no other deficiency. Specifically, paragraph (a)(2) especially if the plan is incomplete or if qualification testing is required by this provides that for purposes of questions are raised. FRA is mindful of paragraph (d). qualification testing, speeds may exceed the concern that FRA not unduly delay As provided in paragraphs (d)(2) and the maximum allowable operating speed testing, and at the same time recognizes (3), for previously qualified vehicle for the class of track in accordance with that safety is better and more efficiently

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16087

served by identifying potential safety Paragraph (h) also makes clear that FRA trackage numerous passenger railroads issues early in the qualification process. may impose conditions necessary for operate, such as SEPTA and NJ Transit, FRA therefore encourages those safely operating at the maximum train which commented on the NPRM. planning to conduct qualification speed and value of cant deficiency Section 213.355 Frog Guard Rails and testing to approach FRA prior to the approved for revenue service. Guard Faces; Gage submission of their test plans should Paragraph (i) is being added to this they have any questions or concerns section. In commenting on the NPRM, This section currently sets limits for about the testing and approval process. Amtrak stated that a significant guard check gage and guard face gage for Paragraph (g) contains the paragraph approved by the Task Force track Classes 6 through 9. As proposed, requirements for reporting to FRA the has been omitted. The paragraph FRA is making minor changes to the results of the qualification testing proposed that documents required by way in which the requirements of this program. Bombardier commented that this section must be submitted to FRA section are formatted. However, no the Task Force did not discuss the by either the tracker owner or an substantive change is intended. proposal that when simulations are operating entity that provides service required as part of vehicle qualification with the vehicle type over trackage of Appendix A to Part 213—Maximum this report include a comparison of one or more track owners with the Allowable Curving Speeds simulation predictions to the actual written consent of all affected track This appendix formerly contained wheel/rail force or acceleration data, or owners. According to Amtrak, the only two charts showing maximum both, recorded during full-scale testing. second clause is an important tenet in allowable operating speeds in curves, by Bombardier stated that it understands the operating world when an entity like degree of curvature and inches of the intent of the requirement but Amtrak wants to operate a high-speed unbalance (cant deficiency): table 1, expressed concern that if not applied in train over trackage owned by one or which applies to curves with 3 inches a practical manner, it could significantly more freight railroads. Without this of unbalance; and table 2, which applies delay equipment approvals. Bombardier paragraph, Amtrak believed that each of to curves with 4 inches of unbalance. suggested that this issue be further the host railroads would be required to Because this final rule facilitates the use reviewed and discussed by the Task submit the paperwork and perform the of higher cant deficiencies, this Force prior to promulgation of the final tests required. appendix has been expanded to include The AAR likewise noted the Task rule. Bombardier believed that one way two additional tables: tables 3 and 4, Force’s concurrence that this section of addressing this issue would be to which apply, respectively, to curves would contain a requirement that all include a section in the Track Safety with 5 and 6 inches of unbalance. While documents be submitted to FRA by Standards Compliance Manual that this rule does provide for operations at either the track owner or by the would provide guidance on the means higher levels of unbalance, for operating entity with the written and expectations for correlating convenience, FRA has set out only those simulations with vehicle qualification consents of all affected track owners. tables that it believes are more likely to test results. A good example would be The AAR stated that FRA removed this be commonly used. the correlation that was conducted by provision without any explanation. the Volpe Center on the vehicle models According to the AAR, FRA should not FRA notes that in response to used to develop the regulation, approve any application for permission comments by Bombardier on the NPRM, according to Bombardier. to operate vehicles at Class 6 speeds or FRA is revising the formatting of the FRA appreciates Bombardier’s at cant deficiencies without the tables from that proposed in the NPRM. comment on this proposal. Indeed, FRA concurrence of the track owner(s), Bombardier suggested lowering the has sponsored research at TTCI to which the AAR believed was the ‘‘Degree of curvature’’ text by one row establish a set of procedures for underlying intent behind the proposal and inscribing a box around ‘‘Elevation validating models used in simulating that the necessary documents should be of outer rail (inches)’’ for placement vehicle/track dynamic interaction. FRA submitted either by a track owner or over columns 0 through 6, as well as intends to publish this research before with the approval of the track owner(s). inscribing a box around the ‘‘Maximum the final rule takes effect and FRA did not intend such a result. allowable operating speed (m.p.h.)’’ text appropriately incorporate it into FRA’s Paragraph (i) is therefore being added to for placement over columns 0 though 6. formal guidance on compliance with the this section to make clear that the For clarify, each of the tables has been Track Safety Standards. FRA also documents required by this section formatted accordingly. encourages parties to approach FRA must be provided to FRA by either (1) Appendix B to Part 213—Schedule of early in the vehicle/track system the track owner, or (2) a railroad that Civil Penalties qualification process should they have provides service with the same vehicle any questions or concerns about type over trackage of one or more track Appendix B to part 213 contains a correlating simulation predictions with owner(s), with the written consent of schedule of civil penalties for use in actual wheel/rail force or acceleration each affected track owner. The Task connection with this part. Because such test data. Force concurred with this addition, penalty schedules are statements of Pursuant to paragraph (h), FRA making clearer and more concise what agency policy, notice and comment are approves a maximum train speed and was earlier discussed prior to the not required prior to their issuance. See value of cant deficiency for revenue publication of the NPRM. In this regard, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Nevertheless, FRA service, based on the test results and all FRA makes clear that a ‘‘railroad’’ invited commenters to submit other required submissions. FRA includes what was previously identified suggestions to FRA describing the types intends to provide an approval decision as an ‘‘operator of a passenger or of actions or omissions for each normally within 45 days of receipt of all commuter service’’ in former § 213.57(e) proposed regulatory section, either the required information, and has and § 213.329(f). For example, Amtrak is added or revised, that would subject a expressed its intent here at the a railroad that provides passenger person to the assessment of a civil suggestion of the Task Force. A decision service over trackage often owned by penalty. Commenters were also invited may be made earlier or later, depending other entities, usually freight railroads. to recommend what penalties may be on the circumstance of each request. Amtrak is also a track owner over whose appropriate, based upon the relative

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16088 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

seriousness of each type of violation. No qualification requirements in subpart G conditions could be identified that comment was received. can be met by simulating vehicle testing would cause the VTI safety criteria to be FRA is amending the penalty using a suitably-validated vehicle model exceeded and potentially lead to a schedule to reflect the changes made to instead of testing an actual vehicle over derailment. Such MCAT modeling for part 213. Specifically, FRA is adding a representative track segment. lower-speed track could also be a useful entries for new sections §§ 213.65 and As explained in paragraph 1, the development tool for foreign car rail 213.332, Combined track alinement and simulations described in this appendix manufacturers considering the surface deviations. FRA is also adding are required to be performed using a introduction of vehicles that would be an entry for § 213.110, Gage restraint track model containing defined equipped with suspension systems measurement systems, which is being geometry perturbations for different having wheel profiles designed for U.S. revised. Although § 213.110 is not a new track segments at the limits that are standard gage track. section, no entry for this section had permitted for a specific class of track FRA received a number of comments previously been included. For each of and level of cant deficiency. This track relating to this appendix and is these entries, FRA has specified model is referred to as MCAT. These addressing them in the order in which guideline penalty amounts that are simulations shall be used to identify they arise. consistent with those for similar entries vehicle dynamic performance issues Paragraph 2 is being modified from in this appendix. FRA is also revising prior to service or, as appropriate, a that proposed in the NPRM. Paragraph the entries for §§ 213.55, 213.307, change in service, and demonstrate that 2 concerns the application of MCAT for 213.327, 213.329, 213.333, and 213.345 a vehicle type is suitable for operation vehicle/track system qualification in so that the entries conform to their on the track over which it is intended § 213.345 and is consequently being respective sections that are being to operate. FRA notes that the lengths of modified in accordance with the revised in this final rule; however, no the MCAT segments identified in this changes made to § 213.345. Please see change to the guideline penalty amounts appendix are the same as the segment the discussion of § 213.345. is being made. lengths that were used in the modeling FRA is removing proposed paragraph In addition, in preparing the final of several representative high-speed 3 from this appendix. Paragraph 3 rule, FRA identified other items in this vehicles. See the discussion of research proposed that, for a comprehensive appendix in need of revision. First, FRA and computer modeling in the safety evaluation, the track owner or is revising the headings for subparts D Technical Background section of this railroad identify any non-redundant and G so that they conform to the final rule, Section IV.B, for additional suspension system element or subpart headings in the rule itself. background. component that may present a single Second, FRA is modifying this appendix In order to validate a computer model point of failure. The paragraph further so that it conforms to the changes made using MCAT, the predicted results must proposed that additional MCAT by the Concrete Crossties final rule, be compared to actual data from on- simulations be included that reflect the which was published without revisions track, instrumented vehicle performance fully-degraded mode of the vehicle to the appendix. See 76 FR 18073, April testing using accelerometers, or other type’s performance due to such a 1, 2011; 76 FR 55819, Sept. 9, 2011. instrumentation, or both. Validation failure. Bombardier objected to Specifically, FRA is adding an entry for must also demonstrate that the model is proposed paragraph 3, stating that the § 213.234, Automated inspection of sufficiently robust to capture proposal was not taken into track constructed with concrete fundamental responses observed during consideration by the Task Force in any crossties. In addition, FRA is revising field testing. Disagreements between of the simulations conducted to develop the entry for § 213.109, Crossties, to predictions and test data may be the proposed track geometry limits. conform to the changes made to that indicative of inaccurate vehicle According to Bombardier, should such a section and is also revising the entry for parameters, such as for stiffness and requirement be contemplated, it would § 213.127, Rail fastening systems, so that damping, or track input. Once validated, be necessary to reassess completely the it conforms to the section heading, as the computer model can be used for allowable track geometry limits revised by that rule. assessing a range of operating proposed, and neither simulations nor conditions or even to examine testing had been performed on any Appendix D to Part 213—Minimally modifications to current designs. existing vehicles that reflect these Compliant Analytical Track (MCAT) In addition, FRA notes that computer conditions. Bombardier added that the Simulations Used for Qualifying modeling using MCAT has the potential purpose of MCAT is to evaluate vehicle Vehicles To Operate at High Speeds and to be applied by railroads and by car response to fully-degraded track at High Cant Deficiencies manufacturers for safety planning conditions that represent single-point Appendix D is a new appendix purposes beyond the scope of what is failures, or near-failures, of the track containing the requirements for the use required by this rule. The Engineering and in some cases combined track of computer simulations to demonstrate Task Force of RSAC’s Passenger Safety anomalies. If the intent of this paragraph compliance with the vehicle/track Working Group is considering the use of is for the vehicle to meet the vehicle/ system qualification testing MCAT in evaluating the operation of track interaction safety limits, with the requirements specified in subpart G of high-speed vehicles over lower-speed track containing failures(s) and the this part. Computational models have classes of track, regardless of the cant vehicle suspension containing a single- become practical and reliable tools for deficiency. Current FRA standards for point failure, Bombardier stated that understanding the dynamic interaction Class 1 through 5 track may be this would amount to a combined of vehicles and track, as a result of unsuitable for suspensions designed for failure which, while theoretically advancements made over the last few operations at the highest speeds. possible, has not been identified as a decades. Such models are capable of Consequently, by developing a set of real issue. Bombardier further stated assessing the response of vehicle MCAT parameters that reflect the safety that most suspension system designs to a wide range of track standards for Class 1 through 5 track, components, by nature, cannot have conditions corresponding to the limiting and conducting simulations using redundant elements and that this is true conditions allowed for each class of existing high-speed vehicle dynamics on all ground-based transportation track. Consequently, portions of the models on this lower-speed track, track systems. Bombardier believed that other

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16089

provisions, both then-existing and publish this research, when complete, and the ability of the vehicle to remain proposed, relating to suspension system and make it part of FRA’s formal stable and resist hunting can more maintenance adequately address the guidance on compliance with the Track appropriately be examined. This change concerns raised by the proposal with Safety Standards. Again, in the interim, is intended to advance the purpose of respect to the vehicle. Bombardier FRA encourages parties to approach including the hunting perturbation maintained that to require further FRA early in the qualification process segment and not compromise safety. tightening of track geometry standards should they have any questions or In addition, Bombardier commented to address combined track and vehicle concerns about correlating simulation that the text in proposed paragraph suspension failures is unnecessary and predictions with measured track (b)(1)(ix) concerning the combined impractical. Bombardier also stated that geometry data. perturbation segment was inconsistent many vehicles have been qualified in FRA is making one change to with § 213.332, Combined track accordance with § 213.345 since its paragraph (a) from that proposed in the alinement and surface deviations, which promulgation in 1998, and FRA had not NPRM. Paragraph (a) now references has been adopted in this final rule. The indicated why this provision was added § 213.345(c)(2)(ii), consistent with the text of proposed paragraph (b)(1)(ix) as related to past experience or unsafe changes to § 213.345(c), discussed limited its application to curved track conditions. Bombardier therefore above. segments, while § 213.332 addresses requested that the provision be removed Paragraph (b) specifies the layout of combined track alinement and surface and that FRA clarify that it was not the MCAT segments. Bombardier deviation limits for Class 9 track, either FRA’s intent to include such a submitted a number of comments on curved or tangent. Bombardier noted requirement. proposed paragraph (b), first taking that a revision to paragraph (b)(1)(ix) or FRA is not including proposed issue with the last sentence in proposed a footnote to figure 1 was needed to paragraph 3 as a requirement of this (b)(1)(i) that the hunting perturbation address this inconsistency. In response final rule’s appendix. FRA intends that segment would be used only on tangent to this comment, paragraph (b)(1)(ix) for purposes of vehicle/track system track simulations. Bombardier noted has been modified to make clear that the safety planning, a comprehensive safety that the proposal was inconsistent with segment is to be used for all simulations evaluation include the identification of paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) of this on Class 9 track. In addition, figure 1 non-redundant suspension system appendix, which would require that the has been modified so that it reflects elements or components that may hunting segment be used on curves less application of the combined present a single point of failure. than 1 degree, and that, as a result, a perturbations segment to tangent cases Conducting MCAT simulations revision to paragraph (b)(1)(i) or a on Class 9 track. These changes make reflecting the vehicle type’s footnote to figure 1 would be needed to this appendix consistent with § 213.332. performance in such a fully-degraded address this inconsistency. As noted, the MCAT layout in figure mode can then be used to inform safety In response to this comment, 1 has been modified to clarify which decisions more fully. However, FRA did paragraph (b)(1)(i) is being revised to segments are required depending on the not intend to impose a requirement that make clear that the hunting perturbation speed and the degree of curvature the MCAT safety performance criteria be segment applies both to tangent track involved. In particular, the hunting met under such circumstances. and to track that is curved less than 1 perturbation segment is not required for Nonetheless, should the simulations degree. Figure 1 is also being modified simulations of curves greater than or identify potential safety concerns, the accordingly to show that the hunting equal to 1 degree; the short warp information could be considered for perturbation section must be included segment is not required for tangent track equipment inspection, testing, and for curves less than 1 degree. The simulations; and the combined maintenance purposes, for example, to modifications to figure 1 and the text in perturbation segment is required on help develop appropriate inspection, paragraph (b)(1)(i) reference under what tangent track only for Class 9 track, and testing, and maintenance criteria and curvature conditions the hunting is not required for simulations of no procedures for the equipment. segment is to be used. Since the more than 5 inches of cant deficiency Paragraph (a) addresses the validation curvature value is calculated using a other than for Class 9 track, where it is of the vehicle model used for combination of speed and cant required for all cant deficiency values. simulations. Bombardier sought deficiency, there is no need to specify As proposed in the NPRM, table 1 clarification of FRA’s proposal, in which track classes need to include this identifies the minimum lengths of the particular raising concern with the section in curving simulations. MCAT segments. In response to a possible misapplication of the proposal Further, the amplitude value a1 for the request for clarification from Interfleet for fully validating the vehicle model. hunting perturbation segment is being during the development of the final Bombardier stated that discrepancies or lowered from 0.5 inch, as proposed in rule, FRA makes clear that longer a lack of correlation between vehicle the NPRM, to 0.25 inch in this final segment lengths can be used at higher simulations and actual qualification test rule. The intent of the hunting speeds to allow for transient response to data can often be due to errors in the perturbation segment is to test vehicle dissipate and to ensure that the filtering track model or track geometry stability on tangent track. A window does not cover more than one measurements, wheel and rail profiles, perturbation of 0.5 inch could result in MCAT segment. or friction levels, or other causes. wheel flange contact with the rail and Table 2 is being added to this Bombardier therefore recommended that thereby cause one of the VTI safety appendix D to identify the degree of validation requirements be reviewed limits to be exceeded. Consequently, use curvature for use in MCAT simulations and discussed prior to promulgation of of a 0.5-inch perturbation could lead to of both passenger and freight equipment the final rule, and cited related exceedances that would not performance on Class 2 through 9 track comments on proposed § 213.345(g). appropriately reflect the vehicle/track by speed and cant deficiency, based on As discussed in § 213.345(g), FRA has performance concern at issue, or be the equation in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of sponsored research at TTCI to establish useful for proper evaluation of the this appendix. For track Classes 2 a set of procedures for validating models intended feature of the vehicle design. through 5, degrees of curvature are used in simulating vehicle/track By reducing the amplitude to 0.25 inch, identified only where the cant dynamic interaction. FRA intends to wheel contact should stay on the tread, deficiencies are more than 6 inches,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16090 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

