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

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

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

(hunting) and a12 (short warp) amplitude parameters are in
their own designated rows, rather than grouped with the 31-, 62-, and
124-foot wavelengths. These hunting and short warp perturbation
segments have fixed wavelengths, 10 feet and 20 feet, respectively,
which are now explicitly stated in the tables to identify clearly the
wavelength to be used for simulating these perturbations.
    Paragraph (c)(3) addresses vehicle performance on curved track
Classes 6 through 9. As for paragraph (c)(2), Bombardier stated that
some effort should be applied to simplifying the paragraph by including
more information in tables 5 and 6 (proposed tables 4 and 5) with less
descriptive text in paragraphs (c)(3)(ii) and (iv). Table 5 applies to
Class 6 through 9 curved track with cant deficiency greater than 3
inches but not greater than 5 inches; table 6 applies to Class 6
through 9 curved track with cant deficiency greater than 5 inches. The
Task Force concurred that new tables 5 and 6 be reformatted to match
the examples shown in Bombardier's comments with an additional header
table containing the maximum operating and simulation speeds for each
track class, along with a list of all of the amplitude parameters
identifying each MCAT segment to which they correspond, where each
segment description can be found, and to which class(es) of track they
are applicable. Tables 5 and 6 also include the parameter
a1. This hunting perturbation parameter applies to track
that is curved less than 1 degree, and has been included accordingly.
Please note that the amplitude of this perturbation parameter has been
reduced, as discussed above.
    The inclusion of the additional information in tables 5 and 6 does
help add clarity; however, even with this additional information, the
descriptive text in paragraphs (c)(3)(ii) and (iv) is still required.
For example, without the text in paragraph (c)(3)(ii), it would not be
clear that running simulations using all three 31-foot-based
wavelengths is a requirement, and the text in paragraph (c)(3)(iv)
specifies the need to run the final simulations at 5 m.p.h. over the
maximum proposed operating speed and cant deficiency. Moreover, even
though the new information in the tables lists a maximum speed for
simulations for each track class, only the rule text in paragraphs
(c)(3)(iv)(A) through (C) specifies that this 5 m.p.h. overspeed is
required when transitioning between classes, e.g., 115 m.p.h. for Class
6 track when qualifying a vehicle for Class 7 track. In addition, the
text in paragraphs (c)(3)(iv)(A) through (C) describes how the 5 m.p.h.
overspeed cases at the end of a track class will be conducted at the
maximum proposed cant deficiency, using the curvature value, D,
calculated using the maximum track class speed and maximum proposed
cant deficiency.
    Bombardier raised additional comments on tables 5 and 6 (proposed
tables 4 and 5). Bombardier noted that the repeated surface parameter
a9 for the 124-foot wavelength on track Class 9 should be
0.625 inch. In the NPRM, in proposed tables 4 and 5, the repeated
surface parameter a9 for the 124-foot wavelength on track
Class 9 was identified as 0.875 inch. By consensus of the Task Force,
in new tables 5 and 6 the repeated surface parameter a9 for
the 124-foot wavelength on track Class 9 has been corrected to state
0.625 inch. These changes conform the tables with the repeated surface
limit of 0.625 inch for the 124-foot wavelength on track Class 9 track
provided in Sec.  213.331(c).
    Bombardier also commented that the warp parameter a12
for track Class 9 should be corrected in tables 5 and 6 (proposed
tables 4 and 5). As proposed, the warp parameter a12 on
track Class 9 was identified as 0.500 inch. The Task Force concurred
that the tables be corrected so that the warp parameter a12
for track Class 9 be 0.750 inch. These changes also conform the tables
with the warp limit of 0.75 inch for Class 9 track provided in Sec.
213.331(a) and (b).
    Bombardier additionally commented that the combined deviation
surface parameter a13 for track Class 9 should be 0.667 inch
in table 5 (proposed table 4). In the NPRM, the combined deviation
surface parameter a13 for track Class 9 was proposed as
0.833 inch. The Task Force concurred that new table 5 reflect that the
combined deviation surface parameter a13 for track Class 9
be 0.667 inch. This change conforms the surface value in the table with
the combined deviation equation stated in Sec.  213.332, when evaluated
using the corresponding combined deviation alinement parameter
a7 found in the table.
    FRA also notes that, on closer examination of the MCAT tables, FRA
found and corrected some inadvertent errors in the proposed track Class
6 amplitude parameters for a3 (gage widening) and
a6 (single alinement). The corrected values now reflect both
the maximum permissible gage and the maximum permissible alinement
variations. Specifically, for Class 6 track in tables 5 and 6 of the
final rule, for the 31-foot perturbation wavelength, the a3
parameter is 0.75 inch; and for the 62-foot perturbation wavelength,
the a3 paramenter is 0.75 inch, and the a6
parameter is 0.
    Paragraph (c)(4) addresses vehicle performance on curved track
Classes 1 through 5 at high cant deficiency. As for paragraphs (c)(2)
and (3) Bombardier raised the same general comment that this section be
simplified by including more information in table 7 (proposed table 6)
with less descriptive text in paragraphs (c)(4)(ii) and (iv). (FRA
notes that Bombardier's comment references paragraph (c)(3) under a
discussion of paragraph (c)(4) and has treated the comment as relating
to paragraph (c)(4).) As for the other tables, the Task Force concurred
that table 7 (proposed table 6) be reformatted. Table 7 also includes
the parameter a1, which has been added for curves less than
1 degree, as noted above.
    The inclusion of the additional information in table 7 helps add
clarity; however, even with this additional information, the
descriptive text in paragraphs (c)(4)(ii) and (iv) is still required.
For example, without the text in paragraph (c)(4)(ii), it would not be
clear that running simulations using both the 31-foot and 62-foot
wavelengths is required for assessing vehicle performance on curved
track Classes 1 through 5 at high cant deficiency.

