[Federal Register: May 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 89)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 25927-25979]
[DOCID:fr10my10-21]

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

Part II

Department of Transportation

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

Federal Railroad Administration

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

49 CFR Parts 213 and 238

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

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Parts 213 and 238

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

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

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Supplementary Information

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

I. Statutory Background

A. Track Safety Standards

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

B. Passenger Equipment Safety Standards

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

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

II. Proceedings to Date

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

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

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

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

C. Identification of Key Issues for Future Rulemaking

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

D. RSAC Overview

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

     American Association of Private Railroad Car Owners
(AAPRCO);

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

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

E. Establishment of the Passenger Safety Working Group

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

F. Establishment of the Task Force

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

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

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

G. Development of the NPRM

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

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

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

III. Technical Background

A. Lessons Learned and Operational Experience

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

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

B. Research and Computer Modeling

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.005

BILLING CODE 4910-06-C

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.006

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MY10.007

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis

Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part 213, Track Safety Standards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Net Axle Lateral L/V Ratio limit would be modified from 0.5, to
0.4 + 5.0/Va, so as to take into account the effect of axle
load and would more appropriately reflect the cumulative, detrimental
effect of track panel shift from heavier vehicles. This net axle
lateral load limit is intended to control excessive lateral track shift
and is sensitive to a number of track parameters. The well-established,
European Prud'homme limit is a function of the axle load and this
sensitivity was desired to differentiate between coach car and heavier
locomotive loads. The Volpe Center's Treda (Track REsidual Deflection
Analysis) simulation work, testing at TTCI, and comparison to the
Prud'homme limit all indicated the dependence on axle load and the
importance of initial small lateral deflections. Representatives of the
Task Force independently reviewed the Volpe Center analysis and
concurred with the proposed change. The limiting condition would allow
for a small initial deformation and assumes a stable configuration with
the accumulation of additional traffic.
    Due to variations in vehicle design requirements and passenger ride
safety, the carbody acceleration limits are proposed to be divided into
separate limits for ``Passenger Cars'' and those for ``Other Vehicles''
(such as conventional locomotives). In addition, the carbody transient
acceleration limits are proposed to be modified from 0.5g lateral and
0.6g vertical, to 0.65g for passenger cars and 0.75g for other vehicles
in the lateral direction and 1.0g for both passenger cars and other
vehicles in the vertical direction. These changes were proposed after
considerable research into the performance of existing vehicles during
qualification testing and revenue operations. Overall, it was found
that the existing carbody transient acceleration limits need not be as
stringent to protect against events leading to vehicle or passenger
safety issues.
    Based on the small energy content associated with high-frequency
acceleration events of the carbody, FRA is proposing to add text to
exclude any transient acceleration peaks lasting less than 50
milliseconds. Other changes proposed include the addition of new limits
for sustained carbody lateral and vertical oscillatory accelerations,
as well as the addition of minimum requirements for sampling and
filtering of the acceleration data. The sustained carbody oscillatory
acceleration limits have been proposed in response to a review of data
that was obtained during qualification testing for the MARC-III multi-
level passenger car, as discussed in Section III.A. of the preamble.
The sustained carbody oscillatory acceleration limits are proposed to
be 0.10g RMSt for passenger cars and 0.12g RMSt for other vehicles in
the lateral direction, and 0.25g RMSt for both passenger cars and other
vehicles in the vertical direction. These new limits would require that
the RMSt (root mean squared with linear trend removed) value be used in
order to attenuate the effects of the linear variation in oscillatory
accelerations resulting from negotiation of track segments with changes
in curvature or grade by design, such as spirals. Root mean squared
values would be determined over a sliding 4-second window with linear
trend removed and be sustained for more than 4 seconds. Acceleration
measurements would be processed through a low pass filter with a
minimum cut-off frequency of 10 Hz and the sample rate for oscillatory
acceleration data would be at least 100 samples per second.
    The last set of proposed changes to the VTI Table concern the truck
lateral acceleration limit used for the detection of truck hunting.
This limit would be tightened from 0.4g to 0.3g and would specify that
the value must exceed that limit for more than 2 seconds. Analyses
conducted by FRA have shown that this would help to better identify the
occurrences of excessive truck hunting, while excluding high-frequency,
low-amplitude oscillations that would not require immediate attention.
In addition, the revised limit would require that the RMSt
value be used rather than the RMSm (root mean squared with
mean removed) value. FRA believes this proposed change would improve
the process for analyzing data while the vehicle is negotiating spiral
track segments.
Section 213.345 Vehicle/Track System Qualification
    As part of the 1998 Track Safety Standards final rule, all rolling
stock (both passenger and freight) was required to be qualified for
operation for its intended track class. However, this section
``grandfathered'' equipment that had already operated in specified
track classes. Rolling stock operating in Class 6 track within one year
prior to the promulgation of the 1998 final rule was considered
qualified. Further, vehicles operating at Class 7 track speeds under
conditional waivers prior to the promulgation of the 1998 rule were
qualified for Class 7 track, including equipment that was then-
operating on the Northeast Corridor at Class 7 track speeds. For
equipment not ``grandfathered,'' qualification testing was intended to
ensure that the equipment not exceed the VTI Table limits specified in
Sec.  213.333 at any speed less than 10 m.p.h. above the proposed
maximum operating speed.
    FRA is proposing a number of significant changes to this section,
whose heading would be modified from ``Vehicle qualification testing''
to ``Vehicle/track system qualification'' to more appropriately reflect
the interaction of the vehicle and the track over which it operates as
a system. These changes include modifying and clarifying this section's
substantive requirements, reorganizing the structure and layout of the
rule text, and revising the qualification procedures. Among the changes
proposed, lower-speed, high cant deficiency operations would be subject
to this section in accordance with Sec.  213.57(i).
    Paragraph (a), as proposed to be revised, would require all vehicle
types intended to operate at Class 6 speeds or above or at any curving