since those are the only cant tangent track and affect response during requirement to run the final simulations deficiencies that require simulations for curving. Nonetheless, FRA at 5 m.p.h. over the maximum proposed such track classes. In this regard, acknowledges that the effect of wheel operating speed. Moreover, even though degrees of curvature for use in MCAT wear on stability on tangent track is of the new information in the table lists a simulations of equipment performance paramount concern and that, for all maximum speed for simulations for on Class 1 track are not specified given other vehicle and rail parameters that each track class, only the rule text in the extraordinarily high values that might equally or more significantly paragraphs (c)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) would be reached for such cant affect response during curving, only specifies that this 5 m.p.h. overspeed is deficiencies; nonetheless, FRA intends nominal values for such parameters are required when transitioning between that degrees of curvature for Class 1 required to be used in MCAT classes, e.g., 115 m.p.h. for Class 6 track track be based on the same equation in simulations. Thus, FRA has agreed to when qualifying a vehicle for Class 7 paragraph (b)(3)(i) using an appropriate limit the requirement to conduct track. superelevation. FRA also notes that the simulations using worn wheel profiles Bombardier raised a number of degrees of curvature for use in MCAT to tangent track segments. However, additional comments with table 4 simulations of freight equipment FRA expects that railroads and car (proposed table 3). Specifically, performance on Class 6 (freight) track manufacturers will utilize MCAT for Bombardier commented that the for speeds of 85 and 90 m.p.h. is shown broader safety planning purposes and combined deviation parameters a7, a8 in italics for cant deficiencies not for performance optimization studies and a13 should be specified in the table exceeding 6 inches, to emphasize that while conducting these simulations. As for track Class 9, and that the repeated these values apply to freight equipment an additional point, Bombardier surface parameter a9 for the 124-foot only. MCAT simulations are required commented that the words ‘‘running wavelength on track Class 9 be specified for both passenger and freight profile’’ should be replaced with ‘‘wheel as 0.625 inch. Bombardier is correct that equipment performance where track profile’’ in this paragraph. The Task there were no values specifically Class 6 speeds coincide, i.e., speeds Force concurred with this change, and identified for combined deviation exceeding 90 m.p.h. FRA has modified the paragraph parameters a7, a8 and a13 for track Class Paragraph (c) identifies and describes accordingly to make the text clearer and 9, and that the repeated surface the simulations that are required using more precise. parameter a9 for the 124-foot wavelength MCAT. To aid the reader, table 3 was on track Class 9 was inadvertently Paragraph (c)(2) addresses vehicle originally proposed as table 2 in the proposed as 0.875 inch. NPRM to summarize by vehicle type, performance on tangent track Classes 6 As was the consensus of the Task cant deficiency, and class of track when through 9. As a general comment on the Force, new table 4 is being restated to assessments of vehicle performance proposal, Bombardier believed that include the combined deviation some effort should be applied to using MCAT are required. Following the parameters a7, a8 and a13 for track Class simplifying proposed paragraph (c)(2) NPRM’s publication, Bombardier 9; 31-foot wavelength: a7=0.333 inch, by including more information in table commented that the proposed table a8=0.000 inch, and a13=0.333 inch; 62- 4 (proposed table 3) with less needed to be revised to include Class 9 foot wavelength: a7=0.333 inch, descriptive text in paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) track, and during Task Force a8=0.000 inch, and a13=0.500 inch; and and (iii). Bombardier suggested a discussions it was suggested that this 124-foot wavelength: a7=0.500 inch, proposed revision to the table, and the table be made clearer in other ways. a8=0.000 inch, and a13=0.667 inch. Accordingly, FRA has revised the table Task Force recommended that new table Moreover, the repeated surface 4 be reformatted according to the not only to correct the inadvertent parameter a9 for the 124-foot wavelength omission noted by Bombardier, but also example shown in Bombardier’s on track Class 9 has been restated as to make more explicit when simulations comments. Table 4 provides the 0.625 inch. These changes make the are required and when they are not, amplitude values for the MCAT table consistent with § 213.332, which including identifying when simulations segments described in paragraphs provides that combined deviation limits are an option for demonstrating (b)(1)(i) through (vii) and, for track Class apply to all Class 9 track, including compliance with the rule. 9, (b)(1)(ix), for each speed of the tangent sections. These changes also Paragraph (c)(1)(ii) addresses the use required parametric MCAT simulations. make the table consistent with the of worn wheel profiles in simulations. In preparing the table for the final rule, repeated surface limit of 0.625 inch for Bombardier commented that the Task an additional header table has been the 124-foot wavelength on Class 9 track Force agreed that simulations using added, as recommended by Bombardier, in § 213.331(c). worn wheels be conducted only for containing the maximum operating and In addition, FRA notes that on closer tangent track segments. Bombardier did simulation speeds for each track class, examination of the proposed MCAT not believe that this agreement was along with a list of all of the amplitude tables FRA found and corrected some reflected in the NPRM text that implied parameters identifying each MCAT inadvertent errors in the proposed track that all simulations must be conducted segment to which they correspond, Class 6 amplitude parameters for a3 with worn wheel profiles on tangent where each segment description can be (gage widening) and a6 (single track and in curves. Bombardier stated found, and to which class(es) of track alinement). The corrected values now that such a requirement was not taken they are applicable. The inclusion of the reflect both the maximum permissible into consideration by the Task Force in additional information in new Table 4 gage and the maximum permissible any of the simulations conducted to does help add clarity; however, even alinement variations. Specifically, for develop the proposed track geometry with this additional information, the Class 6 track in table 4 of the final rule, limits. In discussing this issue with the descriptive text in paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) for the 31-foot perturbation wavelength, Task Force following publication of the and (iii) is still required. For example, the a3 parameter is 0.75 inch; and for the NPRM, FRA noted that it had believed without the text in paragraph (c)(2)(ii), 62-foot perturbation wavelength, the a3 that the proposed requirement was part it would not be clear that running paramenter is 0.75 inch, and the a6 of the Task Force’s consensus on the simulations using all three 31-foot-based parameter is 0. NPRM and that worn wheel profiles can wavelengths is a requirement, and FRA is also formatting tables 4 though both present a problem for stability on paragraph (c)(2)(iii) states the 7 in this final rule so that the a1

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16091

(hunting) and a12 (short warp) through (C) describes how the 5 m.p.h. Paragraph (c)(4) addresses vehicle amplitude parameters are in their own overspeed cases at the end of a track performance on curved track Classes 1 designated rows, rather than grouped class will be conducted at the maximum through 5 at high cant deficiency. As for with the 31-, 62-, and 124-foot proposed cant deficiency, using the paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) Bombardier wavelengths. These hunting and short curvature value, D, calculated using the raised the same general comment that warp perturbation segments have fixed maximum track class speed and this section be simplified by including wavelengths, 10 feet and 20 feet, maximum proposed cant deficiency. more information in table 7 (proposed respectively, which are now explicitly Bombardier raised additional table 6) with less descriptive text in stated in the tables to identify clearly comments on tables 5 and 6 (proposed paragraphs (c)(4)(ii) and (iv). (FRA notes the wavelength to be used for simulating tables 4 and 5). Bombardier noted that that Bombardier’s comment references these perturbations. the repeated surface parameter a9 for the paragraph (c)(3) under a discussion of Paragraph (c)(3) addresses vehicle 124-foot wavelength on track Class 9 paragraph (c)(4) and has treated the performance on curved track Classes 6 should be 0.625 inch. In the NPRM, in comment as relating to paragraph (c)(4).) through 9. As for paragraph (c)(2), proposed tables 4 and 5, the repeated As for the other tables, the Task Force Bombardier stated that some effort surface parameter a9 for the 124-foot concurred that table 7 (proposed table 6) should be applied to simplifying the wavelength on track Class 9 was be reformatted. Table 7 also includes the paragraph by including more identified as 0.875 inch. By consensus parameter a1, which has been added for information in tables 5 and 6 (proposed of the Task Force, in new tables 5 and curves less than 1 degree, as noted tables 4 and 5) with less descriptive text 6 the repeated surface parameter a9 for above. in paragraphs (c)(3)(ii) and (iv). Table 5 the 124-foot wavelength on track Class The inclusion of the additional applies to Class 6 through 9 curved 9 has been corrected to state 0.625 inch. information in table 7 helps add clarity; track with cant deficiency greater than These changes conform the tables with however, even with this additional 3 inches but not greater than 5 inches; the repeated surface limit of 0.625 inch information, the descriptive text in table 6 applies to Class 6 through 9 for the 124-foot wavelength on track paragraphs (c)(4)(ii) and (iv) is still curved track with cant deficiency Class 9 track provided in § 213.331(c). required. For example, without the text greater than 5 inches. The Task Force Bombardier also commented that the in paragraph (c)(4)(ii), it would not be concurred that new tables 5 and 6 be warp parameter a12 for track Class 9 clear that running simulations using reformatted to match the examples should be corrected in tables 5 and 6 both the 31-foot and 62-foot shown in Bombardier’s comments with (proposed tables 4 and 5). As proposed, wavelengths is required for assessing an additional header table containing the warp parameter a12 on track Class 9 vehicle performance on curved track the maximum operating and simulation was identified as 0.500 inch. The Task Classes 1 through 5 at high cant speeds for each track class, along with Force concurred that the tables be deficiency. a list of all of the amplitude parameters corrected so that the warp parameter a12 Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part identifying each MCAT segment to for track Class 9 be 0.750 inch. These 238, Passenger Equipment Safety which they correspond, where each changes also conform the tables with the Standards segment description can be found, and warp limit of 0.75 inch for Class 9 track to which class(es) of track they are provided in § 213.331(a) and (b). Subpart C—Specific Requirements for applicable. Tables 5 and 6 also include Bombardier additionally commented Tier I Passenger Equipment that the combined deviation surface the parameter a1. This hunting Section 238.227 Suspension System perturbation parameter applies to track parameter a13 for track Class 9 should be that is curved less than 1 degree, and 0.667 inch in table 5 (proposed table 4). FRA is modifying this section so that has been included accordingly. Please In the NPRM, the combined deviation it conforms with the changes being note that the amplitude of this surface parameter a13 for track Class 9 made to part 213 of this chapter and perturbation parameter has been was proposed as 0.833 inch. The Task also to provide cross-references to reduced, as discussed above. Force concurred that new table 5 reflect relevant sections of part 213. Overall, The inclusion of the additional that the combined deviation surface these revisions help to reconcile the information in tables 5 and 6 does help parameter a13 for track Class 9 be 0.667 requirements of the 1998 Track Safety add clarity; however, even with this inch. This change conforms the surface Standards final rule and the 1999 additional information, the descriptive value in the table with the combined Passenger Equipment Safety Standards text in paragraphs (c)(3)(ii) and (iv) is deviation equation stated in § 213.332, final rule for Tier I passenger still required. For example, without the when evaluated using the corresponding equipment, i.e., passenger equipment text in paragraph (c)(3)(ii), it would not combined deviation alinement operated at speeds not exceeding 125 be clear that running simulations using parameter a7 found in the table. mph. all three 31-foot-based wavelengths is a FRA also notes that, on closer For consistency throughout this part requirement, and the text in paragraph examination of the MCAT tables, FRA and part 213 of this chapter, the term (c)(3)(iv) specifies the need to run the found and corrected some inadvertent ‘‘hunting oscillations’’ in paragraph (a) final simulations at 5 m.p.h. over the errors in the proposed track Class 6 is being replaced with the term ‘‘truck maximum proposed operating speed amplitude parameters for a3 (gage hunting,’’ which has the same meaning and cant deficiency. Moreover, even widening) and a6 (single alinement). as that for ‘‘truck hunting’’ in 49 CFR though the new information in the The corrected values now reflect both 213.333. Truck hunting is defined in the tables lists a maximum speed for the maximum permissible gage and the table of vehicle/track interaction safety simulations for each track class, only maximum permissible alinement limits in § 213.333 as ‘‘a sustained the rule text in paragraphs (c)(3)(iv)(A) variations. Specifically, for Class 6 track cyclic oscillation of the truck evidenced through (C) specifies that this 5 m.p.h. in tables 5 and 6 of the final rule, for by lateral accelerations exceeding 0.3g overspeed is required when the 31-foot perturbation wavelength, the root mean squared for more than 2 transitioning between classes, e.g., 115 a3 parameter is 0.75 inch; and for the 62- seconds.’’ The Task Force believed that m.p.h. for Class 6 track when qualifying foot perturbation wavelength, the a3 the term ‘‘hunting oscillations,’’ which a vehicle for Class 7 track. In addition, paramenter is 0.75 inch, and the a6 was formerly defined in paragraph (b) of the text in paragraphs (c)(3)(iv)(A) parameter is 0. this section as ‘‘lateral oscillations of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16092 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