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

Subpart C--Specific Requirements for Tier I Passenger Equipment
Section 238.227 Suspension System
    FRA is modifying this section so that it conforms with the changes
being made to part 213 of this chapter and also to provide cross-
references to relevant sections of part 213. Overall, these revisions
help to reconcile the requirements of the 1998 Track Safety Standards
final rule and the 1999 Passenger Equipment Safety Standards final rule
for Tier I passenger equipment, i.e., passenger equipment operated at
speeds not exceeding 125 mph.
    For consistency throughout this part and part 213 of this chapter,
the term ``hunting oscillations'' in paragraph (a) is being replaced
with the term ``truck hunting,'' which has the same meaning as that for
``truck hunting'' in 49 CFR 213.333. Truck hunting is defined in the
table of vehicle/track interaction safety limits in Sec.  213.333 as
``a sustained cyclic oscillation of the truck evidenced by lateral
accelerations exceeding 0.3g root mean squared for more than 2
seconds.'' The Task Force believed that the term ``hunting
oscillations,'' which was formerly defined in paragraph (b) of this
section as ``lateral oscillations of

trucks that could lead to a dangerous instability,'' has a less
definite meaning and could be applied unevenly as a result. The Task
Force therefore preferred using the definition of ``truck hunting'' in
part 213 with its more specific criteria, and FRA agrees that more
specific criteria provide more certainty. Unlike Sec.  213.333,
however, paragraph (a) of this section applies to all Tier I passenger
equipment, regardless of track class or level of cant deficiency.
    The pre-revenue service qualification requirements in paragraph (b)
are being revised consistent with the revisions to part 213 of this
chapter. Paragraph (b) is also being broadened to address revenue
service operation requirements. Paragraph (b), as revised, generally
summarizes the qualification and revenue service operation requirements
of part 213 for Tier I passenger equipment. This paragraph is not
intended to impose any requirement itself not otherwise contained in
part 213.
Subpart E--Specific Requirements for Tier II Passenger Equipment
Section 238.427 Suspension System
    Similar to the revisions to Sec.  238.227, FRA is modifying this
section to conform to the changes made in part 213 of this chapter.
Overall, these revisions help to reconcile the requirements of the 1998
Track Safety Standards final rule and the 1999 Passenger Equipment
Safety Standards final rule.
    While paragraph (a)(1) remains unchanged, paragraph (a)(2) is being
revised in an effort to summarize the qualification and revenue service
operation requirements of part 213 for Tier II passenger equipment. The
reference to the suspension system safety standards in appendix C has
been removed, as discussed below. The carbody acceleration requirements
in paragraph (b) have been revised consistent with the changes to part
213. The steady-state lateral carbody acceleration limits of 0.1g for
pre-revenue service qualification and 0.12g for service operation have
been revised to a single limit of 0.15g, to conform to the changes in
Sec.  213.329. Please see the discussion of Sec.  213.329. The
remaining carbody acceleration requirements have been consolidated by
referencing the requirements of Sec.  213.333.
    Paragraph (c) continues to require that each truck be equipped with
a permanently installed lateral accelerometer mounted on the truck
frame. However, for consistency throughout this part and part 213 of
this chapter, this paragraph is being revised to make clear that the
purpose of the accelerometer is to detect ``truck hunting,'' as defined
in 49 CFR 213.333. This change helps not only to reconcile the
requirements governing truck hunting but to streamline the requirements
of this paragraph by removing the term ``hunting oscillations'' and its
defining text. If truck hunting is detected, the train monitoring
system shall provide an alarm to the engineer, and the train shall be
slowed to a speed at least 5 m.p.h. less than the speed at which the
truck hunting stopped. This paragraph formerly stated that the
notification alarm be provided to the ``train operator,'' and FRA has
revised the text to make clear that this notification be provided to
the ``locomotive engineer,'' i.e., the crewmember operating the train.
    The Task Force believed that the overheat sensor requirements in
paragraph (d) were not directly related to suspension system safety and
should be specified elsewhere. FRA agreed that the requirements of this
paragraph could be stated separately for clarity, and therefore
proposed to move them to a new section, Sec.  238.428.
Section 238.428 Overheat Sensors
    As proposed, FRA is adding a new section containing the
requirements that were previously found in Sec.  238.427(d). However,
there has been no change to the substantive rule text. FRA agreed with
the Task Force that the requirements for overheat sensors are more
appropriately contained in their own section rather than with the
requirements for suspension systems in Sec.  238.427. FRA has amended
the rule accordingly.
Appendix A to Part 238--Schedule of Civil Penalties
    This appendix contains a schedule of civil penalties to be used in
connection with this part. Because such penalty schedules are
statements of agency policy, notice and comment are not required prior
to their issuance. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Nevertheless, FRA invited
comment on the penalty schedule; no comment was received, however.
    Accordingly, FRA is amending the penalty schedule to reflect the
addition of a new section to part 238, Sec.  238.428, Overheat sensors.
The requirements of this section were previously included in Sec.
238.427, Suspension system, and have been set apart for clarity.
Appendix C to Part 238--Suspension System Safety Performance Standards
    As proposed, FRA is removing and reserving appendix C, which
contained the minimum suspension system safety performance standards
for Tier II passenger equipment. FRA believes that removing appendix C
is appropriate in light of the changes to Sec.  238.427(a)(2). Section
238.427(a)(2) formerly required that Tier II passenger equipment meet
the safety performance standards for suspension systems contained in
appendix C, or alternative standards providing at least equivalent
safety if approved by FRA under Sec.  238.21. As discussed above, FRA
is revising Sec.  238.427(a)(2) to require compliance with the safety
standards contained in Sec.  213.333, in lieu of those in appendix C.
Given the cross-reference to the requirements in Sec.  213.333, which
are more extensive than the ones contained in appendix C, appendix C is
no longer necessary and has therefore been removed and reserved.

VII. Regulatory Impact and Notices

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures

    This final rule is a significant regulatory action within the
meaning of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and DOT regulatory
policies and procedures (see 44 FR 11034; Feb. 26, 1979). FRA has
prepared and placed in the docket a regulatory impact analysis (RIA)
addressing the economic impact of this final rule.
    In analyzing the impacts of this rule and the NPRM that preceded
it, FRA considered the extent of affected operations based on
preliminary plans and policies, many of which are still in development,
or subject to change. For example, when the NPRM was published there
were plans for high speed operations in Florida, but now those plans
have been suspended. In this analysis FRA does not attempt to quantify
benefits in the same manner as the NPRM. FRA acknowledges significant
uncertainty with the development of certain high speed systems. FRA
also acknowledges significant uncertainty with respect to the estimates
of time savings and equipment procurement savings. As a result of this
uncertainty, and the difficulty in finding reliable evidence for point
estimates from which to base a sensitivity analysis, FRA describes its
expectations for the benefits and uses its expert technical experience
to conclude that the costs will be justified by the benefits.