trucks that could lead to a dangerous chapter, this paragraph is being revised Appendix C to Part 238—Suspension instability,’’ has a less definite meaning to make clear that the purpose of the System Safety Performance Standards and could be applied unevenly as a accelerometer is to detect ‘‘truck As proposed, FRA is removing and result. The Task Force therefore hunting,’’ as defined in 49 CFR 213.333. reserving appendix C, which contained preferred using the definition of ‘‘truck This change helps not only to reconcile the minimum suspension system safety hunting’’ in part 213 with its more the requirements governing truck performance standards for Tier II specific criteria, and FRA agrees that hunting but to streamline the passenger equipment. FRA believes that more specific criteria provide more requirements of this paragraph by removing appendix C is appropriate in certainty. Unlike § 213.333, however, removing the term ‘‘hunting light of the changes to § 238.427(a)(2). paragraph (a) of this section applies to oscillations’’ and its defining text. If Section 238.427(a)(2) formerly required all Tier I passenger equipment, truck hunting is detected, the train that Tier II passenger equipment meet regardless of track class or level of cant monitoring system shall provide an the safety performance standards for deficiency. alarm to the engineer, and the train shall The pre-revenue service qualification suspension systems contained in requirements in paragraph (b) are being be slowed to a speed at least 5 m.p.h. appendix C, or alternative standards revised consistent with the revisions to less than the speed at which the truck providing at least equivalent safety if part 213 of this chapter. Paragraph (b) is hunting stopped. This paragraph approved by FRA under § 238.21. As also being broadened to address revenue formerly stated that the notification discussed above, FRA is revising service operation requirements. alarm be provided to the ‘‘train § 238.427(a)(2) to require compliance Paragraph (b), as revised, generally operator,’’ and FRA has revised the text with the safety standards contained in summarizes the qualification and to make clear that this notification be § 213.333, in lieu of those in appendix revenue service operation requirements provided to the ‘‘locomotive engineer,’’ C. Given the cross-reference to the of part 213 for Tier I passenger i.e., the crewmember operating the train. requirements in § 213.333, which are equipment. This paragraph is not more extensive than the ones contained The Task Force believed that the in appendix C, appendix C is no longer intended to impose any requirement overheat sensor requirements in itself not otherwise contained in part necessary and has therefore been paragraph (d) were not directly related removed and reserved. 213. to suspension system safety and should Subpart E—Specific Requirements for be specified elsewhere. FRA agreed that VII. Regulatory Impact and Notices Tier II Passenger Equipment the requirements of this paragraph A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 could be stated separately for clarity, Section 238.427 Suspension System and DOT Regulatory Policies and and therefore proposed to move them to Procedures Similar to the revisions to § 238.227, a new section, § 238.428. FRA is modifying this section to This final rule is a significant conform to the changes made in part Section 238.428 Overheat Sensors regulatory action within the meaning of 213 of this chapter. Overall, these Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and As proposed, FRA is adding a new revisions help to reconcile the DOT regulatory policies and procedures requirements of the 1998 Track Safety section containing the requirements that (see 44 FR 11034; Feb. 26, 1979). FRA Standards final rule and the 1999 were previously found in § 238.427(d). has prepared and placed in the docket Passenger Equipment Safety Standards However, there has been no change to a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) final rule. the substantive rule text. FRA agreed addressing the economic impact of this While paragraph (a)(1) remains with the Task Force that the final rule. unchanged, paragraph (a)(2) is being requirements for overheat sensors are In analyzing the impacts of this rule revised in an effort to summarize the more appropriately contained in their and the NPRM that preceded it, FRA qualification and revenue service own section rather than with the considered the extent of affected operation requirements of part 213 for requirements for suspension systems in operations based on preliminary plans Tier II passenger equipment. The § 238.427. FRA has amended the rule and policies, many of which are still in reference to the suspension system accordingly. development, or subject to change. For safety standards in appendix C has been example, when the NPRM was Appendix A to Part 238—Schedule of removed, as discussed below. The published there were plans for high Civil Penalties carbody acceleration requirements in speed operations in Florida, but now paragraph (b) have been revised This appendix contains a schedule of those plans have been suspended. In consistent with the changes to part 213. civil penalties to be used in connection this analysis FRA does not attempt to The steady-state lateral carbody with this part. Because such penalty quantify benefits in the same manner as acceleration limits of 0.1g for pre- schedules are statements of agency the NPRM. FRA acknowledges revenue service qualification and 0.12g policy, notice and comment are not significant uncertainty with the for service operation have been revised required prior to their issuance. See 5 development of certain high speed to a single limit of 0.15g, to conform to U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Nevertheless, FRA systems. FRA also acknowledges the changes in § 213.329. Please see the invited comment on the penalty significant uncertainty with respect to discussion of § 213.329. The remaining the estimates of time savings and schedule; no comment was received, carbody acceleration requirements have equipment procurement savings. As a however. been consolidated by referencing the result of this uncertainty, and the requirements of § 213.333. Accordingly, FRA is amending the difficulty in finding reliable evidence Paragraph (c) continues to require that penalty schedule to reflect the addition for point estimates from which to base each truck be equipped with a of a new section to part 238, § 238.428, a sensitivity analysis, FRA describes its permanently installed lateral Overheat sensors. The requirements of expectations for the benefits and uses its accelerometer mounted on the truck this section were previously included in expert technical experience to conclude frame. However, for consistency § 238.427, Suspension system, and have that the costs will be justified by the throughout this part and part 213 of this been set apart for clarity. benefits.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16093

The changes to geometric standards monitoring trainset performance in minimally compliant track. This will and performance standards for high- service. lower costs through increased speed operations will not adversely competition, and use of existing Benefits: Equipment Procurement affect any existing operations, which are designs. Further, railroads may now be now limited to Amtrak on the Northeast Future high-speed operations will be able to order equipment without tilting Corridor, but rather will promote their made simpler, because the railroad, if it mechanisms and operate that equipment safe operation. In order to meet the requires equipment manufacturers to at high cant deficiencies, thus saving the vehicle acceleration limits of the Track provide equipment that will meet costs of tilting mechanisms and making Safety Standards’ subpart G before the performance requirements on minimally the number of available trainsets even changes made in this final rule, Amtrak compliant track, will find several greater. Based on the above, FRA does had, in effect, adhered to the tighter suppliers of off-the-shelf equipment, not agree with Amtrak’s comment for geometric standards in this rule, even likely lowering bid prices, and gaining the purposes of this final rule. It is not though those standards were not multiple bidders. Further, some high unreasonable to estimate that the expressly identified. If Amtrak were to cant deficiency passenger train equipment procurement benefits alone have attempted to operate Acela at the operations at speeds in excess of 90 will justify the costs of the rule. maximum allowable speeds and cant m.p.h. may be able to use equipment However, even if FRA eliminates from deficiencies for which it was qualified, without tilting mechanisms under the consideration equipment procurement but were to have allowed track final rule, saving procurement costs. benefits, as a result of Amtrak’s deviations to reach the previous Absent this rulemaking, FRA believes comment, FRA believes the high cant maximum limits, the Acela trainset, railroads would seek to have new deficiency and streamlined testing because of its dynamic characteristics, equipment used in high-speed train requirements would justify the costs of would have been subject to operations built to performance the rule. standards at the maximum deviations accelerations in excess of the limits Benefits: High Cant Deficiency permitted. FRA’s modeling has shown permitted under the previous geometric that Acela, as it is currently qualified to standards, or with tilting mechanisms, The provisions for high cant operate, will meet the safety standards or both. deficiency operations on all track in this final rule. FRA believes that future high-speed classes are permissive in nature and create no additional net costs. A railroad There will be a relatively small one- operations will in comparison save on bids because of the increased number of could either adhere to these provisions time cost ($292,000) to program the new in expectation that any additional limits into existing geometry measuring trainsets and carbuilders that will meet the final rule’s standards with little or expenditure would trigger savings and systems discussed in the cost section result in an overall net benefit, or below. Further, those railroads that no modification compared to the number that would have met the prior simply avoid triggering the provisions. voluntarily operate at high cant High cant deficiency offers significant deficiencies will have to maintain their rule’s standards with little or no modification. Because high cant opportunities to reduce trip time, as it tracks to tighter limits. This cost will be will reduce the amount of time travelled offset by the reduced cost of deficiency operations at passenger train speeds in excess of 90 m.p.h. would at the slowest speeds. For example, to maintaining curves where entering travel a mile, a train could take three trains would have to brake to reduce have been permitted under the prior rule, FRA generally does not believe minutes at 20 m.p.h. or two minutes at their speeds to meet the prior cant 30 m.p.h. Traveling at 30 m.p.h. would deficiency standard, as discussed below. that there is a benefit from travel time saved at these speeds, only a benefit for reduce trip time by a minute. By FRA believes that significant benefits equipment procurement. contrast a train traveling 120 m.p.h. will arise from this rulemaking. Time FRA notes that, in commenting on the would take 5 minutes to travel ten savings will result from permitting economic analysis for the NPRM, which miles, while a train traveling 150 m.p.h. trains that operate at maximum speeds attempted to quantify the benefits of the would take four minutes to travel the up to 90 m.p.h. to travel around curves rule changes, Amtrak stated: same distance, reducing trip time by one with higher cant deficiencies and minute relative to the train traveling 120 The assumption that the standards simplify thereby more rapidly and efficiently. m.p.h. The net time savings from Previously, the rule did not permit such the design process of the equipment and would save $2,000,000 per train set is false. traveling one mile at 30 m.p.h. instead high cant deficiency operations for these The Acela example indicates the exact of 20 m.p.h. is the same as the time trains, which meant that they had to opposite to be true. The FRA rules, as savings from traveling ten miles at 150 operate more slowly through curves, existing and proposed, eliminate the m.p.h. instead of 120 m.p.h. High cant adding to trip time. Railroads will also possibility of purchasing off-the-shelf deficiency can allow that kind of time experience cost savings when they equipment. The engineering work required to savings at lower speeds, and therefore purchase new trains for operations at design new compliant equipment alone offers a relatively low-cost way of speeds over 90 m.p.h. This will result would far outstrip any possible savings from improving trip time. The United States from increased competition as a greater the rules if there were any to be had. is investing more in passenger rail variety of equipment will be able to FRA believes that the former rule would transportation, and this is a very good meet the revised vehicle/track not have permitted many, and perhaps way to make the high-speed rail system interaction qualification requirements might not have permitted any, more efficient. for speeds over 90 m.p.h. Cost savings carbuilders to offer off-the-shelf FRA believes that use of higher cant will also result from more streamlined equipment with little or no modification deficiencies will become much more testing requirements for new and that would have met the acceleration common over the coming years, existing passenger trainsets, regardless requirements on track with geometry although, nearer term, relatively few of operating speed. Revised testing having the maximum allowable opportunities for new operations at cant requirements will also make it much deviations. Under the final rule it is deficiencies in excess of 5 inches will easier to qualify a trainset on additional likely that several carbuilders could present themselves. In any event, there track once it has been qualified on any provide off-the-shelf equipment that could be a benefit to some operations track, and provide more flexibility for will meet acceleration requirements on from the potential enhanced speeds.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16094 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

For illustrative purposes, Amtrak has align with the estimates used in this FRA believes that it costs roughly placed values of $2 million or more analysis. $400 to adjust a rail to restore alinement annually for a reduction of 1 minute in In addition, FRA believes that using per occurrence. On good track, the kind total travel time on the south end of the MCAT to extend the range of qualified most likely to be found in high cant Northeast Corridor, and in excess of $1 equipment will result in savings greater deficiency passenger operations, this million for such a reduction on the than $1 million per year. MCAT can occurs about twice a year per mile of north end of the Northeast Corridor, for work to enhance safety, because a train curve, at a cost of about $800 per mile its high-speed operations. FRA expects that is shown to be safe on minimally per year. FRA believes the difference, if significant travel time savings on the compliant track will likely be safe under any, between the frequency of such Northeast Corridor, and eventually other foreseeable operating conditions. In the occurrences, and consequently, the routes, from the high cant deficiency absence of MCAT, the train could be maintenance costs for the track with and provisions. These benefits are partially qualified on very good track, which without high cant deficiency operations, offset by the additional costs of might later deteriorate over time. is less than 10%, or $80 per mile per maintaining track for high cant Although accelerometers should year. FRA is not certain whether deficiency operation, but this offset is provide indications of such maintenance costs will be higher or roughly two orders of magnitude less deterioration, using MCAT to ensure lower with high cant deficiency than the benefits. Moreover, the that the train will be safe on track operations. FRA expects a difference of additional maintenance costs are at least meeting the geometric limits adds to the plus or minus $80 per mile per year in partially offset by reduced track life-cycle safety of a trainset, most maintenance costs. Given the maintenance from passenger trains that notably because the geometry standards uncertainty as to whether the change would otherwise have subjected rail to help limit unsafe accelerations that would be a benefit or a cost, and braking forces at entries to curves, and could cause a derailment. because FRA anticipates any by efficiency savings because the FRA believes that modifications to the maintenance costs to be significantly passenger trains can clear the track vehicle/track system qualification less than the benefits of high cant segments more rapidly so that other requirements themselves, as opposed to deficiency operations, FRA does not trains can use the tracks. the process, will have no net impact as find any potential maintenance costs the changes codify current practice. FRA also notes that there is no would change its core conclusion about procurement benefit considered for Benefits: Other this rule. passenger train operations at speeds no Certain refinements to the testing Costs: Programming greater than 90 m.p.h, principally requirements will yield greater Railroads use automated track because these operations were not confidence in the test results and thus geometry measuring systems to permitted to operate at high cant enhanced safety levels. Such benefits determine whether track geometry deficiency under the prior rule. are not readily quantifiable and FRA has complies with track safety standards. Similarly, the time savings from high not attempted to quantify them. The final rule adds new standards and cant deficiency for passenger operations Costs: Track Maintenance dimensions that must be programmed at speeds in excess of 90 m.p.h. already into automated track geometry existed and is not included in the high When a railroad voluntarily operates measuring software before the railroads cant deficiency benefit. The equipment passenger trains at high cant can operate under the final rule. FRA is benefit and the high cant deficiency deficiencies, the track in curves must contracting to modify the software on benefit therefore apply to different have smaller deviations, which in turn FRA’s inspection cars to record classes of operations and are exclusive means that deviations that would not instances where deviations exceed the of each other. have to be adjusted in the absence of maximum allowed under the final rule. high cant deficiency operations would Benefits: Streamlined Testing Although the contractor has estimated have to be adjusted to conform to the Requirements that providing and system testing the standards. On the other hand, if a software modifications will require Improvements in the use of railroad does not allow high cant roughly $73,000, the amount FRA is monitoring equipment and streamlined deficiency operations, it requires going to pay will fall on the government, qualification procedures have the passenger trains to slow down just not on regulated entities, and is not potential to reduce costs, without any before they enter curves. The braking accounted for any further. offsetting increases. New procedures imparts a longitudinal force in the rail, Four other entities provide automated will not require as much labor, or as making it more likely that the rail will track inspection services to railroads, expensive capital, as was required displace from its original alinement. and may need to update their inspection before the final rule, all else being equal. When the rail displaces from its original vehicles’ software to accommodate the The reduced need for instrumented alinement, it may now have deviations new requirements of the final rule. FRA wheelsets, instrumented cars, and that even exceed the less restrictive believes that the $73,000 figure related tests could save roughly $2 standards that would have been provided by FRA’s contractor may be million per year on current high-speed applicable in the absence of high cant higher than the cost to an entity operations (based in part on Task Force deficiency operations, and the rail must providing services over a more limited discussions), and have the potential for be adjusted. The process of adjusting set of tracks, or for other reasons, but similar savings on planned high-speed rail is roughly the same whether the that the higher number is a ceiling on operations. Furthermore, the current adjustment occurs because the rail likely costs, and is conservative. Thus policy of the DOT is to promote balance moved longitudinally under braking or FRA estimates that it will cost 4 times in the Nation’s transportation system in the rail needed to be adjusted to meet $73,000, or $292,000 for a one-time the long-term by growing the market- tighter geometric standards, and thus expense of updating track inspection share of passenger rail service in the cost is roughly equal for either software. The programming intercity travel. FRA believes that this adjustment. FRA believes the modifications must occur before the policy will result in the implementation probability of needing to adjust the rail railroads operate under the final rule, so of more high-speed rail projects that is roughly equivalent in either case. the costs are not discounted.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16095