    The changes to geometric standards and performance standards for
high-speed operations will not adversely affect any existing
operations, which are now limited to Amtrak on the Northeast Corridor,
but rather will promote their safe operation. In order to meet the
vehicle acceleration limits of the Track Safety Standards' subpart G
before the changes made in this final rule, Amtrak had, in effect,
adhered to the tighter geometric standards in this rule, even though
those standards were not expressly identified. If Amtrak were to have
attempted to operate Acela at the maximum allowable speeds and cant
deficiencies for which it was qualified, but were to have allowed track
deviations to reach the previous maximum limits, the Acela trainset,
because of its dynamic characteristics, would have been subject to
accelerations in excess of the limits permitted. FRA's modeling has
shown that Acela, as it is currently qualified to operate, will meet
the safety standards in this final rule.
    There will be a relatively small one-time cost ($292,000) to
program the new limits into existing geometry measuring systems
discussed in the cost section below. Further, those railroads that
voluntarily operate at high cant deficiencies will have to maintain
their tracks to tighter limits. This cost will be offset by the reduced
cost of maintaining curves where entering trains would have to brake to
reduce their speeds to meet the prior cant deficiency standard, as
discussed below.
    FRA believes that significant benefits will arise from this
rulemaking. Time savings will result from permitting trains that
operate at maximum speeds up to 90 m.p.h. to travel around curves with
higher cant deficiencies and thereby more rapidly and efficiently.
Previously, the rule did not permit such high cant deficiency
operations for these trains, which meant that they had to operate more
slowly through curves, adding to trip time. Railroads will also
experience cost savings when they purchase new trains for operations at
speeds over 90 m.p.h. This will result from increased competition as a
greater variety of equipment will be able to meet the revised vehicle/
track interaction qualification requirements for speeds over 90 m.p.h.
Cost savings will also result from more streamlined testing
requirements for new and existing passenger trainsets, regardless of
operating speed. Revised testing requirements will also make it much
easier to qualify a trainset on additional track once it has been
qualified on any track, and provide more flexibility for monitoring
trainset performance in service.
Benefits: Equipment Procurement
    Future high-speed operations will be made simpler, because the
railroad, if it requires equipment manufacturers to provide equipment
that will meet performance requirements on minimally compliant track,
will find several suppliers of off-the-shelf equipment, likely lowering
bid prices, and gaining multiple bidders. Further, some high cant
deficiency passenger train operations at speeds in excess of 90 m.p.h.
may be able to use equipment without tilting mechanisms under the final
rule, saving procurement costs.
    Absent this rulemaking, FRA believes railroads would seek to have
new equipment used in high-speed train operations built to performance
standards at the maximum deviations permitted under the previous
geometric standards, or with tilting mechanisms, or both.
    FRA believes that future high-speed operations will in comparison
save on bids because of the increased number of trainsets and
carbuilders that will meet the final rule's standards with little or no
modification compared to the number that would have met the prior
rule's standards with little or no modification. Because high cant
deficiency operations at passenger train speeds in excess of 90 m.p.h.
would have been permitted under the prior rule, FRA generally does not
believe that there is a benefit from travel time saved at these speeds,
only a benefit for equipment procurement.
    FRA notes that, in commenting on the economic analysis for the
NPRM, which attempted to quantify the benefits of the rule changes,
Amtrak stated:

    The assumption that the standards simplify the design process of
the equipment and would save $2,000,000 per train set is false. The
Acela example indicates the exact opposite to be true. The FRA
rules, as existing and proposed, eliminate the possibility of
purchasing off-the-shelf equipment. The engineering work required to
design new compliant equipment alone would far outstrip any possible
savings from the rules if there were any to be had.

FRA believes that the former rule would not have permitted many, and
perhaps might not have permitted any, carbuilders to offer off-the-
shelf equipment with little or no modification that would have met the
acceleration requirements on track with geometry having the maximum
allowable deviations. Under the final rule it is likely that several
carbuilders could provide off-the-shelf equipment that will meet
acceleration requirements on minimally compliant track. This will lower
costs through increased competition, and use of existing designs.
Further, railroads may now be able to order equipment without tilting
mechanisms and operate that equipment at high cant deficiencies, thus
saving the costs of tilting mechanisms and making the number of
available trainsets even greater. Based on the above, FRA does not
agree with Amtrak's comment for the purposes of this final rule. It is
not unreasonable to estimate that the equipment procurement benefits
alone will justify the costs of the rule. However, even if FRA
eliminates from consideration equipment procurement benefits, as a
result of Amtrak's comment, FRA believes the high cant deficiency and
streamlined testing requirements would justify the costs of the rule.
Benefits: High Cant Deficiency
    The provisions for high cant deficiency operations on all track
classes are permissive in nature and create no additional net costs. A
railroad could either adhere to these provisions in expectation that
any additional expenditure would trigger savings and result in an
overall net benefit, or simply avoid triggering the provisions. High
cant deficiency offers significant opportunities to reduce trip time,
as it will reduce the amount of time travelled at the slowest speeds.
For example, to travel a mile, a train could take three minutes at 20
m.p.h. or two minutes at 30 m.p.h. Traveling at 30 m.p.h. would reduce
trip time by a minute. By contrast a train traveling 120 m.p.h. would
take 5 minutes to travel ten miles, while a train traveling 150 m.p.h.
would take four minutes to travel the same distance, reducing trip time
by one minute relative to the train traveling 120 m.p.h. The net time
savings from traveling one mile at 30 m.p.h. instead of 20 m.p.h. is
the same as the time savings from traveling ten miles at 150 m.p.h.
instead of 120 m.p.h. High cant deficiency can allow that kind of time
savings at lower speeds, and therefore offers a relatively low-cost way
of improving trip time. The United States is investing more in
passenger rail transportation, and this is a very good way to make the
high-speed rail system more efficient.
    FRA believes that use of higher cant deficiencies will become much
more common over the coming years, although, nearer term, relatively
few opportunities for new operations at cant deficiencies in excess of
5 inches will present themselves. In any event, there could be a
benefit to some operations from the potential enhanced speeds.

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

    Offsetting any additional programming costs, but not accounted for
in the benefits, the new geometry limits should avoid instances where
an excessive acceleration is recorded but the track is within geometry
limits, as happens with some frequency under the prior rule. The cost
for a railroad to inspect the track in the area of an exceedance of an
acceleration limit is more than $100 per instance, and FRA believes the
new limits will reduce such instances by at least two per day, more
than offsetting any programming costs. As the extent of high cant
deficiency operations or high speed operations increases, the number of
such exceedances would have increased in the absence of the final rule.
Total Costs
    Total costs are $292,000, whether using a 3 percent or 7 percent
discount rate, as they are one-time costs. Annualized total costs over
twenty years are $27,563 per year, using a 7 percent discount rate, or
$19,627 using a 3 percent discount rate.
Net Benefits
    FRA expects the equipment procurement, time savings, and
streamlined testing benefits to vastly exceed the programming costs of
the rule. It is not unreasonable to estimate that the equipment
procurement benefits alone will justify the costs of the rule. However,
even if FRA eliminates from consideration equipment procurement
benefits, as a result of Amtrak's comment, FRA believes the high cant
deficiency and streamlined testing requirements would justify the costs
of the rule. FRA concludes the rule will have net benefits.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272

    To ensure that the potential impact of this rule on small entities
was properly considered, FRA developed this rule in accordance with
Executive Order 13272 (``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking'') and DOT's policies and procedures to promote
compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires an agency to review regulations
to assess their impact on small entities. An agency must conduct a
regulatory flexibility analysis unless it determines and certifies that
a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) stipulates in its
``Size Standards'' that the largest a railroad business firm that is
``for-profit'' may be, and still be classified as a ``small entity,''
is 1,500 employees for ``Line-Haul Operating Railroads,'' and 500
employees for ``Switching and Terminal Establishments.'' ``Small
entity'' is defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act as a small
business that is not independently owned and operated, and is not
dominant in its field of operation. Federal agencies may adopt their
own size standards for small entities in consultation with SBA and in
conjunction with public comment. Pursuant to that authority, FRA has
published a final statement of agency policy that formally establishes
``small entities'' or ``small businesses'' as being railroads,
contractors, and hazardous materials shippers that meet the revenue
requirements of a Class III railroad as set forth in 49 CFR 1201.1-1,
which is $20 million or less in inflation-adjusted annual revenues; and
commuter railroads or small governmental jurisdictions that serve
populations of 50,000 or less. See 68 FR 24891, May 9, 2003, codified
at Appendix C to 49 CFR, part 209. The $20 million-limit is based on
the Surface Transportation Board's revenue threshold for a Class III
railroad. Railroad revenue is adjusted for inflation by applying a
revenue deflator formula in accordance with 49 CFR 1201.1-1. FRA has
applied this definition for this rulemaking.
    There are currently two intercity passenger railroads, Amtrak and
the Alaska Railroad Corporation. Neither is considered to be a small
entity. Amtrak is a Class I railroad and the Alaska Railroad is a Class
II railroad. The Alaska Railroad is owned by the State of Alaska, which
has a population well in excess of 50,000.
    There are currently 28 commuter railroad operations in the U.S.
Most commuter railroads are part of larger transportation organizations
that receive Federal funds and serve major metropolitan areas with
populations greater than 50,000. However, two commuter rail operations
do not fall in this category and are considered small entities. One
provides service to and from a sporting venue in Iowa City, Iowa; the
second provides service between North Creek and Saratoga Springs, New
York. Both operations are conducted at low speeds--with only one
reaching a maximum speed as high as 30 m.p.h. Consequently, neither
entity will be impacted by the requirements of this rule affecting
high-speed operations. Moreover, it is extremely unlikely that either
entity would engage in high cant deficiency operations because such
operations require relatively expensive rolling equipment capable of
tilting to provide a safe and comfortable ride to passengers.
    At present, no small entities will be affected by either the high-
speed provisions or the high cant deficiency provisions. Small
railroads hosting passenger operations can recoup any costs of
maintaining infrastructure, through trackage agreements which enable
host railroads to recover marginal costs of permitting passenger
operations over their tracks, to accommodate high cant deficiency
operations, or they can refuse to host such operations, as appropriate.
To the extent that new passenger railroads are small entities, and want
to take advantage of high cant deficiency and have the means to do so,
they will benefit. Nonetheless, FRA does not foresee any situation
under which a small entity might be affected by the high-speed
provisions in this final rule.
    In the NPRM, FRA requested comments on both the analysis and the
certification that there will be no significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. No comment was received.
    Based on these determinations, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this final rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
The sections that contain both new and current information collection
requirements, and the estimated time to fulfill each requirement, are
summarized in the following table. Please note that the table does not
include those information collection requirements added by the Concrete
Crossties rulemaking, see 76 FR 18073 (April 1, 2011), 76 FR 55819
(Sept. 9, 2011), as they are covered under a separate approval, OMB No.
2130-0592, which is current until October 31, 2014.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Respondent         Total annual      Average time per    Total annual
             CFR Section                   universe            responses           response        burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
213.4--Excepted Track:
    --Designation of track as         200 railroads.....  20 orders.........  15 minutes........               5
     excepted.
    --Notification to FRA about       200 railroads.....  15 notifications..  10 minutes........               3
     removal of excepted track.
213.5--Responsibility for Compliance  728 railroads.....  10 notifications..  8 hours...........              80
213.7--Designation of Qualified
 Persons to Supervise Certain
 Renewals and Inspect Track:
    --Designations..................  728 railroads.....  1,500 names.......  10 minutes........             250
    --Employees trained in CWR        31 railroads......  80,000 employees..  24 hours..........       1,920,000
     procedures.
    --Written authorizations and      31 railroads......  80,000              10 minutes + 60             93,333
     recorded Exams.                                       authorizations +    minutes.
                                                           80,000 exams.
    --Designations (partially         31 railroads......  250 names.........  30 minutes........             125
     qualified) under paragraph (c)
     of this section.
213.17--Waivers.....................  728 railroads.....  6 petitions.......  112 hours.........             672
213.57--Curves; Elevation and Speed
 Limitations:
    --Requests to FRA for vehicle     728 railroads.....  2 requests/         80 hours..........             160
     type approval.                                        documents.
    --Written notification to FRA     728 railroads.....  2 notifications...  8 hours...........              16
     prior to implementation of
     higher curving speeds.
    --Written consent of track        728 railroads.....  2 consents........  8 hours...........              16
     owner(s) by railroad providing
     service over the track.
213.110--Gage Restraint Measurement
 Systems (GRMS):
    --Implementing GRMS; notices and  728 railroads.....  2 notifications +   24 hours..........              72
     reports.                                              1 technical
                                                           report.
    --GRMS vehicle output reports...  728 railroads.....  50 reports........  60 minutes........              50
    --GRMS vehicle exception reports  728 railroads.....  50 reports........  60 minutes........              50
    --GRMS/PTLF procedures for data   728 railroads.....  4 procedure         2 hours...........               8
     integrity.                                            documents.
    --GRMS training programs/         728 railroads.....  2 programs + 5      24 hours..........             168
     sessions.                                             sessions.
    --GRMS inspection records.......  728 railroads.....  50 records........  2 hours...........             100
213.118--Continuous Welded Rail
 (CWR); Plan Review and Approval:
    --Plans.........................  728 railroads.....  728 reviewed plans  4 hours...........           2,912
    --Notification to FRA and         728 railroads.....  728 notifications   15 minutes + 2               2,849
     employees of plan effective                           + 80,000            minutes.
     date.                                                 notifications.
    --Written submissions in support  728 railroads.....  20 submissions....  2 hours...........              40
     of plan.
    --FRA-required revisions to CWR   728 railroads.....  20 reviewed plans.  1 hour............              20
     plan.
213.119--Continuous Welded Rail
 (CWR); Plan Contents:
    --Fracture report for each        239 railroads/1     12,000 reports....  10 minutes........           2,000
     broken CWR joint bar.             association.
    --Petition for technical          1 association.....  1 petition........  15 minutes........            0.25
     conference on fracture reports.
    --Training programs on CWR        239 railroads/ 1    240 amended         1 hour............             240
     procedures.                       association.        programs.