Offsetting any additional on a substantial number of small one reaching a maximum speed as high programming costs, but not accounted entities. as 30 m.p.h. Consequently, neither for in the benefits, the new geometry The U.S. Small Business entity will be impacted by the limits should avoid instances where an Administration (SBA) stipulates in its requirements of this rule affecting high- excessive acceleration is recorded but ‘‘Size Standards’’ that the largest a speed operations. Moreover, it is the track is within geometry limits, as railroad business firm that is ‘‘for- extremely unlikely that either entity happens with some frequency under the profit’’ may be, and still be classified as would engage in high cant deficiency prior rule. The cost for a railroad to a ‘‘small entity,’’ is 1,500 employees for operations because such operations inspect the track in the area of an ‘‘Line-Haul Operating Railroads,’’ and require relatively expensive rolling exceedance of an acceleration limit is 500 employees for ‘‘Switching and equipment capable of tilting to provide more than $100 per instance, and FRA Terminal Establishments.’’ ‘‘Small a safe and comfortable ride to believes the new limits will reduce such entity’’ is defined in the Regulatory passengers. instances by at least two per day, more Flexibility Act as a small business that At present, no small entities will be than offsetting any programming costs. is not independently owned and affected by either the high-speed As the extent of high cant deficiency operated, and is not dominant in its provisions or the high cant deficiency operations or high speed operations field of operation. Federal agencies may provisions. Small railroads hosting increases, the number of such adopt their own size standards for small passenger operations can recoup any exceedances would have increased in entities in consultation with SBA and in costs of maintaining infrastructure, the absence of the final rule. conjunction with public comment. through trackage agreements which Pursuant to that authority, FRA has Total Costs enable host railroads to recover published a final statement of agency marginal costs of permitting passenger Total costs are $292,000, whether policy that formally establishes ‘‘small operations over their tracks, to using a 3 percent or 7 percent discount entities’’ or ‘‘small businesses’’ as being accommodate high cant deficiency railroads, contractors, and hazardous rate, as they are one-time costs. operations, or they can refuse to host materials shippers that meet the revenue Annualized total costs over twenty years such operations, as appropriate. To the requirements of a Class III railroad as set are $27,563 per year, using a 7 percent extent that new passenger railroads are forth in 49 CFR 1201.1–1, which is $20 discount rate, or $19,627 using a 3 small entities, and want to take million or less in inflation-adjusted percent discount rate. advantage of high cant deficiency and annual revenues; and commuter have the means to do so, they will Net Benefits railroads or small governmental benefit. Nonetheless, FRA does not FRA expects the equipment jurisdictions that serve populations of foresee any situation under which a procurement, time savings, and 50,000 or less. See 68 FR 24891, May 9, small entity might be affected by the streamlined testing benefits to vastly 2003, codified at Appendix C to 49 CFR, high-speed provisions in this final rule. exceed the programming costs of the part 209. The $20 million-limit is based rule. It is not unreasonable to estimate on the Surface Transportation Board’s In the NPRM, FRA requested that the equipment procurement revenue threshold for a Class III comments on both the analysis and the benefits alone will justify the costs of railroad. Railroad revenue is adjusted certification that there will be no the rule. However, even if FRA for inflation by applying a revenue significant economic impact on a eliminates from consideration deflator formula in accordance with 49 substantial number of small entities. No equipment procurement benefits, as a CFR 1201.1–1. FRA has applied this comment was received. result of Amtrak’s comment, FRA definition for this rulemaking. Based on these determinations, I believes the high cant deficiency and There are currently two intercity certify that this action will not have a streamlined testing requirements would passenger railroads, Amtrak and the significant economic impact on a justify the costs of the rule. FRA Alaska Railroad Corporation. Neither is substantial number of small entities. concludes the rule will have net considered to be a small entity. Amtrak C. Paperwork Reduction Act benefits. is a Class I railroad and the Alaska Railroad is a Class II railroad. The The information collection B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Alaska Railroad is owned by the State requirements in this final rule have been Executive Order 13272 of Alaska, which has a population well submitted for approval to the Office of To ensure that the potential impact of in excess of 50,000. Management and Budget (OMB) under this rule on small entities was properly There are currently 28 commuter the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, considered, FRA developed this rule in railroad operations in the U.S. Most 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The sections that accordance with Executive Order 13272 commuter railroads are part of larger contain both new and current (‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities transportation organizations that receive information collection requirements, in Agency Rulemaking’’) and DOT’s Federal funds and serve major and the estimated time to fulfill each policies and procedures to promote metropolitan areas with populations requirement, are summarized in the compliance with the Regulatory greater than 50,000. However, two following table. Please note that the Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). commuter rail operations do not fall in table does not include those information The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires this category and are considered small collection requirements added by the an agency to review regulations to entities. One provides service to and Concrete Crossties rulemaking, see 76 assess their impact on small entities. An from a sporting venue in Iowa City, FR 18073 (April 1, 2011), 76 FR 55819 agency must conduct a regulatory Iowa; the second provides service (Sept. 9, 2011), as they are covered flexibility analysis unless it determines between North Creek and Saratoga under a separate approval, OMB No. and certifies that a rule is not expected Springs, New York. Both operations are 2130–0592, which is current until to have a significant economic impact conducted at low speeds—with only October 31, 2014.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16096 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

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

213.4—Excepted Track: —Designation of track 200 railroads ...... 20 orders ...... 15 minutes ...... 5 as excepted. —Notification to FRA 200 railroads ...... 15 notifications ...... 10 minutes ...... 3 about removal of ex- cepted track. 213.5—Responsibility for 728 railroads ...... 10 notifications ...... 8 hours ...... 80 Compliance. 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 31 railroads ...... 80,000 employees ...... 24 hours ...... 1,920,000 CWR procedures. —Written authorizations 31 railroads ...... 80,000 authorizations + 10 minutes + 60 minutes ...... 93,333 and recorded Exams. 80,000 exams. —Designations (partially 31 railroads ...... 250 names ...... 30 minutes ...... 125 qualified) under para- graph (c) of this sec- tion. 213.17—Waivers ...... 728 railroads ...... 6 petitions ...... 112 hours ...... 672 213.57—Curves; Elevation and Speed Limitations: —Requests to FRA for 728 railroads ...... 2 requests/documents ...... 80 hours ...... 160 vehicle type approval. —Written notification to 728 railroads ...... 2 notifications ...... 8 hours ...... 16 FRA prior to imple- mentation of higher curving speeds. —Written consent of 728 railroads ...... 2 consents ...... 8 hours ...... 16 track owner(s) by rail- road providing service over the track. 213.110—Gage Restraint Measurement Systems (GRMS): —Implementing GRMS; 728 railroads ...... 2 notifications + 1 technical re- 24 hours ...... 72 notices and reports. port. —GRMS vehicle output 728 railroads ...... 50 reports ...... 60 minutes ...... 50 reports. —GRMS vehicle excep- 728 railroads ...... 50 reports ...... 60 minutes ...... 50 tion reports. —GRMS/PTLF proce- 728 railroads ...... 4 procedure documents ...... 2 hours ...... 8 dures for data integ- rity. —GRMS training pro- 728 railroads ...... 2 programs + 5 sessions ...... 24 hours ...... 168 grams/sessions. —GRMS inspection 728 railroads ...... 50 records ...... 2 hours ...... 100 records. 213.118—Continuous Weld- ed Rail (CWR); Plan Re- view and Approval: —Plans ...... 728 railroads ...... 728 reviewed plans ...... 4 hours ...... 2,912 —Notification to FRA 728 railroads ...... 728 notifications + 80,000 no- 15 minutes + 2 minutes ...... 2,849 and employees of tifications. plan effective date. —Written submissions 728 railroads ...... 20 submissions ...... 2 hours ...... 40 in support of plan. —FRA-required revi- 728 railroads ...... 20 reviewed plans ...... 1 hour ...... 20 sions to CWR plan. 213.119—Continuous Weld- ed Rail (CWR); Plan Con- tents: —Fracture report for 239 railroads/1 association ..... 12,000 reports ...... 10 minutes ...... 2,000 each broken CWR joint bar. —Petition for technical 1 association ...... 1 petition ...... 15 minutes ...... 0.25 conference on frac- ture reports. —Training programs on 239 railroads/ 1 association .... 240 amended programs ...... 1 hour ...... 240 CWR procedures.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16097

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

—Annual CWR training 31 railroads ...... 80,000 employees ...... 30 minutes ...... 40,000 of employees. —Recordkeeping (track 239 railroads ...... 2,000 records ...... 10 minutes ...... 333 with CWR). —Recordkeeping for 239 railroads ...... 360,000 records ...... 2 minutes ...... 12,000 CWR rail joints. —Periodic records for 239 railroads ...... 480,000 records ...... 1 minute ...... 8,000 CWR rail joints. —Copy of track owner’s 728 railroads ...... 239 manuals ...... 10 minutes ...... 40 CWR procedures. 213.233—Track Inspections: —Notations ...... 728 railroads ...... 12,500 notations ...... 1 minute ...... 208 213.241—Inspection 728 railroads ...... 1,542,089 records ...... varies ...... 1,672,941 Records. 213.303—Responsibility for 2 railroads ...... 1 petition ...... 8 hours ...... 8 Compliance. 213.305—Designation of Qualified Individuals; Gen- eral Qualifications: —Designations ...... 2 railroads ...... 150 designations ...... 60 minutes ...... 150 —Designations (partially 2 railroads ...... 20 designations ...... 60 minutes ...... 20 qualified) under para- graph (d) of this sec- tion. 213.317—Waivers ...... 2 railroads ...... 1 petition ...... 80 hours ...... 80 213.329—Curves; Elevation and Speed Limitations: —FRA approval of 728 railroads ...... 2 documents ...... 80 hours ...... 160 qualified vehicle types based on results of testing. —Written notification to 728 railroads ...... 2 notifications ...... 8 hours ...... 16 FRA prior to imple- mentation of higher curving speeds. —Written consent of 728 railroads ...... 2 written consents ...... 8 hours ...... 16 track owner(s) by rail- road providing service over the track. 213.333 Automated Vehicle- Based Inspection Sys- tems: —Request for alter- 10 railroads ...... 1 request ...... 8 hours ...... 8 native measurement distance (new re- quirement). —Track Geometry 10 railroads ...... 3 reports ...... 40 hours ...... 120 Measurement System (TGMS) output/ex- ception reports. —Track/vehicle per- 10 railroads ...... 20 records ...... 40 hours ...... 800 formance measure- ment system; copies of most recent excep- tion records. —Notification to track 10 railroads ...... 10 notifications ...... 40 hours ...... 400 personnel when on- board accelerometers indicate track related problem (new require- ment). —Requests for an alter- 10 railroads ...... 10 requests ...... 40 hours ...... 400 nate location for de- vice measuring lateral accelerations (new requirement). —Report to FRA pro- 10 railroads ...... 4 reports ...... 8 hours ...... 32 viding analysis of col- lected monitoring data (new require- ment). 213.341—Initial Inspection of New Rail and Welds:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16098 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

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

—Mill inspection; copy 2 railroads ...... 2 reports ...... 16 hours ...... 32 of manufacturer’s re- port. —Welding plan inspec- 2 railroads ...... 2 reports ...... 16 hours ...... 32 tion report. —Inspection of field 2 railroads ...... 125 records ...... 20 minutes ...... 42 welds. 213.343—Continuous weld- ed rail (CWR): —Recordkeeping ...... 2 railroads ...... 150 records ...... 10 minutes ...... 25 213.345—Vehicle/Track System Qualification: —Qualification program 10 railroads ...... 10 programs ...... 120 hours ...... 1,200 for all vehicle types operating at track Class 6 speeds or above or at curving speeds above 5 inches of cant defi- ciency (new require- ment). —Qualification program 10 railroads ...... 10 programs ...... 80 hours ...... 800 for previously quali- fied vehicle types (new requirement). —Written consent of 10 railroads ...... 1 written consent ...... 8 hours ...... 8 track owner(s) by rail- road providing service over the track (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 2 railroads ...... 500 records ...... 1 minute ...... 8 of track. —Internal defect in- 2 railroads ...... 50 records ...... 5 minutes ...... 4 spections and reme- dial action taken.

All estimates include the time for 202–493–6292, or Ms. Kimberly Toone, information collection requirements that reviewing instructions, searching Federal Railroad Administration, at do not display a current OMB control existing data sources, gathering or 202–493–6132. number, if required. FRA intends to maintaining the needed data, and Organizations and individuals obtain current OMB control numbers for reviewing the information. Pursuant to desiring to submit comments on the any new information collection 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits collection of information requirements requirements resulting from this comments concerning the following: should direct them to Mr. Robert Brogan rulemaking action prior to the effective whether these information collection or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Federal date of the final rule. The OMB control requirements are necessary for the Railroad Administration, 1200 New number, when assigned, will be proper performance of the functions of Jersey Avenue SE., 3rd Floor, announced by separate notice in the FRA, including whether the information Washington, DC 20590. Comments may Federal Register. has practical utility; the accuracy of also be submitted via email to Mr. D. Federalism Implications FRA’s estimates of the burden of the Brogan or Ms. Toone at the following, information collection requirements; the respective addresses: Robert.Brogan@ Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ quality, utility, and clarity of the dot.gov; or [email protected]. (see 64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), information to be collected; and OMB is required to make a decision requires FRA to develop an accountable whether the burden of collection of concerning the collection of information process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and information on those who are to requirements contained in this final rule timely input by State and local officials respond, including through the use of between 30 and 60 days after in the development of regulatory automated collection techniques or publication of this document in the policies that have federalism other forms of information technology, Federal Register. Therefore, a comment implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have may be minimized. For information or to OMB is best assured of having its full federalism implications’’ are defined in a copy of the paperwork package effect if OMB receives it within 30 days the Executive Order to include submitted to OMB, contact Mr. Robert of publication. regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct Brogan, Information Clearance Officer, FRA is not authorized to impose a effects on the States, on the relationship Federal Railroad Administration, at penalty on persons for violating between the national government and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16099

the States, or on the distribution of preparation of a federalism summary G. Energy Impact power and responsibilities among the impact statement for this final rule is various levels of government.’’ Under not required. Executive Order 13211 requires Executive Order 13132, the agency may Federal agencies to prepare a Statement E. Environmental Impact not issue a regulation with federalism of Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant implications that imposes substantial FRA has evaluated this final rule in energy action.’’ See 66 FR 28355, May direct compliance costs and that is not accordance with its ‘‘Procedures for 22, 2001. Under the Executive Order, a required by statute, unless the Federal Considering Environmental Impacts’’ ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as government provides the funds (FRA’s Procedures) (see 64 FR 28545, any action by an agency (normally necessary to pay the direct compliance May 26, 1999) as required by the published in the Federal Register) that costs incurred by State and local National Environmental Policy Act (see promulgates or is expected to lead to the governments, the agency consults with 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other promulgation of a final rule or State and local governments, or the environmental statutes, Executive regulation, including notices of inquiry, agency consults with State and local Orders, and related regulatory advance notices of proposed government officials early in the process requirements. FRA has determined that rulemaking, and notices of proposed of developing the regulation. Where a this action is not a major FRA action rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant regulation has federalism implications (requiring the preparation of an regulatory action under Executive Order and preempts State law, the agency environmental impact statement or 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is seeks to consult with State and local environmental assessment) because it is likely to have a significant adverse effect officials in the process of developing the categorically excluded from detailed on the supply, distribution, or use of regulation. environmental review pursuant to energy; or (2) that is designated by the This final rule has been analyzed in section 4(c)(20) of FRA’s Procedures. Administrator of the Office of accordance with the principles and See 64 FR 28547, May 26, 1999. In Information and Regulatory Affairs as a criteria contained in Executive Order accordance with section 4(c) and (e) of significant energy action. 13132. This final rule will not have a FRA’s Procedures, the agency has FRA has evaluated this final rule in substantial effect on the States or their further concluded that no extraordinary accordance with Executive Order 13211. political subdivisions, and it will not circumstances exist with respect to this FRA has determined that this final rule affect the relationships between the final rule that might trigger the need for is not likely to have a significant Federal government and the States or a more detailed environmental review. adverse effect on the supply, their political subdivisions, or the As a result, FRA finds that this final rule distribution, or use of energy. distribution of power and is not a major Federal action Consequently, FRA has determined that responsibilities among the various significantly affecting the quality of the this regulatory action is not a levels of government. In addition, FRA human environment. ‘‘significant energy action’’ within the has determined that this regulatory F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of meaning of the Executive Order. action will not impose substantial direct 1995 compliance costs on the States or their H. Trade Impact Pursuant to Section 201 of the political subdivisions. Therefore, the The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 consultation and funding requirements Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each (Pub. L. 96–39, 19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.) of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. prohibits Federal agencies from However, this final rule could have Federal agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise engaging in any standards or related preemptive effect by operation of law prohibited by law, assess the effects of activities that create unnecessary under certain provisions of the Federal Federal regulatory actions on State, obstacles to the foreign commerce of the railroad safety statutes, specifically the local, and tribal governments, and the United States. Legitimate domestic former Federal Railroad Safety Act of private sector (other than to the extent 1970, repealed and recodified at 49 that such regulations incorporate objectives, such as safety, are not U.S.C. 20106. Section 20106 provides requirements specifically set forth in considered to be unnecessary obstacles. that States may not adopt or continue in law).’’ Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C. The statute also requires consideration effect any law, regulation, or order 1532) further requires that ‘‘before of international standards and, where related to railroad safety or security that promulgating any general notice of appropriate, that they be the basis for covers the subject matter of a regulation proposed rulemaking that is likely to U.S. standards. prescribed or order issued by the result in the promulgation of any rule FRA has assessed the potential effect Secretary of Transportation (with that includes any Federal mandate that of this rulemaking on foreign commerce respect to railroad safety matters) or the may result in expenditure by State, and believes that its requirements are Secretary of Homeland Security (with local, and tribal governments, in the consistent with the Trade Agreements respect to railroad security matters), aggregate, or by the private sector, of Act. The requirements are safety except when the State law, regulation, $100,000,000 or more (adjusted standards, which, as noted, are not or order qualifies under the ‘‘essentially annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and considered unnecessary obstacles to local safety or security hazard’’ before promulgating any final rule for trade. Moreover, FRA has sought, to the exception to section 20106. which a general notice of proposed extent practicable, to state the In sum, FRA has analyzed this final rulemaking was published, the agency requirements in terms of the rule in accordance with the principles shall prepare a written statement’’ performance desired, rather than in and criteria contained in Executive detailing the effect on State, local, and more narrow terms restricted to a Order 13132. As explained above, FRA tribal governments and the private particular vehicle design, so as not to has determined that this final rule has sector. This final rule will not result in limit different, compliant designs by no federalism implications, other than the expenditure, in the aggregate, of any manufacturer—foreign or domestic. the possible preemption of State laws $100,000,000 or more (as adjusted FRA has also taken into consideration under Federal railroad safety statutes, annually for inflation) in any one year, international standards for the safe specifically 49 U.S.C. 20106. and thus preparation of such a interaction of vehicles and the track Accordingly, FRA has determined that statement is not required. over which they operate, such as