    --Annual CWR training of          31 railroads......  80,000 employees..  30 minutes........          40,000
     employees.
    --Recordkeeping (track with CWR)  239 railroads.....  2,000 records.....  10 minutes........             333
    --Recordkeeping for CWR rail      239 railroads.....  360,000 records...  2 minutes.........          12,000
     joints.
    --Periodic records for CWR rail   239 railroads.....  480,000 records...  1 minute..........           8,000
     joints.
    --Copy of track owner's CWR       728 railroads.....  239 manuals.......  10 minutes........              40
     procedures.
213.233--Track Inspections:
    --Notations.....................  728 railroads.....  12,500 notations..  1 minute..........             208
213.241--Inspection Records.........  728 railroads.....  1,542,089 records.  varies............       1,672,941
213.303--Responsibility for           2 railroads.......  1 petition........  8 hours...........               8
 Compliance.
213.305--Designation of Qualified
 Individuals; General
 Qualifications:
    --Designations..................  2 railroads.......  150 designations..  60 minutes........             150
    --Designations (partially         2 railroads.......  20 designations...  60 minutes........              20
     qualified) under paragraph (d)
     of this section.
213.317--Waivers....................  2 railroads.......  1 petition........  80 hours..........              80
213.329--Curves; Elevation and Speed
 Limitations:
    --FRA approval of qualified       728 railroads.....  2 documents.......  80 hours..........             160
     vehicle types based on results
     of testing.
    --Written notification to FRA     728 railroads.....  2 notifications...  8 hours...........              16
     prior to implementation of
     higher curving speeds.
    --Written consent of track        728 railroads.....  2 written consents  8 hours...........              16
     owner(s) by railroad providing
     service over the track.
213.333 Automated Vehicle-Based
 Inspection Systems:
    --Request for alternative         10 railroads......  1 request.........  8 hours...........               8
     measurement distance (new
     requirement).
    --Track Geometry Measurement      10 railroads......  3 reports.........  40 hours..........             120
     System (TGMS) output/exception
     reports.
    --Track/vehicle performance       10 railroads......  20 records........  40 hours..........             800
     measurement system; copies of
     most recent exception records.
    --Notification to track           10 railroads......  10 notifications..  40 hours..........             400
     personnel when onboard
     accelerometers indicate track
     related problem (new
     requirement).
    --Requests for an alternate       10 railroads......  10 requests.......  40 hours..........             400
     location for device measuring
     lateral accelerations (new
     requirement).
    --Report to FRA providing         10 railroads......  4 reports.........  8 hours...........              32
     analysis of collected
     monitoring data (new
     requirement).
213.341--Initial Inspection of New
 Rail and Welds:

    --Mill inspection; copy of        2 railroads.......  2 reports.........  16 hours..........              32
     manufacturer's report.
    --Welding plan inspection report  2 railroads.......  2 reports.........  16 hours..........              32
    --Inspection of field welds.....  2 railroads.......  125 records.......  20 minutes........              42
213.343--Continuous welded rail
 (CWR):
    --Recordkeeping.................  2 railroads.......  150 records.......  10 minutes........              25
213.345--Vehicle/Track System
 Qualification:
    --Qualification program for all   10 railroads......  10 programs.......  120 hours.........           1,200
     vehicle types operating at
     track Class 6 speeds or above
     or at curving speeds above 5
     inches of cant deficiency (new
     requirement).
    --Qualification program for       10 railroads......  10 programs.......  80 hours..........             800
     previously qualified vehicle
     types (new requirement).
    --Written consent of track         10 railroads.....  1 written consent.  8 hours...........               8
     owner(s) by railroad providing
     service over the track (new
     requirement).
213.347--Automotive or Railroad
 Crossings at Grade:
    --Protection plans..............  1 railroad........  2 plans...........  8 hours...........              16
213.369--Inspection Records:
    --Record of inspection of track.  2 railroads.......  500 records.......  1 minute..........               8
    --Internal defect inspections     2 railroads.......  50 records........  5 minutes.........               4
     and remedial action taken.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering or maintaining the needed
data, and reviewing the information. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits comments concerning the following: whether
these information collection requirements are necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of FRA, including whether the information
has practical utility; the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of
the information collection requirements; the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and whether the burden of
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, may be minimized. For information or a copy of
the paperwork package submitted to OMB, contact Mr. Robert Brogan,
Information Clearance Officer, Federal Railroad Administration, at 202-
493-6292, or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Federal Railroad Administration, at
202-493-6132.
    Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
collection of information requirements should direct them to Mr. Robert
Brogan or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20590. Comments may also
be submitted via email to Mr. Brogan or Ms. Toone at the following,
respective addresses<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information requirements contained in this final rule between 30 and 60
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect
if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
    FRA is not authorized to impose a penalty on persons for violating
information collection requirements that do not display a current OMB
control number, if required. FRA intends to obtain current OMB control
numbers for any new information collection requirements resulting from
this rulemaking action prior to the effective date of the final rule.
The OMB control number, when assigned, will be announced by separate
notice in the Federal Register.

D. Federalism Implications

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'' (see 64 FR 43255, Aug. 10,
1999), requires FRA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and

the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, the
agency may not issue a regulation with federalism implications that
imposes substantial direct compliance costs and that is not required by
statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local
governments, the agency consults with State and local governments, or
the agency consults with State and local government officials early in
the process of developing the regulation. Where a regulation has
federalism implications and preempts State law, the agency seeks to
consult with State and local officials in the process of developing the
regulation.
    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. This final rule will
not have a substantial effect on the States or their political
subdivisions, and it will not affect the relationships between the
Federal government and the States or their political subdivisions, or
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. In addition, FRA has determined that this regulatory
action will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on the
States or their political subdivisions. Therefore, the consultation and
funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
    However, this final rule could have preemptive effect by operation
of law under certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety
statutes, specifically the former Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970,
repealed and recodified at 49 U.S.C. 20106. Section 20106 provides that
States may not adopt or continue in effect any law, regulation, or
order related to railroad safety or security that covers the subject
matter of a regulation prescribed or order issued by the Secretary of
Transportation (with respect to railroad safety matters) or the
Secretary of Homeland Security (with respect to railroad security
matters), except when the State law, regulation, or order qualifies
under the ``essentially local safety or security hazard'' exception to
section 20106.
    In sum, FRA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. As
explained above, FRA has determined that this final rule has no
federalism implications, other than the possible preemption of State
laws under Federal railroad safety statutes, specifically 49 U.S.C.
20106. Accordingly, FRA has determined that preparation of a federalism
summary impact statement for this final rule is not required.

E. Environmental Impact

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

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

G. Energy Impact

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

H. Trade Impact

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39, 19 U.S.C. 2501 et
seq.) prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or
related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as
safety, are not considered to be unnecessary obstacles. The statute
also requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
    FRA has assessed the potential effect of this rulemaking on foreign
commerce and believes that its requirements are consistent with the
Trade Agreements Act. The requirements are safety standards, which, as
noted, are not considered unnecessary obstacles to trade. Moreover, FRA
has sought, to the extent practicable, to state the requirements in
terms of the performance desired, rather than in more narrow terms
restricted to a particular vehicle design, so as not to limit
different, compliant designs by any manufacturer--foreign or domestic.
FRA has also taken into consideration international standards for the
safe interaction of vehicles and the track over which they operate,
such as

standards for steady-state, lateral acceleration of passenger
carbodies.

I. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any comment or
petition received into any of FRA's dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment or petition (or signing the comment
or petition, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). Please see the privacy notice at http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice. You may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478).

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 213

    Incorporation by reference, Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 238

    Incorporation by reference, Passenger equipment, Penalties,
Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The Rule

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

PART 213--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 213 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-20114 and 20142; Sec. 403, Div. A,
Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4885; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR
1.89.

Subpart A--General

0
2. Section 213.1 is amended by revising the second sentence of
paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  213.1  Scope of part.

    (a) * * * In general, the requirements prescribed in this part
apply to specific track conditions existing in isolation. * * *
* * * * *

0
3. Section 213.7 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and
(b)(2)(i) to read as follows:

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

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

0
4. Section 213.14 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  213.14  Application of requirements to curved track.

    Unless otherwise provided in this part, requirements specified for
curved track apply only to track having a curvature greater than 0.25
degree.

Subpart C--Track Geometry

0
5. Section 213.55 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  213.55  Track alinement.

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

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

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Curved track
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                   The deviation of    The deviation of
                                   the mid-ordinate    the mid-ordinate
         Class of track             from a 31-foot      from a 62-foot
                                   chord \1\ may not   chord \1\ may not
                                    be more than--      be more than--
                                       (inches)            (inches)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 1 track \2\...............             \3\ N/A              1\1/4\
Class 2 track \2\...............             \3\ N/A              1\1/4\
Class 3 track...................               \3/4\              1\1/4\
Class 4 track...................               \3/4\               \7/8\
Class 5 track...................               \1/2\               \5/8\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The ends of the chord shall be at points on the gage side of the
  outer rail, five-eighths of an inch below the top of the railhead.
\2\ Restraining rails or other systems may be required for derailment
  prevention.
\3\ N/A--Not Applicable

0
6. Section 213.57 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  213.57  Curves; elevation and speed limitations.

    (a) The maximum elevation of the outside rail of a curve may not be
more than 8 inches on track Classes 1 and 2, and 7 inches on track
Classes 3 through 5. The outside rail of a curve may not be lower than
the inside rail by design, except when engineered to address specific
track or operating conditions; the limits in Sec.  213.63 apply in all
cases.
    (b) The maximum allowable posted timetable operating speed for each
curve is determined by the following formula--
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13MR13.007

Where--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (3) For vehicle types not subject to parts 229 or 238 of this
chapter, procedures or standards in effect that relate to the
maintenance of all safety-critical components of the suspension
system(s) for the particular vehicle type. Safety-critical components
of the suspension system are those that impact or have significant
influence on the roll of the carbody and the distribution of weight on
the wheels.
    (f) In approving the request made pursuant to paragraph (e) of this
section, FRA may impose conditions necessary for safely operating at
the higher curving speeds. Upon FRA approval of the request, the track
owner or railroad shall notify FRA in writing no less than 30 calendar
days prior to the proposed implementation of the approved higher
curving speeds allowed under the formula in paragraph (b) of this
section. The notification shall contain, at a minimum, identification
of the track segment(s) on which the higher curving speeds are to be
implemented.
    (g) The documents required by this section must be provided to FRA
by:
    (1) The track owner; or
    (2) A railroad that provides service with the same vehicle type
over trackage of one or more track owner(s), with the written consent
of each affected track owner.
    (h)(1) Vehicle types permitted by FRA to operate at cant
deficiencies, Eu, greater than 3 inches but not more than 5
inches shall be considered qualified under this section to operate at
those permitted cant deficiencies for any track segment. The track
owner or railroad shall notify FRA in writing no less than 30 calendar
days prior to the proposed implementation of such curving speeds in
accordance with paragraph (f) of this section.
    (2) Vehicle types permitted by FRA to operate at cant deficiencies,
Eu, greater than 5 inches shall be considered qualified
under this section to operate at those permitted cant deficiencies only
for the previously operated or identified track segments(s).
    (i) For vehicle types intended to operate at any curving speed
producing more than 5 inches of cant deficiency, the following
provisions of subpart G of this part shall apply: Sec. Sec.  213.333(a)
through (g), (j)(1), (k) and (m), 213.345, and 213.369(f).
    (j) As used in this section--
    (1) Vehicle means a locomotive, as defined in Sec.  229.5 of this
chapter; a freight car, as defined in Sec.  215.5 of this chapter; a
passenger car, as defined in Sec.  238.5 of this chapter; and any rail
rolling equipment used in a train with either a freight car or a
passenger car.
    (2) Vehicle type means like vehicles with variations in their
physical properties, such as suspension, mass, interior arrangements,
and dimensions that do not result in significant changes to their
dynamic characteristics.