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16100 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

standards for steady-state, lateral 238 of chapter II, subtitle B, of title 49, the restoration and renewal of the track acceleration of passenger carbodies. Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: for which he or she is responsible; * * * * * I. Privacy Act PART 213—[AMENDED] Anyone is able to search the (b) * * * ■ electronic form of any comment or 1. The authority citation for part 213 (2) * * * petition received into any of FRA’s is revised to read as follows: (i) Knows and understands the dockets by the name of the individual Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20114 and requirements of this part that apply to submitting the comment or petition (or 20142; Sec. 403, Div. A, Public Law 110–432, signing the comment or petition, if 122 Stat. 4885; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 the inspection of the track for which he submitted on behalf of an association, CFR 1.89. or she is responsible; business, labor union, etc.). Please see * * * * * Subpart A—General the privacy notice at http:// ■ 4. Section 213.14 is added to read as www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice. ■ 2. Section 213.1 is amended by follows: You may review DOT’s complete revising the second sentence of Privacy Act Statement in the Federal paragraph (a) to read as follows: § 213.14 Application of requirements to Register published on April 11, 2000 curved track. (65 FR 19477–19478). § 213.1 Scope of part. Unless otherwise provided in this (a) * * * In general, the requirements List of Subjects part, requirements specified for curved prescribed in this part apply to specific track apply only to track having a 49 CFR Part 213 track conditions existing in isolation. curvature greater than 0.25 degree. Incorporation by reference, Penalties, *** Railroad safety, Reporting and * * * * * Subpart C—Track Geometry recordkeeping requirements. ■ 3. Section 213.7 is amended by 49 CFR Part 238 revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(i) ■ 5. Section 213.55 is revised to read as to read as follows: Incorporation by reference, Passenger follows: equipment, Penalties, Railroad safety, § 213.7 Designation of qualified persons to § 213.55 Track alinement. Reporting and recordkeeping supervise certain renewals and inspect requirements. track. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (a) * * * (b) of this section, alinement may not The Rule (2) * * * deviate from uniformity more than the For the reasons discussed in the (i) Knows and understands the amount prescribed in the following preamble, FRA amends parts 213 and requirements of this part that apply to table:

Tangent track Curved track The deviation of the The deviation of the The deviation of the Class of track mid-offset from a mid-ordinate from a mid-ordinate from a 62-foot line 1 may 31-foot chord 2 may 62-foot chord 2 may not be more than— not be more than— not be more than— (inches) (inches) (inches)

Class 1 track ...... 5 3 N/A 5 Class 2 track ...... 3 3 N/A 3 Class 3 track ...... 13⁄4 11⁄4 13⁄4 Class 4 track ...... 11⁄2 1 11⁄2 Class 5 track ...... 3⁄4 1⁄2 5⁄8 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 track The deviation of the The deviation of the Class of track mid-ordinate from a mid-ordinate from a 31-foot chord 1 may 62-foot chord 1 may not be more than— not be more than— (inches) (inches)

Class 1 track 2 ...... 3 N/A 11⁄4 Class 2 track 2 ...... 3 N/A 11⁄4 Class 3 track ...... 3⁄4 11⁄4 Class 4 track ...... 3⁄4 7⁄8 Class 5 track ...... 1⁄2 5⁄8 1 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. 2 Restraining rails or other systems may be required for derailment prevention. 3 N/A—Not Applicable

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16101

■ 6. Section 213.57 is revised to read as (ii) For passenger cars, the roll angle implementation of the approved higher follows: between the floor of the equipment and curving speeds allowed under the the horizontal does not exceed 8.6 formula in paragraph (b) of this section. § 213.57 Curves; elevation and speed degrees; or The notification shall contain, at a limitations. (2) When operating through a constant minimum, identification of the track (a) The maximum elevation of the radius curve at a constant speed segment(s) on which the higher curving outside rail of a curve may not be more corresponding to the proposed cant speeds are to be implemented. than 8 inches on track Classes 1 and 2, deficiency, and a test plan is submitted (g) The documents required by this and 7 inches on track Classes 3 through to and approved by FRA in accordance section must be provided to FRA by: 5. The outside rail of a curve may not with § 213.345(e) and (f): (1) The track owner; or be lower than the inside rail by design, (i) The steady-state (average) load on (2) A railroad that provides service except when engineered to address any wheel, throughout the body of the with the same vehicle type over trackage specific track or operating conditions; curve, is not less than 60 percent of its of one or more track owner(s), with the the limits in § 213.63 apply in all cases. static value on perfectly level track; and written consent of each affected track (b) The maximum allowable posted (ii) For passenger cars, the steady- owner. timetable operating speed for each curve state (average) lateral acceleration (h)(1) Vehicle types permitted by FRA is determined by the following measured on the floor of the carbody to operate at cant deficiencies, Eu, formula— does not exceed 0.15g. greater than 3 inches but not more than (e) The track owner or railroad shall 5 inches shall be considered qualified transmit the results of the testing under this section to operate at those specified in paragraph (d) of this section permitted cant deficiencies for any track to FRA’s Associate Administrator for segment. The track owner or railroad Where— Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer shall notify FRA in writing no less than Vmax = Maximum allowable posted timetable (FRA) requesting approval for the 30 calendar days prior to the proposed operating speed (m.p.h.). vehicle type to operate at the desired implementation of such curving speeds Ea = Actual elevation of the outside rail curving speeds allowed under the in accordance with paragraph (f) of this (inches).1 section. 2 formula in paragraph (b) of this section. Eu = Qualified cant deficiency (inches) of (2) Vehicle types permitted by FRA to the vehicle type. The request shall be made in writing operate at cant deficiencies, Eu, greater D = Degree of curvature (degrees).3 and contain, at a minimum, the following information— than 5 inches shall be considered (c) All vehicles are considered (1) A description of the vehicle type qualified under this section to operate at qualified for operating on track with a involved, including schematic diagrams those permitted cant deficiencies only cant deficiency, Eu, not exceeding 3 of the suspension system(s) and the for the previously operated or identified inches. Table 1 of appendix A to this estimated location of the center of track segments(s). part is a table of speeds computed in gravity above top of rail; (i) For vehicle types intended to accordance with the formula in (2) The test procedure,4 including the operate at any curving speed producing paragraph (b) of this section, when Eu load condition under which the testing more than 5 inches of cant deficiency, equals 3 inches, for various elevations was performed, and description of the the following provisions of subpart G of and degrees of curvature. instrumentation used to qualify the this part shall apply: §§ 213.333(a) (d) Each vehicle type must be vehicle type, as well as the maximum through (g), (j)(1), (k) and (m), 213.345, approved by FRA to operate on track values for wheel unloading and roll and 213.369(f). with a qualified cant deficiency, Eu, angles or accelerations that were (j) As used in this section— greater than 3 inches. Each vehicle type observed during testing; and (1) Vehicle means a locomotive, as must demonstrate, in a ready-for-service (3) For vehicle types not subject to defined in § 229.5 of this chapter; a load condition, compliance with the parts 229 or 238 of this chapter, freight car, as defined in § 215.5 of this requirements of either paragraph (d)(1) procedures or standards in effect that chapter; a passenger car, as defined in or (2) of this section. relate to the maintenance of all safety- § 238.5 of this chapter; and any rail (1) When positioned on a track with critical components of the suspension rolling equipment used in a train with a uniform superelevation equal to the system(s) for the particular vehicle type. either a freight car or a passenger car. proposed cant deficiency: Safety-critical components of the (2) Vehicle type means like vehicles (i) No wheel of the vehicle type suspension system are those that impact with variations in their physical unloads to a value less than 60 percent or have significant influence on the roll properties, such as suspension, mass, of its static value on perfectly level of the carbody and the distribution of interior arrangements, and dimensions track; and weight on the wheels. that do not result in significant changes (f) In approving the request made to their dynamic characteristics. 1 ■ Actual elevation, Ea, for each 155-foot track pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section, 7. Section 213.59 is amended by segment in the body of the curve is determined by revising the second sentence of averaging the elevation for 11 points through the FRA may impose conditions necessary segment at 15.5-foot spacing. If the curve length is for safely operating at the higher curving paragraph (a) to read as follows: less than 155 feet, the points are averaged through speeds. Upon FRA approval of the § 213.59 Elevation of curved track; runoff. the full length of the body of the curve. request, the track owner or railroad shall 2 (a) * * * If elevation runoff occurs in If the actual elevation, Ea, and degree of notify FRA in writing no less than 30 curvature, D, change as a result of track a curve, the actual minimum elevation calendar days prior to the proposed degradation, then the actual cant deficiency for the shall be used in computing the maximum allowable posted timetable operating maximum allowable posted timetable speed, Vmax, may be greater than the qualified cant 4 The test procedure may be conducted whereby deficiency, Eu. This actual cant deficiency for each all the wheels on one side (right or left) of the operating speed for that curve under curve may not exceed the qualified cant deficiency, vehicle are raised to the proposed cant deficiency, § 213.57(b). Eu, plus 1 inch. the vertical wheel loads under each wheel are * * * * * 3 Degree of curvature, D, is determined by measured, and a level is used to record the angle ■ averaging the degree of curvature over the same through which the floor of the vehicle has been 8. Section 213.63 is revised to read as track segment as the elevation. rotated. follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER13MR13.007 16102 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

§ 213.63 Track surface. shall maintain the surface of its track (a) Except as provided in paragraph within the limits prescribed in the (b) of this section, each track owner 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 The deviation from zero crosslevel at any point on tangent or reverse crosslevel elevation on curves may not be more than ...... 3 2 13⁄4 11⁄4 1 The difference in crosslevel between any two points less than 62 feet apart may not be more than*1, 2 ...... 3 21⁄4 2 13⁄4 11⁄2 *Where determined by engineering decision prior to June 22, 1998, due to physical restrictions on spiral length and operating practices and experience, the variation in crosslevel on spirals per 31 feet may not be more than ...... 2 13⁄4 11⁄4 1 3⁄4 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 (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/A1 N/A1 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 1 N/A—Not Applicable.

■ 9. Section 213.65 is added to subpart the outside rail in the curve, as Am = measured alinement deviation from C to read as follows: measured by a TGMS, shall comply uniformity (outward is positive, inward with the following formula: is negative). § 213.65 Combined track alinement and AL = allowable alinement limit as per surface deviations. § 213.55(b) (always positive) for the class of track. On any curved track where operations Sm = measured profile deviation from are conducted at a qualified cant 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.

Subpart D—Track Structure following minimum design of between 0.5 and 1.25 5, and a load requirements of a GRMS vehicle: severity greater than 3 kips but less than ■ 10. Section 213.110 is amended by (2) Gage restraint shall be measured 8 kips per rail. revising paragraphs (c) through (f), (l), between the heads of rail— (d) Load severity is defined by the (p)(2) and (3) to read as follows: formula: (i) At an interval not exceeding 16 S = L¥cV § 213.110 Gage restraint measurement inches; systems. Where— (ii) Under an applied vertical load of * * * * * no less than 10 kips per rail; and 5 (c)(1) The track owner shall also GRMS equipment using load combinations (iii) Under an applied lateral load that developing L/V ratios that exceed 0.8 shall be provide to FRA sufficient technical data operated with caution to protect against the risk of to establish compliance with the provides for a lateral/vertical load ratio wheel climb by the test wheelset.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:42 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER13MR13.008 ER13MR13.009 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16103

S = Load severity, defined as the lateral load (e) The measured gage values shall be LTG = Loaded track gage measured by the applied to the fastener system (kips). converted to a Projected Loaded Gage 24 GRMS vehicle at a point no more than L = Actual lateral load applied (kips). (PLG24) as follows— 12 inches from the lateral load c = Coefficient of friction between rail/tie, PLG24 = UTG + A × (LTG¥UTG) application point. which is assigned a nominal value of 0.4. A = The extrapolation factor used to convert Where— V = Actual vertical load applied (kips), or the measured loaded gage to expected UTG = Unloaded track gage measured by the static vertical wheel load if vertical load GRMS vehicle at a point no less than 10 loaded gage under a 24-kip lateral load is not measured. feet from any lateral or vertical load and a 33-kip vertical load. application. For all track—

Note: The A factor shall not exceed a value L = Actual lateral load applied (kips). (f) The measured gage and load values of 3.184 under any valid loading V = Actual vertical load applied (kips), or shall be converted to a Gage Widening configuration. static vertical wheel load if vertical load Projection (GWP) as follows: is not measured.

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

GRMS parameters1 If measurement value exceeds Remedial action required

First Level Exception

UTG ...... 58 inches ...... (1) Immediately protect the exception location with a 10 m.p.h. speed restriction, then verify location; (2) Restore lateral restraint and maintain in compliance with PTLF cri- teria 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 inch.

Second Level Exception

LTG ...... 57 d inches on Class 4 and 5 (1) Limit operating speed to no more than the maximum allowable track 2. under § 213.9 for Class 3 track, then verify location; (2) Maintain in compliance with PTLF criteria as described in para- graph (m) of this section; and (3) Maintain compliance with § 213.53(b) as measured with the PTLF. PLG24 ...... 58 inches. 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 good track will typically 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 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 re- medial action(s) must be taken by the track owner. This 1/4-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.

* * * * * that same point. GRMS design § 213.305 Designation of qualified (p) * * * requirements specify an L/V ratio of individuals; general qualifications. (2) Gage Widening Projection (GWP) between 0.5 and 1.25. * * * * * means the measured gage widening, * * * * * (a) * * * which is the difference between loaded (2) * * * and unloaded gage, at the applied loads, Subpart G—Train Operations at Track (i) Knows and understands the projected to reference loads of 16 kips Classes 6 and Higher requirements of this subpart that apply of lateral force and 33 kips of vertical to the restoration and renewal of the force. track for which he or she is responsible; ■ 11. Section 213.305 is amended by (3) L/V ratio means the numerical revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(i) * * * * * ratio of lateral load applied at a point on (b) * * * the rail to the vertical load applied at to read as follows: (2) * * *

VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:42 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER13MR13.010 ER13MR13.011 16104 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

2 (i) Knows and understands the The maximum Operating speeds in excess of 125 m.p.h. requirements of this subpart that apply Over track that meets all of allowable are authorized by this part only in conjunction the requirements prescribed operating with FRA regulatory approval addressing other to the inspection of the track for which in this subpart for— speed for safety issues presented by the railroad sys- he or she is responsible. trains is 1 tem. For operations on a dedicated right-of- way, FRA’s regulatory approval may allow for * * * * * 2 the use of inspection and maintenance criteria Class 9 track ...... 220 m.p.h. and procedures in the alternative to those con- ■ 12. Section 213.307 is amended by tained in this subpart, based upon a showing 1 Freight may be transported at passenger revising the section heading and that at least an equivalent level of safety is train speeds if the following conditions are provided. paragraph (a) to read as follows: met: (1) The vehicles utilized to carry such freight * * * * * § 213.307 Classes of track: operating are of equal dynamic performance and have speed limits. been qualified in accordance with § 213.329 ■ 13. Section 213.313 is added to read and § 213.345. as follows: (a) Except as provided in paragraph (2) The load distribution and securement in (b) of this section and as otherwise the freight vehicle will not adversely affect the § 213.313 Application of requirements to dynamic performance of the vehicle. The axle curved track. provided in this subpart G, the loading pattern is uniform and does not ex- following maximum allowable speeds ceed the passenger locomotive axle loadings Unless otherwise provided in this apply: utilized in passenger service, if any, operating part, requirements specified for curved at the same maximum speed. track apply only to track having a (3) No carrier may accept or transport a curvature greater than 0.25 degree. The maximum hazardous material, as defined at 49 CFR Over track that meets all of allowable 171.8, except as provided in Column 9A of the the requirements prescribed operating Hazardous Materials Table (49 CFR 172.101) ■ 14. Section 213.323 is amended by in this subpart for— speed for 1 for movement in the same train as a pas- revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: trains is senger-carrying vehicle or in Column 9B of the Table for movement in a train with no pas- § 213.323 Track gage. Class 6 track ...... 110 m.p.h. senger-carrying vehicles. Class 7 track ...... 125 m.p.h. * * * * * Class 8 track ...... 160 m.p.h.2 (b) Gage shall be within the limits prescribed in the following table:

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

■ 15. 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: 31′ ...... 7′9″ track is established by averaging the 62′ ...... 15′6″ measured mid-chord offset values for 124′ ...... 31′0″ nine consecutive points that are

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

Class 6 track ...... Tangent ...... 1⁄2 3⁄4 11⁄2 Curved ...... 1⁄2 5⁄8 11⁄2 Class 7 track ...... Tangent ...... 1⁄2 3⁄4 11⁄4 Curved ...... 1⁄2 1⁄2 11⁄4 Class 8 track ...... Tangent ...... 1⁄2 3⁄4 1 Curved ...... 1⁄2 1⁄2 3⁄4 Class 9 track ...... Tangent ...... 1⁄2 1⁄2 3⁄4 Curved ...... 1⁄2 1⁄2 3⁄4

(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:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:42 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16105

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

Class 6 track ...... Curved ...... 1⁄2 5⁄8 11⁄4 Class 7 track ...... Curved ...... 1⁄2 1⁄2 1 Class 8 track ...... Curved ...... 1⁄2 1⁄2 3⁄4 Class 9 track ...... Curved ...... 1⁄2 1⁄2 3⁄4

(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 The deviation The deviation from uniformity of from uniformity of from uniformity of the mid-chord the mid-chord the mid-chord Class of track offset for a offset for a 62- offset for a 124- 31-foot chord foot chord may foot chord may may not be more not be more not be more than—(inches) than—(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 (ii) For passenger cars, the roll angle this section, the ends of the chord shall the vehicle type. between the floor of the equipment and 8 be at points on the gage side of the rail, D = Degree of curvature (degrees). the horizontal does not exceed 8.6 five-eighths of an inch below the top of (c) All vehicles are considered degrees; or the railhead. On tangent track, either qualified for operating on track with a (2) When operating through a constant rail may be used as the line rail; cant deficiency, Eu, not exceeding 3 radius curve at a constant speed however, the same rail shall be used for inches. Table 1 of appendix A to this corresponding to the proposed cant the full length of that tangential segment part is a table of speeds computed in deficiency, and a test plan is submitted of the track. On curved track, the line accordance with the formula in and approved by FRA in accordance rail is the outside rail of the curve. paragraph (b) of this section, when E u with § 213.345(e) and (f): ■ 16. Section 213.329 is revised to read equals 3 inches, for various elevations as follows: and degrees of curvature. (i) The steady-state (average) load on (d) Each vehicle type must be any wheel, throughout the body of the § 213.329 Curves; elevation and speed approved by FRA to operate on track curve, is not less than 60 percent of its limitations. with a qualified cant deficiency, Eu, static value on perfectly level track; and (a) The maximum elevation of the greater than 3 inches. Each vehicle type (ii) For passenger cars, the steady- outside rail of a curve may not be more must demonstrate, in a ready-for-service state (average) lateral acceleration than 7 inches. The outside rail of a load condition, compliance with the measured on the floor of the carbody curve may not be lower than the inside requirements of either paragraph (d)(1) does not exceed 0.15g. rail by design, except when engineered or (2) of this section. to address specific track or operating (1) When positioned on a track with (e) The track owner or railroad shall conditions; the limits in § 213.331 apply a uniform superelevation equal to the transmit the results of the testing in all cases. proposed cant deficiency: specified in paragraph (d) of this section (b) The maximum allowable posted (i) No wheel of the vehicle type to FRA’s Associate Administrator for timetable operating speed for each curve unloads to a value less than 60 percent Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer is determined by the following formula: of its static value on perfectly level (FRA) requesting approval for the track; and vehicle type to operate at the desired curving speeds allowed under the less than 155 feet, the points are averaged through formula in paragraph (b) of this section. the full length of the body of the curve. The request shall be made in writing 7 Where— If the actual elevation, Ea, and degree of and contain, at a minimum, the curvature, D, change as a result of track Vmax = Maximum allowable posted timetable following information— operating speed (m.p.h.). degradation, then the actual cant deficiency for the maximum allowable posted timetable operating Ea = Actual elevation of the outside rail (1) A description of the vehicle type speed, Vmax, may be greater than the qualified cant 6 involved, including schematic diagrams (inches). deficiency, Eu. This actual cant deficiency for each curve may not exceed the qualified cant deficiency, of the suspension system(s) and the 6 Actual elevation, Ea, for each 155-foot track Eu, plus one-half inch. estimated location of the center of segment in the body of the curve is determined by 8 Degree of curvature, D, is determined by gravity above top of rail; averaging the elevation for 11 points through the averaging the degree of curvature over the same segment at 15.5-foot spacing. If the curve length is track segment as the elevation.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:42 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER13MR13.012 16106 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

(2) The test procedure,9 including the The notification shall contain, at a cant deficiencies only for the previously load condition under which the testing minimum, identification of the track operated or identified track segments(s). was performed, and description of the segment(s) on which the higher curving Operation of these vehicle types at such instrumentation used to qualify the speeds are to be implemented. cant deficiencies and track class on any vehicle type, as well as the maximum (g) The documents required by this other track segment is permitted only in values for wheel unloading and roll section must be provided to FRA by: accordance with the qualification angles or accelerations that were (1) The track owner; or requirements in this subpart. observed during testing; and (2) A railroad that provides service (i) As used in this section and in (3) For vehicle types not subject to with the same vehicle type over trackage §§ 213.333 and 213.345— part 238 or part 229 of this chapter, of one or more track owner(s), with the (1) Vehicle means a locomotive, as procedures or standards in effect that written consent of each affected track defined in § 229.5 of this chapter; a relate to the maintenance of all safety- owner. freight car, as defined in § 215.5 of this critical components of the suspension (h) (1) Vehicle types permitted by chapter; a passenger car, as defined in system(s) for the particular vehicle type. FRA to operate at cant deficiencies, Eu, § 238.5 of this chapter; and any rail Safety-critical components of the greater than 3 inches but not more than rolling equipment used in a train with suspension system are those that impact 5 inches shall be considered qualified either a freight car or a passenger car. or have significant influence on the roll under this section to operate at those (2) Vehicle type means like vehicles of the carbody and the distribution of permitted cant deficiencies for any Class with variations in their physical weight on the wheels. 6 track segment. The track owner or properties, such as suspension, mass, (f) In approving the request made railroad shall notify FRA in writing no interior arrangements, and dimensions pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section, less than 30 calendar days prior to the that do not result in significant changes FRA may impose conditions necessary proposed implementation of such to their dynamic characteristics. for safely operating at the higher curving curving speeds in accordance with ■ 17. Section 213.331 is revised to read speeds. Upon FRA approval of the paragraph (f) of this section. as follows: request, the track owner or railroad shall (2) Vehicle types permitted by FRA to notify FRA in writing no less than 30 operate at cant deficiencies, Eu, greater § 213.331 Track surface. calendar days prior to the proposed than 5 inches on Class 6 track, or greater (a) For a single deviation in track implementation of the approved higher than 3 inches on Class 7 through 9 track, surface, each track owner shall maintain curving speeds allowed under the shall be considered qualified under this the surface of its track within the limits formula in paragraph (b) of this section. section to operate at those permitted 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 2 ...... 1 1 1 1 Reverse elevation on curves 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 3 ...... 11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄4 1 On curved track, 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 If physical conditions do not permit a spiral long enough to accommodate the minimum length of runoff, part of the runoff may be on tangent track. 3 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.

(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 (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 11 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

1 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.

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16107

(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 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

■ 18. 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 track 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 than 5 inches, and to all Class 9 track, negative). either curved or tangent. SL = allowable profile limit as per (b) For the conditions defined in § 213.331(a) and § 213.331(b) (always paragraph (a) of this section, the Where— positive) for the class of track.

■ 19. Section 213.333 is amended by from the contact point of wheels the exception report for the track revising the section heading, paragraphs carrying a vertical load of no less than segment involved, and additional (a), (b)(1) and (2), and (c), paragraph (g) 10 kips per wheel, unless otherwise records which: introductory text, paragraphs (h) approved by FRA; * * * * * through (m), and the Vehicle/Track (2) Track geometry measurements (h) For track Classes 8 and 9, a Interaction Safety Limits table to read as shall be taken and recorded on a qualifying Gage Restraint Measurement follows: distance-based sampling interval System (GRMS) shall be operated at preferably at 1 foot not exceeding 2 feet; least once per calendar year with at least § 213.333 Automated vehicle-based and inspection systems. 170 days between inspections. The * * * * * lateral capacity of the track structure (a) A qualifying Track Geometry (c) A qualifying TGMS shall be Measurement System (TGMS) shall be shall not permit a Gage Widening capable of measuring and processing the Projection (GWP) greater than 0.5 inch. operated at the following frequency: necessary track geometry parameters to (i) A GRMS shall meet or exceed (1) For operations at a qualified cant determine compliance with— minimum design requirements deficiency, Eu, of more than 5 inches on (1) For operations at a qualified cant specifying that— track Classes 1 through 5, at least twice deficiency, Eu, of more than 5 inches on per calendar year with not less than 120 track Classes 1 through 5: § 213.53, (1) Gage restraint shall be measured days between inspections. Track gage; § 213.55(b), Track between the heads of the rail: (2) For track Class 6, at least once per alinement; § 213.57, Curves; elevation (i) At an interval not exceeding 16 calendar year with not less than 170 and speed limitations; § 213.63, Track inches; days between inspections. For surface; and § 213.65, Combined track (ii) Under an applied vertical load of operations at a qualified cant deficiency, alinement and surface deviations. no less than 10 kips per rail; and Eu, of more than 5 inches on track Class (2) For track Classes 6 through 9: (iii) Under an applied lateral load that 6, at least twice per calendar year with § 213.323, Track gage; § 213.327, Track provides a lateral/vertical load ratio of not less than 120 days between alinement; § 213.329, Curves; elevation between 0.5 and 1.25,10 and a load inspections. and speed limitations; § 213.331, Track severity greater than 3 kips but less than (3) For track Class 7, at least twice surface; and for operations at a cant 8 kips per rail. Load severity is defined within any 120-day period with not less deficiency of more than 5 inches by the formula: than 25 days between inspections. § 213.332, Combined track alinement S = L¥cV (4) For track Classes 8 and 9, at least and surface deviations. Where— twice within any 60-day period with not * * * * * less than 12 days between inspections. (g) The track owner or railroad shall 10 (b) * * * GRMS equipment using load combinations maintain for a period of one year developing L/V ratios that exceed 0.8 shall be (1) Track geometry measurements following an inspection performed by a operated with caution to protect against the risk of shall be taken no more than 3 feet away qualifying TGMS, a copy of the plot and wheel climb by the test wheelset.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER13MR13.013 ER13MR13.014 16108 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

S = Load severity, defined as the lateral load V = Actual vertical load applied (kips), or (2) The measured gage and load applied to the fastener system (kips). static vertical wheel load if vertical load values shall be converted to a GWP as L = Actual lateral load applied (kips). is not measured. follows: c = Coefficient of friction between rail/tie, which is assigned a nominal value of 0.4.

Where— once each calendar quarter with not less location. After monitoring this data for UTG = Unloaded track gage measured by the than 25 days between inspections on at 2 years, or 1 million miles, whichever GRMS vehicle at a point no less than 10 least one passenger car of each type that occurs first, the track owner or railroad feet from any lateral or vertical load is assigned to the service; and may petition FRA for exemption from application. (2) For operations at track Class 7 this requirement. LTG = Loaded track gage measured by the GRMS vehicle at a point no more than speeds, carbody and truck accelerations (3) If any of the carbody lateral, 12 inches from the lateral load shall be monitored at least twice within carbody vertical, or truck frame lateral application. any 60-day period with not less than 12 acceleration safety limits in this L = Actual lateral load applied (kips). days between inspections on at least one section’s table of vehicle/track V = Actual vertical load applied (kips), or passenger car of each type that is interaction safety limits is exceeded, static vertical wheel load if vertical load assigned to the service; and corrective action shall be taken as is not measured. necessary. Track personnel shall be GWP = Gage Widening Projection, which (3) For operations at track Class 8 or means the measured gage widening, 9 speeds, carbody acceleration shall be notified when the accelerometers which is the difference between loaded monitored at least four times within any indicate a possible track-related and unloaded gage, at the applied loads, 7-day period with not more than 3 days problem. projected to reference loads of 16 kips of between inspections on at least one non- (l) For track Classes 8 and 9, the track lateral force and 33 kips of vertical force. passenger and one passenger carrying owner or railroad shall submit a report (j) As further specified for the vehicle of each type that is assigned to to FRA, once each calendar year, which combination of track class, cant the service, as appropriate. Truck provides an analysis of the monitoring deficiencies, and vehicles subject to acceleration shall be monitored at least data collected in accordance with paragraphs (j)(1) through (3) of this twice within any 60-day period with not paragraphs (j) and (k) of this section. section, a vehicle having dynamic less than 12 days between inspections Based on a review of the report, FRA response characteristics that are on at least one passenger carrying may require that an instrumented representative of other vehicles assigned vehicle of each type that is assigned to vehicle having dynamic response to the service shall be operated over the the service, as appropriate. characteristics that are representative of route at the revenue speed profile. The (k)(1) The instrumented vehicle or the other vehicles assigned to the service be vehicle shall either be instrumented or portable device, as required in operated over the track at the revenue equipped with a portable device that paragraph (j) of this section, shall speed profile. The instrumented vehicle monitors onboard instrumentation on monitor lateral and vertical shall be equipped to measure wheel/rail trains. Track personnel shall be notified accelerations of the carbody. The forces. If any of the wheel/rail force when onboard accelerometers indicate a accelerometers shall be attached to the limits in this section’s table of vehicle/ possible track-related problem. Testing carbody on or under the floor of the track interaction safety limits is shall be conducted at the frequencies vehicle, as near the center of a truck as exceeded, appropriate speed restrictions specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (3) practicable. shall be applied until corrective action of this section, unless otherwise (2) In addition, a device for measuring is taken. determined by FRA after reviewing the lateral accelerations shall be mounted (m) The track owner or railroad shall test data required by this subpart. on a truck frame at a longitudinal maintain a copy of the most recent (1) For operations at a qualified cant location as close as practicable to an exception records for the inspections deficiency, Eu, of more than 5 inches on axle’s centerline (either outside axle for required under paragraphs (j), (k), and track Classes 1 through 6, carbody trucks containing more than 2 axles), or, (l) of this section, as appropriate. acceleration shall be monitored at least if approved by FRA, at an alternate 4910–06–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER13MR13.015 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16109

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER13MR13.016 16110 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER13MR13.017 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16111