0
7. Section 213.59 is amended by revising the second sentence of
paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  213.59  Elevation of curved track; runoff.

    (a) * * * If elevation runoff occurs in a curve, the actual minimum
elevation shall be used in computing the maximum allowable posted
timetable operating speed for that curve under Sec.  213.57(b).
* * * * *

0
8. Section 213.63 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  213.63  Track surface.

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

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

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

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

0
9. Section 213.65 is added to subpart C to read as follows:

Sec.  213.65  Combined track alinement and surface deviations.

    On any curved track where operations are conducted at a qualified
cant deficiency, Eu, greater than 5 inches, the combination
of alinement and surface deviations for the same chord length on the
outside rail in the curve, as measured by a TGMS, shall comply with the
following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13MR13.008

Where--
Am = measured alinement deviation from uniformity
(outward is positive, inward is negative).
AL = allowable alinement limit as per Sec.  213.55(b)
(always positive) for the class of track.
Sm = measured profile deviation from uniformity (down is
positive, up is negative).
SL = allowable profile limit as per Sec.  213.63(b)
(always positive) for the class of track.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13MR13.009

Subpart D--Track Structure

0
10. Section 213.110 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) through (f),
(l), (p)(2) and (3) to read as follows:

Sec.  213.110  Gage restraint measurement systems.

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

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

    (d) Load severity is defined by the formula:

S = L-cV

Where--

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

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

PLG24 = UTG + A x (LTG-UTG)

Where--
UTG = Unloaded track gage measured by the GRMS vehicle at a point no
less than 10 feet from any lateral or vertical load application.
LTG = Loaded track gage measured by the GRMS vehicle at a point no
more than 12 inches from the lateral load application point.
A = The extrapolation factor used to convert the measured loaded
gage to expected loaded gage under a 24-kip lateral load and a 33-
kip vertical load.
For all track--
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13MR13.010

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

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

    (f) The measured gage and load values shall be converted to a Gage
Widening Projection (GWP) as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13MR13.011

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  If measurement      Remedial action
      GRMS parameters\1\          value exceeds           required
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          First Level Exception
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UTG...........................  58 inches........  (1) Immediately
                                                    protect the
                                                    exception location
                                                    with a 10 m.p.h.
                                                    speed restriction,
                                                    then verify
                                                    location;
                                                   (2) Restore lateral
                                                    restraint and
                                                    maintain in
                                                    compliance with PTLF
                                                    criteria as
                                                    described in
                                                    paragraph (m) of
                                                    this section; and
                                                   (3) Maintain
                                                    compliance with Sec.
                                                      213.53(b) as
                                                    measured with the
                                                    PTLF.
LTG...........................  58 inches........
PLG24.........................  59 inches........
GWP...........................  1 inch...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Second Level Exception
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LTG...........................  57 [frac34]        (1) Limit operating
                                 inches on Class    speed to no more
                                 4 and 5 track      than the maximum
                                 \2\.               allowable under Sec.
                                                      213.9 for Class 3
                                                    track, then verify
                                                    location;
                                                   (2) Maintain in
                                                    compliance with PTLF
                                                    criteria as
                                                    described in
                                                    paragraph (m) of
                                                    this section; and
                                                   (3) Maintain
                                                    compliance with Sec.
                                                      213.53(b) as
                                                    measured with the
                                                    PTLF.
PLG24.........................  58 inches........
GWP...........................  0.75 inch........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Definitions for the GRMS parameters referenced in this table are
  found in paragraph (p) of this section.
\2\ This note recognizes that good track will typically increase in
  total gage by as much as one-quarter of an inch due to outward rail
  rotation under GRMS loading conditions. For Class 2 and 3 track, the
  GRMS LTG values are also increased by one-quarter of inch to a maximum
  of 58 inches. However, for any class of track, GRMS LTG values in
  excess of 58 inches are considered First Level exceptions and the
  appropriate remedial action(s) must be taken by the track owner. This
  1/4-inch increase in allowable gage applies only to GRMS LTG. For gage
  measured by traditional methods, or with the use of the PTLF, the
  table in Sec.   213.53(b) applies.

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

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

0
11. Section 213.305 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and
(b)(2)(i) to read as follows:

Sec.  213.305  Designation of qualified individuals; general
qualifications.

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

    (i) Knows and understands the requirements of this subpart that
apply to the inspection of the track for which he or she is
responsible.
* * * * *

0
12. Section 213.307 is amended by revising the section heading and
paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  213.307  Classes of track: operating speed limits.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Over track that meets all of the           The maximum allowable
  requirements prescribed in this subpart   operating  speed for  trains
                   for--                               is \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 6 track.............................  110 m.p.h.
Class 7 track.............................  125 m.p.h.
Class 8 track.............................  160 m.p.h.\2\
Class 9 track.............................  220 m.p.h.\2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Freight may be transported at passenger train speeds if the
  following conditions are met:
(1) The vehicles utilized to carry such freight are of equal dynamic
  performance and have been qualified in accordance with Sec.   213.329
  and Sec.   213.345.
(2) The load distribution and securement in the freight vehicle will not
  adversely affect the dynamic performance of the vehicle. The axle
  loading pattern is uniform and does not exceed the passenger
  locomotive axle loadings utilized in passenger service, if any,
  operating at the same maximum speed.
(3) No carrier may accept or transport a hazardous material, as defined
  at 49 CFR 171.8, except as provided in Column 9A of the Hazardous
  Materials Table (49 CFR 172.101) for movement in the same train as a
  passenger-carrying vehicle or in Column 9B of the Table for movement
  in a train with no passenger-carrying vehicles.
\2\ Operating speeds in excess of 125 m.p.h. are authorized by this part
  only in conjunction with FRA regulatory approval addressing other
  safety issues presented by the railroad system. For operations on a
  dedicated right-of-way, FRA's regulatory approval may allow for the
  use of inspection and maintenance criteria and procedures in the
  alternative to those contained in this subpart, based upon a showing
  that at least an equivalent level of safety is provided.

* * * * *

0
13. Section 213.313 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  213.313  Application of requirements to curved track.

    Unless otherwise provided in this part, requirements specified for
curved track apply only to track having a curvature greater than 0.25
degree.

0
14. Section 213.323 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  213.323  Track gage.

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

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

0
15. Section 213.327 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  213.327  Track alinement.

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

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

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              The deviation     The deviation     The deviation
                                                             from uniformity   from uniformity   from uniformity
                                                            of the mid-chord  of the mid-chord  of the mid-chord
           Class of track            Tangent/ Curved track  offset for a 31-  offset for a 62-  offset for a 124-
                                                             foot chord may    foot chord may    foot chord may
                                                               not be more       not be more       not be more
                                                             than--(inches)    than--(inches)    than--(inches)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 6 track......................  Tangent..............             \1/2\             \3/4\            1\1/2\
                                     Curved...............             \1/2\             \5/8\            1\1/2\
Class 7 track......................  Tangent..............             \1/2\             \3/4\            1\1/4\
                                     Curved...............             \1/2\             \1/2\            1\1/4\
Class 8 track......................  Tangent..............             \1/2\             \3/4\                 1
                                     Curved...............             \1/2\             \1/2\             \3/4\
Class 9 track......................  Tangent..............             \1/2\             \1/2\             \3/4\
                                     Curved...............             \1/2\             \1/2\             \3/4\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              The deviation     The deviation     The deviation
                                                             from uniformity   from uniformity   from uniformity
                                                            of the mid-chord  of the mid-chord  of the mid-chord
           Class of track                  Track type       offset for a 31-  offset for a 62-  offset for a 124-
                                                             foot chord may    foot chord may    foot chord may
                                                               not be more       not be more       not be more
                                                             than--(inches)    than--(inches)    than--(inches)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 6 track......................  Curved...............             \1/2\             \5/8\            1\1/4\
Class 7 track......................  Curved...............             \1/2\             \1/2\                 1
Class 8 track......................  Curved...............             \1/2\             \1/2\             \3/4\
Class 9 track......................  Curved...............             \1/2\             \1/2\             \3/4\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

0
16. Section 213.329 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  213.329  Curves; elevation and speed limitations.

    (a) The maximum elevation of the outside rail of a curve may not be
more than 7 inches. The outside rail of a curve may not be lower than
the inside rail by design, except when engineered to address specific
track or operating conditions; the limits in Sec.  213.331 apply in all
cases.
    (b) The maximum allowable posted timetable operating speed for each
curve is determined by the following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13MR13.012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (2) The test procedure,\9\ including the load condition under which
the testing was performed, and description of the instrumentation used
to qualify the vehicle type, as well as the maximum values for wheel
unloading and roll angles or accelerations that were observed during
testing; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    (3) For vehicle types not subject to part 238 or part 229 of this
chapter, procedures or standards in effect that relate to the
maintenance of all safety-critical components of the suspension
system(s) for the particular vehicle type. Safety-critical components
of the suspension system are those that impact or have significant
influence on the roll of the carbody and the distribution of weight on
the wheels.
    (f) In approving the request made pursuant to paragraph (e) of this
section, FRA may impose conditions necessary for safely operating at
the higher curving speeds. Upon FRA approval of the request, the track
owner or railroad shall notify FRA in writing no less than 30 calendar
days prior to the proposed implementation of the approved higher
curving speeds allowed under the formula in paragraph (b) of this
section. The notification shall contain, at a minimum, identification
of the track segment(s) on which the higher curving speeds are to be
implemented.
    (g) The documents required by this section must be provided to FRA
by:
    (1) The track owner; or
    (2) A railroad that provides service with the same vehicle type
over trackage of one or more track owner(s), with the written consent
of each affected track owner.
    (h) (1) Vehicle types permitted by FRA to operate at cant
deficiencies, Eu, greater than 3 inches but not more than 5
inches shall be considered qualified under this section to operate at
those permitted cant deficiencies for any Class 6 track segment. The
track owner or railroad shall notify FRA in writing no less than 30
calendar days prior to the proposed implementation of such curving
speeds in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section.
    (2) Vehicle types permitted by FRA to operate at cant deficiencies,
Eu, greater than 5 inches on Class 6 track, or greater than
3 inches on Class 7 through 9 track, shall be considered qualified
under this section to operate at those permitted cant deficiencies only
for the previously operated or identified track segments(s). Operation
of these vehicle types at such cant deficiencies and track class on any
other track segment is permitted only in accordance with the
qualification requirements in this subpart.
    (i) As used in this section and in Sec. Sec.  213.333 and 213.345--
    (1) Vehicle means a locomotive, as defined in Sec.  229.5 of this
chapter; a freight car, as defined in Sec.  215.5 of this chapter; a
passenger car, as defined in Sec.  238.5 of this chapter; and any rail
rolling equipment used in a train with either a freight car or a
passenger car.
    (2) Vehicle type means like vehicles with variations in their
physical properties, such as suspension, mass, interior arrangements,
and dimensions that do not result in significant changes to their
dynamic characteristics.

0
17. Section 213.331 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  213.331  Track surface.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Class of track
       Track surface (inches)        -----------------------------------
                                         6        7        8        9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The deviation from uniform \1\              1        1    \3/4\    \1/2\
 profile on either rail at the mid-
 ordinate of a 31-foot chord may not
 be more than.......................
The deviation from uniform profile          1        1        1    \3/4\
 on either rail at the mid-ordinate
 of a 62-foot chord may not be more
 than...............................
Except as provided in paragraph (b)    1\3/4\   1\1/2\   1\1/4\        1
 of this section, the deviation from
 uniform profile on either rail at
 the mid-ordinate of a 124-foot
 chord may not be more than.........
The deviation from zero crosslevel          1        1        1        1
 at any point on tangent track may
 not be more than \2\...............