BILLING CODE 4910–06–C vehicle type will not exceed the wheel/ testing conducted over a representative ■ 20. Section 213.345 is revised to read rail force safety limits specified in segment of the route shall demonstrate as follows: § 213.333. Simulations, if conducted, that the vehicle type will not exceed the shall be in accordance with paragraph wheel/rail force safety limits specified § 213.345 Vehicle/track system qualification. (c)(2) of this section. Measurement of in § 213.333. wheel/rail forces, if conducted, shall be (d) Previously qualified vehicle types. (a) General. All vehicle types performed over a representative segment Vehicle types previously qualified intended to operate at track Class 6 of the full route on which the vehicle under this subpart for a track class and speeds or above, or at any curving speed type is intended to operate. cant deficiency on one route may be producing more than 5 inches of cant (2) Simulations. For vehicle types qualified for operation at the same class deficiency, shall be qualified for intended to operate at track Class 7 and cant deficiency on another route operation for their intended track speeds or above, or at any curving speed through analysis or testing, or both, to classes in accordance with this subpart. producing more than 6 inches of cant demonstrate compliance with paragraph A qualification program shall be used to deficiency, analysis of vehicle/track (a) of this section in accordance with the demonstrate that the vehicle/track performance (computer simulations) following: system will not exceed the wheel/rail shall be conducted using an industry (1) Simulations or measurement of force safety limits and the carbody and recognized methodology on: wheel/rail forces. For vehicle types truck acceleration criteria specified in (i) An analytically defined track intended to operate at any curving § 213.333— segment representative of minimally speed producing more than 6 inches of (1) At any speed up to and including compliant track conditions (MCAT— cant deficiency, or at curving speeds 5 m.p.h. above the proposed maximum Minimally Compliant Analytical Track) that both correspond to track Class 7 operating speed; and for the respective track class(es) as speeds or above and produce more than (2) On track meeting the requirements specified in appendix D to this part; and 5 inches of cant deficiency, simulations for the class of track associated with the (ii) A track segment representative of or measurement of wheel/rail forces proposed maximum operating speed. the full route on which the vehicle type during qualification testing shall For purposes of qualification testing, is intended to operate. Both simulations demonstrate that the vehicle type will speeds may exceed the maximum and physical examinations of the route’s not exceed the wheel/rail force safety allowable operating speed for the class track geometry shall be used to limits specified in § 213.333. of track in accordance with the test plan determine a track segment Simulations, if conducted, shall be in approved by FRA. representative of the route. accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this (b) Existing vehicle type qualification. (3) Carbody acceleration. For vehicle section. Measurement of wheel/rail Vehicle types previously qualified or types intended to operate at track Class forces, if conducted, shall be performed permitted to operate at track Class 6 6 speeds or above, or at any curving over a representative segment of the speeds or above or at any curving speed producing more than 5 inches of new route. speeds producing more than 5 inches of cant deficiency, qualification testing (2) Carbody acceleration. For vehicle cant deficiency prior to March 13, 2013, conducted over a representative types intended to operate at any curving shall be considered as being segment of the route shall demonstrate speed producing more than 5 inches of successfully qualified under the that the vehicle type will not exceed the cant deficiency, or at track Class 7 requirements of this section for carbody lateral and vertical acceleration speeds and above, qualification testing operation at the previously operated safety limits specified in § 213.333. conducted over a representative speeds and cant deficiencies over the (4) Truck lateral acceleration. For segment of the new route shall previously operated track segment(s). vehicle types intended to operate at demonstrate that the vehicle type will (c) New vehicle type qualification. track Class 6 speeds or above, not exceed the carbody lateral and Vehicle types not previously qualified qualification testing conducted over a vertical acceleration safety limits under this subpart shall be qualified in representative segment of the route shall specified in § 213.333. accordance with the requirements of demonstrate that the vehicle type will (3) Truck lateral acceleration. For this paragraph (c). not exceed the truck lateral acceleration vehicle types intended to operate at (1) Simulations or measurement of safety limit specified in § 213.333. track Class 7 speeds or above, wheel/rail forces. For vehicle types (5) Measurement of wheel/rail forces. measurement of truck lateral intended to operate at track Class 6 For vehicle types intended to operate at acceleration during qualification testing speeds, simulations or measurement of track Class 7 speeds or above, or at any shall demonstrate that the vehicle type wheel/rail forces during qualification curving speed producing more than 6 will not exceed the truck lateral testing shall demonstrate that the inches of cant deficiency, qualification acceleration safety limits specified in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER13MR13.018 16112 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

§ 213.333. Measurement of truck lateral plan, qualification testing shall be deficiency, or less, are not required to be acceleration, if conducted, shall be conducted in two sequential stages as reported. performed over a representative segment required in this subpart. (4) Prior to the start of the of the new route. (1) Stage-one testing shall include qualification testing program, a (e) Qualification testing plan. To demonstration of acceptable vehicle qualifying TGMS specified in § 213.333 obtain the data required to support the dynamic response of the subject vehicle shall be operated over the intended qualification program outlined in as speeds are incrementally increased— route within 30 calendar days prior to paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, (i) On a segment of tangent track, from the start of the qualification testing the track owner or railroad shall submit acceptable track Class 5 speeds to the program. a qualification testing plan to FRA’s target maximum test speed (when the (g) Qualification testing results. The Associate Administrator for Railroad target speed corresponds to track Class track owner or railroad shall submit a Safety/Chief Safety Officer (FRA) at 6 and above operations); and report to FRA detailing all the results of least 60 days prior to testing, requesting (ii) On a segment of curved track, the qualification program. When approval to conduct the testing at the from the speeds corresponding to 3 simulations are required as part of desired speeds and cant deficiencies. inches of cant deficiency to the vehicle qualification, this report shall This test plan shall provide for a test maximum testing cant deficiency. include a comparison of simulation program sufficient to evaluate the (2) When stage-one testing has predictions to the actual wheel/rail operating limits of the track and vehicle successfully demonstrated a maximum force or acceleration data, or both, type and shall include: safe operating speed and cant recorded during full-scale testing. The (1) Identification of the representative deficiency, stage-two testing shall report shall be submitted at least 60 segment of the route for qualification commence with the subject equipment days prior to the intended operation of testing; over a representative segment of the the equipment in revenue service over (2) Consideration of the operating route as identified in paragraph (e)(1) of the route. environment during qualification this section. (h) Based on the test results and all testing, including operating practices (i) A test run shall be conducted over other required submissions, FRA will and conditions, the signal system, the route segment at the speed the approve a maximum train speed and highway-rail grade crossings, and trains railroad will request FRA to approve for value of cant deficiency for revenue on adjacent tracks; service, normally within 45 days of (3) The maximum angle found on the such service. receipt of all the required information. gage face of the designed (newly- (ii) An additional test run shall be FRA may impose conditions necessary profiled) wheel flange referenced with conducted at 5 m.p.h. above this speed. for safely operating at the maximum respect to the axis of the wheelset that (3) When conducting stage-one and approved train speed and cant will be used for the determination of the stage-two testing, if any of the deficiency. Single Wheel L/V Ratio safety limit monitored safety limits is exceeded on specified in § 213.333; any segment of track intended for (i) The documents required by this (4) A target maximum testing speed in operation at track Class 6 speeds or section must be provided to FRA by: accordance with paragraph (a) of this greater, or on any segment of track (1) The track owner; or section and the maximum testing cant intended for operation at more than 5 (2) A railroad that provides service deficiency; inches of cant deficiency, testing may with the same vehicle type over trackage (5) An analysis and description of the continue provided that the track of one or more track owner(s), with the signal system and operating practices to location(s) where any of the limits is written consent of each affected track govern operations in track Classes 7 exceeded be identified and test speeds owner. through 9, which shall include a be limited at the track location(s) until ■ 21. Section 213.355 is revised to read statement of sufficiency in these areas corrective action is taken. Corrective as follows: for the class of operation; and action may include making an (6) The results of vehicle/track adjustment in the track, in the vehicle, § 213.355 Frog guard rails and guard performance simulations that are or both of these system components. faces; gage. required by this section. Measurements taken on track segments The guard check and guard face gages (f) Qualification testing. Upon FRA intended for operations below track in frogs shall be within the limits approval of the qualification testing Class 6 speeds and at 5 inches of cant prescribed in the following table—

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.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16113

■ 22. 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)

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

Degree of Maximum allowable operating speed (m.p.h.) curvature

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)

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

Degree of Maximum allowable operating speed (m.p.h.) curvature

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16114 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 2—FOUR INCHES UNBALANCE—Continued

Elevation of outer rail (inches)

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

Degree of Maximum allowable operating speed (m.p.h.) curvature

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)

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

Degree of Maximum allowable operating speed (m.p.h.) curvature

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)

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

Degree of Maximum allowable operating speed (m.p.h.) curvature

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 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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16115

TABLE 4—SIX INCHES UNBALANCE—Continued

Elevation of outer rail (inches)

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

Degree of Maximum allowable operating speed (m.p.h.) curvature

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

■ 23. Amend appendix B to part 213: §§ 213.109 and 213.127, and adding the and 213.345, and adding the entry for ■ a. Under subpart C by removing the entry for § 213.110 in numerical order; § 213.332 in numerical order. ■ entry for § 13.55 and adding entries for c. By adding the entry for § 213.234 in The revisions and additions read as §§ 213.55 and 213.65 in numerical numerical order under subpart F; follows: order; ■ d. By revising the subpart G heading ■ b. By revising the subpart D heading and under it revising the entries for Appendix B to Part 213—Schedule of and under it revising the entries for §§ 213.307, 213.327, 213.329, 213.333, Civil Penalties

Section Violation Willful violation 1

SUBPART C—TRACK GEOMETRY:

******* 213.55 Track alinement ...... 5,000 7,500

******* 213.65 Combined track alinement and surface deviations ...... 5,000 7,500 SUBPART D—TRACK STRUCTURE:

******* 213.109 Crossties (a) Material used ...... 1,000 2,000 (b) Distribution of ties ...... 2,500 5,000 (c) and (d) Sufficient number of non-defective ties ...... 1,000 2,000 (e) Joint ties ...... 2,500 5,000 (f) Track constructed without crossties ...... 2,500 5,000 213.110 Gage restraint measurement systems ...... 5,000 7,500

******* 213.127 Rail Fastening Systems ...... 2,500 5,000

******* SUBPART F—INSPECTION:

******* 213.234 Automated inspection of track constructed with concrete crossties ...... 5,000 7,500

******* SUBPART G—TRAIN OPERATIONS AT TRACK CLASSES 6 AND HIGHER:

******* 213.307 Classes of track: operating speed limits ...... 2,500 5,000

******* 213.327 Track alinement ...... 5,000 7,500 213.329 Curves; elevation and speed limits ...... 2,500 5,000

******* 213.332 Combined track alinement and surface deviations ...... 5,000 7,500 213.333 Automated vehicle-based inspection systems ...... 5,000 7,500

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16116 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

Section Violation Willful violation 1

******* 213.345 Vehicle/track system qualification: (a) through (d) ...... 5,000 7,500 (e) through (i) ...... 2,500 5,000

******* 1 A penalty may be assessed against an individual only for a willful violation. The Administrator reserves the right to assess a penalty of up to $105,000 for any violation where circumstances warrant. See 49 CFR part 209, appendix A.

■ 24. Appendix C to part 213 is added operation on the track over which it is shall be performed as specified in and reserved. intended to operate. § 213.345(c)(2)(ii). These predictions shall be ■ 25. Appendix D to part 213 is added 2. As specified in § 213.345(c)(2), MCAT submitted to FRA in support of the request shall be used for the qualification of new for approval of the qualification testing plan. to read as follows: vehicle types intended to operate at track Full validation of the vehicle model used for Appendix D to Part 213—Minimally Class 7 speeds or above, or at any curving simulations under this part shall be Compliant Analytical Track (MCAT) speed producing more than 6 inches of cant determined when the results of the Simulations Used for Qualifying deficiency. MCAT may also be used for the simulations demonstrate that they replicate Vehicles To Operate at High Speeds qualification of new vehicle types intended all key responses observed during to operate at speeds corresponding to Class qualification testing. and at High Cant Deficiencies 6 track, as specified in § 213.345(c)(1). In (b) MCAT layout. MCAT consists of nine 1. This appendix contains requirements for addition, as specified in § 213.345(d)(1), segments, each designed to test a vehicle’s using computer simulations to comply with MCAT may be used to qualify on new routes performance in response to a specific type of the vehicle/track system qualification testing vehicle types that have previously been track perturbation. The basic layout of MCAT requirements specified in subpart G of this qualified on other routes and are intended to is shown in figure 1 of this appendix, by type part. These simulations shall be performed operate at any curving speed producing more of track (curving or tangent), class of track, using a track model containing defined than 6 inches of cant deficiency, or at curving and cant deficiency (CD). The values for geometry perturbations at the limits that are speeds that both correspond to track Class 7 wavelength, l, amplitude of perturbation, a, permitted for a specific class of track and speeds or above and produce more than 5 and segment length, d, are specified in this level of cant deficiency. This track model is inches of cant deficiency. appendix. The bars at the top of figure 1 known as MCAT, Minimally Compliant (a) Validation. To validate the vehicle show which segments are required Analytical Track. These simulations shall be model used for simulations under this part, depending on the speed and degree of used to identify vehicle dynamic the track owner or railroad shall obtain curvature. For example, the hunting performance issues prior to service or, as vehicle simulation predictions using perturbation section is not required for appropriate, a change in service, and measured track geometry data, chosen from simulation of curves greater than or equal to demonstrate that a vehicle type is suitable for the same track section over which testing 1 degree.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16117

(1) MCAT segments. MCAT’s nine (vi) Single surface (a10, a11): This segment (ix) Combined 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 permissible variations produce a condition segments are defined as follows: variation is also placed on the opposite rail which exceeds the maximum allowed gage (i) Hunting perturbation (a ): This segment 1 to limit the warp to the maximum condition, a second variation is also placed contains an alinement deviation having a permissible value. wavelength, l, of 10 feet and amplitude of on the opposite rail as for the MCAT (vii) Single alinement (a5, a6): This segment segments described in paragraphs (b)(1)(vi) 0.25 inch on both rails to test vehicle stability contains a maximum permissible alinement on tangent track and on track that is curved and (vii) of this appendix. This segment is to variation on one rail. If the maximum less than 1 degree. be used for all simulations on Class 9 track, permissible alinement variation alone (ii) Gage narrowing (a2): This segment and only for curved track simulations at contains an alinement deviation on one rail produces a condition which exceeds the speeds producing more than 5 inches of cant maximum allowed gage condition, a second to reduce the gage from the nominal value to deficiency on track Classes 6 through 8, and alinement variation is also placed on the the minimum permissible gage or maximum at speeds producing more than 6 inches of opposite rail to limit the gage to the alinement (whichever comes first). cant deficiency on track Classes 1 through 5. maximum permissible value. (iii) Gage widening (a3): This segment (2) Segment lengths: Each MCAT segment (viii) Short warp (a12): This segment contains an alinement deviation on one rail 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 maximum alinement (whichever comes first). warp perturbation. The first is on the outside out. Each segment shall also have a minimum length as specified in table 1 of this (iv) Repeated surface (a9): This segment rail, and the second follows 10 feet farther on contains three consecutive maximum the inside rail. Each deviation has a appendix, which references the distances in permissible profile variations on each rail. wavelength, l, of 20 feet and variable figure 1 of this appendix. For curved track (v) Repeated alinement (a4): This segment amplitude for each simulation speed as segments, the perturbations shall be placed 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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER13MR13.019 16118 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

(3) Degree of curvature. Where— performance on Class 1 track is not (i) For each simulation involving D = Degree of curvature (degrees). depicted; it would be based on the same assessment of curving performance, the V = Simulation speed (m.p.h.). equation using an appropriate degree of curvature, D, which generates Eu = Cant deficiency (inches). superelevation. The degree of curvature a particular level of cant deficiency, E , u (ii) Table 2 of this appendix depicts for use in MCAT simulations of freight for a given speed, V, shall be calculated equipment performance on Class 6 using the following equation, which the degree of curvature for use in MCAT simulations of both passenger and (freight) track is shown in italics for cant assumes a curve with 6 inches of deficiencies not exceeding 6 inches, to superelevation: freight equipment performance on Class 2 through 9 track, based on the equation emphasize that the values apply to in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this appendix. freight equipment only. The degree of curvature for use in BILLING CODE 4910–06–P MCAT simulations of equipment

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER13MR13.020 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16119

BILLING CODE 4910–06–C simulations shall be performed for a depending on the level of cant (c) Required simulations. variety of scenarios using MCAT. These deficiency and speed (track class) as (1) To develop a comprehensive simulations shall be performed on summarized in table 3 of this appendix. assessment of vehicle performance, tangent or curved track, or both,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER13MR13.021 16120 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 3 OF APPENDIX D TO PART 213 SUMMARY OF REQUIRED VEHICLE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT USING SIMULATIONS

New vehicle types Previously qualified vehicle types

Curved track: cant deficiency ≤ 6 Curving performance simulation: not required for Curving performance simulation: not required for inches. track Classes 1 through 5; optional for track Class track Classes 1 through 6; optional for track Class- 6; required for track Classes 7 through 9. es 7 through 9 for cant deficiency > 5 inches. Curved track: cant deficiency > 6 Curving performance simulation required for all track Curving performance simulation optional for all track inches. classes. classes. Tangent track ...... Tangent performance simulation: not required for Tangent performance simulation not required for any track Classes 1 through 5; optional for track Class track class. 6; required for track Classes 7 through 9.

(i) All simulations shall be performed alternative worn wheel profile may be (iii) Amplitude parameters. Table 4 of using the design wheel profile and a used in lieu of either APTA wheel this appendix provides the amplitude nominal track gage of 56.5 inches, using profile, if approved by FRA. values for the MCAT segments tables 4, 5, 6, or 7 of this appendix, as (iii) All simulations shall be described in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through appropriate. In addition, all simulations performed using a wheel/rail coefficient (vii) and (b)(1)(ix) of this appendix for involving the assessment of curving of friction of 0.5. each speed of the required parametric performance shall be repeated using a (2) Vehicle performance on tangent MCAT simulations. The last set of nominal track gage of 57.0 inches, using track Classes 6 through 9. For maximum simulations shall be performed at 5 tables 5, 6, or 7 of this appendix, as vehicle speeds corresponding to track m.p.h. above the proposed maximum appropriate. Class 6 and higher, the MCAT segments operating speed using the amplitude (ii) If the wheel profile is different described in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through values in table 4 that correspond to the than American Public Transportation (vii) of this appendix shall be used to proposed maximum operating speed. assess vehicle performance on tangent Administration (APTA) wheel profiles For qualification of vehicle types at track. For track Class 9, simulations 320 or 340, then for tangent track speeds greater than track Class 6 speeds, must also include the combined segments all simulations shall be the following additional simulations perturbation segment described in repeated using either APTA wheel shall be performed: profile 320 or 340, depending on the paragraph (b)(1)(ix) of this appendix. A established conicity that is common for parametric matrix of MCAT simulations (A) For vehicle types being qualified the operation, as specified in APTA SS– shall be performed using the following for track Class 7 speeds, one additional M–015–06, Standard for Wheel Flange range of conditions: set of simulations shall be performed at Angle of Passenger Equipment (2007). (i) Vehicle speed. Simulations shall 115 m.p.h. using the track Class 6 This APTA standard is incorporated by demonstrate that at up to 5 m.p.h. above amplitude values in table 4 (i.e., a 5 reference into this appendix with the the proposed maximum operating m.p.h. overspeed on Class 6 track). approval of the Director of the Federal speed, the vehicle type shall not exceed (B) For vehicle types being qualified Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 the wheel/rail force and acceleration for track Class 8 speeds, two additional CFR part 51. To enforce any edition criteria defined in the Vehicle/Track sets of simulations shall be performed. other than that specified in this Interaction Safety Limits table in The first set at 115 m.p.h. using the appendix, FRA must publish notice of § 213.333. Simulations shall also track Class 6 amplitude values in table change in the Federal Register and the demonstrate acceptable vehicle dynamic 4 (i.e., a 5 m.p.h. overspeed on Class 6 material must be made available to the response by incrementally increasing track), and a second set at 130 m.p.h. public. All approved material is speed from 95 m.p.h. (115 m.p.h. if a using the track Class 7 amplitude values available for inspection at the Federal previously qualified vehicle type on an in table 4 (i.e., a 5 m.p.h. overspeed on Railroad Administration, Docket Clerk, untested route) to 5 m.p.h. above the Class 7 track). 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., proposed maximum operating speed (in Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202– 5 m.p.h. increments). (C) For vehicle types being qualified 493–6030), and is available from the (ii) Perturbation wavelength. For each for track Class 9 speeds, three additional American Public Transportation speed, a set of three separate MCAT sets of simulations shall be performed. Association, 1666 K Street NW., Suite simulations shall be performed. In each The first set at 115 m.p.h. using the 1100, Washington, DC 20006 (telephone MCAT simulation for the perturbation track Class 6 amplitude values in table 202–496–4800; www.apta.com). It is segments described in paragraphs 4 (i.e., a 5 m.p.h. overspeed on Class 6 also available for inspection at the (b)(1)(ii) through (vii) and (b)(1)(ix) of track), a second set at 130 m.p.h. using National Archives and Records this appendix, every perturbation shall the track Class 7 amplitude values in Administration (NARA). For have the same wavelength. The table 4 (i.e., a 5 m.p.h. overspeed on information on the availability of this following three wavelengths, l, shall be Class 7 track), and a third set at 165 material at NARA, call 202–741–6030 or used: 31, 62, and 124 feet. The hunting m.p.h. using the track Class 8 amplitude go to http://www.archives.gov/ perturbation segment described in values in table 4 (i.e., a 5 m.p.h. federal_register/code_of_federal_ paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this appendix has overspeed on Class 8 track). regulations/ibr_locations.html. An a fixed wavelength, l, of 10 feet. BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16121

BILLING CODE 4910–06–C described in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this (i) Vehicle speed. Simulations shall (3) Vehicle performance on curved appendix. For track Class 9 and for cant demonstrate that at up to 5 m.p.h. above track Classes 6 through 9. For maximum deficiencies greater than 5 inches, the proposed maximum operating vehicle speeds corresponding to track simulations must also include the speed, the vehicle type shall not exceed Class 6 and higher, the MCAT segments combined perturbation segment the wheel/rail force and acceleration described in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) described in paragraph (b)(1)(ix) of this criteria defined in the Vehicle/Track through (viii) of this appendix shall be appendix. A parametric matrix of MCAT Interaction Safety Limits table in used to assess vehicle performance on simulations shall be performed using § 213.333. Simulations shall also curved track. For curves less than 1 the following range of conditions: demonstrate acceptable vehicle dynamic degree, simulations must also include the hunting perturbation segment response by incrementally increasing

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER13MR13.022 16122 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

speed from 95 m.p.h. (115 m.p.h. if a parametric MCAT simulations for cant a 5 m.p.h. overspeed on Class 6 track) previously qualified vehicle type on an deficiencies greater than 3 inches and and a value of curvature, D, that untested route) to 5 m.p.h. above the not more than 5 inches. Table 6 of this corresponds to 110 m.p.h. and the proposed maximum operating speed (in appendix provides the amplitude values proposed maximum cant deficiency. 5 m.p.h. increments). for each speed of the required The second set of simulations shall be (ii) Perturbation wavelength. For each parametric MCAT simulations for cant performed at 130 m.p.h. using the track speed, a set of three separate MCAT deficiencies greater than 5 inches. The Class 7 amplitude values in table 5 or simulations shall be performed. In each last set of simulations at the maximum 6, as appropriate (i.e., a 5 m.p.h. MCAT simulation for the perturbation cant deficiency shall be performed at 5 overspeed on Class 7 track) and a value segments described in paragraphs m.p.h. above the proposed maximum of curvature, D, that corresponds to 125 (b)(1)(ii) through (vii) and paragraph operating speed using the amplitude m.p.h. and the proposed maximum cant (b)(1)(ix) of this appendix, every values in table 5 or 6 of this appendix, deficiency. perturbation shall have the same as appropriate, that correspond to the (C) For vehicle types being qualified wavelength. The following three proposed maximum operating speed for track Class 9 speeds, three additional wavelengths, l, shall be used: 31, 62, and cant deficiency. For these sets of simulations shall be performed. and 124 feet. The hunting perturbation simulations, the value of curvature, D, The first set of simulations shall be segment described in paragraph (b)(1)(i) shall correspond to the proposed performed at 115 m.p.h. using the track of this appendix has a fixed wavelength, maximum operating speed and cant Class 6 amplitude values in table 5 or l, of 10 feet, and the short warp deficiency. For qualification of vehicle 6 of this appendix, as appropriate (i.e., perturbation segment described in types at speeds greater than track Class a 5 m.p.h. overspeed on Class 6 track) paragraph (b)(1)(viii) of this appendix 6 speeds, the following additional and a value of curvature, D, that has a fixed wavelength, l, of 20 feet. simulations shall be performed: corresponds to 110 m.p.h. and the (iii) Track curvature. For each speed, (A) For vehicle types being qualified proposed maximum cant deficiency. a range of curvatures shall be used to for track Class 7 speeds, one additional The second set of simulations shall be produce cant deficiency conditions set of simulations shall be performed at performed at 130 m.p.h. using the track ranging from greater than 3 inches up to 115 m.p.h. using the track Class 6 Class 7 amplitude values in table 5 or the maximum intended for qualification amplitude values in table 5 or 6 of this 6, as appropriate (i.e., a 5 m.p.h. (in 1 inch increments). The value of appendix, as appropriate (i.e., a 5 m.p.h. overspeed on Class 7 track) and a value curvature, D, shall be determined using overspeed on Class 6 track) and a value of curvature, D, that corresponds to 125 the equation defined in paragraph (b)(3) of curvature, D, that corresponds to 110 m.p.h. and the proposed maximum cant of this appendix. Each curve shall m.p.h. and the proposed maximum cant deficiency. The third set of simulations include representations of the MCAT deficiency. shall be performed at 165 m.p.h. using segments described in paragraphs (B) For vehicle types being qualified the track Class 8 amplitude values in (b)(1)(i) through (ix) of this appendix, as for track Class 8 speeds, two additional table 5 or 6, as appropriate (i.e., a 5 appropriate, and have a fixed set of simulations shall be performed. m.p.h. overspeed on Class 8 track) and superelevation of 6 inches. The first set of simulations shall be a value of curvature, D, that corresponds (iv) Amplitude parameters. Table 5 of performed at 115 m.p.h. using the track to 160 m.p.h. and the proposed this appendix provides the amplitude Class 6 amplitude values in table 5 or maximum cant deficiency. values for each speed of the required 6 of this appendix, as appropriate (i.e., BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16123

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER13MR13.023 16124 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

(4) Vehicle performance on curved curved track if the proposed maximum speed, the vehicle shall not exceed the track Classes 1 through 5 at high cant cant deficiency is greater than 6 inches. wheel/rail force and acceleration criteria deficiency. For maximum vehicle A parametric matrix of MCAT defined in the Vehicle/Track Interaction speeds corresponding to track Classes 1 simulations shall be performed using Safety Limits table in § 213.333. through 5, the MCAT segments the following range of conditions: Simulations shall also demonstrate described in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) (i) Vehicle speed. Simulations shall acceptable vehicle dynamic response at through (ix) of this appendix shall be demonstrate that at up to 5 m.p.h. above 5 m.p.h. above the proposed maximum used to assess vehicle performance on the proposed maximum operating operating speed.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER13MR13.024 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16125

(ii) Perturbation wavelength. For each (b)(1)(viii) of this appendix has a fixed appendix. Each curve shall contain the speed, a set of two separate MCAT wavelength, l, of 20 feet. MCAT segments described in simulations shall be performed. In each (iii) Track curvature. For a speed paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) through (ix) of this MCAT simulation for the perturbation corresponding to 5 m.p.h. above the appendix and have a fixed segments described in paragraphs proposed maximum operating speed, a superelevation of 6 inches. (b)(1)(ii) through (vii) and paragraph range of curvatures shall be used to (iv) Amplitude parameters. Table 7 of (b)(1)(ix) of this appendix, every produce cant deficiency conditions this appendix provides the amplitude perturbation shall have the same ranging from 6 inches up to the values for the MCAT segments wavelength. The following two maximum intended for qualification (in described in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) wavelengths, l, shall be used: 31 and 62 1 inch increments). The value of through (ix) of this appendix for each feet. The short warp perturbation curvature, D, shall be determined using speed of the required parametric MCAT segment described in paragraph the equation in paragraph (b)(3) of this simulations.

BILLING CODE 4910–06–C 21301–21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; § 238.227 Suspension system. and 49 CFR 1.89. PART 238—[AMENDED] On or after November 8, 1999— Subpart C—Specific Requirements for (a) All passenger equipment shall ■ 26. The authority citation for part 238 Tier I Passenger Equipment exhibit freedom from truck hunting at is revised to read as follows: all operating speeds. If truck hunting Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20133, ■ 27. Section 238.227 is revised to read does occur, a railroad shall immediately 20141, 20302–20303, 20306, 20701–20702, as follows: take appropriate action to prevent

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER13MR13.025 16126 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

derailment. Truck hunting is defined in and by removing paragraph (d) to read carbody acceleration limits are specified § 213.333 of this chapter. as follows: in § 213.333 of this chapter. (b) Nothing in this section shall affect § 238.427 Suspension system. (c) Truck (hunting) acceleration. Each the requirements of the Track Safety truck shall be equipped with a Standards in part 213 of this chapter as (a) * * * permanently installed lateral they apply to passenger equipment as (2) All passenger equipment shall accelerometer mounted on the truck provided in that part. In particular— meet the safety performance standards frame. If truck hunting is detected, the (1) Pre-revenue service qualification. for suspension systems contained in train monitoring system shall provide All passenger equipment intended for an alarm to the locomotive engineer, service at speeds greater than 90 mph or part 213 of this chapter, or alternative at any curving speed producing more standards providing at least equivalent and the train shall be slowed to a speed than 5 inches of cant deficiency shall safety if approved by FRA under the at least 5 mph less than the speed at demonstrate safe operation during pre- provisions of § 238.21. In particular— which the truck hunting stopped. Truck revenue service qualification in (i) Pre-revenue service qualification. hunting is defined in § 213.333 of this accordance with § 213.345 of this All passenger equipment shall chapter. chapter and is subject to the demonstrate safe operation during pre- ■ 29. Section 238.428 is added to read requirements of either § 213.57 or revenue service qualification in as follows: § 213.329 of this chapter, as appropriate. accordance with § 213.345 of this (2) Revenue service operation. All chapter and is subject to the § 238.428 Overheat sensors. passenger equipment intended for requirements of § 213.329 of this Overheat sensors for each wheelset service at speeds greater than 90 mph or chapter. journal bearing shall be provided. The at any curving speed producing more (ii) Revenue service operation. All sensors may be placed either onboard than 5 inches of cant deficiency is passenger equipment in service is the equipment or at reasonable intervals subject to the requirements of § 213.333 subject to the requirements of along the railroad’s right-of-way. of this chapter and either § 213.57 or §§ 213.329 and 213.333 of this chapter. § 213.329 of this chapter, as appropriate. ■ 30. Appendix A to part 238 is (b) Carbody acceleration. A passenger amended by adding the entry for new Subpart E—Specific Requirements for car shall not operate under conditions § 238.428 in numerical order to read as Tier II Passenger Equipment that result in a steady-state lateral follows: acceleration greater than 0.15g, as ■ 28. Section 238.427 is amended by measured parallel to the car floor inside Appendix A to Part 238—Schedule of revising paragraphs (a)(2), (b), and (c), the passenger compartment. Additional Civil Penalties 12

Section Violation Willful violation

SUBPART E—SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR TIER II PASSENGER EQUIPMENT:

******* 238.428 Overheat sensors ...... 2,500 5,000

*******

Appendix C to Part 238 [Removed and Issued in Washington, DC, on February 25, Reserved] 2013. Joseph C. Szabo, ■ 31. Appendix C to part 238 is removed Administrator. and reserved. [FR Doc. 2013–04679 Filed 3–12–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

1 A penalty may be assessed against an individual deprive the railroad of the benefit of the movement- assessed for each unit of passenger equipment only for a willful violation. Generally when two or for-repair provision and make the railroad and any contained in a train that is not properly inspected. more violations of these regulations are discovered responsible individuals liable for penalty under the Whereas, the penalties listed for failure to perform with respect to a single unit of passenger equipment particular regulatory section(s) concerning the the brake inspections and tests under § 238.313 that is placed or continued in service by a railroad, substantive defect(s) present on the unit of through § 238.319 may be assessed for each train the appropriate penalties set forth above are passenger equipment at the time of movement. that is not properly inspected. aggregated up to a maximum of $16,000 per day. Failure to observe any condition for the 2 The penalty schedule uses section numbers However, failure to perform, with respect to a movement of passenger equipment containing particular unit of passenger equipment, any of the from 49 CFR part 238. If more than one item is defective safety appliances, other than power inspections and tests required under subparts D and listed as a type of violation of a given section, each F of this part will be treated as a violation separate brakes, set forth in § 238.17(e) will deprive the item is also designated by a ‘‘penalty code,’’ which and distinct from, and in addition to, any railroad of the movement-for-repair provision and is used to facilitate assessment of civil penalties, substantive violative conditions found on that unit make the railroad and any responsible individuals and which may or may not correspond to any of passenger equipment. Moreover, the liable for penalty under the particular regulatory subsection designation(s). For convenience, penalty Administrator reserves the right to assess a penalty section(s) contained in part 231 of this chapter or citations will cite the CFR section and the penalty of up to $105,000 for any violation where § 238.429 concerning the substantive defective code, if any. FRA reserves the right, should circumstances warrant. See 49 CFR part 209, condition. litigation become necessary, to substitute in its appendix A. The penalties listed for failure to perform the complaint the CFR citation in place of the Failure to observe any condition for movement of exterior and interior mechanical inspections and combined CFR and penalty code citation, should defective equipment set forth in § 238.17 will tests required under § 238.303 and § 238.305 may be they differ.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:41 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\13MRR2.SGM 13MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2